Voice of the Masses: Can we finally trust Microsoft?
In the past, Microsoft’s attitude towards Linux and open source has been infamously inflammatory, and combative (to choose two random examples).
But perhaps thanks to a new CEO, Microsoft’s attitude is changing. It’s hugely significant that .Net is finally open, for example. So too is the release of a native Linux version of its Visual Studio Code IDE. Plus, the Microsoft Openness team held its own Debian 8 release party – all things that would have been inconceivable a decade ago.
Microsoft is also embracing the Raspberry Pi and Windows 10 is the only Arduino certified operating system.
We want to know whether you think this is part of a bone fide thawing in Microsoft’s approach to Linux and open source, or whether all this manoeuvring could be yet another marketing campaign, capitalising on the current strength and success of Free Software and open source. In short, can we finally trust Microsoft?
Let us know in the comments and we’ll read them out in our next podcast.
Related Posts
About The Author
Graham Morrison
A free software advocate and writer since the late 1990s, Graham is a lapsed KDE contributor and author of the Meeq MIDI step sequencer. @degville on Twitter.
While the next Winter Olympics do have a good chance of being held in Hades, if they would care to make bid, we would do well to remember that the price of Freedom is eternal vigilance.
No. Their business model, objectives, values and culture have not and will not change. If they can destroy Nokia they can destroy the RPi and any other risk they perceive to their market.
They can *start* their long journey toward being trustworthy when they stop patent-trolling Android.
In short, no. Everything senior management do at Microsoft is intended to increase profitability of the company. If they didn’t do this it would be a dereliction of their duty to shareholders. In the past Microsoft would make streneous efforts to freeze everyone else out of the PC business and therefore maximise their profits by charging premium prices.
The markets where Microsoft operate now are quite different with multiple vendors, including Apple and Google, offering stiff competition. Undoubtedly, Microsoft will see co-operating with free software as a means of extending their product offerings into new areas.
I’m sure that free software people can make use of this interest by Microsoft but they should be careful about sharing a bed with an elephant. Never take anything on trust; that’s not nasty just good “business” sense.
“embrace” is just the first step in “embrace, extend, extinguish”.
Those who think we’re seeing a new touchy-feely Microsoft would do well to read “The Scorpion and the Frog”.
That sounds about right.
We are the Borg. You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile.
A company’s first obligation is to be profitable.
I think Microsoft’s dalliance with Free and Open Source Software is just bowing to the inevitable.
With Free and Open Source Software dominating all sectors of the tech industry (except the desktop) it seems to be a case of join the party or be left out in the cold.
Like many of the commentators above have said, Microsoft is ultimately a profit-driven company, so their first loyalty will be with its shareholders, but its market share and influence has faded in recent years, so it makes sense to make alliances in areas that it’s competitors (eg Apple or Google) cannot influence. I wonder if Microsoft’s attempt to bolster itself by edging closer to Open Source is akin to political parties creating coalition governments because together there is strength in numbers. The problem with coalitions is that differing policies often cause rifts within, and Microsoft will need to prove that they have similar policies in order to get on with Open Source. That said, there are many companies operating both a profit and non-profit organisation with differing products and strategies (ie Canonical), so I wouldn’t criticise Microsoft for trying a different route. Can we trust them though? I am willing to consider trusting them, which is more than I would have been a few years back.
Of course not. If trust were an option in business, lawyers would be unemployed.
Open source can’t rely on Microsoft on anyone else, it has to be strong from within – from its community, its diversity and its openness. That and the GPL are what got it where it is now, and only that can keep it thriving.
No.
Yes!
(I mean no)
Heavens no. They’re just being evil under the guise of supporting opensource. You know… like Google.
Microsoft can be trusted exactly the same way Google or whatever other company can be trusted.
mmm… NO
Being a company profit is their only goal.
I’m happy to see how things are going, but that doesn’t mean we’ll “live happily ever after”. Satya Nadella seems to be taking wise decisions (with profit in mind) but who can tell if the next CEO will be a Balmer reincarnation?
Trust Microsoft? No way! Trust has to be earned and Microsoft is light years away from that point.
A good start to gain trust would be to give all earned money from the android patent robbery to open source projects.
Is this a genuine thawing? Yes, absolutely. You never would have seen developer tools for Linux or Microsoft Office for iPad under Steve Ballmer.
Can we trust them? Of course not. You can’t trust any company. You can 100% rely on companies to always act in a way that they think will improve their bottom line, because that’s what companies are there for.
Of course you can trust Microsoft. You can trust Microsoft to be Microsoft. Their motivation is maximise profitability through clever marketing. If they find places where their presence is weak (server, the cloud, the mobile phone sector, IoT) they will penetrate by proxy, then assimilate; resistance is futile. The Borg thought that. They were wrong.
You find an injured wild animal and help it get better, it may trust you (a bit) whilst in captivity but it’s still a wild animal. Perhaps when Windows (numberless) is open sourced I may be believe the animal is tame(r).
No
one little flash of open source kindness does not change the evil empire. But we should encourage them to do a LOT more.
Allow OEMs to sell hardware without windows and not punishing them would be a start
There are companies that put ethics before profit.
These are companies that are truly loved by their customers, sadly the tech industry doesn’t have many of these. It is very hard for a big profitable company to do this but I believe that Google does try to do this.
Microsoft however has so many times been shown to put profit before ethics that I do not believe they can ever be trusted.
Linux Voice is an example of a company that puts ethics before profit.
Can’t trust Microsoft.
Can’t trust Google.
Can’t trust Oracle.
Can’t trust Red Hat.
Thanks to copyleft, though, you don’t have to. Can still take their contributions.
No, no, nono, nonono, nononono
“The Scorpion and the Frog” is a fable that warns of stranger danger and the difficulty of changing one’s true nature.
No.
http://www.dwheeler.com/innovation/microsoft.html
Microsoft can absolutely be trusted–to the same extent as the archetypal traveling salesman. Just be sure to keep one hand on your wallet…and an eye on your daughter.
I find it notable how many persons in this thread repeated the mantra that a company’s first duty is return to shareholders as if were gospel from the lips of Adam Smith. Anyone who has read anything by Adam Smith knows that he recognized the existence of a public good over and apart from “maximum return.”
The prevalence of the “maximum return” mantra in this place indicates the success of the PR campaign on its behalf.
It is in truth a relatively new idea proceeding primarily from economists of the Chicago School–the folks who gave you the housing bubble, hedge fund managers, and Enron. Historically, the first duty of a company was to the survival of the company. Profit was a nice side-effect of producing a good product at a reasonable price, which ensuring the health of the enterprise.
This article from the Washington Post outlines the shift quite nicely. I commend it to your attention.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/maximizing-shareholder-value-the-goal-that-changed-corporate-america/2013/08/26/26e9ca8e-ed74-11e2-9008-61e94a7ea20d_story.html