Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

MS No Cathedral, Open Source No Bazaar?

Posted by kdawson on from the says-the-high-priest dept.

AlexGr sends us to InternetNews.com for an account of a Microsoft VP demonstrating Microsoft's ASP.NET AJAX product running on Ubuntu at AJAXWorld. In his earlier keynote, Brad Abrams had declared that, when it comes to AJAX, Microsoft is not the cathedral and open source isn't really a bazaar. He noted that ASP.NET AJAX is available under Microsoft's permissive license with full source code. "The Web is built on open standards and we at Microsoft believe that we have to enable those open standards," Abrams said.

48 of 170 comments (clear)

  1. deja vu? by Rixel · · Score: 5, Funny

    "The Web is built on open standards and we at Microsoft believe that we have to enable those open standards," .....and then twist them into a New York hot pretzel, with a dash of moebius strip, then 'reintroduce'.

    --
    Never play chicken with a passive aggressive.
    1. Re:deja vu? by cloricus · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Without a word of a troll I believe my brain stem fell to pieces when I read that.

      As a web developer for the last ten years I wonder who they honestly believe they are kidding? No matter what your bias you can clearly see in their current policy that they have no interest in standards and less so in web standards.

      --
      I ate your fish.
    2. Re:deja vu? by WgT2 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      After reading that 'standards' line it makes me see Microsoft as nothing less than a hydra:

      • multiple heads
      • with multiple mouths
      • each able to say its own thing
      ...but they all share the same heart.
  2. Either there's been a complete sea change.... by jimicus · · Score: 4, Informative

    at Microsoft or they're hiring stand-up comedians.

    This is the company that wanted to decommoditize standards and protocols, yet they come out with the line "The Web is built on open standards and we at Microsoft believe that we have to enable those open standards"

    1. Re:Either there's been a complete sea change.... by rucs_hack · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's an old method. Keep getting soundbites published that discredit the view you don't want, and the lie slowly becomes true.

      I'll be willing to bet they never would have made source for ajax available had open source not existed. Once again they lead by following...

      And anyway, it's not open source, because I can't take the entire source and produce a rival product using it.

    2. Re:Either there's been a complete sea change.... by OmegaBlac · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And anyway, it's not open source, because I can't take the entire source and produce a rival product using it.
      It very well may be open source, but it sure is not Free Software.
    3. Re:Either there's been a complete sea change.... by Professor_UNIX · · Score: 4, Informative

      By that logic, GPL isn't open source because I can't take the entire source and sell a rival product using it.

      Where did you get that idea? Of course you can take GPL'd code and create a rival product and sell it. You just have to redistribute your changes to the GPL'd code as well so that others may take advantage of it like you did of the original product.
    4. Re:Either there's been a complete sea change.... by novus+ordo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      In the section entitled Beat Linux there's this blurb: "Fold extended functionality into commodity protocols / services and create new protocols." This extended functionality has to do with patents. Read up on how they stunted OpenGL with threats of IP infringement on pixel and vertex shaders to see this is a real threat. Also the patent deal with Novell is only an indication of things to come. It makes sense too. The code license doesn't matter as long as you control what you can code.
      Microsoft is slowly decommoditizing standards by patenting the underlying logic(something's gotta stick). On the other hand, you can't really blame them for taking advantage of our broken patent system. There are plenty of other parasites out there eager and willing to do it.

      --
      "You're everywhere. You're omnivorous."
  3. Hmm. First example of it. by flydpnkrtn · · Score: 5, Interesting

    So the first example of MS not using the Cathedral model, and they act like this is huge sweeping change? Release the source to Win2K under the permissive license, or help the Samba team figure out the damn protocols for Active Directory authentication, and then maybe we'll talk about "changes" and "open standards"

    --
    Here's to the crazy ones
    1. Re:Hmm. First example of it. by plague3106 · · Score: 3, Informative

      How can it not be? You don't think that this is a major shift for them, even if it is just one product so far? Of course nevermind that VS2005 defaults to strict XHTML 1.1 code.

      They cannot release Win2k source code; doing so would violate their agreement with Sun following the Java lawsuit. Win2k binaries aren't even available on MSDN anymore. Basically, if you don't already have a Win2k disc, you're not going to get one.

    2. Re:Hmm. First example of it. by flydpnkrtn · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I wasn't implying that they "destroy their business model" in the name of open source... I'm saying that they're doing this because "the web demands open standards" and it looks good on the PR front ("hay guys we embrace open source"), not because it's the right thing to do.

      MS would use closed, proprietary, patented protocols/standards (furthering vendor lock-in) wherever they could, if people didn't immediately jump to Apache/PHP if they did.

      --
      Here's to the crazy ones
    3. Re:Hmm. First example of it. by stikves · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It's true that Microsoft used a "vendor specific" byte in Kerberos protocol to keep SAMBA out (at least for a while). It's not good.

      But Microsoft also handles many protocols nicely (as long as it's on the server side), and provides easy to use GUIs to setup and administer them.

      For example, let's say I want to store all my infrastructure for user accounts, X509 certificate and DNS services and email configuration on a LDAP directory and would like to access via Kerberos as well.

      The setup wizard for Active Directory will handle all these tasks (automatically) in less than 10 minutes (and add 30 minutes setup for Exchange and service packs). Additionally I'll receive many administration GUIs, fully redundant setup and backup programs. (Not including group policy which does not have a good alternative on Linux side yet).

      On the other hand the same infrastructure setup on linux (with Fedora Directory Server or similar), requires coding plenty of scripts (LDAP gateway, sendmail configurations, kerberos password migration, etc, etc) and will probably take 3 days at best. Additionally I'll have to setup Amanda and similar backup strategies by hand.

      So, I'd either choose to invest $1000 on a Windows Server 2003 license once, or hire an administrator with $1000 more salary per month than a current one.

      Unfortunately many enterprises choose the first one

      (btw our current setup uses Fedora Directory Server as main, while we also have an Active Directory installation in parallel, yet this is only because we're a university and we like to experiment more).

    4. Re:Hmm. First example of it. by marcosdumay · · Score: 3, Interesting

      "It's true that Microsoft used a "vendor specific" byte in Kerberos protocol to keep SAMBA out (at least for a while). It's not good.

      But Microsoft also handles many protocols nicely (as long as it's on the server side), and provides easy to use GUIs to setup and administer them.

      For example, let's say I want to store all my infrastructure for user accounts, X509 certificate and DNS services and email configuration on a LDAP directory and would like to access via Kerberos as well."

      So, you mean that they abuse their economical power... But it is ok, since they do that with a nice GUI? Or are you saying (falsely) that Microsoft has not extended those protocols? Because they have extended (or tried) almost all of them, DNS being the only exception, and irrelevant since they already tried to extend TCP.

      "The setup wizard for Active Directory will handle all these tasks (automatically) in less than 10 minutes (and add 30 minutes setup for Exchange and service packs). Additionally I'll receive many administration GUIs, fully redundant setup and backup programs. (Not including group policy which does not have a good alternative on Linux side yet).

      On the other hand the same infrastructure setup on linux (with Fedora Directory Server or similar), requires coding plenty of scripts (LDAP gateway, sendmail configurations, kerberos password migration, etc, etc) and will probably take 3 days at best. Additionally I'll have to setup Amanda and similar backup strategies by hand."

      Now, you seem to be very uninformed. There is quite a long time since people don't need to edit sendmail configs for a normal server (unless you talking about setting your netmask), Windows didn't deal with email by that time. There is less time that LDAP gateways and kerberos servers work easily, but they also do. And I'd really like to know what nice backup solution you get on Windows out of the box, even completely ignoring that to set-up amanda one just need to say where to put all those files and what to backup (I really doubt any other solution won't require that information). Someone that already knows those systems may very well configure it all on a day.

      And, at leat at my box (hint, it's Debian, one of the most geeky and hard to configure distros out there) there are GUIs for most of those.

      "So, I'd either choose to invest $1000 on a Windows Server 2003 license once, or hire an administrator with $1000 more salary per month than a current one.

      Unfortunately many enterprises choose the first one"

      That tells how good at math are those people... Of course 3 days of work by $1000 a month are much cheapper than $1000 on licences and not accounted work on making all that software work as intented.

      And, are you implying that windows doesn't need maintence?!?!?!

      --
      Rethinking email
    5. Re:Hmm. First example of it. by J0nne · · Score: 3, Interesting

      nevermind that VS2005 defaults to strict XHTML 1.1 code.

      and is it served as application/xhtml+xml by default too? Because there's a certain browser by Microsoft that can't handle that...
    6. Re:Hmm. First example of it. by Shados · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Its served as to whatever is crossbrowser. The team that makes VS isn't the team that makes IE, and are probably as pissed off as we all are about how uncompliant it is (for example, the design view for ASP.NET in VS2005 renders correctly a bunch of CSS that IE will ignore even though its in the specs, AND will bitch and whine quite a bit if you dare use a IE CSS filter).

      That being said, last I checked, VS2005 default to XHTML 1.0 transitional, not XHTML 1.1 strict :)

    7. Re:Hmm. First example of it. by The_Wilschon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The cathedral model doesn't even really refer to proprietary development. You might term the closed proprietary development model the prison model or something, the code only gets out when it has done its time. CatB discussed two open source development models, one in which potential changes were submitted to the monarch or oligarchs of a project for consideration, and one in which pretty much anybody could add stuff whenever. Microsoft uses neither of these.

      In short, the difference between the cathedral and the bazaar is not and has never been the difference between closed and open source. It is the difference between two open source development strategies. If you're not sure of this, go read ESR's essay again. http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar /cathedral-bazaar/

      --
      SIGSEGV caught, terminating

      wait... not that kind of sig.
    8. Re:Hmm. First example of it. by stikves · · Score: 3, Informative

      So, you mean that they abuse their economical power... But it is ok, since they do that with a nice GUI? Or are you saying (falsely) that Microsoft has not extended those protocols? Because they have extended (or tried) almost all of them, DNS being the only exception, and irrelevant since they already tried to extend TCP.


      In order not to get further into a flamewar, it'll try to get technical.

      Let's say we need to build an infrastructure on the open protocols mentioned above. While there're plenty of alternatives, one can propose Active Directory can also do the job well (this does not mean it's best or anything).

      • AD can serve a standard DNS domain (even if mixed with Linux BIND servers), including an LDAP backend and dynamic updates: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/317590
      • AD can also serve Kerberos for Linux clients (in a standard way): (here), it can also do RADIUS as well.
      • AD is LDAP compliant so use can also use nss_ldap to grab user information on Linux system from it
      • Linux and Windows nodes can perform two directional file sharing via standard* CIFS protocol
      • AD (with addition of certificate services) can serve as s X509 Certificate Authority.
      • AD + Exchange will understand SMTP, SMTP-AUTH (over LDAP), POP3, IMAP, IMAPS, NTTP protocols (additional web based access is also provided).
      • With Windows Server 2003 R2, AD can also serve standard NIS, NFS, CUPS and similar UNIX protocols.
      • If you include non standard (but known) protocols in the mix, Windows and Linux machines can also interoperate via DFS (Distributed File Sharing), RPD (Terminal Services), etc.


        The required setup is done less than an hour, and will require a (less competent) system administrator for maintenance in the long run.

        (It can be argued that the Linux side will require a more educated - i.e: more expensive - system administrator, and preparation of many site specific scripts and configurations - yet this may not seem objective for some people).

        Don't misunderstand I'm not proposing converting all the systems to AD. I'm telling AD is also a fine solution based on open protocols.
    9. Re:Hmm. First example of it. by MeNeXT · · Score: 2, Insightful

      WHAT? They don't even follow HTML standards and yet you believe they follow standards that will sit on top of HTML. Actions speak louder than words. IE 7 is not standards compliant. I strongly believe that Microsoft has no intention of following any standard.

      When IE starts supporting standards then I'll believe Microsofts claim of standards based Internet.

      --
      DRM? No thanks, I'll just get it somewhere else...
    10. Re:Hmm. First example of it. by morcego · · Score: 2, Informative

      Humm, I won't even quote that one.

      1) Just because you can do it easily doesn't mean you can do it right
      2) Have you ever tried using NDS ?
      3) Try using Exim instead of sendmail. You can do the "configuration" in 2 minutes or less.

      I hate LDAP as much as I hate Windows AD. Even tho I don't like Novell, NDS is still the best directory server around (when you want to handle multiple platforms). Btw, unless I'm much mistaken, Novell was the one to invent directory services in the first place.

      (btw, my current setups all use mysql backends, not any kind of DS)

      --
      morcego
    11. Re:Hmm. First example of it. by Super_Z · · Score: 5, Interesting

      AD is LDAP compliant so use can also use nss_ldap to grab user information on Linux system from it
      The devil lies in the details. LDAP compliance does not ensure that a product can be used as advertised. The killer lies in the (lack of) implementation of OID matching rules.

      Linux and Windows nodes can perform two directional file sharing via standard* CIFS protocol
      The fact that this can be done is a credit to the Samba community and definetly not a credit to MS.

      With Windows Server 2003 R2, AD can also serve standard NIS, NFS, CUPS and similar UNIX protocols.
      Try creating a file with e.g a colon in it on a volume mounted from a WS2003 server. Their NFS implementation is not only half-assed - its a complete bastard to set up. Other companies - like NetApp - has *far* better products. Which only shows that MS just couldn't be bothered with doing a good job compatibility wise.
      I also find no mention on the WS2003 server feature page that it can serve anything remotely CUPS'ish. You were probably thinking of IPP?

      If you include non standard (but known) protocols in the mix, Windows and Linux machines can also interoperate via DFS (Distributed File Sharing), RPD (Terminal Services), etc.
      RDP support on unix hosts should definetly not be credited MS.

      The AD compatibility list and its features may look nice on a glossy paper. To be honest - I wouldn't touch it with a long stick. Its a one way street into a long life of MS induced pain - non-compatibilities, forced upgrades, a license policy that you need professional help to understand etc.

      Not to mention the happy fact that with AD, MS has a perfect instrument to enforce any diabolic license-policy they can think of - at any point in time they want to. They are in complete control of your core infrastructure.
  4. Correction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    "The Web is built on open standards and we at Microsoft believe that we have to extend those open
    standards," Abrams said.


    There, fixed spelling for you. ;-)

  5. they did the obvious but finished last by neongrau · · Score: 3, Insightful

    there are so many ajax enabled frameworks.
    most if not all of them aren't even tied to a specific server-side technology -> so more choice.

    they point out it's open source? hey of course it is! the major part is in javascript. it's open by design and even if it were possible to scramble, obfuscate and encrypt their code. it would be useless because developers will have the need to extend the widgets to their specific needs at a certain level.

    1. Re:they did the obvious but finished last by sumdumass · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The license is very similar to the BSD style license. But more interestingly, according to open source legal, It passes on the ability to use any patents they have on it royalty "free". Something that Java SCript probably couldn't do alone.

  6. Could someone explain me wth does that mean : by unity100 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "MS No Cathedral, Open Source No Bazaar?"

    what cathedral ? what bazaar ? what relation does any cathedral and bazaar have, what kind of metaphor is this, and just what the heck does that mean ?

    --
    Read radical news here
    1. Re:Could someone explain me wth does that mean : by LarsG · · Score: 2, Informative

      You are new here?

      http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar /cathedral-bazaar/

      --
      If J.K.R wrote Windows: Puteulanus fenestra mortalis!
    2. Re:Could someone explain me wth does that mean : by flydpnkrtn · · Score: 2, Informative

      See here for an explanation

      --
      Here's to the crazy ones
    3. Re:Could someone explain me wth does that mean : by Clazzy · · Score: 2, Informative

      http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar /
      Written by Eric Raymond about the differences between open and closed source, pretty much.

      --
      If we can hit that bull's-eye, the rest of the dominoes will fall like a house of cards... Checkmate.
    4. Re:Could someone explain me wth does that mean : by UncleOwl · · Score: 3, Informative

      AFAIK, the original CatB is not so much about open vs closed source, rather than those two models used in open source context - e.g. the original GNU project was more a Cathedral, while Linux was a Bazaar.

    5. Re:Could someone explain me wth does that mean : by rfc1394 · · Score: 4, Informative

      what cathedral ? what bazaar ? what relation does any cathedral and bazaar have, what kind of metaphor is this, and just what the heck does that mean ?

      This is an (indirect) reference to Eric S. Raymond's seminal paper, "The Cathedral and the Bazaar" (actual essay is here), in which he talks about software development being done in one of two ways, by huge development companies in commercial environments, being similar to the way medieval cathedrals were constructed, versus open-source development in which just about anyone can get involved if they want, and that development is closer to the typical bazaars where anyone can walk up and put up a booth to sell rugs. It is this paper that was basically the cause of Netscape deciding to open-source its browser.

      --
      The lessons of history teach us - if they teach us anything - that nobody learns the lessons that history teaches us.
  7. MS and standards by l3v1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    and we at Microsoft believe that we have to enable those open standards

    Enable ? Hardly. Follow ? When PR requires. Open ? Yeah, right.

    "Enable those open standards" does this even mean something ?

    First they don't do it. Then they do something similar for a second and act as they've always done it and behaved accordingly forever and even act like it's their ground philosophy.

    Not that I would care what a company does to ensure a certain future - economical, technical or otherwise - yet there are certain boundaries to arrogance - like in we think you're ignorant enough to eat whatever we serve you for dinner kind of arrogance - that sometimes just blows the hood.
     

    --
    I am putting myself to the fullest possible use, which is all I can think that any conscious entity can ever hope to do.
  8. Open Standards == No one is Using it by segedunum · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Whenever a Microsoft employee talks about using open standards you can bet it's because no one is using the particular bit of software he's talking about. As soon as a critical mass of people are using it, see the open standards mantra melt away.

    "I'm not sure the bazaar analogy works," Abrams said. "Neither cathedral nor bazaar are the same in the AJAX Web space; rather there is a continuum that reaches across space."
    Anyone have any idea what this claptrap means?

    "In the open source world you can talk to people and get answers," Abrams said. "But we're offering guaranteed support."
    Oh right, this is what it's about. You're trying to stop people from using all the open source AJAX implementations out there, and you believe one way to do this is to claim that open source software has no support? As everyone who uses this kind of stuff should know, it's far faster and more responsive to discuss things like this with like-minded people (and/or employees) on a mailing list or forum than wait for a meaningless answer from some dumb witted twit who doesn't understand the software he's been cajoled into providing support for. You're going to fail there, so no, you don't understand how people are using AJAX at all.

    "The other reality is that you have work on other platform and can't afford to turn away users that are using Mac or Linux as well."
    Yes, because most of the servers on the web aren't Windows, damn it! Oh sorry, that quote was taken out of context.

    Forgive me for being just a tad sceptical, and wondering why this was good enough to make it as a Slashdot news story.
    1. Re:Open Standards == No one is Using it by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 2, Insightful

      For the cost of wasting 5 hours on the phonen of one of my technical peers, I can often contact the *author* of the open source tool and pay them for one hour of support time, at a substantial savings to my personal or my employer's bottom line.

  9. Weird site, opensourcelegal.org by Gregory+Cox · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I don't know what to make of the opensourcelegal.org site linked to in the story.

    Generally sites talking about open source tend to be keen to advocate the open source philosophy, but the tone of this site is mostly neutral and lacking any overtly expressed opinion. If anything, the page titled Why Open Source? seems more negative than positive.

    So perhaps the legal firm running the site is playing up the difficulties and uncertainties surrounding open source as a way of promoting its legal help on the subject? But I can't see anything on the (rather small) site advertising legal services at all. It doesn't really have enough content to get many visits for its news or information. I wonder why it was set up...

    --
    If you all Google Slashdot, will it Slashdot Google?
  10. Step 1 by Salsaman · · Score: 2

    Embrace.

  11. The Proof Is In The Pudding: Open Source DirectX by lotusleaf · · Score: 5, Informative

    Speaking of standards:

    * "Microsoft breaks with standards effort" 03-25-2003
    * "Microsoft quits W3C standardisation panel" 03/24/2003

    How about a free and open standard in gaming?
    * "Microsoft DirectX killing innovation" 03-27-2003

  12. We are from the Government.. by sycodon · · Score: 2, Funny

    We are from the Government and we are here to help.

    We are from Microsoft and we enable Open Standards.

    --
    When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
  13. Re:The Proof Is In The Pudding: Open Source Direct by SpiritOfGrandeur · · Score: 2, Insightful

    2003? This is 2007 and that is a lot of time to change your game...

  14. Re:The Proof Is In The Pudding: Open Source Direct by EvilRyry · · Score: 2, Informative

    OK, how about a more recent example then. Such as... OpenXML vs OpenDocument.
    I'm sure you can find plenty of articles on slashdot for this one.

  15. Clear and Correct perspective on MS. by 3seas · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Microsoft is first and foremost a marketing company.

    They can and will say what ever they need to to get people to buy.

    Second in priority is Microsoft is their own legal advisors to advise
    themselves, (based on their interpretation of the law - no different
    than any other lawyer or law firm) on what they can get away with, what
    they can get in trouble for but balanced against what they gain in
    breaking the law (do they gain more than they lose - if so then they
    see it as a cost of doing business).

    Third in priority is the bullying and buy out of the competition. Of
    course their legal house is involved in this too.

    Forth has become the application submittal for as many patents as
    they can get, even stupid stuff that is clearly not patentable. In
    the battle against open source this will become combined with the
    third priority more and more.

    What you don't see in any of the above is genuine innovation.

    Microsoft does NOT enable fair play. But they often make claims
    in contridiction of what they actually do.

    Microsoft has a very long and hard earned reputation of being
    dishonest with marketing speak.

    But we all know this, those of use that read slashdot.

    And slashdot users are not who this markting bull is aimed at.

    Or maybe we should thank MS for enabling us to be open?

  16. "Permissive Licence" doesn't seem awful by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I noticed two main things in that license text:

    You can't remove any copyright, patent, or atribution notices. Kind of like the dreaded BSD advertising clause, in that if someone puts "Parts written by 1337 h4xx0rz" in the output of the program, you have to leave it there. Repeat ad nauseum for every contributor that jumps on the bandwagon, and things could get... unaesthetic.

    They use almost the exact same patent control system as the GPLv3. If a program contains patented code, you're granted permission to use those patents to execute it. If you sue one of the patent holders for violations of your own patent, that permission is revoked. I think this is called the "please don't eat me, IBM!" clause. Seriously, though, this needs to be pointed out every single time some Microsoft shill attacks the GPLv3. You can dislike v3, but you can't really call it anti-business when the world's largest software vendor implemented parts of it in their own license.

    --
    Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
  17. Step 2 by db32 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Unzip

    --
    The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.
  18. Step 3 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Profit

  19. In a weird way, it works both ways by WindBourne · · Score: 2, Insightful

    MS has always seen the web as something to convert away from open standards. Xmlhttprequest was introduced by MS as part of the way to extend and extinguish http. They were surprised when it was used against them, which is why it took them SOOOOOO long to suddenly back it. It was no different when the internet and web were opened to the world. MS had introduced their own internet called MSN that BG wanted to get 1-5 pennies off of ever dollar that was spent. Once he saw the they open internet was killing him, he quickly turned MS against the internet. Same thing is going on with AJAX. MS did not develop it. They simply created 1 protocol as a means to an end, only to find that it worked against them.

    The idea of calling MS open is beyond bizarre. It is positively Machiavellian and reminds of me when MS was pushing the idea that THEY developed the internet.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    1. Re:In a weird way, it works both ways by MightyMartian · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Microsoft does this every few months. They send out one of their talking heads to talk to some segment of the tech community and spread a heaping, reeking pile of bullshit. Whether it's the idiotic question and answer sessions that Slashdot provides, or some developers conference, it's all about trying to make their monopolistic agenda look nice and cuddly. Microsoft has been one of the single biggest enemies of standards of any kind. They've gone out of the way to break standards, so the only question is whether or not this particular talking head actually believes the crap he's spreading.

      Well, there is another question. Does Microsoft truly think we're so stupid as to buy into any of it?

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    2. Re:In a weird way, it works both ways by Mateo_LeFou · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "there is another question. Does Microsoft truly think we're so stupid as to buy into any of it?"

      Yes, they truly think that. And many many people are exactly so stupid. If BG says it, it's true. And if you point out that it's false, you're just jealous of BG's money.

      --
      My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
    3. Re:In a weird way, it works both ways by WindBourne · · Score: 2, Funny
      What. The. Fuck? MS created AJAX from whole cloth. Your entire post is pure rhetoric and fiction.

      B.S. MS had absolutely NO intentions of doing AJAX. They did not create JavaScript. They had no intention of using Javascript combined with XmlHTTPRequest. XmlHttpRequest was developed to give them a RPC capability for their apps. They had absolutely no intention of using it with their browser. This was a pure OSS idea. That is why MS was the last party to the game WRT ajax.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    4. Re:In a weird way, it works both ways by Score+Whore · · Score: 4, Informative

      XmlHTTPRequest was first used Outlook Web Access. In one step microsoft took the web from klugey JVM and form based web apps to asynchronous, dynamic, loosely coupled, non-modal web apps. If you even took the slightest amount of time to look it up you'd know this.

      Do you enjoy writing fiction and lies?

    5. Re:In a weird way, it works both ways by init100 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Microsoft sometimes creates useful things, like once every couple of years. :)

      AJAX is certainly one of these (few) things.