Why Can't Microsoft Ship Open Source Software?(codinghorror.com)
codinghorror.com
Why Can't Microsoft Ship Open Source Software?
http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/001144.html
5 comments
> So if you think Microsoft's particular flavor of source control is redundant, you'll really hate Diet Cherry Chocolate Dr. Pepper.
ugh i hate analogies. Ryan's main point --which this article didn't address (he talks shipping)-- was that software builds (should build) on previous software. Can dr pepper do that? This analogy is supposed to say there are subtle differences between the products, but that's irrelevant to the original point.
>
>There's simply no reason for MSTest to exist except to satisfy some bizarre corporate directive that Microsoft never ship open source code in their products.
Both you authors could do with an econ class. MS spends tons of money to reinvent subversion because they want to lock you in, thus getting more money to spend reinventing something else to lock you in. This has worked for them so far & it will continue to work in the foreseeable future.
ugh i hate analogies. Ryan's main point --which this article didn't address (he talks shipping)-- was that software builds (should build) on previous software. Can dr pepper do that? This analogy is supposed to say there are subtle differences between the products, but that's irrelevant to the original point.
>
>There's simply no reason for MSTest to exist except to satisfy some bizarre corporate directive that Microsoft never ship open source code in their products.
Both you authors could do with an econ class. MS spends tons of money to reinvent subversion because they want to lock you in, thus getting more money to spend reinventing something else to lock you in. This has worked for them so far & it will continue to work in the foreseeable future.
Umm, this is a simple answer - they had $51 billion in sales last year and is a publicly traded company.
They have to realistically do whatever is best to protect the interests of their shareholders and as long as their current business model works, I'm sure they're not really going to change it drastically.
Thats the sad reality of it all.
They have to realistically do whatever is best to protect the interests of their shareholders and as long as their current business model works, I'm sure they're not really going to change it drastically.
Thats the sad reality of it all.
they have to realistically do whatever is best to protect the interests of their shareholders
I took the article as suggesting that NIH is not in the best interests of their shareholders, as things like MSTest simply frustrate their users.
The debate about whether NIH is good or bad for MSFT is interesting.
I took the article as suggesting that NIH is not in the best interests of their shareholders, as things like MSTest simply frustrate their users.
The debate about whether NIH is good or bad for MSFT is interesting.
In Asia, M$ has a real strong support because people think that Linux and other free OSes are for geeks only. And they won't when everyone here thinks that M$ is the `standard' and won't mind locking themselves in it.
And if the clone is worse? Doesn't really matter. Some people will still use it, version 3.0 may be "good enough", and Microsoft will have a new technology to market. Having new products is a goal by itself - the .Net magazines need fresh content to keep their audience captivated. Even vaporware can be very valuable. Microsoft wins again.
Conclusion: cloning popular products is good business for MS.