LinkedIn Twitter
Director, OpenShift Strategy at Red Hat. Founder of Rishidot Research, a research community focused on services world. His focus is on Platform Services, Infrastructure and the role of Open Source in the services era. Krish has been writing @ CloudAve from its inception and had also been part of GigaOm Pro Analyst Group. The opinions expressed here are his own and are neither representative of his employer, Red Hat, nor CloudAve, nor its sponsors.

7 responses to “The Pot Calling The Kettle Black”

  1. Eric Norlin

    Actually, I think that Microsoft’s stance and behavior re: open-ness and standards has been really good over the last few years (ie, anything but “nonsense”).

    Folks like Kim Cameron have driven microsoft to adopt standards of interoperability around things like OpenID and SAML tokens — neither of which were invented at Microsoft.

    I don’t know enough about the whole “cloud manifesto” brouhaha to speak intelligently about it, but I think saying we can’t “trust” microsoft because of how they act toward open processes ignores their very trustworthy actions over the last 5 years or so.

  2. Krishnan Subramanian

    Eric, I do agree that Microsoft has made some positive moves but they are yet to establish the credibility. If we take their open source talk on one hand and their attempts to push away open source vendors and Linux vendors on the other, I still have misgivings against them. As a leader in the traditional software world, their actions are more cosmetic than sincere. At least, that is the opinion myself and many other in the open source community have about them.

  3. Steven Nagy

    So what you are saying is that Microsoft should go back to its closed off ways of yesteryear and the new accepted paradigm is monopolisation and closed off processes for vendor/consumer lock-in.

    You can’t have it both ways, that would be.. well.. hypocritcal.

  4. Krishnan Subramanian

    That is your interpretation Steven. I can’t help it. Asking them to establish their open credentials is not asking them to go back to old ways. I don’t get your logic here.

  5. Keith Hudgins

    The whole thing here seems heavily to be PR-driven. It looks like the Open Cloud Manifesto is IBM-pushed, and MS is jumping the gun to pull people on their side around the PR swarm.

    While I agree that Martin’s sentiments are nice, I’ll believe MS’s actions when I see them. Same for IBM and this whole Cloud Manifesto business. Both sides are saying the same thing here: openness is great and all, but we want *our* openness.

    Still to early for me to buy into either side.

  6. Steven Nagy

    My point is this. Microsoft once were not open. They didn’t accept open source, they tried to monopolise. The market lashed back at them. Now they are a lot more open, and trying to become more open constantly.

    Except when they do, this kind of thing happens. The markets says “Hey you can’t talk about being open because you weren’t in the past”. What’s Microsoft to do?

    I mean your article here basically criticises Microsoft for not being open in the past, and criticises them for being open now. Its a lose-lose situation.

    Are you saying they should have just signed the document and not said anything about it? Because if they hadn’t signed it and kept quiet, the manifesto would have appeared at some date with a big fat advertisement that “Microsoft refused to sign this” and by then it would be too late for Microsoft. They’ve done the right thing about bringing this issue out in the open now.

    The moral here is don’t hold others accountable to standards that you are not willing to fulfill.