Underlying platforms, frameworks, even formats are proprietary and Microsoft patents-encumbered
Saugatuck has just published the results of a study where it analysed the impact of companies (referred to as “vendors”) on open source. Among the findings there are hints about why Microsoft wants authority. It’s all about controlling and taming projects through .NET, patents, Windows and formats like OOXML, then having a band of free labourers. That’s how it views it. This is not open source; it’s just Microsoft's vision of it, which is self serving.
Useful to Microsoft
Savio is still pushing his ‘proprietary open source’ agenda (see the banner on the right):
I was a little surprised when I stumbled on this page about “Open Source .Net eXchange.” It’s a mini-conference in London, UK, for .Net developers who are, or are thinking about, using open source.
I agree with Rodrigues’ conclusion that this event is but one small example of instances in which developers can and do have a foot on each side of the open vs. proprietary fence.
This is about marrying the two, for Microsoft to have parenthood of “open source” — through formats, APIs and platform.
This is the ‘Microsoftication’ of “open source”, which some certain self-professed Mac fans and self-appointed open source advocates seem to welcome.
What Readers Say
Avoid Microsoft led technologies, since these benefit the MS monopolies, since these do not disclose the many other details that would be needed for interop beyond the core shell spec.
The biggest problem with OOXML was that it didn’t leverage even one teensy bit the existing ISO document format, ODF. It threw a ton of existing investments down the drain.
Amazingly, instead of finishing up SVG, OOXML supporters decide to start implementing from scratch a multi-thousand page format that re-invents the SVG wheel and a whole lot of other wheels. Go figure.
Slated, whose thoughts on SUSE/Novell/Microsoft were published earlier today, later commented on Microsoft’s attitude towards its resistors, which it consistently tries to characterise as “Haters” (among other similarly-pointless labels [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6]. He wrote:
“One wonders why exactly they hate Linux and the Free Software community. I mean after all – at least any hatred against Microsoft would be justified by, amongst many other (extremely well documented) things, their sabotage of a charity for nothing more than mindshare.
“[A] Microsoft supporter hating those who dissent against Microsoft, is like a criminal hating the police for catching him.”“But a Microsoft supporter hating those who dissent against Microsoft, is like a criminal hating the police for catching him. It’s nothing more than knee-jerk reciprocation and mindless contradiction. Was the DOJ engaged in a “campaign of hate” when they prosecuted Microsoft for violation of section 2 of the Sherman Act? Well obviously they must have been, since they dared to challenge Micfrosoft’s “right” to operate like gangsters. Punishing criminals is obviously wrong, so dissenting against the persistently unethical behaviour of those criminals is therefore purely irrational hatred, naturally.
“When such people are reminded of how Microsoft bribed ISO delegates to support OOXML, and bribed Nigerian education officials to wipe Mandriva from children’s laptops, and any one of the thousands of other vile things that Microsoft do as their standard business practise, does it even register in their minds, I wonder, or is it filtered out by their rose-tinted spectacles?
“There can be only one of two possible explanations. Either they believe that all of this documented evidence against Microsoft is a lie (presumably including all the evidence provided by the DOJ; the EU commission; Joe Comes; and countless others in court), or they fully accept the truth of this evidence, but just happen to think it’s perfectly acceptable behaviour.
“In other words they are either utterly delusional or evil.
“Take your pick.” █