Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Microsoft and Novell Open Interoperability Lab

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on from the still-in-the-skeptic-camp dept.

An anonymous reader writes to mention that the Microsoft and Novell Interoperability Lab in Cambridge, Massachusetts opened today. The lab is supposed to allow both Novell and Microsoft developers to work together for better interoperability between SUSE and Windows Server. "Located in Cambridge, the 2,500-square-foot lab and workspace will be home to a combined team of the best and brightest Microsoft and Novell engineers focused on making Windows Server and SUSE Linux Enterprise work better together. The first priority for the lab team will be to ensure interoperability between Microsoft and Novell virtualization technologies. Additional work will include standards-based systems management, identity federation and compatibility of office document formats."

30 of 113 comments (clear)

  1. itsatrap? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I predict that this will get tagged as "itsatrap"--Microsoft has a history of joining efforts only to undermine them later. (E.g. "embrace, extend, extinguish")

    Having said that, Microsoft, like many gigantic corporations, has several "personalities" in the sense that different divisions may be operating on different guiding principles that don't necessarily mesh with each other. In this case, for instance, I'm willing to believe that the MS engineers joining this interoperability effort will genuinely do good work towards making MS products work with Linux in a smart and efficient way. So, I can see a lot of good coming out of this.

    Yes, we should be wary of any attempt by MS higher-ups to subvert this process and use it to break interoperability (or to make Linux look "unfit for business" or whatever)... but to some extent I'm willing to give MS another chance here.

    1. Re:itsatrap? by Experiment+626 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Of course it's a trap. Imagine you were walking along and you saw a bear trap on the ground, with a trip wire beside it leading to a gas canister. A cage is suspended over it by a rope, and there's a sentry gun mounted nearby. You might think, "this is a trap", unless you were a Novell executive, in which case you would step into the the apparatus try to find ways to "interoperate" with it.

    2. Re:itsatrap? by SpaceLifeForm · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You failed to mention the money dangled over the trap.

      This lab is the result of the Microsoft-Novell FUD agreement.

      And at 2500 square feet, I.E., a 50x50 foot room,
      the techs don't have a lot of room to interoperate.

      It's a farce to appease the EU.

      --
      You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
    3. Re:itsatrap? by ch-chuck · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I remember the "Novell Migration Tool" from circa 1996 - it allowed you to 'legally' voilate Novell license agreement (more than the licensed number of users could connect to a Novell server).

      --
      try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
    4. Re:itsatrap? by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm willing to believe that the MS engineers joining this interoperability effort will genuinely do good work towards making MS products work with Linux in a smart and efficient way. So, I can see a lot of good coming out of this. Um, no. They will do work towards making Linux work with MS products. Whether this work will be good or not remains to be seen, but their track record does not speak well for them. No doubt much of this work will be closed-source proprietary software designed to run on Linux. And I have no doubts that one of their first jobs will be porting WGA to Linux.

      --
      My blog
    5. Re:itsatrap? by value_added · · Score: 2, Interesting

      In this case, for instance, I'm willing to believe that the MS engineers joining this interoperability effort will genuinely do good work towards making MS products work with Linux in a smart and efficient way.

      Not to be flippant, but wouldn't a "smart and efficient way" include a decision on the part of Microsoft to stop "not interoperating"? Seems to me that over the years they've actively and repeatedly pursued a course that was designed to maintain monopoly and thwart interoperability of any sort.

      Then again, maybe this development is like the situation in the Middle East. Having members of the opposite sides in the same room talking with one another while everyone outside is fighting can be viewed as a positive step, even if shouts of "traitor" are heard through the windows.

    6. Re:itsatrap? by michrech · · Score: 3, Interesting
      What's worse, MS really never had to do any of the work. All they had to do was document their protocols (and provide them in a GPL friendly way) so that the Samba folks (for example) could create *all* the software to make everything work. On top of that, MS could have reaped TONS of free positive publicity.

      Though I am stuck using MS at work, and at home (for a couple games I like to play that aren't available/playable on any other platform), and don't really mind using the products (because, in this case, they are the right tool for the job), I very much dislike the company (in the way it does business... I'm sure at least some of the people that work there are great people otherwise...)

      Not to be flippant, but wouldn't a "smart and efficient way" include a decision on the part of Microsoft to stop "not interoperating"? Seems to me that over the years they've actively and repeatedly pursued a course that was designed to maintain monopoly and thwart interoperability of any sort.
      --
      bork bork bork!
    7. Re:itsatrap? by _Sprocket_ · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yes, we should be wary of any attempt by MS higher-ups to subvert this process and use it to break interoperability (or to make Linux look "unfit for business" or whatever)... but to some extent I'm willing to give MS another chance here. I am also hopeful. But I am also highly skeptical. Such an outcome is very possible but would go against a long standing history. At this point, it would take some extraordinary steps on Microsoft's part to demonstrate that there is no trap. I believe it is entirely possible for them to do it. After all, IBM of all entities has made such leaps. A key to their credibility is the license and projects they work with.

      Microsoft has learned a lot about business from IBM in the past. Let's see if they can follow those footsteps going forward. I hope they do.
    8. Re:itsatrap? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      And at 2500 square feet, I.E., a 50x50 foot room,
      the techs don't have a lot of room to interoperate. Might not be so bad. Maybe the room is 10x250. Perfect for some impromptu geek sports events. ;-)
  2. Awesome! by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 4, Funny

    Now you can autospace like in Word5 or do pagebreak Wordstar style! OOXML coming to Linux!!

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
  3. Ulterior motives? by Enlarged+to+Show+Tex · · Score: 2, Informative

    I suspect that this is little more than a veiled attempt to scream "We're working on interoperability - now government, leave us the hell alone!"

  4. Peer or puppet? by alext · · Score: 4, Interesting

    An obvious benchmark to track is the number of changes going into the Windows Server product for compatibility vs. those going into Suse Linux.

    If Suse has to make all the running it will be pretty obvious who is wearing the trousers (as we say).

    1. Re:Peer or puppet? by projectmalamute · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I would assume the changes will mostly be on the Suse side. All of the information MS needed to interoperate with Linux has been openly available for years, if MS wanted to play nicely with Linux they already would.

  5. Re:Hmmm... by zappepcs · · Score: 2, Funny

    /* So we can get crap MS proprietary code and corrupted standards in Linux now too, huh. */

    I thought that was what Wine was for?

    --
    Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
  6. Not too much to worry about by zappepcs · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Microsoft has been trying to create a secure OS for over a decade. They have also been trying to dominate the desktop market at every opportunity. They have not done either very well. It arguable that they dominate, but that was not done in a lab, it was done in a marketing team meeting room.

    --
    Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
  7. Mhmm! by dontspitconfetti · · Score: 2, Funny

    Additional work will include standards-based systems management, identity federation and compatibility of office document formats. Compatibility: Microsoft's #1 goal!
    1. Re:Mhmm! by arivanov · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Actually yes. You forget another mantra "I love standards, so many to chose from".

      I suspect that they have learned the lesson from SOAP that having an interoperable standard does not necessarily decrease business. It increases it if the standard complexity is above a certain threshold.

      So some of them have seen the light of more revenue on the horizon already. It is a matter of the rest of the company following suit.

      --
      Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
      http://www.sigsegv.cx/
  8. Isn't it interesting... by xednieht · · Score: 4, Funny

    how tomorrow's lawsuits start?

    --

    Hope is the currency of fools
  9. Finally, standards compatibility! by mhall119 · · Score: 2, Funny

    It's about time for Microsoft to properly implement IMAP, LDAP and CalDAV in Exchance. I can't wait.

    --
    http://www.mhall119.com
  10. We're at phase two already? by Weaselmancer · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Phase one - embrace.

    Phase two - extend.

    Phase three - extinguish.

    Been good knowing you, Novell.

    --
    Weaselmancer
    rediculous.
  11. Who is running this? by Epeeist · · Score: 4, Funny

    Looks like the ideal job for Miguel ;-)

  12. No research needed by Mateo_LeFou · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I love the monthly new-years-resolutions to work harder at/invest more in interoperability.
    It's actually not that difficult. Have most of your apps spit out strings of text in some documentable (or, ideally, document*ed) format and basically voila!
    What's difficult is having interoperability without actually having it. In fact, I suspect they could research that until doomsday.

    --
    My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
  13. Re:Hmmm... by hitmanWilly1337 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Ok, samba is a bad example since it's whole purpose for existence is TO network with windows machines, as most other operating systems support unix style networking. And as far as my os of choice, you really mean to tell me that ms doesn't try to force people on to windows? If that's the case, what cave have you been living in for the past decade? Maybe if ms really wants to promote interoperability, they should start adopting some open standards in windows instead of trying to force the community to hack around their ridiculously insecure, and just plain lousy, setup.

  14. Obligatory... by that+IT+girl · · Score: 2, Informative

    "...combined team of the best and brightest Microsoft and Novell engineers..."
    Best? Brightest? Microsoft??
    --
    10 FILL MUG WITH COFFEE
    20 DRINK COFFEE
    30 GOTO 10
  15. Re:Hmmm... by h4rm0ny · · Score: 2, Interesting


    WINE actually provide a useful service that helps third party applications that were originally only developed for Windows to migrate to Linux. The project that does what you warn about is Mono, which encourages Linux developers to adopt proprietary Sue You Later frameworks without thinking about it. And Mono, co-incidentally enough, is the one with the close, close ties to Novell. I wouldn't touch SuSE with a 50m CAT5e cable, right now.

    --

    Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
  16. Priorities by RAMMS+EIN · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ``The first priority for the lab team will be to ensure interoperability between Microsoft and Novell virtualization technologies.''

    That is definitely not the place I would start. First of all, I hardly think interoperability in virtualization is the most important, and secondly, as far as I know, we already _have_ interoperable virtualization.

    Instead of virtualization, I would start with file formats and move to protocols from there.

    Of course, neither of these would be issues if there were standards and both parties adhered to them.

    --
    Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
  17. Re:Write it down. by Frumious+Wombat · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Unix underpinnings + Windows GUI + .Net, etc would not be a commodity, and they would be following the Apple route. They could build on top of OpenBSD, and return to cross-processor compatibility fairly easily. However, there's no need to. They have the VMS underpinnings from NT, and what they need to do is return to the earlier implementation, force backwards compatibility with 95/98, etc, into Virtual machines, and otherwise undo insecure solutions designed to work around programs that expect the end user to be the superuser. Release it as Vista-enhanced, and there you go. If they fixed MS-Kerberos, adhered to a standard or two in the process, and adopted techniques such as NSF4 or proper queueing in the process, so much the better.

    Maybe they can straighten out Novell on Wordperfect + Non-Power-User installations. There really is not a lot wrong with modern Windows, other than too many marketers making technical decisions, visual clutter in the GUI, and problems brought on by maintaining compatibility with the single-user consumer Windows such as 98. Sandbox those, and a lot of issues would go away, while maintaining compatibility (or perhaps improving it) for people who still have programs for 98 or Dos 6.22.

    That being said, I'm still not going back to the OS of the Beast, but I would tone down the anti-Redmond rhetoric.

    --
    the more accurate the calculations became, the more the concepts tended to vanish into thin air. R. S. Mulliken
  18. Dead or Alive by decriptor · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The advantage to a lot of this is that its open source. If Novell was to be killed off as a result, we still have the code to go through choosing the pieces we want.

    So if some is tainted, then through it away. People act like they don't care, but seem to. I guess in a way, who cares if Novell dies, we have their code, right? But at the same time, who is going to pick up all of the coding that will stop if they disappear?

    Although, I am one of those that hopes, ad mist the flaws/bad choices, that they continue to produce some good things. XEN for example.

  19. brave company by icepick72 · · Score: 2

    Many are criticising Novell. On the other hand they are brave enough to walk a important tight rope and take the flack.

  20. notice something? by AlgorithMan · · Score: 2, Interesting

    making Windows Server and SUSE Linux Enterprise work better together. The first priority for the lab team will be to ensure interoperability between Microsoft and Novell virtualization technologies.
    notice, that the aim is interoperability with NOVELL, not GNU+Linux
    This must mean that they're mixing SUSE with MS Patents again, which means more vendor lock-in for Novell customers...

    I don't think there is any reasonable explanation, why MS is creating vendor lock-ins for Novell customers, except that they plan to buy Novell some day... (remember: Steve Ballmer saied they had found THE strategy against linux, "the enemy" - and only 7 month later, after "several months of negotiations" they made the deal with Novell.... there HAS to be something wrong about that....)
    --
    The MAFIAA is a bunch of mindless jerks who will be the first up against the wall when the revolution comes