People, 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] ----- Original Message ----- From: Nivaldo A. P. de Vasconcelos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] >
