Never attribute to malice (or ingenuity) that which can be explained by
incompetance.
They're starting to feel the pressure, they're envious of the favorable
press and overall "cool" and contemporary elan (look it up at
www.dictionary.com) enjoyed by Linux and Open Source. Investors are
concerned, maybe even spooked and are starting to tell management to "do
something" and this is the best they can come up with.
Think about this: Why is Microsoft the only company that has failed to
somehow embrace or accomodate Linux and Open Source. Of all the
software industry they are uniquely alone in this. It makes no real
business sense to take the attitude they have. It's corporate CYA. They
failed to recognized the potential of Linux and Open Source early on and
are now trying desperately to justify their bad decision. To make
matters worse they alienated an entire new generation of IT
professionals, lost credibility and trust. They cannot reverse their
course now because to do so would admit major mistakes. Even if so, no
one would take them seriously. For microsoft's current management, the
train has left the station and there will be no "turning on a dime" for
them this time. Only a major palace coup will save them from eventual
irrelevance.
Today we saw the best course of action a group of desperate corporate
officers could take. Pitiful.
It may even be worse -- they may actually be the arrogant pr1ck5 they
appear to be and really believe the stuff they're pushing.
Ed.
Russell Hires wrote:
>
> I'm going through Craig Mundie's speech
> (http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/exec/craig/05-03sharedsource.asp),
> and I'm thinking okay, here's a scenario: What if MS wants their code to
> get out, not officially, but they release it to certain companies
> (partners, what-have-you), and someone in those companies leaks the
> source to the outside world, either genuinely on accident, or
> "accidentally on purpose", or on purpose, but it's not MS's direct
> doing.
>
> What do you think would happen? I can hear the hackles now as many an
> Open Source developer laughs at M$'s code. The shreiks of criticism
> sound loudly. People say, "I can't believe they did that!" or "Why don't
> they do this, instead?" Then M$ quietly incorporates this stuff. Very
> subtle.
>
> I think they see the power of Open Source, but can't bring themselves to
> admit it. Or their stockholders can't. One of the two. Maybe they're
> realizing ESR's arguments from the book "The Cathedral and the Bazaar"
> about the logical end of the proprietary software life-cycle vis a vis
> the Open Source software life-cycle which is continually open to new
> ideas. Maybe M$ is just hard up for ideas...
>
> Russell
>
> ____________________________________________________
> _its_ (no apostrophe) means "the thing that it owns"
> _it's_ (with apostrophe) means "it is"
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 19:42:58 EDT