Business and enterprise software, and other applications that help a business run

We have been discussing Open Source (Overview, How It Works (2)) lately. We would therefore be remiss if we did not report that there has been news, over the last week or so, mentioning Microsoft in the same breath as Open Source. Before you begin to wonder about your sanity, or about radical changes at the Redmond software giant, we should consider the reasons for and boundaries of this shift.

Microsoft has been in hot water worldwide for its monopolistic business practices. Although is has been able to lobby its way out of penalties in the US, the European Union has proved much harder for Microsoft to buffalo. It seems to me that this latest announcement of policy about “open Source” and “code sharing” is little more than an attempt to forestall the major penalties being considered by the European Union against the software maker.

A little history might be in order. Like the secretive battering ram of IBM before it, Microsoft has  operated for its entire corporate life under the guiding principle of closed source. That is, of course, one way of doing it, though it is the old-fashioned way and a method which more and more leads companies into courtrooms worldwide, including those of public opinion. Except where they could liberally sprinkle lobbying money (the US), Microsoft has been losing many of these battles. On top of the problems associated with having released Vista, The Worst Operating System In The Universe (TWOSITU), these closed source battles are causing issues.

What Microsoft actually said, after the logical elimination of spin, in its recent announcement was that it would try very hard to be more transparent and to increase interoperability. In response, the European Commission said, “"This announcement does not relate to the question of whether or not Microsoft has been complying with EU antitrust rules in this area in the past.”

Similarly, and more straightforwardly, the European Commission for Interoperable Systems said, “"The proof of this pudding will be in the eating. The world needs a permanent change in Microsoft's behavior, not just another announcement. We have heard high-profile commitments from Microsoft a half-dozen times over the past two years, but have yet to see any lasting change in Microsoft's behavior in the marketplace.” I concur wholeheartedly.

The closed source software business model (see Proprietary Software and Open vs. Closed Source) has been compared (by me at least) as being to Open Source what Mussolini was to Italian Democracy. If “guilty” is the appropriate word, then at least two of America’s major computer industry giants (Microsoft and Apple) are guilty of operating in a manner that protects and benefits primarily themselves. That is, of course, one way of doing business.

In a world of $3 – 6 gasoline and products notable more for their hype than their usefulness, software consumers are trying to draw a line in the sand from which silicon is made. Open Source (6), I believe, is the wave of the future in software. It is the only way in which we can realize the true potential of computers in society. In fact, Open Source would make a marvelous model for business and government, as well. Perhaps the only way to combat corporate and governmental greed and insensitivity is to live in an Open Source society.

In an end which may not be far away, it may be that the world was willing to accept Microsoft’s monopolistic, closed source behavior as long as the company produced good software. They have long since stopped doing that. Microsoft, now being attacked on all sides as nothing more than a closed source producer of overrated bloatware, may finally have overstepped its bounds and, in the process, written its own epitaph.