Language Selection

English French German Italian Portuguese Spanish

Should Microsoft rollover and play dead to OpenOffice?

Filed under
Microsoft
OOo

OK all of you Microsoft haters, take your bloomers back down from being twisted around your necks. Microsoft put out a YouTube bashing a competitor and everyone is yelling that Microsoft went back on their word and they hate Open Source after all. Is Microsoft not allowed to compete against open source alternatives? Of course they are. In doing so it does not mean they hate open source.

My friend, fellow Open Source Net blogger and editor, Julie Bort started the drums ringing with her article bemoaning that Microsoft was trying "to scare users away from Open Office". She wants Microsoft to "snap out of it". But Julie's reaction is actually pale to some of the others around the web. Over on ZDNet the reaction is that Microsoft was just paying lip service to open source all this time and their true colors have come out once again.

The ZDNet article is particularly funny because he defends open source with much of the same old tired arguments that we have seen between Microsoft and the open source community in the past. In response to Microsoft's claim about lack of commercial support for OpenOffice, the ZDNet blogger responds:

rest here




Microsoft-phobic

networkworld.com: My fellow open source subnet blogger Joe Brockmeier came to the defense of OpenOffice pretty quickly after I wrote my previous post, that Microsoft has every right to compete against OpenOffice. Of course Joe is an old open source warrior. But like many warriors, Joe is busy fighting the the last war instead of the next one. Microsoft is not the enemy they should worry about. It is probably Google Office or some other cloud based office suite which will be the next competitor.

I read and re-read Joe's retort a few times. As near as I can tell, Joe's points seem to be:

rest here

problem is

Microsoft "competes" like politicians campaign.

instead of telling us what they are bringing to the table and how it is a good thing, they instead focus on trying to bring down the others in the race.

That's not competition, that's hiding how bad your "product" or service or agenda is behind trying to make someone or something else look worse.

It's deception and deflection.

not even close to actual "competition".

mudslinging is not competition.

And no, Microsoft is most certainly not the only company out there that mudslings instead of competes. It's pretty much the corporate defacto anymore.

sad sad sad.

"Advertising"

That of MS is not advertising. I've never seen Ford "advertising" by saying "Toyota sucks", they would probably be sued. MS is legalised mafia and we - as civilized citizens - have every right to despise them.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

More in Tux Machines

EMC to open-source ViPR - and lots of other stuff apparently

ViPR is software storage controller tech that separates the control and data planes of operation, enabling different data services to be layered onto a set of storage hardware products - such as EMC's own arrays, Vblocks, selected third-party arrays, JBODs and cloud storage. The data services are typically ways of accessing data, such as file services, The open source software will be called Project CoprHD* and be made available on GitHub for community development. It will include all the storage automation and control functionality and be supplied under the Mozilla Public License 2.0 (MPL 2.0). Public supporting partners for CoprHD are Intel, Verizon and SAP. Read more

Patent Pledges and Open Source Software Development

For all its benefits, one aspect of open source software does cause headaches: understanding the legal terms that control its development and use. For starters, scores of licenses have been created that the Open Source Initiative recognizes as meeting the definition of an “open source license.” While the percentage of these licenses that are in wide use is small, there are significant and important differences between many of these popular licenses. Moreover, determining what rights are granted in some cases requires referring to what the community thinks they mean (rather than their actual text), and in others by the context in which the license is used. Read more

Open Source History: Why Did Linux Succeed?

One of the most puzzling questions about the history of free and open source is this: Why did Linux succeed so spectacularly, whereas similar attempts to build a free or open source, Unix-like operating system kernel met with considerably less success? I don't know the answer to that question. But I have rounded up some theories, which I'd like to lay out here. Read more