[CBLX] Microsoft and free software? I don't think so...

[Aldo]

Intéressant...

URL: http://www.freesoftwaremagazine.com/community_posts/microsoft_and_free_software

L'article pose la question: un jour Microsoft aura-t-il l'esprit
suffisament "ouvert" que pour sortir Window$ en tant que logiciel libre? 

   Microsoft turn to free software? That'll be the day. Some have
   suggested that Microsoft might embrace free software and thus resolve
   the present conflict. That actually would be a terrific strategy for
   them, but I don't think that Microsoft is smart enough to do it.

Habits of the juggernauts

   Corporations are creatures of habit. They aren't human beings,
   something that we need to be reminded of constantly; as humans we have
   evolved to deal with humans, and so we anthropomorphize everything.
   But while a corporation has some of the rudimentary characteristics of
   a person, it isn't a person.

                    Corporations are creatures of habit

   In fact, if you were to put the characteristics of a corporation into
   an individual being, you'd wind up with a [29]Stsho (a fictional being
   from C.J. Cherryh's Chanur series, which I suspect was inspired by
   this very idea). For those who haven't read it, the point is: "alien"
   and "exasperating".

   But in any case, corporations don't change their "minds" as easily as
   humans do, or at least not in the same ways. They're likely to change
   markets or products, but to fundamentally change strategy is very
   difficult for them.

   That's because corporations are actually made up of lots of minds, and
   changing strategy means changing a lot of people's behavior and
   fundamental beliefs (which, as you no doubt know, is Hard, with a
   capital "H"). Changing products or markets is as simple as opening a
   new division and hiring new people--something a human would find hard,
   but a corporation can do at the drop of a hat.

   So, I'd suspect it's much more likely that Microsoft will shift
   sideways, perhaps into its media interests or some other prospect,
   rather than try to change "its ways".

The plight of the pacesetter

   Of course, Windows may eventually become free software. The optimum
   time to do it, though, is right before [30]ReactOS manages to produce
   a fully working clone.

   I've seen this pattern happen several times with software packages.
   Somebody has a non-free package that is well-liked, but it's non-free,
   so free software developers put enormous time and effort into
   "reinventing the wheel" (the enormous waste cost of our present IP
   regime), in order to liberate that particular piece of functionality.

   As long as there is no free software alternative, the proprietary
   company can continue to milk the marketplace, so they never choose to
   free license.

     As long as there is no free software alternative, the proprietary
                company can continue to milk the marketplace

   But of course, as soon as blood, sweat, and tears have been shed by
   free developers to re-create all of that function from scratch, the
   market value of the proprietary product plummets, and the only way to
   recover the income is to put a free-license on the proprietary
   product.

   The proprietary company then gets enormous kudos for "magnanimously"
   freeing its product as a "gift" to the community, and comes out
   smelling like roses, even though their behavior was actually a lot
   more like the stuff you grow the roses in.

   Of course, that sidelines the free project; making all of its effort
   "wasted", in the sense of "unused". Although we might rationally say
   that it wasn't a waste, it must really feel like it was to the people
   who put in all that work.

   Worse, of course, this is no doubt appreciated by many would-be
   software category liberators before they manage to create a good
   enough "pacesetter" product to force the proprietary competitor to
   turn to a free software strategy. Which of course, leads to an
   extension in how long the proprietary product maintains its
   stranglehold on the marketplace.

    ReactOS is still an "alpha", after more than 10 years of development

   [31]ReactOS, after all, is still an "alpha", after more than 10 years
   of development. And even if they completely succeeded, many people
   would run the product down as a "knock-off", completely missing the
   real value of such a project. It must be hard.

Windows, or something like it

   I suspect that in this way, we'll eventually see Windows (or something
   like it) become available under a free license. If Microsoft wanted to
   really buy its way into community acceptance, it could do it pretty
   cheaply by donating the entire Vista codebase to the [32]ReactOS
   project.

   That would alleviate the bad-blood I mentioned in the previous section
   (because the interloper would become part of the pacesetter rather
   than competing with it--properly crediting the people behind it for
   their effort).

   It would also relieve Microsoft of the burden of support a product
   which is rapidly becoming irrelevant. Not a lot of people are
   switching from earlier Windows to GNU/Linux, but not a lot of people
   are switching to [33]Vista either. And while that means Windows still
   has a lion-size mindshare, its marketshare is not living up to its own
   expectations.

   Strategically, Microsoft should release Windows code under a free
   license only when it is absolutely irrelevant to its future business
   plans. But it is possible that that time is now.

   Even without it, though, since the Windows OS is stagnating, with few
   people wanting to "upgrade" to [34]Vista, that means a lot of software
   will probably continue to be written for earlier versions. And that
   makes good emulation a no-longer-moving target for [35]ReactOS, which
   increases the chance of them catching up.

   And even if, by some miracle, Microsoft manages to get users to switch
   to Vista, selling the next upgrade is going to be that much harder.
   And Microsoft has already hit the point of diminishing returns within
   the proprietary development model (which is why Vista was way overdue
   and buggy). Not to mention that even relatively clueless end users are
   starting to pick up on the fact that, marketing hype aside, each
   generation of Windows is designed to restrict their freedom more and
   more.

Kicking and screaming

   On the other hand, I'm not so sure that Microsoft will take the
   strategically optimal route. They've gotten awfully accustomed to
   blaming their customers and would-be customers for their own failings,
   and have increasingly turned to legal and political maneuvering as a
   way to stay in business. But those are desperation measures:
   continuing on that path will drive them into the ground.

Parent post

   [*]Why Microsoft should not lose (and free software will still win)
   http://www.freesoftwaremagazine.com/columns/why_microsoft_should_not_lose_and_free_software_will_still_win

Ald0