Open Source Blog

First, with regards to Microsoft buying Red Hat, it's worth noting that Rodrigues doesn't think it will actually happen. "I truly doubt this deal will ever happen, but it’s interesting to think about the possibilities," he writes.

And if you can suspend the understandable tendency to simply dismiss the suggestion, it is worth thinking about. While Microsoft abandoning Windows in favour of Linux is fanciful, what about the company acquiring Red Hat and running it as an independent Linux/Java subsidiary.

"While there is some overlap, Red Hat is much more complimentary to Microsoft’s offerings than we’d like to think," writes Rodrigues.

"Just imagine a Microsoft that could offer customers a choice of Windows/.NET, Linux/JEE or, and here’s the magic, BOTH. The fact is most customers have heterogeneous environments, and those that don’t today, will likely in the future."

Of course the DoJ would have something to say about it, but it doesn't take much imagination to see how a deal such as this could actually make sense to Microsoft long-term (it's certainly an easier way of getting revenue from Linux than questionable patent protection deals).

Imagination is central to the second post. I must admit I don't know who Krishnan Subramanian is but I agree with his thoughts about why much of the tech press struggles to cover open source.

While some people (just see the comments section) would have it that the tech press is biased in favour of Microsoft and proprietary models, Subramanian makes the point that after years of writing about them, it is difficult to imagine anything different.

"The problem with the tech media (conventional media and tech blogosphere) is that they are way too deep into proprietary software and hit based economic models," he writes.

"If they understand that open source is just a platform on which various business models compete with each other, they will be able to avoid making such predictions about the death of open source and concentrate on finding out business models that can better utilize the freedom offered by open source, thereby offering consumers with better user experience."

Subramanian's explanation also includes a tidy explanation of the differences between free software and open source.

"When the open source movement was formed, it was done with an idea to create an environment where various business models can be implemented on top of a platform developed by the free software movement. The proponents of open source, at least most of them, didn’t roll out open source as a yet another business model. Rather, they created an environment, with a pool of more accommodative licenses, so that the business community (and consumers) could benefit from the advantages of the freedom behind the free software," he writes.

I think Subramanian is right that this is something that the tech press, on the whole, does not 'get'. I also think that some people who are entrenched in free or open source software forget how complex the concepts are to understand for the uninitiated.

Deadlines and egos combine to mean that many writers don't have the time or the inclination to educate themselves properly about the concepts.

For some of you that will seem a pretty poor state of affairs but through education the FOSS movements can do something about it. Better that than simply jumping to conclusions about conspiracy and deliberate bias.