Slashdot Mirror


Bill Gates Claims OSS Has Poor Interoperability

XeRXeS-TCN writes "In yet another example of Bill Gates seemingly 'not getting it' (or getting it just fine and spreading FUD), he has sent out an email to all MSFT's corporate customers, stating that if they are looking for interoperability, they should not look to Linux or OSS software. What he really means of course, is free alternatives trying to interoperate with Microsoft's non-documented proprietary standards."

29 of 565 comments (clear)

  1. typical by ginotech · · Score: 4, Insightful

    OSS can't work with MSFT stuff for the same reason that some websites only load in IE...microsoft doesn't like to follow the rules

    1. Re:typical by zcat_NZ · · Score: 3, Insightful

      was that comment made _before_ or _after_ Microsoft got caught detecting the Opera browser and returning a stylesheet so broken that no browser (even MSIE) would display the page properly?

      --
      455fe10422ca29c4933f95052b792ab2
  2. You want interoperability? by Mr.Bananas · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You want interoperability? Just dump Microsoft and use everything else.

    1. Re:You want interoperability? by crummynz · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Uh.

      I think that was Mr. Gates point. If you dump Microsoft and use everything else, you lose interoperability with Microsoft products.

      --
      ~ Crummy
  3. Yeah, right by Lisandro · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'll accept that the day Office doesn't have problems opening .doc files from different versions.

    PS: It's all marketing, that's what Microsoft's about. Can we please move to something else?

  4. He told the truth by FunWithHeadlines · · Score: 3, Insightful
    "the open source development approach encourages the creation of many permutations of the same type of software application, which could add implementation and testing overhead to interoperability efforts,"

    Gates is telling the truth here. If the whole world standardized on one set of standard software, it would (obviously) make interoperability a lot easier. That's common sense. And we can understand why this vision would appeal to him, especially if the world decided to standardize on his software.

    However, there is far more to choosing software than just that. OK, so we work harder to make interoperability work between software. It's worth it so people can have choice.

    1. Re:He told the truth by Aadain2001 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There is a very simple issue: settle on a set of standards that are open and free and then even if 100 different programs that do the same thing, like calendering, come out they could still all interoperate. The users would win since they could use the program that they liked the most, not the one that is holding their data hostage. Open and free standards leads to more inovation because it encourages developers to try new things and not worry about loosing users because they can't use their old data. This is what scares Bill and MS the most and why they will NEVER use open and free standards in their products. They will "embrace and extend" standards, which means making their own version and then not giving it out and blaming everyone else for "not following the standard".

      --
      Space for rent, inquire within
  5. Re:What is this world coming to? by danormsby · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Guess they don't attempt to interoperate between three different version of Office within their organization.

    Guess they can afford the upgrade licenses!

    --
    Omnis amans amens
  6. Interoperability? by nybo · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Then how come M$ not keen on using open standards?

    Take Outlook for instance.
    Works great with M$Exchange, but how about the support for SyncML, iCal, vCard and so on?...

    -Nybo

  7. Re:What is this world coming to? by BoomerSooner · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Bill Gates is trying to maximize shareholder wealth. When you find an honest publicly traded company let me know (mind you I used to work at arthur andersen and most private companies aren't honest either).

    Gates makes his money by selling, pushing & shoving his inferior product on everyone. If he truly wanted an interoperable system he'd open up those undocumented api's etc...

    I personally like windows but I also like OS 9, OS X, Linux, BeOS, Solaris, ...

    An OS should be like a screw driver. It does its job and doesn't need to be redesigned every week.

  8. Yeah, funny that. by mcc · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I find that every single product I could possibly use or buy has wonderful interoperability, except those Microsoft makes. I even find every operating system I could possibly buy-- from Apple, from Sun, from Redhat-- natively runs the same (POSIX) programs... except the ones Microsoft makes.

    Bill Gates is right, of course, that switching away from all-Microsoft products makes interoperability with Microsoft products harder. After all, he specifically engineered things that way. It's too bad the antitrust "settlement" a couple years ago was an absolute sham; if something like that settlement's "document your protocols and formats" clause had actually been enforced, Gates wouldn't be able to engineer them that way anymore, and interoperability would no longer be a problem anywhere.

    Anyway, this is a common tactic in advertising. Attack your competitor for flaws you have but they don't; that way you tie up your competitor's ability to attack you on that grounds because they're too busy defending themselves, and you lessen the impact when people point out your own flaws since there's a perception your competitor has those flaws as well. Like, say you're a political candidate with a disreputable and possibly illegal military history? Get your supporters to pay people to claim your opponent has a disreputable and possibly illegal military history. Works like a charm.

  9. That man is right... by grumbel · · Score: 5, Insightful

    That man is right or at least not totally wrong. Just because you have the source it doesn't automatically make your software work together. Simple examples:

    - open a OpenOffice document in AbiWord
    - copy&paste between different applications
    - embbed an Gnumeric chart into some OpenOffice document
    - try to edit a LaTeX document with Abiword or OpenOffice
    - try to open a Gimp xcf in anything beside Gimp
    - try to copy&paste some webpage in a Office application and get something more then plain-text
    - ...

    None of this works or only in a much less smooth way then it does under Windows or MacOSX with similar software. Free Software has improved a lot in these regions in the last years, but there is still lots and lots of software floating around that doesn't operate much with other software at all. Sure, you can always export to .png or plain-text and somehow get the job done, but smooth interoperability is something else.

    1. Re:That man is right... by jonastullus · · Score: 3, Insightful

      - open a OpenOffice document in AbiWord

      well, that is really a shame. i would have thought that the abiword guys had an import plugin for this...

      - copy&paste between different applications

      yes, this IS a serious drawback which stems from the different GUI toolkits. drag&drop also is very problematic between GTK/KDE/X11... but if you use KDE with KDE-applications this problem is much less worse ;-(

      - embbed an Gnumeric chart into some OpenOffice document

      hmm, should this actually work? you mean like the COM stuff in windows (if that is the right buzzword ;-)? this is not really intended under linux and thus an odd example. windows can't do many of the things that linux can do really well... there is enough lacking in linux to reduce the criticism only to the CORE problems ;-)

      - try to edit a LaTeX document with Abiword or OpenOffice

      i haven't tried this because abiword nor openoffice are text editors, but it is perfectly possible to do so! or do you mean that abiword/OO should present the document in a LyX-like fashion? this is such a wrong approach!!! abiword/OO are word processors while latex is a typesetting system! two TOTALLY different domains!
      that would be like using the Internet Explorer as your default image viewer... *hey, wait a second*

      - try to open a Gimp xcf in anything beside Gimp

      XCF is an internal format of the Gimp just like PSD is for photoshop! these formats are not really intended to be opened by other programs!

      - try to copy&paste some webpage in a Office application and get something more then plain-text

      i never understood the urge to do so! my mother always does this as a means of pasting together different bits of information, but why would i want to paste the color, font and background image together with the text?? i am not saying that it is a useless feature and maybe it would be nice if it were possible under linux, but i really don't see any application for this! even worse, i'd REALLY like to know how to disable this questionable feature under windows!

      jethr0

    2. Re:That man is right... by Coryoth · · Score: 4, Insightful

      As some have pointed out, some of these are valid complaints, but some are just silly.

      open a OpenOffice document in AbiWord

      Yes, its unfortunate that doesn't work. It isn't for lack of potential interoperability though - both formats are open and documented. The fact that the Abiword team hasn't gotten around to writing an import filter is a little disappointing, but if you're going to damn them for that:

      Try opening an OpenOffice document in Microsoft Word.

      Not much interoperability from Microsoft either. OpenOffice is fairly widely used and popular, and the file format readily documented. It wouldn't be hard at all for Microsoft ot be interoperable if they wanted to be.

      - try to edit a LaTeX document with Abiword or OpenOffice

      Try to open a QuarkXPress document in Microsoft Word. How about an Adobe InDesign document in Microsoft Word? What's that? A different application domain? Then please think again about your example. TeX is not a word processor, even if there are programs like LyX that do a good job of providing a word processor like interface for it.

      - try to open a Gimp xcf in anything beside Gimp

      Try opening a PSD document in anything besides Photoshop. There are actually some programs that read it (like GIMP, heh), but your remarkably interoperable Microsoft Office suite will choke on it. Likewise there are programs that will read xcf (its an open documented format after all), but most don't expect to need to, so don't bother. As to GIMP - I hear they're working on an even more open and easy to access format.

      Jedidiah.

  10. Oh for Charlie Mingus' sake by Knights+who+say+'INT · · Score: 3, Insightful
    This not only is a dupe, but it's a dupe rephrased in a misleading way. Granted, most of the fault is on silicon.com. But "Linux makes interoperability harder" does not necessarily mean "Linux has poor interoperabiliy" (it could mean "Linux developers aren't working with us"), and nowhere in the text Gates says what the headline says. The actual quote on interoperability is:

    "Open source is a methodology for licensing and/or developing software - that may or may not be interoperable. Additionally, the open source development approach encourages the creation of many permutations of the same type of software application, which could add implementation and testing overhead to interoperability efforts"


    Any mention of Linux? Nah, some noserubbing on the Great Forking Problem.
  11. interoperability of microsoft office by jonastullus · · Score: 3, Insightful

    *Yeah*, let's all use microsoft office because that's the only way to achieve interoperability between different parties!

    unless i totally misunderstand that word, aren't open standards BETTER in terms of interoperability than closed, proprietary ones??

    i say we publish official and open standards, protocols and file formats for all major interactions and make it everybodies choice whether they like to have an open client for the standardized communications or if they'd rather take proprietary tools!

    obviously, not every program can be delivered with full source, but if a vendor wants to reach various platforms, there is either a common standard in place (like POSIX for example) or some porting is in order *tough luck*.

    why did mr. gates fight java as language and instead went with .NET. i can assure you that interoperability is NOT the reason!

    why would a quasi-monopolistic company preach interoperability when this can only weaken its own position???

    jethr0

  12. Interoperability by unoengborg · · Score: 3, Insightful

    According to Bills dictionary:

    The ability to read, and only read, old data formats into new versions of software from the same vender. The aim of interoperability is to simplify upgrade from one version of software to the next.

    --
    God is REAL! Unless explicitly declared INTEGER
  13. Translation: Use OSS and ... by IgD · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This letter amounts to a veiled threat: Use our software or someone might get hurt. Gates and company plan to make it as hard as possible to prevent interoperability with OSS. If you use OSS they will make as life as difficult as possible for you. They've engaged in this sort of behavior before and are doing it again.

  14. Re:I got one, text of email follows by bcrowell · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Hee hee...the Slashdot blurb is pretty misleading. The e-mail rarely even mentions Linux. In one place where it does mention Linux, it's to say that MS is trying to play nicely with Linux:
    • Microsoft software can talk to mainframes and minicomputers from IBM and other manufacturers; other operating systems such as the Mac OS and various UNIXes including Linux; ...

    The only thing that even remotely sounds like the Slashdot blurb is this:

    • Additionally, the open source development approach encourages the creation of many permutations of the same type of software application, which could add implementation and testing overhead to interoperability efforts.
    Translation: being interoperable is easiest when you don't have to interoperate with more than one implementation.
  15. This is backfiring by rseuhs · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Bill Gates is trying to maximize shareholder wealth.

    I think they are failing at that.

    IIRC the dollar lost 26% of it's value in 2004 (compared to Euro and Yen), so the 6% increase in revenue (10-12 2004/2005 in dollars) don't look so great anymore.

    Sure, they have cut 1.5 billion of R&D costs, which is impressive, but only revenue can keep a company alive.

    Currently Microsoft's anti-Linux strategy seems to be:

    • Constantly badmouthing Linux, thus keeping Linux in the mind of decision makers
    • Pushing XML which has it's roots (via SGML) in the Unix-community.

    This won't work.

    It will have these effects, all bad for Microsoft:

    • Big customers realize that Linux is a powerful way to threaten Microsoft, thus they have much more power during negotiations which means less margin for MS.
    • All customers realize that if Linux is such a threat to Microsoft, it can't be that bad.
    • Customers who realize the value of an open format like XML are also much more likely to realize the value of open formats and standards in general in which open source has a big advantage.

    It seems Microsoft is getting pretty desperate.

  16. Re:What is this world coming to? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I like two parts vodka and one part vodka, but that's just me.

  17. Re:What is this world coming to? by anagama · · Score: 3, Insightful

    • [OpenOffice is] not nearly as functional as Microsoft Office and crashes even more often

    My law office runs on Openoffice. Let's see, it prints my pleading paper when I need it. Fills in templates from my database for all kinds of documents. Spell checks. Does outlining. Makes spreadsheets when I need to do some calculations. How is it inadequate compared to MSoffice?

    When I worked for the state, we used MSoffice to the exact same things. But there isn't anything I did in my old job on MSoffice that I can't do on OpenOffice. For 1% of the world, MSoffice might offer some crucial feature, but the rest of us can't figure out what that might be ... or even care for that matter.

    The truth is, MSoffice is fatally flawed for my use. While I haven't had crashing problems with OpenOffice, MSoffice has F****ed me over plenty. For example, I once lost a day's worth of writing at my old job using MSoffice. It's automatic backup feature failed me so all my work was completely gone. When working on a deadline, a loss like that can really piss you off (as in bouncing around your office swearing like peg-legged-pirate). In contrast, Openoffice offers a timed autosave feature - I won't lose more than 5 minutes worth of work unless my entire harddrive bites it. Yessiree - MSoffice is not nearly as functional as Openoffice.
    --
    What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
  18. Re:This coming from the man... by NutscrapeSucks · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Let's put 8 different versions of OpenOffice Writer on millions of machines (10% of which have defective hardware, viruses, etc), and see how well works.

    This really seems like a "grass is greener" issue. MSOffice has been everywhere for a long time and of course problems sometime crop up. But nobody really knows if OpenOffice interoperates better with itself because it has never been tried.

    (And yes, I know about the XML format, but that doesn't prevent intrepetation/implementaiton issues.)

    --
    Whenever I hear the word 'Innovation', I reach for my pistol.
  19. It's been said a bazillion time before... by Ridgelift · · Score: 3, Insightful

    For those of you new to Slashdot, here it is again to put this story in perspective:

    First they ignore you
    Then they laugh at you
    Then they fight you -- OSS is here right now
    Then you win.

  20. Whatever prompted Bill to say such a thing? by OwlWhacker · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Interoperability may not exist between certain OSS products; but, because they're Open Source, they can be made to interoperate without encumbrance - and you can be sure that this won't change.

    Can the same be said for Microsoft software? Can developers 'freely' interoperate with all Microsoft software? Does Microsoft give assurance that developers can continue to freely interoperate with its products in the future?

    Additionally, the open source development approach encourages the creation of many permutations of the same type of software application

    In layman's terms, this means that Open Source encourages that evil thing called 'competition'.

    Has Bill Gates ever said anything positive about Open Source Software?

    I wonder why not?

  21. Linux is pretty bad in this regard by Nailer · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I hate to defend this guy, but there's other things you should be attacking him over. From a user point of view. Different Open Source distros are really like different Operating Systems.

    How do you install software in Red Hat? Debian? Windows 95? Windows XP?

    How do you change what IP address will be used for eth0, in Red Hat or Debian? Windows 95? Windows XP?

    In both cases the 6 years different versions of Windows are more similar than the latest versions of both.

    1. Re:Linux is pretty bad in this regard by 0BoDy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I think you've lost sight of what Linux is, and why it's here. Linux isn't the environment. It's not even the command-line, it's just the kernel. It's definitely NOT windowing environments.

      I think a lot of the misconception regard the differences between Linux and GNU software relates to what is what, and who wrote it, what they believe and if you agree with that. Whether they're written by RM Stallman et al, or Linus et al, or by distribution developers is important.

      Linux is the kernel. The kernel, just like the CPU in your computer, is extremely interoperable. It works with all kind of peripheral applications, you access it using external commands, shells, etc. Linus wrote it because, to an extent he agreed with RMS ideology about software: that it should be free as in freedom, as in beer, and that you should be able to do anything with it.

      Richard M. Stallman, creator of GNU (GNU's not UNIX), wrote many of the other applications terminal junkies get fired up about: bash, emacs, less, man and others. The GNU system applications and the kernel are what make up a complete Linux base system. Anything above that is written by the gnome group or kde, or someone else. These things are written for Linux but are other applications, just like null-soft winamp, AOL, Aqua, Macromedia Dreamweaver, or Flash.

      On top of that, many distributions have designed "ease of use" solutions for X11-based graphical display servers. Interoperability has very little to do with configuration changes from distro to distro; that has more to do with the base OS, ifconfig, bash, sysvinit, and the flat files in /etc. Deficiencies of that software are the ones that ought to be addressed here. So if you have complaints about GUI features not being present cross-distribution: complain to Novell, Red Hat, et al that they're not supporting Linux upstream*. Distros are there so you can choose the way you want to learn to do it. Learn it once, or learn it again because you see a better way to do it. Most change isn't bad.

      Also, only administrators should be worrying about interoperability, software installation, ip addressing, network configuration, boot up, accounts, etc. The "user's" point of view isn't really relevant there, a good administrator should know GNU/Linux, the base OS, configured with flat files, in terminal. It's easier anyway, once you've been trained to do it that way, because it doesn't change, because that's actually what GNU/Linux is.

      I think you need to get past your bad experiences in the GUI environment and evaluate the OS. I agree there needs to be A GNU installer framework, perhaps even GNU selected GUI configuration utilities, among other things, but many distributions ideologies will get in the way. Red Hat wouldn't use it, now; Suse has YAST; Debian, Slackware, Gentoo, and derivatives use the gnome / KDE controls or else the terminal and would use them, but even so, there will inconsistency as long as Linux is free as in freedom. You can't expect an OS that's based on user input to be the same across multiple branches and ideologies; choose wisely. I choose Linux, because no matter which distribution I use, I can still fix it, rely on it, and be happy so many have put hard work into it.

      *Few distros make fixes and actually let the original authors know, and help them catch all of Linux. This results in some other minor changes from distro to distribution. ** I hope this hasn't just been a big pointless rant, I've spent about an hour trying to write it well.

      --
      Can I be a Luddite too?
  22. Re:This coming from the man... by MemoryDragon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Actually that would still work better, see the doc format is an undocumented mess with memory dumps in it, while OpenOffice uses plain clearly readable and well documented XML. Besides that Microsoft constantly altered the doc format to break the revers engineering efforts by the competition, and thus broke constantly its own compatibility between versions.

  23. Re:What is this world coming to? by STrinity · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Anybody who's been to college knows that it's not a proper screwdriver without at least equal parts vodka and oj. 100 proof, if possible.

    You people make me sick. Leave it to dumbass Americans to dilute perfectly good vodka with fruitjuice.

    --
    Les Miserables Volume 1 now up with my reading of