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."
So...embrace, extend, and DESTROY!
I'm agneglectic, too lazy to care if there is a God.
The appropriate response is to look for the knife in the other hand.
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
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!
"First they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."
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
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
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!
"Embrace, extend, and extinguish" mean anything to you?
It's either that or
1. Attack
2. Embrace
3. Extend
Remember, this is a corporation, not a person.
You are checking your backups, aren't you?
THEN they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.
Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
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
And yet they have double digit growth every quarter... Maybe what you feel is different from what is actually happening.
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.