By Jo Best, 4 February 2005 15:20
NEWS Bill Gates has sent an email to all Microsoft's corporate customers warning that those in search of technological interoperability shouldn't look towards open source software.
Interoperability, Gates wrote, should be in every firm's thinking: "Businesses face an ongoing challenge of making a wide variety of software from many different vendors work together... Bringing heterogeneous technologies together while reducing costs is today a challenge that touches every part of the organisation," he said in the email.
Gates adds that he believes that the key to getting everything to work together, and the easiest approach for developers, is interoperability.
"Interoperability is more pragmatic than many 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 makes all systems look and act the same, or seeking to make different systems interchangeable," the email says.
While acknowledging through the interoperability drive that there are many more vendors than Microsoft in the market, the Microsoft head honcho doesn't miss the opportunity to stick the knife into arch rival Linux.
"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," Gates wrote.
Comments
There are 92 comments. Join the discussion
1. William G
Maybe I missed the point here - isn't open source supposed to make interoperability easier to implement because you have more access to the code?
2. eric
Give us a break Bill.
Your different versions of Microsoft Office can't always talk to each other. OpenOffice does a better job at this.
Your web development tools create NON-STANDARD web pages. I have yet to see a Microsoft created webpage that is W3 compliant.
and hey, no one cares about what you have to say anymore.
3. Peter
Things like MS Active Directory trying to lock users to MS servers only but nothing else. What interoperability he is talking about??
4. anonymous
Linux interoperates better. Have you tried to interoperate Windows 98 with Windows XP? Microsoft only want to scare people away from linux because they know they can't compete with open source. Educate yourself and find out for yourself. Bill Gates only cares about making you pay for his expensive and flawed Windows
5. anonymous
Lock in!! Lock in!! Buy my product!!
How about OPEN STANDARDS !!
Not likely from Microsoft.
One P***ed off MS user. (Hopefully not for long)
6. peter dee
Who cares what B Gates says! He sounds like George Bush.
7. anonymous
Windows interoperates with viruses and worms ver successfully.
8. AS
>>Things like MS Active Directory
>>trying to lock users to MS
>>servers only but nothing else.
>>What interoperability he is
>>talking about??
Actually, Peter, MS Active Directory is a good thing. I can access the AD via LDAP, and DNS integrates into it too, so my Linux servers use a Win2k server for their DNS. I can even authenticate uses to a PHP/MySQL application using ADS and bind to it via LDAP.
ADS is based on X.500, and that's good, because it actually IS documented.
In reality though, I think most people are realizing that Microsoft is slipping, although the slope may take years and years and years. But they cannot compete, because their eye isn't on the customer, it's on the dollar sign.
9. anonymous
Microsoft does not play well with others, only with itself. UNIX as alway been friendlier, Linux, MAC and FreeBSD are must easier to inter-operate between each other. Microsoft interoperability is a myth.
10. Jesus
How about interoperating with OSS? Total contradiction in terms to say you must interoperate, but not with the enemy.
11. anonymous
Heterogenous envionments with many companies being interoperable require a huge amount of interopability work.
Real interopability between products among vendors can only be given when the following requirements are met:
- A solid protocol / interface specification
- A solid protocol / interface versioning and chnage process
- A solid test specification
- A solid test implementation
- Interoperability test suites to do comformance testing
- Solid processes for correcting specification, test specification and interoperability test suite error and unambigous interpretations
Cross vendor interopability is not about standardization on source code or as binary implementation.
For markting purposes Gates seems to be mixing product intergration with interoperability to confure people.
12. Joe
Bill just gets more out of touch with each passing milestone in the Linux world...He has no clue.
They make a good buck though.
Who ya gonna trust?
13. Abe
How so Billy Boy? Why do you say that? Is it because Free Open Source apps. don't run on Windows? But they do. Open Office, Mozilla/FireFox, Gimp, MySQL, PHP, Perl, Python, Samba, etc., they all run on Windows as good as on Linux. Or is it because Windows apps don't run on Linux? But they do using Wine, VMWare, DreamWeaver, etc. Or may be Linux can't talk to Windows servers? But they do using TCP/IP, Samba SMB, etc. Or may be because Linux can't access Windows drives? But it does using native drivers. You can connect, mount, read, and write on Windows drives without any problems. Or is it because Linux apps can't read MS file formats? But it can. OO can read Word, Excel, PowerPoint files without any problems. Or is it because Linux users can't read/write MSSQL Server database? But Perl, Python, and your own ODBC enable Linux to do that. Or is because Linux can't connect to your Exchange server? But it can using Evolution. Or is it because you Windows servers can't to Linux server? But they can using your own Unix tools. If there is anything I missed, or if for some reason you can't make your Windows inter-operate with Linux, you know that you can change Linux to do what ever you want it. It is Free Open Source and available to everyone including you if you want to play by the rules but with the rules. You see Billy Boy, it takes two to Tango and all you have to do is to follow the leader, Linux. Unless you are intentionally crippling your Windows, you should have no problem and it is not that hard at all. But if you insist, you better be careful because customers will believe that Windows is truly crippled, which many already found out, and will abandon and stay away from your beloved Windows
14. anonymous
Fact is: Open Source software always works towards interoperabilty. Proprietary software, especially from MS, is only as interoperable as is good for MS, not good for the customer. MS more often than not tries to lock out competing products by undocumented protocols and file formats, as well as proprietary "extensions" to standard protocols.
15. Gimmibetta Software
Gates: 'Linux makes interoperability harder'
Indeed it does, if by interoperability you mean unauthorised access to your system.
There are 13 patches due out on Monday, including yet another IE vulnerability.
Thankyou Microsoft for making my system more interoperable with spammers and Brazillian teenagers. In fact, why don't you just save all this interoperability effort and offer a webservice feed direcly to the kernel. Surely that would cost less than developing all these seperate 'interop gateways' to my system?
16. jo barella
So interoperabilty only within microsoft products it's better?
17. Paul James
A bit like M$ products may or may not be interoperable, or not operable at all!
18. cdrworm
I have not seen any problems with using Linux and Windows clients.
Open source tends to follow Microsoft's file format and protocol changes quickly.
We however see interoperability issues between two versions of Microsoft products. Of course, its mainly to "sell" the latest version.
All this is just FUD, Bill.
FUD happens when a company is scared of its competition. A company will say anything and spread lies to make sure its competition hurts. They will even downplay their fear of the competition. They louder they are the more we feel their pain.
Really though, this is just a sales tactic.
19. anonymous
Mr. Gates is really funny, isn't he?
Micro$oft depends on third party worldwide software development for it's crappy products. He comes with this jokes cause he can't buy the open source world, and he have to stay in his million dollar house watching the grow of it. No, Mr. Gates, this is not a nightmare, this is for real.
20. Leon Brooks
Either Bill doesn't get FOSS at all, or he's pretending for all he's worth that he doesn't get it.
A single or limited number of implementations is *not* going to test very many of the assumptions and weaknesses in the specifications; and Open Source lets a tester not only see how the software reacts to standard test cases, but to much more easily develop test cases to break it. This is very important, because you want to break software on the test-bench if you can, rather than when it's orbiting Saturn or dodging missiles in the desert - or handling hundreds of billions of dollars a day in banking transactions.
For a self-confessed Darwinist, Trey is missing the point quite badly.
21. Keith Roker
Microsoft is what happens when you let a private company develop and own a set of industrial standards. Linux etc nibbling at the margins is like being offered TVs that work on 500 volts. Irrelevant. We live in a (supposedly) competitive economy. The solution is to recognise that Microsoft has won the competition, give them the prize and make them permit other companies to use the basic Windows code under licence for OSs with whatever bells and whistles they want to market.
Lindows was launched with the intention of making an OS which would run Windows programs. It failed to deliver and is now just another Linux distro. Nobody can seriously expect software retailers to repeat the VHS/Betamax nonsense.
22. Matt
That nasty Bill making open standards work flawlessly and transparently in Windows and Active Directory. LDAP, Kerberos and DDNS should obviously only be used via obscure command line programs on wholesome Unix and clones.
23. Brian Rapp
Does anyone actually believe that rhetoric? Linux would be completely interoperable with Windows if it weren't for Microsoft constantly extending standards to make sure nothing else will interoperate with it. Linux isn't the problem here; Microsoft and their anticompetitive behavior are.
24. anonymous
M$ flawware and interoperability? Is it Aril fools day????
M$Office doesn't work with older versions, programs for loose98 don't run under XPee and the list goes on (all out of the daily use of M$). Never had this problem on my home computer with Linux which I sometimes need to convert M$-files into a format an older version can read.
But somehow Gates is correct. His virusware doesn't inter-operate well with F/OSS but it really doesn't matter. Just convert completely to F/OSS and the problem is solved. The company I work for will make this step this year once we have converted all the proprietary data formats into open ones.
25. Linus Gates
Come back and say that again when the monkeys at Microsoft allow me to access a native linux partition from Windows - Bill's new word for today - interoperability
26. anonymous
Behold the irony !!!
I really have no words to express the horror when reading this! I hope for mankind's sake that what other respondent said is true (that no-one cares anymore about what Billy-boy says).
Microsoft's record of deliberately not operating with anything that is not sold by themselves is impeccable. They do not respect open standards and try to force their own propriatary standards, closed to the rest of the world and only available to those that Microsoft wants.
They even bully their allies into not interoperate with other things (e.g., threats to PC/Notebook manufacturers to force them not to install Netscape or Mozilla, or any browser that works well, for that matter).
Linux and open-source is the very definition-by-example of interoperability -- open standards available for anyone to develop software that interoperates with it, without restrictions, without the terror of the big bully's billion-dollar-backed legal department to come after you for developing software that interoperates with something Microsoft doesn't want you to interoperate with.
So, I say again... Behold the irony!
27. anonymous
Microsoft IE is not even fully interopperable with standard NAT routers and users have to use Mozilla Firefox to use Microsoft exchange webmail behind a NAT router.
In my experience Microsoft make little attempt to be sure it's software conforms to industry standards I would even go as far to say that they would rather set their own standards and not let anybody else know exactly what they are?
28. Anony Mouse
Hmmmm. Interoperability huh? I suppose that is why I can access and use Windoze programs on my MS partition and run them under Linux, while MicroSloth's suckey software is totally blind to my Linux partition? Why can't I run Linux software on Windoze unless I run VM Ware? How do you interoperate when you can't even operate for all of the virii, spyware, malware, worms, trojans.... Get the point Bill?
29. rob smith
Dear Bill,
You speak of "freedom to innovate", then call the FOSS community 'communists' and the GPL a 'cancer', now your latest catchphrase is 'interoperability', yet you are actively working to shut out Samba's ability to
work with SMB. You say 'competition' is good because it makes your products better, yet you do everything possible to crush competition.
I just don't get your line of thinking Bill. Do you and Steve not realize that every time you make these kinds of statements to the press more people
begin to realize your true motives?
Why do you want to continue to be the company that everyone hates? Are you in it just for the money Bill? Would it really be such a threat to your company to 'play fair', to truly welcome competition, to be interoperable with other operating systems, to be the company everyone likes and team players in the computing industry?
I have two Debian GNU/Linux boxes and one Windows XP box on my home network. Right now, they inter-operate nicely, sharing files and printers.
How much longer will my computers be able to do this Bill?
30. Jean Philippe
I think Bill wanted to say,
Linux makes interoperability harder to make interoperabililty inpossible !
It makes more sence, according to MS's goals.
I think the poor guy was just a little bit nervous when he wrote that E-mail.
He shouldnt be upset everybody got the point.
Best regards to you my dear Bill,
I hope you recover soon.
31. Richie Smit
Microsoft's own Entourage has trouble talking with Exchange Servers. I guess that's exactly the kind of interoperability Gates is talking about. Or maybe it's the Microsoft LDAP implementation that simply doesn't work? Or maybe he means every company should invent its own version of every language out there? Like Visual J++, Visual C-hash, etc.
32. Graham
"You can fool some of the people some of the time but you cant fool all of the people all of the time"
Every interview I ever saw with Gates highlighted the fact that this man is more evasive than any politician - lets fact it he is never going to publicly admit he is scared of what is happening in the software world - that the top 5 worlds web hosts and most secure OS's are Open Source and that Microsoft had to buy Giant Antispyware to fix security issues in it sown operating systems becasue they didnt have the expertise to do it themselves.
No wonder he is worried !!!
33. Charles Smyth
After reading Bill Gate’s’ E-mail in its entirety on the Microsoft site, it seems to me that cross-platform interoperability is akin to an ideal. Examples are given to suggest the degree of interoperability already present , but this is simply because of expediency due to commercial pressures and a dog-chasing-it’s-own-tail approach from all the software vendors. XML might be an approach, but this is a subset of SGML, and since even HTML’s specification can’t be adhered to, this is unlikely to to succeed.
The interoperability demonstrated by Linux and the various BSD Unixes, is because they all use the same overburden of software for networking, printing, and web-browsing, etc., as opposed to any grand design or effectiveness of the Open Source community.
Within the context of interoperating Microsoft installations, present and future, interoperability will be reasonably likely, as it is unlikely that Microsoft will be losing a significant amount of market share any time soon because of ease of use and the real cost of ownership.
34. Tom
Man, I _gotta_ get me some o' dat KoolAid he's drinkin'!
It's _got_ to be good stuff.
It's the only thing (that I can think of) which would account for the head of such a large and successful company make such outlandish and absurd statements to current and potential customers.
As Chandler would say, "Could he make _more_ of an idiot of himself"?
35. Andrés González Cantú
Dear Mr. William Gates III,
The only danger to the interoperability of different systems is your pathological ambition.
Everyone knows that even different versions of your Office suite can not communicate between them. And that is simply because you have an absolute lack of respect for your customers. You want them to actualize, actualize, money, money, money. Don't you have enough?.
Do you think people are so stupid. Shame on you, imbecil.
Yours truly,
Andr?Gonz?z Cant?se free software. Use GNU/Linux.
36. Harry
Bill's right of course, but only when it comes to interoperating with MS formats and protocols, which are proprietary, patented, licensed, whatever!
37. anonymous
With the way they seem to be acting, MS appear to be at the point now where they're backed into the corner and have no choice but to fight their way out. Maybe it's time for them to "get the facts" right.
38. Jim S.
In other words; "Dear Customer, please do not invest time and effort into making your Windows applications work with non-windows platforms because we fully intend to break it. Hard. Plus, we'll plug in all kinds of DRM so any attempt at intercommunication results in a nice, fat DCMA violation. Did I mention our ballooning patent library?"
39. Thomas Arend
Interoperability is achieved by standards. Open standards allow interoperation between different systems between all programs. Vendor standards aim to secure market share.
40. Nathan Curry
I mean, I'm sure everyone's aware of this, but never use any microsoft product if interoperability is important. Outlook mail by default can't be read correctly by any other MICROSOFT mail client.
How stupid is that? MS Word isn't compatible from version to version.
Also, Microsoft will not overcome the basic insecurities in their operating system, because they don't care. I'm currently involved in a project to develop a Linux distro/computer package that will provide the poor with a truly cheap, intuitive computing experience.
2 years, I give Linux before it dominates the market.
41. Tom Walder
This is Alice-in-Wonderland. Does anyone actually believe any of this stuff? Interoperability means public owned and accessable standards. It is the "extending" and "embracing" of standards that undermines the ultimate goal. I wonder how many people reading have had projects come in late / go off the rails due someone using a MS propriety "feature"?
42. John P.
Is this like the "Bill Gates is sharing his fortune!" email that was circulated some time ago? Mr. Gates' latest email seems to be about as easy to believe as that one was, forwarded mostly by the uniformed and gullible.
43. John B.
Once ... just ONCE ... I'd like to hear Bill Gates say something regarding the Information Technology industry that was not a blatant lie or some type of marketing fabrication. I have a mixed Sun/Windows environment at work *and* at home. I use open-source software constantly. The only time that I run into problems is when something is having problems with Microsoft's *proprietary* and *closed* architecture. (Can you say "Microsoft Office"?)
What's is so amazing is not only that Bill Gates has a very difficult (if not impossible) time actually speaking the truth but also that so many narrow-minded CIOs and IT managers think that everything that Bill Gates says is IT canon.
The insulting nature of both of these is beyond description.
44. dj
open source doesnt neccessarily make interoperability (sp?) things easier. it helps a programmer understanding how it works and how to create a new program to work with it, but for programmers programming a different version of the same thing it doesnt help matters
45. anonymous
three letters...
FUD
46. anonymous
Mischievous Bill! Microsoft's desktop monopoly depends upon XP and Office not inter operating with competing products while open source software relies upon interoperability for survival. Microsoft suggests binary encoded XML for document storage. (Heck of an idea!) Linux, Open Office, Fire Bird, etc., strive to use open standards for rendering, storage, and distribution of information.
47. John Q
You're right Bill... interoperabillity is very important... that's why I bought a Mac. In addition to software interoperabillity, I also get hardware interoperabillity. Plus it's Unix so it doesn't suck like Windows does.
48. Mary Tee
More problems with Win <-> Win networking than with Linux <-> Win networking. Samba, the OPEN SOURCE file-sharing package is what made the difference for me--not anything that Microsoft had. I am slowly converting my friends--one at a time--to Linux.
49. G
Bill Gate "thinks" he knows what he is talking about. It is just another FUD for MS.
50. martin
another load of crap from bill. i think we should just ignore him. it's not even worth commenting.
51. anonymous
Yeah Bill. Samba sure is difficult to "interoperate" with windows.
52. jameth
He's so full of crap its unbelievable.
The points already made are valid, but the best argument is TCPA : http://www.againsttcpa.com/ - will that make everything interoperable? i doubt it, all it will do is make him more money and annoy the average computer user
53. Cyan Peppa
I think the only reason why 'Linux makes interoperability harder' is because Microsoft is the one with the proprietary protocols and closed source. Because of this, those who write programs to talk with Microsoft products end up having to do so with little, if any, documentation, resulting in something that may not have 100% compatibility. It seems to me that lil' ol' Billy likes to point the fingers, instead of being the one pointed to...
54. erik
Yeah, seriously. When I try to play my old MSDOS games on WinXP, the sound doesn't work. If the new MS platforms can't even be backward compatable with their own earlier versions, then why not use a tool like Wine? Wine runs those old programs better than WinXP can.
Plus Wine has the added bonus of not even running the Win32 viruses.
<a href="http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/01/26/219201&tid=133&tid=172&tid=220&tid=201&tid=106">Running Windows viruses under Linux</a>
55. Othon Batista
Coming from Mr. Gates, interoperability sounds like "use only Microsoft solutions". Remebering that Microsoft's software don't interoperate very well!
Thanks God, quit a few people pay attention to Mr. Gates lately!
56. Randy J
I have to agree with the other posters at this site. Bill Gates, Ballmer and Micro$oft in general are a vanishing breed and no one in the advanced technical fields pay much attention to them anymore. I converted my companies development desktops, servers and production systems to Linux in 1999 (myself in 1995). We have never had downtime, loss of data or interoperability issues with International Standards. In fact there was a huge gain in the ability to exchange data in virtually any standards compliant format we chose. The lack of "interoperability" lies in Micro$oft's attempt to generate cash by NOT adhering to standards and locking users into continual upgrades. The masses are finally realizing this and thankfully Micro$oft's days are numbered. The computing world will be much better off without them.
57. BWilcox
More FUD for those that do not know any better.
Maybe little Bully Grates actually doesn't use Gentoo. And all this time I thought he was one of those Linux closet cases.
You know the kind, knows that slick is slick but can't actually state it as it doesn't fatten the wallet.
;)
better luck next time Bully
58. Adrian ikin
Well bill the sooner you make windows an open source OS and sell your $microsoft products to interoperate with it the sooner you get on this wave of change. And then we may take your FUD seriously.
59. anonymous
60. Alex S.
Well... Microsoft's definition of interoperability does seem to include interoperability with other vendors, only between different Microsoft products. They really should stop spreading this FUD, soon people will wisen up to it and it will only cause them to get a bad reputation.
61. Steve
Uhhh Bill?
You aren't serious are you? Did one of the Microdroids write that email on your behalf?
Linux is not your rival Bill. Microsoft is your rival. Microsoft does a lot more damage to your crystal palace than Linux. Start policing your own corporation before you look outside it.
Sheesh Bill......... buy a clue.
62. anonymous
Lets see interoperability findings
* open source software is now a viable Desktop alternative for the majority of government users
* interoperability is not a "major issue" for the majority of government users
* open source can generate significant savings with server consolidation and delaying hardware replacement
* potential recycling benefits are gained by extending hardware life and through the reduction of waste/disposal/landfill
* decisions to use software in government should be based on "a holistic assessment of future needs," and recommends looking at total cost of ownership and both proprietary and open source solutions
Bill you make interoperability harder...
63. Imed Chihi
WHAT??!!! Mr Gates must have been smoking something while typing his e-mail!
We have deployed Red Hat _Linux_ on two Sun _Sparc_ servers to serve a large network of _Windows_ 98, 2000 and XP, _Linux_ and _Solaris_ clients with a single user account management system (OpenLDAP).. I wonder how Mr. Gates would beat this interoperability with Windows 2003 :)
-Imed
64. Makoto
Ha hahaha!
The only reason I've CHOSEN not to be a windows developer is because it is SO impossible to make Windows inter-operate with everything. Linux is wonderful in that sense - ESPECIALLY if you are writing software. I'm already half way to Bill Gate's dream home that he made a few years back with the fully automated everything... How did I do it? Open source software. Why could I do it? Because it's open source. Almost everything interoperates because at some point some one said "I need these to things to work together" and they DID it. This is the beauty of open source. That's why in half the span of Windows - it's grown to be something better. People need it to do something a certain way which more will inevitably need and they do it. I have a security system, a full fledged pbx system, remote access to some of my house lights over the internet. A daemon to read me my e-mail if I'm travelling without internet access... how do I have all this, because of open source. 20 different programs working together with a week of extra code writing (which can be done because I can see how things work) and I have an automated house.
Looks like Linux is gaining substantial market share for Mr Gates to talk out of his back side like this. Linux isn't more secure - except in that it isn't targetted like windows. It's only faster because you can build it optimized for your computer instead of just a generic x86 processor. But if there's one thing that Linux has that Windows doesn't, it's interoperability - and conformance to standards... two things that MSFT knows absolutely nothing about. They're arrogant enought to think they can ignore ANSI/ISO/W3C standards and make their own, forcing us to use more of THEIR stuff. THIS is why I switched to Linux (that and the enormous price difference). I speak nothing to most other claims against OSS, but this is flat out the complete oppisite of reality.
65. anonymous
Interoperability is a definite strength in windows. I personally enjoy being able to sync content among my computers, PDA, phone, and home entertainment system which all target windows API's/protocols on some level.
Also when developing it is nice to be able to install software and have it just work with no configuration. Each title I install is aware of the other titles present and automatically configures itself to work with the other applications.
66. William huskey
So, using Open Standard software is harder to mix than Propritary, High Cost to license software.. Makes sense if your Bill Gates and have never tried to Mix Microsoft with any other OS in the World.
in Mr. Gates mind (world), Integration and interoperability means only haveing MS servers and MS applications.
Microsoft is all about vender lock in and their "open" license is all about " if you don't make me money you can not connect"
67. anonymous
Really? Is that why Microsoft made their Kerberos implementation talk properly only to Windows machines? You can get theirs to *partly* work with MIT or Heimdal Kerberos, but you have to do special work to make that happen, i. e. it's not "out of the box." And even then, it's only partly.
68. Cirilo Bernardo
If you want everything to be interoperable, buy only Bill's endorsed products. That way you can cut and paste from Excel to Word. Cutting and pasting between a PDF file on Linux running within VMWare hosted on WinXP - that's a swine, isn't it? Ladies and Gentlemen, I think what we see here is a new definition of 'interoperability'. Certainly the Microsoft we all love cannot be serious about 'interoperability' as we have come to understand it - their previous and ongoing business practices simply aren't compatible with that definition...
69. anonymous
Dear Mr.Bill Gate,
Yeah.. you have tried everything !
First ...
1) Linux not stable!
then
2) No proper support!
then
3) High TCO then windows!
then
4) Linux has tainted kernel and illegal.. used SCO to scare users !
and now...
5) Linux makes interoperability harder!
6) ??????
You mind set is "gated" well has only a small "window" to see the reality! Let the world decide and choose which operating system good for them.
70. Average Joe
Bill, nice try but...
why speak of interoperability when even the basics of Windoze platform do not work properly.
I mean by that IE aka internet explorer, as a major issue in the IT industry:
Security issues, patches and bugs, for the pleasure of spyware, viruses, and other malicious scripts exploiting gigantic platform flaws opened by IE.
FireFox on the other and, Open Source web browser gets trust from a wide range of users in a record time. Secure, stable and fast.
So whats your point bill?
Interroperability has allways been a major goal from the open source community. As for windows, we would have known it if it was the case. Windows interoperates only with microsoft support: LOL
I stopped using windows 2k: why? 'cause Open source community provides me more for less and cares about me.
Open source community proposes a positive alternative to cluttered thinking and software, for free, by pationnate and creative people.
No one can beat that, not even the legions of engineers from microsoft.
Is microsoft becoming a dying dinosaur?
71. anonymous
Maybe Bill forgot what was called the "Halloween Documents" where was stated:
<<"
OSS projects have been able to gain a foothold in many server applications because of the wide utility of highly commoditized, simple protocols. By extending these protocols and developing new protocols, we can deny OSS projects entry into the market. ">>
See google with Halloween Documents for proper coverage.
For sure, Microsoft does not work for global interoperability, but rather for it's partners to make more money, and against Open Source Software because its free and its a real threat to microsoft as stated in Halloween documents.
There are a lot of things that make linux interoperable with Windows in a reliable way.
Samba is a good example: www.samba.org
Bill, get lost.
72. Graham Coles
Curious, didn't MIT have a little problem with Windows 2000 and "interoperable MS-Kerberos" which took down their entire Unix network because they already had a key server in place?
Hard to take Bill seriously when Microsoft even have interoperability issues between versions of their own Operating system (e.g. 2000 / NT), but then what would you expect from a company that refers to 'cross-platform' development as developing for different versions of Windows.
73. Stewart Rotherham
Is Bill trying to say that the user community should abandon its own development teams - tailoring applications to individual business needs - and rely instead on Microsoft's professionals? I think that's just a silly, Billy.
74. raz
Let's not forget the great destroyers of interoperability - M$ update patches!!!
75. Stanislav Dmitriev
Bill is on his horse.
MS technology is the worst implementation of someone's good ideas!
76. Adrian Asher
I (a Windows Admin) and my colleague (a Linux Admin) interoperate well both at a personal and technical level and Active Directory makes this much easier through the use of LDAP. We also run a mix of Linux and MS mail/messaging environments, file systems and server applications. All of which work together reasonably well (if you know what you are doing).
The big disappointment for me is that we needed to run Exchange and other MS products to fulfil a business requirement because there is little or no provision on the Linux platform for comprehensive client/server business solutions that integrate with a Windows client. So we run MS solutions and then do the necessary work for Linux clients to use these services.
On the point of having access to the code for open source solutions I (and my Linux Admin colleague) would have to argue that in most cases (for us) it just isn't financially viable (due to the time investment required) to carry out extensive work on code if a commercial and often closed source alternative is available. Ultimately this is because our joint responsibility is to provide business solutions not to work as a development team.
At the end of the day it all depends on what you need to do and how well the different approaches fit your business, there is rarely a one size fits all solutions for most businesses but on current evidence MS still provides the best compromise solutions for many an SME.
And before someone start jumping up and down about license costs, our MS solutions cost us about £4 per seat per week, that’s less that the coffee bill and represents a significantly lower cost than employing the additional developer/admin we would require if we didn't use MS solutions.
You should make your choice based on providing the most appropriate solution for your business, ideally this should be done regardless of personal preference or prejudice, that’s why we are called professionals.
77. Namana
How to make interoperability easier? Get out those which make your firm closer, unoperable. MS Windows from example. Don't need either another brick nor windows in the wall! :))
78. Richard
Oh dear. I assumed it was spam!
Seeing an email claiming to be from "Bill Gates" amongst the usual unspeakable spam, that's what I assumed it was.
Sorry Bill!
79. Bob Hinton
To Keith Roker of Dorset.
I think you are considering desktop
computing without looking at the
wider picture.
Your television, regardless of voltage would be of little use without systems to create video content and transmit it to the television in some fashion.
Microsoft operating systems consist of thousands of modules with access to a common data store. This makes them very flexible and permits good INTEGRATION for applications on one machine, but it means there are many disparate pathways between the applications and the hardware, so robustness and security tend to suffer as a result. This is not such a major issue for a desktop operating system. However, for a server machine robustness and security are paramount.
Microsoft may have a virtual monopoly in the supply of desktop operating systems, but this is certainly not the case for servers. Companies such as IBM sell "solutions" so a stable operating system that can be ported across their entire hardware range without significant licensing costs is highly attractive - i.e. Linux. This will inevitably push more Linux systems on to the desktop.
All of this reduces license revenue for Microsoft, so a sensible mode of attack is to try to hold back the increasing deployment of Linux on servers by claiming poor INTEROPERABILITY between them and the desktop (i.e. Microsoft) machines.
80. steve
Does this mean that microsoft will make all its tools, libraries open to the public so that we can develop ( if we wanted to off course) products that would interface with windows. No I think not!
Please Mr Gates you only interest is screwing the last penny from your customers corporate or not, your standard procedure upon failure of a product, is to sell a new one to fix it, after a wait of course to make sure the bugs in the new product fail as specified.
81. David Howe
Billy Boy isn't throwing this out for comment, he's speaking to the CIO's that we've seen on Silicon's panel and journalists 3 months from now looking for "research". The truth will not be told then unless they happen upon this thread and I don't think the journalists will understand nor will the CIO's will care.....
82. Mark Whybrow
Bill Gates does have a sense of humour. He wants us, the public to buy his expensive product, which does not always work. He charges us for an upgrade or new packages, which does not work. It is like putting a ship to sea without a deck for the passengers or crew to walk on. Linux works, it is cheaper and both openoffice and smartsuite are far better packages than any of Microsoft’s ones. So Bill Gates wants us to ignore a reliable, cheaper and generally safe operating system and office for his expensive and unreliable ones? Hay Bill, why don't you a flight with a Japanese kamikaze pilot than a normal commercial airline pilot?
83. SSteel
The problem with microsoft is that they only adopt standards that benefit their company. The fact that it helps customers seems to be mostly coincidental. ASP vs JSP, DirectX vs OpenGL, etc...
They key to interoperablilty is to meet industry standards; and if a standard does not exist, set up an independent body to create one. I'm idealistic.
84. Laiste Lonjel-DuHomme
Bill Gates Dictionary.com
in ter op er a bil i ty
definition:work with Microsoft or we'll eat you alive
85. Andy Robb
interoperability - if there is such a word - means having a browser than conforms to published HTML/XHTML standards
86. Dave Moreton
Strange isn't it that ineroperability with Windows created by others, for example the Novell Windows Client, is often broken by Windows Updates.
I wonder why that is???????
87. Nick Cole
Bill is right ........ on one hand.
Many different applications and OSes do create the problem. But these are a symptom and not a cause. Unfortunately even esteemed Bill's software has interoperability issues so it is a bit of the pot calling the kettle black.
Despite Microsoft's market share and collective intellectual capability (?) he misses the point completely. What makes interoperability work is common file and data interchange standards, not necessarily single applications or vendors in which he has a vested interest. Applications allow us to do things, it is what they produce that defines interoperability. Different people wnat ot carry things out in ways that suit them hence the proliferation (despite Bill's wishes) of different tools to do the same job. For example if Word is the defacto editable document standard then all Word Processors should be able to read and write Word files, and so on.
88. Chris
Bill Gates is beginning to sound like the Iraqi Information Minister, Comical Ali.
89. anonymous
Bill's Dictionary - Interoperability = Using Microsoft Products an all your servers and desktops.
90. Murray Hogg
So Microsoft DELIBERATELY work to make their systems inoperable with others - for example, their recent effort to make upgrades unavailable to users of WINE - and Gates bitches about OTHER systems not being interoperable?
I can only say it's lucky for Microsoft othewise people might discover the potential of some of the alternatives are...
91. anonymous
Everyone is hitting at Microsoft in this forum, if you are really true to yourself you would agree that Microsoft palyed the single most important role in the proliferation of PCs throughout the world.
The same people used to moan about IBM when it was on top.
As it is the nature of humans to moan about the superior ones to cover up their inferiority.
92. Imed Chihi
Hello all,
As a commentator mentioned, the different versions of MS Office have a hard time exchanging file, and I mean files of earlier versions.
I remember a very funny situation when I gave a presentation in a Univiersity back in 2002: The organisers set a PC with MS Office 2000 for speakers to use to load their presentations.
One of the speakers had an MS PowerPoint 97 which kept freezing the machine everytime they attempted to load it under Office 2000 at the conversion phase.
Funnily, the same presentation loaded on OpenOffice in my laptop and the speaker gave her presentation on a Linux laptop. Interestingly enough, the presentation was about migration from MS Windows to Linux desktops :)
-Imed