Open Community and Closed Source Vendors

InfoWorld blogger Sean McCown at Database Underground wrote about a key difference between SQL Server & Oracle:

“The answer is simple… information. MS has built such a strong community and its members are committed to helping each other. There are so many forums out there you just don’t have time to go to them all. And one of the most amazing things I’ve found is that the MSDN forums are actually sharked by MS’s own PSS and dev teams. You just can’t get any better than that. You’ve got both the guys on the support team, and the guys who actually write the code helping you with your problem. You’ve got MVPs out there writing new and exciting books like crazy. They’re really giving up all the secrets on how SQL works, and what you can do with it.

Oracle is still living in the old days where everything is a good ole boys club. This is the world of linux and unix where they started, and it’s a dinosaur, man. You just can’t afford to do business like that anymore. You have to open up your community and start programs to encourage your best people to help and teach.”

Sean’s description of the community around SQL Server and the level of Microsoft employee interaction in the community should sound similar to the community around MySQL. It’s not exactly the same, but similar. I’d like to believe that MSDN became what it is today because Microsoft learned about the importance of community from OSS vendors. However, when something is a good idea, it’s not uncommon for several people/companies to have the same “good idea”.

Stating that Community matters today is as insightful as saying air matters to humans. Yet, it appears the folks at Oracle could learn a thing or two about Community from Microsoft. And they could both learn a thing or two from OSS vendors.

 

Microsoft at EclipseCON

Sam Ramji was the keynote this morning. Taking the cue from yesterday’s keynote, Fake Steve Jobs, Sam announced that Microsoft was acquiring the Eclipse Foundation. This was obviously a joke! Sam went on to explain the work that his team has been doing around OSS. You can read the highlights on Sam’s blog entry here. I’ll mention three things that stood out for me.

First, Sam plainly stated that a few years ago you could accuse Microsoft of “missing the OSS boat”. But since 2005, the Open Source Software Lab at Microsoft has been helping the rest of Microsoft realize the importance of OSS. According to Sam, it hasn’t been easy, they could do more, and the job is nowhere close to being done. They’re just 3 years into a 10 year journey in reorienting Microsoft’s internal and external views on OSS.

Second, the majority of folks in the room (>1,000 people?) didn’t know much about Microsoft’s work with OSS. Now let’s be fair, Microsoft hasn’t done as much for/with OSS as other large software/IT vendors (IBM, HP, Intel, Red Hat, Oracle, Sun, etc). But for so many OSS proponents in the room to not know that, for example, Microsoft had 2 OSI approved licenses was somewhat surprising to me. I believe that the OSS community is doing itself a disservice if we actively choose to ignore what Microsoft is doing, because, well, they’re Microsoft. Let me be clear. Microsoft doesn’t love OSS. But don’t let that trick you into thinking that Microsoft won’t figure out how to leverage the momentum of OSS to continue its own revenue growth. (Let’s be honest, you could insert any successful software company’s name for “Microsoft” in the above two sentences.)

Third, Sam was asked the size of his budget for the Open Source Software Lab (considering that Microsoft’s revenue $50B). Sam explained that the budget was ~$5M, but that his group could influence the work of other teams at Microsoft. For example, the folks at Mozilla contacted Sam’s team to ask why the Windows Media Player 11 (WMP) user experience in Firefox on Vista sucked vs. WMP in IE on Vista. Sam’s team reached out to the WMP team and put them in contact with the Mozilla guys. The WMP team addressed the issue and it didn’t cost the Microsoft OSS Lab a dime. Sam made another key point about the lab’s budget. The only way that the lab’s budget is going to increase is if developers, partners and users tell Microsoft that the work that his lab is doing is valuable. So, in a way, if you want Microsoft to do more with OSS, it’s up to you to pat them on the back for the steps they’re taking. ;-)

It’ll be interesting to see what Microsoft does next with OSS. Rest assured they’re not ignoring OSS anymore….which is exciting and scary at the same time if you’re an OSS proponent.

 

Reply to My Microsoft Freetard post

Apologies for not writing this earlier, but I’ve just had a horrible few weeks of school & work, with a week of 14hr days in a classroom to boot.

I wanted to follow up on the post because most of the comments I received were of the “you’re crazy, Microsoft sucks, you suck” fashion.

Well, I have been known to be wrong, and sometimes my ideas have been crazy, and Microsoft has been known to suck. But, does any of this change what we’re seeing in the market?

According to IDC data from Dec. 2007:

• The Linux OS market growth rate is slowing from ~22% in 2007 to ~16% in 2011
• The Windows OS market growth rate is slowing from ~11% in 2007 to ~9% in 2011
• The Unix OS market growth rate is slowing from ~ NEGATIVE 7% in 2007 to ~ NEGATIVE 6% in 2011
• The 2006-2011 CAGRs for Linux, Windows and UNIX are 20%, -5% and 9% respectively
• IDC expects the Linux OS market to be worth $0.967B by 2011, compared to $22.7B for Windows and $1.9B for UNIX
• From 2006 to 2011, Linux, Windows and UNIX operating system revenue will grow by $0.57B, $7.7B and -$0.51B respectively (note how the Linux & UNIX revenue shift balance each other out)
• If the Windows OS market grew to 2011 and then remained flat (i.e. 0% growth), it would take Linux until 2029 to grow to the size of the Windows market. Lots of things can happen in the next 20+ years.

Now I know that OSS is larger than Linux OS. However, we simply have the most revenue data on the Linux OS market, which is why I use it in this post.

Roy S., I don’t want you or any of our readers to leave. Let me ask you what value you get out of this or any other blog if all you read is what you believe to be true? I have never said I am always right. I am willing to learn and change any of my views. I’ve always believed that the way to deal with adversity is to be honest with yourself about the situation. I don’t think that the OSS community is being honest with itself. (This is a personal view, and I am willing to be convinced otherwise).

It gives me no joy to be (one of) the messengers behind the news that OSS is great, but it’s not going to kill Microsoft or other large commercial software vendors. I know this is at odds with the often repeated view that OSS is the only path forward. There is simply no data that supports this claim. Yet, OSS luminaries are lauded for repeating this claim.

Just imagine if we agreed that OSS isn’t the spark that destroys and re-casts the software landscape as we know it. Would this change how OSS vendors look at their competitive differences, revenue goals and customers vs. users? I suspect yes. By simply repeating the claims that OSS will take over the world, are we doing anyone any good?

 

Microsoft will prevail in the face of Freetards

An aspect of the open source software nirvana has been the end of Microsoft’s dominance. Well, anyone who sees Linux, OpenOffice or another OSS project/product as the death nail in Microsoft’s coffin is not living in reality. It pains me to say this; it really does.

When you see Microsoft borrowing ideas from the OSS movement, it’s probably best stop smelling the roses and pay attention. For instance, Microsoft’s Sam Ramji has an interesting post on how OSS has influenced Windows Server 2008. Six areas Microsoft has learned from include:

• Modular architectures
• Programming language agnostic
• Feedback-driven development
• Built-for-purpose systems
• Sysadmins who write code
• Standards-based communication

Sam writes:

“Overall, we’ve learned and continue to learn from open source development principles. These are making their way into the mindset, development practices, and ultimately into the products we bring to market. As all of the different organizations in IT continue to evolve, we’ll learn from each others’ best practices and make increasingly better software. As in science, this incremental improvement will move all of us forward.”

InfoWorld’s product review of Windows Server 2008 scored it an 8.5/10 and described it as an essential upgrade:

“Microsoft’s slimmer and stronger server OS, bolstered by virtualization, networking, and security advances, is an upgrade that IT can’t refuse, a 200-pound gorilla that eats commercial Linux”

Throw eggs at me if you like. But this should scare any OSS proponent. It seems like the folks at Redmond have been busy while the OSS movement has been prematurely readying Microsoft’s eulogy.

I hope I’m wrong. But Microsoft simply appears to be meeting the challenge of OSS better than OSS appears to be meeting the challenge of displacing Microsoft.

PS: The term ‘Freetards’ is used with attribution to FSJ.

 

Is Microsoft using the “anti-lock-in” argument from OSS’s playbook?

I’m finally getting a chance to read up on the Microsoft interop news today. It really sucked to see the headlines all day, but not have a chance to read them until now.

While the words “open source” are mentioned in the announcement and on Bill Hiff’s post, this is really about open APIs, not open standards or open source. (Maybe ‘not’ is too harsh; maybe I should say ‘and significantly less about’).

Obviously Microsoft is opening up their APIs because it makes business sense. Google, Facebook, Amazon, etc. have already made the business case for open APIs to closed software. If you ask me, the interop announcement virtually eliminates (on paper) the argument that Microsoft will lock you and your data up. Hmm…have we seen this playbook before? Maybe from OSS vendors? “Use our product and you won’t get locked in. You have the source code so you can always go elsewhere if you’re not satisfied with us.” Understandably, Microsoft’s position isn’t as eloquent. However, it does counter a potential barrier to remaining a Microsoft customer. Let me be clear, I do not think Microsoft’s interop announcement actually protects against lock-in. It seems like Cote would agree:

“Overall, the thrust of the press release is that Microsoft is going to make the documentation and access to its software better (easier? Doubtful. See Joel’s piece), that is, more interoperable.”

But, it doesn’t matter what I (Joel or Cote) think. What matters is how Microsoft can market the anti-lock-in angle and how customers will respond.

I have never thought that OSS would be the end of Microsoft or the commercial software market. The fact that Microsoft is borrowing (in their own unique way) from the OSS playbook should scare OSS “freetards” straight.

 

Cobra, A new OSS Language for .NET

I read about a .Net-based open source language project named Cobra. What is Cobra? Chuck Esterbrook, the creator of Cobra, gave this presentation at Lang.NET. According to Chuck, the Cobra language takes the best of several languages and puts them in one place:

MOTIVATION: Productivity boosters are scattered across languages
- Clean syntax (Python, Ruby)
- Run-time performance (C#, C++)
- Static and dynamic typing (Objective-C, VB)
- Contracts (Eiffel, Spec#)
- Nil tracking (Spec#, iihtdioa.C#)
- Not mutually exclusive!

Cobra runs on .Net and Mono.

Call me old fashioned, but considering Chuck’s plan to open source the compiler (under the MIT license), why’d he go down the .NET path? So I asked him:

1] Why did you decide to build Cobra on top of .NET?

I made two attempts in private to build Cobra as a standalone language and gave up after a few months in each case. The amount of work
involved, which includes the creation of a standard library, is daunting and time consuming.

.NET was a multi-language design from the start including CodeDom support and multiple languages from Microsoft’s own people. When I saw how much leverage the Boo project was getting out of it, I decided to try again.

See also: http://cobra-language.com/docs/acknowledgements/

Now I’m excited about further developments like Silverlight and Pex. Interoperability and leverage is a good thing!

2] Do you think that OSS religious types will be anti-Cobra because it’s implemented on .NET?

I hope not. I do a lot of the development on Novell Mono, which is OSS. Cobra itself will be OSS this month. And there is a growing
number of OSS projects that run on .NET and Mono.

3] Any info on usage?

Just that I was in stealth mode until my presentation at Lang.NET in January. My focus right now is “release early, release often”.

4] Anything else you want to mention?

Cobra is self-hosted meaning that the compiler is implemented in Cobra. That was very important to me so that for the hours I spend maintaining the language, I’m using it. It also means I have to pay attention to performance. And of course, it’s the ultimate test case after I make a change (both last and biggest).

Good luck Chuck!

 

Microsoft to Yahoo: We have R&D synergies

You’ve all read about the proposed deal. The National Post has a copy of the letter that Ballmer et al sent to the Yahoo board. Here are two paragraphs I found interesting:

1] Ballmer reminds Yahoo that he/Microsoft was right all along (emphasis added)

“In February 2007, I received a letter from your Chairman indicating the view of the Yahoo! Board that “now is not the right time from the perspective of our shareholders to enter into discussions regarding an acquisition transaction.” According to that letter, the principal reason for this view was the Yahoo! Board’s confidence in the “potential upside” if management successfully executed on a reformulated strategy based on certain operational initiatives, such as Project Panama, and a significant organizational realignment. A year has gone by, and the competitive situation has not improved.“

2] Ballmer discuses 1 of 4 areas for synergies. Very cool/interesting that R&D made the list. It’ll be interesting to see what Microsoft does with Yahoo’s PHP investments. Because, at the end of the day, every time someone new uses PHP, a VB angel loses his/her wings. What will happen to Yahoo’s broader OSS use in running its business?:

“Expanded R&D capacity: The combined talent of our engineering resources can be focused on R&D priorities such as a single search index and single advertising platform. Together we can unleash new levels of innovation, delivering enhanced user experiences, breakthroughs in search, and new advertising platform capabilities. Many of these breakthroughs are a function of an engineering scale that today neither of our companies has on its own.”

 

Microsoft to Renault: It’s Tax Time!

InformationWeek is reporting a deal between French automaker Renault & Microsoft :

“Under the arrangement, Microsoft will provide Renault with 1,000 “certificates” for Novell’s SUSE Linux Enterprise server product. The deal also includes a controversial “IP assurance” provision under which Microsoft pledges not to sue customers who use Linux distributed by its partner Novell.”

I’ve asked this before, but why should a customer care about IP assurance? IP indemnification is a vendor issue, just like ensuring environmental rules or workplace safety regulations are being adhered to. It’s a disgrace that vendors have made indemnification a customer concern.

“Last year, Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer implied that users of Linux distributions from vendors other than those with which it has patent deals — the list also includes Xandros and Linspire — could be hearing from the company. “We’ve spent a lot of money licensing patents,” Ballmer said.”

For all the positive moves that Microsoft has made towards OSS, silly statements like this must drive Sam Ramji & team to pull out their hair.

You know, I’d actually love to see Microsoft sue a customer because of IP issues. Exactly how much would they sue for to offset the millions of dollars worth of negative publicity and brand destruction?

 

LoopFuse Launches & So Does Microsoft

Many of you likely missed Microsoft’s earnings announcement. Considering all the news about LoopFuse, “a JBoss Alumni-led startup” today, who could blame you?

Since Roy Russo (whose life goal appears to be making fun of Canadians and my business school education) and Matt Asay are involved, I had to blog this news. Also, one of the co-founders of Eloqua, the Toronto-based company that LoopFuse appears to be going up against, dated a friend of mine, so this competition is of even more interest.

InfoWorld writes:

“The product, called LoopFuse OneView, includes tools for e-mail marketing, Web analytics, managing campaigns and scoring and prioritizing leads, among other things. The new release, version 3.0, will add lead management and lead nurturing tools, a spokesman said. The software is released under the GNU General Public License.”

My favorite quote:

“While our proprietary competitors tread water, and ask you to empty your wallets for 8+ year-old brittle-ware, we’re busy innovating, innovating, and innovating, by applying open source principles and methodologies to every facet of our products and business,” LoopFuse said in its blog last year.”

Best of luck gents.

In related news (since I’m sure LoopFuse wants to grow into a Microsoft Killer one day…which software firm doesn’t?)….Microsoft just topped their quarterly revenue record by $2B.

“”Revenue of over $16 billion this quarter exceeds our previous record by $2 billion,” said Chris Liddell, chief financial officer at Microsoft. “We are extremely pleased by the broad based strength of our business performance and field execution. Throughout the first half of our fiscal year, all of our businesses met or beat our expectations.”"

Oracle, IBM and Microsoft all reported impressive software revenues lately. OSS vendor revenues have been going through the roof also. Strange eh? Well, not if you believe that OSS and Commercial software will (happily) co-exist and grow in conjunction, as I do.

 

Compete Solely on Price, No Thanks.

A while ago Roy Russo had made a comment to the effect: “OSS needs to stop competing on price”. Regardless what you read about him on the Interweb, I say, he’s a smart guy! ;-)

I’ve never really looked at the price of Windows vs. RHEL or Ubuntu. The simple answer is that CentOS/Fedora (near RHEL replacements) and Ubuntu are free without commercial support, so end of discussion.

But, if you want commercial support and consider a typical Windows replacement cycle (~5 years), it seems that Windows is actually cheaper than purchasing RHEL+support or support for Ubuntu.

I’m quite happy to see this. Price isn’t a long term differentiator. Easier to use, faster, more secure, more reliable, etc. can be long term differentiators….price, not so much.

Take a look:

Here’s what I did:

The current Vista Ultimate price is $399, the upgrade price is $199. I used $399 in year 1 and $199 in year 6. This assumes you buy Vista today, run it for 5 years and then upgrade to the next version of Windows in year 6. You can pay $59/incident for commercial support from Microsoft. I assumed one would need no more than 2 support calls a year (I haven’t ever called MSFT in 20+ years for support). BTW, apparently you get 2 installation related support incidents for free with a Windows license. {Update} Mr. Russo pointed out that I missed the cost of an Advanced Support Incident. If you assume that a customer has 2 of these in a 6 year term, and when they do, the incremental cost is only $200, then Windows is still cheaper by ~$30 (ignoring discounts, hardware costs, other software costs, etc).

The current Ubuntu support price from Canonical for 9×5 phone support is $250. I could have used $900 for the 24×7 support, but that seemed excessive.

The current RHEL “Workstation with Standard Subscription” price for 12×5 phone support is $299.

Note that Canonical and Red Hat offer unlimited incidents, while I only assumed 2 incidents per year with Microsoft. This may be a bad assumption. But seriously, I can’t remember anyone I know actually calling Microsoft for OS support.

This ‘analysis’ is not a statement about total cost of ownership. It’s just simple math, and I thought you may find it interesting. OSS doesn’t have to compete on price…let’s move past that myth.