I've noticed lately, that I've been commenting Brian Proffitt's posts a lot. Well, I do so because I think he's a great journalist and makes valid points in technology, as a contrast to many others who seem to be completely ignorant on the issues they write about.
This time Brian is trying to explain the Open Source strategy Microsoft has. Here's the main quote I think:
... if you use open source technology and contribute to it for others to use, you potentially could help make your competitors stronger. And if your failed marketing campaign just happens to send more business to our opponent... in this situation, that might not be a clear loss, because it could also change a government's perception of Redmond being unfair.....I mainly agree with this notion, but here's the catch: after the long war (in business perspective of course) Microsoft has on Open Source projects in general and Linux in particular, how much trust would potential clients put in this vendor? Isn't the success of the vendor depends on its actions? So in the nearest future, would potential customers be able to trust Microsoft with its own open source projects? Can they?
I will admit that this may be a reach. But I also think, with Microsoft's ongoing legal woes and the threat of the LAMP space forever closed to them using their traditional business practices, this whole notion of competing with open source on open source terms does not sound so far fetched.
Can a customer trust Microsoft embracing the enemy and building its own Microsoft AMP stack? That's another issue to think about.
Can Microsoft be open sourced?
