MIT – Going Closed Source? From Linux to Microsoft Why?
MIT drops Open source software for Microsoft Exchange #linux http://tinyurl.com/lddfq9 (via @linuxalive)
Christine C. Fitzgerald, a spokesperson for IS&T, said, “We are running Exchange servers in order to offer Microsoft Exchange. This is an optional infrastructure solution for those departments who will benefit from an integrated e-mail and calendaring solution.”
As I read through this article found through twitter, I started to think about it, as I use Evolution as my own chosen Email client on a Jaunty Box, everything that is given as the reason they are making this change at MIT can also be done with a client such as Evolution, probably better with a cleaner interface. The ability to synchronize over multiple sources, to have an integrated calender also able to synchronize, so what could Exchange really offer that would make that big a difference? Or is it more specifically another ploy by Microsoft to be in the front lines of Technology based campuses?
Proprietary companies in a campus that is about the technology, why would Microsoft want to have anything to do with it? Proprietary and profit based, in the guts of a University based network which is often some of the largest in the world, the same campuses that will often educate the youth of the future, about the ways of Closed Source, why not make a change use a substitution? While MIT was initially basing the email system on an Open Source Option, at the very least these same students that are critical to the future of this United States, this world would be aware of the options that do not require a costly license, or have more holes in the security as a slice of swiss cheese. Why would a campus, specifically MIT want to go that direction? Perhaps similarly why University of California Berkeley, the original builders of the once Open Source Unix system so widely used today. No longer do they hold the exclusive license, nor can they modify the source code of a product they helped to build. The good news is though, they got smart, they escaped AT&T’s attempt to corner the market by taking what they knew about the Unix system in putting it together in the BSD (both FreeBSD & OpenBSD) based on an Open Source License, putting the creation of this next generation, and Linux of today in the hands of the bright minds who attend the universities.
Instead one of the most well known Technology based campuses are turning over the control of that aspect of the email system to Microsoft Exchange, citing many of the exact same features that Evolution can provide, which in it’s own right is probably updated more often then Exchange without the serious security holes that appear so clearly in anything Microsoft Based.
Even knowing this, or perhaps they are practicing Selective Ignorance, still the decision is made to go with a product that has been the bane of many a persons existence, that has more problems and has not been updated in so long, similar to most Microsoft Products, I guess on the one hand it will keep the Microsoft Troubleshooters busy in their own niche market, because it is a rarity that Microsoft is ever as solid as it should be. Even their browser now Internet Explorer 8 has only recently been updated and it is still full of problems, with it’s bits and pieces of proprietary code not based on standards except in Compatibility mode. Making the process even more involved to get it to actually work, so bravo to those who make it their life to fix Microsoft’s constant issues, but why put such a large system on something like Exchange?
On the idea of changing the spam filtration system to yet another proprietary brand, Symantec makes me wonder about some of the Open Source Alternatives, as they stepped away from SpamAssasin which is an integral part of the Apache Web Based System, and I am sure there are many just need to look around. Though to say something positive about Symantec, well they have been around a long time, I have not used them since I completely removed windows from my computer system, except for the #VirtualBox version that still exists on my system for testing purposes, and even that I have found either web based alternatives or just kept an eye on it myself as SpamAssasin seems to be working well for me though Evolution uses BogoFilter by default. Once again there are alternatives to the closed source version of similar things.
So in closing, it seems to me that this is more of a step back for MIT then a step forward, as they have made some good progress, but it could also be the springboard to another complete system wide revert to anything proprietary, lets hope for the best as each revertion back to more of a closed source idea even at University level, could not be the best of things. Surely Microsoft is Happy even though day by day they lose ground to the #OpenSource movement, at the very least now that MIT stepped back to a proprietary solution they will make their money. Sorry to say also that it is likely that Redmond will begin to offer more money to the university because they are using their problematic software. Perhaps that is exactly it, coming back down to the almighty dollar and the funding for MIT to continue to exist. What do you think? Share your views in the comments down below or join me on Friendfeed as Ubuntu101, and discuss it there. It shall be seen if it will make a real difference, hopefully more of the Universities will stick with Open Source, and if not you and I, the readers of this blog or the people who want to see more Open Source will need to mobilize to make it happen.
by Rickford Grant
Or Take some time to explore 
Can you please explain why you chose to cross-out every word related to Microsoft and views you disagree with? It seems a little petty and infantile and means that readers will take your views less seriously.
I fully agree that FOSS solutions are much more effective in all scenarios where MIT has chosen proprietary software over FOSS. MIT has forgotten its roots, and no doubt the backlash may give them cause to reconsider. What is says to FOSS advocates is that we should rely on GNU, FSF and the OSI, and definitely not MIT.
In it’s most simple terms, it is because to many see Microsoft as the only solution to anything related to Desktop Software, so to make it clear I used that as a visual clue, as what Microsoft has done really has nothing to do with anything but the green in the pocket, and a group of happy investors, honestly what has Microsoft offered to the community. Before the trial of Microsoft’s Monopilistic tendencies, there was little if nothing they offered to the community, to the public at large. Removing Netscape, severing it’s community based roots, forcing people to use their browser unless they knew about the other options which commonly is well hidden from the end user. You ever try and remove a software package from Microsoft from your system, not finding it in the Add/Remove Programs, not finding it anywhere. To remove it having to enter into the depths of the registry, that in itself lead to far more confusion. The point is, that Microsoft has long been in a position where it did not matter, In fact even the Bill & Melinda Gates foundation was a result of court order to use the money that was being made in part for Philanthropy, for helping the community that was otherwise severed before.
I crossed it off because there needs to be change, to much is already written about Microsoft, to many desktops still run it as the default operating system with all it’s associated security issues, and lack of regular updates. Many are trapped in the Microsoft world the Proprietary verse, to cross them off was a clear statement to the need for the change that was preached.
Thank you for the elegant explanation. The main reason is that you frequently see ill-informed Linux fan-boys typing in Micro$oft, Microsuck, Microshit (or variants there of) thinking this is rather witty and clever (I should know, I’ve been guilty of doing this on a few occasions).
It is nice to know that there are occasions in which these measures can be used as a means of protest rather than for personal amusement!
You are quite welcome and thanks for taking the time to offer feedback and your comment, as really when in a community based initiative it should often be a constant flow of communication.