Advanced

FOSS Community to Microsoft: Earn Our Trust

Posted by Scott_Ruecker on · 59 comments
LXer; By DC Parris
Mail this story
Print this story

  LXer Feature: 21-Jan-06

Last week, LXer Editor-in-Chief, Don Parris had strong words for Microsoft's Port 25 project. He suggested that Microsoft's appalling behavior has left a credibility gap that would hurt their Port 25 effort. The question remains whether Microsoft can or will change their behavior. Can Microsoft earn the trust of the FOSS Community? Will they even try?

Strong Words for Microsoft

I recently wrote some rather strong words about Microsoft's Port 25 effort. In that article, I argued that, until Microsoft admitted to its bad behavior and changed its ways, the FOSS community should refrain from engaging Microsoft at Port 25. The reason being, I argued, was that unless Microsoft changed their behavior, little or nothing would be accomplished. If Microsoft wants to impress the FOSS community, it needs to change its behavior from the top. Otherwise, we're all just spinning our wheels. There is another side to the reconciliation principle that I did not discuss at all.



Many thought my accusation of economic terrorism was overly harsh, or simply that I was over-using the word "terrorism". When an entity, already convicted on two continents, of monopolistic practices attempts to take captive the technology sector of Korea's economy, as a way to avoid the penalties of the laws of the land, the goal is to literally scare the courts or government (or both) into letting their infraction slide. It was an effort to intimidate the government of Korea. We cannot say it did not work, as the process is not yet complete. Such conduct deserves strong words.



Perhaps Microsoft's behavior in Korea is not compelling enough to convince you that Microsoft's conduct is deplorable. When taken into account in reference to their history, one might be amazed. From losing patent infringement suits to anti-competitive business practices - not once or twice, but consistently throughout their history - to mistreating their own employees, Microsoft has a criminal record that would make a Mafia Don blush. Honestly, when a company has to pay to have dead people write letters on their behalf, there is a serious credibility problem. That's old hat, but little has changed. In order to really appreciate Microsoft's criminal conduct, one should visit GrokLaw's Microsoft Litigation page and Aaxnet's The House That Monopoly Built.

American citizens should be appalled by such conduct from any company - especially one that, because of its size and influence, represents Americans in significant ways. Never mind whether one supports FOSS or not. Democrats and Republicans alike should be appalled. Even those who don't own a computer should be appalled. Investors should be embarrassed to be associated with the company. Consumers should be running helter skelter from a business that behaves this way. Microsoft employees should be appalled by the conduct of their overlords, as their behavior does, in fact, reflect on the rest of the company. In short, Microsoft has some demons to exorcise before any meaningful dialog with the FOSS community can occur.



Potential For Change

What if this change does occur? Then what? What if Microsoft ceased to bully other businesses? What if they publicly apologized to the Korean government for their attempt to intimidate them. What if they began shipping Windows with Firefox and Opera, alongside Internet Explorer? What if they made some changes to their draconian licensing terms? What if they gave users a license to modify the Windows kernel, if it would help them run their computer better? What if Steve Ballmer quit lying about the FOSS community and treating us like the next threat after the Chinese Communists? I know these things amount to a mighty big if, maybe even a never. Still, if these kinds of things began happening, how would that impact the FOSS community?



Well, if Microsoft begins to demonstrate that it is, in fact, changing, that would have to bring about a change in the attitudes of the FOSS community. While I understand full well that many of my readers might think I have a vitriolic hatred of Microsoft, I simply do not. I do believe that Microsoft is run by greedy cowards. They are greedy because they feel the need to infringe on others' freedom in order to make a buck. They are cowards because they are afraid of competing in a free-market software economy. Their behavior is indicative of their hearts. They have taught me not to trust them. Still, I disagree with those who wish for nothing more than their destruction. I would rather see them change.



If Microsoft gave me a reason to trust them - that is, if they showed signs of change - I could consider listening to what they have to say over at Port 25. And I would. I need to be clear that I do not hate Microsoft, nor do I condone hatred of Microsoft. I definitely despise Microsoft's behavior, but am open to the possibility that they may change. In fact, I would be a complete hypocrite if I did not believe that change is possible. We all need to be open to that possibility, and willing to embrace even Microsoft when we see it happening. The next question is what will it take to convince the FOSS community that Microsoft has turned a new leaf?



Port 110 - Microsoft Has Mail

The FOSS community can be open to the idea that Microsoft is capable of changing. Sure, there will always be those who exist merely to hate someone or something. I've met plenty of bigots in my time. Even so, the FOSS community is generally an open-minded, if opinionated, lot. It remains to be seen whether the community will stand as a whole to signal Microsoft that they must change from the top. It also remains to be seen whether and how Microsoft will respond to such a message. The issue is critical, as Port 25 is essentially useless without that change. So how can Microsoft earn the trust of the FOSS community?

Frankly, I cannot speak for the FOSS community as a whole. Hopefully, many will respond with constructive and realistic indicators of change. I have given a few potential examples above. Perhaps that will give us a starting point. Ideally, Bill and Steve would cease lying about the FOSS community in the press, infringing on others' patents, and attempting to bully individuals, partners, and governments into submission. That would convince me that they are at least on the right track. So what will it take to convince you to trust Microsoft? Consider this my invitation to let Microsoft know what it would take to convince you.



Port 110 is the counterpart to port 25. Users connect to port 110 to retrieve mail from others. Microsoft wants to send mail out, and that's fine. But they need to know that their domain has been blacklisted until we see some changes. If Microsoft wants to find out what it takes to get off the blacklist, they should connect to lxer.com:110 (the comments below this article) to check their inbox. Before you throw up your arms in futility, consider that Microsoft won't be able to hear our silence. Rather than speculate whether they will respond to our concerns, let's speak loudly enough that they will have little recourse other than to respond. Post a comment below to let them know what it will take to earn your trust. When Microsoft checks Port 110, they should have an inbox full of mail.

  Nav
» Read more about: Story Type: Editorial, LXer Features; Groups: Community, Microsoft

» Get new stories by e-mail: nightly or as they are published

« Return to the newswire homepage

  Related stories
» More like this

Comments (59)

Untitled

18 earlier comments in the full thread.

I didn't say anything about "enforced freedom". I am just saying proprietary licensing is wrong, that's all. You can do it if you will and the next guy can do it, but that wont make it right.

If anyone has been offensive in that way then it was the proprietary software industry, not the Free Software movement. It is proprietary software corporations that push things like DRM and actively try to undermine Free Software. By merely saying that proprietary software is wrong and enforcing a license that allows you to distribute software in an ethical way, we aren't attacking anyone's ability to release software under unethical terms.

When I say that freedom of choice doesn't ethically include choosing proprietary licensing because it is rather an imposition of power, I am just trying to break the guise of "freedom of choice" appearing to justify choosing proprietary licensing as ethically right.

When you supposedly excercise freedom of choice to kill freedom, should what you excercised really be called freedom at all?
Quoting:When you supposedly excercise freedom of choice to kill freedom, should what you excercised really be called freedom at all?


Where did I put those Frosted Flakes?
Dinotrac:

Quoting:Stallman and Eben Moglen themselves will tell you that the legitimacy of the GPL is based on the coercive power of copyright law.


Well, I'm saying that GPL uses that power in a different way than proprietary licenses. Instead of taking away rights, it gives and preserves rights. The coercive power you are talking about here is used in an opposite way than with proprietary licenses. I don't know if I can make it more clear than that.

dino, Watch it! I believe that Frosted Flakes are proprietary.
Nice arguments guys! :P

(I think you put those Frosted Flakes overthere Dino) ;)
Libervis -

Thanks, and Tony the T thanks you, too.
Man, this is sickening. I'm going to take my Captain Crunch and go find a good flamefest somewheres.
To me, it is unethical to tell someone that they are not allowed to fix the software that runs on their hardware. If that means they need access to the source code, so be it. If I choose a proprietary license that prohibits access to the source code, I am effectively forcing users to be dependent upon me. And God help them if I wrote the program. ;-)

I also find it unethical, even if not illegal, to ask someone to not share - whether it be donuts or a computer program. As RMS recently was quoted saying something along the lines of teaching people not to share sending the wrong message. Although prostitution was legal when I visited Nevada as a Marine, I did not go hire a prostitute, as I consider such behavior immoral. That our current system allows programs to be licensed under proprietary terms does not necessarily say much about whether doing so is moral, immoral, or even amoral. Thus, I licensed "Penguin in the Pew" under a Creative Commons license.

How about them Apple Jacks?
Thank you DCParris.
Hey Rev --

The lovely thing about freedom is this:

You and Libervis are absolutely entitled to your opinions. More than that, you are free to act on them. Better still, you can tell the world in an effort to convince others.

I can't stop you. It is your right.

The other lovely thing is that I'm free to disagree. I'm free to love free software just as much as you do. I'm also free to use proprietary software where it suits my needs.

And to see shades of grey. Each of the proprietary software programs in my list is free as in gratis. Nobody keeps me from sharing it. For that matter, in the case of Acrobat Reader, free alternatives exist.

At any rate, you can't stop me any more than I can stop you. And that's a good thing.

Harrumphing in my direction is, of course, perfectly acceptable.









> Harrumphing in my direction is, of course, perfectly acceptable.

Completely wasted, of course, but perfectly acceptable. :)

> At any rate, you can't stop me any more than I can stop you. And that's a good thing.

Agreed. Freedom is a wonderful thing.
>Completely wasted, of course, but perfectly acceptable. :)

If it makes you feel better, isn't that worth something? At least a little bit? ;0)
Yes, freedom is a wonderful thing. :-)
Absolutely. One of the freedoms I've always advocated is freedom to disagree, usually at the end of the discussion when I realize no change of convictions are gonna occur at either side any time soon, naturally. ;)

>usually at the end of the discussion when I realize no change of convictions

I think that's one of the strong points of a genuine working democracy. Convictions should not be something you change like socks, nor should you expect that of others.

So...when it works, people talk, they argue -- even heatedly.

They find out where they agree, where they don't. Maybe they learn enough about each other to have real respect without agreement.

And then...they find some compromise that doesn't quite thrill anyone, but most folks can live with -- guided by those convictions that don't easily change.

I view it a bit like DNA. When it's working and people are talking instead of just pointing fingers and calling names, the diversity of viewpoints makes for stronger and more robust societies.

You, of course, are free to agree -- or not. ;0)
That is what I love most about LXer. Even though some of our discussion get pretty hot pretty quick, it seems like we usually work out our differences and continue to respect each other. Now that's cool!
I think that's called 'Adult'...
I think that's called 'Adult'...

Or it's the beneficial influence of sugary cereals? Proof that they are a crucial part of a healthy meal. Not just breakfast, mind you, any meal. Or all of them.
Lol tuxchick, next you''ll be touting poptarts as the answer to world peace :)
C'mon people now, everybody get together and eat a poptart now...

Apologies to Peter, Paul, and Mary :-)

Port 110

As I was reading both this article and the previous one I was thinking, "Gee, 'Port 25' sounds like someone who wants to talk but not listen. They should be using Port 110, or at least Port 143 (IMAP)." Nice going, Don!

While history makes me less than optimistic about a true change of heart for Microsoft as an organization (and that would need to start at the top!), I agree completely - I would be a hypocrite not to believe that change is possible - no matter how unlikely!

My company issues me a laptop running Microsoft products. I use Linux by choice, and Microsoft only when absolutely necessary, but I don't hate them - only their behavior.

Over the past several years Microsoft spokesmen (not only Bill & Steve, but others as well) have made overtures to the FOSS community, only to be followed by FUD campaigns and other behaviors you describe - sometimes in the same area as their "friendly" statements, sometimes not.

It is time to change history, but when it comes to Microsoft, I'm from Missouri -- show me you can be trusted, and then we can talk.

E
For these very reasons, whenever I can, I try to promote the message: "Friends don't let friends use Microsoft!"

I've been in computing since 1970, and in those earlier days watched the effects of (1) lack of interface standards and (2) bullying by the never-declared monopolists-of-the-day, IBM.

Changes in the computing paradigm thanks to advances in technology provided IBM the opportunity to 'put their foot in it' resulting in their own retreat and rebuilding while the NEW monopolist (declared!) advanced.

Thanks to my overall experience of the world of computing, it is absolutely clear to me that an OPEN, common-reference (a la Linux) infrastructure is the only logical way toward mutual progress. Anything else is either warring feifdoms or universal slavery. Today, it seems, we are very close to both.
MS is in the same position as was Pres. Linden Johnson. No one believed in his credibility until he refused to run for another term. The answer for MS, just close up shop.
> "Gee, 'Port 25' sounds like someone who wants to talk but not listen.

Probably my only disagreement with the article. Port 25 is used for receiving email as well as transmitting it. :( MTA's both send and receive mail, after all.

Seriously? Gates and Ballmer would have to go, and new management would have to be brought in from outside the company.
True, an MTA passes mail in both directions, but the lowly end luser must fetch their POP mail via port 110. I like the allusion, it is quite apt.
Yeah, when end users configure their MUAs they usally configure them to send mail on port 25, and retrieve via port 110. That was my logic. Hopefully, most people will get that.

Shred Contracts

To earn my trust, Microsoft would need to shred every last one of its contracts with hardware vendors that stipulate pre-loaded Windows. Users should see a rack of computers next to a rack of operating systems when they go to buy a computer. If need be the operating system could be loaded by the store for a small fee.

They don't get credit for this if the Federal Government outlaws pre-loading operating systems.

Richard
Quoting:They don't get credit for this if the Federal Government outlaws pre-loading operating systems.


That would be the only way that MS would shred it's contracts... Don't hold your breath though.
As repulsive as I personally find those contracts, the fact is that Microsoft and their vendors entered into voluntary contracts on mutually agreeable terms.

Maybe us, on the outside and with 20/20 hindsight, wouldn't have made those "deals with the devil", but the fact is that by making the OS cheap to some company like Dell, Dell can then charge less and still make their profit margin. Competition with commodity hardware is based on price.

Sure, Linux is still less expensive (free), but buyers have learned to assume that when they buy a new PC that it will run their stupid games. The phrase I've heard is "WallMart took back their Lindows sales because it wouldn't run their daughters Dora game." And it makes lots of sense put that way.

Linux advocates are fighting a well funded and experienced marketing machine, a company whose only function is to "maximize shareholder value" any way they can.

Here's what I would like to see: Side by side "add to shopping cart" buttons, "This system with Windows: $495" and "This system with [flavor] Linux: $445"
Bob:

Quoting:Here's what I would like to see: Side by side "add to shopping cart" buttons, "This system with Windows: $495" and "This system with [flavor] Linux: $445"


Well, that would at least be reasonable. The problem is that the way they are now, MS wouldn't accept even that and are making deals to ensure that only windows is preinstalled. The recent deal with Lenovo is an example.

So if someone from Microsoft reads this; you just can't do that and expect our trust. It just plain isn't fair.
"As repulsive as I personally find those contracts, the fact is that Microsoft and their vendors entered into voluntary contracts on mutually agreeable terms."

On what planet in what universe?

On this planet, in this universe, vendors were threatened with bankruptcy if they did not agree to MS terms. See various and sundry documents in anti-trust cases (plural). There is, apparently, a very great deal of history through which you slept.

Heh indeed.. The thing is that even if those deals are made on mutually agreeable terms that isn't infact true for all parties, because there is a third party they fail to consider; the user.

Honest businesses should do things in a way that will at the end of the day benefit their user and then in turn benefit the company as a consequence. Such deals that MS makes completely omit the interests of end users.

The real question...

The real question is whether we would recognize a change in Microsoft's ways.

Microsoft will not simply flip a switch and say "Hey! We're good guys now."

They don't want to and we wouldn't believe them if they did.

But...

Microsoft has a vested interest in getting along and...believe it or not...so do we (at least those of us who would prefer to make a living using free software). I expect them to hold out small olive branches and see what happens, possibly wincing the whole time.

You see, Microsoft's grand plan has failed. Failed big. By now, Microsoft had hoped to own the server room -- as in enterprise space -- as thoroughly as they own the desktop.

Their sales pitch was Windows NT (and follow-ons) + cheap commodity hardware that was growing steadily more powerful AND cheaper + armies of cheap MCSE's.

But a couple of things happened...Microsoft shot itself in the foot repeatedly:

1. Security gaffes. 2. Broken promises (Isn't Windows on Alpha sweet?) 3. Attempts to shake down customers -- including the largest corporations.

And the world changed around them...

1. Linux and company. If you're a Unix shop, it's cheaper to move to Linux than Windows. Not only that, but knowing that you won't need to prepare a massive years-of-planning and skadillions of dollars to make the move to Windows, you might feel less pressure to leave Unix land.

2. Legal action around the world. We like to think that Microsoft laughs at the law, but the truth is all that money and energy takes a toll. It affects focus, morale, and the perception of the marketplace. I don't think its's any coincidence that talented people have been leaving Microsoft in droves over the last few years.

So...Microsoft (whether they have figured it out or not) has an incentive to play along (a little different from playing nice -- you still have to do the right things, you just don't have to smile while doing it) because there is going to be Linux and Unix and Tigers and Bears in the world, Oh my!!!

Making money will mean getting along at some level.

For FOSS guys 'n gals, getting along opens more doors, gives more opportunities to make a fair living. That may not mean much to the purists, but some of us enjoy taking care of the kids.









We need to see deeds and not just talk.

Thus far Microsoft has given us nothing but cheap talk. They try to fool us with marketing speak like "coopetition" which not even they can define.

If they truly wish to be taken seriously, actions are needed. Providing support for OpenDocument formats or providing programming interfaces for third-party applications are two good examples.

We are way past the time for cheap talk and pretty web sites.

A monopoly does not have to get along to make money.
[WARNING - SOAP BOX MODE = ON] I, for one, will not recognize any of Microsoft's actions as "good deeds" for a long, long time. Why not? Because we've seen it all before.

Does the phrase 'Halloween memos' ring a bell. How about this one?: 'Embrace, Extend, Extinguish'

Port 25 simply looks like the 'Embrace' phase to me. I have not visited and will not visit Port 25. Why not? How does this phrase strike you?: 'Anything you say can and will be used against you...'

I am forced to use Windows at work, and I have to say that the quality of their products isn't bad. It's come a long way in the last four or five years. However, I'm sick of their lack of ethics. Mind you, this isn't unique to Microsoft. A Marketing professional at a local software company recently told me, "When you get down to the brass tacks, my job is to create a monopoly and lock in our customers."

There was was a time in this country when the phrase 'fair price' meant that the seller makes a decent living and the buyer gets a quality product at reasonable cost. Now it means 'whatever the market will bear'.

Corporate America is busy redefining words like 'fair', 'ethical', 'reasonable', etc. and Microsoft is leading the effort. What's more, their monopoly is built on operating systems and office suites. Operating systems and office suites have been around for more than a decade, but they continue to reinvent the wheel and choke innovation. They should be commoditized by now, but you can't feed a $50billion monopoly by selling commodities. So we hear, "Yeah, that old wheel was good, but just wait till you see our next wheel!" Hey, here's a thought. Why not use the wheels you have and build something innovative! [SOAP BOX MODE = OFF]

Whew! I feel better.
There will be no good deeds.

There will be actions taken of business necessity.

They are no less useful just because the other side isn't smiling.
MS Office for Linux would be a neat thing to see, but it's already pretty much obsolete. Had Office been offered back when Office was new, say O'97, that would have locked in office software for well past now.

...but they didn't. They played the bad guy, and now they reap what they have sown.

I don't want Microsoft to play nice. I want them to FAIL and do so spectacularly, so that the next software house that happens to stumble into the same path to "greatness" won't follow the same path.
Microsoft has stockholders. When the stockholders start showing that they are upset with the company's performance, *then* I will believe that Microsoft is interested in changing.

The driving force behind any for-profit corporation is survival. Being nice is ok, if it makes more money. "Doing the right thing" (make up your own definition, please) is ok, if it makes the corporation more money. The only corporate behavior you can trust is behavior that aligns with the driving force.

I'm done stamping my foot about evil MS. I'm going to show the GNU/Linux tools, show how they can help my customers, my friends, and my family. I will show the advantages and disadvantages, and I'm betting I'll win some customers. When MS finds the market has changed because of the stings of a million mosquitoes like me, then they will have to change.

FOSS Community to Microsoft: Earn Our Trust

Iraq to Saddam Hussein: Earn Our Trust

Earn our trust??? How about shrivel up and disappear. Some people never learn...

RickT http://www.TorontoNUI.ca

To trust Microsoft enough to enable an open 2-way discussion

I've been watching Microsoft lie, cheat and steal their way to the top for approx. 15 years. They've broken every rule I learned in Business Ethics class and innovated the need for a thousand more rules we were never evil enough to think necessary.

If they were to behave in what my business school taught me was an honest and ethical way for 15 years, I would be able to have an open 2-way discussion with them about their abusive monopoly and their crappy bloated crashware.

If we're lucky, the industrial revolution of the software industry will make them obsolete long before then. :-)

Go OSS!

BrianS
Microsoft management has proven repeatedly they are incompetent on an ethical business level and are obviously not too adept at security in their software. Its time to move on and bury this behemoth and create better product at cheaper prices. Stop paying attention to how we can better manage Microsoft. Do whatever it takes to live life without Microsoft products, subsidiaries or related companies and move towards creating companies with a better vision for the future. It is the mentality of the people that run these companies that create the problems.

RickT http://www.TorontoNUI.ca

Post a comment

A free account is needed to post. Write your comment here first: your text is kept in this browser while you sign up or log in, and is waiting for you when you come back.

Your message:
|||||
10
Markdown: **bold**, *italic*, [text](https://link), - lists, > quotes, $x^2$ for math. Formatting help

Sign up and post (it is free)  or  Log in and post