Submitted by Red Hat is actively talking to Microsoft to improve Linux/Windows interoperability, but says it will only sign an interoperability agreement with Microsoft if it is based entirely on open standards.
Red Hat is actively talking to Microsoft to improve Linux/Windows interoperability, but says it will only sign an interoperability agreement with Microsoft if it is based entirely on open standards.
Way to go Red Hat. See what weasel words the MS PR nonsense tries to spew out in response to this.
Or Novell’s PR response for that matter. This is a left jab at Microsoft and a right cross at Novell. Microsoft is Microsoft. We all know where they stand on open standards–nowhere. But Novell is selling a platform for which one of the most compelling advantages is open standards with no vendor lock-in. The Microsoft deal damages Novell’s credibility as a supporter of open standards and sends the message that Novell is the only flavor of Linux devoid of intellectual property risks. Red Hat is going to play this to their advantage by professing their undying commitment to open standards and by continuing to provide patent indemnification on their own terms.
We all know where they stand on open standards–nowhere
On the contrary, to paraphrase a twentieth-century writer of dystopias, if you want to know what the future of Microsoft and open standards will be like, imagine a giant boot stamping on open standards forever.
TFA:
If software communicates via published, standardized interfaces, WTF is the deal?
The problem is that the interfaces that MS software uses to communicate aren’t published/standarized. That’s one of the reasons you can’t really use Linux servers in offices with desktop networks that need to be managed – they’re going to be Windows machines, and only windows servers konw how to those machines.
That’s how Microsoft has managed to build a big server market share – using their desktop monopoly and their closed-source practices to keep other servers from being useful.
If software communicates via published, standardized interfaces, WTF is the deal?
It’s not a big deal. Red Hat appears to be seeking cheap PR.
Negative. Redhat merely wants to use openly documented APIs with no limitations on the use of them, whereas the API of Microsoft is mostly undocumented and often not legal to use in F/LOSS.
Redhats “demand” is quite natural and not really a story. The same would go for a statement from Microsoft stating doubts about that direction.
I know you are an astroturfer, and always have to twist facts to fit your crusade against the rest of the world, but please stop it, and start using your brain for something good, tomcat. Your lack of a professional attitude towards technology is becoming annoying.
Agreed, in fact this site should implement a blacklist, whereby I can add people I think are just here to astroturf.
Then, if too many people add them to the list, they automatically get -2 on their posts.
I think you get ignore lists when you pay for membership here.
Oh, in case you don’t use that site, I sent you a private message on the beta.
Nice one 😉
And that’s how it doesn’t work with Microsoft. APIs are not published nor standardized, so the deal is to either enhance interoperability solely through existing or new open standards or turn existing undocumented and unstandardized API into one more open standards.
MS does not want open standards, they want vendor lock-in.
Open standard are just standards. No one is forced to abide by them.
But in that case the software package cannot be claimed to follow an open standard
Following open standards makes it easier to communicate – but if you don’t want to communicate you can just choose not to. If Microsoft is serious about interoperability they have to open up. No openness – no communication.
Microsoft can choose what they want in interoperability by themselves. They don’t need to follow another’s definition of interoperability. No need to be “open” to communicate.
And that also applies for others, they don’t have to follow what MicroSoft claims are open standards when in fact they are not.
There is only one definition of interoperability.
Interoperability means two completely different packages can cooperate. That cannot be done without standards. And if everybody has to be able to communicate the standard must be open.
The goal here is to secure that everybody can communicate without having to choose one specific product. Therefore open standards are the only way.
Microsoft only wants interoperability in the sense of having versions of MS Office to communicate with other versions of MS Office.
You cannot communicate with an arbitrary number of third party packages without open standards. Without open standards you can only communicate with yourself. But yes, Microsoft is free to do so
The circumstance on how interoperability is achieved is not written in stone. “Open” standards isn’t the only way to achieve interoperability. Some Linux companies went ahead and licensed the Windows Media codecs. Interoperability was achieved.
🙂
Yes, for a limited numbers of partners. What this is about is interoperability for everybody. The license agreements did not secure that goal.
You are talking about interoperability for a limited number of partners. Redhat and F/LOSS in general are targeting interoperability for an unlimited number of partners.
And that’s the difference.
Some Linux companies went ahead and licensed the Windows Media codecs. Interoperability was achieved.
This has FA to do with achieving interoperability but everything to do with the evil of software patents. The problem of interoperability with multimedia using the Windows Media codecs has been solved using reverse enginerring with ffmpeg.
I can happily play practically any windows media content using ffmpeg on my Linux sytem without using any windows media codecs. The problem is the software patents that MS and its corporate partners hold on the codecs that make it effectively impossible for distributions to bundle ffmpeg binaries.
We don’t need to “licence” the codecs we need to end the protection racket and extortion that is allowed by having the abomination of software patents.
You can’t legally patent mathematics, all software is composed of mathematical algorithms, therefore all software patents are fraudulent.
Edited 2007-05-12 00:32
You can’t legally patent mathematics
damn, and I was just about to fill in the patent forms for the following;
Square brackets
Round brackets
Equals sign
Question mark, (my own invention btw)
Thats me going to have to make an honest living now
You can’t legally patent mathematics, all software is composed of mathematical algorithms, therefore all software patents are fraudulent.
Algorithms are exactly the sort of thing that were intended to be patented in the first place. US Constitution, article I, section 8. Have you ever seen a patent? Somewhere, the function of the device has to be described algorithmically. It doesn’t matter if the device is a physical construct, a bit of code, or a chemical formula.
The idea that you can’t patent a process, only a physical product, comes from the days of Carnegie Steel and Standard Oil. If you remember your history, these two actual monopolies which both abused the fact that small companies couldn’t patent their ideas. Their ‘research’ divisions would often as not find better ways being done by small companies, and take them without credit or permission; when the new idea hit the larger company’s resources, the larger company’s qualities and profits soared, and the little guy died off forgotten. A modern comparison would be if there was an omnipresent license that allowed large software companies (such as Red Hat, Novell, and Linspire) to rip off the work of hundreds of smaller companies without having to pay them a dime – oh, wait.
(Curiously, in both cases, the ‘good guys’ in the disputes — unions versus the big corporations, and the copyleft movement versus IP-retaining programmers — had at least as much bad as good with them; unions usually brought in organized crime and violently enforced membership, while the copyleft movement is trying to change the law to end private intellectual rights altogether. Must the ‘cure’ always be worse than the disease?)
Have you ever seen a patent?
Yes many, but they have all been in the chemical and pharmaceutical industry. I no longer look at patents, like the Linux kernel developers, my colleagues and I have been told not to look at patents anymore and for the same reasons. In these cases the patents all describe processes but processes carried out to produce a physical product.
Algorithms are exactly the sort of thing that were intended to be patented in the first place. US Constitution, article I, section 8.
“To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries” is indeed dangerously broad and seems to allow for this abomination. Not being a USian I have not read the US constitution in detail before.
However in recent times the US Patent Office took the position that patents could not be granted to scientific truths or mathematical expressions of them. On this basis they refused to accept software patents until 1981 when the USPTO lost a court case and was compelled to grant a patent on a software program.
In a series of subsequent cases courts ruled that when mathematical algorithms and data structures are loaded as computer programs, installing them on a physical machine makes them a physical product. Thus any software patent becomes effectively allowable.
This is the origin of the whole sorry mess we see today. While I oppose software patents on the grounds no scientific of mathematical knowledge should be patentable, this does not mean that I oppose all patents or copyright for a reasonable length of time. After all the GPL depends on the effective use of copyright law.
“Open standard are just standards. No one is forced to abide by them.
”
Why does MS not support open standards? Maybe it is because they are afraid people will not continue to pay obnoxious prices for their software, if they don’t lock them in with closed standards.
Why does MS not support open standards? They do support some standards. Just not the ones you want. MS are free to do what they want.
“They do support some standards. Just not the ones you want. MS are free to do what they want.
”
MS could easily support open standards, but they choose not to. There are obviously sinister motives behind this decision. People should use software that supports open standards, and oppose vendor lock-in.
“People should use software that supports open standards, and oppose vendor lock-in.”
No. Let people be free to do what they want. What you want is forcing people into what you think is right.
edit: typo
Edited 2007-05-11 18:11
No he doesn’t want to force people. Wanting and forcing is to different things. Microsoft is forcing people to do something, F/LOSS is wanting people to do something – but leaving the choice to the end user.
Arguing that people should do something does not equal forcing them.
“Let people be free to do what they want. What you want is forcing people into what you think is right.”
People should be free to choose the software they want to use, they should not be forced to use certain software because closed standards have locked them in. MS refusal to support open standards is malevolent.
Open standards = Freedom
Doing what you want = Freedom
Just because someone doesn’t appeal to your ideals doesn’t mean that they have obvious sinister motives or are malevolent.
😉
“Doing what you want = Freedom”
I agree, but closed standards prevent people from “doing what they want”.
“Just because someone doesn’t appeal to your ideals doesn’t mean that they have obvious sinister motives or are malevolent.”
Do you think MS is refusing to support open standards because it benefits their customers? MS is a totalitarian software dictatorship that is trying to force people to use their software by locking them in with closed standards. Open standard benefits consumers and that is why MS opposes them.
“I agree, but closed standards prevent people from “doing what they want”.”
No. You and anyone else can make up a competing standard like OpenDocument formats (ODF). There are other document formats from Lotus SmartSuite and the WordPerfect Suite.
“Do you think MS is refusing to support open standards because it benefits their customers? MS is a totalitarian software dictatorship that is trying to force people to use their software by locking them in with closed standards. Open standard benefits consumers and that is why MS opposes them.”
I knew it would come up…
Microsoft isn’t a totalitarian software dictatorship. Governments don’t have laws that make software competing with Microsoft software illegal. If they were one, they’d probably force hardware vendors to hire MS devs make their peripheral drivers.
Microsoft doesn’t oppose Open Standards. They just use want they want. In the end, it comes down to how it will benefit their customers and shareholders.
“You and anyone else can make up a competing standard like OpenDocument formats (ODF). There are other document formats from Lotus SmartSuite and the WordPerfect Suite.”
True, but MS is trying to make the adoption of these standards as difficult as possible. That is not very nice of them. 🙁
“Microsoft isn’t a totalitarian software dictatorship. Governments don’t have laws that make software competing with Microsoft software illegal.”
MS is an incredibly vile company, they do everything they can to lock-in consumers. How many antitrust laws have they broken? They did not get the marketshare they have by being nice to consumers.
“If they were one, they’d probably force hardware vendors to hire MS devs make their peripheral drivers.
”
MS is forcing the use of “signed” drivers.
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060201-6098.html
“Microsoft doesn’t oppose Open Standards. They just use want they want. In the end, it comes down to how it will benefit their customers and shareholders.”
MS does oppose open standards, vendor lock-in deprives consumers of choice. MS abuses their customers with impunity, just like a dictator.
you wrote: Doing what you want = Freedom
Yes, Microsoft is free to do what they want. They’re free to lock customers in and then kick them around when there are no viable options left. You’re right, that is freedom – for a software vendor.
That screws the rest of the software communities and the users. They’re left with having to decode, reverse engineer, guess, test and re-test in some cases just to have interoperability.
You’re almost certainly intelligent enough to know what these people are trying to tell you. I think you’d prefer to play a semantics game and end each post with a winky-face.
I am sorry ronaldst, but do you realize what you are saying? Pretty funny, actually. George Orwell refered to this as “Double Speak”.
Red Hat has drawn a line in the sand while Microsoft is trying to circle the wagons. Red Hat’s position getting in front of the shifting paradigm’s is reflected well with their statements. The Red Hat is dealing with Intel, Sybase, Google, etc, and doing very well. Red Hat has reaffirmed its long term goals with this, while Novel, Microsoft, and Dell are struggling for short term gains.
No. Let people be free to do what they want. What you want is forcing people into what you think is right.
I suspect that letting some people drive on the other side of the road to everyone else will create more chaos than you can imagine.
Why does MS not support open standards? They do support some standards. Just not the ones you want. MS are free to do what they want.
And Redhat’s free to refuse to sign an agreement that isn’t based on open standards. And the sky is blue.
“People should use software that supports open standards, and oppose vendor lock-in.”
No. Let people be free to do what they want. What you want is forcing people into what you think is right.
How on earth do you get “forcing people” out of “people should”? I might say you should stop trying to pretend closed “standards” promote freedom, but that wouldn’t be forcing you to.
Addressing that: it takes a real stretch to claim that closed standards promote freedom and interoperability. Anyone who wants interoperability can only get it on Microsoft’s terms. Why don’t you just admit that is the point, and that you and Microsoft are fine with that? Microsoft is free (ignoring Neelie Kroes) to try to prevent interoperability. Just please stop trying to paint that as freedom for anyone other than Microsoft.
“How on earth do you get “forcing people” out of “people should”?”
Since when did doing what one wants mysteriously evolve into an “obvious sinister motives” or “are malevolent”.
It is obviously a sinister motive when you don’t want to give freedom to others. Microsoft don’t want people to be free. Ergo Microsoft has an obviously sinister motive.
It is obviously a sinister motive when you don’t want to give freedom to others. Microsoft don’t want people to be free.
Oh, please. “Freedom” in the context of software has about as much meaning as “intellectual property” in the context of law. Both terms just muddy the waters of any intelligent and rational discussion.
That’s bullshit. Of course one can use freedom in the context of software. The freedom to use software as you like and the freedom to modify software as you like, just to give you to examples where freedom in the context of software is quite fitting.
Microsoft don’t want people to be free.
Wait. Say that again.
*snrrk*
Thats pretty much what I was just about to say. You don’t have to use standards but they are nice if you want to play with others.
RH would be glad to inter-operate with MS/Windows, but only with open standards. MS only wants their closed APIs. RH won’t budge. Good for them. Good to see RH “has a pair”. They’re only willing to deal with “the beast” on their terms.
By contrast, Novell caved and became MS’s b!tch, compromising the GPL and the good will of the community, and giving MS more FUD material. Novell is the turtle blindly, foolishly, giving the scorpion a ride across the river under the promise the scorpion won’t sting it on the way.
There’s no surprise that RH is hugely profitable, and Novell has been losing money for years.
Just keep something in mind. Novell might have opened the door to let the FUD in, but a subset of the community are the ones actually shoveling it through. Microsoft has barely had to say anything.
Just keep something in mind. Novell might have opened the door to let the FUD in, but a subset of the community are the ones actually shoveling it through
I keep hearing this, and wonder quite frankly wtf it refers too. The only ones saying that Linux violates MS IP are Novell (whose actions speak louder than their words), Microsoft (who have a vested interest in Linux failing) and Miguel de Icaza, about whom it could only be said that he is a godsend for Microsoft.
It’s pretty simple. How about the Microsoft/Novell deal “violates the GPL” that we heard early on? Oh wait, no, it just violates the spirit now. Or how about “Novell forking OpenOffice.org”? Go read any Novell related thread here, slashdot, and groklaw and read some of the ridiculous comments if you want more proof.
Look, Novell is not innocent by any stretch. They made a business decision which was probably ill advised. The management clearly did not expect the response they have received. However, I can’t even remember how many comments I’ve read on the sites mentioned above which cry that Novell is trying to kill Linux on purpose or something equally ridiculous.
The point is, Microsoft merely needed to make a few thinly veiled comments about IP or Patents and part of the community has lent credence to those absolutely unsubstantiated claims by continuing to refer to them as more than unsubstantiated BS and making other absurd statements like the OO.org comment above.
And finally, Miguel de Icaza is not a godsend for Microsoft. Let’s be real here, there is not a 50/50 split in market share between Windows/Office and Linux/OpenOffice. Microsoft is not fighting for its life here. It’s the dominant player, whether we like it or not. One developer will not sway the multi billion dollar a year IT segment, not anymore these days.
“We’ll let you be compatible with our software, but only if you break compatibility with all your other current and legacy software. Oh, and we’ll use the word ‘open’ to market our proprietary standards, so we sound like the good guys in this.”
Sounds like Red Hat isn’t really trying that hard to court Microsoft. This deal’s going to quietly die.
Of course the deal is going to die. Microsoft wants Redhat to be incompatible with the rest of the F/LOSS software – including F/LOSS legacy software. Microsoft don’t want to work with others so the deal will likely die.
OTOH, none of the open standards are proprietary. A proprietary standard is a standard nobody else can use unless they pay for it or has the right to use the standard severely restricted.
An open standard is a standard anybody can use without restrictions and without any kind of payment.
Claiming that open standards are proprietary just proves you are a liar and an astroturfer. The OpenDocument standard is not proprietary and has no limitations on usage.
OTOH Microsofts proprietary OOXML (Office Open XML) is an example of a proprietary standard called “Open” just to market a proprietary standard. It is – in most cases due to backwards “compatibility”) merely a wrapper around binary blobs.
There is more than one company that may still exist today if they had the guts to demand this of MicroSoft in the past.
Too often MS has take an open or publicly documented standard then put their own little twist on it so that their OS/programs work fine but outside code would not. This would often freeze out the original developing company from the MS_OS market.
RH by demanding only open standards will not find itself at first only compatible to MicroSoft’s market but locked out of the UNIX/Linux market, then have MicroSoft make more changes to the standard, thus finding themselves incompatible with everybody.
Too many companies in the past who’s directors spend their time looking at their stock prices instead of the long term future of the company got into bed with MS, saw a big spike in their stock prices, maybe even collected a big bonus because of that but in a year or two they vanish after MicroSoft makes thei final moves to take over the market.
Remember, MicroSoft never wants to share a market, it want to own it 100%. I don’t even think that is a wrong way for it to act as a corporation, but it is just dumb for anyone to enter in a partnership with MicroSoft with expecting MS to try and take over the market.
Open Standards removes one of MicroSoft’s most powerful tools in taking over said markets.
Good on you Red Hat for doing the right thing and not bowing down to Microsoft and screwing over your customers vis a vis Novell.
Nah, those two concepts do not add up.
Microsofts primary objective is this;
To make as much money as possible for its shareholders.
There is nothing actually wrong with that, they are a corporation at the end of the day, but some people here are 100% loyal to Microsoft, and they think Microsoft are being loyal to customers.
Microsoft will never interoperate fully for the following reasons;
1: Letting other OSs fully work with Office will negate the need for Windows
2: Letting other office suites fully work with Office will negate the need for Office.
3: If some OS can do everything EXACTLY like Windows/Office, what is the need for Microsoft products in the first place ?
No, Microsoft will keep everything tightly locked down for their future survival.
A lot of astroturfers here think Microsoft does not lock you into an upgrade cycle, but how many people using Office 2000 can open Office 2003 files ?
Vista has not got its own version of Office yet,YET, but when it does, it will only run on Vista, so if Joe Public starts to send you .DOC attachements from his Vista Office, they will be useless to you, until you upgrade to Vista and to Vista Office. Hence, YOU are locked into an upgrade cycle.
This is not for YOUR benefit, this is purely for the benefit of Microsofts shareholders. This must be stopped.
SUPPORT THE USE OF OPEN FORMATS ONLY
For the most part, they’d still be open-source, and thus beneath your notice.
I use Office 2000. My professors, for the most part, use 2003. I can read everything they send just fine. Some even have Vista already, while I still have XP. Of course, I shouldn’t open the files at all, because according to a pundit on the Internet I’m locked into an upgrade cycle that means I can’t.
Which includes all Microsoft customers; they may not own stock in Microsoft, but they share in its success. Microsoft having the money to fund better versions of Office, Internet Explorer, Media Player, more researchers, more bug-killers, new projects like Silverlight and Codeplex, etc., means higher-quality product and broader support for us. But wait; Microsoft making better product for us isn’t for our benefit, because some person on the Internet says they want to rule the world.
Edited 2007-05-12 07:46
Microsoft having the money to fund … new projects like Silverlight and Codeplex, etc., means higher-quality product and broader support for us. But wait; Microsoft making better product for us isn’t for our benefit, because some person on the Internet says they want to rule the world.
Very amusing. Any platform can use SVG and other standards, but Silverlight uses the VC-1 video codec, which is patented and AFAIK can’t be used in free software.
So if Microsoft convinces many websites to use it, they will have created incentive for users to stay locked into a proprietary platform. That may not be ruling the world, but it sure doesn’t promote freedom.
You’ll be interested in knowing it not only has been successfully used in free software, Linux implemented a GPL’d program of the VC-1 standard before Microsoft did. The reference only costs a few hundred to obtain.
Out of curiousity, who do you think owns VC-1?
According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VC-1 there are actually 15 companies in the VC-1 patent pool.
Actually, I didn’t know the history and use of VC-1. But Microsoft has a history of developing stuff that they have some angle on that prevents free usage by other platforms. So please excuse my skepticism if I expect that Silverlight will present problems to free implementations.
Had you said anything remotely like that about open office and linux you would have been an instant “-5 post”
And you would be told to stop the fud.
I wont mod you down nor will i tell you to stop the fud. I’ll only ask of you only to talk about stuff you actually know something about.
A coule of days ago i recivede a word document from office 2007 when i tried to open it in my office 2003 it asked me if i wanted to download a converter so i could use it in 2003 and since i needed to read the sheit i did. Problem solved with a single download. The best part i did’nt have to do anything but install the converter.
Had you said anything remotely like that about open office and linux you would have been an instant “-5 post”
Do you really not see the difference? OpenOffice is open. They are not making any attempt to lock you in to some proprietary format. They are not using copyrights or secret implementations to prevent you from using another product to interact with the documents you create with it. The same cannot be said of Microsoft, even if the specific prediction you reference proves untrue.
So if anyone posts something totally nonsensical like a new version of Linux locks you into a new version of OpenOffice, then of course it should be demoted.
A coule of days ago i recivede a word document from office 2007 when i tried to open it in my office 2003 it asked me if i wanted to download a converter so i could use it in 2003 and since i needed to read the sheit i did. Problem solved with a single download. The best part i did’nt have to do anything but install the converter.
Good for you….
Now where is my Office2007 converter for Office XP.
I cannot open them.
Like you, I was able to download the converter for 2003, but, as I still have to support Office from 97 onwards, interoperability between Microsofts own products is a big big problem.
You asked me only to speak about stuff that I know about ?
Listen young man, when you actually get out of your mothers basement and get a real job supporting business and industry, you will realise that interoprability is not just as black and white as you think :p
Did i say you could..? Please show mere where i said that.
Show me where i said otherwise… It cant be to hard since it seems you like to think i did.
Now i’ll try not to get down to your level. Thats just sad and your coment about me living in my parents basement makes me believe you do that your self.
Fist off i havent lived in my parents house for almost 10 years now and even then they did’nt have a basement. They still don’t actually.
And i do have a real job supporting both business and industry… I’m one of those that have to suffer the Microsoft way every day at work so you don’t need to tell me that it isn’t black and white. But it pays the bills. Hell i would even work with linux if i was paid enough.
I swear you MS haters just take the smallest bit of FUD and shout it from the rooftops without even considering to consult Google or Wikipedia first.
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?displaylang=en&Fami…
THERE IS ONLY ONE COMPATIBILTY PACK FROM MICROSOFT AND IT WORKS FOR OFFICE 2000, XP, AND 2003.
http://www.docx2doc.com/
http://www.panergy-software.com/products/docxconverter/features.htm…
Edited 2007-05-12 18:25