Microsoft's Savvy Open Source Move

Repeat after me: Microsoft (MSFT) Windows is wildly popular for running open source applications.

Skeptics may not believe that statement, but it's true. Whether its the Firefox Web browser or the latest open source server application, chances are there's a very popular version for Windows.

And Microsoft wants to keep it that way. In fact, a small but strategic Silicon Valley company is helping Microsoft to certify open source applications for Windows Server 2008.

It’s a super-smart move by Microsoft, I believe, since the software giant needs Windows Server to continue to compete effectively against Linux servers.

First, let’s be clear: Despite growing Linux deployments, Windows Server remains quite popular for running open source applications. SugarCRM, the fast-growing open source application provider, is quick to note that many of its business developments occur on Windows Server. And Microsoft itself has sponsored SugarCRM’s conferences, in order to stay in front of open source crowds.

But Microsoft isn’t stopping there. The company is working with SpikeSource to ensure open source applications work with Windows Server 2008. SpikeSource has so far certified five PHP applications for Microsoft’s new server operating system, according to SpikeSource’s Web site.

I first heard about SpikeSource in November 2006, and I have watched the company a bit since that time. SpikeSource specializes in certified open source server stacks. Or, in everyday terms, SpikeSource makes sure open source applications work together -- as advertised.

SpikeSource also has a relationship with Intel (INTC), according to the chip giant’s corporate blog, and Intel apparently is pumping $10 million fresh dollars into SpikeSource.

At first glance, that’s ironic: "Wintel" working closely with an open source company? Intel has long supported open source companies, and Microsoft is learning to do the same — at least for selected, highly strategic engagements.

That’s certainly the case with Windows Server 2008, where Microsoft hopes Windows replaces Linux in the LAMP stack, according to All About Microsoft blogger Mary Jo Foley.

Companies like SpikeSource could help Microsoft in that effort.

Comments

[James Gerber]

Hi Joe,

I agree with your article. As a big open source lover, I use Windows XP as my main OS. For some reason, I just can't get into any of the many different Linux distros on a UI level. Microsoft and Windows, despite all of their faults, excel at the UI. However, I love OSS apps and for the most part, they work great on Windows. I think that most OSS apps should have a Windows installer for this very reason, because a lot of people use it as their OS and they will not achieve the same penetration if they don't. One of my clients announced recently that they had released a Windows installer, and downloads really spiked on SourceForge. It was pretty cool to see happen in real time. And in regards to Microsoft working more with OSS, I think that's a no-brainer and they would be foolish not to. I think they're doing that, as this announcement and last week's on their working with SourceSense on Apache POI show. They're slowly beginning to open up, but I'd like to see them open up even more. Imagine the possibilities.

[JoePanettieri]

Just to be clear: I'm not taking sides. I see value in Windows Server for some apps, Linux for others. But there are folks who draw the line and insist that Microsoft is all bad and Linux is all good. I don't see it that way.

At the end of the day, competition drives innovation forward, lowers prices and ensures customer choice.

[Marty Heyman]

Joe,

It is good that Microsoft recognizes that there are Open Source software products/projects that run on their platform and support further sales of their operating system. Bill Gates has long supported the developer community and has never really differentiated between those who chose this business model or that. To his/their credit, if you take the time and effort to run on Windows, they consider you a friend of Microsoft. And that's the best for all, IMHO.

It is important on another level (also for good reasons). If great software like Apache, MySQL, Python, OpenLDAP (plug for our project), etc. does not run on Windows, their competitive posture is weakened. No smart OS owner/vendor can afford for excellent Open Source software to continue to evolve but only on competitors' platforms. They are only demonstrating good business sense.

It is, however, amusing, to see Spikesource get the credit when the projects generally do all the work to port their code to Windows. Giving credit where due, Lucas Bergman maintained an OpenLDAP port to Windows for several years as a labor of love and recently Symas has picked up that responsibility. Not that Spikesource is doing anything bad, but I think you owe the project teams a little more love on this issue.

[Douglas W.Goodall]

If Microsoft wants to provide a platform for open sorce software to run on, I have some suggestions. Provide your best development tools for free to the world because they target Windows. I don't want to pay for Visual Studio any more. Treat developers like they are an ally, and not just another paying customer. Before Microsoft, vendors used to have developer clubs and used to treat ISV's well. The more ISVs, the more apps, the more solutions, the more sales. Let the software out of beta occasionally. Microsoft doesn't let devo tools out of beta until they are obsoleted by the next beta. That is depressing.

[RobertoGaloppini]

Hi Joel, I believe Marty is right saying that projects team deserve more attention. As a matter of fact OS projects are rarely involved in the press release game, clamAV or Drupal are probably an exception to this.

After my speech at the Open Source in Mobile conference I wrote a pretty long post about Microsoft's OS Strategy reporting also about SpikeSource's and Macadamian moves (the latter is about the Microsoft NXT ISV program for OS ISVs). Consulting to Microsoft last year I happened to help them to find open source partners, like Sourcesense with the Apache POI project mentioned by James, and I understood they are really deploying an OS strategy now.

[WesleyParish]

FWIW, Microsoft could significantly add to the trust required of those who invest their time and energy in their platform, by quitting their shenanigans.

Then they could add to that by releasing significant developer and platform tools - the Visual [Programming Language] Express comes to mind, as does older versions of their Windows OS - under an Open Source Initiative-approved license. The two Microsoft-branded OSI-approved licenses come to mind; regretfully not their names.

That's more than IBM does, and IBM is becoming a trusted member of the Free and Open Source communities. It seems Microsoft is trying out the asymptotic approach to the FOSS communities.

[User 173360]

"Microsoft hopes Windows replaces Linux in the LAMP stack"

So Microsoft wants to become the WIMP stack?

[User 173398]

Repeat after me: Open source software is technologically robust enough even to be wildly popular on Microsoft Windows.

[jricher]

I don't think this is a winning strategy for Microsoft. I say this even though I have 0 interest in having Microsoft win. The core problem with this approach is that it neglects an important fact: Linux gets the horrible evil nasty types of workloads that improve operating systems. H.A.? Been there. Routing? Been there. Performance Computing? Been there. Test boxes running loads too big for the hardware? Every Flipping Day... This exposes bugs, corner cases, and other "needs". What you get is an operating system that can do anything. Need to run a complete experimental TCP/IP stack in userland? OK. Need to bridge to ethernet segments over SSH? OK. Need to run a wireless card in monitor mode, with injection support for arbitrary frames? OK. Need a block device at the other end of an ethernet cable - with access to the raw blocks? OK.

Yes, you can do all these things on Windows, too... sort of. If your vendor helps enough. If you can get the right drivers. Operating syste,s are made by their workload, and Linux gets the worst - that's why it's getting so good.

[steveballmer]

We are not proud of this but it is indeed true!