A Microsoft Veteran Embraces Open Source

John Markoff of the New York Times blogs about an interesting new self-published book by a former Microsoft employee:

Keith Curtis has just written a book about the future of software.

That in itself isn’t unique. More unusual is that Mr. Curtis, an 11-year veteran of Microsoft, the world’s largest software company, believes deeply that open source is the future of software.

And while he says he holds no grudge against his former employer, in the long run, the company “is toast.”

His book, “After the Software Wars,” was published last month by Lulu.com, a Web-based publishing service that makes it possible for Mr. Curtis to give the first 1,000 readers the option of downloading a free version of the book (590 people have already taken advantage of the offer) or purchasing a paperback version for $19.97 (so far he has sold 11 copies, five of which were purchased by his mom).

He takes a programmer’s approach in “Software Wars,” attempting to systematically build a case that software can help pave the way for a 21st-century renaissance in many fields ranging from artificial intelligence (cars that drive themselves) to the human journey into space (space elevators).

For Mr. Curtis, the strength of open source software, and why it’s the future, is all about leveraging our collective intelligence.

After he left Microsoft, he installed a copy of the Linux operating system on a lark. His world was turned upside down. He spent three years exploring the open source world — reading, attending conferences, looking at source code and talking to the rank-and-file members of the open source community.

Mr. Curtis says he’s not bitter about his time at Microsoft, but the world has moved on. “I loved working there, learned an enormous amount, made a few shekels, and enjoyed the privilege of working alongside many brilliant minds. Like many things in life, it was fun while it lasted.”

I grabbed an electronic version of the book (PDF format). Looks really interesting.

Discuss this Article 57

gorath
on Dec 2, 2008
Wae, I thought his hardware reference was referring to all these devices like set-top boxes, gadgets, automation systems, interface units and so on, that use open software at their core. But, I'll hold judgement until I've read the book to get a better understanding of his views. i may be wrong, he may be wrong, we may all be wrong, but I find it inane to simplistically blow his ideas without even fully digesting them.
tayme
on Dec 2, 2008
@mikegalos - "Until then, "open source" is a con game to get techies to stop taking well earned money for highly specialized and difficult skills while the less skilled and less educated continue to rob them blind." Hey, that sounds a lot like a conservative argument against Universal Healthcare as defined by the current president elect. Bravo!!! --tayme
tayme
on Dec 2, 2008
Like I said earlier...my opinion is that open source software generally appears to be a poor imitation of the commercial packages that it is trying to compete with. The current version of Open Office has the look and feel of MS Office from 10 years ago and the performance is worse than that. Until the deveopment cycle of Open Source communities can be streamlined, that will continue to be the case...but, once streamlined to be effective, it will no longer be Open Source in todays definition, anyway. Innovation is hurt by Open Source, just as it is with Universal Healthcare or other socialist programs. --tayme
Waethorn
on Dec 2, 2008
"I thought his hardware reference was referring to all these devices like set-top boxes, gadgets, automation systems, interface units and so on, that use open software at their core." I have yet to see any hardware platform that uses entirely open source software, except for those "project" based tinker toy gadgets. Most device manufacturers that employ open source software only do so because they don't have to start from the ground up. What they'll do is build proprietary, closed technologies on it, though. It's the same with Apple, Google, and the like. They don't invest any money in initial development, but just band-aid technologies on top of a pre-established core that cost them nothing in R&D. The original developers (of BSD Unix, GPL Linux, Webkit, Apache, etc.) get nothing in the way of royalty payments either. That's why open source is a scam market. "that sounds a lot like a conservative argument against Universal Healthcare as defined by the current president elect" Right-wing government arguing in favour of a left-wing policy? That's why I say the US is backwards.
gorath
on Dec 2, 2008
"Innovation is hurt by Open Source, just as it is with Universal Healthcare or other socialist programs." What? How does universal health care hurt innovation? You do realise that many countries have unversal health care, and offer much better care than is available in the US, right?
Waethorn
on Dec 2, 2008
"Most device manufacturers that employ open source software only do so because they don't have to start from the ground up. What they'll do is build proprietary, closed technologies on it, though." If you want an example of this, just look at Ubuntu. There are components of Ubuntu that are NOT open source. In fact, Stallman has been quite vocal about his detest of Canonical, and the fact that their product contains proprietary code. http://news.cnet.com/8301-13505_3-10055894-16.html Ubuntu isn't anything special either. It's just another repackaging and rebranding of Debian Linux. If you want to look at how "free" the software is for a company, just ask a number of companies if they trust their day-to-day operations to freeware distributions of Linux on their servers, and they'll laugh at you. Companies that run "open-source" software do so by buying it from companies like Red Hat and Novell. Such software also contains closed-source components that have been integrated long ago. There's a good article here on the subject: http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Linux-and-Open-Source/Ubuntu-Remains-Best-Linux... As you can tell, I'm not a fan of Stallman. http://neosmart.net/blog/2008/richard-stallman-expert-in-the-art-of-fud/ The GPL is full of contradictions ( http://tieguy.org/blog/2007/08/07/freedom-for-users-which-users-did-you-... ), and Stallman is a blowhard who has no quams about making money TALKING about free software. The GPL and the BSD are both licensing models after all is said and done. Users don't own the software outright. Even the new GPL versions say that it maintains intellectual property rights for the developer. The BSD offers more freedom to the developer to make money on derivative works though. Over all, I can confidently say that most consumers don't care whether or not they have access to the source code. What they care about is whether or not the software is a good value for their money. The BSD license is a better open-source model for this, since derivative works can make money for the developer, and Newsflash: Money drives innovation. Ask any knowledgeable person what would happen if Apple licensed Linux instead of Unix for the core of OS X. Do you really think they'd have any motivation to create yearly for-pay updates to the thing if they didn't stand to make money on it? (Ok, bad example. OS X updates aren't exactly innovative. You get the idea though.)
Waethorn
on Dec 2, 2008
"You do realise that many countries have unversal health care, and offer much better care than is available in the US, right?" I know I don't need to buy basic healthcare coverage in Canada. My taxes (and others' too) pay for that, not for amassing an army for the occupation of a once-sovereign foreign nation, or for bailing out mismanaged insurance creditors because of their incompetence (or the governments').

Please or Register to post comments.

IT/Dev Connections

Las Vegas
September 30th - October 4th

Paul ThurottYou'll have the opportunity to experience:
• 120 Technical
Sessions
• Networking with Peers
• Expert Speakers


Come See Paul Thurrott & Mary Jo Foley in Person!

Register Now

Office 365 InfoCenter

Get the latest insight and info from Paul

Read Now!

What I Use