[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: MS x Codigo Aberto ...


Primeiro agradeço ao Nivaldo por incluir mais uma notícia interessante a
esta lista.
O fato se resume ao medo da MS em frente aos programas open-source.

Abraços e agradecimentos,
Leonardo Custodio

----- Original Message -----
From: Nivaldo A. P. de Vasconcelos <nivaldo@brfree.com.br>
To: <debian-user-portuguese@lists.debian.org>
Sent: Saturday, May 12, 2001 1:27 PM
Subject: MS x Codigo Aberto ...

> Achei esta materia interessante ... saiu no "The Economist" ...  imagino
> que possa interessar também a mais gente na lista.
> Um abraço,
> Nivaldo
> BEWARE of open-source software, those nefarious free computer programs
> written online by groups of volunteers. The licence that comes with most
> of
> this code could turn a company's intellectual property into a public
> good.
> More important, it undermines the livelihood of commercial-software
> developers, putting a brake on innovation. This, in a nutshell, was the
> message that Craig Mundie, Microsoft's chief software strategist, tried
> to
> convey on May 3rd in a headline-making speech at New York University.
> Open-source disciples were quick to dismiss Mr Mundie's speech as just
> another example of Microsoft's trademark strategy: spreading fear,
> uncertainty and doubt to undermine rivals. To Mr Mundie, research and
> development seem to be driven mainly by intellectual-property rights,
> commented Linus Torvalds, the creator of Linux, a popular free operating
> system, "which is entirely ignoring the fact that pretty much all of
> modern
> science and technology is founded on very similar ideals to open
> source."
> Mr Mundie's message played cleverly to the prejudices that are still
> held
> by many corporate technology officers. Most open-source software is
> "viral"?the licence that comes with Linux, for instance, says all
> changes
> made to the program must be made freely available. But this does not
> mean
> that a company using Linux is forced to give away any application it
> writes
> for the operating system or, worse, its business processes. And while it
> is
> true that open-source software competes with commercial programs,
> open-source and similar online groups have been at least as innovative
> as
> software firms?creating, for example, most of the technology underlying
> the
> Internet.
> Yet Mr Mundie's speech and the reaction of the open-sourcers have some
> value, because the exchange has sharpened the debate within the software
> industry over the relative merits of two rival approaches. One way to
> write
> software, the proprietary approach, is best epitomised by Microsoft. The
> firm hires the most driven programmers, pays them a lot in share
> options,
> works them hard?and then sells the product in a form that customers can
> use, but not change (because it comes without the "source code", the set
> of
> computer instructions underlying a program). The other approach is open
> source. Motivated by fame not fortune, volunteers collectively work on
> the
> source code for a program, which is freely available. Most of these
> projects are overseen by a "benevolent dictator", such as Mr Torvalds.
> Although no panacea, open-source software has several advantages over
> proprietary programs, besides being free. Most important, it tends to be
> more robust and secure, because the source code can be scrutinised by
> anyone, which makes it more likely that programming errors and security
> holes will be found. In contrast, hardly a week passes without headlines
> about a new security hole in a Microsoft program. The day before Mr
> Mundie's speech, it was reported that a potentially serious security
> flaw
> had been found in one of Windows 2000's server programs.
> Open source is not so much the ideological cause of anti-Microsoft
> hackers
> as a profound effect of the Internet, which means that it is here to
> stay.
> The emergence of free, open-source alternatives to costly proprietary
> software will undoubtedly hurt Microsoft?hence Mr Mundie's speech. In a
> further swipe at open source, Microsoft this week launched a new range
> of
> server software that, it claimed, offers "superior value" to Linux, by
> providing "clarity of intellectual ownership" and "predictability of the
> development process". In other words, says Microsoft, proprietary
> software
> is best because there is no doubt which company owns and maintains
> it?and,
> of course, charges for it.
> At the same time, Microsoft is also deploying another of its favoured
> strategies, called "embrace and extend". It now grants its largest
> customers access to the source code of Windows 2000, on condition that
> they
> do not modify the program or reuse the code. Microsoft thus wants to
> harness what it considers to be the benefits of open source, such as
> improved debugging. Mr Mundie said this "balanced" approach would
> maintain
> "the intellectual property needed to support a strong software
> business".
> To advocates of the open-source approach, this looks very much like
> one-way
> sharing. Customers can look at the source code of Windows, tell
> Microsoft
> about bugs and suggest improvements, thus saving the firm a lot of
> money?but they still have to pay for the next version.
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-portuguese-request@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact

Reply to: