Microsoft vs. SourceForge

imnsi

I caught a big realization a few moments ago, and just wanted to see what others thoughts are on it..

Does it appear that Microsoft Professionals and the Open Source Community are a giant battle? It seems to me that the new development of Windows Longhorn will become something the Open Source community cannot compete with, and since Microsoft is considerable expensive all around, and the Open Source is generally free of charge, there is a huge battle between ethics and quality.

I like php and mysql, they are quick easy and very developer oriented, but I like Visual Basic applications because of the ease of integration. I am learning the concepts of programming and how it all works and ties in togethor. Is it a toss-up, either microsoft or the open source, or can they become easily cross-referenced between eachother.

This is a very open ended thread, but what are your thoughts on the dominance of microsoft vs. the popularity of the open source community at source forge and throughout the internet?

LordShryku

I'd say it depends who you ask. A lot of OS development has gone into trying to make things OS independant, while a lot of MS development has gone into trying to ensure things will only run on Microsoft. Personally, I'd say that the OS community continues to make strides everyday to become dominant in the markets simply because Microsoft keeps shooting themselves in the feet. Saying Open Source can't compete with Longhorn is a huge overstatement simply because Longhorn has yet to be released. All you can base a statement like that on is what MS says it's going to do. Just like every other release they've had, they'll probably only live up to half of what they say, and those parts will have at least a few major holes that will take months to patch up. In the meantime, users will get sick of rebooting, being hacked, deleting adware, deleting spyware, paying for piddly software to protect their computer, etc, etc, and will look for an alternative. As it stands now, MS has pushed back the release of Longhorn by a few years already, and are scrambling to meet that date by dropping "features" they planned on implementing. We can only wait to see what actually comes out. I expect it won't be nearly enough to make the OS community even wince.

Sgarissta

I think the biggest danger to OSS is Microsoft's Avalon project (XAML). If you haven't read anything about it, I'd highly recommend googling it.

Avalon is a more advanced, and I'd say slightly more mature version of what Mozilla has started doing with XUL. The ability to write a program using HTMLish markup. The reason I think this is a huge danger is because of MS's already dominant market share, and how quickly they can shift the market's focus.

But then again, maybe I'm totally off base here, and it'll fizzle out like many other MS projects have over the years.

piersk

Didn't Microsoft post a project on SF about 4 months ago?

Weedpacket

I remember an interview between Bill Gates and (um... some interviewer, duh.) Gates said he liked Open Source.

What it boiled down to is that the OS community would develop robust standards and protocols, testing them in the real world; and when they were solid and widely-adopted, Microsoft would then develop the products.

Translation: get the Open Source community to do all the work, and then Microsoft can come along and stick their logo on it.

piersk

Originally posted by Weedpacket
Translation: get the Open Source community to do all the work, and then Microsoft can come along and stick their logo on it.

Weedpacket? Cynical? Never!

laserlight

I remember an interview between Bill Gates and (um... some interviewer, duh.) Gates said he liked Open Source.

Might depend on context.
A few weeks back I read an excerpt in the local (Singapore's Straits Times) that went something like "Gates on open source: generally people make software open source when they are not looking to create jobs".
That could be interpreted as in Gates is trying to portray the open source community as being evil maniacs who actively prevent honest, hardworking developers from getting well deserved jobs, or it could just be that Gates meant that quite a few open source projects started as hobbies, not jobs, or it could be something else.

Weedpacket

Originally posted by laserlight
Might depend on context.
A few weeks back I read an excerpt in the local (Singapore's Straits Times) that went something like "Gates on open source: generally people make software open source when they are not looking to create jobs".
That could be interpreted as in Gates is trying to portray the open source community as being evil maniacs who actively prevent honest, hardworking developers from getting well deserved jobs, or it could just be that Gates meant that quite a few open source projects started as hobbies, not jobs, or it could be something else.

Either context is difficult to sustain, when one of the "Open Source" projects in question is the Internet itself (which, you may recall, Microsoft ignored until 1995). It would be a bit of a reach to desribe the IETF as "evil maniacs" or hobbyists. The question was partly why Microsoft - with its vast resources and price tags - tended to end up following everyone else's lead, and not move into a new area until it had already been thoroughly staked out (using its mass-consumer support to leverage its own versions of everything). The Halloween Documents were also in there, somewhere.

Of course, he wasn't going to say outright that it was because Microsoft makes most of its products by buying or stealing them from other companies.

I wish I'd taken a transcript of the interview, now. And you still can't have a file named "aux" in Windows.....

Edit: No, it wasn't this interview.

Merve

I wouldn't say that Microsoft and open-source are in a constant battle. I predict that open-source OS will used more and more in the office, but that Microsoft will keep its hold on the desktop. We'll probably see Macs being used more and more for graphic design, 3d modelling, etc.