That's a really interesting article, cel. At first I kept thinking it might be a hoax. It sure doesn't look like your typical article on a commercial news site. It appears to be on the other end of a "printer friendly version" button.

Anyway, it's a well-written and very challenging piece. He makes a good point about the open source stuff being where the imagination is these days. Even folks who don't care about software development are warming up to the idea that maybe open standards aren't necessarily dangerous. Then again, I know plenty of "non-techies" who are starting to swear by Firefox for the WRONG reason--that it "doesn't have spyware." We all know that spyware authors will target FF as soon as they feel it's worth the effort (i.e., when enough people have it installed). The only advantage FF will have--and it's a huge advantage--will be the swarms of "good guys" who step in to update and patch the code.

Of course, at some point these guys may say, "Well, maybe we need to be more selective about who gets to see the code. Maybe it's not worth it having all those spyware authors have the same level of access that we do." I could see something like that happening.

Microsoft just hasn't done anything very innovative since the Xbox. And who gets excited about the prospect of a new Windows or Office version? For most users, WinXP and Office XP are all they need and all they are going to need for quite a while. Well, except for security patches.

So Microsoft does need to start thinking like Google and doing some amazing things if they hope to stay on top. Could be open source. Or it could be in areas we haven't even thought of yet.

I also wonder how long--10, 20 years--before open source initiatives become passee, the old news?

My future bro-in-law works at MS and even he was remarking that people just don't seem to be excited about the new search, even though he thinks it's amazing. I've noticed a trend talking to him about Microsoft products. His general attitude is, "Look, this thing can do so much stuff that people have no clue about." Whenever I mention open source to him, he tends to get excited about how wonderful Microsoft's development tools are for making good software. It's a different perspective, and I find it refreshing at times to think about how Microsoft isn't all bad. :-)

I'd hope against hope that maybe if Microsoft won't dabble with open source, at least they'll make it easier for other folks who want to. A good start might be opening up file formats or publishing specifications (like Adobe does with PDF). I think if Microsoft worked hard to forge alliances with open source developers, things might work out better for them. I was frankly shocked to hear that Gates had accused the open source community of being socialists. That kind of attitude is really what Microsoft needs to shed if they hope to continue to prosper. I had expected to hear Gates say something about how great Firefox was, and talk about how the next version of IE will be even better and offer more features. Instead, we get talk that sounds suspiciously like fear.

I doubt we'll see them opening up file formats anytime soon. It's too much of their business model: keep their monopolistic hold on office productivity software by making it difficult to use their files in other word processors. If they did open their formats, that would mean they'd have to be more innovative and actually provide good reasons for people to continue to upgrade and buy Office.

http://www.openoffice.org/

I made the switch last week and thus far have not noticed a measurable difference b/t this and MS Office...except that Open Office is free, loads quicker, and doesn't annoy me. I was even able to create a resume in the text editor and not scream.

Oh, and it will save as the relevant MS Office type (or a .pdf) if you have colleagues who are unwilling to switch.