Google base their service on XMPP, but have not shown any intent of interconnecting with others.
Sigh...
Once again, Google does have full intent on federating with other servers, but has not currently implemented it. See http://www.google.com/talk/developer.html#service_ 2. Think about all your email spam - what if you had that same problem with IM? Basically Google wants to get the spam issue resolved BEFORE they open up server-to-server. It's a lot harder to add on this spam protection after the fact.
Furthermore, Google has even been making it EASIER third party clients to connect to their service. They have instructions on their pages about how to make third party clients connect and they have developers who are working with open source IM clients such as Gaim and Adium to help them support Google Talk. That's much, much more than you can say about MSN, AOL, or Yahoo.
So, yes, Google has shown a commitment to interconnecting with other servers and clients.
First of all, there are lots of products that coexist within the exact same market with little differentiation (pain killers, mattresses, etc). So even if Microsoft and Unix do directly compete, that doesn't mean they can't coexist.
Second, Unix and Microsoft don't compete for the same market. Yeah, they're both OS's but that's like saying that a BMW convertible and a ford pick up trucks are in the same market: both cars, but people who would consider buying one would not consider buying the other. Likewise, unix, windows - and even OS X - each have different primary markets. Unix is great for servers, but you would never recommend it to your grandparents. Mac OS X on the other hand is ideal for the vast majority of people who just want to check their email, surf the internet and write word docs. Windows is ideal for businesses or any one else who might have apps they need to run that may not run on OS X.
Unix and Windows are no more competitors than BWM and Ford Pickups are - both in the same larger market, but the customer bases do not significantly overlap.
So what if he works for Microsoft? People are not defined by their jobs.
The vast majority of people from Microsoft are good, decent people. They admit that Microsoft has done some shady things in the past and believe that can change, should change, and is changing. Many of them in fact joined Microsoft in part because it's easier to change things from the inside than from the out.
Chris Green probably is very much a unix fan. Just because he accepted an offer from Microsoft when he was applying for jobs doesn't suddenly make him anti-unix. In fact, it probably re-affirms his love of unix as he is probably trying to help unix *and* Microsoft.
Unix and Microsoft can co-exist, and someone can appreciate unix but work for Microsoft.
Here's the difference between Google and Microsoft: 1) Google makes a conscious effort to "do no evil." Culture comes from the top down. When all around you people are saying "do no evil, do no evil," you remember it in all those little decisions you're faced with. Microsoft never had such a motto, and while they're trying to get better now, it's hard to retroactively change a culture. Google's believed that from the beginning, and that makes it much easier to "do no evil." 2) While Google may have a dominate share in the market (in certain areas), it would never the have monopolistic control that Microsoft has. Search, for example, has extremely low switching costs. As soon as the search results get bad, you can switch to using a different search engine. Compare that to Windows, where switching means giving up software (which you've paid a lot of money for), changing the way you use a computer, and possibly even getting a new computer. Microsoft software has very high switching costs, giving a microsoft the power to be evil - a power that Google doesn't have. 3) Google's success is based on trust, and that trust is built off of Google's commitment to not being evil. If you didn't trust Google, for example, to not read your gmail, would you use it? Probably not. Google's "do no evil" motto is more than just a nice saying - it's a beneficial business practice.
So, think about it: Google has made a commitment to not be evil (unlike Microsoft), Google doesn't have the power to control users in an evil way (unlike Microsoft), Google wouldn't benefit from being evil (unlike Microsoft). Google and Microsoft are very, very different companies and Google does believe, and will believe for a very long time, in not being evil.
Slashdot Mirror
First of all, there are lots of products that coexist within the exact same market with little differentiation (pain killers, mattresses, etc). So even if Microsoft and Unix do directly compete, that doesn't mean they can't coexist. Second, Unix and Microsoft don't compete for the same market. Yeah, they're both OS's but that's like saying that a BMW convertible and a ford pick up trucks are in the same market: both cars, but people who would consider buying one would not consider buying the other. Likewise, unix, windows - and even OS X - each have different primary markets. Unix is great for servers, but you would never recommend it to your grandparents. Mac OS X on the other hand is ideal for the vast majority of people who just want to check their email, surf the internet and write word docs. Windows is ideal for businesses or any one else who might have apps they need to run that may not run on OS X. Unix and Windows are no more competitors than BWM and Ford Pickups are - both in the same larger market, but the customer bases do not significantly overlap.
So what if he works for Microsoft? People are not defined by their jobs. The vast majority of people from Microsoft are good, decent people. They admit that Microsoft has done some shady things in the past and believe that can change, should change, and is changing. Many of them in fact joined Microsoft in part because it's easier to change things from the inside than from the out. Chris Green probably is very much a unix fan. Just because he accepted an offer from Microsoft when he was applying for jobs doesn't suddenly make him anti-unix. In fact, it probably re-affirms his love of unix as he is probably trying to help unix *and* Microsoft. Unix and Microsoft can co-exist, and someone can appreciate unix but work for Microsoft.
Here's the difference between Google and Microsoft:
1) Google makes a conscious effort to "do no evil." Culture comes from the top down. When all around you people are saying "do no evil, do no evil," you remember it in all those little decisions you're faced with. Microsoft never had such a motto, and while they're trying to get better now, it's hard to retroactively change a culture. Google's believed that from the beginning, and that makes it much easier to "do no evil."
2) While Google may have a dominate share in the market (in certain areas), it would never the have monopolistic control that Microsoft has. Search, for example, has extremely low switching costs. As soon as the search results get bad, you can switch to using a different search engine. Compare that to Windows, where switching means giving up software (which you've paid a lot of money for), changing the way you use a computer, and possibly even getting a new computer. Microsoft software has very high switching costs, giving a microsoft the power to be evil - a power that Google doesn't have.
3) Google's success is based on trust, and that trust is built off of Google's commitment to not being evil. If you didn't trust Google, for example, to not read your gmail, would you use it? Probably not. Google's "do no evil" motto is more than just a nice saying - it's a beneficial business practice.
So, think about it: Google has made a commitment to not be evil (unlike Microsoft), Google doesn't have the power to control users in an evil way (unlike Microsoft), Google wouldn't benefit from being evil (unlike Microsoft). Google and Microsoft are very, very different companies and Google does believe, and will believe for a very long time, in not being evil.