Open Source at Microsoft III
My personal opinion and comments in {orange}. Check the link for full context.
| Part I | Part II | Part III | Part IV |
|---|---|---|---|
David Driftmier (General Manager for World-Wide Education Strategy)
[O]rlando set a mail to the GM’s to let them know about an exciting new program to equip the field with a new tool to ensure that we never lost to Linux – the Education and Government Incenties [EDGI] Program. [Emphasis in orginal]
[...] When should I request funding under the EDGI program? EDGI should only be used when every other attempt to close the business has been exhausted and the customer will be buying naked PC’s with Linux. So how does EDGI level the playing field when it comes to price? Won’t the customer still have to pay for Windows as part of purchasing a Windows-based PC? Yes, the customer will stay pay for Windows as part of the purchase price of the new PC. We can however, use EDGI to re-invest in the customer in the form of training, services, or in extreme cases, even rebates so that the total cost of the project is the same as if the bought PC’s with Linux and then had to pay for the training and/or services, etc.
[...] I cover government accounts, also. Can I use EDGI for those accounts? While it is expected that the majority of EDGI deals will be government-driven education deals, EDGI can be used for government-only deals if appropriate. Should I educate my partner on this? Due to our reluctance to compete with Linux or any other competitor solely on price, this should be treated as Microsoft-internal only.
[...]
EDGI is a customer-focused program that is for circumstances [...] where an education and/or government customer is going to purchase naked PC’s or PC’s w/Linux. IF we do everything possible and it still comes down to price differential between the Windows PC’s and Linux PC’s, then we can invest some/all of the royalty revenue from the deal back to the customer in the form of training, services, or even rebates.
{Contrast this with Microsoft worrying about Google and the OLPC project: Clearly we don’t want a world where we’re flat footed as Google figures out how to give states or countries $x in hardware subsidy based on the devices being somehow locked to google search….
}
Pat Fox
We went into the BPR with $30MM in mind, but steveb said we shouldn’t cap it, since it’s “net accretive” to the P&L. ie if the field handles it correctly, it’s revenue that we wouldn’t have seen otherwise (ie if we lost to linux), so even if we make only a few bucks per PFC, it’s better than zero, plus the have the oppy to sell addl non-bootable sw into the customer.
{This is how the EDGI program plays out in actual practice. Under honest and fair evaluation, an organization decides to go with Linux, and Microsoft comes in the the funds to distort the market, because they know they will make it up in the long run.}
Graham Clark (General Manager of .NET business development)
I would like to understand the x-plat strategy, because I don’t get it and nor does anyone in the field. It doesn’t seem to make ANY sense.
By putting CLI into ECMA, we are inviting x-plat implementations. With Rotor we are even doing some work on Linux and Solaris.
For enterprise customers/partners, wanting to build enterprise apps, all this is meaningless as there is no mechanism to provide transaction (and other core services) support on these non-Windows implementations. J2EE clearly has a mechanism, albeit faulty, to enable these x-plat services.
I can think of four explanations for our current strategy (as I and the field see it):
1. There is something happening to provide these applications services x-platform that I don’t understand (based on Joe [Long]‘s proposition, I doubt it is this).
2. We think that our customers/partners/analysts are stupid and that they won’t see our approach as insufficient for real enterprise apps.
3. We are going to evangelize to IBM and others to plug their own transaction services under CLI on Linux (without specifying how). Joe’s proposal is to tell them how.
4. We haven’t thought thru a strategy that will make sense after anything more than a superficial inspection – if so why are we doing all the Rotor work?
If the answer is (2) then we have learned nothing from the past 5 years and J2EE will continue to kick our butts. I would rather see Microsoft say x-plat is BS rather than make a half step (Rotor, CLI) that will confuse everyone and lead to continued distrust of our motives for doing it.
Charles Fitzgerald (General Manager of Platform Strategy)
[Working on cross-platform .NET CLR] is terrifying. A x-plat strategy is not a winning strategy.
[...]
[The .NET CLR cross-platform strategy is] potentially worse than that – we both validate x-platform and then demonstrate conclusively we not prepared to deliver on it.
Srivats Srinivasan
2. As I mentioned on the call, WMT is one of the main distinguishing features of WinCE. To offer it on Linux [...] robs us of our competitive edge.
3. While you mentioned that you will start by offering only the codecs and Udl [?] on Linux today, I am very worried that a year from now, you will need to bow to customer demand and offer WMP and DRM as well at that stage. And by that time, the horse may have bolted too far for us to lock the gates.
4. There was mention of OEMs such as Pace, Moto, Nokia moving to Linux today. It is true that many OEMs are playing around with Linux today (since it is the easiest for developers to kick tires on) … however, most of the same OEMs mentioned above are moving to a WinCE platform as we discuss this. And the move in most cases has been driven by their need for WMT – if you take that away, we lose the battle before it begins.
We understand the need for DMD to proliferate the format … however, if it is at the expense of our embedded OSs, I fear that it can hurt us in the long run. Especially when you consider that part of enabling the .NET vision is to embed our OSs in devices of all forms going forward – hence our apprehension.
Jim Gray (Microsoft Research)
Linux is a cult that captures the best-and-brightest kids. [Emphasis in original] [...] The Linux cult views Solaris as bad and Windows as evil or stupid. [...] Linux is a huge training group and experimental laboratory for Solaris. Suggestion: We need to find and analog to create a “cult” of core windows developers. [Emphasis in original]
{Again, it is Microsoft that applies the religious analogies to tar the FLOSS community with the “cult”/”zealot”/”fundamentalist” brush.}
Nathan Myhrvold (CTO)
The pragmatic answer is that much of the “trend” towards free software is very likely due to the novelty of the Internet.
[...]
Although many people claim that Linux is growing, my bet is that if you subtract out web servers and related new niches, the growth is much more modest.
[...]
If nobody can beat Linux and Apache with commercial products, then shame on all of us in the industry!
[...]
In [a world where the operating system is much cheaper] you could postulate some sort of socialist ideal where the OS is some Linux like public domain thing.
[...]
So, [a world where the operating system is much cheaper] is a nightmare. The system software industry is sucked dry, undermining the foundations of computing. It surely is not an idyllic vision of the future. [...] Only some draconian force – such a misguided government – would put the industry in this sad situation.
As a desktop phenomenon, I don’t think Linux is very important. The application set is too limited, and they are too far behind. The place where Linux is very important (i.e. dangerous) is on the server.
[...]
Linux is not a particularly capable competitor in the sense that it has lots of special technology. Ideally a server appliance OS would have a lot of sophisticated self healing, remote admin and other features. To my knowledge, Linux is not at that level – it is being used because it is simple and fairly small.
RobG
[I] think we should stay super polite publically but drop the private neutron bombs. Let’s hire all their good guys [...] Let got visit all their key corporate customers and disclose the details [...] Let’s visit [...] and explain to them how much money their PC Group is throwing at a losing proposition and how easy it would be for them to work with Microsoft if they weren’t on a path to take us out of our core business of desktop operating systems. And finally – let’s give copies of the MS/IBM audit to each of the 25 most influential ISVs. And maybe even corporate customers too if there are no legal issues.
Marc Olson
We’ve recently change the policy for distributing our file formats, at the request of BillG. We used to be fairly lax about giving it out to pretty much everyone who asked for it….
Our new policy (for Office2000) is that there are restrictions on use (can’t build converters, can’t be a competitor to any of the apps, etc). We required a signed license agreement in hand before we’ll send them the docs. They have to tell us who they are and what their company does, as well as their intended use.
{Just including this one because it’s another example of putting the lie to Microsoft’s current interoperability spin.}
Bob Muglia (President, Server and Tools Business)
[Open source] applications are not integrated into companies’ Linux environments. They are built on one-off environments so there’s no consistency. There are real support issues.
The second [primary motivation behind the MS/Novell deal] is to recognize, unambiguously, that there is value to intellectual property within open-source products that are used by customers, and that that intellectual property should be honored.
