Building bridges?
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| Libervis Sep 10, 2006 3:51 PM EDT |
The sentiment of the article is understandable. Sure, it's always good to want to be friends rather than enemies, but time and again we need to be reminded that Microsoft didn't yet do *enough* to prove to us that it can be trusted and that their good will actions like inviting Mozilla team to work on Firefox-Windows compatibility are anything more than attempts to regain what they have long lost: positive reputation. That said, we still can't say that, if we "build bridges" with them and the proprietary software world at large we wont, quite literally, get "infected". Be careful who and what you let in! As far as I am concerned there should be as little concessions to proprietary world as possible. Every concession may mean a compromise and every compromise weakens the biggest cause of Free Software, to return users the control of their computers. Building bridges just to end up having proprietary software come over through them as well as DRM and other malicious stuff, is not gonna help anyone. So again, be careful who you let in! Thanks Danijel |
| Bob_Robertson Sep 10, 2006 4:24 PM EDT |
Microsoft simply cannot compete with free. Trying to survive on a "service" model will kill them, because their "reason for existing" is expanding sales. That's one reason it's arguable that Microsoft as released lousy software _deliberately_. It leads to purchases of upgrades. |
| djohnston Sep 10, 2006 5:33 PM EDT |
The first sentence of the article:
"If you support open source, one of the initial things you learn is that you must bash Microsoft." What horse manure! It's not like msft doesn't throw rocks at *nix on a regular basis. |
| jimf Sep 10, 2006 6:05 PM EDT |
MS's transition to Open Software is going to require more than convincing us to buy the Brooklyn bridge. I think we all recognize that Microsoft's past behavior precludes any element of trust with the Open Source community. It will take 'a lot' to change that. Stop behaving badly and we'll stop criticizing. |
| dek Sep 10, 2006 6:24 PM EDT |
jimf: Stop behaving badly I'd like to add "and start developing decent software". A lot of why we criticize is that their software is developed via a faulty development process. You can stop behaving badly but if your software isn't up to snuff you'll still get criticized. |
| jimf Sep 10, 2006 6:28 PM EDT |
> You can stop behaving badly but if your software isn't up to snuff you'll still get criticized. Guess the bashing will never end :D |
| jdixon Sep 10, 2006 7:38 PM EDT |
Well, the first thing you need to do when building a bridge is make sure you have a firm foundation on both ends. That pretty much lets out building any bridges to Microsoft, doesn't it? |
| dcparris Sep 10, 2006 8:07 PM EDT |
Hmmm... Guess y'all are gonna love my response to this - coming in the AM. I didn't address all the issues the way you guys have, but I think my analogy is apt. Of course, I know you guys will correct me if I'm wrong on that. :-) |
| theBeez Sep 11, 2006 12:21 AM EDT |
Sigh. Again the same message. We should take a backseat, shut up and become like our big brothers in arms. These dumbo's just don't get it. He speaks ONLY with MS-representatives, never with FOSS representatives (when FOSS can be represented at all). Microsoft has NEVER reformed upto a level where reconciliation becomes possible. It is not too long ago that it lauched a massive FUD attack against FOSS, the same people are still at the top and the most recent facts prove that MS can still not be trusted. In later blogs, I will go into extortioning German computer magazines and WGA. I honestly hope that Mozilla will not get burned by cooperating with MS. MS has proved over and over again, it cannot be trusted. Now Firefox is becoming a factor of importance, I am very suspicious about the MS offer and if I had been Mozilla, I had declined the offer. For one simple reason: what is to be gained? Millions of SW developers are and will be developing for Vista WITHOUT getting this "generous" offer. Will their applications work less well? Hmm... |
| dinotrac Sep 11, 2006 4:52 AM EDT |
So...What is the problem? And where the heck did all this talk about back seats come from? If there is one fact of real-world grown-up life, it is that you must sometimes leave your baggage behind if you want to move forward. The Mozilla folks have demonstrated that by accepting Microsoft's invitation. In fact, though it's not stated in this article, developers for several (might be all the majors -- not sure) browsers -- including IE, Konqueror, Mozilla/Firfox, and Safari, have met and communicate with regards to security issues. I didn't see anything about going to the back of the bus, begging, hanging one's head in shame, or anything like that. What I did see is a suggestion that we accept reality -- Microsoft is out there and it's big. That doesn't meaning rolling over and purring "Oooh, Bill!!". But, on those occasions when Microsoft accepts reality -- free software ain't going anywhere, and Microsoft's well-being will depend, to some extent, on how well it gets along with the free software world -- it's good to leave the bags behind and take a short trip that might be good for all concerned. |
| theBeez Sep 11, 2006 5:42 AM EDT |
>And where the heck did all this talk about back seats come from?
This guy said it himself: "It’s time for open-source advocates to set aside their pride, recognise their place in the larger software market and start working to build bridges, rather than fortresses. The pranks and the name-calling might be good for a chuckle, but they’re not really helpful." Note that this guy is a Rob Enderle with its feet up (Aussie). These are his latest articles: ============= Open source is entangled in .Net Like it or not, cross-pollination between Microsoft technologies and open source software is here to stay September 11, 2006 Open source needs a profit motive If you can't scratch your own itch, the free market will September 4, 2006 Can't open source and Microsoft just get along? A fortress mentality toward proprietary vendors will only hurt in the long run August 28, 2006 Novell and Red Hat compete for the king penguin crown Novell is reinventing itself to challenge complacent Red Hat's reign August 21, 2006 Beware the blob Intel's open source drivers keep proprietary code from creeping into the Linux kernel August 14, 2006 VMware and Xen clash over Linux virtualization patch Kernel quarrel proves that you don't have to be proprietary to be petty August 7, 2006 Forget about open source at Apple An open source Mac OS would be great, but a Leopard can't change its spots July 31, 2006 ============= What do you think? Isn't that just a BIT suspicious? |
| dinotrac Sep 11, 2006 7:18 AM EDT |
>What do you think? Isn't that just a BIT suspicious? In what way? >"It’s time for open-source advocates to set aside their pride, recognise their place in the larger software market and start working to build bridges, rather than fortresses. The pranks and the name-calling might be good for a chuckle, but they’re not really helpful." In no way does that say go to the back of the bus. The same could be said of Microsoft -- and, essentially, he said the same of Microsoft, though, perhaps, in kinder terms. Microsoft is not going to own the IT market. Free software isn't going to own it, either. |
| jezuch Sep 11, 2006 7:23 AM EDT |
Building bridges, eh? """ You say, "Son, let's forget the past, I want another chance, gonna make it last." You're begging me for a brand new start, trying to mend a bridge that's been blown apart, but you know... you never built it dad. """ (Queensryche, "Bridge") ;) |
| dcparris Sep 11, 2006 8:14 AM EDT |
Dino: McNeil's viewpoint is totally lopsided in this article. He writes as if we're responsible for mending the fence with a company that has done everything to destroy the fence and very little to mend it. I agree that we need to be prepared to meet them at some point, but I disagree that we should "swallow our pride" - it's not about that. |
| dinotrac Sep 11, 2006 8:22 AM EDT |
Rev - He may be a bit lopsided, but Microsoft has been extending hands of late, and the Mozilla collaboration is the latest evidence of that. I don't suggest that we forget the past or forget who we are dealing with. However, moving forward, we should be careful not to let our baggage chain us to a spot in the ground. I'd much rather get the best end result than feel superior because I can come up with yet another way to spell Microsloth. |
| dcparris Sep 11, 2006 10:07 AM EDT |
Yeah, just keep both eyes wide open. That's all. |
| tuxchick2 Sep 11, 2006 10:17 AM EDT |
And count your fingers. |
| dinotrac Sep 11, 2006 10:22 AM EDT |
>And count your fingers. Twice. Actually, it occurs to me that there is major prcedant --- in a vastly more dangerous situation. Think of the nuclear disarmament talks between the US and the former Soviet Union. |
| tuxchick2 Sep 11, 2006 10:44 AM EDT |
Dino, I'm a bit puzzled. The result of that was the fragmenting of the Soviet Union, nuclear weapons getting dispersed all over the globe via garage sales and barter for food, and the economies of several countries getting ruined and organized crime taking over. I don't see the analogy, unless you see Microsoft getting broken up into several companies, and rogue program managers, Visual Basic "devs", and bitter orange-badgers turning to lives of crime. |
| dinotrac Sep 11, 2006 11:08 AM EDT |
tuxchick -- The USSR didn't fragment because of disarmament --- and be grateful that at least some of those nukes actually got destroyed. The USSR burned itself out trying to keep up with Prez Ronnie's "reckless" defense talk and spending. The real analogy is that you can work with someone you don't like or even trust to obtain mutually desirable goals. In the case of the USSR, it was too little too late to save their imploding economy. |
| Libervis Sep 11, 2006 11:35 AM EDT |
IMHO as long as Microsoft is the way it is and doesn't show strong enough evidence of real top-down and back change (and Mozilla collaboration isn't enough of an evidence) the only way Free Software can move on is over their dead remainings. As long as *they* have such an attitude, there is no other choice for us left but to return with the same attitude or be so damn kind to retreat (no way). The attitude I am talking about is "us or them". Either we win over them or we loose. As things stand at this point that's still the choice we're looking it. So I say, to hell with MS, crush them over. And yes, if you doubt, we have the long term power to crush them over. The day when we will be able to change this attitude will be the day when Microsoft starts apologizing and begging for forgiveness (which, all things considered would probably coincide with begging for mercy). Call me an MS hater if you will. But so far nothing about them is assuring me enough to put down that wall I am still holding between me as a Free Software user/supporter and Microsoft. But that's just me. :P EDIT: Microsoft is an antithesis of everything Free Software is. They didn't yet prove otherwise. What more do I need to say? |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!