Autodesk may be the latest software vendor to use open-source development to its advantage. In case you missed the news, the firm recently cancelled plans for a new product called MapGuide and gave the source code to the open-source community.

And such "dumping" of what some like to call intellectual property to open-source developers is not just being done by mid-sized software vendors like Autodesk: the mighty Sun recently turned its Solaris operating system into an open-source project.

Firms switch to open-source development because they can keep enough control of the project while ditching most of the maintenance costs. And it's a trick that any organisation that hires software developers can play. Just identify open-source software that drives or could drive the business and get involved in its development. All of a sudden rather than contracting with a belligerent vendor to get flaws fixed or features added, you could help to steer those processes in a direction that suits you.

I'm not saying there is no place for commercial software, but successful products usually need software that's unique to one supplier. Operating systems and word processors don't fit the bill.

Which means Microsoft must be increasingly nervous about its future as a vendor of server software. Analysts report astonishing growth in the Linux server market - some 63 percent year-on-year, according to IDC. That's a figure Microsoft could only dream of.

Hence Microsoft is trying to look more and more like a cross between a Unix vendor and a Linux distributor. Microsoft Services for Unix (SFU) will soon be part of the standard Windows server offering. It won't be long before you will be able to install Windows Server without installing a GUI, and it's not a huge leap from there to a world where you could install SFU without installing Windows.

At that point Microsoft could argue that combining Unix with Windows provides a better software environment than Linux. Microsoft could also argue that it's a safe bet because of its status as the world's richest software company. But the argument overlooks Microsoft's perennial problem with software quality.

Commercial development involves difficult compromises. It must balance development costs against revenue; and revenue in each accounting period must be maintained to preserve a firm's stock value. Unpredictable product delivery dates cannot usually be tolerated, which means products are likely to ship with flaws.

When completed, Microsoft's move with SFU will change the landscape, but I'm still not sure it's enough to make Windows succeed as a real server operating system.

Have your say, here: