Mr. Matusow, South Africa and the Microsoft brainwasher

Before to comment in details the latest production of Mr. Matusow, I'd like the reader to pay attention to the following: in his post, Mr. Matusow's mentions:

Collaborative Development: 9 times
OSS: 8 times
Free (as in Free software): only once

So could you ask, what is this collaborative development, this new syntagm Mr. Matusow is using all over the place? Well, buried deep towards the very end of his post, Mr. Matusow gives us a definition of sort:

I was deeply involved with a series of projects that demonstrated a wide range of possible approaches to collaborative development (using non-OSS, OSS, and Free Software licensing models; using various approaches to tools, project types, funding models, etc.).

That's extremely interesting: throughout the post, collaborative development is used so that to  be confused with OSS: both terms are employed almost as frequently and in a context where they can easily be used interchangeably.

But then, at the very end of this article, we are discovering that collaborative development -hence OSS in the confused mind of an innocent reader- encompasses both OSS and non-OSS developments!

This is Microsoft internal communication at its finest:

1. Change the name
2. Employ this new name as frequently as possible as a synonym for some concept you want to kill or to blurr
   
3. Shift its semantic so that it means something else altogether; He, who controls the verb, controls the reality of things.

Now without further ado, let's jump into yet another line-by-line comment of Mr. Matusow edifying new posting.

 

Last week I wrote a blog entry stemming from my experience in South Africa and my impressions about the way the OSS preference policy is being considered. What has come of it is a string of rather pointed comments questioning my intelligence and calling me quite the assortment of names - I though xenophobe was a particular low-point in the comments. Given the comments, it is worth clarifying my thinking and making a few points.

I think Mr. Matusow forgot to point to MTG in his answer. That’s customary to link to the blog to which one is answering so that to be fair and also noticed by the person about whose writing you're commenting. Maybe a real answer wasn't really expected after all.

Another quick fact: I didn’t write the word xenophobe but I totally agree with Mr. Matusow that his condescension might have easily been misinterpreted.

1) I think collaborative development can be extremely beneficial to South Africa. In fact, I think it should be a key aspect to their IT strategy for their eGovernment strategy. I simply don't think that discussion is limited to being about platforms.

Here is the first mention of platform in this post. The reader will notice that Mr. Matusow always manages to make us believe that the FOSS vs. proprietary debate only pertains to platforms yet he denies it every step. We will see later on how it plays.

As Glen Moody noticed, this is not of a Windows vs. Linux debate and yet, Microsoft keeps positioning it that way: probably because the main open source threat Microsoft perceives comes from applications like OpenOffice, not from platforms or OSes per se Therefore shifting the focus on the OS debate is a way to deter people from looking at more sensitive issues.

There is absolutely no reason that the agencies using any platform are precluded from using collaborative development to drive greater value from the existing ICT investments.

See, just one line later the platform is here again. But to answer Mr. Matusow's remark, nobody is "precluded" to do anything. If he had read my post more carefully, he would have noticed that I was giving  a link to the governmental recommendation in question.

Here is the reference again since it was missed the first time around:

The primary criteria for selecting software solutions will remain the improvement of efficiency, effectiveness and economy of service delivery by (the) government to its citizens

I see nothing unfair in here, nothing precluding anybody to choose the best. Then Mr. Matusow continues on platforms (again):

To the extent that an agency is in the process of considering making new platform investments, then they should be free to look at all options and choose the one that provides best value for money over the long run.

Free to look? Really Jason? Did you even realize the extent of the power relationship existing  between a country like South Africa and a company like Microsoft? And although the numbers cannot be directly compared, they give a fair idea of the differential forces at play.

Did you know that South-African GDP is roughly equal to Microsoft market cap? Remember, I'm not talking about the much smaller government budget, but about the total wealth (internal and external) produced by the entire country over a year.

• South Africa GDP: USD 255B
• Microsoft market cap: USD 258B (w/ a revenue of some USD 60B)
  

Please, remember that next time you'll enter a meeting and will ask for the debate not to be politicized. You are representing the same wealth, power and hopefully responsibilities than that of a medium-sized country albeit with a totally different agenda.

Understand, I don't think Microsoft is evil as such, but I don't think Microsoft is good either. Companies, especially large ones, have their own impetus, their own logic that makes them -by nature- oblivious to the people, the country or the global dynamics really at stake.

2) I think technology mandates are not good policy in any country. In fact, I remember speaking at George Washington University a few years back and making this same statement. At the time, the Executive Director of the Free Software Foundation and the CTO of Red Hat both expressed support of that comment and that their organization's held the same view. Technology providers want their current and future technologies considered on the merits of the technology and the value those technologies bring to those who choose to consume it.

Well, see we keep agreeing. In an ideal world, technology policies should be decided on merit. The question is: what if we are in a world where large companies are exerting undue pressure on governments? What can be done then? But I'm anticipating.

If a government mandates a specific technology and/or class of technologies, they are unnecessarily restricting their own choices. Inevitably statue moves more slowly than technology, and mandates subsequently lead to sub-optimal choices.

I’m glad to read that Microsoft will stop lobbying local, national and foreign governments and will fight for its products or its standards on technical and business merit only. However, how do you explain what was reported during the past few years?

• 2002:  Microsoft US-lobbying effort exceeded that of Enron
• 2006:  Microsoft tried to overwhelm Massachusetts' CIO
• 2008:  Microsoft in Singapore, fighting against local technical auhtorities
  

In short many, many attempts at making sure that technological merit isn't the only factor at play: as reported here by Forbes and synthesized here by Boycott Novell.

So please Jason, instead of lecturing the world about "technical-merit decisions" please ask Microsoft to provide you with an Internet connection and use it. It's easy, underlined words are called links, and you can click on it so that sometimes, truth can be revealed.

Note that it does work with a non-Microsoft mouse albeit maybe not with a Microsoft-only mind.

3) My comments about the education of developers is a macro point and has absolutely nothing to do with whether those developers are in South Africa or any other country. I have no doubt that there are very talented Linux kernel developers in South Africa. Great - good for them, I think that is awesome. But it still doesn't answer the macro question about the types of projects that will both create high-value solutions and attract local participation leading to the in-country skills development that the policy is seeking to do.

As always, very astute argument. Focusing (maybe even second-guessing government motives -who knows, there are so few links yet so many assertions in your posts) on one possible argument to subsequently disprove it.

While I'm sure there is a subset of folks deeply interested in the core OS functions, there is a reason that a very small percentage of developers work on core OS development. I'd guess this is the same reason that there are relatively few operating systems compared to the literally millions of applications out there. Skills development is a good thing - I'm simply advocating that people look to the possibility that there is far more to collaborative development than OS coding.

There are 2 main reasons why you're missing the point and showing a very poor comprehension of software developers.

• Any great platform developer will stay a great developer no matter what is the subject. Some great GNU developers came from AI. Conversely great OS developers can shine elsewhere without much problem.
  

• Remember, the world is flat. Any open source project leader will tell you that one of the beauty of  an open source project is precisely its capacity to attract, to mentor and to foster knowledge sharing among developers coming from all over the world, including those coming from countries that would have been deemed too poor to foster the dynamic and the infrastructure required by a large and complex project.
  

Finally, please stop polarizing the debate on operating system. Once more, OpenOffice runs on both open source and non-open-source operating systems.

4) I made a point in my last post on this subject regarding the opportunities for the creation of local software businesses based on OSS.  Many, many governments are eager to see the growth of local software businesses. I am fully supportive of that intent, but don't happen to believe that OSS is necessarily the best model to bring that about. Economic opportunity is bolstered by having something unique. The most successful OSS companies have found a way to "hybridize" their solutions to in some way secure the uniqueness of their work while still tapping into the collaborative development community. Comparing the number of companies that have been commercially successful using that model with the tens of thousands of software providers using other development/commercialization approaches suggests to me that an OSS mandate is not likely to lead to the growth of local commercial software firms

So your point is what exactly? The best model is RedHat but it doesn't work at the end because there are still many more traditional companies than there are open-source-based companies?

But Jason, open source software helps all software companies, small and large.  What a shortsighted view to believe otherwise. Let's have Mr. Gartner (sic) speak for us:

By 2012, 80 per cent of all commercial software will include elements of open-source technology.

Many open-source technologies are mature, stable and well supported. They provide significant opportunities for vendors and users to lower their total cost of ownership and increase returns on investment. Ignoring this will put companies at a serious competitive disadvantage. Embedded open source strategies will become the minimal level of investment that most large software vendors will find necessary to maintain competitive advantages during the next five years

BTW having an open source policy ready in 2015 will not cut it: Microsoft should accelerate things.

Furthermore, Linux business is growing fast everywhere. The growth (30+%) of Microsoft's partner Novell in the mid-market is boosted by Linux, not by Microsoft products.  As Justin Steinman, Novell's director of Marketing for Linux and Open Platforms told Matt Asay:

Novell's core Linux business is growing. By "core," I mean that our non-Microsoft- related Linux business is growing. These are Suse Linux Enterprise Server subscriptions sold directly by the Novell sales force or by our channel partners, without any Microsoft certificates or Microsoft salespeople involved.

BTW I can't help but pause here too. Let's remember the reason why Novell accepted a patent  agreement with Microsoft. Based on technical merit only?  Maybe not after all, if you're listening to South-African and Ubuntu's father Mark Shuttleworth, explaining why he (and Red Hat) didn't accept Microsoft "offer" to enter such a non-sue agreement:

Allegations of 'infringement of unspecified patents' carry no weight whatsoever. We don't think they have any legal merit, and they are no incentive for us to work with Microsoft on any of the wonderful things we could do together

You've got to admit this is a good one. Another technical-merit-only offer from Microsoft but based on undisclosed technology. Imagine a technical due diligence on undisclosed technology. I suppose that you don't need to hire technologists anymore, only psychics!

I was impressed with the people I met in South Africa. But I was also struck by the political realities of a technology mandate vs. the real-world opportunities open to them through a broader approach to collaborative development.

You seem indeed much more impressed than you were when you wrote your previous post. Well, of course, in between South-Africa as filed an appeal to OOXML certification. And a bunch of other countries have followed its example. Impressive indeed.

I was deeply involved with a series of projects that demonstrated a wide range of possible approaches to collaborative development (using non-OSS, OSS, and Free Software licensing models; using various approaches to tools, project types, funding models, etc.).

Too bad I've already warned the readers about the collaborative development trick. Besides, you should say FOSS not just OSS. I guess the Free word is just another F word for Microsoft.

BTW in case you don't know, the (FREE software license) GNU GPLv3 is also an open source license although not one accepted on Microsoft repository CodePlex.

And we all understand why: the GNU GPLv3 somewhat protects FOSS developers from abusive patenting litigations. No more allegations of infringements of unspecified patents and therefore no more FUD war.

Furthermore, I went through dozens of scenarios of thinking about core assets vs. complimentary assets and how OSS dev methodologies could be applied. There is so much more to the conversation than Linux vs. Windows.

But Jason, reread your post, you're the one who framed the debate around platform and the Linux vs. Windows opposition. Everybody knows that FOSS is much more than that.

And also please stop implicitly equating FOSS to development methodology. As you would say, there is much more to it than that.

In fact, given the world of interoperability opportunities today, I'd argue that enterprise-scale environments are far better off thinking about "and" compared to "vs." and really looking at where the value to them from collaborative development is. Commercial implementations of enterprise-class operating systems are not free of cost.

So - again, to me, the question is about how collaborative development can be used to extend the value of any platform decision.

I won't even bother to comment on interoperability. But thanks for allowing me to summarize ...

Extending rather than replacing platforms? Collaborative development instead of FOSS development?  Intimidation and lobbying rather than fair technological advantage? Semantic plays instead of ethical blogging? 

                               Jason, on what planet exactly are you living?

 

This article has been quoted or cited by:

• Groklaw
• Boycott Novell
• Lxer

 

Comments

[Chris]

I'm curious. Why do you compare something like a market cap with something like GDP? GDP is how much a country produces. A market cap is just how much a public company is technically worth if you add up all the shares by the current price of the stock. They have little to do with one another. The total "value" of South Africa is quite a bit larger than it's GDP.

Normally, I don't mind these types of mistakes, but when you're complaining about Microsoft misusing words to try to redefine the argument, and you're doing the same thing, it's worth noting.

[mtg]

@Chris

This is a comparison which is more common than you think. The idea is to compare your annual income (that'd be represented by the GDP for a country) to what you can effectively buy with this wealth (here MSFT hence its market CAP).

Here is an article from the Washington Post that details the idea:

Washington Post - Saturday, July 17, 1999; Page E01

If you emptied the wallet and pocketbook of every person in the country, turned upside-down the register in everystore, smashed the piggy banks, looked under the mattresses and behind the couches, and plucked every dollar from every foreign black market, you'd end up with $450.6 billion in loot.

That still wouldn't be enough to buy Microsoft Corp. The software company ended today with a market value of $507 billion, the first time any company has passed the half-trillion level.

Only 10 countries have economies larger than Microsoft. The gross domestic product of the entire United States didn't hit $500 billion until 1960, when William H. Gates III was 5 years old.

By David Streitfeld
Washington Post Staff Writer

[crashsystems]

Beware of anyone who refuses to use well defined terminology in a debate. Great post!

[Dark Phoenix]

You know what interests me about all this? The following points:

1) Jason Matusow keeps arguing about governments not mandating what technology
should be used by people. This appears to be a 180-degree turnaround from prior
Microsoft arguments, until you remember which sides of these arguments Microsoft
has been on. The fact is, Microsoft LIKES government mandates on technology,
but only if it requires them to do nothing to claim the market. The idea
mandate for them would be "buy only Microsoft".

2) I think MTG has missed something very important in the fourth point. You're
rightly focusing on the ridiculous claim that the number of proprietary companies
show that proprietary solutions are better (um, there are more proprietary
companies because proprietary development puts the creation of capital before
all else, and businessmen LIKE that idea), but missing this very important point:
"The most successful OSS companies have found a way to
"hybridize" their solutions to in some way secure the uniqueness of
their work while still tapping into the collaborative development
community." What's important about this? This is an almost verbatim copy
of Novell's description of themselves in relation to the FLOSS community in
general; in short, Microsoft is trying to push focus on companies like Novell
(who cut deals with them and are willing to harm the community to make money)
over companies like Red Hat, because in that situation THEY win too.

[mtg]

@Dark Phoenix

Well I tried to answer the hybridization stance by showing Novell's growth stemmed from Linux-only systems.

But somewhat it doesn't really solve the problem since hybridization can go both ways: once Novell's market is deemed large enough by Microsoft, Novell might start to hybridize its Linux installed base w/ Microsoft as well.

Just a comment on your conclusion : this is precisely the MS "evangelism" strategy.

They could never win thanks to any "fair technological advantage" so they're now putting time and money only in politics, FUD, etc.

I'm not saying they're evil. As you said, it's just another big company.

Cf. http://www.groklaw.net/pdf/Comes-3096.pdf

[Toby]

They're pulling the same stunts among the more easily-led (apparently?) countries of the EU: http://www.microsoft.com/emea/presscentre/pressreleases/BallmerInCzechRepublicPR_23052008.mspx

N.B. They *are* evil.