"[A]ll Open Source innovation [to] happen on top of Windows"

--Steve Ballmer, Microsoft CEO (2007)

We wrote about OSCON 2008 many times throughout the past fortnight [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8]. One who attended the event has just published an article about Microsoft's participation. It presents both sides (well, remember that Linux.com's parent company is now receiving money from its Diamond Sponsor Microsoft and Microsoft is also a Diamond Sponsor of OSCON). Fortunately, it also explains the realistic aspect covered here last week.

I'm no mind reader, but the reception of the audiences at the events I was able to attend in person -- in particular the Participate 08 panel and the Ramji keynote -- tell me that many in the OSCON crowd weren't taking Microsoft's story at face value. That skepticism stems from two roots. First, it is far removed from the company's historical views of open source as a "cancer" and "anti-American." Second, the company has a history of "embracing and extending" competing technologies in a manner that crushes them.

Microsoft clearly has not changed its opinion of open source without a reason, and whatever that reason is, the change must be one that Microsoft's management has decided is advantageous. So what is the play? What does the company hope to gain?

Conspiracy theorists will say that Redmond's goal is to destroy open source, either by poisoning it from the inside or by co-opting it. There is a subtle difference between those scenarios, hidden in the terminology itself. Understanding that is the key to figuring out what Microsoft is really after.

Watch the wording. The use of negative terms like "conspiracy theorists" was criticised here before [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6]. It's derogatory and it belittles the opposition to one's belief. In this case, there's clearly a plan (conspiring to keep Microsoft relevant in a "sea of change"), so it needn't be "theorised".

In fact, given that Microsoft itself is now saying that Mono should be 'safe' only for Novell's customers, can anyone blame people for wanting it removed?

The nasty taste which has always ‘ever-so-slightly’ tainted my use of Ubuntu is that Mono is there only to support applications written in languages and for platforms which are basically Microsoft’s.

Platform assimilation as such is only valuable to Novell, which is not behaving like a team player, unless its team is now Microsoft and its ecosystem. Novell is still Microsoft's ticket to enter many FOSS companies, conferences, and other events. ⬆