Creative Commons License

Blog powered by Typepad

« Office Open XML Conformance (A Lesson in Claiming Standards Conformance) | Main | Free and Open Source Software Licensing Presentations (including GPLv3) »

06 September 2007


Steve Loughran

Let's be grateful for the fact that they are supplying the test suites, though without them being freely available to everyone, you can't be sure that any build of moonlight you make yourself is compatible.

Compare with Sun, who arent letting Apache's independent implementation of Java have access to the Java test kit.

In software, it is is the tests that form the real specification of a product, not the XML specifications or the documentation. If OOXML included a test kit, it would be much easier to assess compliance. But for some reason, neither ISO or OASIS have embraced test-centric specifications, which is where I think all the main standards bodies (even W3C) are going wrong.


Morning Steve: Fair comment. I'd observe however that it's not necessarily the standards development organization that should be responsible for certifying conformance. I posted about the relationship between conformance and certification back in January.

Standards development orgs exist to provide a forum for standards builders. Their needs are somewhat different than implementers and purchasers (even if the developers are primarily implementors). Certification is expensive and fraught with liability issues. The people that care about it should put their money where their mouth is, and implement the necessary programs. This is typically government and industry procurement agencies or vendor consortia that collectively implement the standard.



Live in the past and you are bound to stay there.

In case you missed it, Java IS Open Sourced under GPL. Mothing from MS' NET world is.

Robukake Enderle

YOU WROTE: For Microsoft to renege on this very public initiative, or to try to claim behind closed doors that they like Moonlight but not Mono will demonstrate to customers once and for all that Microsoft doesn't understand the customer cross-platform/interop needs.

Yes, because THAT will demonstrate your point.
Not the dozens of other valid reasons. No, that will be your breaking point.

I hate to break it to you but weve passed that point a long, long time ago.
Like a beaten women, people like you keep saying "Sure he beat me every day the past 2 years but I think he is ready to change."

THe media deal too much in impressions, feelings, hunches.
Because of professional deformation, I deal in facts.
NOTHING Microsoft has said over the past 12 months signals any changes in their atittude towards open source.
And I dont mean some lower level project manager saying that he has a crush on RMS, I mean the heads of Microsoft, Ballmer and Gates.
WHen it comes to the company, I will take their words rather than employee #23,895.
They have plenty of tools at their disposition and Miguel is one of them. They will use him and discard him just like they have every single partner before. Look at the list of bodies they have left in their wake.

Ah yes, Microsoft has a 'new generation of young FLOSS friendly freedom fighters that are different from the old guard'.

This always come back to my same point, do you base your views on the words of the leaders of GM, Universal or the NFL or one of their minions?

Show me ANYWHERE in the past 12 months were the heads of Microsoft have said anything remotely positive and Ill take it all back.

You cant.

And you wont.

Open source threathens their cash cows just like open document standards would render their Office moneymaker much weaker without the format lock-in which is its main attribute.


Morning Rob: I completely agree. I've said for years that culture comes from the top. I spent 5 years inside Microsoft, and left 3 years ago, and I still haven't seen a change from the top wrt free and open source software. I've also been a partner of the company before I worked there. I know exactly how fast they can turn the charm on and off. And I've written a lot about what ODF will do to their Office business.

I still get to talk to a lot of CIO-types. They've moved on. They know Microsoft doesn't understand cross platform and interop. That doesn't mean that they wouldn't like better support. It also doesn't mean Microsoft isn't slowly learning that they need some form of reality to back up the message. [Message circa 2000: Why would you need anything other than Windows? Message circa 2003: We interoperate -- Look we sort of support NFS if you use AD. Message Now: Okay -- we still don't know why you need more than Windows Server 2003, but we're building better interop.]

I'm merely pointing out that this is a reasonable strategy for Novell to try.

The comments to this entry are closed.