MS No Cathedral, Open Source No Bazaar?

AlexGr sends us to InternetNews.com for an account of a Microsoft VP demonstrating Microsoft's ASP.NET AJAX product running on Ubuntu at AJAXWorld. In his earlier keynote, Brad Abrams had declared that, when it comes to AJAX, Microsoft is not the cathedral and open source isn't really a bazaar. He noted that ASP.NET AJAX is available under Microsoft's permissive license with full source code. "The Web is built on open standards and we at Microsoft believe that we have to enable those open standards," Abrams said.

they did the obvious but finished last

[neongrau]

there are so many ajax enabled frameworks.
most if not all of them aren't even tied to a specific server-side technology -> so more choice.

they point out it's open source? hey of course it is! the major part is in javascript. it's open by design and even if it were possible to scramble, obfuscate and encrypt their code. it would be useless because developers will have the need to extend the widgets to their specific needs at a certain level.

Re:deja vu?

[cloricus]

Without a word of a troll I believe my brain stem fell to pieces when I read that.

As a web developer for the last ten years I wonder who they honestly believe they are kidding? No matter what your bias you can clearly see in their current policy that they have no interest in standards and less so in web standards.

Re:Either there's been a complete sea change....

[rucs_hack]

It's an old method. Keep getting soundbites published that discredit the view you don't want, and the lie slowly becomes true.

I'll be willing to bet they never would have made source for ajax available had open source not existed. Once again they lead by following...

And anyway, it's not open source, because I can't take the entire source and produce a rival product using it.

Could someone explain me wth does that mean :

[unity100]

"MS No Cathedral, Open Source No Bazaar?"

what cathedral ? what bazaar ? what relation does any cathedral and bazaar have, what kind of metaphor is this, and just what the heck does that mean ?

Re:Hmm. First example of it.

[flydpnkrtn]

I wasn't implying that they "destroy their business model" in the name of open source... I'm saying that they're doing this because "the web demands open standards" and it looks good on the PR front ("hay guys we embrace open source"), not because it's the right thing to do.

MS would use closed, proprietary, patented protocols/standards (furthering vendor lock-in) wherever they could, if people didn't immediately jump to Apache/PHP if they did.

MS and standards

[l3v1]

and we at Microsoft believe that we have to enable those open standards

Enable ? Hardly. Follow ? When PR requires. Open ? Yeah, right.

"Enable those open standards" does this even mean something ?

First they don't do it. Then they do something similar for a second and act as they've always done it and behaved accordingly forever and even act like it's their ground philosophy.

Not that I would care what a company does to ensure a certain future - economical, technical or otherwise - yet there are certain boundaries to arrogance - like in we think you're ignorant enough to eat whatever we serve you for dinner kind of arrogance - that sometimes just blows the hood.
 

Open Standards == No one is Using it

[segedunum]

Whenever a Microsoft employee talks about using open standards you can bet it's because no one is using the particular bit of software he's talking about. As soon as a critical mass of people are using it, see the open standards mantra melt away.

"I'm not sure the bazaar analogy works," Abrams said. "Neither cathedral nor bazaar are the same in the AJAX Web space; rather there is a continuum that reaches across space."

Anyone have any idea what this claptrap means?

"In the open source world you can talk to people and get answers," Abrams said. "But we're offering guaranteed support."

Oh right, this is what it's about. You're trying to stop people from using all the open source AJAX implementations out there, and you believe one way to do this is to claim that open source software has no support? As everyone who uses this kind of stuff should know, it's far faster and more responsive to discuss things like this with like-minded people (and/or employees) on a mailing list or forum than wait for a meaningless answer from some dumb witted twit who doesn't understand the software he's been cajoled into providing support for. You're going to fail there, so no, you don't understand how people are using AJAX at all.

"The other reality is that you have work on other platform and can't afford to turn away users that are using Mac or Linux as well."

Yes, because most of the servers on the web aren't Windows, damn it! Oh sorry, that quote was taken out of context.

Forgive me for being just a tad sceptical, and wondering why this was good enough to make it as a Slashdot news story.

Re:deja vu?

[WgT2]

After reading that 'standards' line it makes me see Microsoft as nothing less than a hydra:

• multiple heads
• with multiple mouths
• each able to say its own thing

...but they all share the same heart.

Re:Hmm. First example of it.

[khuber]

Thank you token fanboy. Listen, Microsoft can have whatever damned business model they want. But is it too much to ask for them to display some ethical behavior and not lie and say they "enable open standards"?

Re:The Proof Is In The Pudding: Open Source Direct

[SpiritOfGrandeur]

2003? This is 2007 and that is a lot of time to change your game...

Re:Could someone explain me wth does that mean :

[Anonymous Coward]

It is this paper that was basically the cause of Netscape deciding to open-source its browser.

Yeah that, and bankruptcy.

Re:Hmm. First example of it.

[The_Wilschon]

The cathedral model doesn't even really refer to proprietary development. You might term the closed proprietary development model the prison model or something, the code only gets out when it has done its time. CatB discussed two open source development models, one in which potential changes were submitted to the monarch or oligarchs of a project for consideration, and one in which pretty much anybody could add stuff whenever. Microsoft uses neither of these.

In short, the difference between the cathedral and the bazaar is not and has never been the difference between closed and open source. It is the difference between two open source development strategies. If you're not sure of this, go read ESR's essay again. http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar /cathedral-bazaar/ [catb.org]

In a weird way, it works both ways

[WindBourne]

MS has always seen the web as something to convert away from open standards. Xmlhttprequest was introduced by MS as part of the way to extend and extinguish http. They were surprised when it was used against them, which is why it took them SOOOOOO long to suddenly back it. It was no different when the internet and web were opened to the world. MS had introduced their own internet called MSN that BG wanted to get 1-5 pennies off of ever dollar that was spent. Once he saw the they open internet was killing him, he quickly turned MS against the internet. Same thing is going on with AJAX. MS did not develop it. They simply created 1 protocol as a means to an end, only to find that it worked against them.

The idea of calling MS open is beyond bizarre. It is positively Machiavellian and reminds of me when MS was pushing the idea that THEY developed the internet.

MS supports open standards...

[Anonymous Coward]

Like a spouse abuser shows love for his wife. There are practically NO open standards that MS products don't pervert or ignore. The marketing offal in the article summary only serves to make MS look even more ridiculous.

PDF support? Nope. SVG? Nada. OpenDocument? Yeah right. PNG? Still haven't gotten it right. CSS? Don't hold your breath. Vorbis, Theora, FLAC, Jabber? Not in your lifetime.

In fact, it seems that all MS cares about is inventing closed file formats and protocols to ensure that there is NEVER interoperability with other products. NTFS, SMB, Exchange ActiveSync, MS Office file formats, MSN Messenger protocol, WMA, WMV, DirectX and ActiveX are a few examples but there many others.

Microsoft is to interoperability like masturbation is to sex.

Re:Open Standards == No one is Using it

[Antique Geekmeister]

For the cost of wasting 5 hours on the phonen of one of my technical peers, I can often contact the *author* of the open source tool and pay them for one hour of support time, at a substantial savings to my personal or my employer's bottom line.

Re:Hmm. First example of it.

[MeNeXT]

WHAT? They don't even follow HTML standards and yet you believe they follow standards that will sit on top of HTML. Actions speak louder than words. IE 7 is not standards compliant. I strongly believe that Microsoft has no intention of following any standard.

When IE starts supporting standards then I'll believe Microsofts claim of standards based Internet.

Re:Either there's been a complete sea change....

[OmegaBlac]

And anyway, it's not open source, because I can't take the entire source and produce a rival product using it.

It very well may be open source, but it sure is not Free Software.

Re:In a weird way, it works both ways

[MightyMartian]

Microsoft does this every few months. They send out one of their talking heads to talk to some segment of the tech community and spread a heaping, reeking pile of bullshit. Whether it's the idiotic question and answer sessions that Slashdot provides, or some developers conference, it's all about trying to make their monopolistic agenda look nice and cuddly. Microsoft has been one of the single biggest enemies of standards of any kind. They've gone out of the way to break standards, so the only question is whether or not this particular talking head actually believes the crap he's spreading.

Well, there is another question. Does Microsoft truly think we're so stupid as to buy into any of it?

Re:In a weird way, it works both ways

[Score Whore]

Same thing is going on with AJAX. MS did not develop it.

What. The. Fuck? MS created AJAX from whole cloth. Your entire post is pure rhetoric and fiction.

...reminds of me when MS was pushing the idea that THEY developed the internet.

How can you be reminded of something that never happened?

Re:In a weird way, it works both ways

[Mateo_LeFou]

"there is another question. Does Microsoft truly think we're so stupid as to buy into any of it?"

Yes, they truly think that. And many many people are exactly so stupid. If BG says it, it's true. And if you point out that it's false, you're just jealous of BG's money.

Re:Either there's been a complete sea change....

[novus ordo]

In the section entitled Beat Linux there's this blurb: "Fold extended functionality into commodity protocols / services and create new protocols." This extended functionality has to do with patents. Read up on how they stunted OpenGL with threats of IP infringement on pixel and vertex shaders to see this is a real threat. Also the patent deal with Novell is only an indication of things to come. It makes sense too. The code license doesn't matter as long as you control what you can code.
Microsoft is slowly decommoditizing standards by patenting the underlying logic(something's gotta stick). On the other hand, you can't really blame them for taking advantage of our broken patent system. There are plenty of other parasites out there eager and willing to do it.

Re:In a weird way, it works both ways

[init100]

Microsoft sometimes creates useful things, like once every couple of years. :)

AJAX is certainly one of these (few) things.