This interview with Bill Hilf, Microsoft's Linux Lab Manager, answers questions from readers of Slashdot. It speaks about OSS inside Microsoft, attitudes towards open standards, and of course Linux. "Believe it or not, I use more different types of OSS here at Microsoft than I've ever used before. Our team uses over 40 different flavors of Linux and BSD, plus several commercial Unix variants."
Post a Comment
Member since:
2005-07-06
Member since:
---
Member since:
2005-07-08
Member since:
2005-06-29
I thought his answer to number 4 was just awful. If you are going to not do something why not just admit it?
I think the shared source initiative is the closest thing to a real answer. And in some limited sense, and another limited sense, and yet more limited senses it is free. However, it's still not it. If it were, Microsoft would have more to worry about. They'd have to worry about competing with forks. Even the best OSS projects get forked, which is considered taboo in hacker circles; in business circles it's considered strategy.
He also talks about balance. I don't think that's fair either. He says: Because we aren't totally modular or totally monolithic about things we have a balance. We don't like extremes.
While he isn't necessarily saying it straight out: Linux is extreme. He's still saying it implicitly.
But. Windows is getting as close to a monolith desktop solution as you can get. Officially you can't change anything out: There's one supported setup per resaleable system. That's pretty stinkin close to an extreme. It's not that it's extremist, it's actually a good way to insure you can support your customers! But being modular to support your tinkering customers isn't extremist either!
Also, slashdot picked some stupid questions that we all know Microsoft won't give a straight answer too because a straight answer would be a PR nightmare:
6) Why doesn't Microsoft release Microsoft Linux?
by amper
Here's the real answer:
Are you a bloody idiot? Because then we'd be endorsing it! Because we'd have to rewrite millions of lines of code, or port ten times as much code. Because we'd end up supporting GDI on RedHat, and that'd be a nightmare! Because people are stupid enough to ask that! Because, unlike Apple, we don't change our mind one day and act like we weren't lying for 2 years while we said G5 was the best out there!
Member since:---
Member since:2005-06-29
That's not what Jobs says now. If one person says A and later retracts it, and if A was said at the same time it was retracted or very close to it, and if agreeing with A and retracting it are mutually exclusive: one person lied.
In other words. You can't say you did, then say you didn't and have been right both times.
Anyway, I think the G5 is great. And I think Jobs should be honest about whatever motive he has to switching. If it's the low power chips than it's good reasoning. If he wants DRM, great. If he just wants $50 a piece cheaper chips, fine.
Member since:2005-07-06
True, I can't believe he regards Shared Source as a 'good compromise' - a good compromise would be for Microsoft to look at the mundane parts and opensource them under BSDL or CDDL.
MSHTML for example - why not opensource it? its a mundane piece of technology - by open sourceing it, they have no stragetic interest to lose, and possibly, the ability to have new and exciting features been added to it by volunteers.
A good compromise isn't about complete opensource or the licence, its about opensourcing the parts that make commercial sense. SUN has realised this - opensource what makes business sense.
Apple, again, same thing, opensource the core - work with the community on mundane stuff like webkit/JavaScriptCore and so forth, then add value on the top of the opensource product by bundling a proprietary GUI/Windowing environment, along with iTunes and so forth.
Member since:
---
Member since:
---
Member since:---
Member since:---
Member since:
2005-07-06
I love the spin he tries to put on open standards:
That said, Open Source does not equal Open Standards. It surprises me that this is an issue that(some) people still don't really comprehend.
Errr, open source software guarantees open standards because how far is a piece of open source software going to get trying to keep its file formats or protocols secret?! Plus, because the source is there nothing is going to stay secret for long, if it ever has been.
What guarantee do you have that a closed source vendor will continue to back open standards, or in Microsoft's case, even keep faithfully to the standard. None whatsoever.
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:---
the man ment: the fact that we declare someting a standard, defacto makes it a standard. Which is pretty much what they believe themselves. A standard shouldn't be defined by one player, and when it is, it should be open, if you plug something in, you expect that it will work, and it will, why? because everybody knows what to do to make it work. Open source software has the tendency to stick to the open standards, not to reinvent a new one every five minutes.
Member since:2005-07-06
Like the man said, the fact that something is open source doesn't automatically make it a standard or standards compliant.
You're twisting it around I'm afraid.
Like I said, proprietary software is no guarantee whatsoever of open standards. Open source software guarantees open standards, because if a piece of open source software doesn't implement what is recognised to be a standard then what can either be made to, or what it does implement can be something everyone else can implement so it can become a standard. Open source software also guarantees that an open standard will be implemented faithfully and to specifications.
Examples? The Open Document Format in Open Office (an open standard Microsoft refuses to use) and the state of Kerberos and LDAP compliance in Windows. Enough said.
Your comments and his are so stupidly illogical it's laughable.
Member since:2005-07-10
What are you smoking dude? Open Source doesn't mean Open Standards. It means Open but not Standard. Look at the state of distributions in Linux? What do you see? LSB is eating dust. Yay yay...now you will say i am talking about protocols but hey why not talk about package management. Its a freaking pain to. OSS is not able to resolve the issues it created itself and you want the whole industry to worry for 5% Lusers?
I am not saying standards are a bad thing, no, they are good thing, but i don't want companies to hold their hand from impleting something good just because the freakin beaurocracy in standard committee is not finalizing a standard. Microsoft did a good thing with sender-id, at least it has already started reducing spam in my mail box.
Member since:2005-07-06
I am not saying standards are a bad thing, no, they are good thing, but i don't want companies to hold their hand from impleting something good just because the freakin beaurocracy in standard committee is not finalizing a standard. Microsoft did a good thing with sender-id, at least it has already started reducing spam in my mail box.
Linux will eventually be forced into standardizing by commercial software developers. Its already starting basically it will play out like "if you want to run our software then your distro has to have this,this and that" RedHat and Suse are already the defacto distros for compatibility.
Member since:
---
Member since:2005-06-29
If your company buys Microsoft because it "makes administration easier" which they see as "we can lay off 50% of our IT people" then that won't help those people much either now will it? And three months down the road when the people are gone and new problems arise who will be there to solve them? New guys? Great, will they be thrown off for the next guy to say "I can get rid of half your IT burden?"
In the real world problems exist. And you don't listen to people who provide solutions which keep you out of the loop.
Member since:
---
>Like the man said, the fact that something is open
>source doesn't automatically make it a standard or
>standards compliant.
Depends on the license. For most open-source license (GPL/BSD/etc.), that is *exactly* what it does. Unless the license expressly says "you cannot fork or copy this protocol," there are other, more restrictive licenses that must allow it, too.
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:
2005-07-29
Member since:
---
Member since:2005-07-10
So you mean Microsoft should hold its hands because industry can't come to a standard and let the users suffer?
And to all the people who cry about OpenGL, DirectX is way easier to program OpenGL then why should Microsoft stick to legacy. If you are so fond of OpenGL, come on build your driver stack around OpenGL, no one is stopping you from doing that.
Member since:---
Member since:
---
how Bill Hilf, Martin Taylor et. al have set up their open source lab at Microsoft and what spin they would put on questions from the slashdot crowd (let me guess... the interplay between open source and closed source may produce something greater than either one would have done on its own. Linux and its community are really valuable and interesting, but they don't provide everything that enterprise customers are looking for. Am I close?).
It's just trolling meets the spin doctor.
Paul G
Member since:
---
If one thing is reinforced from reading this article, it is that proprietary software companies can study and take the great ideas of the OSS developers at their discretion; however, the OSS foks can not glean the same benefit from the closed models. The flow of information is in one way only direction - akin to a check valve in a piping system.
Licensing agreements aside, at the very least, closed software companies can borrow the best ideas from OSS and "innovate" on top of them. This advantage applies to any closed/proprieatary software company. Its hard to prove who's idea is whos anymore, because algorithms and patterns have matured at a fundamental level so the implementation is where the war rages.
So it would seem that the OSS model is inherently disadvantaged from a competitive business standpoint, especially when pitted against powerhouses like MS, Adobe, et. al. , who can disect and assimilate the best parts at will. That they throw the token back trace bone is testament to the lenghts they will go to extract maximum value for their own benefit. This is not evil, this is simply common business sense. In a capitalistic sort of way, that is!
The only way for the OSS community to "catch up" and be competitive is by waiting for features and packages to mature. To some extent, this is already taking place..OOo is catching up to MSOffice and The Gimp is superior to many commercially available editors. Will KDE Plasma narrow the gap in terms of state-of-the-art desktop design and presentation? Surely it will, but it can't equal or hope to surpass the closed model with such a force of motivated and paid workers driven by a closed business model that simply works...whether you like it or not folks.
The freedom aspect of OSS, perhaps for some of the enthusiasts, overshawdows the inherent shortcomings of the opensource model from a business standpoint. Those who witness this call it blind religion, but they miss the point, I think.
Folks have pondered the pros/cons of the many flavors (distros) and I have seen the point raised as to whether the fragmentation of the Gnome vs. KDE camp is healthy or hurtful. I think the data is rather compelling, if the objective is to give the 600 lb Gorilla a run for its money, Linux needs to turn inward, distros need to consolidate, the resources must focus and the inherent disadvantage wrought of the open system must be forfeited. Unless we are to take comfort in always being the also ran. But we should recognize that we are that way because we bring it upon ourselves. Its the nature of how we compete.
Member since:2005-07-12
Member since:2005-07-06
[i]If one thing is reinforced from reading this article, it is that proprietary software companies can study and take the great ideas of the OSS developers at their discretion; however, the OSS foks can not glean the same benefit from the closed models. The flow of information is in one way only direction - akin to a check valve in a piping system.</i?
The only thing flawed with your argument is that you assume that you need the source code in order to develop something better. How many companies reverse engineered other products to produce something better? Without the benefit of seening the internal workings. Like i have said in the past if FOSS wants to beat microsoft they have to come up with something worlds better first and maintain it. If there is a concern about companies like Microsoft are gleening ideas from FOSS projects then close the source.
Member since:
2005-07-10
Member since:
---
Occasionally I have been impressed by interviews with Microsoft employees. Of course they all claim "choose the best tool for the job" and some of them have actually had me believing that they weren't out to dominate the world, just produce good software.
This guy, though, sidestepped too many questions about openness and sugar-coated too many statements that amounted to Microsoft being simply out to make money. Reading this really gives me the sense that they will not hesitate to push proprietary standards (like sender-id and their document formats) even when it's not in the best interest of the rest of the computing world.
Member since:
2005-07-10
Microsoft has a _finally implementation for C++ which is not a part of standard C++. Now you people can blame Microsoft for breaking standards but to me, it really sucks ass that C++ doesn't have finally. It is so goddamn useful for many error handling scenarios. Just because Stroustrup thought finally is not useful, doesn't mean that Microsoft shouldn't enhance it.
What i hate most about standards is when they become an obstacle on the path of innovation. It is like Windows supporting legacy DOS based app...wow what a ROYAL pain in the butt...
Member since:
2005-07-10
Member since:
2005-07-10
Member since:
2005-07-06
Member since:
---
OSS / Free Software is clearly different from Open Standards, in both directions:
A proprietary, closed-source program can fully comply to any open standard you could imagine. Many of them do (you just have to look outside the MS world). Of course, you don't have a guarantee that it will continue to comply in the future. But you don't have this guarantee for F/OSS either.
F/OSS doesn't automatically comply to standards. The argument in some of the above postings is that anyone can look into the source code, thus nothing can be closed. That's right. But "no closed standard" doesn't automatically mean "open standard". In fact, it often means "no standard at all". Or, more accurately, each program defines its own standard - creating a jungle of different, but similar standards. Worse, these programs claim to comply with standard XYZ. For example, if Firefox claims to be a web browser, then why doesn't it comply with CSS2? Firefox doesn't create a closed standard this way, but it destroys the intention of CSS2 as a standard just as well.
- Morin
Member since:
---
Member since:
2005-07-10
OOO document formats are quite inferior. Why should Microsoft use it? You are just a plain old zealot in an "I am not a zealot" hat.
The problems with standard is that if they are not good, no company shall follow them.
And you never answered how screwed package management is in Linux. Why no standard on the things you do yourself and then ask others.
Member since:2005-07-06
OOO document formats are quite inferior. Why should Microsoft use it?
If they're going to talk about open standards then they should use them, shouldn't they? Otherwise, they're just proving my, and everybody else's, point and it's hypocrisy in the extreme.
Or, if they are really serious then they should make the Office format an open standard. None of the argumments cut it in light of the fact that he's making totally unsubstantiated comments on how open source software doesn't adhere to standards.
Would you care to count how many Microsoft and open source applications adhere fully to a recognised standard and compare?
You are just a plain old zealot in an "I am not a zealot" hat.
Considering you're an MS zealot who knows that the Microsoft guy's comments are total bollocks, yer, whatever.
And you never answered how screwed package management is in Linux.
That's not part of the discussion, because this is about Bill Hilf's comments about open standards. If you knew how to reply to comments here (you hit the reply link) then you would have seen that from the subject line.
I didn't read your comments, nor am I interested either, because you're obviously clueless anyway.
Why no standard on the things you do yourself and then ask others.
That doesn't make any sense, does it?
