Microsoft has long held a skeptical view of open source, but the Redmond-based software company is trying to change some of those attitudes with the establishment of officelabs. officelabs is a new internal start-up that is attempting to use some of the methodologies of open-source software development to invigorate the company and generate excitement about new Microsoft products. Specifically, the people behind officelabs want to adopt the ‘release early, release often’ approach that has worked well for open-source projects such as Linux and Firefox.
Open Source is not the way the software is written, it is not the release early, release often, it is not even development over the internet.
The success in Open Source lies in the licenses under which software is released. Anything short of a license that sets the code free, be it by the OSI definition or the FSF definition, is not Open Source nor will it have success the Open Source way.
From TFA:
“One aspect of open source that Microsoft isn’t planning to adopt is the actual open source part, as it remains incompatible with the company’s business model.”
As the title of the article makes very clear, they are not adopting an open source model, rather taking a queue from the OSS model of getting binaries into folks hands in the alpha stages.
They’ve already been doing this to some extent with many of their developer products via CTPs (Community Technology Previews); unfortunately their CTP program has largely been a trainwreck IMO due to incompatibilities between many of the CTPs. They are strating to push out more early releases via VPC images which should alleviate many of the installation headaches and compatibility issues as those images will be tested in house before being released.
The success in OSS you speak of works well for businesses who are set up under that model…Microsoft is not, so of course it wouldn’t work for them. I personally hope they can get “CTP V2” working this go round as everyone wins in the end: MS customers because they can start testing sooner, and MS wins due to a faster cycle of bug reports/fixes/etc.
Of course it doesn’t fit their “business model” and that is exactly why this will be nothing more than huge joke. Putting alpha quality software out there for mass user testing only works if you get it into the hands of those who give a shit. Plenty of people will use 0.x.x open source software and will contribute bug reports and patches if necessary because they’re getting something out of it. Where exactly is the motivation to give a damn about Microsoft’s buggy software?
Their CTP program was immensely popular. I didn’t say it worked well, but almost all the IT folks I know here locally did quite a bit of testing/bug reporting with CTPs of SQL Server, Exchange, Vista, Visual Studio, etc. The online reaction was very favorable as well.
The motivation comes from folks like me who make most of their living with MS products, as well as IT shops who have a heavy investment in MS technologies. They are as much stakeholders in MS as actual stockholders.
Where’s the motivation to care about anyone’s buggy software? From the people who use it on a daily basis. Get a clue.
You see you almost has me convinced that you actually had a point and wanted to be taken seriously. Then you had to throw that last little jab in there to prove you’re just a loud mouth fanboy.
Yeah, that was in response to “Where exactly is the motivation to give a damn about Microsoft’s buggy software?” Statements like that deserve jabs because they make absolutely no sense, and come off fanboyish themselves? So I guess I was just sinking to your level.
There are 10’s of millions of customers who give a damn about making a difference in MS’s software…what would make anyone think otherwise? It’s almost as if some people think MS puts bugs in their software on purpose, when anyone who’s been writing software for more than 5 seconds knows just how expensive finding/fixing/testing bug fixes is…MS loses a lot of money fixing bugs, so it’s in their best interest to get these earlier versions out…as I stated before, everyone wins. Consumers get better software, MS gets feedback much earlier in the dev cycle when bugs are easier to triage and fix.
FOSS has been doing this for a while, it works for them, MS has noticed this and is seeing the benefits it can offer to their own software…yet people still complain which is absolutely beyond me.
“There are 10’s of millions of customers who give a damn about making a difference in MS’s software…”
Too bad MS is not really interested in fixing those bugs once they have them as customers.
“what would make anyone think otherwise?”
– The license to the code that hide its content.
– The fact that known bug are not fixed as soon as possible.
– The hiding of known bug , for the sake of profit , as they would cost a lot to fix internally.
“It’s almost as if some people think MS puts bugs in their software on purpose.”
Yes , but thats a given when everyone know Microsoft stance on the file format and standard that they changed in order to call them there own , if interoperability was there goal , they would share documentations and give access to there format.
“when anyone who’s been … bug fixes is…”
That’s why they don’t fix them until they are forced into it …
“MS loses a lot of money fixing bugs”
MS doesn’t loose money fixing bug , bug fixing is included many time in the price of sale. Most often Bug fixing *is a service* that cost even more.
“so it’s in their best interest to get these earlier versions out…”
Of course , because they have *their* interest at mind.
“as I stated before, everyone wins.”
No , the Microsoft customer loose. As they get no reduction on the price of getting free work by other users.
“FOSS has been doing this for a while”
No , Free Software is Open Source and protect freedom to the code , that witch Microsoft does not do. Open Source is only a quality , its really not certain that its going to always be Open Source.
“MS has noticed this and is seeing the benefits it can offer to their own software…”
No , MS as always been pro Open Source , they take others work and add to it to say its their’s and close it and get to control it.
“yet people still complain which is absolutely beyond me.”
No complaint here , Microsoft always use , copy , steal embrace , modify , etc … from others , in the ends its usually only them who profit from it , even there *partners* gets sidetracked and taken over at minimal expanses.
Nothing new here Microsoft as always been a big fan of *Open Source* and its possible traitor ways , you should see there internal wikis and real time development systems and research tools and developments labs , *Open Source* is a cool word these days , but if Microsoft like it so much , well its really broken somewhere. That’s why I like and advocate Free Software.
– The duty of the strong and free is to help the weak and give more freedom to others who have less of it. Not prey on what they have and remove there freedom.
– Helping others does not serve any self interest. You don’t sale your help , you give it for free , the ultimate reward is knowing you have helped others.
– Fixing bugs in your own stuff , for the sake of profit , only serve yourself , your profit and your bottom line at the expanse of others , interoperability , removing security problems , removing time waster and fixing broken solution are the true goal of bug fixing.
I don’t believe that Microsoft as my interest at heart when it fixes problem in there software , how do I know ? I get an entirely new system with improvement and bug fixed and more new software and more new feature from Free Software. I did not pay them to have there respect and attention to my problems and they always give me the best they can.
Your excuses , explanation and logic seem flawed and bogus to me.
Hey, you’re the fanboy here. It’s just as worthwhile to invest time and patience testing buggy software for Microsoft as it is to do it for OSS. The only difference is that Microsoft should have the resources to do much of this on their own, whereas OSS normally doesn’t. However what works in internal testing often blows up in real-world field testing. You never know what two settings combined with what additional software will cause the CPU to spontaneously combust. 😉
If you rely on Microsoft software for your personal use or for your livelihood, by testing early releases you are helping to ensure that the features you need are working in the final product. Just as you do when you test early releases of OSS. You might not get the same fuzzy feeling inside knowing that you’re supporting a community that truly cares about empowering the user, but that’s just not what Microsoft’s mission statement is about. They want to bring <insert buzzwords here> to the PC, and if this also means making things easier for the user, then it’s an added bonus.
Less fanboyism is a good thing, but that doesn’t mean we don’t get to poke fun now and again.
Gotta disagree with this. I am an Open Source advocate, I use Ubuntu as my main OS< and I have several Linux/BSD boxes around my house. I keep one Window’s XP partition around for games (Wine still doesn’t cut if for me because my video cards are only good enough for 3D under Windows, not Wine) and for occasional .NET or Crystal Reports that I have to do as a programmer.
Despite this, I paid money to beta Vista and Office.
Why, perhaps you ask?
‘Cause I’m an OSnews freak and I like to try out whatever is new on the horizon!
“I am an Open Source advocate”
No , your not. You are a choice and opportunity advocate , the difference being that true Open Source advocate would have done the same but asked that the final source code and software be Open Source.
“and I like to try out whatever is new on the horizon!”
and I don’t mind to pay without any reward and thought to the final consequence to try out whatever is new on the horizon is more like it.
The problem with your actions is this : your time is limited by your life span , Time spent helping Microsoft take time away from helping others.
Your income is not unlimited and you just gave a monetary advantage to Microsoft , because I doubt you paid to support other similar project that are at minimum Open Source and at best Free Software in the same amount. The end result is you loose , because Microsoft will not let you install the software you have helped them make on as many computer you own , on the computer of your family and the computer of your friends and on the computer of people you don’t even know there language , that they exist and that you somehow did not help at all.
Your explanation , excuses and logic seem flawed to me.
Your income is not unlimited and you just gave a monetary advantage to Microsoft , because I doubt you paid to support other similar project that are at minimum Open Source and at best Free Software in the same amount
You had a fairly thoughtful rebuttal until you crammed in the ad hominem attack.
For what’s its worth, here are some of the Open Source/Free Software products/organizations that I have _financially_ supported:
Bittorrent
OpenOffice
G4U
OpenBSD
NetBSD
FSF
GVim
Damn Small Linux
I also choose to purchase distributions instead of downloading them strictly to help out the company producting the distribution [This is a really good way to help out OpenBSD]. I also became a Silver Club member of the Mandrak club (now Mandriva) strictly to help them make it past bankruptcy.
I also just created a website where I sell used Linux/BSD laptops. 10% of the gross purchase will go to the maker of the distro on the laptop (if I ever sell any!!).
I guess using a broad brush helps to paint the room quicker!
The problem is its an observation with logic made to make you think on your own, with obviously failled. Sorry , but short of having a time traveling machine you can’t give the time you gave to Microsoft to other projects. Time is the only thing you can’t get back.
Also the financial impact can’t be seen as the same , because you don’t receive the same compensations. Microsoft give you restricted access to testing there code under certain condition for a limited time , this from a multi billion dollars company.
You try to justify and rationalize your actions by saying you contribute to others in similar ways.
The reality is Microsoft Vista is not an open Source or Free Software OS and you participating in it only deprive others and yourself primarily of your valuable time and contribution , you also somehow capitulate and give aways some of your right as a paying customer in order to participate in it , creating and supporting the system that deprive you of those rights.
Bittorrent, OpenOffice, G4U, OpenBSD, NetBSD , FSF , GVim, Damn Small Linux are not Microsoft Vista or Microsoft Office and your participation to those other projects do not offset the choice you made with Microsoft products.
They also don’t make them any less closer to be at minimum Open Source and at best Free Software.
I find the rest of your comment to be fabricated to be in reply to me , so , I choose not to address it , sorry.
Of course it won’t. But it will see a dramatic improvement in the quality of the applications.
Noting that this is a Microsoft that is still rightfully embroiled in a PR nightmare scenario with Vista (DRM, Gates on Apple, and all that jazz in the press), anything that will see a greater degree of development independence for its employees (which means that management will interfere less with that development, as they did with Longhorn beta) should and could, IMO, be seen as a backtrack from the Microsoft which we all (yes, including myself) just love to hate and despise.
Plus, if the trend for more openness like this continues at Microsoft, then it is possible that, among the projects which adopt this model, quite a few of them will be licensed under some copycenter license.
Just don’t expect them to go any further left of that center. They’re allergic to that sort of thing.
You’ve got a point. “Release early, release often” is a good development strategy, whether or not your code is open source. If Microsoft can embrace it for some key products, and they don’t mess up the management side of things, they will have success with it.
However, it doesn’t seem to me that they’re applying this methodology to anything particularly important. “Cool” add-on’s for Office? Yawn. Wake me up when Windows gets an 18-month release cycle…
You’ve got a point. “Release early, release often” is a good development strategy, whether or not your code is open source. If Microsoft can embrace it for some key products, and they don’t mess up the management side of things, they will have success with it.
They have been talking about this internally and informally for the best part of ten years. In the Halloween e-mails, when Microsoft was looking at open source development, it was pointed out that many developers in the company couldn’t get access to the source code of something they didn’t work on (or even all of it) like Excel even if they wanted to.
A code release and review program, or Microsoft releasing code and versions of its products internally, is something sensible that they should have already been doing given the extreme size and scale of their projects.
The problem is that the management has got steadily worse at Microsoft over the years, and the buzzword laden, everything is cool, Sharepoint can solve our problems, .Net version 30.0, lets ditch Winforms and do XAML MSDN lunatics have taken over the asylum. If you can get your critical business applications away from Microsoft and Windows, possibly developed as web applications as many have been doing for some time, do so now.
Absolutely right. It seems that Microsoft has a crisis of not understanding customer requirements. Just look at all of the nasty feedback they’re getting from the blogosphere right now. If they only shoved Vista on these whiny people’s computers a year ago, they might have released a better product.
I agree that they need to do this for their core products, not just some silliness. And they need to do more than make it available with a limited amount of hoop-jumping. They need to realize the value of the services these testers are providing and compensate them accordingly. If you test an early release of the product and fill out a satisfaction survey, you should get a free license for the final version. If you submit a bug report, maybe throw in a free T-shirt.
“If they only shoved Vista on these whiny people’s computers a year ago, they might have released a better product.”
Shove is actually a good word to use in this case…they had numerous public CTPs and betas, but who knows how many folks actually took advantage of them, and of those folks how many took the time to submit bug reports? Obviously not as many as it could have been.
“I agree that they need to do this for their core products, not just some silliness.”
They have been doing this with numerous other products for a while now, in the form of CTPs. I don’t have the actual list of products, but CTPs I’ve participated in over the past couple of years (which were all freely open to anyone with an internet connection):
SQL 2005 (and SP1/SP2)
Exchange 2007
Virtual Server/Virtual PC
Office 2007
Visual Studio 2005 (and Orcas)
Vista (a total of maybe 10 CTPs and betas?)
Windows 2003 SP2
A whole slew of developer related CTPs
Tons of IT departments participate in CTPs, but for the average consumer, testing a CTP is either of zero interest, or they don’t have the technical know-how to thoroughly test one out.
They could’ve done more with Vista…I was actually impressed when I heard that MS monitored a number of households actually use the Vista CTPs/Betas, only to then hear it was 50 families. Coming from a company that just spent $6bb developing this product, 50 sounds abysmally low…1050 would have been closer to a good sampling.
From the article:
One aspect of open source that Microsoft isn’t planning to adopt is the actual open source part, as it remains incompatible with the company’s business model. However, the code for officelabs products will be available to anyone within Microsoft itself.[my emphasis]
Erm, it’s open source, Jim, but not as we know it.
So we’re still going to get alpha software from Microsoft, except this time they will admit it’s alpha and not final, right?
Seriously, I don’t see this as ”opennes”, just as a kind of way to make hype. It sort of worked with Vista, so it may work with other tools, too, especially when we’re not talking about large applications.
I dunno, but to me it sounds like MS are trying to implement something for their own company that they don’t understand. And because they don’t understand, it won’t work, or at least not as well as it could work.
The culture and practices of corporate Microsoft and Open Source Developers are *way* different. Somehow it doesn’t really seem like a perfect match.
MS was and still remains a cathedral… if it doesn’t share the source code and changes license it will never become a bazaar.
I mean that if I contribute to an open-source project, probably I will need to use that software and I can use it for free. Why help someone that later will ask money to use its product? If it want my help they have to pay me!
This is an example to show that the methodologies of open-source software development work good only with real open-source software, not for MS closed products and its bugs zoo.
I want to know what else is going on in the Tech news-space that this article is designed to take attention away from?
Microsoft seems to me like a middleaged businessman with jeans&tshirt driving red sport car seeking to look young and sexy:)