Microsoft Readies For Another Big Tech Battle
businessinsider.com
businessinsider.com
No official word on who is behind the 'Open Cloud Manifesto', but I'm guessing that it will include some names like Google that will 'openwash' it, meaning to make it seem open by association rather than be open in fact.
I don't think anybody offers customers an easier self-hosted-to-cloud-hosted migration strategy than Microsoft. They are offering (or will be offering) all of their server-side products "in the cloud". Using Microsoft's stack, you develop your applications the same way, using the same libraries, and the same protocols, regardless of whether you are deploying to your own server or to Microsoft's. Most of Microsoft's competitors require you to rewrite applications to get them to work on the cloud.
Most of its competitors have very poor desktop integration, whereas Microsoft is integrating support for its cloud hosting directly into its its desktop software (including Windows and Office). For example, Windows 7 has a pretty sophisticated caching and synchronization infrastructure built into it so that desktop applications can work on documents/databases/email in the cloud with minimal latency. Microsoft Office already has built-in support for Sharepoint, which means that it has built-in support for Microsoft's cloud offerings (Office Live and Microsoft Online).
The key phrase being "using microsoft's stack".
Open source versions of other cloud stacks are already somewhat functional. When they become usable, I can run them on my server.
That is the same with much (most) of Microsoft's stack.
Why?
So?
The original claim was that users benefitted from open alternatives. Is there any reason why users don't get those benefits if the "closed" source helps provide those alternatives?
I note that open alternatives to the Microsoft stack were seen as a good thing, yet alternatives to the Google stack are somehow second class because Google helped.
Is it fair to mention that some of the alternatives to the Microsoft stack were developed with some help from Microsoft?
He provides links to a Google Groups discussion, as well as another discussion board. No real details on what the manifesto is supposed to say, though.
Sam Johnston's approach seems to be so much simpler especially for a startup. http://wiki.cloudcommunity.org/wiki/Main_Page
If one could be certain of something about the manifesto, its foundations are perhaps "too interoperable" for MS to feel comfortable "collaborating" with anyone else. They have a strong preference to embrace, extend and extinguish whenever possible.
Each and every time Microsoft considered interoperability seriously was in markets they were not sure they would be able to dominate. Interoperability, for them, is usually just a plan-B.
Even me, which works with and actually likes Microsoft's development tools and server platform, expected the complete opposite when reading that headline.
Not going to let bias or prejudice throw me off, all I'll say is that this could turn out to be interesting. I'd very much like to see the manifesto, and once published, Microsoft's reason for rejecting it.