Microsoft's Savvy Open Source Move 137
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... (Score:5, Insightful)
Didn't think so. Microsoft's idea of interoperability only goes one way.
Ulterior Motives.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Jaded? Yep. Suspicious? Yep.
Re:Ulterior Motives.. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
"continuing their push for interoperability"?!? (Score:5, Insightful)
Mod parent up! (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft refuses to have Microsoft apps support Open Source apps.
It's all one way. It's all Microsoft's way.
Partnerships... (Score:2, Insightful)
When Microsoft actually starts releasing code under a real open-source license, then we can start talking. Maybe.
Re:Mocking freedom. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Ulterior Motives.. (Score:4, Insightful)
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:Ulterior Motives.. (Score:1, Insightful)
Which step are they on now?
Good Business Sense (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Ulterior Motives.. (Score:3, Insightful)
How long before Microsoft create a competitor? (Score:2, Insightful)
Quote of the Day (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:You mean like this (Score:3, Insightful)
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:Ulterior Motives.. (Score:3, Insightful)
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 dismal. Bleh.
More wasted effort. (Score:1, Insightful)
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.
Re:You mean like this (Score:2, Insightful)
This seems to be a one-way street... (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
It's not even that nice. (Score:1, Insightful)
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.
Re:You mean like this (nope) (Score:2, Insightful)
Sound like a similar lock-in? HMMMM I WONDER.
Re:Mocking freedom. (Score:5, Insightful)
Sharing (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Mocking freedom. (Score:3, Insightful)
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 [slashdot.org].
Free specs bring free software. (Score:4, Insightful)
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.