Microsoft Dilutes Open Source, Coins 'Open Surface'

sfcrazy writes "Now, Microsoft is coining yet another term to further confuse users — 'Open Surface.' Senior Director for Open Source Communities at Microsoft, Gianugo Rabellino, said at Oscon 2011 that customers don't care about the underlying platform as long as the APIs, protocols and standards for the cloud are open. That's when he threw the term 'open surface.'" This seems to have more than a grain of truth to it — after all, programmers have been creating open-source software with closed-source programming languages for many years, and I'm certainly more impressed by Google's willingness to let me export my data than I am turned off by the fact that they use a mix of open and closed source software to run the Google circus.

Comments

Embrace, Extend, Extinguish

[Gr33nJ3ll0]

I believe this is step 2

Re:Embrace, Extend, Extinguish

[starfishsystems]

Indeed. I'm glad you got first posting for this.

It's not that specifications and standards aren't important. Of course they are. But Microsoft is more than a bit disingenuous in pretending to advocate them when it has been so egregiously, perennially active in undermining them. This hypocrisy is all too familiar.

Thanks, Microsoft, for reminding me why I loathe you.

Re:Embrace, Extend, Extinguish

[TheRaven64]

The problem is that API's, protocols and standards pretty much never are open without releasing a reference implementation.

Not true. In fact, having a reference implementation is a good way of making a kludgy standard. The IETF's requirement, for example, does not require a reference implementation. It requires two independent implementations. If the standard can't be implemented by two groups who aren't sharing code then it's not a standard it's just documentation.

open APIs must remain open

[petes_PoV]

as long as the APIs, protocols and standards for the cloud are open

The key thing is to ensure that the APIs cannot be controlled, or changed or withdrawn or have conditions of use imposed on them. Open means more than just having them documented.

The only way to ensure that the APIs remain usable is to have the ability to rebuild the underlying software, rather than simply have a third party provide us with it - where the way the API is still under their sole control. To do that requires unencumbered access to the source code, and the entitlement to copy it and make other things that use it.

Without those abilities, there will always be the possibility that the original owner could arbitrarily change it, refuse to support it, add private functions and features or prevent certain classes of users from benefitting from it. These are the attributes that make free software valuable.

Security by obscurity, still...

[jenningsthecat]

Whether or not this is a move to co-opt FOSS, I can't say, although I have my suspicions. But from a security standpoint, it sucks. Security breaches are becoming more and more common; with the underlying code being closed, there can be no independent confirmation of the quality of security measures, patches, etc. So when a vulnerability is found and 'patched', we still won't have any assurance, beyond Microsoft's say-so, that the patch fixes the problem and doesn't introduce any new ones.

This announcement doesn't really change anything, and on the face of it it's non-news. But as propaganda, it stands a good chance of getting more people to drink the MS Kool-aid. And remember when MS used to use undocumented OS calls to give their own applications an edge over competitors? I think we can expect such abuses to increase greatly - the appearance of openness will hide what's really going on.. The 'surface' may be 'open', but the underlying code, and the underlying politics, are murkier and more closed than ever.

Besides, 'Open Surface' sounds rather shallow, doesn't it?

Patents covered seperately

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe the following statement on the front page says it all:
"rights under Microsoft patents covering such specifications are available separately"

Re:What is the point of the linked page?

[Sulphur]

This is so backwards from Slashdot norm. A summary with a tidbit of "news" in it and intelligently written opinion, no FA to read.

Am I missing something, did Microsoft not really coin this term or is there some biased, slanderous opinion that was unintentionally left out of the summary?

In other words, an Open Surface post.

Customers or Providers?

[Bob9113]

> customers don't care about the underlying platform as long as the APIs, protocols and standards for the cloud are open.

That seems true. Customers want openness in the part that they deal with. Since the customer does not deal with system maintenance and development, he does not care whether the underlying platform is open. The provider of the cloud service, on the other hand, has a deeply vested interest in the openness of the platform. Maintenance, repair, and extension requirements all strongly favor an open platform from the cloud service provider's perspective.

Pointing out that the customer does not care about platform openness as long as the protocol is open is a bit like saying that automobile drivers do not care if the paving crew uses horse-drawn paving machines as long as they get the job done in a timely manner. It does not necessarily follow that horse-drawn paving machines make sense.