Microsoft and interoperability with Linux

[Georges Rodier]

In a post some days ago reference was made to a 2012 article touting
Microsoft's contributions to the Linux kernel. The article also
attempted to put down Canonical for not being a great contributor to the
Linux kernel. It should also be noted that M$'s vaunted 1% has dropped
off dramatically in this past year. To my mind, that article was a good
example of apples and oranges. I found the more recent article in
Arstechnica more focused on the Linux kernel and it does note that
"Microsoft fell of the list".
http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/2166123/microsoft-contributed-code-canonical-linux-2632 

In all of the recent discussions regarding Microsoft and any
contribution they may have made to the Linux kernel what came to my mind
was a presentation made by an official "interoperability" person
directly from Redmond, WA, also in 2012.

The presentation I refer to was made to VanLUG (Vancouver Linux Users
Group) as an adjunct to "Make Web Not War" sponsored by M$ and held in
Vancouver, BC, during May 2012. What follows are thoughts recorded
shortly after that presentation. These are my personal thoughts and
opinions and are not to be construed as an official opinion of VanLUG,
though, naturally, I would hope many would share my views. I likewise
readily acknowledge there may be several if not many on this list who do
not share my views and I respect that fact and them.

During the presentation by Microsoft to VanLUG it became clear to me
just what may well be M$'s plan of attack against Linux. 

The speaker showed us that he (and M$) do understand a lot about OSS. He
also showed us that his project is to make it possible for major
elements of OSS to compile and run well on M$ Windows servers. "Open
Source is all about the applications," said he. (I disagree, but that's
another story.)

I did not get all the notes but he did refer to M$ having set up
organizations to hold title to his project's work. He suggested we check
out http://www.outercurve.org/ and http://coapp.org/ .

Then too, he also made it quite clear that, for M$, interoperability is
a one-way street as they have no plan or desire to make it possible for
any Windows application to run on any Linux server. (This is my
understanding of what said, not his words per se.) 

He was especially hostile towards the Wine project. Quote, "If you want
Windows I'll give you Windows!". I remain unconvinced that he actually
would.

Indeed, as his talk progressed it became clear that their goal is to
make any server other than M$'s servers redundant. In the discussion
which followed the main presentation it became clear that M$'s business
approach to companies, to large not-for-profit organizations, and to
public agencies such as school boards, colleges and universities will be
to give then a single figure fixed price. A fixed price being most
attractive to budget planners among others.

What was not said, but seems clear to me from other sources, is that
such deals will include a provision that there be no other type of
server other than those from M$.

As much of Linux' strength is in the server arena it is not surprising
that M$ would seek to make it attractive for businesses and
organizations to do away with their Linux servers. Destroy the Linux
server business and you do much to hobble and injure F/LOSS.

To quote Microsoft's MWNW website, "The wars of 'platform religions' are
over. Embrace the reality of today: mixed environments, interoperable
applications, Open Source in harmony with commercial software, PHP on
Windows and Azure cloud." http://www.webnotwar.ca/why-attend/ 

The pejorative term "platform religions" makes it clear that the folks
at M$ really have no understanding, or interest to understand, the
philosophy and values of the Free/Libre Open-source software
communities.

Clearly, to M$ interoperability does not include cross-platform. "The
wars of platform religions are over." Yes, if you accept M$ clear and
fixed pricing it will be over for you - but only because you surrendered
to Microsoft. 

The image that was left in my mind at the end of the presentation was of
someone adding lights, music and other attractions to make the doorway
to hell most attractive to OSS developers.

Granted, I may sound like a rabid ABM fanatic but I have known, worked
with, supported and endured M$ products for more than twenty years. Over
the years I have seen that often it has not been the better software
that wins but the better marketer and the one with the deeper pockets.

My most generous conclusion; continue to beware the wolf in sheep's
clothing. I reminded my fellow VanLUG members who attended the M$
presentation that even though we had enjoyed the pizza and pop provided
by M$ we need not feel obliged to drink their kool-aid.

The kernel is, of course, essential to Linux. But the kernel itself is
of little or no use to most of us on this list sans a few GNU tools plus
Debian plus Gnome (or even Unity). As I understand it, Canonical's
raison-d'être is to provide support for Ubuntu and that, I find, they do
very well.

Georges

P.S, MS stands for Multiple Sclerosis or Master of Science, right? Hence
my using M$ to designate Microsoft. GR