Microsoft and interoperability with Linux

[Bob Jonkman]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

That matches my perception of Microsoft's contributions to the Linux
kernel -- they've only contributed what they need in order to better
run Windows in Linux environments.

There's an interesting interview with Jeremy Allison on Hacker Public
Radio[1]. Jeremy remarks that as a result of the European Union ruling
against Microsoft's monopoly, Microsoft was required to provide
documentation on their internal APIs. He says they went well beyond
the minimum requirements, providing thousands of pages of
documentation.  After a huge dump like that, I'm not surprised that
Microsoft is one of the largest "contributors" to Free Software.
Quantity counts!

BTW, I'm finding HPR to have some of the most interesting podcasts on
the Internet. Worth a listen! It does no harm that some of the show
hosts are people I've exchanged messages with in the !Fediverse
http://sn.theru.org/group/hpr

- --Bob.

[1] http://hackerpublicradio.org/eps.php?id=1451



On 14-02-28 12:51 PM, Georges Rodier wrote:
> 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
> 
> 
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.14 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Ensure confidentiality, authenticity, non-repudiability

iEYEARECAAYFAlMRnO4ACgkQuRKJsNLM5erFrgCg6276zZKqelvDIDOgziqn10oB
kJQAnA0kbiNfgPEjhQaI1KB99lWocDqE
=G5qk
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----