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 01:04 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This discussion has been archived.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, @01:10PM (#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, @01:32PM (#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, @01:41PM (#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.
        • 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: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, @02:42PM (#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, @03:01PM (#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.
  • Awesome! (Score:5, Funny)

    by 140Mandak262Jamuna (970587) on Wednesday September 12 2007, @01:12PM (#20575383) Journal
    Now you can autospace like in Word5 or do pagebreak Wordstar style! OOXML coming to Linux!!
  • 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, @01:22PM (#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).
    • Re:Peer or puppet? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by projectmalamute (1146867) on Wednesday September 12 2007, @03:05PM (#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, @01:27PM (#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.
  • 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, @01:28PM (#20575659) Homepage
    how tomorrow's lawsuits start?
  • by mhall119 (1035984) on Wednesday September 12 2007, @01:35PM (#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, @01:37PM (#20575819)

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

    Phase two - extend. [slashdot.org]

    Phase three - extinguish. [wikipedia.org]

    Been good knowing you, Novell.

  • by Epeeist (2682) on Wednesday September 12 2007, @01:42PM (#20575899) Homepage
    Looks like the ideal job for Miguel ;-)
  • Priorities (Score:5, Insightful)

    by RAMMS+EIN (578166) on Wednesday September 12 2007, @02:41PM (#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.
  • by icepick72 (834363) on Wednesday September 12 2007, @04:54PM (#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.
      • 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