Browsable source isn’t the same as open source either. You’ve been able to browse the source code of the MS C++ runtime libraries for years for example, but that doesn’t mean they’re open source. Specifically the license for browsable source in VS2008 is the Microsoft Reference License, which means you have the right to look, but no-one except Microsoft is allowed to change it. That’s not even close to true open source – it basically just means you don’t have to use a decompiler to figure out where a problem might be when the sh*t hits the fan (we’ve all done it I’m sure), but you still have to rely on one supplier to fix issues, and you certainly can’t enhance it for you own purposes, or collaborate with peers to create something that solves a particular issue you share, rather than waiting for the central team to prioritise it. These are some of the main advantages of open source and why it evolves so fast and is responsive to the consumer of the software – just being able to see the code isn’t enough.

There are also pushes within, like the browsable source thing of the .Net framework itself in VS 2008. The XNA stuff encourages open source development, codeplex provides sharing facilities.

It’s not as “open” as other things obviously, but to say “MS never supports open source projects openly” is a little harsh.

I’m just a fan of well educated choice rather then blindly trusting any vendor, opensource or not.

More and more businesses are ‘getting’ open source now, probably as more and more ‘commercial’ open source companies get attention, float on the stock exchanges, get acquired etc. I think they’re realising that Open Source operates in much the same way as regular business, it’s just that the communities that always surrounded these products now get to be more proactive in its development, instead of it being managed in an ivory tower.

Anyways, here are some thoughts I had on the “mindset” that might be a barrier to open-source adoption:

Firstly, the ideological side of open source is very prominent (thanks to a certain Mr Stallman, among others) which constantly shifts the focus away from the practical and economic elements of the open source movement, as well as making the culture of open source seem more polarized than it really is. (“Microsoft is eeevil!”)

The Business world, OTOH, is naturally turned off by a lot of that. Also, in addition to some of the other factors you mentioned, many people in business tend to quickly develop ruts; routines are beneficial, and indeed they are necessary in order for organizations to be able to scale their output beyond a case-by-case treatment of customers. The business world also has its share of ideologues as well. (“Damn hippies!”)

But the main issue I am aware of is that most of the people running businesses, even when aware of the benefits of open source, don’t understand the culture and economics that allows the open source world to function. So they don’t trust it because they don’t understand how the whole thing works, or what keeps it viable.

The culture and economics I am talking about, of course, is that of the Internet, that magical “series of tubes“. Indeed, the resistance to this new “open source” software development stems from the greater issues surrounding copyright, patents, culture, and the economy, in the Internet age.

This socioeconomic divide, I think, is part of what is so difficult in making people see the “other side” of software.