Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft And JBoss Collaborate On Server Software
wellington map wrote to mention a C|Net article discussing a collaboration between Microsoft and JBoss, intended to ensure their server software is more interoperable. From the article: "Microsoft has struggled to deal with the arrival of open-source software, which is collaboratively developed with a code-sharing process that stands in stark contrast to the secrecy that shrouds most of the products from Microsoft and other proprietary software makers. After several attacks on the intellectual-property foundations and the methods, quality and cost of open-source software, Redmond, Wash.-based Microsoft has begun a more cooperative phase."
What is the appropriate response when you are offered a hand that started out with a knife in it?
Idiot.
Why does the link go to beta.news.com.com? Someone out to get them? :)
So...embrace, extend, and DESTROY!
I'm agneglectic, too lazy to care if there is a God.
If you can't beat 'em, join 'em.
But, hiding in a thick container of tin foil, I would add: Until we have the means in place to kill FOSS.
I'm sure Microsoft has some plan for assimilation (this is not meant to be a troll or a flame). Hopefully this doesn't turn out like J# where Microsoft put in their own proprietary libraries that developers built on thinking they were building Java applications that could run on any JVM.
Bradley Holt
it's a trick... get an axe!
Microsoft is in major damage-control mode.
d 6149d94cbaf/index.html
Praise Mirrordot: http://mirrordot.com/stories/f28f24fb03710608d1ab
Listen. The only people we hate more than the Romans are the fucking Judean People's Front.
P.F.J.: Yeah...
JUDITH: Splitters.
P.F.J.: Splitters...
FRANCIS: And the Judean Popular People's Front.
P.F.J.: Yeah. Oh, yeah. Splitters. Splitters...
LORETTA: And the People's Front of Judea.
P.F.J.: Yeah. Splitters. Splitters...
REG: What?
LORETTA: The People's Front of Judea. Splitters.
REG: We're the People's Front of Judea!
LORETTA: Oh. I thought we were the Popular Front.
REG: People's Front! C-huh.
FRANCIS: Whatever happened to the Popular Front, Reg?
REG: He's over there.
P.F.J.: Splitter!
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." -- Goethe
Products from the two companies are similar in purpose, but very different in design. The JBoss application server, based on Java, runs on Windows, Linux and Unix systems. Microsoft's Windows-based application server tools, based on the company's .Net programming model, are part of its Windows Server operating system.
Oh, well that explains everything. One product runs everywhere, the other runs only on Windows. See? They're different!
Don't worry, though. Microsoft is working hard to correct the problem. Once they "make sure that JBoss runs well on Windows", both products will be very similar. After all, who needs Linux and Unix support?
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
True cooperation for the purpose of interoperability would be a very welcome change. The only question I have is: "Why is the hair on the back of my neck standing up?"
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
"Embrace and extend" mean anything to you?
No one ever had to evacuate a city because the solar panels broke!
...if they want to survive, when FOSS gains enough market share that most the world has moved on and been using FOSS and it puts msft in fear of becoming obsolete they will cooperate, make microsoft cooperate with FOSS first! to show good faith, the sooner msft realises the IT industry can live without them the better...
drink the koolaide monkeyboy
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." -- Goethe
I think this has got nothing to do with FOSS but everything to do with IBM. Hitting on Websphere will be hitting on IBM's one of the server product. If you look at Microsoft website, it always compares .Net with Websphere. By collaborating with open source product MS will kill two birds in one stone. MS open source supporter and other kill websphere as much as possible by promoting an open source product.
That's the definition of Holy Crap.
Ohhhhh. JBOSS? My bad.
the major advances in civilization are processes which all but wreck the societies in which they occur - A.N. White
.../me finishes reading the comment replied to and realises what a mistake that was. D'oh!
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." -- Goethe
Jboss stories on slashdot with no indication of what jboss is for (or why anyone would care). Didn't we go through this last year (and figure out that they were all slashvertizements?)?
No, it means he's a PHB. Thats why all the job listings require 20 years of Java and 7 years of Windows XP.
I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
Are they trying to prove that 2 wrongs make a right?
Simpy
1) Denial
2) Anger
3) Bargaining — Microsoft, you are HERE.
4) Depression
5) Acceptance
Hey, at least they're working the program. Who would have imagined 2 years ago that they would even acknowledge open source, let alone cooperate. The next 2 steps will be rough for them.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url= /library/en-us/script56/html/js56jsoriJScript.asp
"First they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."
You're either a good comedian or a very bad software guy.
That is all about positioning of windows servers. That is all. It says nothing about their embrace of open source. The market wants to run some Jboss. MS wants to sell some server licenses. While they do this to help themselves, they can still slam java, open source, and move people from java to .net all while they position server 2003 as a worthy jboss host.
MS: Let's work with JBos to interoperate more cleanly. Once we're done, we can always change the way ours works ... I mean improve on our protocols. Our customers can now use Windows and .NET to talk to JBoss, while JBoss users can't talk to our stuff. It's brilliant, as it makes JBoss look bad. Further, it will slow down the JBoss developers who will have to spend more time playing catch-up, while setting them up so that even if they change their own protocols in a game of tit-for-tat, we can point to them and say, "look, the JBoss developers deliberately broke compatibility with our software -- aren't they evil!".
"Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer."
Sun Tzu (probably maybe)
I have plenty of common sense, I just choose to ignore it. -- Calvin
Don't you get it? Microsoft+Open Source? Microsoft+Java?!
Come on. Where do you get these kinds of stories?
* Anger
* Bargaining <-- Seems that we are here
* Depression
* Acceptance
Mr. Ballmer seems to be stuck at 'Anger', but looks like the rest of MS is moving on.
MS developers are already in the grief stage however:
* Numbness
* Disorganization
* Reorganization (ie get hired by Google)
- I voted for Nintendo and against Bush
on beta.news.com Microsoft and JBoss said Tuesday they'll work to make JBoss' Java application server software work well with Microsoft's Windows and higher-level software.
Making Jboss more compatible with microsoft. Really, another time Microshit try to bypass industry standards.
Wake up JBoss people, are you guys on dope?
Parent is right, but I think it's bigger than just IBM.
I think what this suggests is that Microsoft is positioning itself to be the one that gets all the money that is supposed to be generated from OSS.
I believe Microsoft will be able to say to their wealthiest customers, "buy our product, then use this free product and we'll support both!" Effectively leaving the market "crumbs" to the small guys while capturing the wealthiest dollars.
If this experiment fails, I think they will litigate away their Linux competitors. Not like SCO claims, but more ordinary IP claims that don't really threaten IBM but drain what little resources distros have.
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
I remember that, not so much because of the software enviroment but because of the parties we'd have afterwards where Axl Rose, Jerry Garcia and Randy Rhoads would come by to have skiffle jam. Regularly, Al Gore would drop by and leave sketches for an arpa net (or was it darpa net? crappa net? who can be bothered to remember).
At the end of the week we'd all hop on our hogs and haul ass to lolapolooza. Good times, good times.
What reality are you living in? I might join you in it. MS is hardly on the way out. There are a ton of developers using .net tech. I work at a consulting firm, and a great deal of work is going towards building .net apps to replace outdated programs written 5 or 10 years ago!
IBM survived because of it embracing services. They having shifted to Linux probably has little direct correlation with their survival.
Also, 60,000 employees vs. 200 of them leaving for Google is hardly a problem. They still have a ton of smart people there!
From the article:
SQL Server, Microsoft's database software, with JBoss' Hibernate and Enterprise JavaBeans software.
That's for interop - but does JBoss own Hibernate? I just thought they were heavy users.
Not much going on there except the possibility of managing JBoss through Microsoft tools.
I don't see how on one hand Microsoft can claim no new support for Java while at the same time saying the SQL Server will work better with JBoss. Smells like JDBC drivers to me.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
You cooperate - they prosper. Survive the M$ legal death march? Time to the write M$ jungle code. You wouldn't survive it, but will survive longer depending on how you behave. Embrace, extend and extinguish. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend_and_e xtinguish
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
THEN they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.
Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
my name's microsoft, but in here dey all calls me win-blows. don't worry, i'm gonna look out for ya. here, take dis left-over turkey sammwich i cribbed from da mess hall. it's yours. i want ya ta have it. no strings.
no, really, dat's a cryin shame dey stuck youse in here wid a buncha cash-addicted boneheads like us. cryin shame. but i'm gonna watch your back for ya kid. i'm gonna make it my personal business dat you get outta here in one piece.
look, i got some extra socks from da laundry. clean socks. outta my own pocket. you're gonna be all right, kid, don't worry about it.
an' i got somethin else for ya. i got it taped up under my arm here. you're gonna like dis, kid. ya ever seen one a dese before? it's a SHIV, you goddamn brat! dat's right, now take off yer goddamn pants an' put dis butter on your ass.
shaddap kid, quit yer goddamn cryin. whattaya think, you come in here an' eat a man's sammwich an' take a man's socks fer nothin'? shaddap, i said! you should feel lucky. you see oracle over dere? he don't use no butter! shoulda seen what he did to peoplesoft.
man i hate dese goddamn punks. stupid, goddamn, punks.
pr0n - keeping monitor glass spotless since 1981.
I've been working on a project with web services running in JBoss and clients connecting in .NET for over a year now (JBoss 4.x, .NET 2.0 Beta). These web services involve objects that are fairly complex. The biggest "incompatibility" we've experienced has been upgrading JBoss versions, which unfortunately introduce pervasive changes to the application.
.NET? If it exists, I sure haven't seen it. We even recently upgraded to jdk 1.5 and were able to get the services to use enum's on both ends in one day. I don't think there is any other common ground besides web services that JBoss and .NET (which I like to refer to as "not yet") could or should be compatible.
So my question is, where's the incompatibility with respect to JBoss and
Make no mistake, guys... MS may offer an olive branch, but they haven't take down their phony studies, and what the sales guys are saying to their customers, you wouldn't believe.
And yet they have double digit growth every quarter... Maybe what you feel is different from what is actually happening.
Yes, this just sounds like a conspiracy, but it seems to me that making JBoss better is one of the easiest ways for Microsoft to hurt one of the few cash-cows in the industry that they aren't making money at: application servers.
What do you think IBM and BEA sell a lot of? Application servers.
I think its one of those "the enemy of enemy is my friend" things.
I'm open to being wrong, that'd be great, I'm just not expecting it.
Hilarious!
1. JBoss is trying to undercut a very profitable market for IBM.
2. Microsoft would love to see IBM be undercut.
3. Using open source to drive down the compliments to your product increases the value of your product.
Absolutely nothing. That is not what the lawsuit was about. All the com.ms.* stuff that Microsoft produced was appropriate - and very welcome for those wanting to write Windows specific apps.
The lawsuit was about adding proprietary extensions to the core libraries - the java.* libraries. That was specifically forbidden in the contract. Microsoft's excuse in court was that the contract didn't mention future versions.
The problem with extensions to core libraries was that the unwary would be fooled into writing non-portable programs that only run on Windows. It is obvious (or should be to the clueful) when importing com.ms.* that your program will only run on Windows. Having the compiler accept bogus java.lang.* features was a not so subtle attempt by Microsoft to trick people into writing non-portable programs without knowing it. The 100% pure Java program was an attempt to undo the damage by providing a program that checks all imported classes, methods, and fields, to check for the use of non-portable extensions.
No hurry, I've got five or ten buried in my back. SCO, Get the Facts, Internet Explorer, .DOC, Windows Media, Paladium, pressure on ISPs to block ports, DMCA, the list goes on and on. All anyone in the free software community has to do to get an axe is reach over their shoulder. Any one of them is good enough to show M$'s intent.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Collaboration phase or Embrace phase? Look at M$ track record for collaboration. Either they buy you, or you are destroyed, seems to be their basic mode. Statistically it is far more likely that JBoss is going to be dead in 18 months than that they are going to be able to do any reasonable "cooperation" with Microsoft. If they can't do business with any other company, they need a new business plan; this one is not a recipe for survival.
Just a few weeks ago, MS was looking for a cooperative project with OSDL or Red Hat (here). Now they anounce a cooperative project with JBoss. That is weard!
The deal with OSDL (or Red Hat) had a clear oportunity to a backstab, but this one not.
Very, very weard.
Rethinking email
Why we use LGPL. Ironic that Microsoft supports this.
I guess it's much easier to work with an existing company than reuse code from projects such as Geronimo, Apache's J2EE server. They could embed the code into their applications under the business-friendly terms of the Apache Software Foundation license. But then, Geronimo is adopted by IBM.
Perhaps you haven't read some of the blogs by internal Microsoft staffers. The whole thing is dysfunctional. Bill isn't a coder, never was, neither stevie. The 'old timers' with the big money have gone lame. The poor underclass they use to propel the company along don't give a shit about anything but the check anymore because the stock they get has remained flat since '97. Or as one MS staffer put it: there is a huge traffic jam on the Redmond campus at 9:00 AM and again at 5:00 PM. There is no incentive to do great things, because the old-timers collect (leaving underlings, underlings). Why innovate so someone else can profit by it? There have been long Blogs about how to leave, develop quietly while letting the 1 year non-compete clause lapse, then seek venture-capital dollars at the 1 year anniversary. Microsoft has an increasing staff, but generally meetings (and more meetings) grind things to a halt. The OS and MSOFFICE divisions are so mired in legacy code, that no innovation is possible. Apparently MSN is slightly functional, but only because M$ is scared-as-hell about GOOGLE. When you babble on about how "Oh, Microsoft is still doing *GREAT* things...", you really are making rude noises with your a**.
We need application servers because our operating systems are badly designed and can not handle simple stuff like interprocess communication and resource caching in an appropriate manner. An application server is nothing more than a mini operating system that can cache resources (databases, network ports, objects) and can make applications easily co-operate, something which is nearly impossible with normal processes.
But weren't operating systems invented for just that task? they did. The original Unix model was about small processes collaborating through pipes, using simple 8-bit text as the means of communication. But people either failed to realize the concept or the concept was not publicised enough, and we ended up with big clunky monolithic applications that resembled monolithic kernels...and thus the concept of application server was born.
But why can't we have processes to play the role of application server apps? it is because of the broken CPU process models. You see, almost every CPU on Earth is built on the principle that each program should communicate with the kernel through system calls/interrupts only. There is no concept, at CPU level, of service-offering processes. Every CPU design dictates that that a process can only see a list of system calls/interrupts, and nothing else.
What are the consequences of this CPU design? well, there are multiple consequences, measured in billions of dollars lost in trying to make things work.
First of all, one can not make things work by making millions of small components that inter-operate, because each process can not talk to other processes unless very expensive (performance-wise) mechanisms are used. That translates to programs being millions of lines of code, hard to debug and difficult to maintain...which means that billions of dollars is lost every year trying to make those big monolithic applications.
Secondly, kernels can not be true microkernels: bad drivers may bring servers down, costing millions of dollars in downtime. New drivers can not be installed without at least one reboot. Programs are slow, because calling a driver is a very slow task that involves context switching. CPUs can not have big contexts (i.e. thousands of registers) because context switching would take many microseconds, even milliseconds.
Thirdly, in order to overcome the stupidness of 'modern' hardware and software, things like application servers appear, which do what the hardware and software should be doing, i.e. make things collaborate. But using application servers on top of existing operating systems makes applications slower than what they should be, because applications that run in application servers are usually executed in the context of a virtual machine...no matter how good hot spot compilers will be, they will never reach native code speed, due to the simple fact that they have to translate and monitor the running code (and no matter what exotic optimizations promise, the hard reality is that these optimizations are not applicable in most of cases).
How should CPUs be designed? well, instead of the model "process + system calls", each process/software component should have a memory map that defines how it sees the rest of the computer. A software component could only process things that its memory map allows and nothing else. The memory map would be like the page table: a set of address mappings to the rest of memory, with each entry defining use: read, write and execute. When an inter-component subroutine call was made, the current memory map would be switched to the memory map of the target component.
The above model would allow true microkernel design; in fact, there would not be a 'kernel' in the traditional sense, but a small program that acted as a runtime manager for other components. There would not be a distinction between user mode and kernel mode, because each software component would be tuned to see only what is needed and nothing more.
For example, a video driver would only see the video ram and som
In related news the check is in the mail and I won't come in your mouth.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
I thought M$ big thing was to push .NET as the biggest and baddest Language out there.
And then they turn around and start promoting a 100% java based app. server.
WTF??? Obviously, someone is very confused over there...
Ben
PS. I bet that JBoss (Inc.) will be crushed under something very heavy once M$ realizes their mistake.
Microsoft bought WebTV for $425 million. Tht can hardly be considered a backstab.