Microsoft: Judge us by our deeds on open source (The Register)

[Posted March 26, 2009 by cook]

The Register covers comments by Microsoft's Robert Youngjohns at the Open Source Business Conference. "Microsoft has made a "tremendous commitment" to systems and file interoperability, according to its head of North American sales and marketing. Robert Youngjohns on Wednesday called interoperability between Widows and Linux and support for open-file formats and open-source languages like PHP a business imperative. He added Microsoft should be judged by its actions with support for PHP, not by its words - presumably statements by senior management on alleged violations of hundreds of Microsoft patents by Linux and open source."

Microsoft: Judge us by our deeds on open source (The Register)

Posted Mar 26, 2009 18:18 UTC (Thu) by dennisk (guest, #12308) [Link] (9 responses)

And behind the scenes M$'s deeds stink.

dennisk

Microsoft: Judge us by our deeds on open source (The Register)

Posted Mar 26, 2009 19:58 UTC (Thu) by ncm (guest, #165) [Link] (8 responses)

Not just behind the scenes. They more or less destroyed the ISO just to promote an XML document standard that they have since abandoned. Now they're working to sabotage ODF.

So, sure, I'll judge them on their deeds.

Nice Microsoft

Posted Mar 26, 2009 22:34 UTC (Thu) by man_ls (guest, #15091) [Link] (6 responses)

Now, now, you are being too cruel. Didn't Microsoft publish their network protocols out of the kindness of their hearts? Well, and after a purely testiomonial fine from the UE, but that was just the detonant for the kindness to start flowing towards Open Source.

Nice Microsoft

Posted Mar 30, 2009 0:48 UTC (Mon) by hozelda (guest, #19341) [Link] (5 responses)

When hasn't Microsoft given specs out? They want developers busying themselves on MS platforms. Microsoft can't afford to lose their platform monopolies. They will embrace Linux as a necessary adjunct to handle applications their customers want but that don't yet work as well on Windows.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8zEQhhaJsU4

Nice Microsoft

Posted Mar 30, 2009 1:00 UTC (Mon) by man_ls (guest, #15091) [Link] (4 responses)

When hasn't Microsoft given specs out?

Very often. Microsoft has given specs to what they have judged helped them keep their monopolies. They have withheld specs (or published them under painful terms) to what would have helped the competition break those monopolies. Examples of missing specs abound, but to name a few: the whole SMB specification (network protocol), file format specification for the whole Office suite or video formats. Not to speak of "secret" system hooks reportedly used by Office that were not available to external developers (or at least with a significant delay).

Now video formats are perhaps not the most important piece of information, but network interoperability and Office suite file formats I would consider to be essential in an interconnected world. Silly me.

Nice Microsoft

Posted Mar 30, 2009 1:56 UTC (Mon) by hozelda (guest, #19341) [Link]

Yes, I agree.

Nice Microsoft

Posted Mar 30, 2009 2:23 UTC (Mon) by hozelda (guest, #19341) [Link]

They can adjust their third-party interface implementations on the fly to suit their strategies.

PHP leadership would help themselves more by not helping out Microsoft.

When enough interesting things run exclusively (preferably) or significantly better on Linux, using protocols Microsoft has neglected, customers will more easily lose their blind devotion and patience with Microsoft and truly bake Linux into their future plans. First step being to stop buying into Microsoft's "latest and greatest", resulting in a serious hit to Microsoft revenues.

Customers have already started making serious preparations to alternatives. Can Microsoft embrace FOSS enough to turn back the tide?

Nice Microsoft

Posted Mar 30, 2009 3:49 UTC (Mon) by hozelda (guest, #19341) [Link]

Nice Microsoft

Posted Mar 30, 2009 10:50 UTC (Mon) by tialaramex (subscriber, #21167) [Link]

The two big examples (SMB, Office) aren't /entirely/ true.

In both cases I have documents written by Microsoft employees on the company dime. Microsoft did document SMB / CIFS quite extensively over the years in Internet RFCs, and they produced various documents on the Office file formats (particularly XLS).

However, you're right to the extent that these documents were deliberately pitched to support ISVs who saw Microsoft's offering as a platform, rather than to make it possible to compete on a level playing field. You can't use Microsoft's documentation to write an XLS file with all the features supported by Microsoft Excel, and you can't use their SMB / CIFS documentation to support all the features Microsoft's Server products offered to its Client operating systems. In both cases you will need to do some reverse engineering.

Microsoft: Judge us by our deeds on open source (The Register)

Posted Mar 26, 2009 22:39 UTC (Thu) by Ed_L. (guest, #24287) [Link]

Well... okay. But what about the GPL? What about that fabulously innovative scheme Microsoft hatched with Novell to provide badly needed -- not say wildly desired -- patent protection to (select) end users of the most widely licensed Open Source software? Don't they get at least partial ~~credit~~ judgment for that?

:-)

Microsoft: Judge us by our deeds on open source (The Register)

Posted Mar 26, 2009 18:18 UTC (Thu) by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523) [Link]

Of course they made tremendous commitment.

Just look at how Microsoft is commited on FAT32 interoperability!

Microsoft: Judge us by our deeds on open source (The Register)

Posted Mar 26, 2009 18:32 UTC (Thu) by flewellyn (subscriber, #5047) [Link]

You mean like suing TomTom for infringing on a bogus FAT32 patent? Those deeds?

Microsoft: Judge us by our deeds on open source (The Register)

Posted Mar 26, 2009 18:39 UTC (Thu) by Frej (guest, #4165) [Link]

Well he is right, but sometimes it's just marketing/image/branding and not technical stuff that matters in the real world. Microsoft heavily emphasizes itself as one single brand, thus all actions by Microsoft are percieved as actions from a single entity.

Microsoft: Judge us by our deeds on open source (The Register)

Posted Mar 26, 2009 18:44 UTC (Thu) by Ed_L. (guest, #24287) [Link]

Now, now, let's be fair. TomTom is a one-off, a fluke. Doesn't anyone remember the remarkably selfless way Microsoft brought us OOXML? Give credit where credit is due! :-)

Microsoft: Judge us by our deeds on open source (The Register)

Posted Mar 26, 2009 22:35 UTC (Thu) by PaulWay (guest, #45600) [Link]

In a way, I think this is great publicity. Not for Microsoft, of course, as everyone above has commented - even supporters of Microsoft will have to admit that its bad deeds have continued even though it might be also doing good. It's inviting the inevitable comparisons, so ultimately it destroys any credit Microsoft might be trying to build in the commmunity.

But it can also be great publicity for FOSS. Here is Microsoft saying "judge us by our deeds", and the Open Source community can already point to their manifest good deeds, from working on the OLPC and Sugar to Software Freedom Day to Linux everywhere from supercomputers to TomToms and beyond. Did Microsoft build Wikipedia or the Internet Archive? Did any of the technologies that Microsoft is now 'embracing' start within Microsoft? No! The fact that Microsoft is "coming to the light side" is proof that the real future is FOSS.

Widow interoperability?

Posted Mar 26, 2009 23:30 UTC (Thu) by xoddam (subscriber, #2322) [Link] (1 responses)

Since when did "widows" find it harder to work with Linux than single or married people?

Widow interoperability?

Posted Mar 27, 2009 18:14 UTC (Fri) by clugstj (subscriber, #4020) [Link]

And they're going after the orphans next.

Microsoft: Judge us by our deeds on open source (The Register)

Posted Mar 27, 2009 0:33 UTC (Fri) by einstein (subscriber, #2052) [Link]

Your deeds on open source? You mean, all the windows-only "open source" software you've published? Yeah, real funny that.

Microsoft: Judge us by our deeds on open source (The Register)

Posted Mar 27, 2009 0:58 UTC (Fri) by bluefoxicy (guest, #25366) [Link]

Yes but I can't see your secret plotting, only conjecture that your words don't match your actions.

Microsoft: Judge us by our deeds on open source (The Register)

Posted Mar 27, 2009 14:46 UTC (Fri) by ccchips (subscriber, #3222) [Link]

You mean as in:

Gimme the deed to yo' ranch or I'll saw you all in half.....

Microsoft: Judge us by our deeds on open source (The Register)

Posted Mar 27, 2009 21:25 UTC (Fri) by djreedps (guest, #50980) [Link]

Trust us while we sue you.

I agree. Don't judge Microsoft on its words, judge MS on its actions. Just about every serious competitor of Microsoft's in history was taken down by them not through fair competition, but rather by lawsuits, monopolistic power, and sheer illegality. Only in this decade after Microsoft has been losing in European courts and technology has moved on significantly past Microsoft's "innovations" has MS had any competition (Apple) which it wasn't able to unfairly squash.

Microsoft: Judge us by our deeds on open source (The Register)

Posted Mar 28, 2009 0:52 UTC (Sat) by christian.convey (guest, #39159) [Link] (1 responses)

I raped your wife, but I gave your daughter a lollipop.

Only judge me based on how I treated your daughter.

Microsoft: Judge us by our deeds on open source (The Register)

Posted Mar 30, 2009 11:30 UTC (Mon) by gsancosme (guest, #40110) [Link]

Yessssss ! This exactly what I was thinking...

lol

Microsoft: Judge us by our deeds on open source (The Register)

Posted Mar 28, 2009 3:26 UTC (Sat) by mmarq (guest, #2332) [Link]

Another wave of "illuminati" guys trying to convince people that Windoze should be for desktop always... ahhah... jzz... and Linux is only good for servers!!... a repetitive stance until boredom insanity... and no end in site!!

As for myself i long long forgot about interoperability... i deal with segregation instead. The Wdoze lock-ins are in the applications, so i let my implementations have those, but...

http://www.2x.com/

With gigbit Ethernet it is doable up to close to 100 clients shops... and its such a releave !!

Microsoft: Judge us by our deeds on open source (The Register)

Posted Mar 28, 2009 3:50 UTC (Sat) by nixternal (guest, #41048) [Link]

Speaking from experience with working in/around the Microsoft Open Source arena...well I won't go there. You want to see Microsoft Open Source people in their element? Watch this video[0] from the Flourish 2008 Open Source Conference held at the University of Illinois at Chicago. I am sure you all probably recognize Maddog, Bruce, and James, but the guy in between Maddog and Bruce is a rep of IBM and the guy between Bruce and James is Bobby, the Microsoft Open Source guy. The worst part about this entire panel was it only lasted an hour. Microsoft and Open Source cure tumors!

[0] http://www.viddler.com/explore/Flourish/videos/2/

Microsoft: Judge us by our deeds on open source (The Register)

Posted Mar 28, 2009 13:48 UTC (Sat) by gdt (subscriber, #6284) [Link]

The disconnect between statement and reality often makes me wonder if there are elements of joining a cult in working for Microsoft. This isn't just ordinary PR, but true doublethink.

What a Microsoft employee might call a "tremendous commitment to ... file interoperability" appears to us outside the cult to be a huge lobbying effort for ISO to approve OOXML after Microsoft's tactical oversight in ignoring ODF until it became an ISO standard (and thus ODF-using products being preferred to MS Office due to the purchasing evaluation rules of many governments). And not just any lobbying, but full press, scorched earth lobbying that so traduced the processes of ISO that respect for ISO IT standards is even lower than during the Open Systems Interconnect debacle.

As for the "tremendous commitment to systems ... interoperability" it seems odd to me despite this commitment Microsoft missed so many EU deadlines for producing a usable specifications requested by the EU.

As for "Microsoft has a right to create IP - like IBM and others - and a duty to enforce those patents" you'd think that the speaker had never heard of a royalty free patent license. With that license Microsoft can do away with that "duty to enforce" they find so pesky about patents. After all, if pursuing patent breaches is a duty, and Microsoft hold so many software patents, and software patents are so easily breached, then that duty must be burdensome indeed. Rather odd then, that the suggested duty hasn't lead Microsoft to encounter a patent breach at software-writing companies with as deep pockets as itself -- such as WalMart or Exxon -- but only at other suppliers of IT software and devices.