Slashdot Mirror


SOUP is Good for You

raelity writes "CNet is running a story about Ximian, nee Helix Code, planning to bring Web Services a la Microsoft's .NET to *nix operating systems by incorporating "SOUP" (a play on SOAP) into the Gnome user interface. "While tech kingpins such as Microsoft and Oracle have rushed to one-up each other in introducing Web-delivered software, Ximian is doing work behind the scenes to make sure Web services can run on the Linux and Unix operating systems.""

36 of 89 comments (clear)

  1. Microsoft... by Isldeur · · Score: 3



    You know, you can mod me down for this little observation - though I don't think it's justified. But isn't it a little interesting that people always mock KDE because it is so Microsoftish and all the "cool geeks" use Gnome when, in all actuality, the lead Gnome man always seems to praise and follow Microsoft openly? Bonobo for instance, then SOUP?

    I'm not making a judgement on all of this, but it always seems so hypocritical to me.

    1. Re:Microsoft... by Ig0r · · Score: 2

      Not really...
      Just because some people are vocal (and sometimes without facts) doesn't mean that they represent all people.
      Remember: The general consensus at /. is that there is no general consensus at /.

      And what do a few GNOME users mocking KDE have to do with the Ximian developer making choices about his project?

      Sorry for the little rant. I just don't want a small group of loud people to make people think that there have to be a GNOME/KDE camp.
      Can't we all just get along?

      --

      --
      Soma: because a gramme is better than a damn.
    2. Re:Microsoft... by evand · · Score: 4

      It would be stupid not to take good ideas from your competitors and integrate them into your own system. Where would we be if every interface had to be reinvented? Sure, there would be a lot of innovation, but also a lot of terrible, terrible software.

      In my opinion, KDE looks more like Windows than GNOME does by default, but this depends of course on how your distribution or package maintainer set up the package.

      But would you really expect de Icaza to look at a cool system that Microsoft has worked on or developed and say, "Hey, that's really great and useful, so let's do something different!" Would he be a good developer if he did that? I don't think so.

      Bonobo makes sense and is useful, no matter what its inspiration. SOUP, I hope, is going to be the same way.

    3. Re:Microsoft... by dimator · · Score: 2

      people always mock KDE because it is so Microsoftish

      I really wish I knew what this meant. I'm sick and tired of hearing it. How exactly is KDE more windows-like than gnome? Can someone enumerate the points? To me, they look pretty fucking similar, and neither looks like windows.


      --

      --
      python -c "x='python -c %sx=%s; print x%%(chr(34),repr(x),chr(34))%s'; print x%(chr(34),repr(x),chr(34))"
    4. Re:Microsoft... by Malcontent · · Score: 2

      And ms is always chasing apples taillights. That's the way it's allways been.

      --

      War is necrophilia.

    5. Re:Microsoft... by Malcontent · · Score: 2

      Ummm we were talking about GUIs remember. BTW SOAP is nothing but a simple extension of XML-RPC which is Dave Winers baby. I think MS must be regretting throwing it's weight behind SOAP either that or they will find a way to make it break on all other operating systems. My guess is that MS operating systems will wrap GUIDs in SOAP envelopes thereby assuring that no other operating system can act on the package.

      --

      War is necrophilia.

  2. Roadmap to the future? by roguerez · · Score: 3

    I'm having serious doubts whether leveraging this technology is the way to go. Considering that Microsoft hasn't a good track record for introducing useful and really open standards, the SOUP-crew might expect too much from .NET.

    Wouldn't it be wiser to continue to create new and enhance existing standards. This would garuantee that new concepts will be available to all platforms, without being dependant on a single vendor which has a track record that isn't too rosy-colored (especially in the open source world).

    Web technology as it exists (ranging from the simple interaction of web server & client, to databases which are integrated in webplatforms and internal information systems) has a lot to offer right now, and we can expect a lot in the future. I don't see why the direction should be altered towards a single-vendor 'solution'.

    The Internet concept is largely the product of inventiveness of academic minds who did not have profit motives. This proofed a wonderful thing. Let's us not part from that now.

    1. Re:Roadmap to the future? by tjansen · · Score: 3

      SOAP is not a single-vendor solution anymore. SOAP 1.0 was, but with the help of IBM and a few others version 1.1 became a very powerful and flexible (read: somewhat difficult to use, at least when you want to do more than just RPC) framework for platform-independent communication, and is now controlled by the W3C. In other words: I like it. You can read the specs here.

    2. Re:Roadmap to the future? by mike260 · · Score: 2

      Umm, this post is somewhat at odds with what I understood SOAP to be. Isn't it an open standard? There's a spec here, and it certainly doesn't appear to be 'single vendor' as you put it (see here)
      Q: Am I seriously missing something here?

    3. Re:Roadmap to the future? by Malcontent · · Score: 2

      I agree more should be done to make X lighter weight so that it could be more usable over the net. It would give unix a leg up on anything .NET.

      --

      War is necrophilia.

  3. Re:Who's helping who here? by Pingo · · Score: 2

    This embrace and extend strategy can work many ways, not only in the favour of Microsoft.

    Whatever M$ does, it will be extended (polluted) be their accumulated enemies.

    //Pingo

    --
    --- Linux or FreeBSD, it's like blondes or brunettes. I like both. ---
  4. Is really SOUP a play on SOAP? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3

    There is something called SOUP, which is something like a SOAP for binary data: The Simple Object Update Protocol (SOUP) specifies an content-transfer model for digital "appliances" like cameras, printers, scanners, picture frames, personal digital assistants, cell phones, machine control systems, and so on. SOUP standardizes simple but important communications between content-rich devices. It uses Simple Object Access Protocol (SOAP) messages to push content from one device into another. The approach resembles the way web browsers pull content from web servers. SOUP works with only two device "actions": 1)HTTP GET to obtain the device or service object state as a SOAP serialization and 2)HTTP POST to set the device state as well control the transfer of content. SOUP supports simple transfer, transfer with job control, indirect transfer (URL based), and content negotiation. SOUP does not preclude additional actions on devices; it exists to make simple actions simple.

    1. Re:Is really SOUP a play on SOAP? by thal · · Score: 2

      These Helix Code (er, Ximian) guys aren't very good at picking a name the first time around, eh?

      --

    2. Re:Is really SOUP a play on SOAP? by ch-chuck · · Score: 2

      I though a good answer to SOAP would be something like Distributed Information Retrieval Technology - no, that would project the wrong image to the laity.

      --
      try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
  5. you always become the thing you hate... by mav[LAG] · · Score: 2
    Doing a find and replace on some of Miguel's quotes gives a result that looks remarkably similar to a Microsoft Java press release I read a few years back.

    "We're making it so you can write services in the Java environment and bring them to the (Windows) platforms, as well as do the reverse," said Gates. "We think Java looks sweet," Gates continued. "Sun is supporting Java for creating network services. But we will let these services become available to Windows."

    Boot. Foot. Other. Funny.

    --
    --- Hot Shot City is particularly good.
    1. Re:you always become the thing you hate... by mech9t8 · · Score: 2

      What's interesting is a whole lot of this .NET initiative (the Common Lanuage Runtime, the C-sharp programming language) came about after Sun sued Microsoft out of Java.

      --
      Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies.
      - Nietzsche
  6. SOAP==the end of free software by lukel · · Score: 5
    I'm going to say something that may appear controversial, but please hear me through.

    While tech kingpins such as Microsoft and Oracle have rushed to one-up each other in introducing Web-delivered software, Ximian is doing work behind the scenes to make sure Web services can run on the Linux and Unix operating systems.

    While web-delivered software seems like a good idea, I wonder what the consequences for free software are. Obliviously free software isn't going to go away - but I see it becoming a less viable alternative. There are several reasons for this.

    (1) If software is delivered via the web, you will require someone else's computing power at the other end of the line. Someone has to pay for this. As the recent experience of the dotcoms shows, business models based on giving stuff away free almost invariable don't work. Software provides will have to be paid for the service they provide. So an end to the free beer aspect of software.

    (2) If software is running on remote server's, then even if it is covered by an open source licence, in many cases, the people running the severs will not be distributing binaries, so won't be required to provided source code for any changes they make. Hence an end to the free speech aspect of free software.

    Sure, not everyone will use web delivered software, so open source software will continue to be used by niche users. However, once the mainstream embrace web delivered software (and this is likely since its being pushed by MS and Sun et al), open source software will be permanently confined to the backwaters. This will mean its benefits will only be enjoyed by a select few.

    1. Re:SOAP==the end of free software by Pengo · · Score: 5


      Nahh...

      Think of it like this. I will compare web content to driving a car or using public transportation.

      Public transportation on paper a better idea. Leverage of shared resources hence savings, better for environment, easier to manage, more reliable (arguably).

      Now, why do people choose to still purchase vehicles in conjested city areas?

      ... ownership.

      You can't feel ownership of a remotely managed and remotely owned application. Human nature tells us to achieve to OWN not RENT. (There are soooo many paralells in society that have 'washed' us to believe this.)

      I know this mentality pretty well as I co-own a fairly sucessful ASP business in England (.. but I am an american, btw) . I go to market and I face these same 'issues' every day.. even in dealing with something such as a business-to-business workflow integration system.

      I believe that this could be the big blow for MS that frankly they don't need right now. They seem to have forgotten the most important factor in the tech-market.. the fickle consumer.

      Who knows, maybe Apple will learn from their mystakes..... but believe me. Free software ain't goin anywhere.




      --------------------
      Would you like a Python based alternative to PHP/ASP/JSP?

    2. Re:SOAP==the end of free software by NoNeeeed · · Score: 4
      The other analogy that can be made is with houses. Especially in britain, most people either own, or aspire to own their home. Just as with public transport, renting accomadation *should" be better, someone else looks after the property, if something is wrong, they fix it, and if you want to move, it is much easier. Despite the theoretically reduced hassel of renting rather than buying, the latter is still the idea that people aim for. There are several reasons for this...
      • As mentioned in the parent post people like ownership
      • The total cost of renting is always higher than buying, especially if you rent for a long time
      • People feel that renting is money down the drain, you don't actually get anything, it's why people buy movies that they may only watch a few times, despite renting being cheeper.
      • When you rent (be it a house or software) you have less control over it, while your landlord may pay to have the boiler fixed, chances are that they won't let you paint the ceiling black, or build an extension. when you own you have complete control.
      • People don't always trust (often for good reason) their landlord to do the right thing. Not all landlords are efficient and keep good care of their property. But when you own, any problems are in your power to fix.
      The cost of ownership may be lower for a company to rent software, where the reduction in tech personell can save a fortune, and savings can be made on "mass production" by a service company, those savings are not there for the average home user. They pay more for bandwidth than a large company, and don't have the cost of management etc to make savings on. Also people are unlikely to trust that the companies will always be there. if they buy hardware and software, they have something concrete that no one can take away (ignoring burglars :->), even if the company that made it goes bancrupt.

      Ultimatly I just don't see home users being that bothered about hireing software, business yes, but not individuals. Especially as the power of home computing systems is growing much faster than bandwidth and the kind of applications that will be used at home are likely to be much more processor and media intensive than those used by businesses.
    3. Re:SOAP==the end of free software by martinflack · · Score: 2

      (1) If software is delivered via the web, you will require someone else?s computing power at the other end of the line. Someone has to pay for this. As the recent experience of the dotcoms shows, business models based on giving stuff away free almost invariable don?t work. Software provides will have to be paid for the service they provide. So an end to the free beer aspect of software.

      "Software at the other end of the line" -- you mean like the programs you run on a server over telnet or ssh? I see a direct parallel between software that you run by typing a command and software that you run by entering a URL.

      The only difference, IMHO, is that software on a URL can be made much more easily available to "anonymous" use, i.e. the public. But there is nothing to say that you couldn't make the source code available for such a program any more than the source code for any program you use on a corporate, university, or hobby server.

      We've always had closed source sofware (and always will) and those who publish closed-source will probably move quite easily over to web-based systems. I *prefer* that - why? Because when a Win program crashes on my computer there's no easy way to report that crash with any meaningful information to a programmer. Whereas in a web-based model, the developers responsible are closer to the software, closer to the logs, usually very familiar with their server environment which is standardized, and can make incremental improvements easier. (I should know, I program a lot for the web.)

      Those of us who believe in open-source can still download the source to web program x and play with it, provided that the developers make that source downloadable. Witness Slashcode. I will concede, though, that these programs are typically more complex in regards to dependencies on outside configuration, software, etc. (any mod_perl script, which I believe Slashdot runs as, for example, is heavily dependent on the way Apache is configured and compiled)

    4. Re:SOAP==the end of free software by zCyl · · Score: 3

      (1) If software is delivered via the web, you will require someone else?s computing power at the other end of the line. Someone has to pay for this. As the recent experience of the dotcoms shows, business models based on giving stuff away free almost invariable don?t work. Software provides will have to be paid for the service they provide. So an end to the free beer aspect of software.


      Actually, I see this as a great benefit to free software. The reason is that the remote application market provides a clear distinction between free software and commercial software. Any software which is distributed is easily pirated, simply because by "nature" such software has no intrinsic value or cost overhead to reproduce, other than what we artificially assign to it. Remote applications however are not so much SOFTWARE as SERVICES. And it is this service that people will be willing to pay for, because it DOES have intrinsic value and cannot be reproduced at no cost.

      So while with the exclusion of donations or advertisement funded services (such as, in simple form, we are seeing with freshmeat, google, download.com, etc), remote applications will provide a commercial market in the areas where corporate coordination is necessary, such as say an application that automatically gives you access to almost every academic paper in existence (a service, while the papers themselves have no "intrinsic" value since they can be copied), it still leaves the free software market wide open for all the applications you run on your pc.

    5. Re:SOAP==the end of free software by Ian+Bicking · · Score: 2
      If software is running on remote servers, then even if it is covered by an open source licence, in many cases, the people running the severs will not be distributing binaries, so won?t be required to provided source code for any changes they make.
      This is indeed a problem. There are plans to address this problem in the GPL version 3.0 as referenced in this slashdot article.
  7. SOUP Cooperation? by tao · · Score: 2

    I really hope that the GNOME-team has been in contact with the KDE-team here, to create a protocol that will make the protocol a common standard rather than a GNOME-specific invention. Sadly, I don't hold my hopes up on this one...

    1. Re:SOUP Cooperation? by MAXOMENOS · · Score: 2
      I really hope that the GNOME-team has been in contact with the KDE-team here, to create a protocol that will make the protocol a common standard rather than a GNOME-specific invention. Sadly, I don't hold my hopes up on this one...

      Step one: implement a SOAP engine using Qt. Not hard, since Qt already has an XML engine.

      What I'd really like to see is SOAP implemented for wxWindows. But that's because I'm a wxFreak.

      ObJectBridge (GPL'd Java ODMG) needs volunteers.

    2. Re:SOUP Cooperation? by Graymalkin · · Score: 2

      Open source != better. Why must people with UID's over 50,000 be so difficult. Besides the fact that being interoperable with SOAP is a good thing since lots of companies are getting into the groove of it. XML is easily parsed and transfered and was designed for the purpose of exchanging all sorts of information.

      --
      I'm a loner Dottie, a Rebel.
  8. Interoperatibility by Fervent · · Score: 2
    Not knowing much about SOUP (and still not knowing much, the CNet article wasn't terribly informative) I'm wondering: will SOUP have interoperatibility with .NET? I mean, will SOUP try to understand .NET calls and make some sense out of them (in the limited constructs of not being a Microsoft system, and thus shut out of some proprietary features)?

    Or is SOAP a replacement for .NET, much like TeX was touted as a replacement for a majority of the word processors out there? Not that that strategy worked entirely (an overwhelming number of TeX users seemed to jump ship when StarOffice came on board). It would be nice if the two were able to recognize each other, or at least SOAP recognize .NET.

    --

    - I don't care if they globalize against free speech. All my best free thoughts are done in my head.

    1. Re:Interoperatibility by Graymalkin · · Score: 2

      Read: SOAP means passing objects as XML documents which enables them to be very simply parsed and read and also eases the transfer of data as objects can be passed by a plain old HTTP server (a standard) rather than by a proprietary method.

      --
      I'm a loner Dottie, a Rebel.
  9. Soup? by zCyl · · Score: 2

    In the software testing community, SOUP degradingly refers to "Software Of Unknown Pedigree"

  10. The standards are SOAP / .NET, not SOUP by SpinyNorman · · Score: 2

    It appears SOUP is just going to be a GNOME interface to the .NET SOAP (XML based remote object invocation) interfaces.

    There's no reason KDE can't also use the .NET SOAP interfaces.

  11. Childish by dimator · · Score: 2

    What a ridiculous argument. By your argument, anyone who has ever done anything "wrong" (and I'm not yet sure that charging money for a high quality products is "wrong"), we should never forgive them or give them a second chance. Utterly ridiculous.

    You're doing yourself no favor by staying away from Qt. It is an oustanding toolkit, and you should take a look at v3.0 on the way soon.

    know anyone (no, not your company) who owns a real copy of Motif

    No, but I know more than one company that has a Qt license.

    I give trolltech lots of respect for giving away their flagship product for nothing. If they want to make money on it by using two licenses, more power to them. It works for them, and it works for me (and other free software developers).

    But hey, don't let logic convince you... go on denying yourself access to a slew of amazing free apps.


    --

    --
    python -c "x='python -c %sx=%s; print x%%(chr(34),repr(x),chr(34))%s'; print x%(chr(34),repr(x),chr(34))"
  12. What is "SOUP" actually? by mattdm · · Score: 2

    SOAP is already a cross-platform standard. So what is this SOUP thing actually? The only clue in the C|Net article is where it says "Ximian is creating a tool that will allow Web services written for Linux to be compiled for SOAP. De Icaza said the compiler could be available to developers within two months."

    Ah. So it's a tool of some sort, not a protocol. A google search on "Ximian SOUP" only turns up this message, which isn't that helpful (the "synapse" server it refers to is maybe https://synapse.ximian.com/, which isn't publicly accessible. Anyone actually know what this thing IS?


    --

  13. key bindings by janpod66 · · Score: 2
    One thing that makes KDE feel so much like Windows and makes it such a nuisance for non-Windows users is the fact that it uses CUA bindings. A UNIX, Gnome, or Emacs user that tries to go four lines down in a text widget is faced with four new windows popping up. Or they may want to go to the beginning of a line, hit Control-A, type a character, and see all their text disappears. That happens again and again, and makes it difficult for many UNIX users to ever feel really at home in KDE. And the CUA bindings were really pretty poorly designed to being with.

    In general, I think you are right, though. Both KDE and Gnome follow Microsoft quite a bit. And while that may be useful for mass market appeal, overall, I think it's a shame. Linux's GUI could be so much more useful than merely doing well what Windows already does.

    1. Re:key bindings by MSBob · · Score: 2

      What about the fact that you can configure them yourself? Every fucking single one of them! KDE is the ONLY single frigging Unix desktop out there that you can use without the mouse. Once you get the carpal tunnel syndrome you'll appreciate why it's so goddamn important to some. Moron.

      --
      Your pizza just the way you ought to have it.
  14. Re:light-weight X already exists by Malcontent · · Score: 2

    I don't know about others but yes VNC is very promising. Now how to make anonymous users run simple apps safely over VNC..

    --

    War is necrophilia.

  15. Re:MS will win... by Graymalkin · · Score: 2

    You're missing out almost entirely on .NET. Remember way back when when Microsoft announced ActiveX? Which was a fancy name for OLE which is basically building a large piece of software out of a bunch of pre-written components. .NET is the replacement for all such object communication technologies Microsoft's been using since 1994. Instead of using a binary packet to transfer objects between apps they're now using XML files. This has lots of benefits; everything will speak a common protocol and potentially non-Microsoft apps will be talking to Microsoft apps, besides different systems talking to one another, you can write components in your favourite language and have them talk to components written in different languages. Yet another aspect of .NET is the use of intermediary code. Components can be written in any language and compiled to the p-code which contains no architecture specific data structures which means any OS with a .NET interpreter will be able to run the component. Something Java's been doing for a while now.

    --
    I'm a loner Dottie, a Rebel.
  16. Re:How is this different from CORBA? by Graymalkin · · Score: 2

    Uh...how so?

    --
    I'm a loner Dottie, a Rebel.