Microsoft Dilutes Open Source, Coins 'Open Surface' 191
sfcrazy writes "Now, Microsoft is coining yet another term to further confuse users — 'Open Surface.' Senior Director for Open Source Communities at Microsoft, Gianugo Rabellino, said at Oscon 2011 that customers don't care about the underlying platform as long as the APIs, protocols and standards for the cloud are open. That's when he threw the term 'open surface.'" This seems to have more than a grain of truth to it — after all, programmers have been creating open-source software with closed-source programming languages for many years, and I'm certainly more impressed by Google's willingness to let me export my data than I am turned off by the fact that they use a mix of open and closed source software to run the Google circus.
Embrace, Extend, Extinguish (Score:4, Insightful)
What is the point of the linked page? (Score:4, Insightful)
This is so backwards from Slashdot norm. A summary with a tidbit of "news" in it and intelligently written opinion, no FA to read.
Am I missing something, did Microsoft not really coin this term or is there some biased, slanderous opinion that was unintentionally left out of the summary?
"Published API" (Score:3, Insightful)
It's called "published API".
Microsoft, as usual, is trying to conflate "published protocol" (an interface that can be used by independently developed software that may share no components with software providing interface) and "published API" (an interface that requires direct use of software providing the interface within common framework such as libraries, plugins, compilers' handling of interface definitions, etc.)
Shut up, Microsoft. Nothing short of published, open protocol is going to suffice. And none of your products will survive if you won't hide and obfuscate protocols used by them. You know that and we know that, so don't pretend that you are not our enemies.
open APIs must remain open (Score:5, Insightful)
as long as the APIs, protocols and standards for the cloud are open
The key thing is to ensure that the APIs cannot be controlled, or changed or withdrawn or have conditions of use imposed on them. Open means more than just having them documented.
The only way to ensure that the APIs remain usable is to have the ability to rebuild the underlying software, rather than simply have a third party provide us with it - where the way the API is still under their sole control. To do that requires unencumbered access to the source code, and the entitlement to copy it and make other things that use it.
Without those abilities, there will always be the possibility that the original owner could arbitrarily change it, refuse to support it, add private functions and features or prevent certain classes of users from benefitting from it. These are the attributes that make free software valuable.
Security by obscurity, still... (Score:5, Insightful)
Whether or not this is a move to co-opt FOSS, I can't say, although I have my suspicions. But from a security standpoint, it sucks. Security breaches are becoming more and more common; with the underlying code being closed, there can be no independent confirmation of the quality of security measures, patches, etc. So when a vulnerability is found and 'patched', we still won't have any assurance, beyond Microsoft's say-so, that the patch fixes the problem and doesn't introduce any new ones.
This announcement doesn't really change anything, and on the face of it it's non-news. But as propaganda, it stands a good chance of getting more people to drink the MS Kool-aid. And remember when MS used to use undocumented OS calls to give their own applications an edge over competitors? I think we can expect such abuses to increase greatly - the appearance of openness will hide what's really going on.. The 'surface' may be 'open', but the underlying code, and the underlying politics, are murkier and more closed than ever.
Besides, 'Open Surface' sounds rather shallow, doesn't it?
There's nothing to dilute. (Score:3, Insightful)
His revelation is right on the mark. I constantly see proponents of Open Source say things such as "It's auditable because the source code is free". Well yes it is, but no one cares. I think even from the Slashdot crowd the number of people who bothered to build Firefox from source is a small minority compared to those who downloaded it. Those who actually look at the code are an even smaller subset of those bothered to build from source.
People talk about open source as if users give a damn. Users are only interested in 2 things, how much it costs, and if it works. Open APIs are part of the ability for something to work if your idea of working is interoperability.
Patents covered seperately (Score:5, Insightful)
I believe the following statement on the front page says it all:
"rights under Microsoft patents covering such specifications are available separately"
Re:There's nothing to dilute. (Score:4, Insightful)
"It's auditable because the source code is free". Well yes it is, but no one cares. I think even from the Slashdot crowd the number of people who bothered to build Firefox from source is a small minority compared to those who downloaded it
That exact same logic condemns "open surface" too - the vast majority of customers don't give a damn about documented interfaces, they just want to use the product.
It's only a very tiny minority that need to get their hands dirty. And of that tiny minority, only a minute fraction are good with "open surface" but not actual open source. The minute that one of those API's turns out to be only partially documented, or the code behind it buggy, or disabled for marketing reasons, then those same people now need real open source and not a sucker's stand-in like "open surface."
Customers or Providers? (Score:5, Insightful)
> customers don't care about the underlying platform as long as the APIs, protocols and standards for the cloud are open.
That seems true. Customers want openness in the part that they deal with. Since the customer does not deal with system maintenance and development, he does not care whether the underlying platform is open. The provider of the cloud service, on the other hand, has a deeply vested interest in the openness of the platform. Maintenance, repair, and extension requirements all strongly favor an open platform from the cloud service provider's perspective.
Pointing out that the customer does not care about platform openness as long as the protocol is open is a bit like saying that automobile drivers do not care if the paving crew uses horse-drawn paving machines as long as they get the job done in a timely manner. It does not necessarily follow that horse-drawn paving machines make sense.
Re:Come on, folks, OPEN YOUR EYES! (Score:0, Insightful)
Selena Gomez is of age.
Than she is a rapist.
And how is it you know this tidbit?
Re:Embrace, Extend, Extinguish (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not that specifications and standards aren't important. Of course they are. But Microsoft is more than a bit disingenuous in pretending to advocate them when it has been so egregiously, perennially active in undermining them. This hypocrisy is all too familiar.
Thanks, Microsoft, for reminding me why I loathe you.
Re:Embrace, Extend, Extinguish (Score:1, Insightful)
And I bet you think Apple are wonderful too.
Re:Embrace, Extend, Extinguish (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is that API's, protocols and standards pretty much never are open without releasing a reference implementation.
Not true. In fact, having a reference implementation is a good way of making a kludgy standard. The IETF's requirement, for example, does not require a reference implementation. It requires two independent implementations. If the standard can't be implemented by two groups who aren't sharing code then it's not a standard it's just documentation.