Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 25th May 2013 00:45 UTC
Google "So in summary... Google has pulled the plug on support on a protocol they've helped popularize, after years of promising interoperability, for reasons that are dubious at best, and in a way that leaves people who don't jump to the new Hangouts app unable to talk to their contacts without any feedback that their IMs aren't getting through... And they've done that with no warning to anyone. I imagine there's a bunch of people out there wondering where some of their buddies have gone, or why their messages aren't getting responses, because this isn't documented anywhere." Google really messed this up. Such a dick move.
Thread beginning with comment 562854
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[5]: Comment by marcp
by Nelson on Sun 26th May 2013 15:05 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by marcp"
Nelson
Member since:
2005-11-29


That support is a result of Linux already having a huge presence in typical VM workloads, as such not supporting Linux on Azure would be commercial suicide.

Are you seriously trying to pass that off as evidence of Microsoft not being about vendor lock-in?


Yes, because it is exactly the opposite of what you claim. You have a high degree of choice on Microsoft's cloud offering.


I'm sure, just as they were incredibly active when they bribed their way in getting OOXML accepted as an ISO standard.


Do you have any evidence that they're doing anything shady on the W3C? Their performance monitoring stuff just reached candidate recommendation. They're also responsible for some Touch Events stuff going into WebKit and Blink, and pushing it forward at the W3C level.

Do you forget about their work on WebRTC? The work they've done on HTTP2.0 including SPDY support in IE11?

Hell, they brought Node to Windows.
How is any of this lock in? You don't get to say "Well its popular anyway so they had to" because that isn't true at all. Microsoft has consciously plotted this course for themselves, and contribute to open source software quite frequently.


Whatever the '.NET scene' is 'pivoting' to is not due to Microsoft, how about they open source .NET and allow it to be ported to any platform? Now that could indeed be construed as them 'pivoting' towards open source.


Microsoft open sourced ASP.NET MVC which is the largest single component of .NET next to WPF. I wouldn't expect you to know that, given your aversion to anything Microsoft.

Also .NET is a ECMA standard with the internals of the C# language, the XAML vocabulary, and CLR/CIL stuff being fully documented and regularly updated.

People like you conveniently forget that Mono exists and is supported by Microsoft. Hearing people like you talk, and then attending a Mono event sponsored by Microsoft last year shows something starkly different to your invented reality.

.NET actually represents Microsoft's open source initiative rather well.

Microsoft has OSI approved licenses for their free and open source software, and promotes .NET projects as OSS on their CodePlex website. Which has Git integration.

TypeScript is open source. Roslyn (their next generation C# compiler as a service and syntax transformer) will be open source.

They've teamed up with HortonWorks to make a Hadoop distribution for Windows Azure.

All of their Azure SDKs are open source. That's Java, Node, .NET, PHP, etc.

A lot of their Windows 8, WPF, and Silverlight patterns&practices (Prism, Kona, CAB) are all open source software and have been since like 2006.

The Dynamic Language Runtime, a major part of .NET which enables IronPython, IronRuby, and IronPHP among others is completely open source software. IronRuby itself is open source.

Large swaths of .NET such as the Rx Framework and MEF for composition are open source.

So thats' what I mean about pivoting to open source in .NET, again, something you'd understand if you did this for a living. Which you don't, so your interpretations of the facts is at best unwillfully ignorant.

NuGet, their package management system for Visual Studio is open source. CoApp is a way to author and publish open source components is open source.

I'm having a hard time understanding how you could possibly objectively arrive at the conclusions your'e arriving at.


How is Google 'abusing' open source? As for using open source for their own agenda, certainly, just as every other company out there which uses open source.


This is exactly the point. Google is no different from Microsoft in this regard in that they use open source when it lines up with their business model. I have no illusions about why Microsoft chooses to make something open source.


Google however also gives a lot back to open source, which is something that can't be said for many companies.


This screams of a rationalization for why your beloved company has started acting out in the open. This is exactly the thing that I said would be happening in short order from Google. To take the gloves off with Microsoft as they seem intent on doing, you need to play dirtier. Microsoft also has ways to make your air your laundry in public (as they did when they baited Google into sending a C&D over the YouTube app which showed how petty Google was).

They simply can't expect to play hardball and keep up that silly little saint routine that people like you keep falling for.


Certainly not Microsoft whose 'open source initiatives' as you described them are extremely weak at best, but furthermore has a long history of actively trying to harm open source and open source projects.


Extremely weak because you choose to understate their significance on an online discussion, not weak because they're actually weak.


Coming from a Microsoft fanboy it makes you sound like you suffer from Stockholm syndrome.


Uhuh. I really don't envy your position, having to eat crow and all, but this has little to do with me.

You were the one who was so incensed that Google could possibly be acting like a normal company that you tried to drag Microsoft into this.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[6]: Comment by marcp
by Valhalla on Sun 26th May 2013 19:57 in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by marcp"
Valhalla Member since:
2006-01-24


Yes, because it is exactly the opposite of what you claim. You have a high degree of choice on Microsoft's cloud offering.

Again, since they can't leverage their desktop monopoly on the cloud, they have to support popular VM OS'es like Linux on their offering or it will simply not be used. You can't spin this as 'Microsoft opening up'.


Do you have any evidence that they're doing anything shady on the W3C?

Do you forget about their work on WebRTC?

Their 'work' on WebRTC was to refuse the standarisation on vp8/vp9 as a default codec and instead propose a version without a standard codec (since they know h.264/h.265 can never be a required standard due to demanding royalties, but they want to be able to force it as a de facto standard and thus collect).

Yes, this sounds exacly like the type of 'work' in standarisation I'm used to from Microsoft, odf/ooxml makes itself reminded.

Hell, they brought Node to Windows.
How is any of this lock in? You don't get to say "Well its popular anyway so they had to"

Why the heck not? Node is popular and Microsoft wants to keep servers running Windows, so this makes perfect sense from a vendor lock-in perspective.


.NET actually represents Microsoft's open source initiative rather well.

Which isn't particularly flattering, you are right that I'm not doing .NET development for a living (a fact I'm perfectly happy with), but AFAIK the vast majority of .NET is still proprietary and thus anything but an open source platform.

Mono's re-implementation of .NET is incomplete and as it's not from Microsoft it's subject to potential patent abuse as it includes components not covered by ecma standards.

I suppose that for someone like you who is used to Microsoft lock-in this must sound like total openess, but really it isn't.


This is exactly the point.

I asked how Google was 'abusing' open source which is what you claimed.


Extremely weak because you choose to understate their significance on an online discussion, not weak because they're actually weak

Extremely weak in comparison with Google, which is what they were compared against. That they are 'strong' in comparison with Microsoft's own pathetic open source history means little in this context.


This screams of a rationalization for why your beloved company has started acting out in the open.

Bullshit, first off there's no denying that Google has done and is doing tons more for open source than Microsoft ever has and I dare swear ever will.

And this is all I've been discussing here, I don't care if it's named 'Google', 'FaceBook', 'Apple' or even 'Microsoft', I care about open source.

So again if the choice was between a Google and a Microsoft service being equal, I would choose the Google service because of how much they benefit open source in comparison with Microsoft.

Now if someone else steps up and puts Google to shame in the promote/benefit open source department, while also offering adequate services then I will switch in a heartbeat.

Maybe someone will (I hope so), Google is far from perfect, but it isn't going to be Microsoft, that's for sure.

Meanwhile as long as Google is the company who is benefiting open source most, I will continue to use their services. My 'allegiance' is to open source, not any specific company, while yours is obviously to Microsoft.

You were the one who was so incensed that Google could possibly be acting like a normal company that you tried to drag Microsoft into this.

Don't make things up, the comparison between Google and Microsoft I made was that of what one gets in return for using their respective services.

'No it isn't' correctly pointed out that from a service perspective, Google search is better, and from an 'evil'ness perspective they are certainly no worse than the competition, which in this case would be Microsoft (Bing).

I argued that as an open source proponent I would use Google over Bing any day even if Bing was just as good, given that Google's benefits to open source/open source projects vastly overshadows those of Microsoft.

I really don't envy your position, having to eat crow and all, but this has little to do with me.

Uh? I don't work for Google, nor do I rely on their products/services professionally (unlike your situation with Microsoft), I care for open source and it will survive Google, and certainly Microsoft aswell.

And while I favour companies who favour and benefit open source, again I don't identify with them (unlike you with your Microsoft zealotry), because they are companies, there to make money for their owners.

Again, the instance another company comes along who are better proponents/benefits to open source and offer adequate rivaling services then I will switch and they will get my 'advertiser' dollars.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[7]: Comment by marcp
by Nelson on Sun 26th May 2013 21:37 in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by marcp"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29


Again, since they can't leverage their desktop monopoly on the cloud


You accuse me of spinning and then go off and say this. The same could be said about every company, including Google. Google uses open source because it is a convenient tool, not because of so ideological alignment with your beliefs.

From that perspective, what they are doing to you and other open source proponents is using you until the point where they no longer need you, then they discard the very principals which drew you to the platform.

You might love to pretend there's a difference between Google and Microsoft on this, but there really isn't.

Microsoft happens to offer Azure choice (as opposed to lock in) because they want reach across a broad spectrum of developer tools. Azure is already pushing Windows into the cloud, be it an Azure PaaS instance or a VM running on top of Windows imaged with Linux.

Microsoft does do core business outside of Windows, and Azure is just another facet to this. While Azure runs Windows, its secondary to their main strategy of profiting off of the explosion in Cloud computing by any means. Azure I think is well on its way to being a $2B business, so by all accounts its working well.


Their 'work' on WebRTC was to refuse the standarisation on vp8/vp9 as a default codec and instead propose a version without a standard codec


Their work on WebRTC includes bringing it to IE in a way that interoperates with other browsers. The codec choice has always been a wedge issue on these standardization processes, and by the same token one could argue that Google is trying to force vp8 and vp9 as a default codec. Something they obviously have a vested interest in seeing happen.

Microsoft not wanting to cede that much ground to Google isn't surprising.


Yes, this sounds exacly like the type of 'work' in standarisation I'm used to from Microsoft, odf/ooxml makes itself reminded.


I think the problem with your line of thinking is that you assume that there is one true standard, and that any standard not published by companies or groups that you agree with are automatically bad.

And what does that have in common with OOXML besides the fact that they were both standardized? FWIW I think OOXML was handled much more poorly in comparison. I just don't think they directly relate.

Do you think it is bad that Microsoft is participating in the W3C? I think they're doing a great deal of good, especially surrounding the extensive test suites they routinely release to the W3C.

I just think this opposition to MS for the sake of opposition is dangerous. I wonder how deep your knowledge of Microsoft's open source initiatives goes, beyond headlines and rash dismissals.


Why the heck not? Node is popular and Microsoft wants to keep servers running Windows, so this makes perfect sense from a vendor lock-in perspective.


But you're not locked in AND Microsoft achieves their goal. You're technically running Windows, but you can move anywhere you want.

Microsoft clearly has a goal that's aided by open source, just like Google. They do the same thing. One isn't magically better than the other, it just so happens that Google's business model lines up with OSS initiatives more often.

And that's fine, but its entirely different from implying that all Microsoft does is lock you in. This is demonstrably false.


Which isn't particularly flattering, you are right that I'm not doing .NET development for a living (a fact I'm perfectly happy with), but AFAIK the vast majority of .NET is still proprietary and thus anything but an open source platform.


This is false. .NET is built on open standards. CLI, the CLR, and CIL are completely documented and regularly updated by the ECMA. C# is standardized. So is XAML. So is the entire BCL.

So .NET, the CLR and all characteristics, the meta data format, the byte code, the language, the UI language, and the class library are standardized.

The rest is selectively open source, with ASP.NET and the DLR being the two single largest open source components. There's also MEF and Rx. This together makes up a large amount of Microsoft's own .NET components on top of the BCL.


Mono's re-implementation of .NET is incomplete and as it's not from Microsoft it's subject to potential patent abuse as it includes components not covered by ecma standards.


Mono is covered under a legally binding non aggression promise from Microsoft, which coincidentally covers other technologies which I'm sure you're perfectly fine with. Microsoft sponsors Mono events regularly and features them at BUILD, their developer conference. There are plenty of equitable defenses that would render such a case useless. Real equitable defenses based on real case law. Not made up estoppel theories like OSNews did for Samsung v. Apple.

Mono doesnt have to support "All of .NET" because it is implementing a standard. Various browsers have various supports for HTML and its associated standards. In fact, I can probably guarantee that the parity between .NET and Mono is beyond what most browsers achieve with each other.

The only people that say Mono and .NET diverge in a meaningful way are people who don't port code to either platform. I do this for a living, as you mention, so I have a great deal of experience in having to know the exact difference between the two implementations.

In .NET 4.5 Microsoft actually slimmed down the .NET Profile to support Windows Store apps, which makes it even easier for Mono to support .NET 4.5 because there's less Microsoft stuff on top of it.


Extremely weak in comparison with Google, which is what they were compared against.


The crux of the argument is that the differences are imaginary. Basically, Google is better at convincing you that its your friend than Microsoft is because Google genuinely needs to pretend more of the time.

They have a business model that directly lines up with open source in many ways, so naturally some people thought of Google as a stalwart defender of the cause. This obviously isn't the case, and from that point of view there is no difference between them and Microsoft.

You might want to invent a difference for your own rationalization eg. "Google contributes more to open source", but it is one thats in your head only.

I wouldn't be happy that Google is able to make me think they care about standards or open solutions (CalDAV, RSS, and XMPP) while it benefits them, and then discards it when they're done. If you're happy that they do it to you, that's fine.

I like I said have no illusions about what Microsoft is or why it does what it does -- there's a business decision behind everything. I don't understand why people hold Google in that light, and when their reality comes crumbling, why they don't accept that all companies are the same instead of preemptively taking a pot shot at another.


Bullshit, first off there's no denying that Google has done and is doing tons more for open source than Microsoft ever has and I dare swear ever will.

And this is all I've been discussing here, I don't care if it's named 'Google', 'FaceBook', 'Apple' or even 'Microsoft', I care about open source.


If you cared about open source you'd push open source, not help prop up a company that is detrimental to open source. You're making excuses for Google, a company that just murdered XMPP and abandoned CalDAV weeks after criticizing MSFT for not supporting it.

Me, personally, I don't give a rats ass about open source. Its a tool. It helps get the job done. I never really understood the cultish devotion some have to it.

You're so against Microsoft that you've started shilling for a company that acts just like them. Congrats, you're trying extraordinarily hard to be me. ;) .


So again if the choice was between a Google and a Microsoft service being equal, I would choose the Google service


Trust me after all the mental contortions you've done in this thread, I know.

[q]

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[7]: Comment by marcp
by Nelson on Sun 26th May 2013 21:40 in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by marcp"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29


Meanwhile as long as Google is the company who is benefiting open source most, I will continue to use their services.


Microsoft technologies make me money. But other technologies did before that. The minute I make my living somewhere else, I'll naturally have deeper knowledge on that other company.

You like to pretend you dont support Google, despite you singing their praises in every thread leading up to this.


Google's benefits to open source/open source projects vastly overshadows those of Microsoft.


As an open source proponent, you should use whichever one makes you happy regardless of their positions on open source. Using one because they support open source is foolish, given that the reasons they support open source are not really the same reasons you support open source.

I'd use Google at any rate, Bing is truly and unexcusably terrible.

I wonder if XMPP or CalDAV appreciate the "benefits" that Google brought them now, post dagger in their back.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[6]: Comment by marcp
by JAlexoid on Mon 27th May 2013 19:24 in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by marcp"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

I have no illusions about why Microsoft chooses to make something open source.

Yes - platfrom proliferation. Google's SoC is mostly about talent search. Google's open-source initiatives are mostly out of conflict with their core business, same as Microsoft. Though considering that Google is a services company, they shouldn't release as much as they do.

Reply Parent Score: 2