March 26th, 2007
Who speaks for Microsoft on open source?
This is something of an open thread because I am genuinely confused on this important point. (Picture from Torahmitzion.)
Does Steve Ballmer speak for Microsoft on open source? He's the CEO, and he seems to think that open source does not exist, has no right to exist, and can be ground down with lawyers.
Or how about Brad Abrams, who was at AJAX Net last week claiming that Microsoft is a better open source citizen in the AJAX space than open source? Just look at this permissive license!
Is it Jason Matusow? His blog was considered the "go to" source for Microsoft's open source views a year ago.
Should we look to the Microsoft legal team, its executive ranks, or what about the geek standing in front of you on the trade show stand?
I suspect they all speak for Microsoft, and at the same time none do. Microsoft is a huge company, much like the IBM Bill Gates faced in the 1980s, and it seeks to use opacity to its advantage.
We once had IBM-ologists. Now we have Microsoft-ologists. In both cases these are people paid to know, or guess, what Microsoft "is really thinking" when if Microsoft itself knew one would think they would tell us.
I don't know why Ballmer feels that aping the IBM strategy of 20 years ago is going to win Microsoft the future. He might consider it didn't work out that well for IBM. Or for the guys inside the building above 20 years ago, which is called the Kremlin.
Dana Blankenhorn has been a business journalist for 30 years, a tech freelancer since 1983. You can follow Dana on Twitter. See his full profile and disclosure of his industry affiliations.
Subscribe to Linux and Open Source via Email alerts or RSS.
