Microsoft Calls for Truce With GPL and Linux? 464
An anonymous reader writes to mention an eWeek article discussing Microsoft's efforts to reach out to the open source community. The company is hoping to find a common ground with softare released under the GPL, so that OSS and Microsoft products can interoperate. From the article: "The goal, from both sides, is to meet customer needs, he said, adding, 'This is just the more mature view of the way the world is evolving, and we want to make sure that if customers are choosing Linux or other open-source-based products that we have ways of interoperating and working effectively with that.'" A related article mentions Windows server Expert Jeremy Moskowitzs' call for a truce between the Linux and Windows communities.
the new progression (Score:5, Funny)
A new progression:
Got to give it to Microsoft for not going down easy, at least.
More like "embrace, extend, extinguish". (Score:5, Insightful)
Look for proprietary Microsoft "extensions" in the near future. All for the sake of "user friendly" and "customer needs".
Lacking in sincerity (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:More like "embrace, extend, extinguish". (Score:5, Insightful)
The onus is on Microsoft's side to change - not on the GPL's side. Talk is not change.
Why did I bring up Sender-ID? Because it's a prime example of how non-GPL and GPL applications interact, without even getting into compiling and linking issues.
Re:More like "embrace, extend, extinguish". (Score:4, Interesting)
Not before.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:More like "embrace, extend, extinguish". (Score:5, Insightful)
If I release code under the GPL and you want to use it in a closed-source project, come to me and see if you can get access to it under an alternate license. Just be aware that if you intend to make money off using my code, there's a good chance that your alternative licensing will include sending some of your profits in my direction.
Re:More like "embrace, extend, extinguish". (Score:3, Insightful)
What you seem to not realize, though, is that that is exactly w
Re:More like "embrace, extend, extinguish". (Score:5, Informative)
But you ignored my original point. MS has NO INTEREST in supporting ANY kind of open source effort in any way shape or form. They have proven it by their past statements and actions. They have refused to play nice in every standards organization and interoperability effort. Sender-ID is one example. Open Doc is another. Restrictive "anti-oss" licenses on documentation and code. Refusing to release basic protocol documentation in violation of agreements with the EU. I could go on and on and on. Any talk Microsoft spews is just that: talk. It's all one sided with MS. Do things our way. Bend to our will. You must change, not us. That attitude and behavior is going to get them NOWHERE with the OSS community. They KNOW this. This "new" effort is just another PR FUD scheme. The MS schills will all hail this as "an opening up", "embracing" move. Bullcookies.
Here is what MS would do if they wanted cooperation with the OSS world:
- Eliminate the license for Sender-ID and offer a non-revokable license to use any related patents
- Release full documentation for CIFS and the active-directory extensions they made to Kerberos, again with nolicense or patent restrictions
- Release full documentation to the Word / Excel / Powerpoint binary file formats, and adopt opendoc
- Fully support PNG and modern w3c web standards (css2, etc.)
Re:More like "embrace, extend, extinguish". (Score:4, Informative)
That doesn't make sense, because using the other licenses (e.g. the LGPL) is the way to interoperate with GPL systems!
Generally speaking, most GPL code is in applications. The only reason anyone would be trying to connect their proprietary code to it would be to make a proprietary version of the application, which is exactly what the GPL is intended to prevent!. There is no problem making stand-alone applications for Linux because most system libraries are LGPL (or similarly permissive), not GPL.
First of all, they usually don't have to reinvent the wheel because most libraries aren't GPL to begin with, as I just said. Second, yes, it is reasonable because the point of the GPL is to prevent people from using it without reciprocating!
Microsoft wants to force you to use its product, by "embracing, extending, and extinguishing" the competition, and it wants you to pay dearly for the "privilage" (by handing over both money and control). The GPL just wants you to "do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
Here's the bottom line: You can't directly link proprietary code to GPL code becasue that's what was intended! However, direct linking is not required for interoperability. Therefore, Microsoft has no excuse for lack of interoperability.
Don't like the GPL? Ignore it, like the GPL says! (Score:3, Insightful)
So yo
Re:More like "embrace, extend, extinguish". (Score:3, Insightful)
This is the (abbreviated) history of OS/2, with the resulting Microsoft product being Windows NT. While the open source community can gain a huge measure of legitimacy with the general public through this
Re:the new progression (Score:5, Funny)
Or at least thats how it usualy seems to play out.
Re:the new progression (Score:2, Funny)
Re:the new progression (Score:2)
Were it not for this 'calling for a truce', I might see it like that as well.
However, we all know MS wouldn't give up like that.
If they're calling for a truce, it's because they need more time to prepare the big guns.
Re:the new progression (Score:4, Funny)
If they really want truce... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:If they really want truce... (Score:3, Informative)
the "community" (Score:5, Insightful)
> It's time for the Windows and Linux communities to drop the religious war and [snip]
There _is_ no "Windows community". It's just a giant company and a lot of customers.
> [snip] until the two communities put aside the whole "religion" issue, said Jeremy
> Moskowitz, a consultant and authority on Windows 2000/2003 Server, Active Directory
> and SMS [snip]
{sigh} There's no "religion issue". There's free software users who write a lot of
code that they want to remain free. It's their work -- and they want it to stay free.
If you don't like the terms, don't use the software. That's it. There's no religion
there. Now, maybe the Microsoft corporation has a "religious issue" -- like, maybe
it's their religion to dominate the software industry and they don't like there
being anyone else supplying software to the world...
Anyhow, this article seems to be mostly shilling for MS. The author tries to trick
the reader into believing the author's presuppositions and also relies pretty heavily
on quotes from this Moskowitz "authority".
> "At the end of the day, both Windows and Linux bring things that are good, and we
> can all get along and we should look at how we can leverage the strength of each
> to the benefit of the other," he said.
Bleh. What garbage. The free software community wants to get along just fine --
they're _giving_ away their work for goodness' sake.
Re:the "community" (Score:3, Funny)
Gonna have to disagree with your police work there:
http://www.dina.kvl.dk/~abraham/religion/ [dina.kvl.dk]
Our Church of Emacs is very open minded, we discuss both how best to worship our Saviour among the True Believers, and also welcome preachers of false religions like The Church of Bill Gates, Discordia, and vi to our church, where we can test their silly misconceptions against out pure and strong faith . Most of the information in this page is from these discussions. Please don't misu
A trick and some FUD (where's the truce?) (Score:3, Insightful)
That's a load of crap, unless Microsoft is the one not letting GPL programmers also work on commercial software. Has Microsoft ever heard of Red Hat, or are they really that out of touch with what is going on in their industry?
Ahh, and then the trick: "A commerc
Media Transport Protocol (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Media Transport Protocol (Score:3, Informative)
Oh, and the fact that its a pointless re-invention of an already well-supported, trul open standard (PostScript), using an entirely unsuitable XML schema, is neither here nor there.
It's time to make a list. (Score:5, Informative)
#1. Media transport protocol - specs so it can be implemented in a GPL-friendly app.
#2. Whatever it takes to allow Linux-based workstations to authenticate via Active Directory - again, GPL-friendly.
#3. Specs so NTFS disks can be read/write under Linux (GPL-friendly).
What else? If they want to talk about "cooperation", then we should be able to give them a list of items that they can start "cooperating" on.
Re:It's time to make a list. (Score:4, Informative)
That's a load of BS. If Microsoft cared about open formats, they'd just use the perfectly good ones we've got now, like OpenDocument, PDF, OpenGL/OpenAL/SDL, Java, Ogg, Vorbis, FLAC, Theora, HTML (as opposed to "MSHTML"), NFS (as opposed to SMB), and god knows how many others.
If Micrsoft cared about open formats, they would have stayed on the OpenDocument standards committee! But instead, they're trying to sabotage OpenDocument by claiming their format is open, when it's actually not.
Other than your unsubstantiated assertion, I have not seen any evidence that "OpenXML[sic]" is acutally unencumbered (including patents). Until then, I'm going to continue to assume that you're a shill for MS, and nothing more.
Let me be the first to say it.... (Score:5, Insightful)
This strategy would suck the economic oxygen out of OSS.
Re:Let me be the first to say it.... (Score:2)
Maybe the first to say it... (Score:5, Interesting)
Sure, anyone can turn over a new leaf. That's always possible. But that won't stop the incidental music from Psycho from playing in my mind whenever I hear of Microsoft working with others. There are some areas where I think it might be safe. There's been no work on Linux' IBCS module for a long time. This would benefit Microsoft, as they could then run Linux software natively. That wouldn't hurt Linux too much, as many Unixes have been able to do this for a while, and the code is out there anyway. However, it would benefit Linux, precisely because other OS' can run Linux binaries but Linux can't run theirs without IBCS being brought up-to-date.
MPLS for Linux is another dead project that would be highly valuable to revive, and equally valuable to Microsoft to have for Windows. MOSIX and OpenMOSIX development has been at snail's pace over recent months - boo! - and Microsoft's clustering technology would certainly benefit from a comparable system, making a joint venture into improving this technology a definite plus for all sides.
If such ventures don't work out, Linux doesn't suffer because the level of work in these areas is small anyway. You can't lose by not getting what you wouldn't have had anyway. On the other hand, if they did work out, it would be an opportunity to develop extremely valuable technology with resources that would be extremely hard to muster by any other means.
To those who are contemplating any kind of alliance with Microsoft, however, just remember that the Computer is your friend. It says so. And if you don't agree, it may use you as reactor shielding.
Follow my analogy (Score:5, Funny)
Microsoft wants to hang out on that beach but not remove thier clothing.
I can't blame them; but The sunbathers all know that Microsoft is just there to ogle.
Re:Follow my analogy (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Follow my analogy (Score:3, Informative)
Please do not compare OSS to a nude beach. It brings to mind thoughts of nude OSS programmers, and that way lies madness.
I've got bad news for you: the sorts of people who go to nude beaches look more like OSS programmers than Halle Berry.
Re:Follow my analogy (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Follow my analogy (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Follow my analogy (Score:2)
remember folks... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:remember folks... (Score:2)
Re:remember folks... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:remember folks... (Score:2)
Diplomacy is the art of saying "Nice Doggy" while reaching for a very large rock.
Bruce
So what's stopping them? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:So what's stopping them? (Score:5, Insightful)
Remember this: Microsoft's goal is to win. For Microsoft to win, everyone else has to lose. You need to learn Microsoft lingo: 'Interoperability' for Microsoft means 'embrace and extend'. 'Truce' means no more Samba, no more OpenLDAP, no more WINE, no more Exchange connectors, no more Linux, etc. See 'everybody wins'! ('Everybody' meaning 'everybody with stock options at Microsoft').
Re:So what's stopping them? (Score:3, Insightful)
Windows Networking (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Windows Networking (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Windows Networking (Score:2)
I would not believe anything unless it's accompanied by actions. Judgment as to their intentions is done by interpreting the actions for a period of maybe 5-10 years and then take maybe another look.
My thinking is they will need to experience a lot more pain in order to humble down enough to be able to cooperate with OSS.
Gates talks of peace? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Gates talks of peace? (Score:2)
Re:Gates talks of peace? (Score:2, Insightful)
Interoperability? You mean like with the web? (Score:2)
The GPL did one thing very right. It said that companies that "improve" software have to give those improvements back to the community. If the leader
Open Source Weak Spot (Score:2)
Say what?
Interoperation is not a problem (Score:2)
Windows for home entertainment, Linux for business !
The long and short of it (Score:4, Interesting)
Asked what the reaction from the community had been to Microsoft's outreach on this front, Muglia said it was "skeptical but intrigued. What people are starting to discover is that people who write GPL code are not evil and people who write commercial software are also not evil, we just have different approaches."
The goal, from both sides, is to meet customer needs, he said, adding, "This is just the more mature view of the way the world is evolving, and we want to make sure that if customers are choosing Linux or other open-source-based products that we have ways of interoperating and working effectively with that."
Linux and open-source companies remain Microsoft competitors, and the goal is to do a better job than they do at solving customer needs, and ultimately to have customers choose Microsoft solutions. However, if customers choose not to, Microsoft needs to be interoperating and working well with those companies.
Microsoft "seems" to be coming around to the idea that perhaps the best way to beat OSS is to join it. Making their stuff interoperable gives people flexibility and perhaps that would keep them from completely switching over to OSS from Windows, if they get the idea that they can do it at any time and always switch back if it doesn't work for them. It's a canny bit of work by Redmond, but the question now is: can they actually make things interoperable?
They want the river to flow in one way? (Score:5, Insightful)
Am I missing something?
Re:They want the river to flow in one way? (Score:5, Interesting)
By "calling in a truce", what Microsoft is claiming is that they can not contain the influx of quality F/OSS projects which is now starting to surface. To make things worse, those projects are starting to take a big chunk of the market share. They know that F/OSS has arrived and it will not leave. They know that it is quite plausible that a F/OSS application becomes a killer app. So now they have two choices: keep marginalizing the free software movement and drive away their participants or make sure that it is possible that those applications are constantly ported to MS's platform.
So that is what MS is trying to accomplish. They know that the fight against the free software is lost and now, instead of trying to kill it, they are diverting at least part of their energies trying to preserve their stronghold on the market. They know that a platform is only as good as the applications which it can run and if MS's platform doesn't run the next killer app, what is it good for anyway?
Since when has Linux not tried to interoperate? (Score:3, Insightful)
It's a 2 way street (Score:2)
However, it would seem to me that MS needs to start opening things up to the OSS community. After all, as it's growing MS's server market will decline. Since many of their "functions" need the server side products to interact with it's hu
That's not Linux's goal.... (Score:2)
Misleading propaganda (Score:5, Insightful)
The article is correct in that "Open source is a way of building software", but the GPL is primarily concerned with Freedom, not the practicalities of building software. You'll notice Microsoft never refers to Free Software, only Open Source. Open Source *is* primarily concerned with the development methodology, and by concentrating only on this issue Microsoft implies that Freedom is unimportant. There's a great danger of thinking only of Open Source, and then ending up in a situation not much better than if you had used proprietary software. Open Source doesn't necessarily mean Free.
open the window (Score:4, Insightful)
Article? (Score:3, Insightful)
Its not about easy of use (Score:2)
Fat chance, or no chance? Take your pick. (Score:3, Insightful)
Let's see. On one side, we have Microsoft, singular colossus of the industry, abuser of monopoly power, left with naught but a nano-scale layer of public trust. On the other side, we have a great mass of Open Source/Free Software advocates, where the moderate voices are undermined by those whose rational distrust of Microsoft has turned to irrational paranoia and hatred.
I hope there's a Plan B, because this whole "Us vs. Them" thing isn't leading anybody anywhere.
I'm sorry (Score:2)
Sorry but I read that as "Microsoft's efforts to stop their nose-diving share price". Look at US - we're Microsoft. We're not evil either. Look! Look damn you! Smithers!
Truce? They want to split the community. (Score:2)
The ball is in Microsoft's court (Score:5, Insightful)
OSS products are by definition "open", meaning that it is up to MS to make the next move by publishing its API's, stop changing API's, stop doing crappy things to the OSS community, and to change it's licensing to allow FOSS programmers to use suposedly "open" MS products.
Re:The ball is in Microsoft's court (Score:3, Interesting)
1. Vista is delayed waiting for HDCP from Intel
2. MS trying again to create their version OSS and sell it as OSS
3. MS trying again to partner with linux distros to destroy them from the inside (many examples)
4. MS trying again to refuse to open APIs.
Hitler and Russia (Score:3, Insightful)
Now, is the time for the FOSS world to be more like the UK and America of old, rather than to roll over.
We've shown you ours... (Score:2)
A little good faith on behalf of MS would be a nice start
So which is it? (Score:2)
"A commercial company has to build intellectual property, while the GPL, by its very nature, does not allow intellectual property to be built, making the two approaches fundamentally incompatible, Muglia said."
"Linux and open-source companies remain Microsoft competitors, and the goal is to do a better job than they do at solving customer needs, and ultimately to have customers choose Microsoft solutions." (Emphasis added.)
So which one is it, Bob?
Here, let me help: the GPL, unlike the BSD license
Embrace and Extend (Score:2)
It served it's purpose (Score:2)
#1) It made a trade pub.
#2) It generated interest in their product.
#3) It made them look good.
#4)It can be pointed to when something breaks.
Support is one of the weaker areas of OSS. So I see it going something like this.
Look at the e-week article; we tried to work with the OSS community to the benefit of the customer. They just broke it again. Try to contact them with the issue.
Still condescending. (Score:2)
While Linux has been more stable than Windows historically, that gap is now narrowing. But there are a lot fewer reboots with Linux, he said, asking the audience whether Linux has less security bugs.
After hearing their response, he acknowledged that there is no consensus on this question a
Unconditional surrender! (Score:5, Insightful)
So, just what is it they want to stop?
And why should we accept anything less than unconditional surrender?
Interoperate? We just want freedom of choice (Score:5, Insightful)
All microsoft need to do, is implement and support the same open standards. This "war" they talk about having a truce in, is because their products are using proprietary formats and/or protocols, which force people to use their products.
People like choice, whereas microsoft try to take away your freedom of choice because that's easier for them than offering a better choice in a free market.
If they would make sure all their products complied with published standards (or help create such standards, where non already exist, and in an open way involving any interested parties), then opensource would have less of a need to compete and fight against them.
All i want, and i`m sure many people agree, is freedom to choose. I absoloutely despise the idea of being forced to use any particular product, i want to be able to choose whatever suits my individual needs best.
Currently i won't use microsoft products, because they seek to remove my freedom of choice... If they implement open standards and provide me this freedom i would consider using them based on the merits of each individual product.
Admiral !! It's a trap! (Score:3, Interesting)
an open-source system that is moderately widely deployed. We even got a paper into a
decent technical conference on the open-source system.
MICROSOFT WOULD NOT PERMIT HIM TO PRESENT THE PAPER. They flat-out refused to permit it.
This is dispite the fact that all of the work that was done quite a while before he joined MS, and
made no mention of MS.
Apparently, even "acknowledging the exixtence" of open source software is something MS
is not willing to countenance in the rank and file employees.
This is not "friend of a friend". I was also an author on that paper, and this happened
after Jan 1, 2006, so it's not "stale data" either; it's current policy.
Let that be a warning. Sign NOTHING with Microsoft. NOTHING!
Said the cunning Spider to the Fly (Score:5, Insightful)
To prove the warm affection I 've always felt for you?
I have within my pantry, good store of all that's nice;
I'm sure you're very welcome -- will you please to take a slice?"
"Oh no, no," said the little Fly, "kind Sir, that cannot be,
I've heard what's in your pantry, and I do not wish to see!"
Microsoft's Art of War (Score:3, Funny)
In all seriousness, Microsoft likely understands quite well what Open Source and what Free Software is all about and they know they are not prepared (and quite possibly incapable) of operating under any such banner. Control is their game. Control of standards, markets, minds, and of ideas. They will never let go of that. They cannot.
They are not "seeing the light" at all, but continuing to formulate and play out strategies to convince all who would listen (or not think too clearly, at least) that limited openness is all you really need and freedom has to do with price and TCO. Don't worry. Just relax and play along, all will be fine. Really!
But think of how many billions of dollars Microsoft stands to lose (and is already losing given that a quarter of Dell's server business, for example, is shipping GNU/Linux instead of MS-Windows) and you can probably think of just how far they will go and how many resources they will dedicate to keeping their golden goose from heading for the hills with that smiling penguin.
In other words... (Score:3, Funny)
Still lost in their own hubris (Score:5, Interesting)
Which people are discovering this? I don't think anyone has any beef with the people who write software. It's the management of companies like Microsoft we have a problem with. The coders are all right and always have been. You think we look upon you and Gates and Ballmer and the rest as coders! It is to laugh. Your agenda is other than making good code. If making bad code makes money, bad code it is. Do you think we're morons? Try not insulting us if you want to build bridges.
No, dude. You're only just now barely realizing that the world is passing you by. The world evolved - past tense. You just missed the train and now have to hire a heliocopter to get you to the party. But you're trying to pass it off like you're Alan Arken and Peter Falk arriving late at the wedding.
What you need to do now to make up for it is to do what they did in "The In-Laws". Hand over envelopes of cash to some OSS projects including some GPL projects, no strings attached. That'll show us you're sincere. You can even deduct it.
If they want interoperability then ........ (Score:5, Insightful)
- Where did they go once ODF was being finalized ??
- Why don't they let the Mono guys present at Windows Conferences ??
If Microsoft wants interoperability they must realize that interoperability does not mean everyone else bending over backwards for them. It means working with other Companies/Individuals to ensure that EVERYONE benefits from it, not just Microsoft.
Great/NTFS (Score:3, Insightful)
What kind of truce is this? (Score:4, Insightful)
How is this a truce? How is this even slightly different from the FUD Microsoft regularly churns out? Is this the new strategy - to portray themselves as reasonable people being unfairly targeted by the open-source community?
MS stabs in you back then ask for peace? (Score:3, Insightful)
It's like somebody saying "hey, let's stop fighting" while they're stopping on your face.
Re:It's about time... (Score:2, Insightful)
So, what do you call WINE, Samba, Cygwin? (Tons more, but I don't deal with Windows often enough to have more names...)
-:sigma.SB
Re:It's about time... (Score:2)
Re:It's about time... (Score:5, Insightful)
Where exactly is OSS not being inter-operable?
Re:It's about time... (Score:5, Insightful)
Open Office, Cygwin,etc. -- Make Linux software work on Windows.
Samba -- Make Windows servers work with Linux clients
Samba -- Make Linux servers work with Windows clients
VNC,X -- Make Windows terminals work with Linux servers
VNC, Remote Desktop client -- Make Linux terminals work with Windows servers.
All of these are done by open-source developers. So, tell me, what more would you like open-source people to do? And do you see ANYTHING that Microsoft has done?
It is easy to throw blame around if you ignore the facts.
Re:It's about time... (Score:3, Informative)
The Rich Text Format (RTF) [wikipedia.org] is a specification that was used in Microsoft products starting in 1987. However, as far as I can tell, version 1.0 of the RTF specification was published in 1992. The assertion that RTF predates "everything else in the opensource world" is not just false, but amazingly out of touch with reality. For example, the RTF specification was published:
Re:It's about time... (Score:3, Informative)
BULLSHIT!
C# is an ECMA standard. Parts of the .NET API are encumbered by Microsoft patents and not legally implementable by Free Software (which means Mono can never legally be fully compatible, AFAIK).
Re:It's about time... (Score:3, Informative)
SFU: For talking to *nix clients using nfs, ldap and interact with AD
Hah. You've never actually used SFU, have you? NFS support doesn't work unless you authenticate against AD- that means making your AD server your NIS server. SFU's "porting kit", btw, consists of (get this) GCC, CYGWIN, and a number of other free softwares.
RTF Format: As an open spec that predates everything else in the opensource world
Ah, no. TeX predates RTF by about 10 years.
Re:It's about time... (Score:2)
Re:It's about time... (Score:5, Insightful)
Open Source Software developers have been working very hard for years to create interoperatibility for working within MS Networks. Just look at OpenLDAP, Samba and a number of other systems that have been written to bring *nix and MS products into a state of being capable of communicating with one another.
Microsoft has had a history of moving the goal posts, for no apparent reason other then to undermine the efforts of the OSS teams working on things like Samba, OpenLDAP and many others.
Re:It's about time... (Score:5, Interesting)
Microsoft provides basic standards supports, though often with proprietary or non-standard "extensions". HTML/CSS, for example. Once could argue RTF was a good effort, though years of binary .DOC make RTF more or less obsolete. Microsoft also conforms to basic internet protocols, TCP/IP, FTP, etc. Very basic support for the most fundamental standards.
Linux (and related software) does all that. Linux also reads and in most cases writes Microsoft's filesystem formats. "mtools" provides a second, user-space support for native microsoft discs. Linux also supports Joliet (Microsoft's cdrom filename extensions). Samba supports Microsoft's file service protocols. These usually come preinstalled on major linux distributions.
Microsoft does NOT provide even read-only support for Linux ext2 filesystems. Microsoft does NOT automatically recognize unix/linux rock ridge cdroms. Microsoft does NOT provide support for mounting NFS file systems. These are all examples of well established protocols in widespread use for over 10 years!
But...
the fact that they're reaching out should be incentive enough for the OSS community to respond in kind
Remember how they "reached out" to Sun regarding Java?
Sure, if "respond in kind" means a bunch of cheap, fluffy talk, and not actually implementing anything, or writing a poor implementation with proprietary "extensions", sure.
But the truth is, almost every documented, and even many poorly or utterly undocumented Microsoft protocols are well supported by Linux and related software.
I call Bullshit (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't see your point. Seems like only one side is using closed standards, proprietary code and closed APIs. I don't see how open source is to blame in this matter at all.
Never bad? Only if it's true cooperation! (Score:3, Interesting)
If it's true cooperation, then yes, it would be in the interests of both sides, and we should put aside any rancour.
But Microsoft has a long and established history of starting out with what appears to be cooperation, but then twisting it around for their own ends, at the expense of whoever they're cooperating with. If we don't trust them, that's not being vindictive; it's merely being cautious.
Microsoft is so large, and we've seen in the past that s
Re:Hopefully (Score:2)
Re:Hopefully (Score:3, Interesting)
I think that a good first step would be to fire the entire legal department. Let a tech company be run by geeks.
If they do all of thi
Re:Hopefully (Score:4, Interesting)
I also get nervouse when I change hardware (video cards, optical drives, etc.). If I have to re-install XP, will I have to beg Microsoft to let me re-install because it looks like a different computer?
Rest assured that if DVDs did NOT play under any computer, consumers would be complaining to the studios. Microsoft is big enough to have some clout. Instead they have kissed RIAA's and MPAA's collective arses.
Perhaps you have not heard of Windows Live Onecare? Sell a product prone to viruses, and charge people to keep it virus free. It is one thing for a 3rd party to offer this service, but for Microsoft to do this, there is now no incentive to fix security problems with Windows if they can fix it with Onecare. People who don't pay get infected. About the patches, it is obvious that you have not heard of Windows Genuine Advantage (WGA).
There are more cases of them playing ball with other companies right before they pull the rug out from under them. Other posts on this page cover that topic well, including the IBM and OS/2 deal. Don't forget the whole Dr-DOS fiasco. Then there was the Netscape battle where they unfairly connected the browser and operating system. Ever heard of JAVA and the law suit over that? How about "Embrace, Extend, Extinguish?" And how about opening up the APIs so that office application writers are on a level playing field with Microsoft Office?
The point is bad things happen when you let the lawyers have too much control. Microsoft even sued Mike Rowe for registering the domain MikeRoweSoft.com. That is simply going too far.
I bitch when I have a legitimate reason to. In this case, I do.
You, sir, are so completely full of crap that your breath stinks.
Not "Good News" - PR stunt (Score:4, Insightful)
This is not good news. This is a PR stunt and only a PR stunt. This allows Microsoft to say "See...we tried to play nice but they wouldn't play with us. It's their fault not ours; we wanted interoperability but they wouldn't have it." Bullshit. It is almost certain that the type of "interoperability" they desire will only come in terms of closed-source, for-profit products and encumbered IP. I have no problem with this, mind you, but do not delude yourself about this truce: anything they offer that is truly open will likely be end-of-life and irrelevant shortly thereafter.
What does a "truce" with Microsoft look like exactly? Do you think MS is going to open up their proprietary protocols and data formats to the OSS community? How would that work, exactly? What exactly does OSS gain from a truce with Microsoft given that we can assume that they will not be any more likely to open their formats and tools than they are now?
Don't get me wrong: it is perfectly within Microsoft's rights to keep their IP closed and to charge access for it but do not deceive yourself about them wanting to suddenly play nice. What happens if/when some of that proprietary stuff leaks into OSS? Could that be what they are hoping for? Hoping OSS developers, lured under the guise of a truce, think they have rights to use information that they do not - poisoning the well, perhaps?
What about evangelism? Under this supposed truce, are we supposed to stop pointing out the weaknesses in Microsoft's products and methodologies in return for the same? Why would we do that? Who wins in that situation? Certainly not OSS which relies heavily upon word-of-mouth and grass roots efforts to spread; Microsoft wins because potentially fewer people are made aware of other choices that may exist both for operating systems and tools.
I realize this could be taken as an anti-Microsoft rant but what it really is is a "Don't trust Microsoft" rant. These guys are convicted monopolists who have a reputation for stabbing their partners in the back and putting them out of business. Why would/should we trust them when they say they want to make nice?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:New look, same old crap? (Score:2)
Remember a few months when Mr Taco promised us weekly fireside chats? (You know, the ones we haven't seen in a while). Well he promised us that things would be different from now on