07.29.10
Giving Your Data to Microsoft, Now Available as ‘Open Source’ (for Windows Only)
Summary: Another fresh look at what Microsoft means when it talks about Open Source inside the company (Fog Computing and lock-in)
ONE of Microsoft’s top boosters, Marius Oiaga, occasionally plays along with the Microsoft deception about “Open Source” and the likes of that. Many boosters of the company do not do this, but Oiaga does indeed. He did this again some days ago and Microsoft is seen pretending to be open with the word “Interoperability” and other buzzwords. We saw this before and last week we posted a long rebuttal. They essentially reuse the same talking points, so this rebuttal possibly applies to many public talks where Microsoft deceives the audience.
Jean Paoli, known to us for his role in the corruption-filled pursuit for a rubber stamp for OOXML, says things like “We have produced several useful open source tools and SDKs for developers, including the Windows Azure Command-line Tools for PHP,” but guess what? It’s Windows-only software that only serves Microsoft in the sense that it helps put people’s data inside Microsoft’s datacentres (Fog Computing). Watch out for Microsoft’s (mis)use of the term “Open Source”, or at least the general principles. █
Needs Sunlight said,
July 29, 2010 at 1:41 pm
As much as it pains to link to Flash, there is a quote mid-way about interoperability never having been a priority for Microsoft. A classic Nordic understatement.
http://jz10.java.no/java-4-ever-trailer.html
Dr. Roy Schestowitz Reply:
July 29th, 2010 at 2:11 pm
The word “interoperability” usually means patents too when Microsoft says it.
Needs Sunlight Reply:
July 29th, 2010 at 2:24 pm
Microserf is a whole separate dialect of English.
e.g. “I innovated a donut off of an old man after I knocked him down a flight of stairs in his wheel chair.”
Amicus_Curious said,
July 29, 2010 at 2:05 pm
The vast majority of the world’s computer users and software developers don’t have any concern for operating systems beyond knowing what others are using. In the case of the user, the ubiquity of Windows eliminates any concern for mis-selecting of technology since there is really only the one choice and applications are therefore going to be compatible for certain. From an application developer’s point of view, there is no need to accomodate beyond Windows APIs since the users are mostly equipped with machines that work that way. For a few cases where it is desired to offer applications compatible with the Apple Macintosh, the extra work can be justified based on expected revenues (or not) on a case by case basis.
The sense of “open source” comes from the widespread availability of SDKs, APSs, and programming tools that put all developers, large or small or even individual, on the same level and give each the opportunity to compete equally with others.
That is where the FLOSS cultists miss the boat. Next to no one cares about how the application is built, they only care about how well it works and if it does not work well enough they will seek another application. They are not going to bother to try to fix it themselves even if they were capable. They have their own fish to fry and piddling around with someone else’s mistakes is hardly an interesting occupation. Of course there are the few who do seem to want to do just that, but they are folks whom you probably should avoid any contact with.
Needs Sunlight Reply:
July 29th, 2010 at 2:25 pm
Oh the troll is back. Don’t lie. You know very well that the M$ products are not compatible with each other. The difference is wagged as bait to force upgrades.
Dr. Roy Schestowitz Reply:
July 29th, 2010 at 2:47 pm
It’s the same troll (Bill Weisgerber) who has been plaguing ZDNet, USENET Linux newsgroups, Groklaw and other Linux sites for about a decade or more.
Several years ago someone sent me the following E-mail: