in reply to Microsoft vs. Perl and sloppy programming - Wildly OT

Microsoft funds ActiveState's development of Perl for Win32. The president of ActiveState claims that his company is responsible for most of the development of new versions of Perl.

Even if ActiveState's claim is overstated, it cannot be denied that the Win32 port of Perl helps the Perl language immensely, and that Microsoft foots the bill for it. Funding development of Perl is a strange way to try and kill it off.

I say, let's be programmers, not conspiracy theorists. What good would killing Perl do Microsoft? Perl is not Java. It doesn't compete with C++ or even Visual Basic. It competes with Java and Unix shells.

Now why would Microsoft want to kill it?

  • Comment on Re: Microsoft vs. Perl and sloppy programming - Wildly OT

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re (tilly) 2: Microsoft vs. Perl and sloppy programming - Wildly OT
by tilly (Archbishop) on Jun 22, 2001 at 07:54 UTC
    Perl played the role of poster child for the open source revolution quite well, thank you very much. Microsoft is now trying to come up with a coherent anti-opensource policy that doesn't involve developing, distributing, and supporting software at competitive (ie pretty low) profit margins.

    While Perl itself does Microsoft no harm, I could well understand some there seeing it as the thin edge of the wedge for open source solutions. After all in learning Perl you learn a good chunk of the essence of Unix. Plus you get exposed to radicals who honestly think it is OK to develop good software and just let people use it for free, which makes you more inclined to make decisions that avoid contributing to the Microsoft gravy train.

    Now assuredly this is stupid and counter-productive on technical grounds. I would be shocked and amazed if Microsoft didn't have people who really believed it was a Good Idea for Microsoft to support open source software. Including Perl.

    But it isn't that unreasonable for some of them to want to make sure that Perl is caught in the cross-fire. And judging from one EULA on one key product, that contingent may have more influence than I would like.

[reply]
      Even more OT - sorry

      Microsoft has supported competitors before, this was cited by MS during the anti-trust trials as an example of their benevolence. Cynics would claim it as MS having enough investment capital to burn that they can easily afford to spend $100m on PR exercises.

      Given the current MS attitudes, I think you're right - the anti open source faction has gained control, I don't expect their support for Activestate to continue.

      I suspect that currently MS is quietly confident that the anti-trust suit will be quashed by the Bush admin. So we can expect lots more aggressive moves like this - makes sense, open source is now their biggest competitor.

      Overall I'd say this will hurt Microsoft, more than it will hurt open source. It's harder to quash a community of individuals than it is a few shareholders and directors. Plus attacking open source will build up its credibility... at least they're not laughing at us any more.

      "The future will be better tomorrow."

[reply]
      Plus you get exposed to radicals who honestly think it is OK to develop good software and just let people use it for free, which makes you more inclined to make decisions that avoid contributing to the Microsoft gravy train.
      Isn't that what Microsoft itself did with Internet Explorer? They developed software that was better than the competition (Netscape) and they gave it away for free.

      It is ironic that one of the federal government's complaints against Microsoft was that it gave IE away for free and thus prevented its competitor Netscape from charging for an inferior product. Apparently, Microsoft is always wrong. It is wrong if it gives its stuff away (IE) when others charge, and it is wrong if it charges for its stuff (Windows) when others give it away.

[reply]
        They developed software that was better than the competition (Netscape) and they gave it away for free.

        IE was free in the sense that the transmission in my car was free. Sure I never got an itemized list that said
        Transmission: $579.89
        but you can bet I paid for it.
[reply]
        Your conclusion is off target due to a flawed premise. Microsoft was accused of using it's OS monopoly to unfairly compete in a market dependent on that OS. Regardless of the quality of the software or its price, that kind of control over markets is harmful and illegal.
[reply]

In Section Meditations