Vista - Ex-Microsoft Employee: Free Software Will Kill Microsoft

http://www.osnews.com/story/21543/Ex...Kill_Microsoft


* Ex-Microsoft Employee: Free Software Will Kill Microsoft
posted by Thom Holwerda on Fri 22nd May 2009 13:58 UTC, submitted by shaneco
IconKeith Curtis worked at Microsoft for 11 years, coding on Windows,
Office, and at Microsoft's research department, before leaving the
Redmond giant. Call it a revelation, call it giving in to the devil's
temptations, but he's now a complete open source and Linux advocate, and
in his new book, "After the Software Wars", he explains why open source
will prevail against Microsoft's proprietary model.

Curtis never actually used Linux until 2004, when he left Microsoft.
Over the years, he turned into a Linux advocate, and now claims that
thanks to the proprietary software model, we are living in "the dark
ages of computing." This is what is scientifically known as doing a
complete 180 (no, not a 360).

In an interview with CIO, he explains why the open source model will
ultimately lead to Microsoft's demise. First, he argues that the open
source model leads to better code. He points to Firefox and the Linux
kernel as examples of open source delivering greater quality than the
proprietary model. Secondly, he also states that open source undermines
Microsoft's profit margins.

He further argues that while open source may not have made tremendous
gains just yet in the desktop market, it is doing very well in other
segments of the computing market. "Google has hundreds of thousands of
machines running Linux," he explains, "Free software is well on its way
to conquering the small and the large, and the remaining challenge is
the desktop in the middle."

It would be hard for Microsoft to adapt to the open source model. Sure,
Microsoft could open source its products, but who would care? For
instance, if they were to open source Internet Explorer, no one would
care because Webkit and Gecko already exist. "If Microsoft, 20 years
ago, built Windows in an open way, Linux wouldn't exist, and millions of
programmers would be improving it rather than competing with it," he
says, "However, I think it is too late for that now."

So, does he believe that there are other ways for Microsoft to compete
with open source? "Other than adopting Linux, there is little Microsoft
can do," he starts, "Even if they did embrace it, not only would it hurt
their profit margins, they'd be forced to explain to customers why they
should continue to pay for Office if the company believes the free
OpenOffice is good enough."

It sure is an interesting view on the debate, especially coming from
someone who worked at Microsoft for so long. Personally, I don't think
of open source destroying proprietary - I see open source and
proprietary competing with one another, so that we, consumers, end up
with better products. Open source made Microsoft improve both its server
and desktop offerings on the operating system front, and even when it
comes to Office, Microsoft has made tremendous steps forward that
wouldn't have been made without open source breathing down their necks.

At the same time, the continuous comparisons drawn up between
proprietary products and their open source counterparts also serve as a
carrot for open source developers to work even harder to improve their
code and products.

It's a win-win situation for us consumers, people. And now I want to
wash my mouth with soap for saying "win-win situation".