Time is a great teacher, but unfortunately it kills all its pupils - Hector Berlioz
IT MAY COME AS A SURPRISE to learn that Microsoft has any kind of open sauce software strategy aside from stomping on any bunch of commie hippies daring to offer free alternatives to its market-monopolising software, but it seems that one respected member of the Redmond braintrust has been working tirelessly for the last three years in an effort to make the software behemoth play nice with the other slightly grubby children in the playground.
Sam Ramji, who is currently the vocal spokesvole for all things open sourcery at Microsoft, is moving on to pastures new at the end of this month and he leaves behind an interesting legacy. More importantly his departure will leave a gap that might prove difficult to fill.
Sam's official brief was to create a strategy that enabled Micrososft to 'co-exist and thrive in a heterogeneous IT world' but his legacy goes way beyond that. The company originally had a single department that dealt with free open source (FOSS) software but, according to one Microsoft insider, it is now an important part of many product groups and strategies across the company.
Ramji's job was never going to be easy. The biggest software company on the planet had a nasty reputation for making life difficult for any upstart that tried to muscle in on its turf. There was never any real evidence that Microsoft would use strong-arm tactics to undermine fledgling companies, but when you have unlimited access to some of the world's most tenacious and ruthless lawyers and a bottomless pit of cash to throw at patent disputes, someone is gonna cry 'bully' sooner or later.
The very fact that, in the beginning, open sauce software was developed by unlinked and untraceable, loosely-bonded groups of underground-dwelling geeks is probably the only reason many of them have survived until today. Open Source development became something akin to guerilla warfare with major players disappearing quicker than angry software suppliers could issue writs.
But the open sauce train gathered so much steam in the late nineties and early noughties that many large software companies adopted an 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em' policy. These policies have lead to many unlikely partnerships such as IBM's support for Linux development and that which exists between the developers of Open Office and Sun Microsystems.
Ramji was also aware of the turning tide: "I was certain that open source was an industry wave that Microsoft would not be able to ignore," he said in his blog, "and that it was getting closer to an inflection point. I had spent over a year at the company in the Silicon Valley-based venture capital team and I could see that the company's approach to disruptive market dynamics was starting to change."
This all may seem like a simple case of delusional utopian anarchists fighting a battle against cynical corporate breadheads, but the IT world moves on. The hippies are all wearing shoes and going to board meetings, and the execs are all driving hemp-powered hybrid cars and drinking wheatgrass juice smoothies. Convergence, as with all things IT it seems, is the order of the day.
Interoperability, on the other hand, is the order of tomorrow. Major software providers know that open source is here to stay and that anyone who ignores the growing tide of free software is doomed to fail.
Sam Ramji was well aware of this and tried to build bridges between Redmond and the rest of the world. Even his Linkedin profile is an open invite to the great unwashed to join the Microsoft party. "Open Source Software projects and ISVs should contact me to initiate a relationship with Microsoft," it reads. "I am focused on narrowing the gap between the Open Source community and Microsoft through research, collaboration, interoperability, and community engagement."
To most ears Ramji's open arms approach to open sauce seemed altruistic, but there are many who still saw Microsoft's tactics as underhanded. In 2006 the company sent jaws a-dropping when it announced that it had signed an agreement with Novell to make Windows more compatible with Novell's SuSE Linux. The deal would make incompatibilities with virtualisation, Web services and those between Microsoft Office and Open Office a thing of the past. At least that was how it appeared on the surface.
Open sauce separatists insisted, however, that Microsoft was attempting to undermine the flow of free software by getting a foot in the door, a position from which it could work to co-opt the co-op, as it were.
The relationship between Big Software and the freebooting community of open sauce developers will always be an uneasy alliance, but Sam Ramji's efforts to make Microsoft seem just a bit more cuddly actually seem to have made quite a difference.
He's heading back to California at the end of the month to work with a new cloud computing startup and spend some quality time with his family. We wish him well. µ
Obviously Ramji was not the right man for the job, which is easily filled should you be such a being ..... for as you have rightly shared, Microsoft have everything going for them and everything anyone would need for the task.
What is missing from the tale, Stewart, is an email address for those who would be a right person for the job, to apply with their vision. However that would really be an application for Steve Ballmer's position, wouldn't it, for that is where the core problem resides?
There's a lot of open sauce in your article... ;-)
Microsoft’s problem is that it still doesn’t take Open Source seriously enough. Ramji was never high enough in the hierarchy to impact the corporate culture in any way. What Microsoft needs is a Vice-President of Open Source.
By the time they realize this, it’ll be too late.
I still think the problem is the business model.
What is an open source business model that would work for microsoft?
Release the code to windows and the first thing that will happen is wga and drm get taken out and free windows for everybody? I fail to see how that will keep microsoft in business. And then who would support it? forums? and email lists? And what would stop a company like Dell from just making Dell Windows - it's almost exactly the same as microsoft windows but we changed a couple things we didn't like and fragmented the market. Sounds alot like linux to me.
Or look at things like paint.net, this is a classic story, it's open source till the author gets tired of people taking all his work, giving him no credit, selling their derivates, and not sharing their improvements.... So now it's just free, but not open source.
Suppose he started to annoy certain people within MS.
There is no way and no need for MS to go open source. It does not fit to how their money is made.
But they should open up on interop. and standards. Stop the FUD, and improve their products.
(or drop dead, to please me)
I think Microsoft sees the need for (and the competitive danger in) open source.
Think of the Vista debacle -- 6 billion dollars, project scrapped halfway through, replaced with sugar-coated, rebadged NT loaded with DRM and other bloat to make the RIAA happy (and the Windows 7 debacle, or how-to-charge-billions-for-a-Vista-Service-pack-that-should-have-been-free-and-try-and-make-up-for-losses).
Now compare this to, say, Ubuntu, OpenSuse, RedHat, or other top-brand version of Linux. Ubuntu manages to release new versions of its OS every 6 months (and OpenSuse, about every year). This would cost Microsoft 6-12 billion $ each and every year (which even Microsoft could not fund and remain alive). So how is this possible, and how in the world is Microsoft to compete with such a business model?
The "trick" is to release your code as an open-source "development" version to all the world under the GPL, then ask for volunteers from some of these recipients to help develop the code, debug the code, and so on. Imagine you are a software developer and you have loaded a completely-free "gift" OS on your machine, yet you see a couple of adjustments required to make it a bit more efficient, or to support certain hardware. You have the source code, so you modify it and resubmit it under the GPL. Multiply this by thousands or millions of user-developers and, Hey presto - a new OS every 6-12 months!
But how do you make money off of this business model? Well, since your development costs are so low, you can make modest profits off of support contracts and commercial sales of "commercial-version, stable" releases to businesses and governments. And the prices can be low, so low that no closed-source, proprietary company can compete with them.
So the sophistication of open-source code development proceeds at possibly almost an exponential rate (as more users and developers participate in ALL versions of Linux development), while development costs remain almost free compared to close-source models...so how can Microsoft (or Apple) compete with this? They can try to crush or discredit open-source (they have tried, but this is really hard to do, as open-source by its nature is a moving target), or they can somehow try to adopt this development model. However, I fear that the massive corporate inertia of Microsoft is too great to steer this "titanic" company safely clear of all of the massive open-source icebergs ahead (so readers may want to try out a free download of Ubuntu, OpenSuse or other Linux just to be on the safe side).
There's no such thing as Open Source in Microsoft's vocabulary. The only focus they have is to kill any and all competitors. Clearly those of you responding favorably to Microsoft have failed to learn from history.
Open Source = John Conner
Microsoft = SkyNet
...you do the math.
All good posts everyone!