What is Digg?Sponsored by Best Buy
My wife likes to take pictures of everything. Got any ideas? view!
bestbuy.com - With a Kodak(r) EasyShareTM 3X Zoom, she'll have impressive 10.2-megapixel performance, right at her fingertips
48 Comments
- bzaks, on 02/23/2008, -8/+99Red hat's not impressed? Neither is the rest oft he world
- Remmy, on 02/23/2008, -5/+77They shouldn't be impressed. Microsoft has basically said, "Here is a rather obfuscated set of documents sort of explaining how some of are formats work. Feel free to attempt deciphering them using RosettaStone.NET. Oh... by the way, if you code something that uses them and we don't like it, we'll sue you, but we are all about the MS Interoperability Openness"
It's like spitting in the face of real open source software and companies. I'm not a Microsoft fan obviously, but this is genuinely insulting to the intelligence of programmers everywhere and obviously an attempt to put themselves in a better light in hopes of getting OOXML as standard. - Stonekeeper, on 02/23/2008, -1/+23Don't worry mate, they'll release all the specs alright. In an OOXML document (one with special extensions nobody knows how to interpret).
- mrrm, on 02/23/2008, -2/+20It's about the 4th time MS announces this. They do that every time their market share takes a dent. This time it's their ticket who's taking a plunge. And investors are starting to ask difficult questions. For instance, why is Vista such a downgrade on XP?
- SniperSlap, on 02/23/2008, -1/+13This is just another PR misunderstanding and misinformation campaign of our persuasive post 2K advertising world.
The technique? Say something with as much spin, proximity and intent to imply something completely different. Think it isn't possible? Guess again. Through imagery, clever titles and choice audiences a double meaning can be obtained which takes on a life of its own.
It is the most clever trick of advertising yet and a technique people still have yet to catch on to. Especially when news like this is disseminated via the dumbest people possible. There is a reason why MS didn't pump this information through technically competent channels.
I'll buy the whole "MS embraces FOSS" when they stop centering all their ideas around Windows dependence.
Until then, it is all just a lot of high level executive ***** born of light years of distance between their understanding of what they work with and reality. - mrsteveman1, on 02/23/2008, -1/+12Heres a relevant example: Microsoft doesn't make NAS devices (WHS doesn't even remotely count), and most NAS device must work with Windows, which means they must support SMB/Samba. So yes the rest of the world cares.
Your Linux vs. everyone else view of the world is odd and shortsighted. - sloppychris, on 02/23/2008, -7/+18Not knowing the definition of slander? Oh wageslaven, I predict you're a dumbass.
- omababy, on 02/23/2008, -1/+11I'd expect no less from someone who doesn't understand the issues being discussed, and the implications of. Dam it's ratification time, the spin is in full swing but no one with a brain is buying. LoLZ
- inactive, on 02/23/2008, -0/+9Pyramid spam scheme...
- SniperSlap, on 02/23/2008, -2/+10The knee-jerk pro-MS obfuscation? Oh wageslaven, you clearly do not understand what these words actually mean!
- mossblaser, on 02/23/2008, -0/+8Is there something wrong with your keyboard or do you always type like that?
- MacSuxWindozSux, on 02/23/2008, -1/+8That's true for all companies. The only issue is how much of it is at people's expense.
- ToadLeg, on 02/23/2008, -0/+6"any public statement by Microsoft that they are going to support interoperability or open source software is good. It gets them on record as supporting it"
If Microsoft could go around saying they are supporting open source without actually doing it, and people believed them, what incentive would they have to actually do it? Your DRM analogy is backwards: They released DRM free music because people kept demanding it, and didn't accept "half-way" DRM free music. If people had accepted DRM music, what reason would the music industry have had to release DRM free music? - GMorgan, on 02/23/2008, -1/+7The point is their offering actually makes things worse. They haven't offered the standard in any reasonable way (just giving documents isn't enough, there are all sorts of legal issues). Right now the only result is they will be able to claim infringement on their IP where none exists. Without these standards there was no doubt that any implementation would legally arise from reverse engineering. Now they have muddied the water by saying 'look but don't touch' and could claim any GPL product derives from their standard.
- deeceefar2, on 02/23/2008, -2/+8It almost seems to me that they released all the specs as a move to keep developers from being about to reverse engineer their protocols. By releasing all the specs in the open if someone were to release a product or piece of software using that protocol with or without using the spec they would sue them and claim they used it, pointing to how similar the software is to the specs. Without an open license to go along with the specs, I think this is another move from Microsoft against the open source community to remove the one sliver of interoperability they did have, which was reverse engineering.
- Yodacola, on 02/23/2008, -0/+6Original Red Hat Pic (via google images): http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www. ...
- natenovs, on 02/23/2008, -0/+6red hat is a corporation. they make enterprise linux. they sell support for their product for an incredible cost. they directly compete with Microsoft's server and tools products.
- aliengoods, on 02/23/2008, -12/+17The worst part of my job is being in a 95% Microsoft shop. The best part is running a series of Linux servers that take up a fraction of the resources on the VMWare ESX server, have longer uptimes, and are less of a pain to maintain.
- daradib, on 02/23/2008, -1/+6It's cute and funny. Awwww...
- amfantasy, on 02/23/2008, -1/+6This isn't even a baby step, it's in the wrong direction... It's calling a closed format open
- GMorgan, on 02/23/2008, -0/+5Sorry when people lie I call it a lie. MS aren't stupid, they have no intention of supporting FOSS. They are well practised at this equivocating nonsense over years and we are frankly fed up. MS know what they must do to support FOSS because they have been told so over decades. If they do otherwise then it simply means they do not want to support FOSS. As it stands they are trying to gain the PR of supporting FOSS while actually making the legal situation more difficult. This is entirely intentional.
Corporate support of FOSS isn't a poorly understood concept where you can make trivial 'mistakes' and expect to get away with it. IBM and Sun Microsystems have managed it, even Apple (historical 'Keep your filthy hands off my IP' whores) have managed to do some good wrt FOSS (though there are still issues). - known, on 02/23/2008, -1/+5Interoperability is Oxymoron with out sharing the source code....
- RoadWarriorX11, on 02/23/2008, -0/+3http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anwy2MPT5RE
- tripzero, on 02/25/2008, -0/+2This seems to be another way for microsoft to make money. they claim they will not go after open source programmers who do not profit off of the code. however they will sue any company that uses that application in which contains the "open" API's unless that company pays for patent protection. For example If Evolution starts using Outlook API's to talk to an exchange server, Red hat cannot include Evolution in it's distribution without paying Microsoft for patent indemnification. In short, making money off of open source isn't bad, the way microsoft is trying to strong-arm their way into making money off of it is pathetic.
- natenovs, on 03/08/2008, -0/+1i don't know why i'm feeding you...
Red Hat Enterprise Linux
(Up to 2 sockets)
" 24x7 phone support, web support, unlimited incidents: 1 Year $1,299"
Red Hat Enterprise Linux Advanced Platform
(Unlimited sockets)
1 Year $2,499 - inactive, on 02/23/2008, -0/+1Lose.
- kaph, on 02/24/2008, -0/+1*****, *****, *****! I dugg you down by accident. Sorry.
- YamiJim, on 02/24/2008, -0/+1Define "Incredible Cost" a 1 year support contract for $350 if you know what your doing......OR 24x7 phone support $1299....any one who doesn't think that's incredible value needs to be kicked in the face.
On a side note YOU CAN LEGALLY INSTALL AND USE RED HAT FOR FREE and DO NOT HAVE TO PURCHASE ANY SUPPORT. ass. - HonoredMule, on 02/23/2008, -0/+1I'm so glad I don't do "business."
- mbuckingham, on 02/23/2008, -4/+4Why should they do anything other than look out for their own interest. If they didn't, they would close...that's called business. Sure I think Microsoft has much to learn, but come on people start companies to make money...just like you work to get a paycheck.
- YamiJim, on 02/23/2008, -9/+9lol @ Competitor, don't know much about open source do you? Redhat is basically free (minus support and some specialized updates for a nominal subscription) not to mention they is NEVER really a choice between Redhat (Linux) and Windows, if a company CAN go *nix they will, its just a better investment. Servers to admins ratios, stability etc. ah, i'm not trying to start a troll war, but i think its hard for free* software to be a competitor in the normal business sense of the word. (*see above, lol)
- inactive, on 02/25/2008, -0/+0idk, something about PDF documents and counter strike source.
- crossers, on 07/14/2008, -0/+0original hat, but I think this is another way to make money!
http://www.ocflex.com/
http://www.trgovinca.org
http://www.chasr.org/ - snofr, on 02/23/2008, -2/+0ok
- hc5831, on 02/23/2008, -14/+9Seriously Microsoft doesn't do anything that isn't in its best interests. With its best interests making as much money ass possible. No matter how they spin something, they are doing it because it is their best plan to maximize profits.
- inactive, on 02/23/2008, -7/+1My point is, any public statement by Microsoft that they are going to support interoperability or open source software is good. It gets them on record as supporting it. Next would be a genuine movement in that direction. People are too quick to bash them and ascribe evil intentions to their actions. They need to be encouraged like any company that is redefining it's profit base to a new market . Look at how long it took the record companies to start offering DRM free music. Microsoft needs the chance to develop a way of making a profit using interoperability and open software. What the bashing does accomplish is lessening the credibility of the calls for change. Microsoft can point out in court that they gave an inch and the open source community wanted a mile. A better response would have been "Thanks for the documents. As important as they are, we still need X, Y, and Z to fully realize interoperability." Civility goes a long way when dealing with people or companies. Red Hat just made themselves look like the villans of the piece.
- cenobyte40k, on 02/23/2008, -9/+3Hey if you really want to impress me, don't do what you want to do, do what I want you to do. Hey I know you are not open source but if you don't take up that business modle you suck....
Way to go Red Hat.... Why should we care what you think about MS business plan? Anymore than we should care about what MS thinks of yours? - inactive, on 02/23/2008, -11/+5I swear the open source community would bitch about a blow job. If you really want Microsoft to open up a bit, then don't bash them every time they take a step, admittedly a baby step, in the right direction.
- bthug7, on 02/23/2008, -14/+6In other news, Mr. Pibb commends Dr. Pepper's new cherry chocolate flavor.
- dragoninsane, on 02/23/2008, -10/+1Ms offering API's,yelp i was in need of OS kernel which makes there OS's Number1.that was a joke indeed,everybdy knows how secure is against viruses and its own unstable since win1x.Bludy BSOD screenful os.i see ms bending to show useless sympathy only "To GAIN something maybe to bring some standards like docx or ooxml something or to learn some old tricks from linux community which they did in the beggining".also ms copied from apple and macs for vista".there are zillion issues that ms cant solve,actually its now afraid of GOOGLE and yahoo(not selling them cheap) and the growing support for ubuntu and linux,wine happening fast,firefox.etc etc.ask MS first to stop double standards and be clear what they want ,put forward there terms what they want.
- MJDub, on 02/23/2008, -13/+3The Red Hat chick looks like Kate Mara.
http://www.imdb.com/media/rm4153318144/nm0544718 - LANjackal, on 02/23/2008, -27/+16I wonder what the odds that Red Hat, an MS competitor, would be impressed by an MS initiative are? This article falls into the "duh" category.
- TwineHornet, on 02/23/2008, -15/+4What's with that ugly drawing that goes with the article.. doesn't make it look very professional.
- badgermagics, on 02/23/2008, -15/+3I don't think He-World is ready.
- fkr3, on 02/23/2008, -23/+5The rest of the world doesn't give a crap. Plenty of software vendors seem to be able to work with Microsoft products and have for a very, very long time. For a hundred million or more references check out http://www.download.com.
Microsoft's legacy-support pretty much guarantees anything more than a few generations old is going to be encumbered by assloads of backwards compatibility layers. Expecting a nice, simple answer to a format or protocol that's been in ongoing development for decades is silly. - sthedasap, on 02/23/2008, -25/+3what about the red socks?
- SpookyApplePie, on 02/23/2008, -34/+11microsoft sucks everyone knows that
***** MICROSOFT
***** THE RIAA - wageslaven, on 02/23/2008, -35/+10The knee-jerk anti-MS slander? Oh, Digg, You're so predictable.
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 