7 things MS should do (but not just MS - Oracle etc as well).
1) Embrace _simple_ web service standards to enhance interoperability.
2) Release 100% full details of NTFS.
3) Either open source sharepoint, or make an open web service API for it that is very simple and has loads of supporting code available.
4) Support mono. This will help them by making .net more attractive to open source and to cross platform systems architects (i.e. me).
5) Open source IE and merge it with Firefox. Thus we get the power of IE's COM feature with standards compliance of Firefox - and no 'evilness'. No one buys Windows for IE anyway - so what is the threat?
6) Poor more resource into phalanger - and change its name to something that does not sound like a parasite.
7) Drop DRM altogether. It should come from the people who have content to protect - not the OS vendors!

How they help

AJ [www.nerds-central.com:twitter/AlexTurner]

I cannot imagine, other than being paid, or losing a bet, why you would be serious about anything in this. "Laughable" is the best, and kindest word to describe it.

Whurley, on the one hand, I'd like to agree with you and would be happier if Microsoft were actually more open source friendly. Here are things I'd like to see:

* support independent open source developers -- promotion, conferences, resources. See Google Summer of Code for an example.
* give Microsoft developers leeway, encouragement and no-licensing-strings-attached abilities to contribute to open source projects in the wild, on company time
* Open source more of Windows, especially Trident, the IE rendering engine
* push the open source/open web angle against Adobe's closed-web products
* convene a cortia on improving the state of web browsers and their future; create a new project called Breakin' the Web to build IE from the ground up (use Gecko?)
* etc

Microsoft has been a great supporter of BarCamp, but I'm still not sure openness is in their cultural DNA -- ie at the inception of a project, are they thinking about open source strategy or maximizing shareholder value? (These need not be mutually exclusive of course).

In any case, it'd be great if Microsoft were as open source in their ethics as you'd like to claim they are in their code. :)

See ya at Mix.

Most developers, including myself would greatly appreciate it if Microsoft would either stick to standards put forth by W3C or consider dropping IE all together. It's a complete waste of space and forcing developers to develop for 3 or 4 platforms is ridiculous. Internet Explorer 6 is vastly different than IE 7 which is still light years away from being a decent browser.

On top of that they don't even allow you to have two seperate installs, one for IE6 and one for IE7 for testing purposes. If they want to try to control the Internet they need to start using some common sense.

In the following seven suggestions you see a few common threads. Some of it is objective truth, some of it is my personal perception. The two themes are: "hey, Microsoft, you need to learn how to play with others nicely" and "learn how the opensource ecosystem can provide value back to you".

#1 -- Stick with the standards. 'Enhancing' protocols so that products only fully interoperate with other Microsoft products is one of the biggest reasons I don't recommend MS products.

#2 -- Make it *easy* for me to plug-n-play backoffice Microsoft products into my existing infrastructure. The Microsoft-Way-or-the-Highway attitude is unwanted.

#3 -- All of the backend web stuff? It needs to be client agnostic. I've never made and IE-required site, and I never will.

#4 -- Learn to give up, cut your losses, be gracious in defeat. What value does Microsoft get from IE? Really?

#5 -- Quit dedicating yourself to the eradication of any competing product. You've got a product that competes with everything.

#6 -- Give it a whirl. Release one meaningful application under the GPL. IIS maybe? Really, what value is Microsoft getting from IIS these days?

#7 -- Decouple things from the operating system! Add the ability to read and write to other filesystem types!

> Open source is not the threat; Linux is. Don’t confuse the two. Open source is growing
> rapidly, but Linux has several distinguishing features that make it the real
> challenger. It’s more mature than other projects, it has a larger, more organized
> developer base, and it’s well financed. IBM has spent hundreds of millions of dollars
> developing, distributing, and advertising Linux, not open source. Microsoft doesn’t
> fear open source; it fears what the competition can do with it.

Well I can agree with 'larger developer base' and 'well financed', at least.

HOW MUCH IS MICROSOFT PAYING YOU OR ARE YOU REALLY THAT DENSE?

If Microsoft is ready to give even them most crippled version of Windows away for $3, why don't they just give Windows XP Pro way for free? The increased worldwide market reliance on Windows platform business software and Windows Server platform enterprise software would hedge any losses. One thing that's obvious to me is that developing countries with well educated technology workers would much rather run free, network-friendly Linux than Microsoft's $3 gimped version of Windows.

I'd agree that Microsoft has a very positive few of open source recently, and it seems that they've started to embrace some of the practices.

The one area I think that they can improve is to do more to encourage open-source development with Microsoft tools. The Express IDEs are free and a significant portion of the population already has Windows, so in theory there are a lot more potential developers on the MS platform than Mac or Linux. There have been some small pushes through codeplex and similar projects, but I doubt you'll see much open source .NET development until Microsoft really starts pushing it.

Opening the NTFS filesystem would be a great start.

Last time I was in Redmond (a couple of years ago, admittedly) meeting with some executives and managers, opensource was a dirty word, a very dirty word. I would be surprised but not astounded if the culture had so radically shifted in so short a time without a replacement of the top management. My involvement was as a systems architect and of a very technical nature, so I am confident of my assessment for the time I was there. However, Sun made a radical shift in their attitude towards opensource and I witnessed that directly from Jonathan Schwartz and Scott McNealy - so, stranger things have happened.

I don't have enough gripes for five points but I do have enough for one. Being an experienced web developer, this issue has bugged me since I was first told table layouts were bad:

Please, PLEASE, tell Microsoft to embrace standards support for IE, either by redesigning the rendering engine from the ground up, combining it with Firefox, open-sourcing the cad (as Netscape did so many years ago) or just abandoning it. It would be very nice to see them finally eliminate the headache of having to worry about IE's abysmal standards support. If worst comes to worst, abandon the project... If not, switch to Gecko or possibly redesign the engine...

1- Follow existing (ex: W3C) and emerging (ex: VMware's virtual disk format) standards or open source any enhancements
2- Publish all MS API's
3- OpenSource IE
4- Simplify the EULA for Windows and give us the right to tinker!
5- Stop predatory licensing practices
6- Stop predatory support contract
7- Make one version of Vista instead of putting SW locks or licensing restrictions in place and calling them 7 different products!!!

#1: Make IE.next support Acid2 before shipping

http://www.webstandards.org/acid2

More accurate to say, "Microsoft loves Open Source *they can use*. Anything that requires they publish source code of derivate works is never going to be "loved" by Microsoft because it's a competitor they can't buy out or embrace and extend.

How about opening DirectX? Or maybe the Exchange Server?

The kernel Linux is not the threat. Were Linux licensed under the BSD license, MS wouldn't be too worried about it. Rather, it's the GNU GPL and its proactive protection of users's freedom that scares Microsoft to its core. They've said several times that "we like 'open source', BSD's fine; what we don't like is the GPL." They have called it "cancer", they have called it "Communist", and they've even called it (through their proxy, the SCO Group), "un-American." Not that Freedom is an American-only concept, of course.

This, BTW, is also why Microsoft is fighting so desperately against the OpenDocument file formats. It's why they're fighting so desperately in the European Union to make sure that their secret protocols stay secret (they're very--extremely--afraid of Samba, a GPL'd software package). They desperately fear freedom for users; they want control. The GPL is what is standing in their way.

Closed-source device drivers are the biggest problem holding back development of open-source operating systems. Until Microsoft requires (as a prerequisite for WHQL / windows logo approval) manufacturers of Windows-compatible devices to release their drivers as open-source to make it a fair playing field, I don't see that Microsoft's stance on open development has really changed.

The reason "unix tools for Windows" releases source code is a lot of the code used is gpl. Not by MS, but by it's original authors.

x) Make IE standard-compatible. We, web developers, have painfull nights trying to make a web page (standard certified) work on IEx.

x+1) Open your doc and docx specs for compatibility. I don't mind Office being around, but I do care about OpenOffice compatibility.

x+2) Loosen up the chains for hardware vendors. See what you've done to Dell these days...

x+3) Do not try to kill everyone (this one goes directly to Ballmer).


by the way whurley, thank you for listening :)

Have a plan to compete with OpenOffice. Microsoft Office accounts for much more than half of my organizations Microsoft Software costs (and most users here only need Word and Excel). This is driving management and IT to seriously consider making the switch to OpenOffice. Management would like to remain a Microsoft shop, but the cost of Office is prohibitive. Even if you don't lower the price of a license, change the license (to include retail and OEM licenses--not just volume licensing licenses) so that I can get more value out of it. Give me better downgrade rights, more line of business rights, more dual-install rights, and the ability to purchase Basic Edition through channels other than OEM. Having an Exchange CAL gives me an Outlook license, but let also an Outlook license give me an Exchange CAL. There are lots of creative things that could be done to increase the value of an Office license.

Speaking of licensing, maybe Microsoft could simplify licensing on all of their products. I understand that MS sends their licensing specialists to a class that lasts several months. Why isn't that class available to the public? Maybe as an MCSE elective? Microsoft makes a big deal about piracy and the legal use of software, but some of the licensing schemes are so difficult to understand that people use Microsoft software illegally without even knowing it because they don't understand how the licenses work.

I checked ftp.exe with ResHack and only saw Microsoft copyrights. :C

Here are 7 that I know Redmond won't touch.
1) Un-bundle IE, Outlook, and WMP from Windows. Allow them to not be installed or allow to be un-installed.

2) Open up the *.doc, *.xls, *.ppt file formats. Allow the market to compete with the best product. Instead of dealing with vendor lock-in.

3) As for XML and MS' next generation; truly open up these formats.

4) Make the system more modular with respect to services.

5) Get rid of single points of failure; IE: Registry

6) Enhance security with respect to software installation. When installing some game like "Pong" the applications doesn't need access to drivers. In essence create a tiered level with respect to software installations.

7) Ditch the DRM junk. It adds complexity to the system with no benefit to the user.

8) Ship the home editions and (potentially) corporate editions locked down. At a minimum; leave zero ports open.

Please read Rob Wier's post before the conference, of his first-hand interaction with Microsoft to inform your response to this point:
http://www.robweir.com/blog/2007/04/sometimes-i-need-to-remind-myself.html

Then read the rest of his blog. You might also check in at blogs of Bob Sutor and Andy Updegrove:
http://www.sutor.com/newsite/blog-open/index.php
http://www.consortiuminfo.org/standardsblog/

At least you'll have far more backstory on what people will object to.

Found it with XVI32. Don't post mine. D:

There is a big difference between a couple of rarely used tools (on Microsoft OS's at least) like ftp.exe, and the actual TCP/IP stack.

I can't take you very seriously because there is a lot of misdirection and hand-waving in your article. I will give you credit that I didn't see any outright lies, which Microsoft directly uses, though. Here I'll point out some problems with your points.

"They include open source code in their products."
You bring up the TCP/IP implementation as an example. That's not a good idea on your part because it's exactly the example people use to point out why Microsoft likes to let other people come up with good stuff under the BSD license and then selfishly take it with no thank-yous or giving in return. When it comes to a mutual sharing license that they can't take selfish advantage of, like the GPL, they spit venom, lies, quasi-legal lobbying interference with government action, violation of their court-ordered code of conduct from their anti-trust conviction, etc., etc. So basically, your first point illustrates that they just like code that other people open without restrictions so they can just snatch it.

"They support open source vendors."
I won't say a lot here because I'm not familiar with these Microsoft "programs created to test and verify open source applications on Microsoft platforms". If they do that, fair enough.

"They benefit from open source everyday."
It's called FUD. Have you read the content of the "free press" they pay for? That's kind of a twisted way to look at things to say that your competitors benefit you by giving you the opportunity to smear them with falsehoods. You're not understanding what the alternative situation was to this "battle with open source" they've been waging in the press. Before open source was maturing, Microsoft didn't have a big war in the press and had close to 100% market share. Everyone just kept buying it because they had never heard of anything else. Now Microsoft is having to viciously attack to slow the slide of their market share. Open source isn't doing them any favors there.

"They open source code."
Ah, UNIX tools for Windows. This is beating the ground where the dead horse rotted away several years ago. They did a small token action on a minor product most people don't use once, and we're supposed to be reminded of that over and over? That hardly seems like strong evidence to make it one of the "Seven Reasons Microsoft Loves Open Source". That's weak, man.

"They are adopting open source culture."
You're not recognizing what this is. Culture means actually doing something, which they're not. This is co-opting the language of open source to try to pretend to be something good, while remaining the wolf in sheep's clothing. It's the same with their proprietary data-dump of their new MS Office format, which they have ironically called "Microsoft Office Open XML". They want to have that word Open associated with them, even though the format is very closed and does not contain specs enough for anyone else to use it.

"They aren’t threatened by open source."
Well this looks like a good place to continue the talk about the office document formats. They are threatened at least as much, if not more, by other forms of openness than just by Linux. Have you kept up with Microsoft's conduct in Massachusetts over the document format decision? They have been putting out some of their most blatant lies to convince them to use the Microsoft document formats, rather than go to a neutral document format that can be used by anyone, including Microsoft if they wanted to stop their tantrums long enough to do it. Read some of Andy Updegrove's blog to find out some of the story about that, including how they fed a false character assasination story on Peter Quinn to Boston Globe reporter Steve Kurkjian. The story was published before they even attempted to contact Quinn's supervisor, who cleared him of any wrongdoing as soon as he was contacted. The resulting firestorm and stress over the false accusations caused Quinn to resign anyway.

"They realize open source is their future."
Your main supporting statement in this paragraph seems to disprove your own hypothesis of this being a reason Microsoft loves open source: "Linux is causing issues for them in the market, and they’re working hard to keep up." Um, yeah, and we know how much Microsoft LOVES competition--so much so that they have bought or killed anyone who has ever tried to compete with them. This time, however, they are fighting against an ideology, which can't be bought or killed.

So in summation, you're 1 for 7. That's about 0.143, which isn't even a good batting average.

Conversely, they abhor open standards. MS has a well-known history of embracing and extending to the point that only MS clients will work with their servers.

Right now the big open source parade is trying to distract you from the battle over ODF.

Since I have very little "nice" to say, I want to open with a quick contradiction of my statements: I'm not an anti-Microsoft guy. I use their tools and ultimately much of my job is defined as developing Microsoft centric solutions.
That said, they don't support open source, nor are they in any considerable ways an open source ally. The points you make in the blog post indicate them making "use" of Open Source tools, or supporting it where it fits with their overall business. I have no problem with this behavior...they're operating within the rules of the licenses for the software they use. That doesn't make them evil, but it doesn't make them advocates.

TCP/IP:
The examples given actually indicate why Microsoft *isn't* a friend of open source. (I am not an Apple user), but the license of the code they're using does not require contributing "back" to the code tree, but they do. Microsoft's TCP/IP interface is code they've used but have chosen not to contribute back (a common theme).

Open Source Vendors:
I'm not sure that programs created to test and verify open source applications on their platforms qualifies them as contributing, either. If they didn't, and the provider of the tool chose not to support Windows, they'd *possibly* lose a Windows license in the deal.

They benefit from open source everyday:
The "free press" is not good press. And contrary to the oft quoted logical fallacy, all press isn't good. They're seen as bullies with a monopoly and we in the user community are portrayed as victims forced to use their software. A lot of it is FUD. That type of PR makes people open to alternative OSes on purely philosophical grounds (not that the alternatives are inferior)

They open source code:
You may have a point here as it is an area I am unfamiliar. I have never found a reason to use Microsoft's Unix tools for Windows with Cygwin around, personally. My curiosity is whether they have provided the source code to any tools that didn't require them to provide the source code. You mention Shared Source, which was/is an attempt to provide a very small subset of the benefits of open source software that really points out that they either "didn't get the memo" regarding what people really wanted.

They are adopting open source culture:
By your description, almost everyone is (or is trying to). This is more of a "social networking" culture than an Open Source culture, though they share some roots. I am a big consumer of all of their blogs and I think they've done well here. They provide great information and do speak to "what appears to be" a change in corporate culture.

They aren't threatened by open source:
Yes, they are. Linux is a kernel. It's Apache, OO.o, the GNU toolset, ffmpeg, FireFox, Samba, Wine and every service provided by your average Linux distribution (long, long list). Each has caused a problem for Microsoft and many have resulted in new products to compete (IE7?). This is A Good Thing(tm). It will make better software, but they are threatened. A 10% penetration of Linux in the marketplace means that some of their "Microsoft Exclusive" vendors will have to start supporting Linux. As more software vendors support the platform that they are threatened by, the scales tip. At what point does it appear to be financially beneficial to produce an Office for Linux version? The point at which they discover the need for such a product will likely be the point at which they can't compete with a free alternative that the converted have already gotten used to.

They realize open source is their future:
Maybe...in some small areas. They will support open source ideals in areas where it will increase the sales of their OSes, and other tools. Why wouldn't they? Here's a great CRM application, and it runs best on MSSQL Server on Windows Server 2003. We'll throw in support under our Enterprise Agreement. It is smart for them to take areas of the software business that are dominated by Open Source and say "We'll make it work well on Windows". They know that good Windows Server techs generally command a lower salary (and are easier to find) than a good SysAdmin and that switching OSes is painful and scary for most organizations.

So perhaps your title was exactly right. They love open source. But I think most of us read it as "They are Open Source allies". That case is hard to make.

Microsoft publishes it because they have to, per GPL, not out of a random act of kindness. They don't even seem to maintain the thing, the gdb in Vista is some crappy CVS checkout, gcc is stuck on 3.3, etc. It's all very arcane and pointless, since Cygwin does much better job.

They should just contribute whatever is worth rescuing from SFU to Cygwin, and lay SFU to rest.

First and foremost - adopt open standards.
OpenDocument, OGG Vorbis/Theora, etc.

Fully open the MSN messenger protocol, gaim (or pidgin I should say) developers have worked hard, and the community is grateful, but they shouldn't have had to!

They include open source code in their products.
Yes they have stolen code to get their tcp/ip stack and other things to work, much like they bought MSDOS. The only difference here is they paid nothing for it.

They support open source vendors.
Yes people are using these products. Yes, they run on multiple platforms. Yes, Microsoft ensure they run on Windows. No, they don't want them to switch to cheaper platforms. It's business not openness.

They benefit from open source everyday.
Reports about them trying to stamp out the Open Document Format and fighting tooth and nail in Europe to resist having a media player monopoly and releasing Windows networking protocol are hardly positive, but this doesn't factor into a monopoly's way of thinking.

They open source code.
The requirement to be posix complient was for a US government contract they were bidding for, as I understand it, it never really worked and was only maintained for NT.

They are adopting open source culture.
I can't be arsed the keystrokes on this one.

They aren’t threatened by open source.
They are a corporation, no matter how much they make in one year they need to make more the next. Apachie, Samba, Mono, PHP are all superior products, they are a threat to them.

They realize open source is their future.
Seriosly, try having a word with yourself.

I don't care whether Microsoft loves or hates open source. I have no advice for Microsoft on how they could become relevant to me. Microsoft gets no money directly from me because they have none of my attention. I have no interest in using any Microsoft software, aside from its obligatory presence on my employer-provided PC. Microsoft is there and they are large, but they are past their zenith. The lack of energy in this thread is proof that Microsoft will ever so slowly and gradually shrivel up and die. Watching Microsoft whither away will be about as exciting as watching a lawn turn brown from lack of water - pure 2nd law of thermodynamics - entropy death. Microsoft no longer knows how to create and market anything remotely resembling leading edge tech. Heck, even Sun has made Solaris seem much more exciting than anything coming out of Redmond.

It's funny, I think many of the posts above are not so focused on open source as they are on an ability to write more applications that integrate with Microsoft applications. Many are begging for IE to be standards compliant so we can start writing web applications that work on all standards-compliant browsers. One asked for the 100% full details of NTFS and for an open SharePoint API.

I personally have clients migrating from Vignette & Autonomy platforms to a SharePoint platform. With Vignette's Portal and Autonomy's search, these clients could integrate any enterprise system. With SharePoint they're planning to migrate all their data into SharePoint's system. I'm sad to see large organizations choose a platform that will encourage lock-in rather than interoperability.

We all have to admit that Microsoft has created and will continue to create compelling products that will continue to be used. I think what we're all asking for at the core is that we be free to integrate with those compelling products instead of having to wait until Microsoft comes out with their next big thing that hopefully will do what we want.

I believe the Java Community Process is an example of striving for interoperability without necessarily going open-sourced. The question doesn't always have to be about open source. Microsoft could still be *much less evil* by cooperating more with open standards.

Sam

I couldn't agree more with the points you raise. In particular, your points that open source is not the enemy, but Linux and what competitors can do with open source are.

What is so much a problem for the Linux faithful is that the business model is the key to understanding. It's not a hobby for Microsoft, and it's not a (viable) business for very many of the Linux faithful. Open source, on the other hand, is useful, and not a threat to the business model.

Excellent article.

M$ is beyond repair. They have become one of those corporations looking for ways to extort customers to pay money for something they don't even need or want, instead of thinking ways to help customers with their needs and wants in exchange for money. Those bad business milk their customer base until they kill themselves. I'll keep as far as possible from M$.

One other BIG reason.

It prevents Microsoft from being declared a MONOPOLY.

Say we throw some element of reality into these requests. (Sounds harsh, but hear me out.) Their internal OS structure depends on the coding of IE. Several hundred businesses in the US alone depend on IE. At the end of the day, whatever they do in an effort to support the community... MUST NOT BREAK INTERNET EXPLORER OR ANYTHING USING IT. Enduring thousands of bloggers and forum trolls raging at Microsoft and cursing IE is insignificant compared to admitting to the business world, "Sorry, some people on the Internet said we should change IE to do these new things, and now your product is broken. You'll have to shut down."


So what are our options here? What are their options? We'll tell you what we want to see, but then how will you pick and choose from there? I mean, I'd LOVE to see COM-level XSLT 2.0 support, but if that necessarily means IE will choke, then continue on, I'll continue to work around it. Just tell us what you intend to do already, instead of constantly talking about what should be done. Let us know the scope and the consequences of the changes, so we don't start asking for (and expecting) the moon on a plate and get angry when it's not delivered.


I use MS at work and open-source at home, and I'll be the first to say that I appreciate what they've done, for the sake of business. Now for the sake of advancement, tell us what's realistic. Please.

While some of your points make sense to me and some of them don't, I wonder whether there isn't one fundamental issue with Microsoft's stance on Open Source: control. Hasn't Microsoft always been all about control? Isn't Open Source wholly dependent on companies being willing to let go of control? Is this what Microsoft is willing to do?

So, that would be sort of my wish as to what they could do.

Microsoft want to destroy Linux. Microsoft try to destroy all competition that won't obey Mama-Redmond.
Any idea that they want to play nice, have learnt their lesson now or are happy to let Linux carry on is false.
Embrace, extend, extinguish.
When Microsoft smiles at you be afraid, be very afraid.
Seeing as they don't stop short of "encouraging" politicians to help them, leaning on report makers and journalists and outright lying when it suits them, nothing they say about the future or competition can be taken as anything other than distraction and sleight of hand.

Dear Microsoft,
1) Open up NTFS and hand over nice specs or GPL the filesystem driver. Your call.
2) Having them support Open Source through Microsoft employees being allowed to contribute AND/OR a Google SoC-esque program. The latter seems more feasible.
3) Leave DRM to the content protectors. It's great advice. You have no idea how much you don't want to take up this battle. I'd say open up WMA and publish specs on your DRM but WMA is pretty much reverse engineered and a spec that would open up the DRM will never be seen ever.
4) Open Standards! This is huge. This goes for web standards and the browser war (hell try to pull Apple into the dialog) as well as document standards (OpenOffice).
5) Work on Exchange Server interoperability with Linux\Mac and definitely work on Outlook\Entourage .ost/.pst portability. I had to help a guy move from Outlook to Entourage once. He had a new job that forced him to use Mac. It was one of the worst IT experiences of my life.
6) DX10. Produce a spec we can use or try to collaborate at least somewhat with groups that will be trying to create compatibility layers for it (Transgaming's Cedega, WINE, The Alky Project?). Or just make it an Open API. Just help us with the reverse engineering load.
7) Keep trying to engender the trust of the open source community/CONSUMER BASE and making us believe you're not assholes just out to take all our money regardless of how much benefit we receive for your "products". It'll be hard work but it's good that you're trying. Keep in mind that many of us were your consumers at some point and didn't realize\think you were assholes until we had experienced something better and felt cheated by money-grubbing thieves. Admittedly, that transition process is slower than I make it sound and XP itself is quite good. Good enough that I could go on using it for ten years without significant complaint probably. Vista feels like an open attempt at theft though.
8) Good luck.

Sincerely,
Brit

"They include open source code in their products.

Have you forgotten the first TCP/IP implementation in Windows?"

They only like this because they were allowed to close the source, and not release any changes they made. This would be stealing if the BSD license
weren't so theft friendly.

"They support open source vendors.

MySQL, SugarCRM, Jboss, and many other open source development efforts benefit from Microsoft’s support through programs created to test and verify open
source applications on Microsoft platforms."

Only because they have to. Do you really think MySQL (or Postgres, or Oracle, for that matter) would exist if Microsoft could do away with them? They have
finally been forced to realize that free(libre) software ain't going away so they have to support it on their OS. This does not mean they are friendly
towards it. Witness their actions after the Novell-Microsoft agreement was signed: More FUD, trying to ruin people's faith in free software.

"They benefit from open source everyday.

Two words: free press."

Any press is good press, eh? It's doubtful that this actually helps their reputation. It's just that they are too big to care. For now.

"They open source code.

No, not shared source. I’m referring to Microsoft’s Unix tools for Windows; they provide the source code to most of these tools. Sure, we all wish they
would do more, but we should acknowledge what they’ve done to date."

Agreed. Acknowledged. And yet they find themselves back in court in the EU for charging too much for protocols to allow interoperability. They are still
acting like a monopoly. I haven't used Microsoft for about ten years now, so I may be wrong here, but couldn't the opening of unix tools be an attempt to
undermine cygwin? Are they functionally the same?

"They are adopting open source culture.

The Mix conference is billed as a 72 hour conversation. Remind anyone of BarCamp? There are other examples: the Microsoft Community Blogs, Channel 9, CodePlex, etc. They’re embracing openness."

Don't know enough here to respond, but my guess is this is more hype than real openness.

"They aren’t threatened by open source.
Microsoft doesn’t fear open source; it fears what the competition can do with it."

This is almost a non sequitur. I don't fear my neighbor's gun. I fear what he can do with it. If there's no open source, then there's no reason for fear.

"They realize open source is their future."

But they would really rather it not be. They are being forced to come to terms with the free software community, and are doing so only grudgingly. They would much rather control the future of software, rather than being dragged kicking and screaming.

"Linux is causing issues for them in the market, and they’re working hard to keep up. They didn’t build their empire by not planning ahead."

If they had planned ahead, they wouldn't have to keep up.

Technically, there is no other good choice than open source.
MS should open 90% of the source, make it free for users, and not free for business use.
They would greatly benefit from it.

All this hooey about Microsoft opening up this or that (Trident, NTFS, etc.)....

Those of us old enough to remember late-'80s/early-'90s, as the "other" Evil Empire, the Soviet Union, was breaking up and we in the West finally got a good, clear, relatively propaganda-free look at How Things Had Worked, especially in the areas that had been guarded most closely on both side...

...and found that the kindest thing you could say about them was that they were "a steaming load of crap". Missiles that were more likely to blow up in their silos than deliver serious hurt to the Other Side. Hell, silos that didn't even have missiles in them, only piles of rusted-out, scavenged junk that once may have been missiles. Nuclear reactor monitoring systems that gave farcically inaccurate readings, so "mistakes" were rampant. Food-safety and sanitation problems that went way beyond anything from the (19th-century) Gilded Age.

On "our" side, an American Senator in the 1970s once said about classified Government information: "There's two reasons why our Government classifies information. Sometimes, accidentally, it's done to information that would actually be more useful to an enemy than to the average citizen. More often, and more importantly, it's used to cover up screwups by the bureaucracy, the military, or contractors that would be politically inconvenient were the average citizen to find out". Things haven't changed much in 30 years.

How does all this apply to the *software* Empire? Think about a certain vendor's "Code Complete" development mantra as opposed to everything we've learned over the last sixty years about how to develop quality software; contrast with the comparison of the Great Leap Forward to everything that was known, then or now, about large-scale economic development. Then realise that some of the most widely-used software applications in history were built using that equivalent of Maoist dogma. Would any sane company, in this era of predatory lawyers and shareholder lawsuits, want to let the whole world see how dirty (in terms of both quality and origination) their dirty laundry was? I think not...

It's a few months old, but I suggested the following in these two blog posts concerning SQL Server and MySQL, Sharepoint, Eclipse and VS, mono, and China:
http://stephesblog.blogs.com/my_weblog/2007/01/a_new_microsoft.html
http://stephesblog.blogs.com/my_weblog/2007/01/microsoft_and_m.html

Wish I was going to be there.
enjoy