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."

Does this mean...

[by Anonymous Coward]

... that Microsoft will be writing an ODF module for MS Office?

Didn't think so. Microsoft's idea of interoperability only goes one way.

Mod parent up!

[khasim (1285)]

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.

You mean like this

[badriram (699489)]

ODF Convertor, is an addin for Office. Microsoft is Funding, and providing documentation and help.
http://odf-converter.sourceforge.net/ [sourceforge.net]

Re:You mean like this

[mweather (1089505)]

That's nice of them. When will Office have native ODF support? Or OOXML support for that matter?

Re:

[poetmatt (793785)]

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?

Re:You mean like this (nope)

[poetmatt (793785)]

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.

I nmanaged to get Novell's ODF Converter working

[Zombie Ryushu (803103)]

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.

Re:

[poetmatt (793785)]

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.

Re:

[Vexorian (959249)]

It ought to be Office opening and saving ODF by default (And correctly, for god's sake), anything else, is mockery.

Re:

[SpydeZ (1196075)]

Is the Microsoft sponsored one better or worse than the one from Sun [sun.com]?

Ulterior Motives..

[pionzypher (886253)]

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.

Re:Ulterior Motives..

[Westley (99238)]

I don't think there's anything "ulterior" about it. It's pretty obvious: if people are going to run open source software, MS would like them to be running it on Windows. It's therefore in their interests to help open source developers to get their stuff running on Windows - especially where it doesn't compete with any of their own products.

Sure, they may well not really want to help the Firefox or Open Office teams much, but if it's a choice between "PHP on Windows" or "PHP on Linux" I think it's obvious where Microsoft's interests lie.

There's nothing suspicious in that behaviour - it's perfectly plain in my view. Now, unless you count increasing Linux market share as an aim in and of itself, I find it hard to see how MS doing this is something to be dismal about.

Re:Ulterior Motives..

[Mr. Underbridge (666784)]

I don't think there's anything "ulterior" about it. It's pretty obvious: if people are going to run open source software, MS would like them to be running it on Windows. It's therefore in their interests to help open source developers to get their stuff running on Windows - especially where it doesn't compete with any of their own products.

Wait for the "embrace, extend, extinguish" routine. Didn't they just come out with something that would only work on Novell and no other flavor of Linux? Just sayin', they've done this before.

Re:

[Junta (36770)]

Sure, they may well not really want to help the Firefox or Open Office teams much, but if it's a choice between "PHP on Windows" or "PHP on Linux" I think it's obvious where Microsoft's interests lie.

Of course, their interests lie in .Net on IIS on Windows, duh.

Re:

[pionzypher (886253)]

That's part of it though. If you act like you're playing nice with open source then you have an argument when US and EU regulators are grilling you about monopolistic behavior. In reality it is exactly what you and the article describe... it's for their own reasons (which is fine, they are a company after all) and they'll try to keep it on their own terms.

I'll push my luck here and wonder aloud how far out php on windows is from the Extend phase. A PHP.Net perhaps?


You're right, I am being pretty

Re:Ulterior Motives..

[east coast (590680)]

Yeah, God forbid that a company keep a product that the public wants. Ford! Bring back the Edsel!

Granted, they seem to have fumbled the ball with Vista but let's not get out of hand about their decision to keep XP. I don't think it was meant to fool anyone. You can loosen up your tin foil cap for the moment.

They're going back...

[dotancohen (1015143)]

... to Extend?!?

others are being more savvy about it

[dartmongrel (855947)]

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.

Re:

[GregPK (991973)]

Actually, I'm considering a move to ubuntu myself. It works perfectly on my machines...

Re:others are being more savvy about it

[zappepcs (820751)]

I run Ubuntu and Fedora at home, play with a couple of other distros, but for the family members, it's Ubuntu. Fedora on the two servers. I was donated a copy (legal and stuff) of XP Pro so it sits on a box in the corner of the office if needed. Spend more time keeping it up to date and scanned than anything else really.

The move with Sun/OOorg/MySQL is something I'm watching closely and hope that it ends up being the winner I suspect it will be.

Re:

[QuantumRiff (120817)]

Not to mention that their software runs on many different OS's (java, directory server, etc), their OS runs on different hardware (opensolaris), and their hardware will run anything (Intel, sparc, and AMD processors) Its always been a Dell shop at the office here. Sun is starting to look much, much better. (and cheaper in many cases!)

Kim Polese is CEO of SpikeSource

[VampireByte (447578)]

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.

Re:

[Master of Transhuman (597628)]

I agree. The interesting part of the article is where it mentions Intel is putting another $10 million in fresh capital into SpikeSource. That clearly shows both that Intel has some faith in the company and in open source. And Kim's a pretty smart babe.

I personally can't stand Microsoft and its software (although I make a living supporting it). but I don't mind if SpikeSource gets to spread OSS on Windows with Microsoft's help. In the end, Microsoft won't benefit from it as much as OSS will.

"continuing their push for interoperability"?!?

[legirons (809082)]

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?

Joe used to work for Windows Mag, too

[postbigbang (761081)]

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.

Partnerships...

[andrewd18 (989408)]

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 and Moodle (FOSS LMS)

[MichaelPenne (605299)]

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).

Just another way MS is trying to control OSS.

[Vellmont (569020)]

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.

Good Business Sense

[Ngarrang (1023425)]

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.

How long before Microsoft create a competitor?

[jfbilodeau (931293)]

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?

!savvy

[Spazmania (174582)]

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.

This isn't interoperability at all

[Iphtashu Fitz (263795)]

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.

Quote of the Day

[Bayesela (1151523)]

"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 [cafeaulait.org]

AF

[Vexorian (959249)]

Microsoft is continuing their push for open source software interoperability.

LOL! Err, wait a sec! April fools has ended 2 days ago...

This seems to be a one-way street...

[rickb928 (945187)]

...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.

Sharing

[EEPROMS (889169)]

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".

Microsoft Logic

[Vexorian (959249)]

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!

Re:

[ArsonSmith (13997)]

"ideologically agnostic"

Looking at the definition of agnostic [reference.com] the only definition I can see that may fit is #4. Which would mean you are completely ignorant to OS and closed source software ideology.

I think the word you are looking for is neutral.

Re:Windows Server rocks

[ThatDamnMurphyGuy (109869)]

And let's be honest here. I like to bash MS as much as possible. I use MS at $work and FAMP at home. Windows 2008 and IIS7 took some truely great strides away from the old MS way of doing things. 2008 can be installed without a gui. You can powershell/remote admin EVERYTHING from the command line. In fact, the GUI admin tools use the things written for the powershell/command line administration. Group policies now have preferences, allowing things like making policy on what fields SQL developers need to add when they create tables...what users can consume n% of the CPU, etc.

IIS7 does NOTHING out of the box, and everything is a module. Almost everything that used to be a tab when configuring an IIS app is now a seperate module..even just redurecting an entire site to another url. And the new 3.5 ASP.NET stuff has a real MVC layer in the works for people like me who completely hate ASP.NET PostBack hackery. IIS7 now has full support for FastCGI and PHP is a first class language in terms of performance. I imagine this will hold true for other FastCGI friendly things like Ruby/Perl/Python/RoR/Catalyst/Django.

Re:

[Enleth (947766)]

Out of curiosity - do they offer something like the 2003's 180-day trial? Sounds quite nice, would be even nicer to try it.

Re:

[ThatDamnMurphyGuy (109869)]

I would imagine so, but I'm not sure. I got a free copy of Server 2008 at one of their Heros Happen Here gigs last month. Got it installed on Parallels on the MacBook. It runs rather lean, about 350MB on boot. I imagine that would be lower if you run it GUI-less.

I also forgot to mention, it now also fully support HyperVisor as a VM OS as well.

Re:

[bastafidli (820263)]

I have a mod points but couldn't resist to comment :-) >2008 can be installed without a gui. You can > powershell/remote admin EVERYTHING from the > command line. In fact, the GUI admin tools use the > things written for the powershell/command line > administration. So MS finally reinvented the wheel and W2k8 finally behaves as Unix :-)

Re:

[Enleth (947766)]

It's quite lightweight indeed - I'm using it as a VMware guest OS for cross-compilations, testing and such when I'm doing something that needs to be cross-platform. But I don't think I would be able to change my habits when it comes to administering servers - I need a good CLI for that, I just find the idea of clicking to do something on a server the most awkward thing since the company-name-sorted Programs menu, which is an abomination of its own category. Besides, isn't remote desktop or how they call it

Re:

[by Anonymous Coward]

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 infor

Re:

[youngdev (1238812)]

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.

Re:

[BoChen456 (1099463)]

Interoperability is as simple as releasing specs and source code without obligation.

Stop trying to change the meaning of Interoperability. Interoperability != Open and free source code.

Re:Mocking freedom.

[element-o.p. (939033)]

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.

Free specs bring free software.

[gnutoo (1154137)]

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.

Re:

[willyhill (965620)]

The release of source code is not a moral imperative, it's a personal or institutional choice that can be described more as an altruistic gesture (except when the release is attached to expectations of community contributions).

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 yo

Re:

[falconwolf (725481)]

How is certified open source any more open than TiVo?

It's not certified open source, it's certification that open source software will run on Windows Server.

Falcon