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 562884
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[7]: Comment by marcp
by Nelson on Sun 26th May 2013 21:37 UTC 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[8]: Comment by marcp
by Valhalla on Mon 27th May 2013 15:53 in reply to "RE[7]: Comment by marcp"
Valhalla Member since:
2006-01-24

The same could be said about every company, including Google. Google uses open source because it is a convenient tool,

It doesn't matter why they are supporting open source, the end result is that they are supporting open source, which ends up benefiting open source.

I'm using their services for as long as they keep supporting open source, again, if they stop supporting open source, or someone else comes along and does a better job at it while offering the same services I will jump ship in a heartbeat.

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

Of course there is, Google is actively supporting lots of open source projects right now, Microsoft, not so much.

Microsoft happens to offer Azure choice (as opposed to lock in) because they want reach across a broad spectrum of developer tools.

Drop the corporate bullshit speak, Microsoft wants in on the 'cloud' action as it's a massively growing market, a market where their desktop monopoly isn't giving them any OEM favours and where other systems already have a large presence. That large presence means that unless they support those other systems, companies won't use their cloud offering.

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.

Let's compare, Google offer a royalty free codec which anyone can implement for free, the resulting video files can be distributed for free, this means a free standard for video across the internet.

Microsoft wants to push a royalty laden video codec format from which they will gain royalities, which company has a 'vested interest' here?

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

Not if you rely on any of Microsoft's proprietary Windows-only 'technologies' aswell.

Microsoft locks you in by providing Windows only technology, that obviously doesn't preclude them from bringing in popular outside technology with which they can't compete.

It's like DirectX / OpenGL, one is a proprietary Windows only 'technology', the other is a cross platform open technology.

Microsoft wants to lock-in as much software as possible using their proprietary DirectX, but they can't afford to not support OpenGL since there is a lot of key software which requires it.

The whole point is to is to lock users to their platform. -'Look, you can have all our windows only shiny toys and the cross platform shiny toys!'

So yes, Microsoft helping to support Node on Windows is perfectly in line with serving their vendor lock-in strategy.

One isn't magically better than the other,

Certainly not, it's practically better than the other when it comes to open source, as in actual support to open source projects in the form of code and funding.


This is false.

No it's not, Microsoft .NET is not an open source platform. It's a proprietary platform with some open source components.

The crux of the argument is that the differences are imaginary.

No the crux of the argument is that you are lying through your teeth, whatever the motivations of Google's open source support are, the end result is that they are benefiting free cross platform open source much more than Microsoft.

That is NOT an 'imaginary' difference.

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.

Oh please, now you are outright lying (as opposed to lying through your teeth), Google contributes far more to open source than Microsoft. How can you pretend otherwise?

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've already said the exact thing about Google, or ANY company.

So I look at what they actually do for that which I care for, and Google contributes a lot of open source code, and also money to a lot of open source projects which I use.

And that's what it boils down to, they do more for open source than any other company offering similar services, so I use their services.

If you cared about open source you'd push open source, not help prop up a company that is detrimental to open source.

Bullshit, how is Google detrimental to open source? In comparison to what?

I think it sucks that they abandoned open standard solutions for interoperability, but that doesn't make them worse than the competition, not better, but certainly not worse.

Beyond that their open source contributions/funding still stands, unlike that of the competition.

So when it comes to whose services I use, it's still going to be Google, until something better comes along.

Me, personally, I don't give a rats ass about open source.

It's your prerogative, while I don't find anything ethically wrong with proprietary code, I find open source to be practically superior as I or anyone else can examine, enhance and of course use it.

You're so against Microsoft that you've started shilling for a company that acts just like them.

Only thing I 'shill' for is open source (ok, Haiku aswell). My dislike for Microsoft comes from their aggression towards open source and open source projects, aswell as their long history of extremely dirty tactics.

Congrats, you're trying extraordinarily hard to be me. ;)

You wish ;) Even if I wanted to be 'shilling' for open source the way you 'shill' for Microsoft I just wouldn't find the time, between work and family there's no way I could keep up.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[9]: Comment by marcp
by Nelson on Tue 28th May 2013 17:28 in reply to "RE[8]: Comment by marcp"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

It doesn't matter why they are supporting open source, the end result is that they are supporting open source, which ends up benefiting open source.


But it clearly didn't benefit XMPP. They have now had their technology and hardwork used by Google to Google's benefit, without Google contributing much back, and in fact dumping the technology when they no longer needed it.

Where is the benefit in that? How is XMPP better off? How is CalDAV better off? They're not. This is a variant of EEE, a Microsoft tactic.


I'm using their services for as long as they keep supporting open source, again, if they stop supporting open source, or someone else comes along and does a better job at it while offering the same services I will jump ship in a heartbeat.


Microsoft and Google both misuse open source. You're just hyper sensitive to Microsoft's actions and blind to Google's. Whereas Microsoft is the arch nemesis of open source, you view Google through understanding and sympathetic glasses (no pun intended) while making excuses.

Later in your comment you misunderstood my position. It isnt that Google doesn't contribute more to open source, it's that you use that to excuse Google's harm to open source. That is where I believe you're wrong, along side being wrong about Microsoft having a culture of lock in.

Google's lock in is actually clear to anyone who wishes to have Push Gmail and not use their official apps. Google's lock in exists in that they force you to use Google sanctioned platforms to have a premium experience with YouTube. Windows Phone and Windows 8 are proof positive of this.

Drop the corporate bullshit speak, Microsoft wants in on the 'cloud' action as it's a massively growing market, a market where their desktop monopoly isn't giving them any OEM favours and where other systems already have a large presence. That large presence means that unless they support those other systems, companies won't use their cloud offering.


So is Microsoft locking you into Windows Azure? You can go on and on about why they don't lock you in (which I disagree with, but its obvious we won't get anywhere there), but it doesn't answer that key question. In what way are you locked into Azure? When instances can be managed by open source tools, provisioned by open source tools, and services can be developed and deployed with open source tools.

Its one thing for it to be a token gesture of interoperability, but its another thing to have high quality SDKs for a variety of languages and support for various open technologies like Git and Hadoop.


Let's compare, Google offer a royalty free codec which anyone can implement for free, the resulting video files can be distributed for free, this means a free standard for video across the internet. Microsoft wants to push a royalty laden video codec format from which they will gain royalities, which company has a 'vested interest' here?


Oh come on, Google having control over the default web codec has far larger rammifications than royalties that most end users never pay over H264.

Besides, Nokia has an IPR declaration on VP8 and various pending cases, so its relative safety remains to be seen in the courts.

Not if you rely on any of Microsoft's proprietary Windows-only 'technologies' aswell. Microsoft locks you in by providing Windows only technology, that obviously doesn't preclude them from bringing in popular outside technology with which they can't compete.


Are you aware that you can do everything end to end using open technologies? You can fully manage, provision, and develop on Azure using open technologies. The only thing proprietary are the PaaS things like Azure Table/Blob Storage, SQL Azure, etc. which is the same were you deployed on AWS and used their key/value stores. This is where actually knowing about the technology helps.


It's like DirectX / OpenGL, one is a proprietary Windows only 'technology', the other is a cross platform open technology. Microsoft wants to lock-in as much software as possible using their proprietary DirectX, but they can't afford to not support OpenGL since there is a lot of key software which requires it. The whole point is to is to lock users to their platform.


But if you're using OpenGL, you're not using DirectX. Its about developer choice, not ideology. Developer choice is as much a selling point as proprietary technology when you're a services vendor. What you're seeing is Microsoft's transition into a services company.

Thats where there's less of an emphasis on lock in, and more of an emphasis on reach. My prediction is that you'll see Microsoft become more Google like in its use of open standards and open technologies to bootstrap their services.

No it's not, Microsoft .NET is not an open source platform. It's a proprietary platform with some open source components.


Proprietary platform built on open technologies, mostly open components with a few sprinkles of Microsoft stuff on top thats not in the base class library and was never meant to be portable.

Its like dinging C++ for being non portable because the Windows SDK that sits on top of it doesn't run on Linux.
Again, these are not sublte differences I'm particularly interested in rehashing over and over. If you still don't get it after this, then there's a saying about leading a horse to water which I think is applicable here.

Bullshit, how is Google detrimental to open source?


You answer your own question:

I think it sucks that they abandoned open standard solutions for interoperability, but


And the "but" at the end is particularly telling. They abandoned open standards. It sucks. There's no excuse.
They're a business. They do this. Just like Microsoft does it.

You might point to open standards or technologies that Google contributes to right now, but remember, they were very friendly with XMPP, right until they weren't.

Reply Parent Score: 3