Submitted by Microsoft’s Sam Ramji explains how open source influenced Windows Server 2008. “Overall, we’ve learned and continue to learn from open source development principles. These are making their way into the mindset, development practices, and ultimately into the products we bring to market.”
Microsoft has probably implemented concepts akin to those in the Open Source world so they can then say at a later date that these Open Source projects have infringed their IP, regardless of prior design.
That’d be about the jist and limit of their love of open source.
Claiming that they’ve learned from OSS principles is ridiculous. What they’re trying to avoid admitting is that they’re emulating aspects where OSS “gets it right”.
Still, I think this is a milestone for OSS in general. Considering MS has spent the last decade trying to diminish the market impact of linux, for instance, for them to turn around and claim to embrace the “principles” of OSS is still a victory, of sorts.
It means that OSS was able to do something “better” than MS was with their monolithic model, and it means that customers accepted the OSS method. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, after all.
But has MS embraced OSS principles? No. Their marketing department has simply moved to a different tactic.
But I call it a milestone victory because MS Sever 2008 seems to be a respectable product. Which means that OSS has achieved the goal of forcing innovation. Sure, the MS fanboys will brag about how much better S2008 is than linux, and the linux fanboys will gloat about how much better Red Hat or (gulp) Ubuntu remains, but it seems to me that MS saw the threat from OSS and forced their engineers back to the drawing board to a certain extent. I’ll go out on a limb and suspect that if it hadn’t been for the momentum of linux in the datacenters, then Server 2008 would simply be a refresh of 2003. And if the market responds to S2008, then the OSS camp has a new baseline to consider.
All in all, while I don’t think MS has embraced the principles of OSS, I think it’s evident that certain executives are losing a bit of sleep over the matter, and reacted by pouring funding into engineering rather than marketing. That’s a good thing for Microsoft’s customers, and it does nothing to diminish the work OSS has already accomplished.
So I consider it a bit of a milestone for OSS, because MS has basically had to admit to the competition they are facing. No small thing, that, and as I said, good for everyone overall whether in the MS or OSS camp.
Just my 2c…
The things they chose to learn from OSS were things you learn in Software Deployment 101
Seriously…Language Agnostic….Modular Code…?
It took them research to figure this out?
I can’t agree more. Although I find it great that MS is learning from FLOSS and no longer just EEEing useful tech, I still think they have missed the point about the opensource model. Still, as time goes on, who knows? They might actually figure out that operating systems and, to a lesser extent, office software suits are becoming free commodities and change their business and development practices to reflect that.
I hope MS really does start delivering on it’s interoperability promises as I do believe we should all start playing nice and actually try to get along. If by learning from the FLOSS model MS can open up the internals of their operating systems, actual low level internal working being more transparent, then surely MS can also learn about collaborating with others as we so often see in the FLOSS world.
Sadly, I have to say that I’ll believe it when I see it. After all these years of watching the extreme antagonism of MS towards Linux and the GNU world, I find a level of sceptesism is in order.
What about the antagonism of important parts of the Linux crowd towards MS? (cf. the racorous OSI discussion about accepting two of Microsoft’s licenses as Open Source when they clearly met the bar and had a significant amount of code behind them.) Think about it from a human perspective: why would a Microsoft exec want to be too friendly toward a community of people that harbors a large contingent that would like to see Microsoft gone?
Large corporations are made up of people, but they are not even remotely human. They don’t get hurt feelings. They live, think, breathe, and are motivated entirely by… money.
To the extent that MS cares at all about what some members in the FOSS community think of them, they would care about how having that group actively against them affects their bottom line, and their legal situation.
I agree with you that the evaluation of their licenses was a bit ugly. But IIRC, they *were* approved by the OSI, which is really what counts. One of them had to undergo a name change. But the name change really was for the better for everyone, I think.
That’s a very good point and I have to say that I never even considered it.
I could go down that road and start talking about who started it, but frankly, that’s not only childish but also leads to the sort of situation where one side will not enter into discussions with the other, due to them having started it, and vice versa. Being Irish, I’ve seen to much of a similar ilk and believe that situation like that don’t help anybody.
So thanks for pointing it out.
That said, I agree with sbergman27’s assessment of the situation. Corporations are not actually human. But then again, neither is a community of software developers (i.e. GNU/Linux). I do think that things could have been handled better, on both sides. Then again, we tend to hear the rabid supporters of either camp more so than the vast majority who tend to be more center ground.
For me, I’d just be happy if MS can lay off the FUD and not give the mouth foamers more ammo than is strictly necessary. The day they start doing that, I’ll join in shouting down the nuts. Until that day, I’m gonna stand back and watch the crowed demand blood.
Because the same community also harbors another, more pragmatic, contingnet that MS hopes to swing over to their side. If they can get even a few prominent OSS figures to look at Windows 2008 server and say “hey this isn’t too bad a system” it would be huge PR win.
Claiming that they’ve learned from OSS principles is ridiculous. What they’re trying to avoid admitting is that they’re emulating aspects where OSS “gets it right”.
Uh that’s called “learning”.
interesting Mandriva are using part of Jeffs rpm5, question is, will/would redhat/Fedora do the same, there hasnt been no more progress with the 4.4.2.3rc1 tree
You are relying on outdated information. Mandriva has switched to rpm.org tree along with Fedora and SUSE.
Edited 2008-03-02 09:14 UTC
The “learning” part, from MS [i.e. picking up and being all “revolutionary” about it
], is nothing new. Where that “forward” is, now that’s something which probably isn’t the same place MS and others tend to go to.
Secondly, while in FOSS world the mutual improvement of involved projects is also not something new, it’s really not believable when it’s coming from the direction of MS. Evangelists and PR-preachers can work their asses off, still, the long term memory of the crowd is and will be harder to change, and especially since their technological level is constantly increasing.
Lastly, I’m ok with someone picking up practices and even technology from FOSS to improve [as long as credits are properly placed], but not if these acts are only used to solidify the position of the closed source taker. Because, no matter how someone says FOSS has helped me in this way or the other, in the long run this won’t be remembered, only that eventually the quality [and the price] of the products improved.
// edit: messed up quote
Edited 2008-03-02 07:43 UTC
Wasn’t he Frodo Baggins’s wee mate?
/coat
The aspects that I like the best are the emphasis on provideing the tools and resources that allow the administrators to do what needs to be done, to get what needs to be done, done. ‘Standards-based communication’ (what ever that means to them), Shell Scripting, purpose-built capabilities and other glue-enablers are what help make servers last, based on my observation.
All of the best system admins I know of have had to ability to transend the limitations of the system they were working with by the use of well connected modular components, and so if these have been improved then more power to them. Now if the is just more smoke and mirrors we will see when the rubber meets the road.
They are just selling their overpriced product using what’s hot at the moment. And now, in the server world, that’s Linux and BSD.
As much as Windows is still ahead in the desktop experience(it might be ready for you) there’s nothing in Windows Server 2008 that justifies its cost as a server.
The Windows Server GUI is great, and it could be enough if it weren’t for the uselessness of having the perfect gaming workstation sleeping on a corner working as a lame Server.
A BSD base system can do the same for 0$. And you need IT personnel whether you have Server 2008 or BSD/Linux, so no FUD.
And now they have a deal where you purchase the full version for the full price but you only install command line utilities, leaving you with a Windows equivalent of OpenBSD’s fvwm.
It’s great. Now they could learn to give their hobby command-line OS away and someone might actually use it.
Although Windows is definetely easier as a server, the fact that both need (skilled) admins is a damn good point I never thought about.
Maybe they should consider donating some money to some FOSS projects which they are using rather then bribing it to officials to pass a broken standard OOXML as a ISO.
To me it seems like WinServer2008 are taking more from *nix. Incidently a lot of *nixes are open source nowdays, but the features they’ve taken seem to be things that charactize *nix, and not neccerely open source.
For good or ill, windows in enterprises and corp shops. pretty much owns the desktop and even alot of incomming web services. becuase most of the apps they use are windows based.
now that said; alot of shops are trying to use *nix where they can. but the fact remains, AD + XP + exchange + office is king. now many shops are adding sharepoint via WSS 3.0 which is free, and fully intergates into AD and exchange.
now I am all for Linux/BSD but in enterprise land the rules are very different. major incomming software generally must go through an evaluation proccess where not only users but execs and IT staff evaluate software. they tends to lead to apps where useability is very high, but other things tend to lack. and the IT staff has the repackage and even hackup the apps in order to get it to run the way it should.
I have demoed plenty of *nix based solutions, and the only ones that fly are server based ones. ones based on the desktop always get caned before it reaches BETA level.
now that does not mean in other shops where the needs are not as strict as mine it can not work. it can.
but Microsoft is learning, powershell is great, and .NET fixes alot of past probelms and many apps now are comming in now in .NET as soon WPF coms other problems will get fixed
-my random thoughts
-Nex6