[LINK] Microsoft does open source u-turn

[Chirgwin, Richard]

> "truth is falshood" and some such - which appears to be what Microsoft
> is attempting here.

Then there's the Steve Ballmer recurring FUD. Yesterday, at the We Love
Telstra Product Launch press conference, the geewhiz press let some really
wild statements pass straight through to the keeper. The following are
Ballmer quotes, from my notebook. 

"You can't open Microsoft Office documents in Star Office" 
	(RC: not true. I do it all the time. Even though I don't much like
Star Office as a user, I keep a copy because it has >the< best file
translations - pics, docs, spreadsheets, the lot. Hate the interface, love
the compatibility).

"Star Office isn't compatible" (see above)

"Linux clones, it doesn't innovate" 

And he gave us "Linux has a higher TCO than Windows". Which had me just
about chewing the curtains, seeing as the box they were launching is
explicitly and overtly designed to suck money out of the telecomms market
("Anything that drives up usage and traffic is a good thing").

(Picking up further on that quote. Which is more depressing:
a) Ballmer thinks it's safe to say this to the media while launching a
"mobile business productivity" product; or
b) It *is* safe to say it, because nobody went to press saying "this will
cost you more"?)

Richard Chirgwin

> -----Original Message-----
> From: hartr@interweft.com.au [mailto:hartr@interweft.com.au]
> Sent: Friday, 18 October 2002 14:46
> To: Link discussion group
> Subject: Re: [LINK] Microsoft does open source u-turn
> 
> 
> On 15 Oct, Tony Barry wrote:
> > Microsoft does open source u-turn
> > Microsoft is now cosying up to the open source movement, and there 
> > are sound business reasons behind the about-face.
> >   <http://cgi.zdnet.com/slink?188220>Read Full Story
> 
> I have been away from email for a week so, I am late on this.
> 
> Before anyone gets too excited, please note the following from the
> article:-
> 
>    "We can be open source. We love the concept of shared source," said
>     Bill Veghte, vice president of the Windows Server Group. "That's a
>     super-important shift for us in terms of code access."
> 
> Please note the attempted semantic equation
> 	shared source == open source
> 
> For reasons that have been detailed on this list, Microsoft's 'shared
> source licence' is not open source (as is the case with Sun's 
> 'community
> source licence').
> 
> Providing 'selected' customers with access to the some Microsoft code
> (uncer fairly restrictive licence terms) does not provide the user of
> the software with the same rights as code licenced under an 
> open source
> licence.
> 
> Now - before people complain, please note that I am quite happy for
> Microsoft (or any other organisation or individual) to licence their
> work however they please.
> 
> However, I am not pleased when people such as Microsoft claim their
> licence is 'open source' when it very patently is not.
> 
> It might be 'revealed source' (if you are lucky enough to qualify for
> such access) - but it falls far short in terms of user rights when
> compared to open source.
> 
> Interetingly, the article, in another context, refers to Microsoft's
> 'Orwellian fervour'. Was it not Orwell who (in 1984) coined the phrase
> "truth is falshood" and some such - which appears to be what Microsoft
> is attempting here.
> 
> -- 
> Robert Hart					 hartr@interweft.com.au
> Strategic IT & open source consulting                +61 
> (0)438 385 533
> Brisbane, Australia			    http://www.interweft.com.au
> 
> ----------
> For Link list information see http://sunsite.anu.edu.au/link/
> 
----------
For Link list information see http://sunsite.anu.edu.au/link/