Linux Foundation - We'd Love to Work with Microsoft

johnno writes "In an interview with the Australian site pc world Jim Zemlin, the Linux Foundation's executive director, talks about the desire to interoperate with Microsoft and discusses the desktop outlook for Linux. He answers questions on the kind of legal protection Linux requires, whether anything ever come of the Microsoft protest that there's Linux code that they have patented, as well as Linux penetration on desktops and breaking Microsoft's stranglehold on the market. He also discusses Microsoft's recent move to open up their documentation, and why they'd like to work with the Redmond giant — 'We'd like to have a place where developers can come and work on making Linux more effectively interoperate with Microsoft products. And we'd like to do that in the open-source way that's not tied to any specific marketing agreement, that's not tied to any specific contract, that is an open process that can be participated in by anyone in the community,' Zemlin says."

Embrace, extend, extinguish..

And why not? :)

Re:Embrace, extend, extinguish..

Yes, it is good to keep your friends close, and your enemies even closer.

Re:Embrace, extend, extinguish..

For me, the whole point of Free (as in freedom) Software is that Free Software is liberated from artificial constraints that prevent interoperability and restrict users from doing what they want their computers to do. The "True Goal" needs to be one where a users and developers and administrators are free to chose platforms that meet their requirements instead of being locked in to one platform because of vendor lock-in due to formats or protocols or software limitations.

While it's easy to paint Microsoft as some big giant ogre, that's not very helpful to the achieving the "True Goal." So long as the Linux Foundation doesn't allow Linux and the GNU Stack (or any other Free Software) to incur artificial limitations, any relationship with Microsoft is healthy for both.

Re:Embrace, extend, extinguish..

Microsoft's lock on their own file formats and protocols is what keeps everyone captive to Microsoft applications, not the other way around. They've demonstrated time and time again that inviting interoperation with their proprietary formats leads to the destruction of competing software products. Everything Microsoft ever destroyed began with "partnering". That lead to modifying their partners' file formats/languages/tools to be MS specific until the original technology became irrelevant. I have few doubts that this their Linux roadmap.

Re:Embrace, extend, extinguish..

I think you're delusional if you think the average computer user feels locked into MS products.

My experience is the average computer user believes MS products are the only ones available.

Re:Embrace, extend, extinguish..

I think you're delusional if you think the average computer user feels locked into MS products.

My experience is the average computer user believes MS products are the only ones available.

This is too sadly true... anyone who has worked in tech support or repair in a consumer based, Windows based environment can attest to that. The number of times an average Windows user has told me

"I clicked on the Internet and..." (umm, IE is NOT the Internet)

"I need to buy a new Windows for my ______" (umm, do you mean a computer with Windows on it?)

"So that MAC is Windows?" (no, hardware is not an OS...)

"My Windows isn't turning on - it keeps telling me 'Drive Failure'" (no, your hardware/mobo/BIOS is telling you that - your computer hasnt even started loading Windows)

"So, OpenOffice is Word?" (Ugh... no - but it is compatible for what you would need it for - and FREE.) - customer proceeds to buy a copy of Office because "that can't be true... it's not (Microsoft/Office/etc)"

"Well, someone installed Firefox for me, but I needed to get on the Internet, so I clicked the Internet button (IE again)." (IE is NOT the Internet)

Heck, many users even seem to think that Office is part of Windows (and thus many would wonder why that part of Windows stopped working in 60 days - when the trial expired - we actually had customers come into CompUSA who threatened to sue us and HP/Compaq/etc because that "part of" Windows broke, and we wouldn't fix it and told them they had to pay to get it "fixed" - no matter how many times we explained it to them or showed them the "60 Day Trial" icon). Heck, the number of people who think you cannot create a Word (compatible) document - much less any document - without Office - is astounding.

MS has been very good at equating function=some MS product - and too many users aren't tech saavy enough to understand that is not the case.

Why the parent has not yet been modded up, I dont know (well, the day is still early). This (perception) issue is definitely key to the "interoperability" issue with Linux and Windows - because even if Linux fully interoperated with Windows, the perception that a MS product is a certain task/function must still be overcome.

Re:Embrace, extend, extinguish..

Is that what you got out of his rambling? Anyway, if that was his point, I still disagree. As a Linux user, I have had plenty of interoperability for years now, thank you very much. I am curious, if Linux is so inconsequential, why does Microsoft continue to call Linux its biggest threat?

I'm sorry, but it just sounds like giving in.

I realize that Microsoft is the 800 pound gorilla in the room, but it just sounds like giving in. Microsoft really hasn't shown any signs of innovation in a long time and my fear is that this would just turn into another chance for Microsoft to take a concept from the collaboration, implement it in their own way and claim it as their own. Remember what they did with TCP/IP early on? Made their own stack that didn't quiet work with anything else but said it wasn't their fault.

Re:I'm sorry, but it just sounds like giving in.

I don't see your point. I do see that perhaps some business aren't adopting Linux as a desktop system because making those interact with a pre-existing AD environment is far from flawless and straightforward. Or the other way around, when implementing new services on Linux servers that need to interact with Windows machines.

Better interoperatibility will benefit Linux hugely. Where there used to be just one choice, Windows, there could be more.

I'm always suspicious ...

When foundations, companies, etc. 'agree' to work with one of their main competitors, it almost seems as if it is just for publicity.

Although they may want to work with their competitor, they might not want to do it on anything EXCEPT their terms, and I get the feeling that this is the same situation - They say "we'd love to work with you", but when the other party doesn't agree to their terms, it is the other party that looks like they're refusing to co-operate.

Re:I'm always suspicious ...

It's only dishonest if the party making the offer is disingenuous about its terms.

I'm sure the FSF would be delighted to work with Microsoft -- if Microsoft released all of its source under the GPL. Of course, everyone knows that its unreasonable to believe Microsoft would accept these terms in our lifetime, so it would do no good to announce this.

This shows to have PR value, an offer has to have something that might interest MS. It must be something in which MS could recognize its own enlightened self-interest. It's possible to imagine this happening fairly soon, if there are significant developments that MS cannot profitably fight or coopt. If we imagine sub-$400 linux laptops taking off big time, it might turn defending that part of MS's monopoly from a cash cow into a cash sink. That kind of thing might signal a smart time for MS to reposition itself.

It'd be momentous, to be sure. But not impossible to imagine.

The letter of the law vs the intent

The kind of interoperability they speak of is precisely the kind that Microsoft chooses, by both word and deed, to explicitly sabotage. Whether one looks at the Novell agreements, the "licensing" of api documentation, or the OSP in the OOXML, these are not acts of encouraging such interoperability but rather of blocking it by any means possible, or of trying to meet the "appearance" of interoperability from the perspective of outside regulators when forced to, but while deliberately and explicitly destroying the spirit and any actual realization of it.

Re:The letter of the law vs the intent

The kind of interoperability they speak of is precisely the kind that Microsoft chooses, by both word and deed, to explicitly sabotage.

Nicely stated. It seems to me that FOSS already has "interoperability" completely figured out: publish and use open standards! It also seems that there is absolutely nothing (except, of course, monopolistic greed) that prevents Microsoft from utilizing the exact same standards.

Make the stand.

I disagree. I don't think that the Linux community can count on any given company treating us as anything other than hostile.

Let me give you an example. Warcraft II vs. Stratagus.

There was a group of people that wanted to play Warcraft II on Linux, so they made tools to extract the data of the Warcraft II DOS CDs and use it on the hard disk to play Warcraft II. At first, this was called 'Freecraft', later called Stratagus that made significant advacements in Warcraft II including:

Support for 16 Players rather than just 8
Support for Human/Orc joint AI.
Support for TCP/IP
correcting several gameplay bugs and sound bugs
No CD Copy protection
Actual uses for the Runestone and the Dark Portal (Dark Portal worked like a one way Starcraft Nydus Canal
Superior AI.

Linux technology must be flat out BETTER than anything a Windowsd technology can produce. Compare Samba 3.0 to Windows NT 4.0

- Support for LDAP
No stupid limits on Trust Hirearchies
Support for Kerberos
Support for SMB without NMB.

We can't team up with MS, we must Flatten it, or they will flatten us. Thats just the way it is.

Re:Make the stand.

Are you seriously comparing Samba 3.0 to NT4? When was the first Samba 3 release? Toward the end of 2003? And when did NT4 debut? Mid 1996 (these are setup as questions because I am going off partly memory and half a google search)? Hell, the last service pack for NT4 appears to be two years before Samba 3 was ever seen.

Your argument sort of held water in the first half, but the last bit was an obvious spin to help the data conform to your views.

Re:Make the stand.

What you mean like
  Desktop Search
  Composite Window Managers
  User Access Control
  Kerberos

All were available in OSX and Linux before Vista ....

Re:Make the stand.

What you mean like

Multiple Virtual Desktops ... All were available in Linux, Unix and even Amiga before Wind... excuse me a sec... oh shit, Windows still does not come with virtual desktops? what year is it 1984?

Re:Make the stand.

The point is, Stratagus was made after Warcraft II. Of course it's going to be better. If it wasn't better, than that would have been a big problem. Again, the point is that if Blizzard was to redo Warcraft II, they themselves could also improve the product, and it has nothing to do with Linux. The fact that you're trying to show Linux superiority through Stratagus is the real straw man, since it has nothing to do with Linux. But... nice try.

Dearest Jim Zemlin:

speak for yourself, i do not want to interoperate with microsoft on their grounds, it would be better for microsoft to quit being the tyrant/deceiver that plays dirty pool to maintain their monopolist power over the desktop & office, make/wait (for) microsoft to change (not the other way around)...

and Jim please ignore the IP infringement FUD, unless microsoft coughs up some tangible proof they have nothing but FUD...

Microsoft Agrees

In the same sense that Hillary would 'love to work with' Obama.

In related news:

Zookeepers declare "We'd love to smother ourselves in steak sauce and try to masturbate the bears..."

Difference in attitude

Linux Foundation: We'd Love to Work with Microsoft

Microsoft: Yeah ... that's what we've been trying to prevent!

What is the market share threshold?

I have no real idea if this has any bearing on reality, but...

I'm wondering at what point MS will honestly start to interoperate. For Internet Explorer, they didn't start to make meaningful changes until they started losing market share to Firefox and Safari. Now, we're hearing about IE8 being honest to goodness standards compliant. (and they actually sound like they mean it - not holding my breath, but I remain hopeful)

Is the interoperability threshold 80% market share?

Whatever the number is, I don't expect to see any significant changes until MS starts losing customers. Given their resources, they should have been able to make a better browser in 2002, rather than now in 2008.

Re:When I am weak

When I am weak, how can I compromise? When I am strong, why should I compromise?

What about when you're neither?

Obviously:
When you're neither, where should you compromise?
When you're both, when should you compromise?

And finally, when you're both and neither, you shouldn't ever not uncompromise.

Re:Year of the Linux Desktop!

In my house at least. I'd say that whatever year KDE came out was the true "year of the Linux desktop". Why should I care what OS everyone else is using?