Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Sponsors Apache Software Foundation
gbjbaanb writes "Ars Technica reports that Microsoft is to sponsor the Apache Foundation to the tune of $100k. From the article: 'I asked him if this could possibly be the beginning of a broader initiative by Microsoft to increase Apache compatibility with .NET web development technologies, but he says it's still too early to guess Microsoft's future plans for Apache participation. ... He doesn't anticipate a confrontational response from the developers working on individual Apache projects ... The response of the broader open source software community, however, is harder to predict.' (In related news, MS also intends to participate in the RubySpec project.)"
Would, "It's a trap", be too cliche?
Could it be that they would like to quit supporting IIS? Make Apache do the dirty webserver stuff, but keep all the content creation in a dll or something. Maybe the 100k is for working on Windows API's and such?
That is the only logical conclusion, as nobody just gives money to the competitor. Right?
No comprende? Let me type that a little slower for you...
Based on Ballmers history, I'd say this is inroads by which to "divide and conquer". So; with the check, what was on the document saying what they wanted in return. Microsoft never gives anything away and usually takes everything it wants?
All content in this message is copyright (c) 2008. All rights reserved. RIAA is prohibited here.
Couldn't the same argument be used in reverse -- quit developing for KDE/GNOME, Windows already dominates, develop for that?
Oh, that's right -- monoculture is ok so long as its your monoculture.
Doesn't that run counter to the idea that monoculture is bad in computing?
Congratulations. You're not only incoherent, you've obviously copy-and-pasted "smart quotes" that came out of Microsoft Word somewhere. Ick.
The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
Apache 2.4 release notes
new modules:
mod_drm
mod_ooxml
mod_reject-firefox
I sure as hell hope not, I cannot begin to list all the advantages of running IIS+.NET on Server 2003 over [insert language] and mod_whatever on Apache. Having to muck around with httpd.conf and chmod wouldn't exactly be an improvement over their current stack, especially for intra-corp applications.
(I realize the above paragraph might hurt some fanboys - sorry. You can have your platform, I recognize its strengths. Just leave mine alone)
This is probably part of Microsoft's push to make things like PHP and Ruby work better on Windows. After all, they'd rather you run WAMP than LAMP. They've been engaged with Zend on the FastGCI implementation for IIS that makes PHP so much better on Windows. I don't think they see IIS as some sacred cow to be protected. Again, as long as you're running everything on Windows Server =)
Web2.0: I love when people Flickr my cuil and digg my boingboing until my google is reddit and I start to yahoo
Well to use an analogy, if Apache and IIS were car companies, one is manufacturing cars that get 200 MPG, with keyless entry security systems that are highly customizable and can be purchased for $10. The other company makes a car that runs on baby kittens, can be hijacked everytime you go under 30 MPH (and whose top speed is 35 MPH) and can be purchased for $100,000.
Who do you think deserves the market in this case?
This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
Steve Ballmer is either:
1) Trying to appear more "open" (what with all the lawsuits in Europe & the oh-so-enthusiastic reception of OOXML), so they can have more influence in the real standards body.
2) Simply trying that old trick (to pretend suck up to developers) & then turn around & do something else.
Eitherway, its a PR stunt because it's hard to believe Microsoft wants to change its definition of "industry standards" from "something we came up with" to---wait for it---"industry standards". Unless I'm missing something
Suspicious, wary.
and rightly so too. look at what happened to all those who got affiliated with microsoft in any way.
microsoft has huge negative karma to alleviate.
Read radical news here
If market share were determined by who deserved it, we'd have non-profit pharmas, home-based rapid-production kits, and most "work" would be a thing of the past.
However, the future will probably be more like Minority Report than Star Trek.
Well that is true in a world of closed source code but not in the open source world where security reviewers and amateurs are always looking at your code. When the whole world has access to your code all the time, you always have to be improving it and working on it.
When it is closed (such as IE was) you can sit on it and not develop for years. Keeping things open causes more people to force you to stay on your game or else they will eventually fork it. Thats kind of what happened with Mozilla and Firefox; Mozilla wasn't really doing things right so Firefox was created. Lucky for them he was willing to work WITH them.
This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
if this is what .Net and Silverlight to get recognition, forget it.
a language/framework that is not competitive enough to be recognized by itself will be ok if there is broader support for it ? dont think so.
Read radical news here
He believes that this move is based on a legitimate desire by Microsoft to foster collaborative development of Apache technologies that implement Microsoft standards.
If that's true, then we have a grave situation. M$ can make apache compatible with M$'s home-grown standards and then claim that the standards themselves are open standards. Since the percentage of IT people who mistake an open-source implementation as an open standard is almost 100%, M$ can even be very successful at this. Since the standards themselves are not open, all web servers, except Apache and M$-IIS, will soon die out. Finally M$ withdraws support for Apache and thus giving it a final blow. Now M$-IIS becomes the king. I know that I'm sounding like a conspiracy theorist. But we have seen enough instances of this Embrace-Extend-Extinguish policy.
The largest prime factor of my UID is 263267.
Anders Hejlsberg wrote MFC? While working at Borland in 1992? Huh, I never knew that...
Karma: Poor (Mostly affected by lame karma-joke sigs)
Never had a problem with it, it works as advertised. I like my security to be slightly more granular though, which is why I'd rather have ACLs on NT.
This is for internal corporate applications though, irrelevant in the context of where I'd run my blog or picture gallery.
Web2.0: I love when people Flickr my cuil and digg my boingboing until my google is reddit and I start to yahoo
You know, you might want to do some research and rethink your view on the security aspect of IIS and Apache - since version 5, IIS has been impressively secure.
Except a comparison between IIS and Apache is actually analogous while comparing an OS versus a Windowing system is far from analogous.
Yeah, I can't list any advantages, either.
Uhh.. no, that's not true at all. Since IIS6 was released in 2003, there hasn't been a single critical security vulnerability in IIS. Not one.
The same can't be said for Apache.
If you need web hosting, you could do worse than here
Uhh.. you really have no idea what you're talking about. First, MFC is a library, C# is a language. Second, C# was developed by Anders Hjelberg, who Microsoft hired away from Borland. He's the guy that basically wrote Delphi. And no, he did not create MFC.
If you need web hosting, you could do worse than here
While I agree IIS security has improve dramatically, you might want to do your own research when you claim that there are no critical security vulnerabilities.
http://secunia.com/product/1438/?task=advisories
There are two remote system compromise vulnerabilities listed there.
"City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
You wouldn't blame a php flaw on Apache so why blame an ASP flaw on IIS?