We are receiving…

re: We are receiving…

ringerc — Sun, 30 Apr 2006 20:17:36 GMT

Congratulations, I'm glad to see that you're persisting with this despite the negativity, ranting, raving, and foaming. I'm very happy that you seem to be aware that many of the most vocal here aren't those who're actually involved in the OSS community as useful members and contributors.

I'd be very interested to see more technical detail about some of the issues you folks encounter, as well as broader experiences, ideas about future possibilities, and comments on real future plans.

There are so many different kinds of interoperability that I really don't envy you your job, let alone the need to communicate with the general public about it. Glad you're doing it.

re: We are receiving…

Bryan — Sat, 15 Apr 2006 09:34:43 GMT

Note to you 'softies running this site:

Thanks.

It's going to take a lot of fortitude to keep up in the face of the constant emotive slagging already seen here, which will no doubt continue.

But I for one appreciate the effort, especially in the face of this kind of resistance. Please do keep it up, and where possible, make it even more technical in 'in the trenches'. Let the malcontents continue to mutter. This is valuable stuff, and I for one am glad you are sharing it.

re: We are receiving…

Linus Tarballs — Fri, 14 Apr 2006 23:57:21 GMT

Works ok here with straw ...

re: We are receiving…(rss feed)

rshaw — Fri, 14 Apr 2006 21:56:54 GMT

you'll probably have to use a microsoft product for that. the rss feed has probably been "embraced, and extended" known to the rest of the world as "deliberately made incompatable"

re: We are receiving…

Scott Baker — Fri, 14 Apr 2006 17:43:35 GMT

Can you guys look in to your RSS feed? It doesn't load in Thunderbird in Thunderbird, it tries it just doesn't work. If I look at the raw feed it looks really weird with all kinds of escaped HTML characters. It doesn't validate with feed validator either. I'd really like to follow port25 progress, but with RSS being hosed it's going to make it harder. Is anyone else having this problem with the RSS feed and Thunderbird?

re: We are receiving…

scstraus — Fri, 14 Apr 2006 16:12:00 GMT

What's there to talk about? Open up your protocols and file formats, then we can talk. There's nothing for us to talk about now. This silly cover for trying to syphon ideas from the open source community is so transparent it's rediculous. And it will never work.

re: We are receiving…

D Black — Fri, 14 Apr 2006 09:31:05 GMT

I like the deleted posts. Like I don't have enough to do already.

FACT, people,... and I generally support Microsoft... and, I've been candid... saying it like it is without using harsh language.

But, my posts are deleted...

So... I'll say this once more... and only once more... This website is to "receive" ideas for Microsoft to provide Linux people an opportunity give Microsoft ideas to incorporate into a "systems management" package (probably to be added to MS MOM and/or Systems Mgmt Server).

Whether or not Microsoft makes that an "open source" project remains to be seen. But, I doubt it.

But, undoubtedly, your time and ideas are "free" to Microsoft... who already spends $5BILLION a year on R&D. If MS wanted to give me a $100,000 cash, today, for my ideas... I'd give them a long list.

But, no, I know that won't happen. Onto my 20 hour day now as I read some more MS documentation for a project I'm working on here at 3:30 AM. I can't find anyone to help me for free... Unless I spend a couple million on an "Open Source Lab" for people to tell me what THEY think.

Good night.

re: We are receiving…

Roberto J. Dohnert — Thu, 13 Apr 2006 17:33:02 GMT

" I have very mixed feelings about this blog. One one hand, Microsoft had to "open" a dialog with Open Source sooner or later, or at least give the impression of doing so. However, due to my previous experience with this topic, I still tend to be skeptical about what's actually going to happen. "

I dont have any reservations about this blog at all. I think it will be a very good site as long as religous zealous hype manages to keep itself out. Its when you argue opinion rather than fact that we will start to have problems.

" If Microsoft's interest in an open dialog is really as genuine as claimed, perhaps the authors of the paper would be so nice and actually answer. Until then, I remain unconvinced. "

To every story there are two sides. While I think you did a good job in your rebuttal, I also think Microsoft made more valid points than what was given credit for. As for the get the facts site and all the arguments against it, hey if yoi dont like it start your own site but remember trst only goes so far so I expect to see some actual studies, which you will probably have to sponsor, inclded.

re: We are receiving…

Linus Tarballs — Thu, 13 Apr 2006 16:32:42 GMT

I suppose that the site is still undergoing developement,like all other things,it'll take time to pick up...I agree with the previous post,I would like to read opinions from MS regarding open source,and how exactly do they intend to use it,and,what will MS open source if anything?.

Regards,
Linus Tarballs

re: We are receiving…

xyx — Thu, 13 Apr 2006 16:26:39 GMT

What's the purpose of this site? It looks like half the posts (not spam) are deleted. Maybe if you could state what the point is, I would be interested. If the purpose of the post is comments on the idea of the blog, then this website is even worse than some of MS's programs...

Get some real discussion, like MS's view of open source, what they are doing, response to criticisms, etc. This is a snoozefest that I can find in ten million other places on the web.

No info, no downloads, no interaction, no discussion. Am I missing something? Nothing more than a waste of bandwidth so MS can claim to be working with open source...

re: We are receiving…

krafti — Thu, 13 Apr 2006 07:54:11 GMT

As more of a user than a admin, this proposal for systems interoperability becoming mainstream eases a few bulging veins in my head. Fords and Holdens are different yet used in the same manner, any disparate OS's ought to be at least similar.

Doing something differently doesnt automagically mean better, I say hooray for MS and the general software-dev crowd.

re: We are receiving…

Jenny Wilks — Wed, 12 Apr 2006 22:26:00 GMT

Leaving aside any flamers,I would simply think that MS hae the courage to push an idea forward...Why do I say this ?,Maybe because I've read every flame topic from here to Jerusalem lol...MS made the first half-decent GUI environment , they even created Amiga basic (yes , back in the Commodore AMIGA days)...I loved that comp... (Nostalgia mode sets in)...I'm ok now lol...

Two simple questions,two simple answers,and I have nothing to do with the matter,but believe it or not,I HAVE EYES lol...

Will MS make money out of whatever they do?...

Yes,it is a business after all,and it is certainly not a bad thing to get paid for your hard work.

What is open source?

Well,open source is open source until it isn't,surprisingly, something that started as open source now isn't,I'll daresay any of the big linux distros out there...

I use Debian,I'm safe so far...But I do respect all points of realistic view...

I am not in the fittest of states this minute,but I do wonder,what degree of interoperability do you aim to obtain,if any?,and how?.

Jenny Wilks

re: We are receiving…

Bob_Robertson — Tue, 11 Apr 2006 20:23:35 GMT

Interoperability? Then why is the EU talking about fining MS for not supplying specifications that would allow the creation of interoperable code on the F/OSS side without MS spending a dime? (other than to document the specs) There is no need for MS to fund a "Linux Lab", it would suffice simply to stop changing the specs long enough to allow effective reverse engineering.

That's why I don't trust the "we're trying to interoperate" meme. Every action, rather than word, from MS over the years has been to deliberately break interoperability with anyone else's product.

On "Maximizing Shareholder Value", since Microsoft is a publicly traded company, that is their one and only corporate goal. Unfortunately, the OS and Office software suites (where MS makes the bulk of their money) are now commodities. By continuing to try to wring the last bits of money out of OS and Office Suite sales by the old tactics of vendor lock-in and upgrade treadmill, MS has positioned itself to fall and fall hard.

So maybe the Linux Lab isn't such a bad idea after all. There will be a small core of experienced F/OSS support staff that will be available to do the only profitable thing left once people stop paying for what is otherwise available for free: Service.

re: We are receiving…

Peter Surda — Tue, 11 Apr 2006 01:37:56 GMT

I have very mixed feelings about this blog. One one hand, Microsoft had to "open" a dialog with Open Source sooner or later, or at least give the impression of doing so. However, due to my previous experience with this topic, I still tend to be skeptical about what's actually going to happen.

Last year, a Microsoft-sponsored paper about Linux vs Microsoft TCO has been published, with the title "Evaluation No.1: Enterprise Operating Systems"
http://www.compugen.com/Tuesday/jdapda/Microsoft-linux%20test%20report.pdf
It said among other things, I quote: "we are genuinely committed to an open and professional dialogue about technology". So, I wrote a rebuttal, which is in my opinion quite objective and presents some very valid questions (heck it even commends the authors for the parts they did well). Then I sent it to the two authors. Reply? Nothing. So I posted the rebuttal on Linuxtoday:
http://www.linuxtoday.com/it_management/2005061402826OPMRMS
Reply from MS? Until today nothing.

If Microsoft's interest in an open dialog is really as genuine as claimed, perhaps the authors of the paper would be so nice and actually answer. Until then, I remain unconvinced.

Yours sincerely,
Peter Surda

re: We are receiving…

dfoesch — Tue, 11 Apr 2006 00:56:46 GMT

You know, the comments are actually very difficult to read through. They all kind of bleed together, and just look like the same long boring article.

Perhaps some background shifting, indention or something to offset them, and make them stand out more could help some.

Of course, as you stated in this article already, the light text on the white background doesn't do much for readability.