Most days Matt Asay’s blind love for OSS makes me laugh. Today is no different.
In giving advice to Ballmer, Matt has the following particularly hilarious quotes:
“Ballmer lacks the imagination to conceive of a world where Microsoft could open source code and still make a lot of money (He’s apparently not heard of “Google”):”
Umm, just so we’re clear, we’re taking about the same Google that makes billions on its proprietary search & AdSense algorithms encoded in proprietary software? Just because Google decides to open source some ancillary pieces of their infrastructure and supports OSS projects that they consume in-house, means Google is a model for Microsoft?
“But at least he’s willing to work with those who do grok that the future of software business (meaning: money) is open source:”
Yep, the future, as in 1.3% of the software business in 2012. Matt, you know I love ya, but this is getting old. You say the future is OSS, and have absolutely no data to back it up. I don’t doubt that Alfresco is doing well. I don’t doubt that Red Hat is doing well. I do doubt that any OSS vendor, or the OSS vendor ecosystem as a whole will be able to grow to the size of a Microsoft, IBM or Oracle. And as a result, the future of the software business is in no shape or form wholly reliant on open source. Is OSS going to be a component of the market? Absolutely. But “a component” and “the only way forward” are two very different predictions.
With news that FSJ is shutting down shop, I wonder if I should start a Fake Matt Asay blog and make outlandish claims like: “Sources tell me that Red Hat in talks to buy Microsoft in 2012”, or, “OSS to help Sun drive $100 Billion in annual revenues by 2013”. Nah, someone wise once said: “There can be only one”. :-)