At the OSCON open source software convention, the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) got an unexpected new sponsor: Microsoft. The Redmond software giant, which will contribute $100,000 annually to the ASF, joins Google and Yahoo as a platinum sponsor of Apache development.
Post a Comment
Member since:
2006-05-15
Member since:
2008-05-27
Please read this before commenting: http://lwn.net/Articles/291668/
Re: "If you cant beat'em at least be nice to them.
by jsclinuxrules (1) on Tue 29th Jul 2008 16:42 EET":
Damn, someone with a smart comment has already posted 
Edited 2008-07-29 16:43 UTC
Member since:
2006-01-06
Member since:2008-06-19
Member since:
2007-03-04
Member since:
2008-04-18
Member since:2007-09-06
Member since:2008-04-18
Are you sure? Cause I thought Microsoft regarded IIS as a very powerful tool. This is a quote from http://www.microsoft.com/WindowsServer2003/IIS/Default.mspx: "Internet Information Services (IIS) 6.0 is a powerful Web server that provides a highly reliable, manageable, and scalable Web application infrastructure for all versions of Windows Server 2003".
Edited 2008-07-29 20:18 UTC
Member since:2006-02-16
Are you sure? Cause I thought Microsoft regarded IIS as a very powerful tool. This is a quote from http://www.microsoft.com/WindowsServer2003/IIS/Default.mspx: "Internet Information Services (IIS) 6.0 is a powerful Web server that provides a highly reliable, manageable, and scalable Web application infrastructure for all versions of Windows Server 2003". "
They sure do. It's common info that Microsoft even has few hundred linux servers in their labs.
Member since:2007-09-06
hehe.. I was just kidding with my comment but since the person before you wanted to take it seriously and, as you point out; all computer companies the size of MS have labs with a machien for each competing platform.
I believe the cluster behind Windows Update is also supported by linux systems though the actual http deamon may be something other than Apache.
Member since:2006-01-02
Member since:
2005-11-05
"Fox Buys Chickens New Henhouse"
Aw shucks, 100,000 bucks may sound a lot to you and me but to Microsoft it represents a few minutes' turnover. Good luck to them. And nice money to have if there are no strings attached, though as this is Microsoft one suspects there may well be somewhere, somehow.
Member since:
2005-07-06
One mistake people often make when considering Microsoft is selling them short as a company. They are a very smart, very business-savvy company. If need be, they can re-invent themselves, and probably fairly quickly. Look at IBM, once the Computer Behemoth feared by many. They had to re-invent themselves a couple times. If Microsoft sees the "OSS" in the wind, you will see a swift adaptation by Redmond. In fact, I would not be surprised to read someday that Microsoft practically invented OSS!
Member since:2006-02-05
I'm a developer for an MS gold partner, and I have alot of contact from inside the company. There is currently a huge culture shift going on internally towards open source. It would be very interesting to see where this came from, since I doubt guys like Phil Haack or John Lam are in a position to do something like that, but I would expect to see more and more stuff like this as time goes on.
Member since:2007-09-06
Member since:2007-09-06
After all, if you remember Bill's interview a few years back; most of FOSS was paid for by Microsoft so really, we all ow MS fees for using FOSS.
(gah. I wish I could find that news article to link in.)
As for MS in more serious considerations; they have an invenstment in Apple but not controlling shares. An investment or donation to any other software development project without any controlling interest or obligations can't be all bad.
I know I joked previously but even MS uses Apache so they have some very real personal reasons for seeing that code evlove outside of the political and marketing benefits it brings.
MS has been called many things but I've never seen "stupid company" on the list.
Member since:2005-07-14
The List
---------------
1. Microsoft is an evil company.
2. Microsoft is a lawbreaking company.
3. Microsoft is bad company.
4. Microsoft is a stupid company.
5. Microsoft is a company bigger than what is good for anybody.
...
"stupid company" is actually no. 4 on the list.
Member since:2007-09-06
Member since:
2006-07-16
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:
2008-07-12
I wonder if the higher ups in Microsoft realize that money will not buy them any control in most large FOSS organizations? (The partial success with ISO may have fooled some of them).
I don't mean that this is why money has been offered. It could be for all the right reasons, from all the right people.
What I mean is that a few years down the line it is possible that someone in Microsoft's management will start thinking that the money they supply gives them the right to dictate future designs much like Microsoft does to a number of organizations today.
Boy, will someone be in for a surprise!
Member since:
2005-11-21
Member since:
2006-11-26
Microsoft is in the business of selling their platforms (.Net, Windows, etc). Is it really surprising that they are sponsoring the development of an open source program to better work on their platforms? Is it possible that speculation of Microsoft intending to destroy the competition is nothing more that (completely founded) speculation?
Member since:2005-12-31
Member since:
2005-07-12
Just like Microsoft's contribution to Eclipse/SWT (to make SWT work better on Windows), this is a move that is in Microsoft's interest of strengthening their platform.
From their perspective, open source software that runs well on Windows is just as good for Windows market share as proprietary software that runs well on Windows.
People inside Microsoft are recognizing that open source software is here to stay, and working with it is often to their best advantage.
But MS will still compete vigorously with both Linux and OpenOffice, while embracing most other stuff to make it run better on Windows.
But at the same time, MS competes with Apache, with IIS. But IIS does not generate (much) revenue. It just strengthens Windows on the server side. So, if they can make Apache run better on Windows, they won't get the same lock-in as with IIS, but they get market inertia - i.e. If someone deploys Apache on Windows, and takes advantage of Microsoft's Apache/Windows tweaks, they'll be likely to stay on Windows, rather than migrating to Linux (even though they can).
Member since:
2006-12-07
Apache is able to run ASP.NET applications and host .NET web services with help of Mono. The configuration is little bit awkward and not enough documented, but it definitely works. That makes Apache a .NET platform. Seeing Apache running on Windows server is not uncommon, too. Apache and Windows/.NET are not two isolated worlds any more.
Majority of software vendors are interested in interoperability, expecting to benefit from it.
Microsoft was different, but I think that they are becoming more like others. Perhaps, it was something related to former president's, Bill Gates, ego.
DG