In an email to business chiefs made public today, Bill Gates, Chairman of Microsoft, discussed the companies plans to make their software more interoperable with other systems.
"Interoperability is more pragmatic than other approaches, such as attempting to make all systems compatible at the code level, focusing solely on adding new layers of middleware that try to make all systems look and act the same, or seeking to make different systems interchangeable. With a common understanding of basic protocols, different software can interact smoothly with little or no specific knowledge of each other. The Internet is perhaps the most obvious example of this kind of interoperability, where any piece of software can connect and exchange data as long as it adheres to the key protocols.
Simply put, interoperability is a proven approach for dealing with the diversity and heterogeneity of the marketplace. Today I want to focus on two major thrusts of Microsoft’s product interoperability strategy: First, we continue to support customers’ needs for software that works well with what they have today. Second, we are working with the industry to define a new generation of software and Web services based on eXtensible Markup Language (XML), which enables software to efficiently share information and opens the door to a greater degree of "interoperability by design" across many different kinds of software.
Our goal is to harness all the power inherent in modern (and not so modern) business software, and enable them to work together so that the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. We want to further eliminate friction among heterogeneous architectures and applications without compromising their distinctive underlying capabilities."
Gates continued to talk about how Microsoft planned to implement these ideas, and how it already had; Gates pointed to Office 2003 as an example of the company making use of XML technology. He also made the point that "interoperability is also confused with open source software". Microsoft face tough competition from Linux based products which are open source and allow users to modify the underlying system code. Part of the recent European Union judgement on Microsoft involved making the company make it easier for other software vendors to inter opt with their products. Previous messages from Gates delivered in a similar manner have proved to be major policy changes for Microsoft.
View: Gate's Letter in Full | Microsoft Interoperability Homepage
"Interoperability is more pragmatic than other approaches, such as attempting to make all systems compatible at the code level, focusing solely on adding new layers of middleware that try to make all systems look and act the same, or seeking to make different systems interchangeable. With a common understanding of basic protocols, different software can interact smoothly with little or no specific knowledge of each other. The Internet is perhaps the most obvious example of this kind of interoperability, where any piece of software can connect and exchange data as long as it adheres to the key protocols.
Simply put, interoperability is a proven approach for dealing with the diversity and heterogeneity of the marketplace. Today I want to focus on two major thrusts of Microsoft’s product interoperability strategy: First, we continue to support customers’ needs for software that works well with what they have today. Second, we are working with the industry to define a new generation of software and Web services based on eXtensible Markup Language (XML), which enables software to efficiently share information and opens the door to a greater degree of "interoperability by design" across many different kinds of software.
Our goal is to harness all the power inherent in modern (and not so modern) business software, and enable them to work together so that the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. We want to further eliminate friction among heterogeneous architectures and applications without compromising their distinctive underlying capabilities."
Gates continued to talk about how Microsoft planned to implement these ideas, and how it already had; Gates pointed to Office 2003 as an example of the company making use of XML technology. He also made the point that "interoperability is also confused with open source software". Microsoft face tough competition from Linux based products which are open source and allow users to modify the underlying system code. Part of the recent European Union judgement on Microsoft involved making the company make it easier for other software vendors to inter opt with their products. Previous messages from Gates delivered in a similar manner have proved to be major policy changes for Microsoft.
View: Gate's Letter in Full | Microsoft Interoperability Homepage
While the number of official WCG games remains the same, two titles from 2004, Unreal Tournament 2004 and Project Gotham Racing 2 were replaced with a Real Time Strategy (RTS) PC game, Warhammer 40,000: Dawn of War (aka Warhammer 40K) and a console-based action game, Dead or Alive Ultimate. Dead or Alive Ultimate is the first action title selected as an official WCG game.
Warhammer 40K, which first joins the list of official games this year, was first launched in the United States last September as a next generation RTS game expected to follow in the footsteps of the popular PC game Starcraft. Gaming industry webzine Gamespy (www.gamespy.com) selected Warhammer 40k as one of the top 10 PC games for 2004.
Dead or Alive Ultimate, a new player in the console arena, is the latest installment in the Dead or Alive series. Since first launching last October, Dead or Alive Ultimate has enjoyed enormous worldwide popularity. The addition of a high caliber action game further diversifies the official WCG game lineup, which was previously comprised of RTS, First Person Shooter (FPS), and sports genres.
The WCGC conducted online surveys of gamers, communities and partners in many countries prior to making title selections. The committee also sought opinions from game experts with an aim to fully reflect preferences of gamers and trends in the world game market. Publishers¡¯ technical support in terms of event operability and fulfillment of sports spirit were also among the factors taken in to consideration.
# WCG 2005 Official Games
PC : 6 Games
1) StarCraft: Brood War – RTS
2) Warcraft¥²: Frozen Throne – RTS
3) Warhammer 40,000 : Dawn of War - RTS
4) Counter Strike: Source – FPS
5) FIFA 2005 - Sports
6) Need for Speed : Underground 2 – Sports
Console : 2 Games
7) Halo 2 (Console/Xbox) - FPS
8) Dead or Alive Ultimate (Console /Xbox) – Action
That has got to be the worst case of "Mommy i didnt get first post" jealousy i've ever seen. Not everyone chooses to write a 5000 word editorial based on what they read.
Now as for the article, this may lead to having all software interopable: literally leaving it up to us as consumers which OS is truly better, now that compatibility is no longer an issue.
lmao
You might care about the first post but the rest don't even take notice of it. Magoo posted the damn article, you think he's crying about not getting the first post?
Gates: Microsoft Will Build Inoperable Software By Design
But i blevieve this is a good thing, we all know that microsoft will never allow windows or other products to be open source, but allowing them to work with other systems and proggrams is a good thing.. I just hope this isn't just talk..
I have a suspicion that, over time, MS might well let go of control of the underlying operating system. It's already a slow growing business for the client OS and, if the proportion of it's income falls below a certain % of total profits, I think it would be quite happy to dump windows and move on to an open OS in order to share the costs & lose responsability for it's maintaince. Whilst it remains a high enough % of their total income this will never happen.
I Bet they dont come through with this, yes lately they have been better about standards and such, but, well i just dont see it happening.
What's wrong with using standard XML then, like everyone else? Oh yes, I forgot, that would be too standard.
Don't know about you but I read it as "Based upon". Re-read the quote or read me and then return to patronise me
http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,117772,00.asp
Sun & Microsoft made mid last year, shortly after MS started implementing a few Java applications (not activex like usual), most noticably the webmessenger service.
you won't find an actual physical program in the MS OS run on another computer OS at all. unless developers follow the .NET and JRE guidelines.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/vstudio/java/interop/default.aspx
As long as those protocols are open, I'm all for it
Well, that's up to who you ask to. Others sometimes confuse "interoperability" with "everyone use my propietary protocols"
IT IS!?
-----pulls out his whip-------
We are the Borg.
You will be assimilated.
Your biological and technological distinctiveness will be added to our own.
Resistance is futile.
-----
But seriously...
Who defines what these protocols are? Of course, how silly of me, Microsoft does. Are these protocols going to be open? Of course not; how can Microsoft possibly profit from this "new direction" if it's open? And of course, if it's not open, then it's closed. If it's closed, then Microsoft can, and will, be selective about which software is "interoperable"; and therefore, which isn't.
Sounds like they're talking about backwards-compatility between software. To me that sounds like Microsoft will need/want access to the formats of existing software. Probably a requirement they'll throw into their license along with their restrictions.
The other thing I found interesting is the comparison to the Internet. Did Microsoft finally realise that they can't own the Internet, and are going for the next best thing - an "internet" of client software? I think it's obvious where this is going. Software is only interoperable if it works with Microsoft. Anything else is communist.
Edit: fixed some grammar / removed unecessary statement
Last edited by 37017 on 05 Feb 2005 - 07:49
If the solution is going to work, open protocols or not, Microsoft should be selling it from the beginning. If you read the article again, you might notice that all the points are the good things about what it brings to consumers and software makers. I'm no marketing guru, but I can see that it would have been bad for them to say right from the start that the protocols would be closed, whereas there would have been no harm in clarifying that the protocols would be open. But they didn't; they left it at an ambiguous "common understanding" of the protocols between software.
Then again, maybe they haven't yet decided if it will be open or not. But one day they will, and I still can't see Microsoft creating an open protocol for something like this, for reasons I've already stated. Yes, it's all just speculation at this stage (as SquareSoft0 kindly pointed out), but it's realistic enough to be quite possible. If that has come across as too anti-Microsoft for you, then I'm sorry that it isn't in different words.
(Edit: typos)
maybe i could be kinky about some oriented posts over here,some flaming oriented post perhaps,but well if u talk me like this,the only way out is apologizing with you
Samba License Issue (CNet Asia)
Microsoft has worded their license so that the Samba team (and other GPL-based developers) cannot get a license. They will license the protocol, but require that any code developed for this 'opened' or 'shared' protocol are closed source (no source can be released).
yes,it was merely a strategic move,if there is complete interpolable software with free software.................
why pay for microsoft products?
if free software is granted with licenses,microsoft will start to loose very very badly.
i understand them completely.
i understand them completely.
Is that Eduard saying that he doesn't think Microsoft can compete agaisnt competitors on fair and equal footing and access to protocols?
I agree that Microsoft can keep their code on HOW they implement the protocols secret, but allow others to write to that protocol. They should not be allowed to put arbitrary restrictions on what these other code-writers choose to do with *their* code. The specific clause stipulating "that programs which are built using the licensed information are closed source" does not meet the EU's court order to ensure that the license is "granted on reasonable and nondiscriminatory terms".
They wish to violate the EU court order by specifically disallowing Open Source (perhaps their most challenging competitor) from being able to use their license/protocols.
However, Microsoft is requiring for their competitors to be only "closed source" by not allowing Open Source organizations to use their protocols.
EDIT: These threads go so much nicer when discussion like this is not populated with the usual trolls. Hopefully this #11.x remains clear of those posts.
If they want to Interoperable Software By Design they should start making its own componets standard compliant
I believe you shot down your own argument there.
Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!
Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.