Once again, Mary Jo Foley
writes an article
that seems to be more fluff than fact. The title is "OSDL Calls Microsoft's Bluff" and details a supposed counter offer by the OSDL to Microsoft's original request
to team with OSDL on an independent TCO study of Linux vs. Windows.
The supposed counter bluff was OSDL offering to help explore Microsoft's porting of Office to Linux. This just smacks of sensational journalism. Sure, it's worth reporting that OSDL made such on offer, but to portray it as OSDL one-upping the supposed Microsoft "ploy" to win brownie points vs. Linux is a stretch. Microsoft's original offer was to conduct a TCO study that compared the two operating systems and to do it with an organization that would clearly have little interest in showing Linux in anything but a favorable light. The "counter offer" was about porting technology from a market dominant technology to one that is a niche desktop operating system. How is that calling Microsoft's original "bluff"?
Wouldn't a real counter offer be something like comparing TCO of OpenOffice to Microsoft Office. Even OSDL's reasoning behind the porting counter offer was confused since the supposed reason for the colloboration was "... customers with a large number of Linux servers." What the heck do Linux servers have to do with porting Office to Linux? Last I checked, not too many folks were running Office on servers. So why use that as a reason for the OSDL to work with Microsoft on porting Office?
Now if OSDL had said we will work with Microsoft on TCO of OpenOffice vs. Office, and Microsoft said No, well now you have a story. Mary Jo gets some stuff right some of the time, but each time I start to like her reporting she pulls something like this. Looks like Mary Jo mailed this one in in order to start her long weekend early.