Microsoft recognises the benefits of open source but is not prepared to turn over its Windows operating system to the paradigm. Instead, Microsoft provides access to source code on a limited basis, said a Microsoft representative.
Microsoft Salutes Open Source – Cautiously
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
It doesnt suprise me that MS would not opensource their OS. One statement that is misleading and that I have an issue with:
“Even Red Hat will not let users modify its Linux source code if they have a support contract”
You can modify the source code, you will void your contract or be in breach. The statement is misleading in my opinion. But what else can you expect from Microsoft.
All it is is lawyers crating statements to miss lead the users. This has been seen time after time. I personally am in full support of Open Source but i think this is just a move by Microsoft to try to make people think that they are in supporting it… To me it seams like they are trying to win people over in the OS community.
What’s next, Microsoft apologizing for previous anticompetetive practices? Ooh, wait: http://www.osnews.com/comment.php?news_id=6390
After 3 seconds thought, its pretty obvious why redhat wouldn’t let you modify code (if you’re on support contract)..
The contract is to support the code THEY gave you. -If you stuff around with the code, then its perfectly reasonable for redhat to turn you down, given that they would effectively be debugging your work or whatever, no brainer -and yes misleading of microsoft.
So why are we reading about MS apologizing for anticompetitive prizes and now acknowledging OSS?
“Even Red Hat will not let users modify its Linux source code if they have a support contract”
“You can modify the source code, you will void your contract or be in breach.”
???????
Tell me how these two statements arent basically identical!
Even Ford will not let drivers modify their car if they have a warranty.
You can modify your Ford but you will void your warranty.
They aren’t identical. MS implied that you cannot, in any way, modify your source code.
In reality, you can modify it if you choose, but Redhat will not give you support for YOUR modified source.
MS, on the other hand, will not let you modify the source at all.
…was where the Microsoft rep said most developers aren’t interested in modifying source code.
“Even Red Hat will not let users modify its Linux source code if they have a support contract”
“You can modify the source code, you will void your contract or be in breach.”
???????
Tell me how these two statements arent basically identical!
The difference is there is a choice there, If you wish to support the system on your own you may do as you wish with it. If you did the same with Microsoft you not only would lose your contract but possibly get sued, arrested, etc. To
be more specific “Red Hat will not let users modify” Is very wrong as they ‘let’ you do anything with the product you want aslong as you don’t ask them to fix your code.
It’s a clever way of putting it by Microsoft, many people will fall inline to beleive it.
—OFF Topic disclaimer—
Eugenia can we get a scroll bar, or preview pane one of these days? It’s too natural to hit enter after a line causing big uglies in the post.
Let’s put it this way. Because of the GPL, you can do whatever you want with the code. Consider the whitebox version of RedHat Enterprise Linux. So you can modify the code all you want. However, RedHat will only support the code that they shipped to you, and not any changes you’ve made. Of course, that is only sensible.
Microsoft Shared Source is completely different. Its not just a matter of them not supporting your changes — you’re not allowed to make any. You can’t, say, modify the code and distribute the changes on a website.
Is it my imagination or has the Microsoft propaganda machine been kicked into overdrive since the SCO-Microsoft connection was made?
The two statements are not identical.
As has been pointed out the first statement from MS informs the reader that if you have a support contract from Red Hat you cannot change the code. This is misleading in that it implies you would run into trouble with RH. But, more importantly, the statement treats Red Hat’s policy as equal to MS (“they do the same as we do”).
The second statement does not equate MS’s policies to RH’s policies.
This is sorta like the whole issue of indemnity: IBM could indemnify their Linux products, but to what point? The indemnity would have to drop the second any change is made to what IBM gave you. As IBM said: it would be pointless and against the spirit of Open Source.
The shared source idea is simply Microsoft’s attempt to look like something it is not: a nice player.
I thought Bill Gates said OpenSource was “anti-capitalistic” and “unamerican”….
Either way, Microsoft needs to get with the times and embrace the Service-oriented philosophy; Charge less (or nothing) for software, but charge for support and other services.
Even Industrial/Organizational Psychologists have recognized that a majority of the economies are shifting from production/product-based revenue to *SERVICE*-based revenues.
I call it more like standing in front of a red rope looking at a picture in a museum, you can look, but can’t touch.
“Educational and research users, however, may modify Windows source code they have through a research grant.”
Is this statement hard to comprehend?
>As has been pointed out the first statement from MS informs the reader that if you have a support contract from Red Hat you cannot change the code.
Yes, you cannot have both: Red Hat support and code changed either by you or by third party not authorized by Red Hat.
If you signed support contract with Red Hat, it probably means that you don’t want to flush these $1,500 per server annual payments down the toilet just because one of your employees imagines he is better kernel hacker than Linus.
>This is misleading in that it implies you would run into trouble with RH.
Yes, RH will tell you: please take your business some other place. Quite possibly, you wouldn’t get a refund. Quite likely, it would cost you more to get support from third-party than from Red Hat to keep Red Hat servers running. It is also a possibility that you will not be allowed to run Red Hat servers after your service contract was terminated (see R-H service agreement)- so expect to fork even more $$$ to migrate to other Linux ASAP.
So, if it is not getting into trouble with RH, then what is it?
>But, more importantly, the statement treats Red Hat’s policy as equal to MS (“they do the same as we do”).
Actually, the outcome of RH policy for companies that sign support contract is the same as for those who use Microsoft in business: you either would not want to allow your employees change code or bring changed code from outside (R-H), or you would not even have that opportunity (MS).
If I were a business owner risking to get into trouble with Red Hat after their audit (which I was forced to agree to when I signed their service agreement) uncovers unauthorized changes to Red Hat code- I will implement a policy that says “Red Hat code modification is a cause for employment termination.”
After all, $1,500 per 1,000 servers annually- no one “cool hacker” costs that much.
Yes, for home users and independent developers the difference is clear: Microsoft does not want you to change their code, Linus does. So, go with Linus or send resume to MS- whatever pleases you more.
But for a business, which is service fee paying customer, it is very simple: pay service fee and give up freedom- with Red Hat Linux. Pay service fee and no freedom- with Microsoft.
Same outcome if you ask me.
It is really funny how Red Hat managed to create an environment where people who do not have to pay money for Red Hat Linux service are more free than those who have to. Up to the point of being as unfree as Microsoft users.
>> Even Ford will not let drivers modify their car if they have a warranty.
>> You can modify your Ford but you will void your warranty.
You can modify your car and not void your warranty. It is only when the modifications directly cause a part (suspension, engine, etc.) failure will the warranty be voided. Putting new better performing tires on a car and having the starter fail does not constitute a voided warranty.
same thing goes for redhat support and modifying the source code.
I am confused by the conclusions you came to Russian Guy. Do you expect Red Hat to support the changes to the kernel that you wrote that they never had a chance to look at or appove? That could end up costing Red Hat as they would have to fix other people’s mistakes.
Russian Guy is pretty clueless as to how Redhat support subscriptions work. Lets say I modify apache, and then ring up redhat and request support due to a SCSI driver related issue: I’m still covered. However, if I said “Hey, we’re having problems with our own version of apache” they will tell you since its no longer a RHEL version, and that they cannot support that version of apache. Your contract is still good for everything else, and you can re-install a RHEL apache and recieve complete support.
Considering the vast amounts of in-house modifications and custom software utilized at many installations, Russian Guy’s idea of what he feels the RH support contract is wouldn’t be compatible with the majority of enterprise customers, which is Redhat’s target market.
As a follow-up, it should be noted that Red Hat offers custom modifications to software to its customers as an additional service, which covers supporting those modifications as well.
If you’re doing your own in-house modifications to a package, your staff is more then familiar enough with it to not require 3rd party assistance with that software.
And Microsoft will continue to see the value of its two cash-cows, MS Windows and MS Office, slip and degrade. And I had given them an out – release the MS-owned source to the obsolete, discontinued, end-of-line, and unsupported versions of MS Windows and MS Office to the end-users under the BSD/MIT license since that license has been praised by Ballmer among others, and see what gets done with it.
“Non-commercial software has played a critical role in the software ecosystem and it will continue. There’s no question about it,” Matusow said.
If RedHat sell contracts to maintain RH Enterprise for a customer, is not RH Enterprise then commercial software? It has been the focus for a commercial transaction, after all. And if Microsoft dumps^H^H^H^Hdonates its software to schools, is that not a non-commercial act, and is then the software so given, not commercial?
“IBM has very strategic goals [with Eclipse],” said Matusow. “It’s a WebSphere development tool. It encourages people to bring applications into the WebSphere environment. It generates revenues for IBM.”
And IBM decided to base its entire Web applications development – Websphere – on Apache, instead of its own Web server. Why? Because it was much more cost-efficient. Plug into what’s widely used and respected, use it to launch your own platform, embrace and extend it sure, but keep from extinguishing it! And always make sure you give enough back, so as to remain part of the community.
It’s a pity Microsoft won’t be doing the same, but then what do you expect. They’ve acceded to the position IBM used to have, as the company most hated in the computer industry.
“Even Red Hat will not let users modify its Linux source code if they have a support contract”
How exactly do you connect that with microsoft? The author of the article said that, not someone in Microsoft.
Ok, we get it, you of the Linux Schuzstaffel have to continuously point at Microsoft and bitch and complain, but how about reading the article and posting something moderatly intellegent?
Don’t get me wrong, I’m an avid linux user, and am in no means a fan of Windows… but don’t act like your shit doesn’t stink. (or that of your OS)
Microsoft spokesman…