Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft's Savvy Open Source Move
willdavid writes to mention Joe Panettieri is reporting that Microsoft is continuing their push for open source software interoperability. In the most recent push Microsoft is partnering with a small Silicon Valley company called SpikeSource to certify open source software on Windows 2008. "Despite growing Linux deployments, Windows Server remains quite popular for running open source applications. SugarCRM, the fast-growing open source application provider, is quick to note that many of its business developments occur on Windows Server. And Microsoft itself has sponsored SugarCRM's conferences, in order to stay in front of open source crowds."
... that Microsoft will be writing an ODF module for MS Office?
Didn't think so. Microsoft's idea of interoperability only goes one way.
I run a some OS software on it, and commercial as well, of course, being ideologically agnostic as I am.
I really don't see the news value in this article, so...
It's time to realise that Abble's products are the biggest abomination these days. Just say NO to the dumb iAbble way!!
This is the same company that just extended XP to prevent linux from gaining a foothold in the low end laptop market. They can try to paint themselves any way they want... They're not fooling very many.
Jaded? Yep. Suspicious? Yep.
I'll believe in corporations having personhood when Texas executes one... - advocate_one
... to Extend?!?
It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
Seems to me that Sun are being a bit more savvy in the way they are doing things. First OpenOffice and mysql, now they seem to be partnering up with Canonical (Ubuntu). call me what you will, I'll never trust M$ again.
People who mock freedom genreally don't have what it takes to keep their own.
Microsoft is welcome to liberate their code but they would rather try to "stay in front of open source crowds" with chances to sell your freedom. Interoperability is as simple as releasing specs and source code without obligation. Anything less is mockery.
She has a great track record - founded Marimba, product manager for Java at Sun. I'm not surprised that Microsoft would want to be involved with her when it comes to their open source interests.
Run and catch, run and catch, the lamb is caught in the blackberry patch.
so Microsoft having just destroyed the international standards organisation to prevent interoperability between word processors, someone manages to write this slashdot summary with a straight face?
Microsoft is happy to have anything running on Windows.
Microsoft refuses to have Microsoft apps support Open Source apps.
It's all one way. It's all Microsoft's way.
Kind of left that out of his background there on his bio page.
Microsoft is interested in anything that sells Windows Server. However, with all of their sword rattling, known monopolistic behaviors, partnering with them still can get you the Black Widow Effect. Just ask 3Com, or Ashton Tate, etc.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
IT'S A TRAP!
I'm tired of reading about what corporation or project Microsoft has hooked up with this week. Open-source software is about the community (and thus partnerships), but first and foremost it's about the code. The community comes because of the open-sourced code, not the other way around.
When Microsoft actually starts releasing code under a real open-source license, then we can start talking. Maybe.
Microsoft did a nice deal with Moodle for adding MSSQL server support - rather than specifying just MSSQL server support be added they funded the development of an XML tool for adding database support - so it was easy to also add support for Oracle and other RDBMSs to Moodle (which already supported PostGreSQL and MySQL).
This is a "certification" process. How much do you want to bet Microsoft just wants to use this as a tool to control OSS? I'm sure Microsoft thinks they can create the artificial need for "certification" to run on Windows. Then just don't certify certain products, or make the certification process wind up making the software hugely advantageous for Windows. They could try to design the certification process so the software becomes less cross-platform, say uses a lot of closed-source windows specific APIs.
I'm not sure exactly how MS will turn the certification process to try to control OSS, but based on past behavior I'm pretty skeptical to accept it at face value.
AccountKiller
twitter, Erris, Mactrope, inTheLoo, gnutoo. A veritable army of one.
ODF Convertor, is an addin for Office. Microsoft is Funding, and providing documentation and help.
http://odf-converter.sourceforge.net/
I gotta agree with the article. This makes complete sense from a business perspective. As much as slashdot may beat on Windows, many of are using it while we type our abuse. Windows is not going away. If you want a PC to just run out of the box, you install Windows. Linux is getting better, but just isn't to that level, yet. My XP system is littered with open source apps, at work and home. I use Firefox hourly. I use OpenOffice to type up my messages. I use thunderbird to read my ISP mail. I have sunbird loaded, but have not quite got into using the computer to track my appointments, yet (I like my post-it notes, thank you). Open Workbench does a fair job at project management. It is the best of both worlds, imho.
Bearded Dragon
Microsoft cannot stand to see a product they do not control gain popularity. How long before Microsoft releases a half-backed 'competitor' to SugarCRM and using their monopoly to squash it?
Goodbye Slashdot. You've changed.
Sounds like they are very serious about open source.
A -savvy- open source move would be announcing a port of MS Office to SuSE. This "we want you to make your Linux software also run on Windows" move just increases the vulnerability of their cash cow.
Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
There are many people who share your taste but you should not deny others their fun. The amazing thing about free software is that there's always someone who wants to do specific tasks no matter how obscure. There are lots of people who would be very happy if Microsoft gave them software freedom for Windows. The code has leaked several times but it's worthless if it can't be used for any purpose, modified for specific purposes and shared in both modified and unmodified forms. No one wants to do Microsoft's dirty work for free, they want to have the freedom to make their computers work for them. This is why GNU/Linux is everywhere and why it's so much more fun.
This is just making sure various popular OSS projects can run on top of Windows. That's not interoperability. It'll be interoperability when MS helps OSS projects written specifically for Windows port to *nix without the need for WINE or other emulators.
"Because some of you *did* think Microsoft was changing and getting more open and was wanting to build bridges to FOSS, etc. I know you did. I hoped for a while myself. Well, take a look at the evidence splayed out before us on the ISO table. It speaks. And what it says is, "There is no new Microsoft." And so we need to get smarter. Make the division more clear. People will choose well, given a clear choice. Firefox and Ubuntu and Red Hat and others have demonstrated that. There is no need to compromise. And if you are tempted by the money, think about the rest of us, will you? Look at ISO. Do you want to be like that? Anyone, then, from this day forward who is naive enough to believe a single word from Microsoft needs to see a doctor right away. That is the single most important positive result from this OOXML process, as far as I'm concerned. Now we know. They shouldn't be invited to Open Source conferences to give keynotes, I don't think, or get to be on boards of directors of organizations, or let inside in any way that gives them the chance to pretend to be members of the community or even fair-dealers with FOSS. They will harm you any time they feel like it, and clearly from the OOXML story, we see they do indeed feel like destroying FOSS. They don't mind if a redefined, brand X version of "open" source limps along in its wake, paying tolls along the way to Microsoft, but they intend to kill off the real thing. That's why the OSP doesn't cover the GPL and the February "interoperability" statement opening up certain documentation is only for FOSS if it is noncommercial. Otherwise, all signs point to patent litigation, with all those presidents of countries that just got phone calls from Bill Gates lending a hand, one presumes. That is the plan, Stan, as best I can make it out, and anyone who enables that strategy by signing patent pledges, inviting them to speak as if they are now members of the community, etc. is helping to kill off FOSS. There is no middle ground now." --Pamela Jones via http://www.cafeaulait.org/quotes2008.html
Certification is yet another way to waste free software effort. If reverse engineering a sabotaged and constantly changing OS was not difficult enough, they now offer the chance to lick boots and pay for a certificate of Microsoft appreciation. Real interoperability is easy, liberate the code and follow reasonable standards. The more Microsoft does, the more transparent their motives are.
They can also use it for fear mongering at companies that continue to run Windows. What do you want to bet Microsoft creates a mechanism to not run "uncertified" code and link it into UAC with a default of deny? This can then be used as a threat to all free software projects.
Just say no. Don't take their money, don't do as they say, just ignore the whole thing and we will all be better off.
Copyright infringement is "piracy" in the same way DRM is "consumer rape"
...where 'we' are offended that Microsoft makes calculating and obviously self-serving moves to court open-source applications to run on Windows.
But, we applaud the efforts of the FOSS community to make every effort to run Windows apps on *nix operating systems.
And I think both approaches are equally sel-serving. We understand and support it in FOSS, since we assume FOSS is the underdog, righting wrongs, giving us choice, and generally being a hero.
But Microsoft is trying not to be the underdog in open-source serving, giving us a choice, and generally being as self-preservationist as any *nix vendor. And there are, indeed, *nix vendors. Not just Sun, Red Hat, Novell, but others much smaller that carve out their niches and do very well, thank you. And they, mySQL for example, are not displeased that they also serve a Microsoft customer or two.
Trust Microsoft to not try and hijack FOSS? Of course not. Assume they want to play nice with FOSS? No, probably not. Condemn them for doing what their competitors are doing? just to pile on, IMHO.
If only Microsoft had done this when Novell was advancing the art of PC servers. But that's another tale for another day. Back then, the market was up for grabs. MS won, Novell lost. Today, I don't see Microsoft destroying the *nix marketplace any time soon. Too much momentum, too much good stuff out there. Microsoft thrives when they can identify a limited range of competitors. It's not like that any more.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
Microsoft is not really happy to have anything running on Windows if they can sell the same service. Look at Word Perfect, X11, Netscape, Samba and so on. Anyone who ports to Windoze has had to face the same treadmill of changing specs and sabotage. Now it's AV, Open Office, Safari and iTunes. Just look at the stink people made over something as trivial as *gasp* Apple offering another browser on Windows. Anything that threatens M$ revenue and control will always be under attack.
The OOXML and OLPC sagas are more than enough evidence that Microsoft is the same old M$ we have always known.
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=216934&cid=17629948
Why do you do it Twitter?
InTheLoo and Mactrope are both your accounts, and here they are carrying on a conversation with themselves.
Add to that your 'gnutoo' account that is posting further up the thread.
There is something seriously wrong with you. I couldn't care less about any Karma you whore by setting up your own rebuttals, but the fact that you are intentionally misleading people with your multiple accounts posting together on the same thread bothers me.
I guess all I can do is help newer mods be informed by listing your sock puppets for all to see:
Twitter
Erris
gnutoo
Mactrope (not Macthorpe who is legit)
InTheLoo
All the same person trying to game threads.
No, I mean like this comment on it: Only supported in Novell's version of OpenOffice.
Sound like a similar lock-in? HMMMM I WONDER.
If Microsoft had savvy they wouldn't be in the fix they are now. They have no savvy, they're just huge and cold-blooded. And they have the courts (and, apparently, the ISO) in their pocket.
Microsoft isn't fighting for its life, but the brand is dying, and nothing they can do will be able to stop it.
That comment is out of date. I downloaded that extension and it works just fine for me (AFAICT) in the version of OOo that came with Ubuntu Gutsy Beta.
then I take back all I said about lack of interop...I've not had a reason to have to test it, nobody I know uses office newer than 2003 if they happen to unfortunately be in that crowd.
I also haven't checked to verify your comment, guess I'll have to check that later/take your word fo rit.
El Lobo, you crack me up every time.
Your last two sigs involved "linuzzz" and "abble".
And you're telling me that windows and IIS are "great pieces of software"?
Shocking!!!
Microsoft is like that brother/sister/neighbour who agrees to share things but doesn't actually understand the social rules of doing so. So you lend them something you cherish and then ask to loan something of theirs and they give you a blank look then say "oh, you mean I have to share to, I didn't know that was part of the deal".
From now on, just avoid SugarCRM like the plague.
Votez ecolo : Chiez dans l'urne !
I have managed to get Novell's ODF Converter working on Mandriva Linux. It took some packaging, but it works.
Although Binary only, there is no reason odf-converter won't work on any given Linux distribution.
Over two days and five confessed sock puppet accounts, Twitter has racked up 36 posts.
Looks like somebody has some time to kill at work. God help you if your boss ever bothers to check the server logs.
I have managed to get Novell's ODF Converter working on Mandriva Linux. It took some packaging, but it works. Although Binary only, there is no reason odf-converter won't work on any given Linux distribution.
Yes, but mainly because of how ubiquitous Windows is. We develop Java applications using Eclipse, but all of our desktop machines are Windows XP machines. This means we run Eclipse, Java, and all the various JARs we need (not to mention both Ant and Maven) in Windows. We also use CVS, but will be moving to Subversion. All open source, and all running on Windows.
Why Windows? Because that's what corporate environments use. Our corporate officers want Microsoft Exchange, Microsoft Office, Microsoft Visio, and Microsoft Project. We get resumes in Microsoft Word. Whether we like it or not, we need to be able to use Windows.
I am sure that you look at many Open Source companies, most of their desktop machines will be Windows and that's what many developers will be using. This is even true of Google where all development is pretty much Linux and Web based. Heck, I bet even 37 Singles has more than a few Windows systems around.
Think of Microsoft Windows like the Flu. If you're very careful, you might be able to avoid it -- at least for a while. However sooner or later, you'll get caught. And when you do, you'll fell miserable.
But you worded that rather confusingly :(
The point is that Microsoft will make it easy for people to import ODF documents into Word, but hard for you to get them back out.
As always, their interoperability is a one-way street.
Here are some concrete little suggestions that would prove Microsoft really is trying. Not nonsense that they won't do (like open-source stuff, or port Word to Linux). Very simple stuff that they have refused to do for years and years:
1. Do not "certify" software that will not accept a filename that is typed in or is dragged & dropped or cut & pasted that has forward slashes in it.
2. Do not "certify" software that cannot read a text file with bare linefeeds in it and preserve the line breaks.
3. Add a way to name a file on any disk that starts with a slash and works in any piece of software using any Windows calls that manipulate files, and that shows up in an attempt to list the directory it is in. My recommendation is "/A:/blah".
4. Add symbolic links and fix the finder to not screw up if you copy or delete them.
5. Include bash or some other Unix shell by default with Windows.
6. Add C99 standards to header files, such as NAN, sinf(), etc. Remove the underscores added to about 1/2 of the c99 library functions like snprintf. In general do all the obvious and easy things to fix POSIX compatability.
7. Add working "export" keyword to vc++ compiler so that you don't have to write macros with "__declspec(dllimport/export)" in order to make a shared library.
Everything that has free specifications has a free implementation. One follows the other like day follows dawn. The only thing that prevents people from interacting is when people keep secrets or threaten others with software patents.
People have made free software for obnoxious things too, like Microsoft's networking protocol or DeCSS. The EU's directives were helpful to Samba but the Samba people did an adequate job of reverse engineering the specs themselves. I think that the EU has gone a step further and made Microsoft release changes to the specs that Microsoft made to break Samba. Microsoft's networking protocols are inferior, so I don't keep up with it. DeCSS has, of course, had nothing but trouble from the DVD conspiracy/consortium.
Would you elaborate?
BTW, since you seem to be posting on this article with many of your accounts (inTheLoo, gnutoo, Mactrope), I reiterate my request that you reply to my earlier post, if you have time.
The twitter monologues. Click on my homepage and be amazed.
Just look at the stink people made over something as trivial as *gasp* Apple offering another browser on Windows.
Yes, that went very well for you, even going so far as to shill your own posts, as you are doing all over this article.
It is awesome BTW, Microsoft should probably make "Microsoft (r) Logic" a new ISO standard.
1. Open source is popular.
2. Most open source is written in a portable way hence they run in many platforms including windows.
3. There are a lot of windows users out there.
4. (miss the point)
----
.: Windows is a popular open source platform!
Copyright infringement is "piracy" in the same way DRM is "consumer rape"
Are these "OMG it's twitter" posts some kind of new slashdot troll?
I mean this story is so littered with this anon posted crap that I can't read anything anymore.
What's purple and commutes? An Abelian grape.
The idea behind open source is that the users certify the software. The early adapters are the ones who will wring out the bugs. Later users will continue to comment. The idea of a large corporation certifying Open Source goes completely against the idea of open source. Once again Microsoft does not get it and wants to take control.
Typical for a company run by a bunch of Willy Lohmen's (Salesmen for those of you in marketing
In the most recent push Microsoft is partnering with a small Silicon Valley company called SpikeSource to certify open source software on Windows 2008.
Wait a minute. Microsoft's "interoperability" aside, how is open source software certification supposed to work? By definition of open source, I, being the idiot that I am, can freely modify the thing and therefore break whatever signature protects the version that was certified. Then my version becomes lesser by virtue of not being certified anymore. Nevermind that I've fixed those bugs.
How is certified open source any more open than TiVo? "You can look, but you can't touch!"
Wow, I can't believe you got modded troll. Well said.
It's interesting to wonder what would have happened if the talented folks working on Samba has spent the time instead building a next-generation networked filesystem that Microsoft could only dream of and implemented clients and servers for the three major platforms.
Things would have turned out differently, that's for sure.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
I'm thinking they do understand, all too well, because they wouldn't otherwise fight so hard to circumvent the rules. Imagine the neighbor scoffing and saying, "Finders keepers" when you give him said cherished object. Then, when censured by the community, he breaks into your house and steals other valuables. You report him to the police, but he has bribed the local law enforcement and judiciary, and he's filled the legislature with his allies. Microsoft was never interested in playing by rules that impeded their path to wealth, and their overtures into "interoperability" is worse than outright opposition, because they are all based on lies.
"We are Microsoft. You shall be assimilated. Competition is futile."
I run a small dock in the city where I allow anyone fair access. The local mafia told me they are interested in being open and operating closely with me so that everyone gets along. They said they're not into making concrete boots anymore. I think I will work with them because it seems they have turned a new leaf. What do you all think?
Cosa Nostra: It does not change. Now, microsoft is declaring open source "Our thing". They are just doing it subtly because the "feds" (europe, etc) are looking closely at them. is there really much difference between MS and the mafia?
But, we applaud the efforts of the FOSS community to make every effort to run Windows apps on *nix operating systems.
Setting aside the fact that a LOT of people think making Windows apps run on UNIX is a bad idea...
We applaud the efforts of Microsoft to make every effort to run UNIX software on Windows. That's where real interoperability comes in - the core UNIX API is much simpler and more complete than the corresponding parts of Win32, so you can write a native UNIX app once and run it anywhere (it's not so easy as it once was, perhaps, especially if you insist on integrating the GUI tightly... but it's not all that hard). And then when Microsoft drops the ball, either deliberately (with POSIX) or through neglect (with Interix) we get upset.
Condemn them for doing what their competitors are doing?
They're not doing the same kind of thing... at all.
I don't see Microsoft destroying the *nix marketplace any time soon.
They don't have to, the bits of the Open Source community who don't seem to understand what really makes an open system are going to do it for them.
I'm curious, why exactly do you find it to be a problem that someone would praise IIS?
Well I do not know why someone would, but here is my annoyance:
I came here to bash MS and you guys managed to insert marketing points about IIS into our little bash fest. I stopped watching TV exactly because I am tired of people selling me things I don't need. And now I see the same on slashdot. Why don't you keep your fanboy poodle-extatic bubbling happiness with IIS7 to yourself?
Thanks a bunch. Don't bother replying - you ruined my day already.
A little bird told me this:
echo microsoft interoperability \
| sed 's/ i/ e/;s/per/ops-/;s/bi/h-sh/;s/l//;s/.$//'
I mean that, right now, Microsoft pretty much owns the market. They're not worried about growing their userbase, they're worried about keeping their user base.
Ok.
Linux and Mac are still looking at growing their userbase. I wonder how long until the tables are turned.
Linux and Macs are growing in market share but I think it'll take years before either has a sizable desktop market share. Apple has increased it's laptop market share a lot more than the desktop market share which suggests to me than people are still using Windows PCs for desktop systems. And with Linux, though it's knowledge with general users is increasing, for many it's still perceived as difficult and the apps they think they think they need won't run on it. Distros, like Linspire and Ubuntu, are disproving this however. Not only are they easy to use even for newbies but they also make it easy to install software, though not as easy at it is to install software on my Mac.
FalconShould there be a Law?