Welcome to MSDN Blogs Sign in | Join | Help

Deven Kampenhout's Tech Blog

Experiences of a Web Infrastructure Architect in the Hosting Industry
Bill Gates Speaks on Software Interoperability
 On February 3rd, 2005, Bill Gates sent out an executive email to the public regarding the importance of software interoperability. He stated:

 

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.


He then goes on to explain how Microsoft approaches interoperability by working to ensure that its software and operating systems work well with the other software and systems already in existence. He further explains that the next step is to define the next generation of software with a greater degree of "interoperability by design", specifically using XML as a common framework from which different applications can communicate.

 

This idea isn't new, but the fact that Bill is driving focus towards software interoperability is very encouraging. I remember the first time I heard of XML, thinking how it was a nice idea, but that it was a bit "overbilled" and "overhyped". However, I have to admit that using XML as a common interoperability mechanism is a great idea. It allows you to publicize your communication / interoperability schemas without requiring interfacing programs/programmers to understand all of the details about the inner workings of your software. Furthermore, the self-describing nature of XML eases interoperability by reducing the need for extensive documentation surrounding your interoperability mechanisms. Finally, since it's a common standard, it can be used and accepted broadly.

 

There are so many "religious wars" out there when it comes to software, platforms, standards, etc. There comes a time however when it benefits all to work together. By establishing interoperability standards, we can all score a big win here. I just hope that common sense will prevail and the bickering software/technology/OSS quarrels won't get in the way of true progress.

Posted: Saturday, February 05, 2005 6:19 PM by devenkamp

Comments

robert said:

Remember OSI??(Open System Interconnect) This was launched end of the 70's and a lot of work went on till the early 90's. OSI actually defined the seven layer model still used today and included anything from network to application and management interoperability.
Many computer companies spent millions of dollars implementing this standard, only to see it overtaken and/or destroyed because nobody seems to be happy with an official standard: everybody wants to provide "added values" and extensions. The only standard's which really made it are "de-facto standards", which is when some form of implementation just grabs the market forcing everybody else to use it. This is the case for exemple for TCP/IP and HTML, they just happened (the OSI model included a protocol theoratically superior and incompatible to TCPIP, and various commitees worked for 10 years on a standard markup language called SGML).
# February 6, 2005 4:47 AM

klevereblog said:

My blog that talked about a similar topic a while back. I think we are heading in the right direction.

http://blogs.msdn.com/klevereblog/archive/2005/01/10/350088.aspx
# February 8, 2005 4:43 AM

Zeta Blocker said:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/02/11/hakon_on_ms_interroperability/

Please respond.

Nothing at all prevents you from interoperating with software licensed under your greatest threat, the GPL.

You prevent GPL software from interoperating with you by using patents and ridiculous licensing terms.

You are deliberately limiting interoperability to proprietary software vendors. We all know that that is no real competition.

Why should you be allowed to dictate the nature of your competition? I hope you get taken to task by competition watchdogs everywhere.
# February 12, 2005 6:57 PM

Deven Kampenhout said:

Thank you for responding, Mr. "Zeta Blocker". I'm glad you posted to validate my fear that people wouldn't let go of the "religious" wars. Why can't we let bygones be bygones and just try to play better? Why don't you come out of the "l337 h4x0r" mentality and show your real name, if you feel so strongly about your opinion.

FYI, just because a piece of software is open source, doesn't mean it is interoperable by design. You must have missed my point about the self-documenting nature of XML. I shouldn't have to implement your library (even if it IS open source) just to interoperate with your software.

Harp all you want about Mr. Gates desire to make software more interoperable. Frankly, I applaud this new direction. Your derision isn't constructive. Would you rather Microsoft spend time retrofitting all of its software based on every "requirement" set forth by the most insignificant open source freeloader, or would you rather we actually focus on innovating and improving future software? Frankly, you contradict yourself by advocating open source while simultaneously bashing Bill Gates for trying to change the direction of software interoperability.
# February 13, 2005 12:24 PM

Zeta Blocker said:

I agree we should try to 'play better'. My real name is unnecessary.

Even if a given piece of open source isn't easy to interoperate with, the code itself documents the file formats etc.

XML isn't NECESSARILY self-documenting, although good XML is. If you'd bothered to respond to the article I pointed out, Mr Lie spells it out rather eloquently.

It's good that Mr Gates wants to make software more interoperable, if that is what he wants.

Patents on standards, limiting licensing to non open-source alternatives only, and similar don't support this case.

In any case, I can't say what I want to say that clearly. Please respond to the Opera CTO's comments instead. (He knows a thing or two about interoperability, having invented CSS). His company's product is also closed source, so maybe he is less of a zealot than me?
# February 13, 2005 1:54 PM

fCh said:

I think this time Bill Gates is for real. He's truly interested in achieving interoperability at XML level. For more, see http://chircu.blogspot.com/2005/02/key-to-bill-gates-interoperability.html
# February 21, 2005 12:41 AM
New Comments to this post are disabled
Page view tracker