____/ [H]omer on Thursday 29 November 2007 02:06 : \____
> Verily I say unto thee, that Roy Schestowitz spake thusly:
>
>> "I see in recent talks, that Microsoft executives have given, the
>> language used is “commercial vs. open source” software. This is a
>> clever bit of mind manipulation, suggesting that OSS cannot be
>> commercial. Bill Gates went to far as to say that the intentions of
>> FOSS developers was to ensure that nobody could make money with it,
>> but that’s completely untrue. Just ask IBM, or RedHat, or even
>> Novell, not to mention the legion of consultants who use FOSS daily.
>>
>> The accurate comparison is “proprietary” vs. “open source” and to
>> suggest otherwise is deceptive, manipulative and underhanded. I
>> encourage anyone who see this doublespeak to correct it every time."
>
> If Microsoft are such accomplished buzzword architects, why have they
> apparently never heard of "SOA"?
Just a mild correction. Microsoft knows all too well about SOA. More to the
point, it knows how to /destroy/ it (remember, it's about 'killing'/buying the
rival, not developing better products, which can be pricey and risky)
More obvious misgivings about Microsoft and SOA
,----[ Quote ]
| My take is that inside of Microsoft its aggressor A-types are all about
| dissing SOA and promoting .NET ad nauseam. At the same time the Microserfs
| and developers must understand the inevitability of SOA for at last a portion
| of the most advanced and innovative enterprises’ and service providers’
| architectures.
|
| And so, as the world turns toward SOA, Microsoft will fight quietly inside of
| itself about what it really is as a company — a partner to its customers, or
| a parasite on the hide of productivity.
`----
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Gardner/?p=2538
Microsoft: My way or the highway with SOA?
,----[ Quote ]
| Microsoft isn’t changing its tune with SOA, the authors say, noting
| that “Microsoft again appears to be crafting its own rules and vision. The
| company has so far declined to participate in certain key emerging industry
| standards relevant to SOA. It has a different perspective on what SOA is and
| a different approach for crystallizing its vision.“
`----
http://blogs.zdnet.com/service-oriented/?p=931
Microsoft needs REST
,----[ Quote ]
| Yaron Goland defended his Microsoft colleague, Dare Objasanjo, as a poor
| sitting duck. He justifies the decision to scrap APP as tactical and not
| strategic. He states: “We considered this option but the changes needed to
| make APP work for our scenarios were so fundamental that it wasn’t clear if
| the resulting protocol would still be APP… I also have to admit that I was
| deathly afraid of the political implications of Microsoft messing around with
| APP.” According to Goland, “we couldn’t figure out how to use APP without
| putting an unacceptable implementation and performance burden on both our
| customers and ourselves.”
|
| The implications for this APP vs. Web3S debate can potentially be enormous.
| Just as we are on the brink of creating simple architectures that are
| interoperable using simple standards, the industry risks splitting into
| separate, incompatible camps again. It is probably no coincidence that we
| have Microsoft on one side and Google, IBM and Sun on the other. This will be
| a fundamental problem for enterprise customers if Microsoft extends this
| strategy into any REST architectures that it introduces into the enterprise.
| Any enterprise systems that expose their data using APP, which is likely in
| the near future, will be incompatible with any Microsoft system that expose
| their data with Web3S.
`----
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Newton/?p=14
Microsoft absent from open standards movement around SOA
,----[ Quote ]
| Now, a new series of SOA standards is headed to OASIS, ones that could
| create a whole market segment around SOA common programmatic principles,
| but Microsoft is nowhere in sight. The absence of Microsoft from the
| Service Component Architecture (SCA), and its sibling Service Data
| Objects (SDO), definitions process can mean one thing: Microsoft will
| pursue its proprietary approach of baking pseudo-SOA into its
| operating system stack as long as it can.
`----
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Gardner/?p=2483
Shades of technical vandals:
Halloween Memo I Confirmed and Microsoft's History on Standards
,----[ Quote ]
| By the way, if you are by any chance trying to figure out Microsoft's policy
| toward standards, particularly in the context of ODF-EOXML, that same
| Microsoft page is revelatory, Microsoft's answer to what the memo meant when
| it said that Microsoft could extend standard protocols so as to deny
| Linux "entry into the market":
|
| Q: The first document talked about extending standard protocols as a way
| to "deny OSS projects entry into the market." What does this mean?
|
| A: To better serve customers, Microsoft needs to innovate above standard
| protocols. By innovating above the base protocol, we are able to deliver
| advanced functionality to users. An example of this is adding
| transactional support for DTC over HTTP. This would be a value-add and
| would in no way break the standard or undermine the concept of standards,
| of which Microsoft is a significant supporter. Yet it would allow us to
| solve a class of problems in value chain integration for our Web-based
| customers that are not solved by any public standard today. Microsoft
| recognizes that customers are not served by implementations that are
| different without adding value; we therefore support standards as the
| foundation on which further innovation can be based.
`----
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20070127202224445
> This is indeed a nasty bit of manipulation. Why does the industry have
> to be about generating revenue through software licensing? Whatever is
> wrong with just *using* software as a business tool? Sweaty loves this
> false dichotomy, since it is such an effective Big Lie tactic.
>
> As Sweaty well knows, SOA and other business models that don't rely on
> proprietary (blackmail) licensing are perfectly viable, but not really
> conducive to the type of exclusionary (lock-in) agreements that is the
> life-blood of monopolists like Microsoft. This is why he is dismissive
> of the alternatives, ignores them, pretends they don't exist or twists
> their implications out of context.
Don't forget that scare tactics are directed not just at users (businesses and
end users, i.e. individuals). Behind the scenes, Microsoft is terrifying OEMs,
which *ARE* Microsoft's customers (ensuring that every PC sold is Microsoft
property *and* revenue).
Microsoft Shuts Down Linux 10 Years Ago Says Iowa Attorne
,----[ Quote ]
| Going back now to as early as 1998, Microsoft starts to realize that
| Linux might pose a possible threat, and Vinod Valloppillil, who is
| a program manager at Microsoft, is asked by Mr. Allchin, Jim Allchin,
| to analyze potential strategies for combatting open-source software,
| and specifically Linux.
| His memos are leaked to the press in April -- I beg your pardon --
| in October of 1998 and become known as the Halloween documents.
| And the evidence will be that Microsoft uses its influence in the
| OEM channel, the computer manufacture channel, to make sure that
| end users have a difficult time buying PCs with Linux preinstalled.
`----
http://www.linuxelectrons.com/News/RoundUp/Microsoft_Shuts_Down_Linux_10_Years_Ago_Says_Iowa_Attorney
Microsoft's Dirty OEM-Secret
,----[ Quote ]
| They are, in short the secret to Microsoft's success. And the word
| secret is to be taken quite literally: No OEM may talk about the
| contents of his contract, or he will lose his license, and (assumption)
| likely be sued for breach of contract as well.
`----
http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2001/10/23/13219/110
Jury Hears Microsoft Competition Suit
,----[ Quote ]
| A judge on Friday told jurors they must accept as fact that a
| federal court found in 1999 that Microsoft holds a monopoly over
| computer operating systems and that it restricted computer
| manufacturers' ability to use competing systems.
|
| [...]
|
| She said she'll show that the company used its monopoly power
| to exclude competition and control prices and that it conspired with
| other companies to restrain trade, maintaining what she called a
| chokehold on software competitors and computer manufacturers.
`----
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/061201/microsoft_trial.html?.v=1
Did Microsoft want to 'whack' Dell over its Linux dealings?
http://news.com.com/Did+Microsoft+want+to+whack+Dell+over+its+Linux+dealings/2100-1014_3-6153904.html
Dell's secret Linux fling
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/01/09/dell_linux_china/
Microsoft 'killed Dell Linux' - States
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2002/03/19/microsoft_killed_dell_linux_states/
>> Scroll up to see the monster that takes pride in such monopolistic
>> and fascistic behaviour.
>
> Is that drool coming from Sweaty's mouth?
Mouth? That's no his face, you know. And that's not drool.
--
~~ Best of wishes
.oʍʇ sɐ buıɥʇ ɥɔns ou s,ǝɹǝɥʇ 'ɹǝpuǝq 'ʎɹɹoʍ ʇ,uop :ʎɹɟ
.oʍʇ ɐ ʍɐs ı ʇɥbnoɥʇ ı puɐ ...ǝɹǝɥʍʎɹǝʌǝ soɹǝz puɐ sǝuo .ɯɐǝɹp 1nɟʍɐ uɐ
ʇɐɥʍ 'ɥɥɥɐ :ɹǝpuǝq
http://Schestowitz.com | RHAT Linux | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
03:05:02 up 29 days, 7:03, 2 users, load average: 1.61, 1.29, 1.36
http://iuron.com - Open Source knowledge engine project
|
|
