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."
What's next!? Cigarette companies are going to claim that they aren't harmful to your health?
I'm a big tall mofo.
who brought us Windows ME, an OS that isn't even interoperable with itself.
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
Sorry I didn't get the email, my email client thought it was a SPAM !!
You want interoperability? Just dump Microsoft and use everything else.
I love how the spyware the Windows OS attracts interoperates with other spyware on the system.
You are in error. No-one is screaming. Thank you for your cooperation.
He is the world's leading expert on lack of interoperability, dammit! He knows what he's talking about!
Bill Gates would say the human body doesn't need oxygen if it meant a few more billion dollars worth of profits. Little snide remark aside, let's ponder this. Bill says to his customers "Linux isn't good with Microsoft products." Big surprise. The real fun part though will be when the "independent" studies start confirming Bill's claims. You know, the studies done from independent research firms...that just happen to be 95% bankrolled by Microsoft...
"He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lampposts...for support rather than illumination." - Andrew Lang
Every day, businesses face an ongoing challenge of making a wide variety of software from many different vendors work together. It's crucial to success in streamlining business processes, getting closer to customers and partners, or making mergers and acquisitions successful.
This email outlines some of the work Microsoft is doing to make its products interoperate well in a diverse IT environment; it is one in an occasional series of emails from Microsoft executives about technology and public-policy issues important to computer users, our industry, and anyone who cares about the future of high technology. If you would like to receive these emails in the future, please go to *link removed* to subscribe. We will not send you future executive emails unless you choose to subscribe.
Whether you are connecting with partners' systems, accessing data from a mainframe, connecting applications written in different programming languages or trying to log on across multiple systems, bringing heterogeneous technologies together while reducing costs is today a challenge that touches every part of the organization.
Over the years, our industry has tried many approaches to come to grips with the heterogeneity of software. But the solution that has proven consistently effective - and the one that yields the greatest success for developers today - is a strong commitment to interoperability. That means letting different kinds of applications and systems do what they do best, while agreeing on a common "contract" for how disparate systems can communicate to exchange data with one another.
Interoperability is more pragmatic than other approaches, such as attempting to make all systems compatible at the code level, focusing solely on adding new layers of middleware that try to make all systems look and act the same, or seeking to make different systems interchangeable. With a common understanding of basic protocols, different software can interact smoothly with little or no specific knowledge of each other. The Internet is perhaps the most obvious example of this kind of interoperability, where any piece of software can connect and exchange data as long as it adheres to the key protocols.
Simply put, interoperability is a proven approach for dealing with the diversity and heterogeneity of the marketplace. Today I want to focus on two major thrusts of Microsoft's product interoperability strategy: First, we continue to support customers' needs for software that works well with what they have today. Second, we are working with the industry to define a new generation of software and Web services based on eXtensible Markup Language (XML), which enables software to efficiently share information and opens the door to a greater degree of "interoperability by design" across many different kinds of software. Our goal is to harness all the power inherent in modern (and not so modern) business software, and enable them to work together so that the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. We want to further eliminate friction among heterogeneous architectures and applications without compromising their distinctive underlying capabilities.
This may seem like an obvious approach, but the desire for interoperability is sometimes mixed up with other issues. For example, interoperability is sometimes viewed merely as adherence to a published specification of some kind, either from one or more vendors or a standards organization. But simply publishing a specification may not be enough, because it overlooks much of the hard work it takes to successfully develop interoperable products - namely, ensuring that the "contract" defined by a specification is successfully implemented in software and tested in a production environment.
Sometimes interoperability is also confused with open source software. Interoperability is about how different software systems work together. Open source is a methodology for licensing and/or developing software - that may or may not be interoperable. Ad
There are a lot of issues with open source software, but he's really not one to talk on issues of interoperability. Nothing to see here, really. The article doesn't go into much depth.
Partially true, of course, but I haven't actually seen it cause many interoperability problems...
MakePassword.com Mp3 Blog
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?
Linux and OSS are compatible with less than 1% of the viruses, worms, and trojans that have been created by third party Windows developers! If you're running Linux (or even Firefox on Windows) you're denied the rich environment of advertising available to users of MSFT products!
-- The reason it's called the right wing? Irony.
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.
I've been trying to get all these email viruses to
work on my Linux box, but it won't run them. About time
someone had to point out the poor interoperability of
these important programs. Until something is done
to make it easy to run these programs with only a mouse
click, Linux will only be second rate.
So does this mean Microsoft are going to fully adopt Open standards? Surely they aren't going to keep everything totally closed and proprietary if they are aiming for a good level of interoperability? That would be obviously hypocritical!
"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," Gates wrote.
Bill is a gentleman, and as a good gentleman, lacks memory. For example, the BSD TCP/IP stack they made inoperable.
I see 57005 people
Yeah, if you want Windows interoperability, you should just go with Windows. Just make sure you have the exact same versions of everything you want to have interoperate.
A while ago I set up a home network. Linux gateway/fileserver running Samba, other boxes on the network running Linux, Win98, WinME, WinXP Pro & Home. Everything could see & use the Samba shares on the Linux fileserver. All the WinXP Pros could see & use shares on the other WinXP Pros. Trying to access shares between WinXP Pro & WinME - no can do.
Join moola.com, play games to earn money.
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
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.
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
OSS has an excellent interoperability with anything that doesn't try to opt out of interoperating or even doesn't try hard enough. And Microsoft is pretty much the only company that really cares about preventing that -- Apple smells like they deliberately made the DRM the record companies demanded weak, so Apple attempts to avoid being evil.
So, according to MS, who is the epitome of good interoperability? Uhm, let's see... isn't that the main culprit itself?
Come one, this is a criminal act. False advertising and deliberately defaming your competition by spreading things that you know are false.
The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
...that OSS is sometimes playing catching up with proprietary protocols and file formats, trying to find a way to be interoperable with something that is perversely designed to deliberately be hard to work with in order to lock in customers, and re-inforce monopoly status.
So in that respect, what he says is true. Much like a robber slowly pulling the knife out of his victim, while muttering "this street has become too dangerous".
Bill Gates. You make me laugh.
Ok, sure, so the openoffice and the abiword don't open the MS file formats perfectly.
But I can interoprate, GNU screen, netcat, mplayer, grep and the apple// screensaver, xosd, and aalib quake to do crazy shite in *nix. In windows the programs don't talk to each other. In *nix things that were never meant to go together can talk quite nicely through the pipes and stdin/stdout. In windows your lucky if you can get your instant messenger to talk to notepad.
The GeekNights podcast is going strong. Listen!
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:
...
.png or plain-text and somehow get the job done, but smooth interoperability is something else.
- 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
don't ignore a mostly valid criticism just because it's partially off-base. alsa/oss/esd/arts anyone?
So when someone designs a virus for outlook express it can even work when opened at the hotmail website with internet explorer.
If a group of open source programmers can collaborate on a single project - what prevents a group of programmers from collaborating on multiple projects to ensure interoperability?
I'm not a Troll, it's reverse psychology.
Windows would be nothing without TCP/IP.
If it wasen't for TCP/IP - Windows would still be using BEUI or whatever the *$&@ they called it.
Moneyed corporations, non-working 'poor' and criminal prisoners are turning productive citizens into tax-slaves.
Most of the people that I know who work on somewhat substantial OSS projects are paid to work on those projects too. The only real difference is that the companies paying them for the work also release that work to the world-at-large, and take things one step further by building their own distributions that are designed to bundle well together.
Take SuSE for example. They built on work from RedHat, who built on work from Slackware and "roll your own" distributions, who built on the straight GNU toolset and the raw kernel. SuSE has evolved things to where they have a nice installer and maintenance system on top of the GPL stuff. YaST wasn't too bad back when I ran SuSE, and since YaST wasn't yet GPL (and it didn't depend on anything that was, it just allowed for configuration changes to GPL programs to be made easily) it was all to SuSE's advantage because they worked to help the cause of OSS. They did write most of those fancy video drivers that we had in the very late nineties and early noughties, after all.
Since the code is open, a company can either buy their package from a vendor to obtain support, or they can download the source, hire someone to make the modifications that they need, and use that. The thing that people seem to continually miss is that changes made to GPL code only have to be distributed if the binaries compiled off of those changes are distributed. If you rewrite a significant portion of "df", you can keep it all to yourself so long as you don't go sending around the binary executable without the source. Companies can use OSS internally and never reveal what they've done to it if they play by the rules.
That make OSS valuable.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
While interoperability with Microsoftware is sometimes difficult due to their use of proprietary technologies, a pure Microsoft environment is generally better in the interoperability department than a pure Linux environment. MS Office is integrated with IIS which is integrated with the OS which uses the MMC for a variety of administration tasks (including those outside of IIS), etc. Even under the application level, the GUI is integrated with the OS (it's part of the kernel).
All this comes at a price, however, because extremely strong integration (Microsoft's method for implementing interoperability) means that removing certain pieces is difficult to do. Servers usually do not need a GUI, because they sit there and run headless, doing their thing for years at a time with little local interaction. A GUI uses memory and adds a great deal of running code and therefore bugginess. In Unix, to rid yourself of the GUI, you simply never start X. In Windows, it is sort of possible to never start the GUI, but it is very difficult to do and the aforementioned integration of everything means that even if you do manage to accomplish this feat, you will have limited power over the system since at its core, Windows is designed to be administered with GUI tools.
Unixy OSes, Linux and the BSDs in particular, can be stripped down so thoroughly as to run on a wrist watch or low-power PDA. In order to run on PDAs at all, Microsoft had to develop an in-house custom Windows system, CE, in order to operate under the constraints of a limited system, and it is still far more resource intensive than a Linux system can be.
Granted, Linux has to be stripped down to run on such hardware as well, but since the source code is available, it can be done. You won't find any companies selling custom imbedded copies of Windows made by anyone but Microsoft.
That said, the use of open standards is a system that will eventually overtake even the best fully integrated but proprietary system because any company or group can work on improving the system, products, and ideas, to differntiate themselves. No matter how many resources Microsoft or any other closed company has, "not microsoft" has more.
Computer Science is no more about computers than astronomy is about telescopes. --E. W. Dijkstra
Free Software has always been about open standards.
/dev/stdout and /dev/stderr.
.doc file extension a non-open standard.
Let me give you just one example: Back when Usenet was still bigger than the www, I remember a heated discussion on one of the awk newsgroups because Gawk (GNU's version of Awk) had the non-standard shortcuts
I remember the open source community for attacking Netscape for adding new tags to HTML that were non-standard; to this day, anyone who makes a HTML rendering engine has to deal with the legacy of the mess Netscape made of HTML in the late 1990s (Gecko is apprantently nay-to-unmaintainable because it has to deal with so much cruft in HTML).
And, of course, the open source community has always attacked Microsoft for making the
Anyway, in the Halloween Documents, Microsoft admits to deliberately making non-open standards in order to make things harder for the competition.
"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
Any mention of Linux? Nah, some noserubbing on the Great Forking Problem.
This is something I wrote a bit ago for some friends. I'm sure it nicks bits from other things i have read on the internet over the years, never the less.... Have your management forced you to consider this new fangled Unix thing? Do you miss the old days where you were kept busy rebooting machines? Do you think that an OS that goes a month without crashing is a travesty? Do you believe that 24x7 is overrated anyway? Well now there is an answer, Microsoft UNIX, the only closed source unix which closely integrates into your existing Windows and UNIX networks. (may be incompatable with some unix versions, especially if they pissed us off, and as for that linux thing, forget it) Now there is a unix which you can (And indeed shuld) sync in with your weekly server reboot cycles. Microsoft UNIX comes in four popular versions: Microsoft UNIX Home edition. For all your home needs. Comes with unreliable networking and our NoSecurity(tm) software suite "BillSortOfOwnsYourSoul" software licensing agreement Microsoft UNIX Professional Comes with MemoryGobble(tm) and Remote desktop, so you can use your computer from anywere on the internet. "BillSortOfOwnsYourSoul" software licensing agreement Microsoft UNIX Enterprise edition Especially hardened UNIX suitable for use in data centres. (Note, some security analysts recommend only using MS unix in datacentres as Dumb terminals with no network connectivity) "BillSortOfOwnsYourSoul" software licensing agreement Microsoft UNIX starter edition. A cut down version of MS UNIX home edition intended for developing markets. (Note, software may be unable to run anything which shows multiple dialog boxes) Also comes with the convenient "BillCompletelyOwnsYourSoul" software licensing agreement which forbids you from uninstalling. All version come with our Patented Blue screen of Death (BSOD) which is automatically activated when things are going too well as well as WWOT(Worse than waste of time) firewall software, and Virusattract(tm) Ever been put in the situation where the FBI have been investigating you for Shop terrorism (Used to be known as shoplifting) or Operating system terrorism (Downloading that communist Linux thing) When the FBI have come a knocking, have you ever accidentall deleted all the passwords for that encrypted hard drive then tried to feed it into the grinding machine? Well never fear. Now with new FBI-Backdoor, even the Federal cleaning staff can read all your personal emails without visiting you at all! Use this handy grid to decide what features you required. Home Pro Ent Starter Blue screen o'death X X X X wwot filewall X X X X Internet Exploder X X X X VirusAttract(tm) X X X X NoSecurity(tm) X X MemoryGobble(tm) X X Remote desktop X X Microsoft ShareAll X X X BillSortOfOwnsYourSoul X X X BillCompletelyOwnsYourSoul X MS FBI backdoor X X X X See our reports from our satified customers: "I luv M1cr0s0ft un1x s0 much, I h/\\/3 set up a B0tn3t of n3/\rly 2o,ooo of them! I w1ll b3 /\bl3 to DD0S G00gle w2th th/\t m/\ny b0x3s!"
L33T Scr1pt K11di3
"Keep it up microsoft, i will have my revege on Linux yet for destroying me!! Muhahahahaha, Oh, and Steve, the last cheque bounced, can you check it out for me, thanks"
Darl Mcbride, Ceo. Sco.
"This is crap! Even With the electrodes the MS guys put in my brain this is CR.. *BZZP* Its wonderful, its the best operating system yet from the best company ever!"
A. Random. Corparate buying strategist.
"Put this on every machine we sell even if they want Linux? we obey you, oh great masters"
Random OEM vender.
I agree with this although I'm not sure how much is interoperability and much is the lack of a good install system on Linux and I would assume Unix in general. I've found that if a program is in the repository as a package things work pretty well. If its not, its hell trying to get it installed. MSI files take for ever to install but they're easier to install, manage and then remove later than the current poor attempts (from what I know of) at a general installation system for Linux.
I dare you to set up and install WordPress (and the required components) on a Windows machine then. I betcha it'll be at least five times harder.
There are two issues at hand.
One is simple, Bill Gates competes with Linux/OSS/Free and other commercial software. It's not in his interests, yet, to support open source software because it doesn't benefit him.
The other issue is a matter of application. Some software and operating systems are better for certain things. I like Solaris for some things, Linux for others, Windows can be a nice development environment. Sometimes there's no software on the OS I am using for the application that I want. Or at least not a version that I like. So once again it's a matter of application. Some people like to type, others click. Really, the competition is good for MS, any competition at all against a monopoly is!
If you do a google search on outlook interoperability you'll see my product ScheduleWorld as the first link behind Microsoft. I've spent tremendous resources over the years trying to adapt and work around all of the problems with Microsoft Outlook/Exchange and their implementation of open iCalendar (rfc 2445, 2446, 2447) standards.
If my company of one person can make a better implementation of an open standard (this does not include the GUI or the help) than Microsoft then I have to wonder exactly how important it is to Microsoft that they get it right and interoperate properly.
Schedule your world with ScheduleWorld.com http://www.ScheduleWorld.com/ (Java Web Startable)
*Yeah*, let's all use microsoft office because that's the only way to achieve interoperability between different parties!
.NET. i can assure you that interoperability is NOT the reason!
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
why would a quasi-monopolistic company preach interoperability when this can only weaken its own position???
jethr0
NetBEUI.
Despite the fact that you are right, you're being disingenuous. If the world didn't have a routable wide area network protocol, one would be invented. Microsoft would have gladly licensed said protocol standard if they couldn't have had it for free.
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
Somebody had remember this phrase in slashdot long time ago:
"First they ignore you, then they fight you, then you win"
ajf
Last time I checked there was no SAMBA for windows... nor has microsoft _EVER_ created a cross platform application (save for mac IE, office)
I'm still waiting around for my IE Linux version so I can go to windows update.
Joking aside, isn't anyone else getting sick of all the pure bullshit this guy spews from his mouth? Everytime I see him he's talking about how unsecure open source is, and how rock solid Windows is, as he's crashing media player, and millions of windows boxes are being owned.
I'm almost surprised that /. posted this anyways. I know that they probably have to because it's IT related, but come on! Gates says Linux sucks at everything, 400 new IE vulnerbilities found, and in Soviet Russia car drives you!
whatever, I've switched, I'm through listening to this guy's lies.
~/.sig: No such file or directory
Thank god I didn't have to post a new one halfway down the page with the same idea. You should have posted with a real name, although the Pro-Linux Zealots may have beaten you a bit.
Personally, I don't give a damn what I use as long as it's cost effective and works. Works being the key object here.
Now, the vast majority of OSS projects I come across are badly documented, and interoperable with most things providing you install and configure some bizzare abstraction layer.
Microsoft has more than its fair share of interop problems, but the vast majority of OSS isn't too hot on it either, even between things which are supposed to be essentially the same (configs from one Linux distro cause another to fall over, etc).
In fact, the best set of interop I've ever seen comes from the nice people at Apple.
How many people can read hex if only you and dead people can read hex?
Maybe on your machine. I have run into a couple of missing .so files but it's usually because of some poor compilation options, which is easily remedied. I would compare DLL hell more closely with RPM hell, although I haven't used RPM's in a while so I'm not sure if that problem still exists.
Time makes more converts than reason
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
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.
Its a good thing that at least WIndows and other Microsoft products have great interopability with open standard and specs.
.....
For a minute there I assumed MS intentionaly made it difficult to port windows apps to non windows operating systems. Those guys at OSS are such jerks by keeping everything closed.
In a more serious note I read a day or two ago in the New York Times that Bill Gates mentioned interopability will be the focus for the next wave of MS products?? I thought I was dreaming.
BIll Gates when on saying that businesses will not replace their existing systems and Windows should be able to work with legacy platforms more seamingly??
I guess after talking about reliablity, than scalability, security, and now interopibility that somehow people will believe it?
Nothing is sticking.
http://saveie6.com/
And Mr. Gates is doing everything in his power to see that Linux/OSS remains as uninteroperable with Windows as possible- let alone other competing interests.
Just below the Slashdot article, there was an ad with this link: Interoperability Month. It seems that this is a new stage of Get the Facts...
Interestingly, the picture of the ad itself had no mention of Misrosoft.
OSS causes erectile disfunction...
Yet Another Web Site
Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, do we have a case of complying with the letter of the law but crapping on the spirit of the law?
Well now, that makes it all so clear. That's why the only media player I can reliably play all my files in is MPlayer!
Philip Sandifer's academic website
Microsoft has, of course, been playing this proprietary "noninterop" game for many years. But it's always been tacit, defacto. That Gates is explicitly flaunting their interop advantage, especially with open formats such a buzzword this quarter, shows that the strategy needs bolstering by explicit corporate policy. Which means the strategy is on the defensive. MS never succeeds on the defensive (any real threat is very rare), except by occasionally producing superior software that interoperates with third parties as well as the competition (Windows vs Mac, IE vs Netscape). While this blink might not signal a real coming victory in opening MS proprietary standards, it just might foreshadow MS forced to at least improve its products interop with open standards, in order to compete with the real competition.
--
make install -not war
Still occurs when your software and protocols are open, and I can look at them and "interoperate" with them at will. Still, it was a very good letter, almost as convincing (and just as bogus) as the TCO garbage they were doing a bit ago. That got debunked, so they need a new non-sequitur to try and make real-that somehow, closed protocols are better at openness then open ones.
If I need to interoperate, the quickest way to ensure that is if I can get into BOTH your code AND mine. There isn't a better way, period, and no amount of FUD from Mr. Gates will change that.
To fight the war on terror, stop being afraid.
Any CTO who is worth the paper on which his/her stock options are enumerated, should see it the same way. Unfortunately, as we've seen, there are many in upper echelons of management that are quite clueless. All anyone has to do is ask, "How much choice do I have using Microsoft products? Let's see...there's Microsoft, Microsoft.....and Microsoft!".
The interoperability of open source software is astounding. I'm running KDE on FreeBSD and Windowmaker on Solaris. I hear they both work under Linux. That's true interoperability.
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
In addition, we removed all checks between these integrated parts, so while each of the holes in our product by themselves wouldn't let the hacker own your box, our integration allow hackers to own your box if you read the wrong forum or email.... Protocols? We don't really follow the standars so everthing else won't intergrate with our product. LDAP? No, no , no... What you mean is Active Directory. That LDAP stuff is non standard.
You only live once, so you might as well have fun before you die.
Wait, wait, wait. Stop the crazy train, I want to get off. Microsoft is saying that Open Source can't interoperate with the closed standards of windows, but Windows can interoperate with the open standards of OSS. Shocking, absoluly shocking! Open source builds open, easy to implement standards and microsoft implements them. Microsoft builds unpublished, buggy standards and they blame OSS for their inability to emulate them? Doesn't this remind anyone of Calvinball, where the ability to make secret rules affects gameplay? Consider what would happen in the reverse case. Suppose a software company created a free document editor that couldn't open .doc or OpenOffice's format. Would anyone buy that? No, it would be a disaster. Their objection is pure crap.
But wait! There's more!
Microsoft is the ultimate deamon of incompatibility. Whereas cygwin and Exceed allow windows to move from OSS to Windows based on intercompatibility, Microsoft would be loathe to allow windows from Windows to move to Linux. True, this represents a fundimental difference in program design, server v. client based, but the fact that programs such as GoToMyPC and Altris exist is strong evidence of which will win out in the end. Worse, Microsoft makes no effort to interoperate with OSS. Can OpenOffice documents be opened in word by default? Hell no! Does Microsoft take steps to assure OSS compatibility? Not bloody likely. OSS takes those steps for Microsoft to assure interoperability, creating the simple Linux->Windows route, while Microsoft makes every effort to derail Windows->Linux. Consider the difficulties of WINE. Micrsoft doesn't give a crap about interoperability, except where their clients would demand it. This is pure FUD.
Since when has this country used intellectual elite as a pejorative term?
programs like openoffice. they're trying overly hard in reverse engineering microsoft's proprietary standards that they don't seem to have enough man power to make the program _actually_useable_. there are so many little things like word count and thesaurus - and more important things like program start up load times. (maybe, just MAYBE, a better UI where things under the menu bar actually belong to its category?) These things are so vital to the user that if he or she doesn't find, will ultimately stop using the program altogether.
I just think that no matter how hard you try, you can only get so much closer to 90% of word compatibility - once it's "close enough", it's better to spend time on having those basic things and brining in better "killer" features to make your app more deadly to attract more users. more users= more bug support and bug reports and more people will be interested in your projects = more developers.
The truth is, email apps are excellent with evolution/thunderbird/kmail. browser with mozilla/firefox - a lot of apps are at the right place - the most important one, the office suite is at the worst state for desktop/ office cubicle use.
my blog
I don't use XP so I can't speak for MS products, but if you compare OSS desktop applications to OS X applications, OSS is left wanting on the interoperability front. Clearly if we limit the discussion to open protocol standards OSS is the class of the field, but if you look at it from an end user's perspective, what they percieve as interoperability is all about the GUI. Being able to drag any file onto an application icon and have it open in that app, for example, or the way the iLife and iWork suites are so tightly integrated. When creating a Keynote presentation you have a dialog with your iTunes library to chose from for background music, or in Pages you can drag photos from your iPhoto collection right onto the page you're writing. OSS can't even agree on a common interface widget toolkit, or at least a standard api so the user can compile everything with a common toolkit or their choice.
How about I give you the finger...and you don't tell me how to run my operating system?
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
Poor interoperability, if there is any, is certainly and entirely by his design. He really shouldn't be so modest. He should just explain to the people, his customers, that he has done as much to ensure poor interoperability, not only of competing commercial products, but of those that exist because of the desires of individuals who want little more than to share with others.
they first delivered their own TCP/IP with NT4... in W95 it was only ment for access to the Internet. Even NT4 assumed that one would use NetBEUI as network protocol.
For LAN you could use IPX but it wouldn't help if you needed access to the Internet...
Back then M$ was not interested in the Internet... BG's own words...
Interesting, I didn't know that was free now. How does it compare in functionality and software compatibility to Cygwin?
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
Hell, 90% of you would have never touched a computer had it not been for Microsoft.
Rampant speculation
Oh, and that huge burst of Firefox downloads a few months back? Guess what, 80% have switched back to IE.
Source? My server logs have shown a steady increase in Firefox use over IE across the last 4 months. Perhaps you're looking at the server logs of a Microsoft-oriented site, where some of your users wanted to 'check out the competition' before heading back to the mother ship.
Is it true that your managers look down on you for bringing iPods to work?
Kevin Fox
True, but it doesn't really bother me. I'm not the one hiding behind internet anonimity, and without a real name and real information there's not really much the assholes can do.
How many people can read hex if only you and dead people can read hex?
Since Bill Gates pioneered proprietary non-interoperability, he's the man.
when he says interoperability is good and that OSS is not very interoperable with MS software. What he omits is that it is mostly Microsoft's fault.
"Long run is a misleading guide to current affairs. In the long run we are all dead." (John Maynard Keynes)
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:
This won't work.
It will have these effects, all bad for Microsoft:
It seems Microsoft is getting pretty desperate.
I mean look at all the problems people have using Linux, Apache, MySQL and PHP.
LAMP will never catch on. Nope. Never.
Good thing my website doesn't use any of tho... oh, wait.
THE HONOUR OF THE KNIGHTS - CC Licensed Sci-Fi Novel
1. Create a secret set of rules that can change for any new release.
2. Claim to be a champion of interoperability.
3. Call everyone else on their not knowing the rules.
4. Profit!
To support his thesis on how "interoperable" windows is, he also mentioned the fact that the vast majority of over 20000 worms run on ALL versions (95,97,98,ME,NT,XP...) even when windows' own software doesn't. Persistent buffer overflow is the crux of windows' interoperability.
Spyware is VERY interoperable. Software developers could probably learn a thing or two from spyware and virus coders.
Please stop stalking me, bro.
Let's face it guys, the interoperability between Windows, IIS, .NET and SQL Server make building apps a snap. So I have to disagree with the typical OSS rhetoric on this. Even the best distros, like SuSE for example, have holes in setup and installation that make getting your environment up and running, with all the features installed, difficult (sometimes painfully so).
I've just read the article, and to me it seems that he is bashing interoperability between open souce products and each other. I couldn't find any reference to him criticising interoperability between any OS product and any Microsoft product.
That aside, though, I don't think we should really take too much out of it even if he did claim it. Businesses will always claim that other people can't match their product, even if they've clearly designed it to prevent other people from matching it. Many Microsoft corporate customers are likely to respect this, because many already do exactly the same thing in their own line of business: They develop some kind of product, and then try to arrange it so that they're the only entity that can provide that product as the customer likes it. It's called a competitive advantage.
Whatever you might think about Microsoft's obligations to open their file formats, APIs and so on, I think this is just normal marketing behaviour for almost any business that wants to push an advantage that it thinks it has... irrespective of how it got or maintains that advantage.
I'm not trying to simply criticise the corporate mind-set, either. The legal system itself encourages this in many respects (although admittedly Microsoft's situation is in dispute). That's what intellectual property laws are for, after all. The patent system was invented with the clear intention of letting someone take and use a monopoly on a particular instance of technology for a limited time.
It's not unusual for a company to obtain a patent, build something based on it, and then make a primary marketing point of the fact that they've built up a legal block so nobody else could possibly (legally) match it. Even if it may seem underhanded, this is the type of behaviour that the legal system supports in principle, which I guess is one reason why it's such a complicated process to force Microsoft to open its formats for others to use them.
Microsoft doesn't appear to be waving patents as an advantage in this particular instance, but what they're saying isn't entirely untrue, either. They've engineered things so its hard for others to interoperate with their products (a competitive advantage in their eyes), and then they market it. It is an advantage in their and many other people's eyes, and that's all that matters in business ethics.
Microsoft Windows Longhorn:
Building a marketplace that may or may not be interoperable.
Please stop stalking me, bro.
Easily remedied how? If you're a Linux guru? Well, guess what, if you're adept at all with Windows, then, "I have a couple missing .dll files, but it's likewise easily remedied."
Microsoft's claim is of course, absurd, and the exact opposite of reality. Windows is one of the most un-interoperable operating systems avialable, it doesnt support well and clearly documented standard APIs, rather it seems they intentionally design the APIs to be hard to duplicate. A key ingredient in OS interoperability is a well documented API, such as POSIX and Single Unix Specification Unix APIs which ought to be supported by Linux, the BSDs, Darwin, AmigaOS, Solaris, AIX, etc. Furthermore the nature of open source software lends itself to interoperability far more than proprietary software, since the actual code used to implement the APIs is avialable for all to see and is avialable for re-use in other implementations, making it far eisier, along with good documentation, to build a independant compatable implementation.
What is particularly important in good OS interoperability is source compatability, via the standard programmer interfaces (APIs), and standard suite of command line and a standard base graphics system ( X Windows). This is to assure that an application can be recompiled on any OS that supports these standard APIs. The APIs however define the standard programmer interfaces in the human readable code which is then compiled into machine code, the APIs being substituted with ABIs, the Application Binary Interface is the actual low level interface between the software and kernel and it is inserted into compiled code at compile time, via the C and system libraries. This allows a standard API to be provided by all OSs, while not affecting underlying OS design at all, since the APIs are abstracted from the underlying OS architecture by the compile step, an OS canimplement its own ABIs for communication between programs and kernels while providing a standard API.
In any case, it'll take an IT guy to set things up for you. It doesn't make sense to buy your way into a restrictive contract.
And let's be clear: Windows does not interoperate with any other operating system.
OS X does all the work. Linux does all the work. And Linux is by far the most extensive and extensible operating system in the world. No question. The quality of free support and information available for Linux is by far the best in the world.
I agree that the RPM distros leave something to be desired. So does Debian. But things are progressing insanely fast.
I'm cheering for Novell. The Microsoft overtakes Novell/Novell builds infrastructure to debase Microsoft timeline will make a wonderful bedtime story for my children someday.
Please stop stalking me, bro.
It was a joke, get it? Humor? It can't be redundant because I wrote it. I suppose it's pretty funny anyone could believe Bill Gates really wrote that. I am so sick of getting my posts modded down as "redundant" because nobody bothered reading more than the first line.
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
This is probably the line that's causing the most knee-jerks. Everything else in the article is just so much marketing bullspeak, and can be safely ignored by anyone who knows what they're talking about.
Maybe he's talking about linux in particular, though I doubt it. Perhaps he's picked up on the "interoperability" problems caused because I can't install a slackware package on my Mandrake machine, and I can't put a RedHat RPM into a knoppix install, and this is a problem because grandma only knows that she has "linux" on the box, and that stuff written for linux should work on linux. But that's another can of worms.
What I think he's talking about, however, is a variation on the age-old problem of feature creep. Where I work as a software tester, when we write out a test plan, we have to build a matrix of all possible inputs, and either test each one, or justify why certain ones don't need to be tested. Obviously, the amount of work that goes into testing depends largely on the size of this matrix. Every time you add a feature with N inputs to the product, your matrix grows by a factor of N, growing exponentially. The time required to get a reasonably complete integration test suite is a very significant consideration for a product's time to market.
Somebody else in this thread commented that gimp can load/save in a large number of different formats (23, I think?). Does it have a complete test suite that verifies, on each build, that each format converts successfully to each other format? When people code plugins to add a new format, do they necessarily add the (24*23)/2 new entries to this integration test matrix? How many cases go untested?
Microsoft, historically, has tended to go to the opposite extreme, removing interoperability between versions of the same software (Office, Visual Studio, etc), but any responsible tester will be aware of the problem, and any responsible program manager will seek to limit feature creep, if they ever want to be able to ship the code. And being a business, a product is only useful to a company like Microsoft when it ships.
Of course, if this is indeed his point, I don't know what business it has in an essay about interoperability. Increased "interoperability" necessarily creates the kind of problem I'm describing, and is most certainly not unique to any particular license or development methodology. I'm probably completely wrong in my supposition. Bill's mail is probably in its entirety, like I said before, marketing bullspeak.
Recommended reading to illustrate this, his latest interview with Spiegel
Bill Gates Claims OSS Has Poor Interoperability
Well, that's good. But last I checked, OSS was deprecated in the Linux kernel (2.6+) and pretty much everyone has switched to ALSA.
From the article:
.NET is a system for compatibility at the code level, and is exactly a "layer of middleware" to make all systems look and act the same. Remember that part of .NET was to supposedly take some of the wind out of Java. Also, the interoperability and openness were the reasons that it was so quickly embraced by Ximian.
.NET, so that no one is upset when they start adding proprietary, poorly specified extensions and possibly a proprietary licensing system for 90% of third party components will only work with Microsoft Windows. This will be done at a rapid fire pace that will require herculean efforts (on a par with Wine) to reverse engineer and keep up with. They control the vast majority of the .NET marketplace and certification programs, and in reality (based on my experience consulting for small/medium sized companies around the US) most in-house developers are into .NET because it's the new thing from Microsoft, not because it's better technology (on paper .NET itself ain't half bad). I doubt Microsoft will lose a significant amount of .NET adoption by effecitively destroying interoperability part of it.
.NET the day they decided to entice them with ECMA standardization and open specifications of internals. Microsoft isn't run by complete idiots.
"Interoperability is more pragmatic than many other approaches, such as attempting to make all systems compatible at the code level, focusing solely on adding new layers of middleware that try to makes all systems look and act the same, or seeking to make different systems interchangeable," the email says.
I'm surprised no one has mentioned this. Basically the original idea for
I have a feeling that Bill Gates and Microsoft PR are trying to drum up a FUD campaign for their own platform:
Microsoft has certainly been plotting ways to undermine the potential open implementations of
Seriously, /.'rs accuse me of being an hysterical maniac when I point out problems with MS's business and technical model. Apparently in this post modern world every idea and product is exactly interchangeable with any other so fix your problems yourselves /.'rs, fix it yourselves.
Bill Gates is a troll.
Cygwin is emulating a POSIX environment inside Win32. That has some pros if you want to call Win32 APIs. The Interix-based Services for UNIX are, IIRC, more of another subsystem that only gets to Win32 (CSRSS) to do console operations. Except for that, it's using the native NT APIs directly. Those allow some stuff that is not made available in Win32. I don't know for sure if they actually use them in a way that matters.
He claims a lot of things, all of the time. Bill Gates is just a big claimer.
People tend to believe what he says, because they obviously think that someone who makes so much money can't be wrong.
But go read one of his books. Yes, he's a "writer" too. You're in for a good laugh: they are hilarious.
As to interoperability, how can he say such a stupid thing? OSS is all about standards. Microsoft, on the other hand, has publicly said many times that they didn't really care about standards if those were hindering Microsoft. So how can they talk about interoperability? They just don't care about it! It's like when they talk about security. They don't care either. But as it's "in" to talk about those topics nowadays, Billy just does.
Don't be too amazed. There have been other great smooth talkers in the past who have been able to make a big part of the world believe in what they said. Even when that was total bullshit.
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.
Ruby on Rails Screencast
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?
Linux/Open Source/Anti Microsoft News
eom
I don't like Microsoft's business tactics any better than you do but this point from Billy is dead on. He is NOT refering to OSS interop with non-OSS software. OSS applications do not interoperate with other OSS applications. I won't bother to post a list as you can pick just about any application and find that importing and exporting data from it is highly application specific. This is just the cost of a distributed development model and why open standards are so important to OSS. Unfortunately there is very little activity on open standards for many critical things - particularly on the Desktop (e.g. COM style discovery).
How do you enable autosave? A coworker of mine was doing the hoppy-screamy peg-leg pirate dance because OO died and took his work with it. (Yes, he was an idjit for not saving.) When he opened the document again, none of his changes were there. Where's the autosave?
--grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
As opposed to just plain bad operability?
XCF is an internal format of the Gimp just like PSD is for photoshop!
I use GIMP 2 for Windows. I want to save an image document in an interchange format that preserves the document's layers. Which format should I choose?
Second of all, practically everything on Windows reads PSD files.
Yeah, with the "This document can only be opened by Photoshop 3.0 and later" in nine different languages error message. How can I transform a .psd file saved in Photoshop 3 through 7 into a .xcf file for use in GIMP 2, preserving all layers?
"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!" GIMP opens PSD.
'Once scientists, even the dim-witted social scientists, get muzzled, the Western Civilization is finished.' - oldhack
Unfortunately, if he sent it to the clients' "purse string" departments, then his statements may have made a significant impact.
SEO Firefox Extension
It seems that Microsoft is desperately digging up anything that makes its solutions seem better than OSS.
.
"IBM and Oracle -- two of Linux's biggest patrons -- have relished the effect the free software has had on Microsoft and other foes." Article here
If you read the article (linked above), this seems to give good reason for Bill to issue such a statement.
Linux/Open Source/Anti Microsoft News
When I prepared for my MCSE in 1998 there was not much about TCP/IP in the books... it was only consideret for large networks and only if access to the Internet was an issue... small, non routed, networks should run NetBeui and large should run IPX. Arguments againts TCP/IP were : complicated, slow and large code. The only reason (which i can imagine) OS/2 got TCP/IP must be that IBM wanted it for access to AIX... btw. afaik the whole networking part of OS/2 wad made by IBM.
non-documented proprietary standards
;-)
Is that a contridiction or what?
How can standards be non-documented. I know I know, its Microsoft.
What's with the truth spinning on slashdot? This is getting sickening.
What Gates said is true in a sense. Just take a look at all of the various permutations of Linux. OSS is like a 10-headed dragon. Everybody has their own ego and their own agendas. Doesn't take long for a piece of software to branch like crazy. All that does is make interoperability a nightmare, and mass adoption a near impossibility. It's like it takes a PhD to figure out some of this stuff.
While despicable, the one thing M$ has done right is to spearhead most things it does with one direction in mind. This is what OSS needs.
eTrade SUCKS
I dare you to set up and install WordPress (and the required components) on a Windows machine then. I betcha it'll be at least five times harder.
What, Apache, PHP, MySQL? How hard is that? I've done it on both Linux and Windows machines, and it isn't any harder on Windows, never mind five times harder.
Downmodding is the refuge of the weak. Don't downmod, make a better argument!
Say what you like about the content but at least I can read the mail without a thesaurus. Most corporate mails from the "big boss" are created by a buzzword generator and need a good dose of verbal laxitive, this is in plain english. I get sick of opening (and laughing at) our CEO's ra-ra mails. They are totally incomprehnsible because the authour takes the simple-minded message "sell more stuff" and turns it into a poorly written thesis.
I have worked in development for "the big three" outsource companies for over 15yrs and have never had a readable "technical directions" mail from any of the captains of these companies.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
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.
Ah, so you are the one who installed WinME. I have the CD somewhere, an MS rep gave it to me when I was drunk and stealing his taxi in the wee hours of a wet winter saturday morning. Even though I was a Windows programmer at the time I still did not bother to install it.
Actually, since I was drunk I'm not sure that he wasn't just showing me the CD, perhaps I stole that aswell?
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Remember Haldeman of Watergate fame? During the Vietnam War there was a strategy called Hearts and Minds to win over the local Vietnamese to fight the war instead of US and allied troops. Anyway Haldeman had on his desk a wooden plaque which read:
I'm sure the CTOs can appreciate that.
Bitter and proud of it.
M.
Are you sure that you are talking about the same DLL hell. And if you are, how is the above quote a solution, rather than a problem? DLL hell occurs because the libraries are distributed with the software and not managed. Here are three cases of DLL hell:
These issues exist in linux, but none of them is a fault of any specific application except the package manager. Having correct dependencies is the key, and Windows is now taking the same approach by using MSI, which attempts to control which libraries are being used and which are not.
This is a right solution, and it fails only when the package has a mistake in its dependency list, in which case it is quite easy to fix -- manually install the dependency, instead of hunting for individual files, that are never distributed separately.
badness 10000
but I say my ex-wife is an evil psychopath but it doesn't get covered nearly as much... I wish my incoherent rants carried as much weight
Funny you should mention that,
:)
just a day or two ago, a secretary in the office couldn't open up a power-point file sent to her by the boss. They were both created on different versions of Microsoft Office, but it woud crash every time she opened it.
I had her send it to me, opened it up in OpenOffice and re-saved it in a generic powerpoint format. I sent it back to her and it now works fine!
So yes, with a little effort - different versions of Microsoft Office can interpolate
I don't remember where I saw this quote, but I've had it here in my logs for awhile, and I think its relevant here:
et'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.
... something Microsoft can't do, with its own products, on its own platforms.
I know you're implicitly shilling Microsoft's shoddy products by implying other folks work is equally bad, but I hate to break the news to you: it isn't.
To take your example, I've what you're suggesting (on hundreds of machines, not millions, but the point remains) and guess what? They all read, write, and exchange one another's openoffice files perfectly...even the crappy windows boxes which do, from time to time, get hosed by the trojan, virus, spyware, or worm du jour.
Version deployed among colleagues, freinds, and relatives include:
OpenOffice 1.0 (Linux)
OpenOffice 1.1.1 (OS X)
OpenOffice 1.1.2 (Linux, Windows, OS X)
OpenOffice 1.1.3 (Linux, Windows)
OpenOffice 1.1.4 (Linux)
OpenOffice-Ximian 1.1.53 (Linux)
OpenOffice-Ximian 1.3.5 (Linux)
OpenOffice-Ximian 1.3.6 (Linux)
OpenOffice-Ximian 1.3.8 (Linux)
NeoOffice/J 0.8.4 (OS X)
NeoOffice/J 1.1 Alpha 2 (OS X)
NeoOffice/J 1.1 Beta (OS X)
Platforms include assorted versions of Windows, numerous distributions of GNU/Linux ranging from Debian, Red Hat, and Suse to Source Mage and Gentoo. Mac OS X Versions include 10.2.x on iMacs and 10.3.x on assorted systems, including my powerbook 17".
It all works and interoperates flawlessly
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
I bet there was a massive project inside of Microsoft to convert their desktops to Linux and Mozilla and it failed because they could not figure out all the issues with Exchange and AD ;-)
You bastard ! ;-)
...and that my brain need a memory upgrade...
Look at the mess you are responsible for... all those MSCE books are now all over the place... and all this just to proove that you're RIGHT...
I guess I'm getting to old to blindly trust my memory...
He's doing what he can because the laws in the USA allow it, and sometimes don't. It's not about making the best software, it's about making the most $$$
Most linux beginners are not compiling their own software. I don't recall having many .so problems with precompiled linux distributions. I do remember having RPM hell though but like I said I haven't used an RPM distro in a while.
Time makes more converts than reason
Linux may not be a screw driver itself but we surely need one to use screw patents generously donated by IBM.
Sincerely,
Pan Tarhei Hosé, PhD.
"Homo sum et cogito ergo odi profanum vulgus et libido."
Microsoft are masters at playing the game of business strategy on three levels:
1) Disciplined overt politics--staying on message
2) Underlying messages that are legal but misdirecting
3) Underlying dirty tricks that are out and out unethical.
This was ripped from a Robert D. Steele post on amazon in reference to Karl Rove's political strategy. The above could be used for microsoft strategy as well.
Interoperability 1. The ability of systems, units, or forces to provide services to and accept services from other systems, units or forces and to use the services so exchanged to enable them to operate effectively together. 2. The condition achieved among communications-electronics systems or items of communications-electronics equipment when information or services can be exchanged directly and satisfactorily between them and/or their users. The degree of interoperability should be defined when referring to specific cases. Source: from Federal Standard 1037C and from the Department of Defense Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms in support of MIL-STD-188. With respect to software, the term interoperability is also used to describe the capability of different programs to read and write the same file formats and utilise the same protocols. Interoperability can have important economic consequences, such as network externalities. If competitors' products are not interoperable (due to causes such as patents, trade secrets or coordination failures), the result may well be monopoly or market failure. For this reason, it may be prudent for governments to take steps to encourage interoperability in various situations.
---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
- Cisco rep a few years ago (or was it 3Com?), explaining their new VOIP system.
If OSS is poor, then non-OSS can be just as bad.
I use Macs to up my productivity, so up yours Microsoft!
Yes, the same company that spouts endless FUD about the viral nature of the GPL distributes GPL'ed code. The list includes gcc and gdb. Among the benefits they tout is "Unify data sharing and enable integrated, cross-platform file systems through the Network File System (NFS) client, server, and gateway." Windows can't interoperate without OSS. And the only way they can handle portable code is with SFU. They say so: "Avoid having IT staffers rewrite applications from scratch. Interix subsystem technology saves development time by making it easy to transfer existing UNIX applications to Windows."
[bleep!][select_voice,feminine_vague_electronic]"I 'm sorry, but your message has exceeded the maximum number of Buzzwords allowed under International Law and the Genetic Contention. Please re-edit and attempt to re-send."[deselect_voice]
] "I'm sorry, you are attempting to send a blank message. Do you really want to do this?"[deselect_voice]
[Muffled cursing, and intense sounds of retyping follow, sounds which make it clear the user is employing a classic IBM 'clicker' keyboard. After a few minutes, it starts sounding like a roomful of frantic castanet players. The clicking finally dwindles down and stops with one, final, definitive TICK!]
[bleep!][select_voice,feminine_vague_electronic
[A not-so-muffled scream is heard, followed by sounds of breaking glass and high-voltage arcs]
Bruce Lane, KC7GR,
Blue Feather Technologies
OSS software has great *ability* for interpolation... whether some big name OSS products do it properly or not is another question. It is very easy to make an OSS product interpolate with any other OSS product. The code is all there to be seen and modified, nothing is hidden (as with Microsoft products). As the OSS community grows, there will be more and more adherence to standards, while Microsoft goes on pushing their proprietary "interporable" products. In the long run, OSS will win.
Meh.
No it is not.
Sigh, this explains the strange "signals" I have gotten the last few days about migrating central systems at work to MS even though they have nothing to do with the problems they want to solve.
To some, MS is the bible. To reuse a old sentence "You can't get fired for choosing Microsoft".
There are tons of clueless managers that happily will "upgrade" working UNIX/mainframe systems to MS. And when the new system crumbles under the load, and doesn't deliver the rock solid performance of the old systems, the remaining UNIX/mainframe gets the blame instead of the new, MS based, systems lack of ability to communicate with these systems. No, don't blame the poorly designed connectivity of the new system. Blame the UNIX system for being UNIX.
They are also more than happy to buy products from companies that ties you to MS because they clearly
could not develop their product properly so that fx. it could run on anything else than MS-SQL.
It is an uphill battle every day. I don't hate MS as such. I hate the entire culture surrounding them. There seems to be no lack of low quality developers in MS world. Most of them I wonder why they choose to work with computers since they have so little passion for what they do.
when they just bypass the spin and go to straight lying. It takes less effort, and they'll still get some of the really stupid customers. Even though they won't be as big having just this customer base, it will be a steady customer base. This will be when they start issuing a regular dividend, but in Mikeysoft Tokens redeemable only at their website.
-- Microsoft is the most expensive commodity operating system and office suite vendor in the marketplace.
For LAN you could use IPX but it wouldn't help if you needed access to the Internet...
Looks like you've never had the pure fun of using an IPX to IP proxy server.
Mr. Gates, could you tell us what are the interfaces/protocols that aren't working when talking to OSS?
Microsoft supports open standards RIGHT?
What OS does Bill use for interoperability for his houses's OS again?
30% off web hosting. Coupon code "SLASHDOT".
So I'll bite. Your post doesn't deserve +5 insightful, but rather than use my Mod points, I will let you know why and add some thoughts.
Take a look at this RFC, note that it's how Outlook does their calendaring (and that the RFC's authors work at Lotus (IBM) and MS). What were you saying about Microsoft being afraid to commit to an open standard? How many other internet standards are authored or co-authored by Microsoft employees? How many are accepted as standards by committees with Microsoft employees sitting on them? XML, etc.
There are lots of standards that "Microsoft" not only commits to, but also authors. There are some closed standards organizations (mostly hardware) also. Standards are just as much of a double edged sword (for interoperability sake) as everyone doing their own thing.
On one hand, if everyone works off of a standard, then the minimal subset of implementation of that standard is adopted, and there's a common platform for interoperability. On the other hand, if people implement competing applications without agreeing on a standard, or by extending the standard in new and unapproved ways (think HTML), then the market will determine which application is best fit. If Microsoft was not the best fit software to run on computers (note that this is a broad definition of fitness as determined by the market forces in general), then why would Dell and Gateway install it on just about all their desktop and laptop products? Why would consumers pick Windows over Linspire, or Knoppix?
Regardless of what you think about the stability of Windows, Linux, etc. The truth is that there are many reasons that Windows is on top on the desktop market. But the fundamental most important one is that it runs 99% of the software from all of the Microsoft Windows and DOS operating systems that came before. If you're looking for freeware, shareware, commercial software, or even open source software, chances are, it all runs on Windows. That's what Bill Gates is talking about when he talks about interoperability. It's commitment to running the garbage that's already out there in the market. Someone (who works at MS) once told me that there are something on the order of 500 global variables which tweak the way that IE behaves to account for bugs in other people's software.
This is a major problem for Microsoft in the future: How do they release a new version of Windows without breaking that? How do they release a Windows which doesn't let users log in as administrator or administrators log in like normal users? How do they break the cycle of bad programmers making bad assumptions that the circumstances involving the way the OS used to work were going to be true forever? Commitment to interoperability means being willing to suffer for the mistakes of others.
If this means by comparison that OSS has poor interoperability, then that's what it means. It's not elegant software design to add kludges here and kludges there to special case it so that other people's poorly designed code still works, but commitment to keeping older software working without rewriting it is what keeps Microsoft in business. And commitment to interoperating and extending older software with new software will make-or-break Microsoft's future deals also.
Alternatively, Microsoft does now offer a package manager for Windows, but I'd be surprised if many people are using it with Windows 95; it'd be like alien on Debian.
Copyrights, Patents, Trademarks: temporary loans from the Public Domain, not real property ("intellectual" or otherwise)
A leader of the Horse and Cart Consortium stated in a press release that Cars and Trucks are doomed fads since neither can be connected to existing horses or carts.
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
all we have to do is let Billy and Steve speak. they usually get themselves in trouble. uh Bill did you get the memo about open standards - uh that is the basis of interoperability not closed/proprietary/crappy standards like yours. I'm sure their IPTV product coming up with SBC will interoperate with any os I want to buy or download.
Yeah, I've seen their "compatibility." Basically, you have to put an underscore before most of your function calls, and half of them don't work correctly. Running a formerly Posix app on Windows still requires a great deal of porting.
Anyway, SFU doesn't provide any more Posix support than the already bad support included with Windows. SFU is mostly for horrid implementations of NFS and NIS. (Seriously, I spent a long time once trying to get Windows to work as a client on a NIS network. It has got a lot of problems.)
Re: allowing things not available in win32... well, at least a while back, real links worked.
"What he really means of course, is free alternatives trying to interoperate with Microsoft's non-documented proprietary standards..."
.doc file's format well enough to make sense of it.
Not documented? Of course it's documented, just no one can read the
Thing was, I couldn't find any autosave, and the app didn't pop up any sort of recovery option dialog. I suppose it must have been turned off.
Ah, well, live and learn. Thanks!
--grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
Nope... but I know that a IPX to IP proxy existed...
I've never met anyone who used it, so I assumed that the fun was quite painfull...
Didn't Microsoft pull the entire TCP/IP stack from BSD?
Uh, er, how about taking it out since it does not have interoperability!
HGTTG: "I knew that there was something fundementally wrong with the Universe."
Like each brick in the wall, MSFT is trying
to build the case FOR MSFT one issue at a
time. He currently has 4 distinct audiences
he is trying to sway:
(1) Massachussetts government, which needs to
decide between true F/OSS data standards
and MSFT's standards (aka embrace & extend)
(2) Brasil, whose government looks likely to
embrace F/OSS and give MSFT the boot
(3) the EU regarding software patents, without
which MSFT will lose the F/OSS standards
battle. MSFT "open standards" is oxymoronic
because it is tied to an EULA that prohibits
GPL, etcetera.
and
(4) the US DoJ, which still has the right to
enforce the "sharing" of standards, but
doesn't currently have the political will
That, IMHO, is what prompted "Uncle Bill Borg"
to say such a thing...
Just because you have the source it doesn't automatically make your software work together.
But having the source does make it possible for you to modify the software to do these things, if that is something important enough to your business.
Not having the source, on the other hand, precludes this possibility, unless the holder of the source has specifically allowed it.
You may think that modifying source code is something too mysterious and difficult for casual developers, but such is not the case. I'm not really a coder, but I often tweak little things in programs to get them to do what I want. Just fire up a text editor, look at the code, mess about a bit, then "./configure; make; make install"
It can be tremendously satisfying.
Want to make AbiWord open Gimp documents? All you need is vi and a bit of time and talent. Want to make MS Word read Gimp documents? In that case, you're simply shit out of luck.
-- My Weblog.
"These Japanese cars may look reliable now, but watch what happens when everyone's driving them".
"These quartz watches may look good, but when everyone's got them, we'll see if they're as good as a winding one".
Get the message? Some things are just better than others.
A documented XML-based format in a piece of open source software is much more likely to interoperate properly. If you can't read a document, there's a problem in one of two places. The program that produced it, or the program that's reading it, and YOU can validate it as being OK and trace that very quickly. Now, let's say you can't read a Word document. How do you know what's wrong. Do you know the definition? Can you send your document to Microsoft? You think they are going to take it apart for you and issue a patch to correct it?
As far as I know, OOo is already on a number of platforms. I've not heard of a single interoperability problem.
I think we don't need to hear another Linux is a kernel definition, like I said, even GNU/HURD will be called Linux by the media:
"A new version of Linux was released today, codenamed GNU/HURD" or some lame, we don't care, does it play solitaire type headline.
So, yes, I think we all know that Linux is a large kernel.
#hostfile 0.0.0.0 primidi.com 0.0.0.0 www.primidi.com 0.0.0.0 radio.weblogs.com
Way back in 1997, I was responsible for 2 NT machines. One was running NT3.51, the other NT4. Both had TCP/IP installed. (I didn't install the NT3 machine. It might have been a third-party driver.) They even ran an FTP server to exchange data with the VAX.
At the first opportunity, I replaced the NT3 with NT4 - to save me the trouble of managing 2 different systems.
NT4 sets up NetBEUI by default. I assume MS wanted networking to work without additional configuration. For TCP/IP, you'd need to specify an address for each machine, or a DHCP server (that needs to be configured itself).
Win2k uses TCP/IP by default, but it also supports zeroconf, so you don't need to set up a DHCP server.
WWTTD?
I'd like to respectfully disagree with you here, using my own personal example... I need my system to interoperate with a customer's system. I need to receive an electronic PO from them, acknowledge it, do our internal business process, send an invoice, receive acknowledgement, then wait for electronic payment. if we can get our systems to electronically interoperate in this way, we can save over a dozen man-hours/week spent on paperwork. my system is a mix of ColdFusion pages on Windows 2000, PHP scripts on Red Hat Enterprise 3, and Informix 9.1 on Solaris. amongst the scripts and stored procedures is a lot of proprietary business logic for determining prices, markups, profit/loss figures, etc. their system uses Oracle (both database and business apps), and webMethods, and maybe a slew of other languages/platforms on whatever operating system(s) they use, and it probably contains their own proprietary business logic as well. in this situation, not only would opening up the source code be a privacy concern, but it would also do no good for me to see their Oracle or webmethods or "programming language X" code, unless I spent hours trying to figure it all out. so opening code in this situation is not the best interoperability solution, and in fact, it would be a very BAD approach. but, your title/comment is 95.8333% correct. "The best interoperability...Still occurs when your software...protocols are open, and I can look at them and 'interoperate' with them at will." I removed the "AND" because it is really only important for the protocols to be open. and in this respect as it applies to my example, I'm sorry, but Mr. Gates's approach is 100% correct - XML. by establishing a protocol based on XML, ie. SOAP, the systems can easily interoprate without having to see the code underneath. this is indeed what we did and what we do with many partners, and it takes about 30 minutes to get the systems talking. no source code exchanged at all. as for Mr. Gates's other assertion, that open-source development encourages "permutations" which cause interoperability problems, I can't really speak to it. I haven't used enough open-source applications to experience it. even if it is true, and open-source applications fork and become disparate, XML can still be used to integrate these similar-but-incompatible systems, just as it is now being used by Microsoft to integrate their similar-but-incompatible, spaghetti-code product line! the great thing about XML is that it is not Microsoft-specific. in fact, it transcends nearly all platforms. by using open-source software, you get a huge range of options in products, meaning you can choose the best application for your needs. by using XML for interoperability, you get to use that best application with all the other best applications you've chosen. Open-Source and XML is the best of both worlds. sorry to go off on such a tangent, but if open-source software is going to really progress in the interoperability area, it would do so best by letting go of the idea that interoperability is everywhere and always best addressed at the source code level. it's just not universally true. letting go of this impractical ideology towards interoperability will be ANOTHER good step in making open-source development models viable for traditional commercial enterprises.
If you want to see what Gates has to say as he writes it (you can't fight what you don't know), go here to sign up or to read them online -- http://www.microsoft.com/mscorp/execmail/
> Do you really think more desktops are managed than otherwise?
In business, yes
Find me a study anywhere that says there's more people employed by corporates than elsewhere in any first world country. Perhaps, rather than working for a small company, I work for a large company but have a better understanding of economic realities.
Secondly, you don't want to get into a pissing contest about where you work. You'll lose.