Interoperability - Four Points

re: Interoperability - Four Points

Swashbuckler — Thu, 11 May 2006 17:15:43 GMT

> So there is a disconnect somewhere

I suggest that the "disconnect" is that Microsoft's products interoperate well with one another, but don't interoperate as well with products from other vendors.

re: Interoperability - Four Points

Swashbuckler — Thu, 11 May 2006 17:22:19 GMT

> Careful - they might be collaborating in those meetings. tsk tsk

Just went thru a "conversations" class where they reminded us that sarcasm is generally not an effective way of communicating. I can give you a reference for the source if you like?

Damn, I may need to take the class again myself!

re: Interoperability - Four Points

jasonmatusow — Thu, 11 May 2006 19:00:24 GMT

I agree - I should leave the sarcasm out. The more important point is about the disconnect. I look at it a bit differently. I think any honest evaluation of our support of other company's technologies would show that we do that very well. The place where we don't do as well in interop is enabling others to support our technologies.

There is a natural tension between interop and uniqueness in product development. At some point, as a commercial software provider, it is important that you have products that deliver unique value.

I wouldn't characterize this as a disconnect in the pejorative sense. I do look at it as an ongoing challange of finding the right balance.

Jason

re: Interoperability - Four Points

Swashbuckler — Thu, 11 May 2006 21:00:04 GMT

> At some point, as a commercial software provider, it is important
> that you have products that deliver unique value.

True enough. However, where do you try to create that unique value? Do you create it by competing against standards (e.g. a proprietary protocol instead of IP) or do you create it by adding value on top of standards? If you want interoperability it must be the latter.

re: Interoperability - Four Points

Dennis E. Hamilton — Fri, 12 May 2006 08:41:43 GMT

After watching the efforts to frame Microsoft as malicious in doing ordinary work in developing interoperability and doing it well, I figured it must be corporate policy to pick your fights and, most of all, to keep your head down and just do the heavy lifting that's required.

It looks, from this and the preceding post, that I am now mistaken. I wish you well.

What I can't figure out about the ODF business and initiatives like the proposed Minnesota procurement policy is the claim that Office Open XML-based products can never qualify and somehow ODF can when the specification and current implementations demonstrate every defect that is presumed as a barrier to anything Microsoft might provide.

But the one that gets me the most is that the Zip wrapper is an example of everything that ODF bigots claim is unacceptable as an open standard. Yet it is incorporated in ODF without blinking. At least Microsoft refers to a specific Zip specification and profiles the use of it that can be counted on.

I think you've got an uphill job. I admire your effort to be rational and level-headed about it.

re: Interoperability - Four Points

Dennis E. Hamilton — Fri, 12 May 2006 08:46:26 GMT

PS: I think that a great place to demonstrate enabling others to use your technology is going to be around InfoCards. Kim Cameron and Mike Jones got a lot of creds for Microsoft coming out of last week's Internet Identity Workshop, with people willing to build work-alikes and others hoping to be able to federate into what is looking like a winner.

re: Interoperability - Four Points

Swashbuckler — Fri, 12 May 2006 21:23:44 GMT

> What I can't figure out about the ODF business and
> initiatives like the proposed Minnesota procurement policy
> is the claim that Office Open XML-based products can never
> qualify

Hmmm, can't say I've ever heard that before.

> But the one that gets me the most is that the Zip wrapper
> is an example of everything that ODF bigots claim is
> unacceptable as an open standard.

I think what you're saying is that the ODF folks think that every standard must be developed in a collaborative process. If that is what you're saying, then I think you're wrong.

re: Interoperability - Four Points

Wesley Parish — Mon, 15 May 2006 06:40:06 GMT

"The place where we don't do as well in interop is enabling others to support our technologies."

That's one of the most honest and perceptive remarks on Microsoft and Interoperability I've come across in ages. Thanks for that.

What I would like to see Microsoft do - and I am being very, very specific, and I think I speak for a lot more people than merely myself when I ask this - is release a beta of msh.exe, aka Monad and PowerShell, under the Microsoft Community License, so it can be ported to Linux, *BSD and OpenSolaris amongst others, and have an OpenSSH back-end tacked on, so us Un*x users who are in charge of Microsoft Windows networks, can manage them more easily and with much greater chance of success.

re: Interoperability - Four Points

jasonmatusow — Mon, 15 May 2006 07:06:28 GMT

Thanks for the post Wesley - I'll pass it along to the right folks. Can't say what action (or not) they will take, but I'll pass it along.

Jason

Interoperability

IPcentral Weblog — Mon, 15 May 2006 16:10:38 GMT

Jason Matusow, Microsoft's Shared Source honcho, is starting a series on interoperability, here and here, for starters. The enterprise bids fair to be "a frank exchange of views," as the diplomats say. See the comment on Jason's first post,

Interoperability: Four pillars are better than one

brent's blog — Wed, 14 Jun 2006 19:22:03 GMT

We often discuss interoperability in terms of technology, but we must be careful not to forget that it...

Interoperability is People First...

brent's blog — Wed, 14 Jun 2006 19:41:39 GMT

Writing in from Berlin, where I just saw some great news on the wire...We often discuss interoperability...

Interoperability - Listening to Customers

Matusow's Blog — Thu, 15 Jun 2006 00:07:20 GMT

Interoperability is something I have blogged about in the past. It is an issue which customers are now...

Snarky Comments

Matusow's Blog — Wed, 07 Feb 2007 20:21:49 GMT

My last blog posting was in a tone that was a bit too snarky for my tastes. I was writing late, and tired

Microsoft Takes Next Step In Delivering Interoperability

Matusow's Blog — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 21:33:02 GMT

Today Microsoft made a substantive announcement about interoperability and I’d like to discuss the elements

Matusow's Blog : Interoperability - Four Points

Dating — Sun, 01 Jun 2008 17:27:17 GMT

Part 1 in the series: Interoperability Let's start with the real issue at hand - interoperability. Our customers care about interoperability. In fact, they rank it right up there with security and reliability when they consider what is most important