Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Microsoft and Novell Open Interoperability Lab

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on Wed Sep 12, 2007 12:04 PM
from the still-in-the-skeptic-camp dept.
An anonymous reader writes to mention that the Microsoft and Novell Interoperability Lab in Cambridge, Massachusetts opened today. The lab is supposed to allow both Novell and Microsoft developers to work together for better interoperability between SUSE and Windows Server. "Located in Cambridge, the 2,500-square-foot lab and workspace will be home to a combined team of the best and brightest Microsoft and Novell engineers focused on making Windows Server and SUSE Linux Enterprise work better together. The first priority for the lab team will be to ensure interoperability between Microsoft and Novell virtualization technologies. Additional work will include standards-based systems management, identity federation and compatibility of office document formats."
+ -
story

Related Stories

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • itsatrap? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 12 2007, @12:10PM (#20575343)
    I predict that this will get tagged as "itsatrap"--Microsoft has a history of joining efforts only to undermine them later. (E.g. "embrace, extend, extinguish")

    Having said that, Microsoft, like many gigantic corporations, has several "personalities" in the sense that different divisions may be operating on different guiding principles that don't necessarily mesh with each other. In this case, for instance, I'm willing to believe that the MS engineers joining this interoperability effort will genuinely do good work towards making MS products work with Linux in a smart and efficient way. So, I can see a lot of good coming out of this.

    Yes, we should be wary of any attempt by MS higher-ups to subvert this process and use it to break interoperability (or to make Linux look "unfit for business" or whatever)... but to some extent I'm willing to give MS another chance here.
    • by Experiment 626 (698257) on Wednesday September 12 2007, @12:32PM (#20575741)

      Of course it's a trap. Imagine you were walking along and you saw a bear trap on the ground, with a trip wire beside it leading to a gas canister. A cage is suspended over it by a rope, and there's a sentry gun mounted nearby. You might think, "this is a trap", unless you were a Novell executive, in which case you would step into the the apparatus try to find ways to "interoperate" with it.

      • Re:itsatrap? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by SpaceLifeForm (228190) on Wednesday September 12 2007, @12:41PM (#20575873)
        You failed to mention the money dangled over the trap.

        This lab is the result of the Microsoft-Novell FUD agreement.

        And at 2500 square feet, I.E., a 50x50 foot room,
        the techs don't have a lot of room to interoperate.

        It's a farce to appease the EU.
        • Yeah, but it's in Cambridge where software engineers are used to be tucked into tiny cubicles!

          But then again, it being Cambridge, the land of the FSF, MS is walking into pretty hostile territory. How many MIT hacks will be pulled on that office is beyond my guess...

        • The article was sparse on details, here's a better one: [computerworld.com]

          The 2,500-square-foot lab was completed in July and includes about 80 servers that are running Intel Corp. dual- and quad-core chips, as well as dual-core chips from Advanced Micro Devices Inc.

          So far, the lab has four engineers on staff, with another four to be hired by the end of the year, Hanrahan said. Other engineers from Microsoft and Novell facilities around the world will also work in the lab, he said.
        • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

          by Anonymous Coward

          And at 2500 square feet, I.E., a 50x50 foot room,
          the techs don't have a lot of room to interoperate.
          Might not be so bad. Maybe the room is 10x250. Perfect for some impromptu geek sports events. ;-)
    • I love the monthly new-years-resolutions to work harder at/invest more in interoperability.
      It's actually not that difficult. Have most of your apps spit out strings of text in some documentable (or, ideally, document*ed) format and basically voila!
      What's difficult is having interoperability without actually having it. In fact, I suspect they could research that until doomsday.
    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      I remember the "Novell Migration Tool" from circa 1996 - it allowed you to 'legally' voilate Novell license agreement (more than the licensed number of users could connect to a Novell server).
    • I'm willing to believe that the MS engineers joining this interoperability effort will genuinely do good work towards making MS products work with Linux in a smart and efficient way. So, I can see a lot of good coming out of this.

      Um, no. They will do work towards making Linux work with MS products. Whether this work will be good or not remains to be seen, but their track record does not speak well for them. No doubt much of this work will be closed-source proprietary software designed to run on Linux. And I have no doubts that one of their first jobs will be porting WGA to Linux.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      In this case, for instance, I'm willing to believe that the MS engineers joining this interoperability effort will genuinely do good work towards making MS products work with Linux in a smart and efficient way.

      Not to be flippant, but wouldn't a "smart and efficient way" include a decision on the part of Microsoft to stop "not interoperating"? Seems to me that over the years they've actively and repeatedly pursued a course that was designed to maintain monopoly and thwart interoperability of any sort.

      Then a
      • Re:itsatrap? (Score:4, Interesting)

        by michrech (468134) on Wednesday September 12 2007, @01:42PM (#20576967)
        What's worse, MS really never had to do any of the work. All they had to do was document their protocols (and provide them in a GPL friendly way) so that the Samba folks (for example) could create *all* the software to make everything work. On top of that, MS could have reaped TONS of free positive publicity.

        Though I am stuck using MS at work, and at home (for a couple games I like to play that aren't available/playable on any other platform), and don't really mind using the products (because, in this case, they are the right tool for the job), I very much dislike the company (in the way it does business... I'm sure at least some of the people that work there are great people otherwise...)

        Not to be flippant, but wouldn't a "smart and efficient way" include a decision on the part of Microsoft to stop "not interoperating"? Seems to me that over the years they've actively and repeatedly pursued a course that was designed to maintain monopoly and thwart interoperability of any sort.
    • Re:itsatrap? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by _Sprocket_ (42527) on Wednesday September 12 2007, @02:01PM (#20577239)

      Yes, we should be wary of any attempt by MS higher-ups to subvert this process and use it to break interoperability (or to make Linux look "unfit for business" or whatever)... but to some extent I'm willing to give MS another chance here.
      I am also hopeful. But I am also highly skeptical. Such an outcome is very possible but would go against a long standing history. At this point, it would take some extraordinary steps on Microsoft's part to demonstrate that there is no trap. I believe it is entirely possible for them to do it. After all, IBM of all entities has made such leaps. A key to their credibility is the license and projects they work with.

      Microsoft has learned a lot about business from IBM in the past. Let's see if they can follow those footsteps going forward. I hope they do.
      • Is that what "identity federation" is? Or is that a clever name for Team Fortress matches between Microsoft and Novell? Hehe.
  • Awesome! (Score:5, Funny)

    by 140Mandak262Jamuna (970587) on Wednesday September 12 2007, @12:12PM (#20575383) Journal
    Now you can autospace like in Word5 or do pagebreak Wordstar style! OOXML coming to Linux!!
    • I've started getting OOXML documents from my colleagues, and I'm loathe to shell out for Office 2007 or fiddle with the converter plugin for earlier versions of MS Office (which I still occassionally have to run in a VMware Windows instance due to crazy formatting or macros). I switched to Linux right around the time of the Windows ME debacle, and I have no intention of switching back. I have used OpenOffice successfully since then, and for the most part it's been fine. Now I'm faced with having to bring
  • I suspect that this is little more than a veiled attempt to scream "We're working on interoperability - now government, leave us the hell alone!"
  • Peer or puppet? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by alext (29323) on Wednesday September 12 2007, @12:22PM (#20575567)
    An obvious benchmark to track is the number of changes going into the Windows Server product for compatibility vs. those going into Suse Linux.

    If Suse has to make all the running it will be pretty obvious who is wearing the trousers (as we say).
    • Yes, the one wearing the trousers is the one with 90+% marketshare on the desktop. Who else did you expect?
    • Re:Peer or puppet? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by projectmalamute (1146867) on Wednesday September 12 2007, @02:05PM (#20577297)
      I would assume the changes will mostly be on the Suse side. All of the information MS needed to interoperate with Linux has been openly available for years, if MS wanted to play nicely with Linux they already would.
  • by zappepcs (820751) on Wednesday September 12 2007, @12:27PM (#20575637) Journal
    Microsoft has been trying to create a secure OS for over a decade. They have also been trying to dominate the desktop market at every opportunity. They have not done either very well. It arguable that they dominate, but that was not done in a lab, it was done in a marketing team meeting room.
    • In that vein, I'd figure they would've had an easier time (license-wise) to take a BSD kernel, obfuscate the hell out of it, and lash a Windows UI and all the 'doze-specific APIs on top of it.

      I mean, there is historical precedent (Windows' TCP/IP stack), less effort required to "play nice" w/ FOSS-friendly corps, and they'd (for once) have something more secure than what they've been issuing forth in the OS market.

      /P

  • Additional work will include standards-based systems management, identity federation and compatibility of office document formats.
    Compatibility: Microsoft's #1 goal!
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      Actually yes. You forget another mantra "I love standards, so many to chose from".

      I suspect that they have learned the lesson from SOAP that having an interoperable standard does not necessarily decrease business. It increases it if the standard complexity is above a certain threshold.

      So some of them have seen the light of more revenue on the horizon already. It is a matter of the rest of the company following suit.
  • by xednieht (1117791) on Wednesday September 12 2007, @12:28PM (#20575659) Homepage
    how tomorrow's lawsuits start?
  • by mhall119 (1035984) on Wednesday September 12 2007, @12:35PM (#20575775) Homepage Journal
    It's about time for Microsoft to properly implement IMAP, LDAP and CalDAV in Exchance. I can't wait.
  • by Weaselmancer (533834) on Wednesday September 12 2007, @12:37PM (#20575819)

    Phase one - embrace. [linux-watch.com]

    Phase two - extend. [slashdot.org]

    Phase three - extinguish. [wikipedia.org]

    Been good knowing you, Novell.

  • Woah, looking like that time that IBM and Microsoft put together a team of the best and brightest to develop the next generation of operating systems: OS/2. They got all the way to when MS released Windows 3.0, with an API that didn't match with OS/2, and then IBM was maintaining the OS/2 2.x system while Microsoft was developing NT OS/2 3.0. Then Microsoft took all of that collaborative work, and made off with it, calling it simply Windows NT.
  • by Epeeist (2682) on Wednesday September 12 2007, @12:42PM (#20575899) Homepage
    Looks like the ideal job for Miguel ;-)
  • Here's hoping they will come up with an extremely simplified AD plug-in of some sort. Yes, I know linux geeks, you can currently integrate with active directory, but it's nowhere near as simple as it should be. You can sit there and complain that it's MS's fault, but at the end of the day, it doesn't really matter, and the powers that be don't really care. So, here's hoping for something good coming out of this.
  • Cause if it is, they're in for a world of hurt. [mzonline.com]
  • ...or they could just both make sure that their products implement and adhere to standards correctly.

    Though given the recent OOXML ISO happenings, maybe more companies will need these labs to make their products work together...
  • "...combined team of the best and brightest Microsoft and Novell engineers..."

    Best? Brightest? Microsoft??
  • Priorities (Score:5, Insightful)

    by RAMMS+EIN (578166) on Wednesday September 12 2007, @01:41PM (#20576935) Homepage Journal
    ``The first priority for the lab team will be to ensure interoperability between Microsoft and Novell virtualization technologies.''

    That is definitely not the place I would start. First of all, I hardly think interoperability in virtualization is the most important, and secondly, as far as I know, we already _have_ interoperable virtualization.

    Instead of virtualization, I would start with file formats and move to protocols from there.

    Of course, neither of these would be issues if there were standards and both parties adhered to them.
    • as far as I know, we already _have_ interoperable virtualization

      Of course we do (several varieties of it, even), but Microsoft doesn't. They see that virtualizing Linux is going to be big business; their goal is make SUSE on Windows using Microsoft's virtualization solution the 'premiere' way to do that.

      My theory at least. Anyhow, I don't expect anything good to come out of this 'interoperable virtualization' issue except for Microsoft (and possibly Novell).

  • Linux can't even change (very well, yes I know there is ntfs3g) files with windows NT FileSystem. Those guys should care about those kind of things instead of virtualization IMHO :-P
  • I just hope all the Novel people behind all these moves are willing to be held responsible in some non-abstract form if all this dealings with Microsoft goes south. I can't think of any way that these deals would not benefit Microsoft, however I can think of how things can go wrong enough that it affects me way over here in Fedora. So I just hope that Mr. Miguel de Icaza and company will hold themselves accountable.
  • that way, the Novell engineers can play backgammon all day with the Sun engineers since they've been busy doing little for so long already. I'd mention the Microsoft engineers but Microsoft probably doesn't send any and just hires people off the street corners, tags-em with Microsoft badges and then tells them to talk about the weather when asked a question, any question. They wouldn't know how to play backgammon or even learn it. The Sun people are most likely starving for new players.

    But really, are thes
  • The advantage to a lot of this is that its open source. If Novell was to be killed off as a result, we still have the code to go through choosing the pieces we want.

    So if some is tainted, then through it away. People act like they don't care, but seem to. I guess in a way, who cares if Novell dies, we have their code, right? But at the same time, who is going to pick up all of the coding that will stop if they disappear?

    Although, I am one of those that hopes, ad mist the flaws/bad choices, that they con
  • Any changes Novell makes to the Linux kernel or supporting OS code (and apps), all distributed under GPL, will be available for any other developer to use under GPL, as per the GPL.

    Novell's Linux products might eventually become traps for Microsoft lockin, but the code itself need not be if included in other distros. That would be up to the other distro.
  • by icepick72 (834363) on Wednesday September 12 2007, @03:54PM (#20578983)
    Many are criticising Novell. On the other hand they are brave enough to walk a important tight rope and take the flack.
    • /* So we can get crap MS proprietary code and corrupted standards in Linux now too, huh. */

      I thought that was what Wine was for?
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)


        WINE actually provide a useful service that helps third party applications that were originally only developed for Windows to migrate to Linux. The project that does what you warn about is Mono, which encourages Linux developers to adopt proprietary Sue You Later frameworks without thinking about it. And Mono, co-incidentally enough, is the one with the close, close ties to Novell. I wouldn't touch SuSE with a 50m CAT5e cable, right now.
    • We see a lot of problems here but not what you're describing. Interoperability doesn't mean putting proprietary code in Linux, but maybe variations on standards. Hasn't the Samba project been tweaking standards for years to interoperate with Windows for years, and it's still open source which is a real-world example that disproves your automatic assumption. The part about the folks in Redmond having a problem with your decisions about what OS you use .... doesn't make sense. You should clarify.
      • Ok, samba is a bad example since it's whole purpose for existence is TO network with windows machines, as most other operating systems support unix style networking. And as far as my os of choice, you really mean to tell me that ms doesn't try to force people on to windows? If that's the case, what cave have you been living in for the past decade? Maybe if ms really wants to promote interoperability, they should start adopting some open standards in windows instead of trying to force the community to hack a
        • you really mean to tell me that ms doesn't try to force people on to windows?

          Nobody said Microsoft doesn't try to force Windows so there's no need to go looking in caves :). Yes companies do tend to force their products because that's kind of how they make money. You probably won't see a company promoting somebody else's product in spite of its own. Look at any company and its product. A company will tend to sell its product whether your personally like it or not. You're basically describing business as u

    • UNIX is a commodity OS and MS would make more money selling mice than they would selling a MS-UNIX.

      Of course if Windows went away and it was all UNIX, perhaps a new generation of developers would get sick of it and create a new and better OS.
      • Unix underpinnings + Windows GUI + .Net, etc would not be a commodity, and they would be following the Apple route. They could build on top of OpenBSD, and return to cross-processor compatibility fairly easily. However, there's no need to. They have the VMS underpinnings from NT, and what they need to do is return to the earlier implementation, force backwards compatibility with 95/98, etc, into Virtual machines, and otherwise undo insecure solutions designed to work around programs that expect the end u
        • Apple is famous for not caring about backwards compatibility and they have a devoted following that will go along with almost anything. Also the Mac ecosystem (hardware and software) is much less diverse and complex; thus reimplementing the "Mac experience" based on BSD wasn't that hard.

          MS customers are not so forgiving. Reimplementing Windows with a Unix core would be an enormous undertaking that is unlikely to be a cash-positive move for MS. Besides, most of the complexity of Windows wouldn't go away by c