OSNews

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

"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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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&...

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