Bill Gates Claims OSS Has Poor Interoperability

XeRXeS-TCN writes "In yet another example of Bill Gates seemingly 'not getting it' (or getting it just fine and spreading FUD), he has sent out an email to all MSFT's corporate customers, stating that if they are looking for interoperability, they should not look to Linux or OSS software. What he really means of course, is free alternatives trying to interoperate with Microsoft's non-documented proprietary standards."

What is this world coming to?

[bigtallmofo (695287)]

What's next!? Cigarette companies are going to claim that they aren't harmful to your health?

Re:What is this world coming to?

[danormsby (529805)]

Guess they don't attempt to interoperate between three different version of Office within their organization.

Guess they can afford the upgrade licenses!

Linux is pretty bad in this regard

[Nailer (69468)]

I hate to defend this guy, but there's other things you should be attacking him over. From a user point of view. Different Open Source distros are really like different Operating Systems.

How do you install software in Red Hat? Debian? Windows 95? Windows XP?

How do you change what IP address will be used for eth0, in Red Hat or Debian? Windows 95? Windows XP?

In both cases the 6 years different versions of Windows are more similar than the latest versions of both.

Re:Linux is pretty bad in this regard

[vsprintf (579676)]

I hate to defend this guy, but there's other things you should be attacking him over. From a user point of view. Different Open Source distros are really like different Operating Systems.

Well, they are. The only thing they share in common may be a version of the kernel and the user tools.

How do you install software in Red Hat? Debian? Windows 95? Windows XP?

If you want to make an apples-to-apples comparison, then compare Mandrake 7.2 to Mandrake 10.1 versus Win98 to WinXP. Software installation is essentially the same accross the board except that Mandrake won't install something just because you put a CD in the drive.

I must have missed it when the law of computer usability was written. Who said everything had to work according to the Microsoft way? I guess that OO should break the document format with every new release if that's the standard.

Re:Linux is pretty bad in this regard

[0BoDy (739304)]

I think you've lost sight of what Linux is, and why it's here. Linux isn't the environment. It's not even the command-line, it's just the kernel. It's definitely NOT windowing environments.

I think a lot of the misconception regard the differences between Linux and GNU software relates to what is what, and who wrote it, what they believe and if you agree with that. Whether they're written by RM Stallman et al, or Linus et al, or by distribution developers is important.

Linux is the kernel. The kernel, just like the CPU in your computer, is extremely interoperable. It works with all kind of peripheral applications, you access it using external commands, shells, etc. Linus wrote it because, to an extent he agreed with RMS ideology about software: that it should be free as in freedom, as in beer, and that you should be able to do anything with it.

Richard M. Stallman, creator of GNU (GNU's not UNIX), wrote many of the other applications terminal junkies get fired up about: bash, emacs, less, man and others. The GNU system applications and the kernel are what make up a complete Linux base system. Anything above that is written by the gnome group or kde, or someone else. These things are written for Linux but are other applications, just like null-soft winamp, AOL, Aqua, Macromedia Dreamweaver, or Flash.

On top of that, many distributions have designed "ease of use" solutions for X11-based graphical display servers. Interoperability has very little to do with configuration changes from distro to distro; that has more to do with the base OS, ifconfig, bash, sysvinit, and the flat files in /etc. Deficiencies of that software are the ones that ought to be addressed here. So if you have complaints about GUI features not being present cross-distribution: complain to Novell, Red Hat, et al that they're not supporting Linux upstream*. Distros are there so you can choose the way you want to learn to do it. Learn it once, or learn it again because you see a better way to do it. Most change isn't bad.

Also, only administrators should be worrying about interoperability, software installation, ip addressing, network configuration, boot up, accounts, etc. The "user's" point of view isn't really relevant there, a good administrator should know GNU/Linux, the base OS, configured with flat files, in terminal. It's easier anyway, once you've been trained to do it that way, because it doesn't change, because that's actually what GNU/Linux is.

I think you need to get past your bad experiences in the GUI environment and evaluate the OS. I agree there needs to be A GNU installer framework, perhaps even GNU selected GUI configuration utilities, among other things, but many distributions ideologies will get in the way. Red Hat wouldn't use it, now; Suse has YAST; Debian, Slackware, Gentoo, and derivatives use the gnome / KDE controls or else the terminal and would use them, but even so, there will inconsistency as long as Linux is free as in freedom. You can't expect an OS that's based on user input to be the same across multiple branches and ideologies; choose wisely. I choose Linux, because no matter which distribution I use, I can still fix it, rely on it, and be happy so many have put hard work into it.

*Few distros make fixes and actually let the original authors know, and help them catch all of Linux. This results in some other minor changes from distro to distribution. ** I hope this hasn't just been a big pointless rant, I've spent about an hour trying to write it well.

Funny how that interpolation suff works

[argoff (142580)]

Funny you should mention that,
just a day or two ago, a secretary in the office couldn't open up a power-point file sent to her by the boss. They were both created on different versions of Microsoft Office, but it woud crash every time she opened it.

I had her send it to me, opened it up in OpenOffice and re-saved it in a generic powerpoint format. I sent it back to her and it now works fine!

So yes, with a little effort - different versions of Microsoft Office can interpolate :)

Re:What is this world coming to?

[BoomerSooner (308737)]

Bill Gates is trying to maximize shareholder wealth. When you find an honest publicly traded company let me know (mind you I used to work at arthur andersen and most private companies aren't honest either).

Gates makes his money by selling, pushing & shoving his inferior product on everyone. If he truly wanted an interoperable system he'd open up those undocumented api's etc...

I personally like windows but I also like OS 9, OS X, Linux, BeOS, Solaris, ...

An OS should be like a screw driver. It does its job and doesn't need to be redesigned every week.

Re:What is this world coming to?

[BetterThanCaesar (625636)]

An OS should be like a screw driver.

One part vodka, three parts orange juice?

Re:What is this world coming to?

[STrinity (723872)]

Anybody who's been to college knows that it's not a proper screwdriver without at least equal parts vodka and oj. 100 proof, if possible.

You people make me sick. Leave it to dumbass Americans to dilute perfectly good vodka with fruitjuice.

Re:What is this world coming to?

[by Anonymous Coward]

I'm sick of Slashdotters jumping to conclusions about Bill Gate's honesty. Maybe Bill's trying to let the public know Linux isn't interoperable with his software's 13 new security vulnerabilities [slashdot.org].

Re:What is this world coming to?

[bman08 (239376)]

Microsoft makes products that are like a screwdriver. It just happens to be one of those screwy star-shaped ones that nobody has.

If phillips had his way, it would be against the law to reverse engineer the X shaped screw, and you'd have to pay for his proprietary driver. They just didn't think to buy enough politicians to pass the MCSDA. (Mechanical Century Screw Driver Act)

This is backfiring

[rseuhs (322520)]

Bill Gates is trying to maximize shareholder wealth.

I think they are failing at that.

IIRC the dollar lost 26% of it's value in 2004 (compared to Euro and Yen), so the 6% increase in revenue (10-12 2004/2005 in dollars) don't look so great anymore.

Sure, they have cut 1.5 billion of R&D costs, which is impressive, but only revenue can keep a company alive.

Currently Microsoft's anti-Linux strategy seems to be:

• Constantly badmouthing Linux, thus keeping Linux in the mind of decision makers
• Pushing XML which has it's roots (via SGML) in the Unix-community.

This won't work.

It will have these effects, all bad for Microsoft:

• Big customers realize that Linux is a powerful way to threaten Microsoft, thus they have much more power during negotiations which means less margin for MS.
• All customers realize that if Linux is such a threat to Microsoft, it can't be that bad.
• Customers who realize the value of an open format like XML are also much more likely to realize the value of open formats and standards in general in which open source has a big advantage.

It seems Microsoft is getting pretty desperate.

This coming from the man...

[mikeophile (647318)]

who brought us Windows ME, an OS that isn't even interoperable with itself.

Re:This coming from the man...

[tehshen (794722)]

He also brought us Microsoft Word, so uninteroperable with itself you sometimes have to use OpenOffice Writer to recover its documents.

Re:This coming from the man...

[NutscrapeSucks (446616)]

Let's put 8 different versions of OpenOffice Writer on millions of machines (10% of which have defective hardware, viruses, etc), and see how well works.

This really seems like a "grass is greener" issue. MSOffice has been everywhere for a long time and of course problems sometime crop up. But nobody really knows if OpenOffice interoperates better with itself because it has never been tried.

(And yes, I know about the XML format, but that doesn't prevent intrepetation/implementaiton issues.)

Re:This coming from the man...

[MemoryDragon (544441)]

Actually that would still work better, see the doc format is an undocumented mess with memory dumps in it, while OpenOffice uses plain clearly readable and well documented XML. Besides that Microsoft constantly altered the doc format to break the revers engineering efforts by the competition, and thus broke constantly its own compatibility between versions.

Actually I've done that...

[FreeUser (11483)]

et's put 8 different versions of OpenOffice Writer on millions of machines (10% of which have defective hardware, viruses, etc), and see how well works.

I know you're implicitly shilling Microsoft's shoddy products by implying other folks work is equally bad, but I hate to break the news to you: it isn't.

To take your example, I've what you're suggesting (on hundreds of machines, not millions, but the point remains) and guess what? They all read, write, and exchange one another's openoffice files perfectly...even the crappy windows boxes which do, from time to time, get hosed by the trojan, virus, spyware, or worm du jour.

Version deployed among colleagues, freinds, and relatives include:

OpenOffice 1.0 (Linux)
OpenOffice 1.1.1 (OS X)
OpenOffice 1.1.2 (Linux, Windows, OS X)
OpenOffice 1.1.3 (Linux, Windows)
OpenOffice 1.1.4 (Linux)
OpenOffice-Ximian 1.1.53 (Linux)
OpenOffice-Ximian 1.3.5 (Linux)
OpenOffice-Ximian 1.3.6 (Linux)
OpenOffice-Ximian 1.3.8 (Linux)
NeoOffice/J 0.8.4 (OS X)
NeoOffice/J 1.1 Alpha 2 (OS X)
NeoOffice/J 1.1 Beta (OS X)

Platforms include assorted versions of Windows, numerous distributions of GNU/Linux ranging from Debian, Red Hat, and Suse to Source Mage and Gentoo. Mac OS X Versions include 10.2.x on iMacs and 10.3.x on assorted systems, including my powerbook 17".

It all works and interoperates flawlessly ... something Microsoft can't do, with its own products, on its own platforms.

Bigger Irony: Letter But not Spirit of Law

[reporter (666905)]

Recently, Microsoft agreed to establish its Office formats as an open standard [techworld.com] in order to comply with Massachusett's laws stipulating open standards (but not necessarily open source). Now, according to the article starting this thread of discussion, Microsoft opposes open-source solutions that use Microsoft formats.

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, do we have a case of complying with the letter of the law but crapping on the spirit of the law?

typical

[ginotech (816751)]

OSS can't work with MSFT stuff for the same reason that some websites only load in IE...microsoft doesn't like to follow the rules

Re:typical

[JNighthawk (769575)]

Um... so? Don't you know the golden rule? He who has the gold makes the rules.

SPAM !!

[by Anonymous Coward]

Sorry I didn't get the email, my email client thought it was a SPAM !!

You want interoperability?

[Mr.Bananas (851193)]

You want interoperability? Just dump Microsoft and use everything else.

Re:You want interoperability?

[crummynz (818547)]

Uh.

I think that was Mr. Gates point. If you dump Microsoft and use everything else, you lose interoperability with Microsoft products.

Re:You want interoperability?

[Simon Lyngshede (623138)]

Very true. Pretty much any service I need on my network will authenticate via Kerberos, except my Windows workstations. I know it can be done, but not without buying a version of Windows 2000/2003 server and doing some trusted realm stuff with AD.

Microsoft should not speak to loudly about interoperability before starting to share more APIs and providing better support for other peoples formats in their own software. Billy Boy seems to forget that interoperability, like trust, is a two way street. Right now Microsoft expect all others to conform to their specification (without revaling the specification of cause) and to trust them, while providing nothing in return.

Interoperating spyware

[The I Shing (700142)]

I love how the spyware the Windows OS attracts interoperates with other spyware on the system.

How can you question Bill Gates on this?

[taustin (171655)]

He is the world's leading expert on lack of interoperability, dammit! He knows what he's talking about!

Studies show...

[chia_monkey (593501)]

Bill Gates would say the human body doesn't need oxygen if it meant a few more billion dollars worth of profits. Little snide remark aside, let's ponder this. Bill says to his customers "Linux isn't good with Microsoft products." Big surprise. The real fun part though will be when the "independent" studies start confirming Bill's claims. You know, the studies done from independent research firms...that just happen to be 95% bankrolled by Microsoft...

I got one, text of email follows

[Thng (457255)]

The email in question:

Every day, businesses face an ongoing challenge of making a wide variety of software from many different vendors work together. It's crucial to success in streamlining business processes, getting closer to customers and partners, or making mergers and acquisitions successful.

This email outlines some of the work Microsoft is doing to make its products interoperate well in a diverse IT environment; it is one in an occasional series of emails from Microsoft executives about technology and public-policy issues important to computer users, our industry, and anyone who cares about the future of high technology. If you would like to receive these emails in the future, please go to *link removed* to subscribe. We will not send you future executive emails unless you choose to subscribe.

Whether you are connecting with partners' systems, accessing data from a mainframe, connecting applications written in different programming languages or trying to log on across multiple systems, bringing heterogeneous technologies together while reducing costs is today a challenge that touches every part of the organization.

Over the years, our industry has tried many approaches to come to grips with the heterogeneity of software. But the solution that has proven consistently effective - and the one that yields the greatest success for developers today - is a strong commitment to interoperability. That means letting different kinds of applications and systems do what they do best, while agreeing on a common "contract" for how disparate systems can communicate to exchange data with one another.

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.

This may seem like an obvious approach, but the desire for interoperability is sometimes mixed up with other issues. For example, interoperability is sometimes viewed merely as adherence to a published specification of some kind, either from one or more vendors or a standards organization. But simply publishing a specification may not be enough, because it overlooks much of the hard work it takes to successfully develop interoperable products - namely, ensuring that the "contract" defined by a specification is successfully implemented in software and tested in a production environment.

Sometimes interoperability is also confused with open source software. Interoperability is about how different software systems work together. Open source is a methodology for licensing and/or developing software - that may or may not be interoperable. Ad

Re:I got one, text of email follows

[bcrowell (177657)]

Hee hee...the Slashdot blurb is pretty misleading. The e-mail rarely even mentions Linux. In one place where it does mention Linux, it's to say that MS is trying to play nicely with Linux:

• Microsoft software can talk to mainframes and minicomputers from IBM and other manufacturers; other operating systems such as the Mac OS and various UNIXes including Linux; ...

The only thing that even remotely sounds like the Slashdot blurb is this:

• Additionally, the open source development approach encourages the creation of many permutations of the same type of software application, which could add implementation and testing overhead to interoperability efforts.

Translation: being interoperable is easiest when you don't have to interoperate with more than one implementation.

Yeah, right

[Lisandro (799651)]

I'll accept that the day Office doesn't have problems opening .doc files from different versions.

PS: It's all marketing, that's what Microsoft's about. Can we please move to something else?

Re:Yeah, right

[BoomerSooner (308737)]

PDFs are backward compatible. If you are using new features that weren't available you might need to upgrade your (free) reader. However you can print to PDF from any Mac application (I haven't tried the Linux alternatives) and the FDF Libraries are available for using for free from Adobe [adobe.com]. Not too difficult if you ask me.

Adobe isn't the nicest company to deal with either but they are a hell of a lot better than MS.

Note: I'm an MSDN subscriber and I develop for Linux, Windows, Mac and *nix systems.

He's right, of course

[rscrawford (311046)]

Linux and OSS are compatible with less than 1% of the viruses, worms, and trojans that have been created by third party Windows developers! If you're running Linux (or even Firefox on Windows) you're denied the rich environment of advertising available to users of MSFT products!

He told the truth

[FunWithHeadlines (644929)]

"the open source development approach encourages the creation of many permutations of the same type of software application, which could add implementation and testing overhead to interoperability efforts,"

Gates is telling the truth here. If the whole world standardized on one set of standard software, it would (obviously) make interoperability a lot easier. That's common sense. And we can understand why this vision would appeal to him, especially if the world decided to standardize on his software.

However, there is far more to choosing software than just that. OK, so we work harder to make interoperability work between software. It's worth it so people can have choice.

Re:He told the truth

[Aadain2001 (684036)]

There is a very simple issue: settle on a set of standards that are open and free and then even if 100 different programs that do the same thing, like calendering, come out they could still all interoperate. The users would win since they could use the program that they liked the most, not the one that is holding their data hostage. Open and free standards leads to more inovation because it encourages developers to try new things and not worry about loosing users because they can't use their old data. This is what scares Bill and MS the most and why they will NEVER use open and free standards in their products. They will "embrace and extend" standards, which means making their own version and then not giving it out and blaming everyone else for "not following the standard".

interoperability

[Xerp (768138)]

So does this mean Microsoft are going to fully adopt Open standards? Surely they aren't going to keep everything totally closed and proprietary if they are aiming for a good level of interoperability? That would be obviously hypocritical!

Windows interoperability

[Beolach (518512)]

Yeah, if you want Windows interoperability, you should just go with Windows. Just make sure you have the exact same versions of everything you want to have interoperate.

A while ago I set up a home network. Linux gateway/fileserver running Samba, other boxes on the network running Linux, Win98, WinME, WinXP Pro & Home. Everything could see & use the Samba shares on the Linux fileserver. All the WinXP Pros could see & use shares on the other WinXP Pros. Trying to access shares between WinXP Pro & WinME - no can do.

Interoperability?

[nybo (815582)]

Then how come M$ not keen on using open standards?

Take Outlook for instance.
Works great with M$Exchange, but how about the support for SyncML, iCal, vCard and so on?...

-Nybo

Yeah, funny that.

[mcc (14761)]

I find that every single product I could possibly use or buy has wonderful interoperability, except those Microsoft makes. I even find every operating system I could possibly buy-- from Apple, from Sun, from Redhat-- natively runs the same (POSIX) programs... except the ones Microsoft makes.

Bill Gates is right, of course, that switching away from all-Microsoft products makes interoperability with Microsoft products harder. After all, he specifically engineered things that way. It's too bad the antitrust "settlement" a couple years ago was an absolute sham; if something like that settlement's "document your protocols and formats" clause had actually been enforced, Gates wouldn't be able to engineer them that way anymore, and interoperability would no longer be a problem anywhere.

Anyway, this is a common tactic in advertising. Attack your competitor for flaws you have but they don't; that way you tie up your competitor's ability to attack you on that grounds because they're too busy defending themselves, and you lessen the impact when people point out your own flaws since there's a perception your competitor has those flaws as well. Like, say you're a political candidate with a disreputable and possibly illegal military history? Get your supporters to pay people to claim your opponent has a disreputable and possibly illegal military history. Works like a charm.

It's true...

[sonicattack (554038)]

...that OSS is sometimes playing catching up with proprietary protocols and file formats, trying to find a way to be interoperable with something that is perversely designed to deliberately be hard to work with in order to lock in customers, and re-inforce monopoly status.

So in that respect, what he says is true. Much like a robber slowly pulling the knife out of his victim, while muttering "this street has become too dangerous".

That man is right...

[grumbel (592662)]

That man is right or at least not totally wrong. Just because you have the source it doesn't automatically make your software work together. Simple examples:

- open a OpenOffice document in AbiWord
- copy&paste between different applications
- embbed an Gnumeric chart into some OpenOffice document
- try to edit a LaTeX document with Abiword or OpenOffice
- try to open a Gimp xcf in anything beside Gimp
- try to copy&paste some webpage in a Office application and get something more then plain-text
- ...

None of this works or only in a much less smooth way then it does under Windows or MacOSX with similar software. Free Software has improved a lot in these regions in the last years, but there is still lots and lots of software floating around that doesn't operate much with other software at all. Sure, you can always export to .png or plain-text and somehow get the job done, but smooth interoperability is something else.

Re:That man is right...

[jonastullus (530101)]

- open a OpenOffice document in AbiWord

well, that is really a shame. i would have thought that the abiword guys had an import plugin for this...

- copy&paste between different applications

yes, this IS a serious drawback which stems from the different GUI toolkits. drag&drop also is very problematic between GTK/KDE/X11... but if you use KDE with KDE-applications this problem is much less worse ;-(

- embbed an Gnumeric chart into some OpenOffice document

hmm, should this actually work? you mean like the COM stuff in windows (if that is the right buzzword ;-)? this is not really intended under linux and thus an odd example. windows can't do many of the things that linux can do really well... there is enough lacking in linux to reduce the criticism only to the CORE problems ;-)

- try to edit a LaTeX document with Abiword or OpenOffice

i haven't tried this because abiword nor openoffice are text editors, but it is perfectly possible to do so! or do you mean that abiword/OO should present the document in a LyX-like fashion? this is such a wrong approach!!! abiword/OO are word processors while latex is a typesetting system! two TOTALLY different domains!
that would be like using the Internet Explorer as your default image viewer... *hey, wait a second*

- try to open a Gimp xcf in anything beside Gimp

XCF is an internal format of the Gimp just like PSD is for photoshop! these formats are not really intended to be opened by other programs!

- try to copy&paste some webpage in a Office application and get something more then plain-text

i never understood the urge to do so! my mother always does this as a means of pasting together different bits of information, but why would i want to paste the color, font and background image together with the text?? i am not saying that it is a useless feature and maybe it would be nice if it were possible under linux, but i really don't see any application for this! even worse, i'd REALLY like to know how to disable this questionable feature under windows!

jethr0

Re:That man is right...

[Coryoth (254751)]

As some have pointed out, some of these are valid complaints, but some are just silly.

open a OpenOffice document in AbiWord

Yes, its unfortunate that doesn't work. It isn't for lack of potential interoperability though - both formats are open and documented. The fact that the Abiword team hasn't gotten around to writing an import filter is a little disappointing, but if you're going to damn them for that:

Try opening an OpenOffice document in Microsoft Word.

Not much interoperability from Microsoft either. OpenOffice is fairly widely used and popular, and the file format readily documented. It wouldn't be hard at all for Microsoft ot be interoperable if they wanted to be.

- try to edit a LaTeX document with Abiword or OpenOffice

Try to open a QuarkXPress document in Microsoft Word. How about an Adobe InDesign document in Microsoft Word? What's that? A different application domain? Then please think again about your example. TeX is not a word processor, even if there are programs like LyX that do a good job of providing a word processor like interface for it.

- try to open a Gimp xcf in anything beside Gimp

Try opening a PSD document in anything besides Photoshop. There are actually some programs that read it (like GIMP, heh), but your remarkably interoperable Microsoft Office suite will choke on it. Likewise there are programs that will read xcf (its an open documented format after all), but most don't expect to need to, so don't bother. As to GIMP - I hear they're working on an even more open and easy to access format.

Jedidiah.

Interoperability between IE and Outlook Express

[LoverOfJoy (820058)]

So when someone designs a virus for outlook express it can even work when opened at the hotmail website with internet explorer.

Oh for Charlie Mingus' sake

[Knights who say 'INT (708612)]

This not only is a dupe, but it's a dupe rephrased in a misleading way. Granted, most of the fault is on silicon.com. But "Linux makes interoperability harder" does not necessarily mean "Linux has poor interoperabiliy" (it could mean "Linux developers aren't working with us"), and nowhere in the text Gates says what the headline says. The actual quote on interoperability is:

"Open source is a methodology for licensing and/or developing software - that may or may not be interoperable. Additionally, the open source development approach encourages the creation of many permutations of the same type of software application, which could add implementation and testing overhead to interoperability efforts"

Any mention of Linux? Nah, some noserubbing on the Great Forking Problem.

interoperability of microsoft office

[jonastullus (530101)]

*Yeah*, let's all use microsoft office because that's the only way to achieve interoperability between different parties!

unless i totally misunderstand that word, aren't open standards BETTER in terms of interoperability than closed, proprietary ones??

i say we publish official and open standards, protocols and file formats for all major interactions and make it everybodies choice whether they like to have an open client for the standardized communications or if they'd rather take proprietary tools!

obviously, not every program can be delivered with full source, but if a vendor wants to reach various platforms, there is either a common standard in place (like POSIX for example) or some porting is in order *tough luck*.

why did mr. gates fight java as language and instead went with .NET. i can assure you that interoperability is NOT the reason!

why would a quasi-monopolistic company preach interoperability when this can only weaken its own position???

jethr0

Interoperability

[unoengborg (209251)]

According to Bills dictionary:

The ability to read, and only read, old data formats into new versions of software from the same vender. The aim of interoperability is to simplify upgrade from one version of software to the next.

Translation: Use OSS and ...

[IgD (232964)]

This letter amounts to a veiled threat: Use our software or someone might get hurt. Gates and company plan to make it as hard as possible to prevent interoperability with OSS. If you use OSS they will make as life as difficult as possible for you. They've engaged in this sort of behavior before and are doing it again.

It's been said a bazillion time before...

[Ridgelift (228977)]

For those of you new to Slashdot, here it is again to put this story in perspective:

First they ignore you
Then they laugh at you
Then they fight you -- OSS is here right now
Then you win.

Whatever prompted Bill to say such a thing?

[OwlWhacker (758974)]

Interoperability may not exist between certain OSS products; but, because they're Open Source, they can be made to interoperate without encumbrance - and you can be sure that this won't change.

Can the same be said for Microsoft software? Can developers 'freely' interoperate with all Microsoft software? Does Microsoft give assurance that developers can continue to freely interoperate with its products in the future?

Additionally, the open source development approach encourages the creation of many permutations of the same type of software application

In layman's terms, this means that Open Source encourages that evil thing called 'competition'.

Has Bill Gates ever said anything positive about Open Source Software?

I wonder why not?

Re:he might have a point...

[Xabraxas (654195)]

alsa/oss/esd/arts anyone?

ALSA is the current driver infrastructure in the Linux kernel. OSS was the previous driver structure. ALSA has an OSS emulation layer.

ESD (The enlightenment sound daemon) is a software mixer that was also used in Gnome but isn't anymore. ARTS is the basically the KDE version of ESD but it also being deprecated in favor of ALSA's built in abilities like dmix.

I don't see your point.