Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Hires Director of Linux Interoperability
AlexGr sends us to Todd Bishop's blog in the Seattle PI for news that Microsoft has brought someone aboard to serve as its Director of Linux Interoperability and head up the Microsoft/Novell Interoperability Lab. "...his name will be familiar to people in the open-source community. In an e-mail late Thursday night, a Microsoft representative said the role will be filled by Tom Hanrahan, who was most recently the director of engineering at the Linux Foundation, the group created through the recent combination of the Free Standards Group and the Open Source Development Labs."
...back in those days, it amounted to little more than a means to migrate from Netware to an NT domain. The Unix compatibility stuff that exists now amounts to about the same. I wonder what Microsoft has in mind with all this? It would be weird if it was more than "one way" compatibility.
...Vista is just another Linux distribution. Buying Novell was the first step in establishing IP claims on Linux. The suits have already arrived to take away Linux...we just don't know it yet. This of course won't stop those of us who really know how Linux came about...but when Microsoft is done they will have the masses believing they invented it. Just my 2 cents. Hedghog
I have no idea why, but for some reason "Director of Linux Interoperability" brings to mind the US Drug Czar and the War on Some Drugs
fixed.
Living With a Nerd
Didn't Microsoft and Sun sign a deal to "interoperate" a few years ago? Where has THAT gone?
BTW, Microsoft does not want to interoperate with Linux and OSS. They want it gone, so any "talk" about deals and smoke-mirror agreements will only flounder, stall, and drag on forever. Anybody who believe otherwise is just fooling themselves.
LoB
"Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
Would some of those who seem to have a brain built for more than just Pro Linux or pro Linux or anti- whatever rants PLEASE comment on whether they think this will be a good thing or a bad thing and why? because I don't know a thing about this person.
...Open Source isn't the only answer -- but it's almost always a better value than the alternatives...
Reminds me of "We're from the government and we're here to help." To which the reply goes, "You're confusing me, which is it? You're from the government, or you're here to help?"
Microsoft having someone with the title of "Director of Linux Interoperability" is one of those euphemisms. He's not going to improve interoperability, but he'll be addressing interoperability. Much of the interoperability between Microsoft operating systems and Linux have happened despite Microsoft, not with Microsoft's help. They fought SAMBA, for example.
Please remember Microsoft's long history of polluting standards and interfaces. They buggered such standards as HTML and Java. They have everything to lose with interoperability, and very little to gain. If they believe in interoperability, they would not oppose the move to open document standards.
Best regards.
Competition fosters innovation. If M$ gets rid of the competition, they will have no innovation.
Well then, maybe the competition should start competing, don't 'cha think? Considering the "competition" can't even give their products away for free, I gotta think that the problem is with the competition, itself, not MS.
I don't respond to AC's.
The problem is, we understand the file formats, they're just small pieces of memory dumps of what Microsoft Word uses internally. In order to implement them correctly you would need to emulate the DESIGN of what Microsoft Word does in memory. In other words, you'd be implementing a sort of word clone to support the
This is also why Microsoft word is not very compatible when it comes to documents created in a different version.
I even doubt Microsoft has proper documentation on the formats internally.
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
Seriously, what this means is that MS will become more compatible with Linux, not making Linux more compatible with MS products from an interoperability standpoint.
Why change MS software to increase compatibility with Linux when they can just change Linux? Watch for a corresponding increase in commits from "new" sources.
This will be just like Microsoft's extinguishing of Novell in the 1990's, except this time Microsoft can change their competitor's code directly.
-- If you're posting to be funny, and your sig is funnier . . . .
Remember that when Microsoft was trying to get into the file/print/email server game, Novell was the leader in the field. But to win, Microsoft merely had to more or less match their functionality and throw in some price cuts and desktop tie-ins to sweeten the deal.
With Linux, this is harder. They can't use a price advantage to 'choke off the air supply'. Or can they? To me, that's what the Novell patent deal is all about (from MS's point of view, at least). To un-freeify Linux. Microsoft is confident that they can compete on a level playing field. After all, they have a huge starting advantage, plus they still have the ability to tie their server products to their desktop products. But they can no longer undercut on price. That is, unless they convince the marketplace that free Linux is illegal, and the only way to get Linux is to pay Novell's price. Then they can once again price Novell out of the market.
At least one of the Linux-esque ways of doing business is running servers for free, or at least without per-seat licensing. If that goes away, at least a large part of those Linux fans will lose some of their attachment.
Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
Exactly.
"Microsoft Hires Director of Linux Interoperability"
translates as
"Fox wants to interoperate with henhouse". All in the name of efficiency, of course. For the fox.
In my opinion, there is a lot of misunderstanding about Microsoft. People get confused, and think Microsoft is a software company that is abusive. But maybe a better explanation is that Microsoft is an abuse company that uses software as its vehicle to deliver abuse.
REAL managers can make a profit without being adversarial. Managers who have difficulty thinking carefully must work for abusive companies.
Correction. I should have said:
Foxes want to interoperate with penguins. Only to help the world, of course. And because foxes think penguins are cute. (Copyright Fox P.R. agency 2007)