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.
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
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.
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.
I consider myself a technical purist. When I see poor code it causes me pain (and usually hours to fix it) and I don't think I need that kind of punishment from microsoft. It is bad enough that I have to use their SloS at work. I prefer not to be subjected to their hideous source code.
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.
"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
You just answered what they said with proof supporting it, not the reverse.
Note they said "Microsoft will get anything running on windows" not the reverse.
The question is when does MS give info to ODF so they can run an OOXML to ODF converter and ODF back into OOXML. Now do you see the issue?
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.
Is the Microsoft sponsored one better or worse than the one from Sun?
...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
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.
No, but it does mean open and free specs. It wasn't until the EU forced their hand that the Samba guys had the specs for the SMB/CIFS protocol.
MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
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".
It has nothing to do with interoperability.
While I agree that Microsoft (and all companies) should strive for publishing accessible and clear documentation for their file formats and protocols, if your definition of "freedom" includes them releasing their code under the GPL (as you've "demanded" they do in other occasions), you better not hold your breath.
By the way, if you have time I'd appreciate a response to my post.
The twitter monologues. Click on my homepage and be amazed.
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.