Mozilla Developers Invited to Redmond 294
savio13 writes "Sam Ramji, Microsoft's director of its Open Source Software Lab has invited 4 Mozilla developers to spend 4 days with Microsoft's Vista Readiness ISV team. The invite can be found on mozilla.dev.planning and was posted on Saturday (Aug. 19). Schroepfer replied by indicating that Microsoft and the Moz guys are already in contact via email and will follow up on the offer there. This is interesting because Sam posted the offer in a public forum (and indicated that he'd sent a PM, but was posting in case they had an @microsoft.com email filter). Sam also made a point of stating that the Vista ISV Readiness offer is typically only for commercial ISVs."
Sense motive checks abound (Score:5, Insightful)
Leveredge (Score:4, Insightful)
embrace? (Score:1, Insightful)
Embrace? As in kiss-o-death? (see vinnie reference)
Or what?
Ok ok... (Score:4, Insightful)
Ah slashdot... can't live with it, pass the beer nuts.
Re:Sense motive checks abound (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Gecko based IExplorer? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:This just struck me as odd... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I think it is interesting (Score:3, Insightful)
Sad. (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft has taken some serious steps to clean itself up over the last year or so. As a Linux/Apache/PHP/Python/Perl/MySQL/Postgres evangelist, I always root for open source, but I respect Microsoft's omnipresence in the tech world.
That said, it's really sad to see that 98% of the comments here are based on distrust, hatred, and bad jokes. This is a huge move: Microsoft, for once, finally understanding that open source has a place and that NOT working with them spells trouble for them.
So, please people, retire the lame wisecracks. This is one of many times you'll see Microsoft bent by the immense power and will of open source!
Re:Leveredge (Score:5, Insightful)
It may not be a representative sample, but all of the big corporations I have worked at or visited seem wedded to IE. Since corporations are going to be the slow movers on the Vista transition I think it's unlikely to be the explanation. Keep in mind, consumers are going to get Vista shoved down their throats because that's what will come installed on new machines.
The more likely reason is anti-trust. Microsoft is finally getting some serious competition again in the browser arena. Microsoft will have a tough time explaining things if Vista comes out and Firefox, the arch-rival to IE, doesn't work. Microsoft long ago lost the benefit of the doubt with respect to anti-trust regulators.
The benefits far outweigh the costs of helping the Firefox team out for a few days. In other words: CYA.
Firefox works with Vista (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Tickled pink (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Vista modularity? (Score:3, Insightful)
Sorry, I've lost you there.
Re:Ok ok... (Score:2, Insightful)
You have to be rather stupid if you think those posters, with some obvious exceptions, really think MS will have a bonecrushing mafia guy waiting in the parking lot...
This story act like a collectively recognized cue for making MS vs. Mozilla jokes, same with other topics that appeare at regular intervals. If you look at the (albeit few) serious post they are rather less focused on the part of it being a supposed trap.
Re:Sad. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Acknowledging Firefox's Popularity (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Vista modularity? (Score:5, Insightful)
There's a simple explanation: it's probably NOT working well, and they want to have a heads-up on what kinda complaint level they'll have. OR, they want to make sure to "break" certain firefox features so that IE looks better.
This is possible, but I don't think it is likely. I suspect the issue is slightly different. Vista's biggest competitor is going to be earlier versions of Windows. Many corporate customers are still using Win2K and many are also using Firefox. Why would they upgrade?
The Firefox crew is pretty sharp but they are techno-junkies. So MS invites the Firefox guys to see some of the whizbang new features of Vista that they can integrate with Firefox to make it better. Maybe they can even get these guys excited about the potential of something. The hope is that the Firefox people will add some feature that will motivate people to want to upgrade to Vista. Even if they just get a feature built into the core tree, maybe the older versions will become unsupported more quickly and for security reasons people will need to move to Vista to have a secure browser.
Remember, MS does not sell IE. They sell a bundle of IE and Windows. Every Firefox user on Windows has already paid them for IE, so using Firefox does not really cost them anything other than a minor strategic bump right now. People not upgrading to Vista costs them hard cash, plus a number of strategic bumps when they don't adopt all the new lock-in anti-features in Vista.
Re:Future news splash: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Sad. (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft has taken some serious steps to clean itself up over the last year or so.
Really? You mean they are no longer illegally bundling IE? Oh yeah they still are. You mean they are no longer paying companies to spread FUD about security and performance? Oh, they're still doing that too. So they are not misleading people by overstating the security of Vista and the compliance of IE? Oh, they did that too. Well surely they aren't still illegally bundling their media player? Huh, they're doing that too. Have they stopped illegally tying their server and desktop to take over more of the server space with an inferior product? No, they are still doing that as well. How exactly have they "cleaned up?"
That said, it's really sad to see that 98% of the comments here are based on distrust, hatred, and bad jokes.
Trust is earned. After the fiftieth or sixtieth time someone punches me the kidneys when I'm looking the other way, it is not sad that I talk about how I suspect they might be trying again. If MS wants my trust they have to earn it and it will take years of ethical, trustworthy behavior before I'm willing to admit that this time they might not be maneuvering for another cheap, sucker punch. Not punching me when I'm looking right at them and a cop is paying attention does not earn them any trust.
This is one of many times you'll see Microsoft bent by the immense power and will of open source!
This is MS looking out for their bottom dollar, probably by trying to get new "Vista only" feature into Firefox to help motivate corporate upgrades either by selling that feature or by hoping it will hasten the demise of mainstream support for Firefox on old versions of Windows. Does this make me trust MS to any greater degree? Hell no, and nor should it.
Mozilla good for Windows (Score:3, Insightful)
So perhaps MS is simply recognising this, and acting to support it ?
Great strategic move on Microsoft's part (Score:5, Insightful)
In my opinion, I think that Microsoft seriously does see the hand-writing on the wall and they do want to do more to ensure that their OS supports the programs that people want to use. Microsoft is going to trumpet their low support costs and ease of managability (think SMS, Group Policy, etc). They are going to trumpet the fact that they are the standard, and they are going to portray any group who doesn't want to work with the standard as being back-asswards and wasting time unnecessarily reinventing the wheel.
On another level, Microsoft is trying to avoid what happened to Novell in the 1990s. Netware was a great operating system but it got to the point where they barely had any third party support. The same thing could happen to Microsoft if enough developers decide that using Microsoft dev tools is a PITA and if enough developers decide that coding to the Microsoft OS is a PITA. The one incentive that Microsoft has left is their market penetration. They can still play the economic card, and that card is, "If you develop for the MS platform, you will have a market share of XX. And by the way, that market is already used to paying out the nose for software, so you stand to make money. Now do you want that, or do you want to go to the OSS world where everyone is doing it on the cheap with razor thin margins?" And if you think about it, that's a very strong position to come from. If you're trying to make money, do you want to go with the company that has already made itself (and numerous third parties) griploads of cash, or do you want to go with the other guys who are trying to redo what Microsoft has already done, but do it "less expensively and better"? I'm of the opinion that unless the OSS world comes out with some killer functionality that operates EXCLUSIVELY outside of Windows, they're never going to win. Given how much Microsoft has been investing in intellectual property, and given how much they have already developed (OS, Office, Exchange, accounting packages, CRM packages... basically all the tools that a business needs to function), it's going to be hard to end-run around the monopoly.
The one ray of hope is "standards" but as we've all seen, Microsoft will just ignore a standard until enough people want to use it. Then they'll offer support for it. You're seeing it now with IE7. For the longest time, MS didn't give two shits. Now enough web devs have complained loudly enough and they're finally getting what they want. IE7 might not nail it, but I'm willing to be IE7 SP3, or IE8 will. The problem with using a standard to fight Microsoft is that standards are very rarely proprietary. And as we've seen with the W3C, even "standards" are often times still works in progress.
Re:Gecko based IExplorer? (Score:5, Insightful)
embrace, extend, extinguish ...repeat as necessary.
They did that to Netscape devs back in the day, to (Score:5, Insightful)
Expect some folks getting offers in Redmond. Higher ups in IE team are downright stupid if they don't try to hire people away from Mozilla. You kill two birds with one stone - strangle Mozilla and get a good, security minded dev (who will be forced to think a lot less about security at MSFT by an arbitrary, managemen imposed deadline).
And in other news... (Score:2, Insightful)
But seriously, this sounds like it's on the level and as a result represents an tremendous validation for the impact of open-source software. I'm all for it, and just hope that other open-source projects get invited to discuss Vista's changes and features besides Firefox. Just to name one: Samba.
Re:Ok ok... (Score:4, Insightful)
Not to get too serious here, but this is a perfect example of a situation where MS can't win. Invite the folks up? "It's a trap! They'll steal your code, kill you, etc." Don't invite them up? "When is MS going to treat OSS developers like any one else, Firefox has many users, they should get the same respect as any other org."
Not to make a bad analogy here, but let me present a perfect example of a situation where J. Dahmer can't win. Find the body of a missing person in his apartment? "He's raping the dead." Don't find a missing body in his apartment? "He probably ate it and dissolved the bones in those acid vats."
The solution to this dilemma is don't spend more than a decade gaining notoriety by constantly screwing people over, breaking the law, and behaving unethically. People suspect the worst of MS, because MS delivers on a regular basis. That's not prejudice, it's experience.
Re:Sorry, have to do this (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Great strategic move on Microsoft's part (Score:3, Insightful)
For the longest time one of the big complaints against Microsoft has been their closed nature and their lack of interaction with developers outside of their own organization. Now they are opening up, or at least they are presenting the appearence of opening up.
Not really. They aren't moving to open standards, protocols, and formats. They aren't publishing their formats or protocols completely. They aren't opening up, they are just trying to make the most money while giving up the least amount of lock-in.
In my opinion, I think that Microsoft seriously does see the hand-writing on the wall and they do want to do more to ensure that their OS supports the programs that people want to use.
This has always been MS's policy. Make sure the popular stuff works, then gradually bundle a competitor or otherwise illegally motivate people to move to something that makes MS money.
On another level, Microsoft is trying to avoid what happened to Novell in the 1990s. Netware was a great operating system but it got to the point where they barely had any third party support. The same thing could happen to Microsoft if enough developers decide that using Microsoft dev tools is a PITA and if enough developers decide that coding to the Microsoft OS is a PITA.
There are only two ways for this to happen. One is for MS to lose a huge portion of the existing market. The other is for a cross-platform intermediate layer to exist. The former isn't going to happen without a huge revolution. MS has been mostly successful in killing attempts at the latter, like by intentionally breaking and not supporting Web standards by default and keeping the Web from being a viable intermediate layer until they can control it with something proprietary, like Active X or .net.
The one ray of hope is "standards" but as we've all seen, Microsoft will just ignore a standard until enough people want to use it.
Most users and purchasers don't want standards, they just want the benefits standards bring. MS does a great job of marketing things they claim will bring those same benefits but don't, or using a bait and switch to provide something they claim is a standard, but which turns out not to be (OpenXML).
You're seeing it now with IE7... Now enough web devs have complained loudly enough and they're finally getting what they want.
No, we're seeing them make lots of noise from their marketing department about standards in IE and then excuses like backwards compatibility when they are called on it by people with a clue. IE7 fails to implement huge portions of CSS and does not support XHTML despite the fact that numerous other companies and hobbyists had no trouble doing so with much fewer resources and time. And before you bring up the backwards compatibility excuse, you'd better have a good explanation why all the missing (not broken) CSS features and inclusion of XHTML would break backwards compatibility in any meaningful way.
The problem with using a standard to fight Microsoft is that standards are very rarely proprietary.
No, the problem is while MS fails to implement standards demanded by customers and courts and spends millions on marketing to obfuscate this fact, they are also breaking dozens of other standards that people are less cognizant of. MP3, MPEG, PDF, PNG, JPEG, etc. are all being quietly pushed out by bundled, proprietary alternatives while the pressure is on Web and Office formats.
The bottom line is MS does not play nice and deceives people about what they are doing. MS illegally bundles everything and if you use the platform without the utmost of care (think average user or even average corporate admin), you're screwing yourself over for the future.
Re:Sad. (Score:2, Insightful)
No, Microsoft isn't illegally bundling IE. They're bundling IE, but not illegally. That hsi issue already went through the courts and Microsoft is still bundling IE should give you a clue that it's not illegal.
Re:It's a TRAP!!! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Sad. (Score:3, Insightful)
No, Microsoft isn't illegally bundling IE. They're bundling IE, but not illegally. That hsi issue already went through the courts and Microsoft is still bundling IE should give you a clue that it's not illegal.
If you bothered to follow the court decisions, it was ruled illegal, but after certain, huge, campaign contributions the courts decided not to do anything about stopping the illegal action as part of their remedy. You also might notice that since then, MS has settled out of court paying undisclosed sums to dozens of companies as a result of this behavior.
It is illegal to bundle two products when one of them wields monopoly power in one market and the other is in a second market. This is basic antitrust law going back to the Sherman act and is, in fact, the first example of illegal antitrust behavior provided. Don't mistake not being stopped/punished for not being guilty.
Re:Vista modularity? (Score:1, Insightful)