Microsoft's Mundie to Continue OSS Outreach 244
Techie writes "In an interview with eWeek Craig Mundie, Microsoft's new co-head-honcho and chief research and strategy officer, says he plans to continue to push the Redmond software titan forward with its goal of greater interoperability with software licensed under the GPL." From the article: "Even in Bill's own public remarks, he pointed out that he thought his iconic status and the way that was reported tended to overemphasize his role in the company's innovation and execution. This is really a transition that has been in the works for a couple of years, with a couple to go before, and we will see the emergence of a lot of great talent that has today been portrayed as all Bill. This is a company with, in many cases, the best people in the world. "
I'm not following the question (Score:5, Interesting)
Isn't interoperability more a question of standards compliance than licensing? Or did eWeek's question pertain more to 'general interaction', as if Redmond needs to be more aware of the existence of, say, Ogg.
Don't trust Mundie (Score:5, Interesting)
Microsoft's sins are legion. They have a hell of a lot of work to do before they should expect anyone with a brain larger than a peanut to trust them.
Re:The best people in the world? (Score:3, Interesting)
3 things that I think are needed (Score:1, Interesting)
-Posix compatibility for files
-Signals and fork
I put signals and fork on the same line because they would be nice but not totally necessary. I understand that Windows doesn't work the same way as Unix for such things so it might be difficult to implement them.
I think that support for unix threads and files would go a long way towards not requiring that applications have a custom portable library for Windows VS others (linux, unix, mac). How many ported applications use the old posix compatible functions on Windows? Probably a ton.
Deeds rather than words. (Score:5, Interesting)
The moral is watch what people do, don't listen to what they say.
The guys at the top of companies are all politicians, they tell you what you want to hear while continuing as always.
Fast Query (Score:1, Interesting)
With one caveat ... (Score:5, Interesting)
The best people that money can buy, certainly
Standards may involve licenses (Score:5, Interesting)
Standards often include patented features. Most standards bodies require a minimum of RAND licensing. RAND is not sufficient to allow GPL implementations, however. Microsoft has a history of crafting licenses and patent grants that preclude GPL implementations.
The benefit of open standards comes from opening up competition, by removing standards compliance from control by a sole source. In the current market, Microsoft can crush any competitor that uses the same business model as Microsoft, so 'standards' that may only be used by similar commercial enities don't offer real competition. Only Free software, supported by a business model that can't be crushed by Microsoft, has shown a serious threat to Microsoft's domination. Yes, Apple, Sun, and others have had an impact, but they are vulnerable to changes in management direction. Sun may have saved Java from Microsoft, but they could turn around and sell it to Microsoft. I don't expect that to happen, but it's possible.
Interoperability with standards isn't enough. The standards need to be open, too. There's a lot of professional PR doublespeak about what 'open standard' means, but I rely on one test: can someone write a GPL implementation that complies with the patent licenses?
Not exactly (Score:1, Interesting)
- Microsoft has a high-profile, highly-paid person trying to figure out how to make the two work together.
What would be more accurate would be:
- Microsoft has a high-profile, highly-paid person trying to figure out how to make the press and public think that the two work together.
This is a much easier job.
They don't get it. (Score:4, Interesting)
Craig Mundie is an ass.
Hey Craig, how come I can't get Word Perfect for Linux anymore?
--
BMO
Re:Let's see if I have this right... (Score:5, Interesting)
Tipping point (Score:5, Interesting)
When Linux was only a tiny or isolated part of the OS market, it's was to MS's advantage to do everything they could not to recognize, support, or interoperate with it.
But as Linux reaches a significant size, MS's lack of interoperability becomes a liability. People start not bothering buying Windows licenses because it doesn't work well with their favourite OS (e.g., read and write common file formats), despite the fact that Windows may have functionality they would like to access.
As Windows begins its descent from dominance, it will be forced to start "playing well with others".
This prediction is worth everything you paid for it.
Makin' Monee (Score:1, Interesting)
Underpants Gnome theory, Step#3 - Profit.
There was an article posted here last week about how Bank of America was outsourcing IT positions, and making the employees being replaced train the Indian/whoever replacements.
I emailed BofA, and asked them why they would give away all of my financial and personal information...There response, was...To make money for us, and our stock holders...it all comes down to some douche bag in an ivory tower making decisions based on how much he wants his bonus to be this year.
My 2 cents.
I resent (rather than resemle) that (Score:5, Interesting)
I hear this all the time, and I've come to the resignation that it's just a fact of life that people want to think this way, but frankly it's bullshit.
I am a senior editor at InfoWorld. [infoworld.com] I can tell you unequivocably that the editorial staff at InfoWorld is not in the business of sucking up to advertisers; indeed, we are not involved in the business of procuring advertisements in any way. Any reputable publication has a "church and state" policy with regard to sales and editorial. InfoWorld does, and I have no reason to believe our distinguished competition at eWeek is any different. (Of course, they're not as good at their jobs as we are, but they're not crooks.)
At InfoWorld we are also not in the business of repurposing press releases, nor do we accept any so-called bylined articles contributed by vendors. Any "advertorial" is clearly marked as such -- it's the rules.
Editorial staff at computer journals do nurture relationships with major technology vendors but that's because it's necessary to what we do -- which is report on IT. We may not print answers to the "hard-hitting questions" as often as you might like. In many cases, however, the reason you don't see answers to those questions in print is because the person we ask refuses to answer them.
You don't have to believe me, of course. But come on -- do I walk around saying programmers don't do anything but eat Cheet-Os, drink Mountain Dew, and add bugs to software?
Microsoft words: "Embrace, Extend and Extinguish" (Score:5, Interesting)
Go read those papers, the "Halloween documents." They aren't just random FUD, those are internal Microsoft documents stating exactly how Microsoft intends to destroy OSS.
"Embrace, extend and extinguish" isnt' a summary that was randomly invented by OSS paranoiacs, according to sworn testimony the phrase came out of Microsoft VP Paul Maritz' mouth in Intel's meetings with Microsoft
So we're supposed to not be suspicious when they announce that, gee golly, they're serious about embracing?
You're either a fool or a shill.
How about C library redistribution? (Score:4, Interesting)
A nice start would be allowing redistribution of MSVCP71.DLL and MSVCR71.DLL as part of GPL applications? Python 2.4 switched to a newer Microsoft compiler and requires these DLLs on machines. Microsoft provides free compilers - see http://wiki.python.org/moin/Building_Python_with_t he_free_MS_C_Toolkit [python.org] However the C libraries that the compilers use can only be redistributed under terms that preclude GPL licensed software, although some debate the interpretation.
Consequently that means that people who have GPL licensed Python apps can't move to Python 2.4 or newer because of Microsoft's licensing.
Re:I resent (rather than resemle) that (Score:5, Interesting)
As someone who makes their living creating interoperable software with Microsoft Windows, I have to say that even with the appointment of Bill Hilf (who is a very nice guy personally) and the Port25 crowd in Microsoft's interoperability lab I haven't seen much of a difference in Microsoft's attitude to OSS and interoperability. That is, they *hate* it
Interoperability with Microsoft is actually quite easy from their side, as they're the ones who create the difficulties. If Microsoft wanted to promote interop they'd fully document the specs that the EU is asking for in the anti-trust case. A sea change from Microsoft will come if you see them actually comply with the EU judgement. Until they do they can talk up interop until they're blue in the face but they're not actually doing anything about it.
I've sat down with Microsoft execs and tried to explain they need to see GPL software as an opportunity, not a threat. They need to try and work out how to make money with it. IBM has figured this out (so have Red Hat and others). The problem is Microsoft make too much money on their current business model (a monopoly, charging monopoly rent) in order for them to easily change.
It's a problem for them, in many ways I do sympathise....
Jeremy Allison,
Samba Team.
Re:You can only trash something for so long (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:I resent (rather than resemle) that (Score:4, Interesting)
Hmm - let's see. So you're saying that Microsoft, IBM, Forrester, Gartner, and BEA repeat things to you over and over again until you believe them (white papers and PR / church services), then you attempt to convert others to your beliefs (editorial articles / laws, evangelism, and public proclamations)?
haha only serious.
Editorial staff at computer journals do nurture relationships with major technology vendors but that's because it's necessary to what we do -- which is report on IT.
Treat with extreme skepticism any politician who hasn't been in the situation in question, or any editorialist who doesn't build what he writes about. Common sense has only a moderate track record in general, and is miserable in relatively new scientific fields like information science. While it is true that tech magazines attempt - perhaps even go to great lengths - to know and profess truth, how well can one understand a fish while standing on dry land? How well when most of the information one receives comes from commercial fishermen?
It makes me think of Dick Cheney's views on homosexuality. It is incredible how far personal experience can go.
Do I trust you to report what you hear with relative accuracy? Sure. Do I trust that what you hear will be from unbiased sources? It is to laugh. Do you have your own experience against which to measure what you hear? Not for the most part (Joel Spolsky and Paul Graham notwithstanding). Then do I trust that what you report will reflect the truth? Should I?
Information science is science. Not fashion. It is not about what Coco Chanelle or Bill Gates proclaims to be true. It is about what scientists discover to be true. Give me Communications of The ACM and Consumer Reports, not PC Magazine and Popular Science (except when I'm trying to impress the boss - then give me CIO magazine, haha).
Re:I resent (rather than resemble) that (Score:3, Interesting)
Now you're talking about a different topic. The grandparent was saying that computer journals write what they write because they need to woo advertisers. I'm saying that's false; that's not the way it works. You, however, are saying that tech journalists write what they write because they are ignorant. That might be true, but it's a different argument.
Are you really asking a question? If so, are you willing to listen to me if I answer it?
As an editor at InfoWorld, I commission a great deal of work from a broad variety of resources (writers). Like you, the tools I use depend on the job at hand.
If I need somebody to go out and conduct a bunch of interviews (like TFA, but let me reiterate that TFA is not an InfoWorld article, it was published by eWeek) then I hire somebody who is fundamentally a reporter. I need somebody who knows how to reach somebody on the phone, ask some questions, and transcribe the results. A lot of people with deeper technical background won't do that. Believe it or not, they talk tough (like the grandparent) but when the chips are down and they have the floor they not only fail to ask "the tough questions," in fact they often stare at their shoes, fiddle with a pen, and say nothing. I do not exaggerate; some of my writers, though they are highly competent and intelligent people, would need threat of guerilla dental surgery in order to actually call somebody on the phone and get a quote. So I don't use them for those types of articles.
On the other hand, if I want to commission an article about next-generation SAN systems, I want somebody who knows something about storage. If I need an article about server virtualization, I want a writer who knows something about that topic. I draw upon the resources at my disposal.
I personally have a technology background. I'm not a hotshot systems guy by any means, but I have administered Unix and Linux systems, have managed development teams, and have programmed in at least a half-dozen languages -- including Forth and assembly language, just to give you an idea of what I'm talking about. I'm not a DBA but I've worked with relational databases. I've written public domain software that's lost to the sands of MS-DOS and I've made my own minor contributions to open source projects. Believe it or not, when I was about 17 I even wrote a couple early computer viruses.
I admit that I am atypical of the computing press. There are not many people working full-time in this field who have credentials similar to mine -- I know this just based on the resumes I've seen. However, that's not to say that there aren't sharp people out there. You may be familiar with Jon Udell, [infoworld.com] who is a tremendous resource for InfoWorld. I work with a guy named Mario Apicella, [infoworld.com] who knows more about storage than anyone I've met. Oliver Rist [infoworld.com] writes regularly for InfoWorld about Windows, yet his writing i
Re:I resent (rather than resemle) that (Score:3, Interesting)
why it so rare to see something like "he refused to answer these questions
that might make the responder mad at you, but what's the point from journalistics that ask only the easy questions ?
there are a lot of good questions to ask about interoperability to them, especially about interoperability with opensource software. these questions have been reiterated here a LOT of times - odf support (including full technical discussion about possible usage of it as the default format - i'm sure gary edwards could help you with this information), networking protocols' documentation according to eu demands (i'm sure jeremy, who also has replied to your post, will be glad to help you with questions and background information
you could try compiling questions with a help from experts in all these areas (which would include information on why "because it does not fit our needs" is not an answer) and sort of re-run such an interview.
don't polish it, be fair to your readers - if an answer is denied, just say so.
maybe this could even be created as a discussion - allow for some time to respond to the questions, then give a chance for your experts to review the answers and see wether those are fair and sufficient (and really answers, not just a sidestepping a question). repeat, until a satisfactory result is achieved.
that would be something interesting to read - and probably will generate even more publicity to you than interviews that have no real answers to soft questions.
Re:Bad analogy (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:You can only trash something for so long (Score:3, Interesting)
You are completely wrong. (Score:3, Interesting)
Look for any Microsoft license on serious new open source technology to be more restrictive and viral, not less, than the GPL.
There is a lot of silliness like this post claiming that Microsoft would somehow be more open to open source if only the GPL were not so viral.
The fact is, Microsoft would be far less inclined to release code that could be trivially redeployed against them by rivals using licenses less-viral than GPL.
The only situation where having a less viral license helps them is when their rivals release code not protected, they can then redeploy it against them without giving anything back and even kinking it so that the interoperability is destroyed.
Every serious software producer who is actually going to distribute their own produced code under some sort of open source license suddenly realizes that the minute they become serious open source players, having a broadly-acknowledged open source license works for them and protects them. It only works against those who intend to exploit the system.