[svlug] Re: MICROSOFT DEVELOPS OPEN SOURCE STRATEGY

[Javilk]

> 
> MICROSOFT DEVELOPS OPEN SOURCE STRATEGY
> http://www.pcworld.com/cgi-bin/pcwtoday?ID=8623
> 
> Discussions about the threat posed by Linux are increasing on the Redmond
> campus.

    I really don't think that a closed corporation can compete with open
sources in areas where people are willing to do things for their own
benefit and the benefit of their peers.

     The only area MS can compete, is in complex bodies of interacting
software based on proprietary standards and big ticket sales. 

     Integrating everything into a monolithic operating system,
buttressing developments with hidden proprietary API's (preferably
encrypted,)  disclosed only under contractual agreements, etc. is probably
their only hope. 

     One neat trick for them, would be to encrypt load modules, so that
only people having the right authorization key would be able to execute
the program.  Right now, it is too easy for anyone with an emulator to
break dongle and password code.  If this were rolled into OS, using a
dongle as part of the decryption algorithm... vendors of high priced CAD,
database, and publication systems would do well with this kind of
operating system, and would lend MicroSoft critical support. With software
theft already in the billions, this is probably the only reasonable way of
dealing with it -- dongle based encrypted load modules.

     This strategy could be extended to browsers as well -- ship all pages
encrypted, and prevent cut and paste or saving the decrypted pages.  This
would go over very well with vendors of large expensive databases,
particularly in the banking, automotive and pharmaceutical fields.  Done
exceptionally well, the military and the intelligence services would also
be huge markets for such technology, and may help set such standards.  MS
should recognize that people in these markets are particularly willing to
pay huge dollar sums for products. Indeed, their mindset seems to be that
high price equates with high value, and customization means higher utility
to their organization. 

     Since we are free and puny markets, and there is no trace of
responsibility in open free development, we are effectively shut out of
similar high profit markets.

     I think the world is a big enough place to allow both free open
source software, and proprietary closed software to co-exist.  But when
you come down to it, most people do want a responsible party to approach
for help, development services, and blame.

     Instead of this, I suspect MS will try to discredit open sources by
third party submissions of subtly sabotaged sources, strategic extensions
of obfusification of specifications, demands for standardization of
interfaces in ways not easy to implement, greed provoking claims regarding
profitability, and other means of decreasing the cooperation of open
source people. 

     I believe that in the long run, sabotage will only serve to further
label them as a threat to society, and provoke legal retaliation. BUT... I
really do believe that MS will try to insinuate flawed code into the open
software movement.

     One market that they might consider, is blanket national licenses to
various nations such as China.  For a few billion, let them use MS
products at will.  Similar deals could be worked out with the more
advances socialistic nations.  Software Socialism enforced by an all
powerful state.  How can MS lose in that kind of government funded
environment?  Indeed, our own subsidized railroads, and the postal and
telephony systems of other parts of the world are suitable models for such
attempts and national hegemony.  The other benefit is the reduction of
sales agents needed to sell software, as well as the reduction of
manufacturing operations.  China, for example, already has vast plants
producing MS products, albeit extra-legally.  For a few billion, they can
continue employing all those extra people, and MS can cut their losses and
legal expenses with a huge profit by national-site licenses.

     The down-size, of course, is having such a nation declare war on MS
for some of their absurd upgrade policies.  But basically, Bill Gates
understands dictators, and would likely be able to negotiate with them
quite effectively.

      As to us... we get shut out of these totalitarian markets because we
appear to totalitarians to be just rebellious chaotic free crazies out to
have some fun.  No totalitarian state in their right mind would use our
software!  And right now, there are quite a few totalitarian states that
would make Excellent national markets for MS. It is just like the market
for military aircraft, small arms and other munitions.  IN fact, MS could
even move into the production of Munitions Grade software for these
nations. 

     And the way things are going, probably the ONLY markets Bill Gates
and Microsoft can expect to own ten to fifteen years from now.

- javilk at mall-net.com -----------------------------
-------- MS asks "Where do you want to go?" -------
------- Linux asks "What do you want to do?" ------
-- It is doers, not goers, who built this world! --
--------- Member: http://www.svlug.org/ -----------

     


--
echo "unsubscribe svlug" | mail majordomo at svlug.org
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ to unsubscribe