The "it's not us versus them" meme

Is it just me, or is the "IT is heterogeneous, so let's all just get along" mantra wearing a little thin of late? I don't dispute that interoperability is crucial - customers shouldn't have to spend half their time making disparate software play nicely together.

But I can hardly talk with a Microsoftie lately without them uttering the "it's not open source versus proprietary" meme. Apparently, this is now part of the orientation when you join the company, because I hear it over and over, and ... you get the point.

What's odd is the source: the incumbent. It strikes me as odd that it is Microsoft (or SAP, or Sun, or...) that is beating the "Why can't we all just get along?" drum. There are two ways to read this:

1. They really, really want to be friends and/or
   
   
2. They see the denial of a "war" as the best way to stave off the war.

I don't want to sound melodramatic, but there is an incompatibility between open source and proprietary business models (call it a "war" if you wish - sometimes I do), and that incompatibility works in open source's favor. If my company wins in the market I can guarantee that it will come at the cost of existing proprietary incumbents (in addition to growing usage of ECM by adding new customers to the market through lower prices and ease-of-use improvements). They simply will not be able to maintain their exorbitant pricing and proprietary lock-in.

Customers will ask questions. We can interoperate (and should), but the disruption open source leaves in its wake will benefit customers to the point that they'll ask serious questions of their proprietary vendors. ("Just why must I pay $1M for a license that your competitor is giving me for free?")

Should the software, itself, interoperate? Absolutely. My customers are also Microsoft's (and Oracle's, and SAP's, and...)customers, and I will do whatever I can to ensure that my company's software works well with Office, Windows, Sharepoint, etc. That's my job.

But it strikes me as odd, as I noted, that I'm not the one beating the "this is not us against them" drum. You'd think it would be the newbie, trying to fly under the incumbent's radar, who would be suggesting to customers that they can have both - that it's not zero sum. (And, in fact, we do say this.) But it's hard to see what the proprietary incumbents have to gain from this line of reasoning. Is open source enough of a short-term threat that they feel compelled to defuse that threat in the customers' minds?

Again, it could be that they're just friendly people who just want to get along. But they're not embracing Red Hat in the same way that they are SugarCRM, MySQL, etc. Maybe because it's possible to embrace a startup (and score brownie points with customers for being broad-minded?) without getting burned, but embracing a strong competitor is less advisable?

I really don't know, and I don't want to impugn anyone's motives. I just find it odd. It seems odd in the extreme that it is Microsoft suggesting that this is not "us versus them." Not because it's not true (it may or may not be), but because its representatives feel the need to repeat this over and over and over again. In what way(s) can this possibly be in its interests? What goals does it hope to accomplish? What threats is it hoping to hold off?

And why now?

Which is the bigger risk?

A former colleague is currently grappling with a decision. Does he stay in a comfortable job (lots of money, lots of recognition) at a company that probably isn't going anywhere and, even if it does, won't give him much in the way of new experience? Or does he go to an interesting startup that has the opportunity to explode (or completely fail), with opportunities to grow his experience base and improve his standing in the open source world?

Is there a decision to be made here?

For me, this is a no-brainer. You go to the startup. Especially if it's an open source startup.

Would I take a smaller paycheck, with a bigger option grant, if the opportunity were interesting? Every time.

The hardest thing about working for a big, established company is that it's so hard to leave once you grow comfortable there. It's hard to leave an environment where you never really worry about money. Where you travel in style. Where you don't have to do much and are still respected.

But when you start thinking like that, it's imperative that you leave ASAP. Comfort is fine, but it's also seductive and leads to career stasis. Very few become Steve Mills in a big company. Most just rot.