Good News All Abound

Yay!

OOXML has been formally appealed by South Africa, Brazil and India. Microsoft has announced that they will support ODF 1.1 in Office 2007. However, they will not even support OOXML until the next version of Office.

To keep up with the good news, Internet Explorer 8 will finally be standards compliant. As a web developer, this is such a relief! No more double standards for web pages.

Furthermore, thanks to the success of the Eee PC, Linux is becoming more and more ubiquitous. Desktop Linux is, in my (no so) humble opinion at a level that is above that of Windows and the Mac. Not only do you have choice, but if you compare the ease of use of Gnome or KDE, I think that Linux is a powerful contender. The only obstacle that remains is education. Windows users need to unlearn things like C:\ drives or the pain of running setup programs.

Finally, even Novell is reporting success in the Linux front. I took the plunge and installed Novell's openSUSE, and thus far I'm greatly enjoying it. As much as I like Ubuntu, I would hate for a single Linux distribution to become the 'defacto standard,' just like I would hate to see Gnome or KDE displace one or the other. Choice and competition are good.

I'm so excited to see real competition gearing up in the world of informatics. I'm afraid that the Microsoft monopoly has set us back a number of years from where we could be in terms of technology. For example, it if hadn't been for Internet Explorer slowing the adoption of standard HTML, then CSS, where would the web be now?

Oh well. That's water under the bridge. Now that we are freeing ourself from the Microsoft stranglehold, who know what real innovation we are going to see in the world of computing.

Microsoft Windows for (Nearly) Free?

This is a follow up to Microsoft Windows for Free?

Shortly after I wrote this entry, a couple of interesting events occurred. As I predicted, Microsoft went ahead to compete with Linux on ultramobile PCs (UMPC) like the Eee PC. They are now offering Windows XP Home for $32 US. It's not free, but it's getting close to cheap. Actually, it's not free in either sense of the word, since Microsoft dictates what it considers a UMPC. The maximum specs are: 1G of RAM, 80G of hard disk space, single-core processor running at 1Ghz, screen size of 10.2 inches and no touch screen capability. Anything higher than that requires the vendor to buy Windows XP at their regular price.

That's fair. It's their product, so they can choose how it's licensed. However, I fail to see how they plan to compete with Linux on this field with those restrictions. Furthermore, the $32 US is only for Windows. This means that if you want Word or Excel, be ready to fork out more money. I'd be surprise that Microsoft would allow the vendors to ship Windows with OpenOffice prepackaged. Have fun playing Minesweeper!

With Ubuntu, I have a full fledged desktop with my office suite. The full install that takes up less disk space than Windows — And the $32 stays in my pocket.

Another interesting event is the fact that One Laptop Per Child (OLPC) recently announced that they would support Windows XP on the XO laptop. What a shame. To me, that alienates the whole concept of the XO — learning. How can they learn in a closed, controlled and censored system that greatly limits their freedom. Some of those children who are growing up in a dictatorship are denied yet another freedom. That is a massive loss for them.

Those poor children are denied freedom in the world of computing to further entrench the monopoly of an American company. I cannot help but wonder what goes on in the mind of folks who are more concerned with buying yet another, bigger yacht on the back of those children.

I remember in the early days that OLPC decided that the XO should only use free software (as in free speech). Thus, both Windows and Mac OS X were refused early on. Steve Jobs, president of Apple, went as far as offering Mac OS X for free (as in beer) for the XO, but was denied, since he would not free (as in speech) the software.

In their 'philanthropic' move, Microsoft is charging about $3 for Windows XP. Of course, that does not include Office or anything like that. Just Windows (Yay! Minesweeper!). Furthermore, to allow the XO to dual boot between Windows and Linux, the machine will cost an additional $7 to make.

Since Microsoft is all about their image, I was surprised that they did not offer Windows for free as Steve Jobs did with Mac OS X. I mean, $3 per copy isn't going to register a blip on Microsoft's revenue radar. So, why?

The only thing I can see is anti-thrust. Microsoft is having enough problems with the EU and the Department of Justice, that they may be reticent to offer Windows for free out of fear that it will be perceived as an anti-competitive move.

Though I may be painting Microsoft as a nasty, greedy ogre, we have to remember that they cannot force people to buy their products. They are doing a fantastic job of both painting their software as the 'only' option and — more importantly — hiding the true monetary cost of buying (and using) Microsoft software.

As long as the average consumer remains ignorant of both of those aspects, they may never realize that there are alternatives — much less of the need for those alternatives.

Thank you Microsoft!

Microsoft is considered by many open source advocates to be the arch-enemy of Linux and free software. I think it's fair to say that Microsoft fears the success of Linux and the free/open source movement. They are doing their best to make compete. However, free software is not their traditional competitor.

Because GNU/Linux is free (as in speech), and is freely (speech & beer) available to anyone, they cannot buy it out and close it as they have done with some past competitor. Because free software is developed by a (tightly or loosely knit) community that may or may not receive corporate sponsorship, they cannot hinder the development. Because the software is free (as in beer), they cannot compete in terms of price. Even Internet Explorer is more expensive than Firefox. Though it may be a 'free' download, remember that you must buy Windows to have Internet Explorer. Thus, as part of what you pay in Windows, you also get Internet Explorer. In other words, Internet Explorer is just another (unfortunately inseparable) component of Windows — not a free download.

Finally, Microsoft cannot compete in terms of freedom. Their End User License Agreement (EULA) determines what you can and cannot do with their software. In the free software world, the license protect both your freedom to use the software, and the freedom of the software.

So, how is a multibillion dollar corporation to compete against the penguin and the likes? FUD is their answer. FUD stands for 'Fear, Uncertainties & Doubt'. Or, in Microsoftspeak, 'Get The Facts.'

In the hopes of driving people away from Linux and free software, Microsoft created a site called getthefacts.com. The site is a direct attack on free software. Though the so-called 'facts' presented by Microsoft are an assault on both intelligence and reason, I think that the biggest looser of the site is Microsoft and a major victory for Linux. For starters, I think that any reasonably intelligent person understand that asking a Honda salesperson what they think of the Ford Focus over the Civic will not get them an unbiased, objective answer. Why should it be any different with Microsoft?

What MSFT may not realize is by setting up getthefacts.com, they have provided immense exposure to GNU/Linux and the free software movement. The website presented free software as a true competitor and alternative to Microsoft products. Folks that had never heard of Linux before are now becoming aware of it thanks to Microsoft. Furthermore, IT directors who rely on Microsoft to keep them up to date with the industry are kindly informed of alternatives to Windows and Office.

For this, I say Thank You Microsoft. There is nothing like corporate backing to promote free software. After all, it's time that Microsoft catches up with the market, and joins the ranks of Novell, IBM, HP, Apple, etc who are all users and backer of free software.

Beware the Microsoft Poison Pill

As someone who uses mostly free and open source software, I can't help but be wary and cynical of Microsoft's position toward open standards.

If you are wondering why many of the members of the open source community feels that way, here are some facts:

Microsoft is well known for their Embrace, extend and extinguish (EEE) tactic. The moment a standard comes out that is supported by the industry, Microsoft launches their old tactic. They will 'adopt' the standard. Make changes to it that will only work with their software, ensuring that the standard becomes a Microsoft-only standard. Then, when the competition is mostly dead, they drop support for it.

Here are some notorious examples:

• Refusing to support CSS standard for nearly a decade to ensure that webpages had to be formatted specifically for Internet Explorer.
• Attempting to break Java's write-once-run-anywhere promise by adding Microsoft-only extensions.
• Support for Unix applications using POSIX
• Support for OpenGL to which Microsoft created a competing standard: Direct3D.

Each of the above technologies were once embraced by Microsoft, and most of them have been mostly abandoned. There are many more examples.

Another notorious tactic is to release multiplatform products to accelerate their acceptance as a 'standard,' then abandon support for those products. Examples include:

• Internet Explorer for the Mac and UNIX.
• Windows Media Player for the Mac
• 'Sponsoring' Silverlight on Linux through Moonlight.

In the words of PJ from Groklaw, 'People aren't as dumb as Microsoft needs them to be' and I'm very thankful for that. Sure, there are folks that are strong partisans of Microsoft, paid or not. However, I think that the majority of the world is starting to realize that Microsoft is not all the gold and glitter they pretend to be. The EEE tactic is starting to backfire at Microsoft. For example, Opera has recently filed a lawsuit against Microsoft. In their press release they make mention of the "Embrace, Extend and Extinguish" strategy by name.

But EEE is not the only tactic that Microsoft uses, especially recently. I may not be a fan of Microsoft, but I don't think they are stupid. They are not where they are today in the marketplace out of blind luck (neither are they where they are because of technical superiority). The other tactic used by Microsoft which infuriates me is their total refusal to embrace standards. Be careful, I'm talking about embracing, not extending. Microsoft has split the market countless times by creating their own proprietary standards.

Examples of established standards Microsoft is refusing to support are:

• ODF (Open Document Format)
• SVG (Scalable Vector Graphics), a W3C standard.
MathML

...and the list goes on.

Some may argue that to remain competitive, Microsoft should not have to adopt competing technologies, but that's a fallacy. For starters, many of these standards existed before Microsoft created their competitors. Also, if Microsoft is not required to support 'competing' standards, their competitors should not be required to support Microsoft's proprietary standards either. Hint hint: Mono & Moonlight.

The latest trumpet blow from Microsoft is Open. You've got the Office Open XML, the Open Specification Promise, Microsoft Open License, Microsoft Open Value and even (GASP!) the Open Source Heroes. Now, how many of these so-called open initiatives actually are compatible with the free/open source software philosophy? As usual, Microsoft dances around the real issue: GPL compatibility.

So, how is this new tactic different from EEE? It's not. And that what I want people to realize. Microsoft is in the stage of Embracing and Extending open source. They are attempting to create a powerful divide between the 'Microsoft Open Source' and real free software (à la GPL) so they can move in for the Extinguish stage. I cringe every time Microsoft uses the word 'open' just as I cringe when someone pronounces my first name like that of a popular denim wear. It's not right to my ear. It's an abuse of the language that I'm familiar with. Furthermore, unlike Alanis Morrisette's poetic use of the word ironic, Microsoft is purposely muddying the water of the language to spread a thin layer of FUD jam to conceal their poison pill.

So, next time Microsoft slaps together a marketspeak sentence with the word open strewn in, look up Embrace, extend and extinguish, and think twice before you hop on the bandwagon, because it is not going in your direction. The Microsoft Open Bandwagon^tm is headed in one direction only — towards 1 Microsoft Way, and the ride can be very bumpy.

If it breaks, who do I blame?

A question I get in almost every seminar I present on topics like open source or Linux is: if the product fails, who can I yell at?

In other words, they are looking for a massive, faceless corporation they can call to complain (and sue). In the open source/Linux world, who can you scream at?

I think it's a valid concern ranging from home users to operators managing the information technology infrastructure of million dollars businesses. But is free software really that much of a risk compared to proprietary software?

If you download and install any piece of software licensed with the GPL, you will notice that the license boldly states that the software comes with no warranty whatsoever. In other words, if it breaks, you have no one to sue. Should you go back to proprietary software then?

If a warranty and support is the only reason to use proprietary software, well, you're in for a nasty surprise.

Let's take a look at a couple of commercial licenses:

To paraphrase the Microsoft Windows Home edition EULA, you have no warranty. Should the software not meet your needs, you have 90 days to ask for a refund. Should it cause your computer to meltdown, your claim is 'limited to the greater of the actual damages you incur in reasonable reliance on the Software up to the amount actually paid by you for the Software or US$5.00.'

I would love to peak at the Microsoft Office 2007 License, but it's in an EXE file. Strange that you need Windows to be able to see a license. Oh well, if Microsoft wants to be incompatible with the rest of the world, that's their choice.

The Adobe Photoshop CS3 license is not much more promising. Again, you have 90 days to ask for a refund. After that, you're on your own.

I'm assuming that if you feel that running proprietary software is preferable over open source, then you probably pay for an anti-virus. Here's the McAfee EULA. Aside from the warranty lasting only 30 days, the rest sounds awfully familiar. I don't know about you, but after a while, all licenses starts to sound the same, don't you think?

Just for giggles, let's take a look at one more license from a company that 'thinks different.' Can you guess who? Here's a link to their licenses. Any surprises over here? Not in terms of warranty, but looking at section 2.B, there's a mention of open source software included with the product. So, it seems that some software vendors do take a byte out of the forbidden fruit called open source.

So, are you still convinced that proprietary software offers better protection? But what about service and support agreements, you say? Microsoft will happily lighten your wallet in exchange for a phone number that you can call if you're up the creek without a paddle.

Here's the kicker. If you are in a situation where support is a requirement, that is readily available to you. You need help with your Ubuntu setup, call Canonical. You heard that PHP is a great web development language but want support, call Zend. What's a website without a database in the back end. Let's install MySQL and call Sun Microsystems for a support agreement.

If this is too many companies, you could look at one-stop single-vendor support from shops like IBM, Sun or even Novell.

And hey, if you're looking for friendly, personable support in Ontario or Quebec, call Farstar Networking.

By considering free and open source software as an alternative, not only do you get the complete source code to your application (which you don't with Microsoft), you can also get support. The choice is yours.

I'm hoping that this is a bit of a wake up call. I've seen a number of article discussing the virtues of single-vendor or multiple vendor-solutions. However, it sometimes seems like Microsoft is the only single-vendor solution out there. They may also seem to be the only one who is on solid financial grounds. If that's your opinion, be aware that when you buy Windows of Office, you are subsidizing their Internet and game division, which is known for losing money.

It may be surprising to know that Microsoft is not the only company that is making a profit. Open source is a billion dollar market that Microsoft has not been able to tap. Others are already tapping it.

So, next time you have a need for a new server or home computer, before you hit your quick dial button to Microsoft Sales, how about you place a few calls around. You may be surprised as to how much you can save in the short and long term.

And you can still have someone to blame if it doesn't work. Except you get to keep the code. What more could you want?

Hold the Mono, please

Does Microsoft innovate? I think so, but not as much as people think. They are very good at taking existing ideas, and adapting them to work only on their products.

This leads me to the .NET Framework, their competitor to the Java programming language. Java is a programming language that has been around since 1995 and has enjoyed tremendous success in the computing world. Its success is due to a number of factor. Personally, I feel that Java succeeded because it used and encouraged a number of best practices, like forced exception checking, strongly typed language and taking full advantage of object orientation as well as design patterns. Furthermore, Java evolved through the Java Community Process. The JCP is a process managed by Sun Microsystem, the creator of the Java programming language, that allowed interested parties to participate in the development of the language. This means that Java is not the brainchild of solely Sun Microsoft, but also that of IBM, Borland, Novell, and many other organizations. Because many organizations actively participated in the development of the project, this encouraged adoption.

Today, the success of Java is undeniable. There is one company, however, who is directly threatened by Java, and that is Microsoft. One of the early promise of Java was write-once-run-anywhere. That is, you write your computer code once, compile it, and then you can run it on Windows, Mac OS X, Linux, your cellular phone or whatever else you'd like! This is a reality today. I do a lot of Java development, and use a lot of Java programs on Linux, the Mac and Windows.

It works. Microsoft does not like this. They would prefer that applications are written for Windows and stay on Windows.

To achieve that end: enter the .NET Framework. Microsoft created .NET as a response to Java. To compete, they create a language that superficially resembles Java called C#, and a framework that is tooted as write-once-run-anywhere. They even went a step further and got part of the .NET framework standardize with the ECMA.

Just like Java, the success of .NET is undeniable. Let me be the first to say that Microsoft actually came out with some cool ideas. I like LINQ and I think that Workflow Foundation will be an important set of API in the future.

However, I will not develop open-source application with .NET for two reasons:

1. It is not free software. Java has recently been freed by Sun Microsystems. Yay! I hope that this will continue to speed the adoption of Java on Linux. However, .NET is not free. Microsoft owns a number of patents on .NET and has yet to provide a license to their intellectual property that is compatible with the GPL. Until Microsoft opens .NET, I will not touch it with a ten foot pole on Linux.

2. It is not write-once-run-anywhere. It's true that I can create a .NET application on Windows and run it on Linux. However, please repeat after me: .NET is not write once run anywhere. Saying that .NET works on Linux is bullcaca.

For starters, there is a project that is sponsored by Novell (and indirectly, by Microsoft) called Mono which permits the development of .NET applications on Linux. However, repeat after me: .NET is not write-once-run-anywhere. I need to get that into your head. Sure, it looks like it's portable, but here are the problems you will encounter:

• The API to write GUI (windowed) application is meant to run on Windows. Whatever application is created on Windows with .NET will look good on Windows, but look like crap on Linux. Futhermore, Mono has its own GUI API that is incompatible with the one provided by Microsoft. This means you either create your .NET application to run on Windows or Linux. Say bye-bye to portability. Score 1 for Microsoft!
• Microsoft is introducing more and more Windows specific API. Just the names of the APIs should give you a clue: Windows Presentation Foundation. Windows Communication Foundation. In other words, Microsoft is making sure that your write-one-run-anywhere investment is glued to the Windows platform.
• The is no community process. This means that Microsoft has sole control over the direction of .NET. Don't go whining to Microsoft that your gorgeous .NET application looks like crap on Linux and does not work on your Mac. They don't care. Actually, that's a lie. They do care. They care that it runs on Windows and only on Windows. You can expect more and more Microsoft Windows specific API on .NET masquerading as 'open,' 'portable' APIs.
• You are creating .exe and .dll files. Unlike .class or .jar files in Java, These files are Windows specific. They contain MS-DOS and Windows code. In a Java application, there is not a single line of platform-specific code. That means that Mono has to be able to load a Windows executable on Linux. For something that is supposibly portable, it sure carries a lot of Windows with it.
• But Linux already has strong support for .NET with Mono! you say? So, why not use Mono? The reason is simple. It's a Microsoft technology. It belongs to Microsoft, and should they decide your Mono application is eating away at Windows market shares, prepare to receive a kind letter from Microsoft politely indicating that since you are using their intellectual property, you owe them $$$.
• Though I doubt that Microsoft will ever collect open source developer for the use of their so-called intellectual property, I think that the real problem will be that Mono on Linux will forever play catch-up with .NET on Windows. Who wants to use a 'write-one-run-anywhere' technology that is one or two years behind on some important platforms? Either you write a Windows-only application in .NET, or look at alternatives.

.NET exists solely to further Microsoft's agenda. Anyone that chooses to use Mono on Linux is kindly helping Microsoft achieve that agenda. Yes, there are some cool ideas in the .NET framework, but most of those ideas are copied from existing languages. For example, I've been using workflow management API and designers long before Microsoft came out with the Workflow Foundation API.

Before you consider Mono, please take a look at what's available on Linux already. You want true write-once-run-anywhere? Java is one solution. Not good enough? What about Python? Pascal? PHP, C/C++? Need I go on?

Linux is where it is today not because of heavy-handed sales tactics or razzle-dazzle marketing, but by its own merit. Let's continue to develop Linux through it's own merit.

We will not innovate if we follow the Microsoft path — that is, mostly copying what others are doing.

As for me, I think my plate is delicious as it is. I'll hold on that Mono sauce, thank you very much!

Three Things Microsoft Should Do

In the last year or so, Microsoft has earned the ire of partners, governments and customers. Forgetting about the Vista blunders, I think that one of Microsoft biggest mistake is to try to induce FUD (Fear Uncertainty & Doubt) into the FLOSS (Free/Libre/Open Source Software) movement.

In a way, I can't blame Microsoft for that. After all, Linux is on the rise, the cost of machines is on the drop and customers continue to look for ways to save money and free themselves from Microsoft's illegal monopoly.

What irks me is that Microsoft seems to think I'm stupid and I'm just going to swallow whatever FUD they send my way. I'd like to think that I'm far from being the only user who is annoyed at how Microsoft is treating us. We are not sheep that exists only to pay a tax to Microsoft (which I don't).

If Microsoft is serious about working with the open source community, here are three things I need to see before I consider working with Microsoft.

Support ODF in Microsoft Office
Sure, they can keep using their half-baked OOXML, but there is not a single valid technical reason why Microsoft Office does not support ODF. Microsoft does not want documents to be interchangeable from office suite to office suite. In other words, OOXML and it's attempt at ISO certification is there only so that Microsoft continues to entrench governments with Microsoft Office.

Use the GNU GPL 3
Most free software is released under the GNU GPL 2 or 3, which is incompatible with Microsoft's OSP (Open Specification Promise) and the Ms-PL (Microsoft Public License). This is not an accident. Microsoft does not want software written using their technology to spread to other platform. Again, it's vendor lock-in. If Microsoft truly wanted to work with the Open Source community, they should abandon the OSP and the Ms-PL for the GPL, or another OSI certified license.

Use and Contribute to Existing Standards
I know this is very similar to the above to challenges, but Microsoft has a fascination with re-writing code that already exists. For example, NUnit provides everything that a developer needs to do unit testing, but Microsoft re-created the same functionality in Visual Studio Team Edition. Using Windows Metafiles and DrawingML instead of the W3C SVG (Scalable Vector Graphics) recommendation. Creating the WMA file format when MP3 or Ogg already exists. Let's not get into Java vs. .NET!

This fascination with re-creating the wheel means that the world is always split between true standards (ISO, W3C, etc), and Microsoft. More standards is not better for the customer. If that was the case, there would be different type of incompatible CDs, DVDs and even television that work only for a single cable providers. By having a single standard for CDs, it means that I can buy a CD from Sony (minus the rootkit), and play it in a Panasonic player without having to worry about incompatibilities.

Until I see more action from Microsoft on those three fronts, I will happily continue to develop application on my Linux machine, and I will not care if they work on Microsoft platforms or not.

Links:
OSP - Incompatibility with open source
Ms-LP
Free Software Foundation