Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Microsoft Software Apache

Microsoft Sponsors Apache Software Foundation 120

Posted by timothy from the it-has-an-excellent-license-after-all dept.
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.)"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Microsoft Sponsors Apache Software Foundation More

Microsoft Sponsors Apache Software Foundation

Comments Filter:

  • Cliche? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Johnny_Law ( 701208 ) on Friday July 25, 2008 @02:57PM (#24340401)
    Would, "It's a trap", be too cliche?

    • Would, "It's a trap", be too cliche?

      I believe the term is "embrace".

      Extend and extinguish to follow.

    • Money is the only language Microsoft speaks.
      The fact that they're giving some can't ENTIRELY be frowned on. :)

    • I read this news yesterday and I was too stunned to reply. I had to go out into the Big Blue Room and do some yard work. Mow the lawn, that kind of thing. Get grounded. Get grass stains on my sandals.

      This is exactly the kind of thing that Microsoft needs to start doing if it is going to survive in the post-capitalist economy of FOSS. The changes wrought by FOSS might never have much bearing on the general economy, but they have profoundly changed the economics of information technology. These changes are

  • Microsoft Support of OSS (Score:4, Insightful)

    by iamhigh ( 1252742 ) * on Friday July 25, 2008 @03:00PM (#24340437)
    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?

    • Re: (Score:1, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      I know for a fact that's not the case. The IIS team is actually expanding internally and we're preparing another release soon. We're actually interviewing for more people right now.

      • The IIS team is actually expanding internally

        Exactly! They are tired of hiring you people. It would take just a handful of QA guys and a few Apache on Windows experts to utilize Apache for the webserver work. The community would take care of the rest.
        Just becuase you are expanding, doesn't mean you are making money, and doesn't mean your safe.

    • Re:Microsoft Support of OSS (Score:4, Insightful)

      by porkThreeWays ( 895269 ) on Friday July 25, 2008 @03:18PM (#24340669)
      I don't know if they see it as a replacement so much as IIS/Webservers aren't terribly important to their core business model. IIS is a pretty crappy web server in comparison to... ummm... almost everything else. I think it's more important to Microsoft that people are using .net and Windows servers. If they want to use another web server on Windows w/ .net, so be it. They'll always offer IIS, but they don't fight IIS replacements tooth and nail like they fight Office replacements.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Bert64 ( 520050 )

        They do tho...
        Look at the netcraft web server survey over the last few years, microsoft have paid several companies that park thousands of domains in order to increase the market share of IIS.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by anss123 ( 985305 )

        IIS is a pretty crappy web server

        {{cite needed}}. Not saying it's superior to Apache but having used both I wouldn't call IIS a "crappy web server". Though these days dynamic content is the name of the game so the web server is less important (reduced to more of a front end that passes along the nifty gritty to the PHP/Java/Net/etc back end).

        Even media players have built in web servers these days; works with PHP too.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Xest ( 935314 )

        Out of interest, what are your specific problems with IIS that make you suggest it's one of, if not the worst web servers out there?

        I much prefer Apache, but there are scenarios where IIS is a better choice, and I don't think IIS is any worse than much else other than Apache to be honest.

        It's not the IIS of old anymore, it's nowadays pretty decent. Microsoft have certainly cleaned up their act a lot in terms of security and stability of the likes of IIS/SQL server in recent years. ASP.NET is of course a maj

      • IIS is a pretty crappy web server in comparison to... ummm... almost everything else.

        Right. It's probably why it has on occasion taken more than half of positions in the Netcraft top 10, and there is always at least one IIS server in there somewhere.

    • Re:Microsoft Support of OSS (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Penguinisto ( 415985 ) on Friday July 25, 2008 @03:22PM (#24340741) Journal

      I'm not so sure... IIS serves as a tie-in to quite a few different (and damned profitable) Microsoft products... starting with Exchange (for OWA), and branching out a couple thousand different directions from there.

      Microsoft's income depends way too heavily on products having exclusive interoperability (e.g. IIS, Exchange, Active Directory...)

      Start breaking that up, and enterprises would be more easily liable to start choosing solutions that don't have acronyms like "CAL" anywhere in the invoice.

      While yes, IIS is pretty much a money hole for MSFT in a direct sense, they have way too many enterprise products that rely on its existence, and it in turn requires Windows, and only Windows.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by iamhigh ( 1252742 ) *
        And those enterprise products connect to IIS through COM. Which is perhaps what I should have said instead of API.

        So as I said, perhaps this is to get Apache working with Windows COM objects so that they can still have Sharepoint creating content in a compiled application, but the stdout is just changed to html and passed to $webserver.

        This is my first conspiracy theory, dammit. Give me a break!
      • So why will their investors support this move?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Fozzyuw ( 950608 )

      Maybe the 100k is for working on Windows API's and such?

      I'd hate to be cynical, but I'm guessing it's just PR. I mean, MS giving $100K? What, did they find it under the sofa in the exectuive lunch room?

      That's like selling 3 copies of Vista. =P

    • Microsoft may have a different perspective based on their judgement of the enviroment, and whether it's a Zero-Sum Game or not. [wikipedia.org]

      Non Zero-Sum Game = contribute to everyone; grow entire pie; so your own little percentage yields a high profit.
      Zero-Sum Game = control hardware, software, and even services; shrink entire pie; so that you own a large piece that yields more profit relative to others' profit.

      If you believe contributing to Appache would be good for everyone, and hence good for you, then you su
    • Not really. They probably just want you to come and buy Windows Server from them even if you decide to use Apache rather than IIS. You'll still get IIS installed with Windows, so if you'll ever be tempted to use any of Microsoft's IIS-specific solutions, the platform is already there.

  • How to interpret this. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by jskline ( 301574 ) on Friday July 25, 2008 @03:11PM (#24340589) Homepage

    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?

    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by Rgb465 ( 325668 )

      So; with the check, what was on the document saying what they wanted in return.

      It was in Italian. Loosely translated it said "Apache may someday be called upon to return the favor".

    • Microsoft gives all kinds of stuff away (examples include this [sourceforge.net] and this [microsoft.com]).

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by jskline ( 301574 )

        The word "Partner" usually has the connotation that money has exchanged hands between parties. When ever Microsoft "partners" with governments, communities, organizations and such, is because there is a business relationship in there somewhere that just; wasn't mentioned. If they are using Windows computers, they probably got a sweet deal on them, or they paid full price for them in order to receive "grants" for a program they are running as a non-profit, etc.

        That other thing; wix, I don't see much use of t

  • Embrace

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by RingDev ( 879105 )

      If it gets .Net and Silverlight support to Apache, Embrace away!

      -Rick

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by unity100 ( 970058 )
        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.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by RingDev ( 879105 )

          So you are saying we should scratch PHP, Ruby, and Pearl off as well because they don't have nearly the penetration or recognition of .Net?

          Silverlight 2* is still pretty low-key, but it's in Beta (a real beta, not the "this thing isn't ever going to leave beta" definition that Google likes to use). But I keep hearing more and more bounce back from developers, and the head hunters are starting to pick up on it too. When SL2 is released, it's going to rally up some decent press, and I wouldn't be surprised at

          • Re: (Score:1, Troll)

            by unity100 ( 970058 )

            So you are saying we should scratch PHP, Ruby, and Pearl off as well because they don't have nearly the penetration or recognition of .Net?

            excuse me, but if you say this, i have no option but laughing over it with my ass. i dont know any decent way to put it. youre totally unaware of what the web is built with.

            silverlight 2 ? what is silverlight ?

            • Re: (Score:1)

              by RingDev ( 879105 )

              excuse me, but if you say this, i have no option but laughing over it with my ass. i dont know any decent way to put it. youre totally unaware of what the web is built with.

              Okay, so it was a slight hyperbole ;) The combined presence of VB.Net/C#/ASP.Net and the rest of the .Net language does by most measures, out weigh PHP, Ruby, or Pearl individually in terms of distribution and use. But it's all arm chair statistics anyway, change the metrics and you can easily show any single element out performing any other single element.

              The point, hyperbole aside, still stands. Do you feel that if a product is of lesser popularity, it should be forsaken in favor of the market leader?

              Shou

              • Okay, so it was a slight hyperbole ;) The combined presence of VB.Net/C#/ASP.Net and the rest of the .Net language does by most measures, out weigh PHP, Ruby, or Pearl individually in terms of distribution and use. But it's all arm chair statistics anyway, change the metrics and you can easily show any single element out performing any other single element.

                no, they dont.

                do you know how many millions of websites use php on shared hosting ? as opposed to asp servers being generally standalone, serving only one site ? this example should by itself be enough to draw a picture. im not even gonna go into what perl means for linux.

                The point, hyperbole aside, still stands. Do you feel that if a product is of lesser popularity, it should be forsaken in favor of the market leader?

                the popular is decided by the market itself. php did not became popular because some big buck company pushed it through various means. or spent big marketing cash on it.

                no one is saying that anyone should drop their own brainchild. w

              • 1. believe me, PHP by itself runs on more webservers and sites than all the .NET languages put together. Probably more than .NET languages and ASP/classic too!

                Netcraft stats for PHP [php.net] - over 20 million sites a year ago. According to the same Netcraft survey, IIS itself only runs 20 million sites, so unless *every* IIS site ran ASP (note: these stats are from Aug 2007, so they'd all be classic ASP) PHP would *still* be running on more active sites.
                There's more stats available [nexen.net] for the current month.

                2. Silverlig

                • Re: (Score:2)

                  by RingDev ( 879105 )

                  1. believe me, PHP by itself runs on more webservers and sites than all the .NET languages put together. Probably more than .NET languages and ASP/classic too!

                  As I stated, change the metrics and you can get what ever answer you like. Open the poll to all applications, not just web sites, and .Net (especially if you combine ASP/classic stuff too) pushes even better. Limit it back to Open Source projects, and the MS tools drop significantly. Look at closed source solutions, and MS dominates. Like I said, you can look at any specific segment of the programming world and see a skew.

                  2. Silverlight is a client-side technology. IIS/apache doesn't come into it. A silverlight discussion would be MS supporting it on Firefox on Linux.

                  I actually do all of my silverlight development using Firefox. ;) But what would be ni

              • Re: (Score:1)

                by SEE ( 7681 )

                I imagine most things are bigger deals on the Web than DIN 66253-2 [wikipedia.org]. You might have somewhat more credibility on the issue if you correctly spelled the name of Larry Wall's language [wikipedia.org].

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by Shados ( 741919 )

            Silverlight 2 was actually first, amusingly enough. It was called WPF/E (Windows Presentation Foundation/Everywhere), and was the original design behind silverlight. Since it was still some time before it could be ready, they pushed a gimped version, Silverlight 1, to start and gain mindshare. But MS didn't need to be motivated to make a managed version: it was the -original- intention. (Since XBAP applications, the "full" deal that has been around since .NET 3.0, is Windows only)

  • to see Microsoft embracing Apache, oh no, wait a minute I know how this is going ....

  • Apache 2.4 (Score:5, Funny)

    by Ynot_82 ( 1023749 ) on Friday July 25, 2008 @03:16PM (#24340649)

    Apache 2.4 release notes
    new modules:
    mod_drm
    mod_ooxml
    mod_reject-firefox

  • Developer, developer, developer....! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by judethecutedude ( 1333089 ) on Friday July 25, 2008 @03:34PM (#24340935)
    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

    • Oh no, they're sucking up to developers all right... "hey kids, come and have a play with this cool new toy, yes the Express version is totally free... and you can do so much stuff with it, just look how it does most of it for you, no you don't have to think too hard about your programming, just let the nice IDE suck your bra... um, help you work smarter, not harder. Yes, you'll need to buy more RAM, but its cheap nowadays. Now, look at the nice client tools included too, yes, you can have animated icons on

  • Ill summarize the response of broader community : (Score:3, Insightful)

    by unity100 ( 970058 ) on Friday July 25, 2008 @03:35PM (#24340963) Homepage Journal
    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.
  • Apache has sold out. We must fork their code now and abandon their Microsoft-backed versions, no matter what the cost. Look at what Microsoft did to Novell and openSUSE - the same thing is going to happen to Apache. Tell everyone you know to stop using Microsoft-backed products. Friends don't let friends use Apache.
  • TFA says:

    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 bl

    • The trouble with that is, if they make Apache fully compatible with the rest of their stack, they would have to break compatibility between IIS and the rest of their software in order to break compatibility with Apache.

      Which of course would be a stupid move, you'd just get the current situation where XP does exactly what people want, with no configuration, and Vista is a pain in the ass to switch to. Except this would be a matter of not wanting to switch from MS's next server release to a hypothetical rele

  • Q: What do you get when you cross Microsoft and Apache?

    A: Microsoft.

  • I really wouldn't mind having better ASP support on Apache (that doesn't hurt anyone), but this talk about "interoperability" between Microsoft and the ASF just brings back into my memory what happened to Novell.

    The Apache Software Foundation /HAS/ (triple emphasis!) to keep their usual levels of strictness when it comes to outside contributors, specially Microsoft in this case.

    I hope they don't let their guard down. I'm quite concerned, honestly. I do have some hope that the ASF will handle this prop

  • When I heard about this at OSCON, I had the same disbelief as anyone on slashdot. But then I thought.. what if it's true? What if MSFT isn't going to fold up and die a relic of the days of propriatry software? I wanted to see that, and I'm sure I'm not alone. But they have new management and can see how the software world is shifting just like everyone else. The "enemy" might be infected with "good", and we might get a powerful new ally instead of a vanquished foe. (What if this happend to the MPAA?)

Slashdot Top Deals

"I got everybody to pay up front...then I blew up their planet." "Now why didn't I think of that?" -- Post Bros. Comics

Close