A look at Microsoft’s new Potemkin village.
A classy announcement
So, Microsoft whips up a Open Source “foundation” called CodePlex Foundation and Miguel de Icaza, Novell VP and Team Mono Head Man is on the interm Board of Directors.
Always a man of class and distinction, and sensitive to how this might appear, he takes this opportunity to graciously reflect on his time with the FSF:
I hope that I can last more on this foundation than I lasted at the FSF, where I was removed by RMS after refusing to be an active part of the campaign to rename Linux as GNU/Linux.
This is just another example of how so many involved in Novell / Mono / Moonlight feel it necessary to take shots at RMS and the FSF. It has become a sort of standard of behavior there.
Already the Foundation is hard at work … stacking the deck.
The CodePlex Foundation claims that it has “worked hard to see that the board has a community voice as well as a partner voice”. Let’s see how the board shapes up:
Sam Ramji (Microsoft) – Note his Microsoft affiliation is not listed on the page nor in the header of his bio.
Bill Staples (Microsoft)
Stephanie Davies Boesch (Microsoft)
Miguel de Icaza (Novell)
D. Britton Johnston (Microsoft)
Shaun Bruce Walker (DotNetNuke)
So, that’s 4 out of 6 being current Microsoft employees.
You have the same composition on the “Advisory Board”, with 6 of 12 being current Microsoft employees, and 3 of the remaining 6 being former Microsoft employees – . That’s 9 out of 12, then, current or former Microsoft employees on the “Advisory Board”.
It must have been real “hard work” indeed to fill 13 of 18 positions with your own people, Microsoft. Hard work stacking a deck, takes years of practice to make it look smooth and natural.
I’m sure it took some real arm-twisting to get Mr. de Icaza on board, too.
More hard work … spinning the issues.
Having sweated out a team whose integrity can not be questioned, the CodeFlex Foundation is able to seriously and directly address issues that matter to Open Source. Consider this important problem they identify:
We know that commercial software developers are under-represented on open source projects. We know that commercial software companies face very specific challenges in determining how to engage with open source communities. We know that there are misunderstandings on both sides.
“Misunderstandings on both sides”? Could that have anything at all to do with the decade of misinformation and FUD Microsoft has directly and indirectly funded, including the Best Buy disinformation campaign running at this very moment?
The chutzpah it must have taken for the author to actually type out that sentence, knowing full well that his own employer is the overwhelmingly largest single engine of misinformation, lies and destruction aimed at the Open Source community! You almost have to admire a man you can look you right in the eye and lie, knowing that you know that he knows that you know he is lying!
And there we have the fatal flaw of the CodePlex Foundation revealed: because it is a Microsoft mouthpiece, it can not speak directly and honestly about the single biggest challenge Free and Open Source Software faces - the aggressive hostility and lies spread about it by Microsoft.
Nothing we haven’t seen before
Before it changed its name to Altria, Phillip Morris ran “anti-smoking” campaigns in the US ostensibly aimed at stopping youth smoking, while at the same time issuing reports that early smoking deaths have “positive effects”, hiring underage girls overseas to pass out samples and so on.
Microsoft is doing the exact same thing here. Any and all such actions are simply a very small PR budget line item for Microsoft. They spend a relatively miniscule amount of money to be able to point at something like the CodePlex Foundation and say “Check out how new and shiney we are!”
The amazing thing is some people believe it! I guess some people fall for Nigerian scams, order Vigara from links in random email, and franticially dial 1-800 numbers during infomercials so they can get the deal that is ONLY AVAILABLE TO CALLERS IN THE NEXT 5 MINUTES!!!
You can fool anyone with enough effort, but it is much easier to fool people that want to be fooled.
This article was cross-posted at The-Source.com.
#1 by roy on September 11th, 2009
“Sam Ramji (Microsoft) – Note his Microsoft affiliation is not listed on the page nor in the header of his bio.”
From his bio:
“Sam Ramji is the Senior Director of Platform Strategy leading Microsoft’s platform strategy efforts across the company, including long–term strategic planning in the Windows Server and Tools organization.”
They couldn’t have been more clear about his relationship with Microsoft.
#2 by Jason on September 11th, 2009
1. Everyone else that is a current Microsoft employee has “Microsoft” listed directly under their name on the About page, except Mr. Ramji.
2. Everyone else that is a current Microsoft employee has “Microsoft” listed directly under their name on their bio entry on the Board of Directors page, except Mr. Ramji. (Which is why I said “header of his bio”).
Perhaps this is because Mr. Ramji is leaving Microsoft this month, or perhaps it is a simple oversight. It remains a fact, though, exactly as I pointed out.
They certainly could be more clear, because they are more clear for other people.
#3 by Richard on September 11th, 2009
I think you’re painting a good development in a bad light. The CodePlex site has existed for quite some time, and has hosted a number of open-source projects under a variety of licensing schemes. As any site grows, it needs more direction — and, instead of throwing a single Head Tyrant at it, a committee-based decision-making process might be the way to go.
On a personal note, Shaun Walker, Sam Ramji, and Miguel de Icaza are exactly the type of people that you want on such a board. Read up on their activities and motivations, you might be very surprised. I can’t speak for the others, but I know that those three would probably leave the committee if they ever saw themselves becoming rubber-stamps (a “Microsoft mouthpiece”, as you put it) for a corporate policy. This gives me great confidence.
On to RMS. The man is a loon (and I’m putting that mildly). For me, this is well-highlighted by this 2001 release announcement by Ulrich Drepper, a man for whom I have the utmost respect. Even Linus Torvalds refuses to go by his dictat and call it “GNU/Linux”! So Miguel finds himself in the distinguished company of people that I respect, and I see absolutely nothing wrong with him telling it how it is at the FSF. More power to him.
As for the statement — so what? CodePlex is not Microsoft, though many on the board have a Microsoft background. The issue they point to, and about which you are dismissive, is a very real one. I work in the corporate world. I know that there are still bricks-and-mortar companies that not only don’t participate in open-source software, but disallow it from their machines. And there are many companies that write useful code, and let it rot instead of releasing it to the world. This is a great shame, and if the CodePlex Foundation can help to change it, all the better.
The problem here isn’t that people will believe what CodePlex says. It’s that people are too cynical to even give them the chance or opportunity to be OK.
#4 by Jason on September 11th, 2009
Richard,
As always, thank you for your reasoned comments!
In the most generous terms possible, the problem here is that Microsoft dug a hole so deep, dark and dirty for themselves, by themselves, that people are extremely skeptical.
And rightfully so! This is not a fault of “people”. It is a fault of Microsoft.
This is one of my pet peeves on this issue: when people attempt to paint skepticism or distrust of Microsoft as a failing of some sort. Quite the contrary! I honestly think that blind trust or unquestioning acceptance of Microsoft is irrational and a failing!
#5 by Lex on September 12th, 2009
The whole “microsoft opening up to open source” things reminds me of this movie:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n3bI71P_8O8
“We come in peace”.
“Do not run! We are your friends!”
Yeah… right!
Pingback: Tony Manco (trmanco) 's status on Saturday, 12-Sep-09 14:38:36 UTC - Identi.ca
Pingback: Arun SAG (sagarun) 's status on Saturday, 12-Sep-09 15:48:49 UTC - Identi.ca
#6 by Bob Saget on September 14th, 2009
Ramji is leaving Microsoft, so he’s not listed as an employee – He was brought in, in the first place to direct Microsoft’s Open Source Software Lab).
But I get the feeling they could have had DRobbins on board, and you’d still moan about MS affiliation.
Could that have anything at all to do with the decade of misinformation and FUD Microsoft has directly and indirectly funded,
Could it have anything to do with FOSS constantly badgering Microsoft, constantly vilifying them, making the root of all evil and behind all conspiracy theories, or the relentless “FUD” campaigns directed by the FSF – defective by design, badvista and 7sins come to mind. How about the lunatics over at boycott novell?
They acknowledge that there’s been misunderstandings on both side, you’re just playing innocent and calling the kettle black.
feel it necessary to take shots at RMS and the FSF. It has become a sort of standard of behavior there.
He’s merely stating that RMS removed him from the FSF on the count of not participating in what is honestly, a trivial non-sequitur or a campaign.
Did RMS remove him or not? If he did, how is it taking a shot at RMS?
The best buy debacle is hilarious at best, ridiculous at worst. It’s marketing, clever marketing, at that. Pay attention to the very carefully chosen wording, nothing they say is false.
Shall we examine?
Camera, iPod and mp3 compatability
Mounting devices as block storage is one thing, actually supporting them fully including drivers from the manufacturer, support from the manufacturer for the platform, and support for the vendor’s management tool is another.
This point is, as presented, only false if you redefine “compatibility” as “can be made to work with”.
Printer and scanner compatibility
Again, compatibility in the form of vendor supplied driver and support is different than “can be made to work with”. I’ve also yet to find large-format printers, negative scanners, and four-colour-process printers that are linux compatible (hint: Linux has no Pantone support, the FCP printer is rendered useless).
Software compatibility.
This is only false if you take virtualization into account, or invoke wine (and pretend that it can run everything under sun, properly, which is a lie and you know it).
Does Linux support the myriad of commercial Windows software out there? I didn’t think so.
Windows Live Essentials
is not available for Linux. This is a fact. It would only be false if they expressly said that no similar programs are available either, which they did not.
The games your customers want to play
Aren’t available for Linux either – the example provided can be made to work, but see the first point.
Authorized support
This is also true, unless you’re going to buy a support contract from one of the commercial Linux vendors. Authorized support, is, however, included with the price of purchase for Windows.
Video chat on all major IM networks
Is that false? The only counterarguments I’ve seen involve Pidgin, which doesn’t yet have video support for all major IM networks
Linux does not support many common applications and online services
This is true – the key word is the inclusion of “common”, and none of the specific examples are available on Linux.
Ease of updates on linux is a myth
Every tried dist-upgrade over multiple releases? Every applied upgrades and have your /etc/ clobbered? Ever update only to leave your system in an un-bootable state? Ever have stuff that was previously working stop working after an update? Ever hear of this happening to anyone?
If you answered no to all of them, you’re being dishonest.
Linux is safer than Windows = myth
Notice that they’re not saying that Linux is less safe. notice how they aren’t using the word secure.
The truth is that both are susceptable to malware, virii and social engineering attacks. Both can be compromised to form zombie machines (read the news), users on both can be fished, etc.
Neither system is completely safe, and both are unsafe in the same ways – it’s pointless to argue that one is “more” or “less” safe than the other.
this is clever use of semantics, not an outright lie like propagating the myth that Linux is immune to malware, which so many in the community are guilty of.
<linux is eay to learn, etc etc
Nobody denies that Linux has a steeper learning curve, and take it into context, the fact that the major commercial applications aren’t supported despite consumers expecting them to, it’s a given that expectation will not be met.
Furthermore, this is targeted at Linux specifically, a competing product – not open source as a whole. There is a distinction, you know.
This is common accepted business/marketing practice.
the aggressive hostility and lies spread about it by Microsoft.
Pots and kettles.
#7 by Jason on September 14th, 2009
@Bob Saget,
I thank you for your comments, although I’m not sure why you bothered to spend so much time on the Best Buy stuff.
Everyone over the age of about 5 understands you can be decietful and unethical and still “technically” not “tell a lie”.
Lawyers and politicians are generally the standard bearers for this “I’m not touching you! I’m not touching you!” behavior, but I guess we can add marketers and apologists in the mix sometimes, too.
#8 by saulgoode on September 14th, 2009
I would assume that the FSF’s bylaws would require a vote of the directors/members to remove someone from the Board of Directors.
And one might also consider some of the other activities of Mr de Icaza at that time — circa February 2002 — when evaluating potential reasoning behind his removal.
He was the founder and CTO of the for-profit company Ximian company, which was handling development, and commercially marketing their own distribution of, GNOME. There were complaints at the time about Ximian not permitting outside access to their development source trees, instead periodically providing binary packages and releasing source tarballs. There were also complaints about a campaign which took place in 2001 where Ximian bought Google ads targeted specifically at people using KDE, QT, and Trolltech as search terms. These may not be horrendous or egregious, but there was some question as to a conflict of interest in having corporate officers serving on the FSF Board (all other Directors were academics except for rms, whom I’m not really sure how to categorize
).
Mr de Icaza was a rather enthusiastic participant in Tim O’Reilly’s OSCON and in the promotion of “open source”, as opposed to “free software”. Now the distinction between Free Software and Open Source Software may not be of interest to Mr de Icaza, but it IS something that lies at the heart of the Free Software Foundation’s philosophy; and it is entirely reasonable that someone sitting on their Board of Directors should support the ideals that are at the very core of the Foundation’s existence.
There was also the GNOME mailing list discussion over Mr de Icaza’s statements about “GNOME should be built on Mono” and the re-licensing of Mono classes under the X11 license (events to which Mr de Icaza provided the “long response” email), and while, again, this behavior isn’t necessarily going against the ideals of Free Software, it does not particularly promote the message for which the Foundation exists to promote.
Regardless of which side one wishes to consider more correct — Free Software or Open Source — it seems obvious to me that Mr de Icaza was ill-suited as a candidate for the FSF’s Board of Directors. Like it or not, the FSF’ raison d’etre is to aggressively promote software freedom — its officers should certainly be expected to support that agenda.
#9 by Lex on September 14th, 2009
@Bob Saget
You call Defective by design, BadVista and Windows 7sins a relentless FUD campaign?! When it’s neither relentless nor FUD…
They have very strong factual data and they do not make excuses on what is a careful wording and what is a lie, like you do.
Reading your comment, do honestly, really believe in it yourself? It sure does not look like it. I mean, you don’t seem like a mentally challenged person, it requires some level on intelligence to come up with these excuses. The mystery is why you think that everyone else is stupid enough to buy it.
#10 by Dan Serban on September 14th, 2009
The comments section of this blog used to be free of WinTrolls.
Oh well, things change… *sigh*
#11 by Jo Shields on September 14th, 2009
It used to be free of retards of both varieties. I wonder if Roy linking here has had an effect.
#12 by John Stamos on September 16th, 2009
You call Defective by design, BadVista and Windows 7sins a relentless FUD campaign?! When it’s neither relentless nor FUD…
Which begs for the question, why is it FUD when MS does it, but not when the FSF does it? Also, when there is campaign after campaign, it qualifies as relentless.
And since both sides are doing it, why is it not a “misunderstanding on both sides” It’s clear that the respective “non-FUD” is in response to the other side’s “non-FUD”.
Reading your comment, do honestly, really believe in it yourself?
I believe that the FSF is no better than anyone else in terms of double-talk and clever marketing. I also observe that they get a free pass that nobody else does.
Clever wording isn’t an excuse, it’s clever wording. There’s nothing dishonest about saying, for example, that platform A supports application Y, while platform B does not.
There were complaints at the time about Ximian not permitting outside access to their development source trees, instead periodically providing binary packages and releasing source tarballs
And yet, they weren’t doing anything wrong – Emacs and GCC used to employ the cathedral model as well.
his behavior isn’t necessarily going against the ideals of Free Software, it does not particularly promote the message for which the Foundation exists to promote.
Mono is free software. Gnome is free software. Building free software on top of free software doesn’t go against free software. Or is the issue that Mono is based on non-free tech, in which case, what about dotGNU?
its officers should certainly be expected to support that agenda.
Agreed, and as such Miguel was removed. That being said, how is stating that he was removed a shot against the FSF?
It’s a statement of fact, (and it happened 7 years ago, ffs). Is stating that RMS eats his own toe jam a shit against RMS as well (even though there is video evidence of it)?
And would it be construed as a shot against RMS if anyone but Miguel did it?
#13 by Jason on September 16th, 2009
It is a “shot” because it is not relevant. Because it is gratuitous, it is a “shot”.
Yes, that would be a “shit”, because again it would be gratuitous. If the topic under discussion was something like personal hygiene or something, then such references might be appropriate.
This is, in fact, the very definition of an ad hominem attack:
The “factual-ness” is not the only important factor. The relevancy is also important.
Yes. It would be as equally fallacious from any source.
The thing that bothers me about this particular aspect of your comments is that each in each of these points you are clearly and unambigiously wrong. For example, I think you are incorrect in drawing the equivalence between the FSF and Microsoft “campaigns”, but I am willling to accept that someone might argue that honestly, and I am willing to entertain the posibility they have a point.
I am not willing to accept that someone honestly thinks Miguel wasn’t taking a petty shot at the FSF/rms, that bringing up “toe jam” is not an ad hominem, and that “if someone else did it it would be alright”. (Well, actually I am willing to accept one other factor than dishonesty, but it’s not very flattering, either.)
#14 by saulgoode on September 17th, 2009
Yes, and I stated as such. (And to be fair, early Emacs/GCC development was basically limited to UUCPNET and e-mail — sometimes even sneakernet and snail-mail — to coordinate patches, which is not particularly conducive to ‘bazaar’ development).
GCC provides a particularly good example of “not doing anything wrong” being less desirable than “doing things right”. When the EGCS project forked from GCC over issues mainly attributed to bazaar- versus cathedral-style development, the FSF had no compunction in endorsing it over GCC (the two projects later merged back together).
Stating that he was removed may be “fact”, and thus not necessarily problematic; however, attributing that removal to a personal disagreement with Mr Stallman over usage of the term “GNU/Linux” seems, at minimum, a misdirection. Perhaps it wasn’t intended as “a shot” against Mr Stallman, but it does seem a careless, if not entirely disingenuous, misrepresentation of the “facts” involved.
#15 by Dave Coulier on September 17th, 2009
Yes, that would be a “shit”,
Oh yes, I’m liking the “gratuitous this and gratuitous that” and the pouncing on the typo. You knew very well what was meant, that wasn’t necessary.
Thank you for illustrating the point, though.
Not that I take these things as personal attacks, or over dramatize them (like, oh I dunno, going all “ZOMG SLAM!”).
Yes. It would be as equally fallacious from any source.
Good. That’s all I wanted to know. Thanks.
(though I am still perplexed at the FUD/non-FUD double standard, at least it doesn’t apply to everything).
I am not willing to accept that someone honestly thinks Miguel wasn’t taking a petty shot at the FSF/rms,
I think you’re over reacting, just a tad. But that is your prerogative. Weather or not you find it acceptable really isn’t my concern.
in each of these points you are clearly and unambigiously wrong. For example, I think you are incorrect
You thinking I’m incorrect, and drawing the comparison being “clearly and unambiguously wrong” are two entirely different things.
Perhaps it wasn’t intended as “a shot” against Mr Stallman, but it does seem a careless, if not entirely disingenuous, misrepresentation of the “facts” involved.
Honestly, It doesn’t look like it was intended to be a shot, or an insult or in any way malicious (I’ve seen Miguel get nasty (with just cause, mind you), and this isn’t it).
I think saying that Miguel “slammed” RMS here is an overreaction, and that’s all I was getting at. I appreciate your not acting all condescending like Jason there (it’s an observation, but you can take it as a personal insult if you’d like). A poke, maybe, since mentioning that we has in FSF at all was an aside that wasn’t necessary, anyone who cares already knows he was a member, and already knows that he isn’t anymore.
#16 by Jason on September 17th, 2009
@Dave Coulier,
Actually, I wasn’t pouncing on a typo, I wasn’t sure exactly what you meant there, so that’s why I quoted it.
I see how it could be taken as me jumping on a typo – but I hope you consider that playing grammar/typo nazi is not a debate tactic I have ever used.
I try very hard to argue without such childish actions, and although I do fail on occasion, I hope you will accept this was not on of them.
Thank you.
#17 by Candace Cameron Bure on September 18th, 2009
Fair enough.
My fault, I guess, people resort to it far too often, I should not have been so presumptuous.
(and I’m running out of Full House characters >_<)