Commentary

InformationWeek
InformationWeek  

Microsoft Takes Baby 'Open' Steps

One way to win back some industry kudos might be to more fully embrace the world of open-source software that Microsoft has long been fighting. Perhaps this is one small step in that direction.

Microsoft's announcement that it will be providing access to some of its source code was a bit of a shock, I must admit. If anyone had asked me 10 years ago what the chances were of this happening, I would have made reference to pigs flying and other unlikely events.

Thanks to the twin wonders of European intractability and modern science, here we are.Make no mistake; Microsoft isn't opening up its entire arsenal of source code for the world to see--at least, not yet. In fact, some observers have been quoted as saying that it's all just a ploy to keep European Union lawyers busy while the company figures out another way of avoiding the hefty fines the EU has promised to levy if the company didn't satisfactorily respond to antitrust charges.


More Windows Insights

White Papers

More >>

Reports

More >>

Webcasts

More >>

But still, it's a start, and it's a first. According to some published reports, Microsoft will--for a fee--allow rivals to see some source code from Windows server and desktop operating systems. The code is related to communications among servers and other specific functions; it's not a free-for-all. Anyone who wants a peek still has to sign a nondisclosure form, and they can look but not touch. In other words, this isn't license to use the code, it's a license to inspect it.

Still, for a company that's described its source code as a "crown jewel," this is a fairly radical concession.

What a difference a decade makes. Ten years ago, when Microsoft was sitting on top of the world, then-has-been IBM was investing heavily in open-source and other types of iniatives not traditionally associated with the Big Blue Behemoth. IBM's now reaping the rewards of a more open environment, and eventually perhaps Microsoft will too.

Like IBM did before it, Microsoft has lost a good deal of its momentum. As with many a wild child, the once-radical Microsoft has become large and staid and has an installed base to contend with. There are plenty of people who are fans, but there are also plenty who dislike the company, its products and its licensing and support policies.

One way to win back some industry kudos might be to more fully embrace the world of open-source software that Microsoft has long been fighting. Perhaps this is one small step in that direction.

Speaking of momentum, the current tech darling, Google, seems to me to be speaking out of both sides of its substantial being. On one hand it's fighting the subpoena from the U.S. Department of Justice that wants aggregate search data regarding a child-pornography law, saying the request 'overreaches' and that the company is concerned about its customers' privacy.

On the other hand, Google launched a search engine in China that censors material about human rights, Tibet, and other topics sensitive to Beijing. Google's defending its actions by saying it's a trade-off that gives Chinese customers access to other information--just not the information the Chinese government finds offensive.

So which is it? Either the company is about customers' rights, or it's about adhering to the law of whatever land in which it's doing business, even if it means "doing evil," in violation of its own corporate motto. Something seems fishy to me.

What do you think? Leave a comment below.One way to win back some industry kudos might be to more fully embrace the world of open-source software that Microsoft has long been fighting. Perhaps this is one small step in that direction.


Related Reading




Currently we allow the following HTML tags in comments:

Single tags

These tags can be used alone and don't need an ending tag.

<br> Defines a single line break

<hr> Defines a horizontal line

Matching tags

These require an ending tag - e.g. <i>italic text</i>

<a> Defines an anchor

<b> Defines bold text

<big> Defines big text

<blockquote> Defines a long quotation

<caption> Defines a table caption

<cite> Defines a citation

<code> Defines computer code text

<em> Defines emphasized text

<fieldset> Defines a border around elements in a form

<h1> This is heading 1

<h2> This is heading 2

<h3> This is heading 3

<h4> This is heading 4

<h5> This is heading 5

<h6> This is heading 6

<i> Defines italic text

<p> Defines a paragraph

<pre> Defines preformatted text

<q> Defines a short quotation

<samp> Defines sample computer code text

<small> Defines small text

<span> Defines a section in a document

<s> Defines strikethrough text

<strike> Defines strikethrough text

<strong> Defines strong text

<sub> Defines subscripted text

<sup> Defines superscripted text

<u> Defines underlined text

InformationWeek encourages readers to engage in spirited, healthy debate, including taking us to task. However, InformationWeek moderates all comments posted to our site, and reserves the right to modify or remove any content that it determines to be derogatory, offensive, inflammatory, vulgar, irrelevant/off-topic, racist or obvious marketing/SPAM. InformationWeek further reserves the right to disable the profile of any commenter participating in said activities.

Disqus Tips To upload an avatar photo, first complete your Disqus profile. | View the list of supported HTML tags you can use to style comments. | Please read our commenting policy.
T-Shirt Giveaway T-Shirt Giveaway: Each week we're selecting one great comment from our readers. The author of the comment will receive an InformaitonWeek Community t-shirt. So get posting!
Subscribe to RSS

Resource Links