Skip to main content

Home/ Open Web/ Group items tagged interoperability

Rss Feed Group items tagged

Filter: All | Bookmarks | Topics Simple Middle
Gary Edwards

Five reasons why Microsoft can't compete (and Steve Ballmer isn't one of them) - 2 views

betanews.com/...teve-ballmer-isn-t-one-of-them

Microsoft Joe-Wilcox Google IBM Monopolist OpenWeb

shared by Gary Edwards on 30 Aug 11 - No Cached
  • discontinued
  • 1. U.S. and European antitrust cases put lawyers and non-technologists in charge of important final product decisions.
  • The company long resisted releasing pertinent interoperability information in the United States. On the European Continent, this resistance led to huge fines. Meanwhile, Microsoft steered away from exclusive contracts and from pushing into adjacent markets.
  • ...11 more annotations...
  • Additionally, Microsoft curtailed development of the so-called middleware at the core of the U.S. case: E-mail, instant messaging, media playback and Web browsing:
  • Microsoft cofounder Bill Gates learned several important lessons from IBM. Among them: The value of controlling key technology endpoints. For IBM, it was control interfaces. For Microsoft: Computing standards and file formats
  • 2. Microsoft lost control of file formats.
  • Charles Simonyi, the father of Microsoft, and his team achieved two important goals by the mid 1990s: Established format standards that resolved problems sharing documents created by disparate products.
  • nsured that Microsoft file formats would become the adopted desktop productivity standards. Format lock-in helped drive Office sales throughout the late 1990s and early 2000s -- and Windows along with it. However, the Web emerged as a potent threat, which Gates warned about in his May 1995 "Internet Tidal Wave" memo. Gates specifically identified HTML, HTTP and TCP/IP as formats outside Microsoft's control. "Browsing the Web, you find almost no Microsoft file formats," Gates wrote. He observed not seeing a single Microsoft file format "after 10 hours of browsing," but plenty of Apple QuickTime videos and Adobe PDF documents. He warned that "the Internet is the most important single development to come along since the IBM PC was introduced in 1981. It is even more important than the arrival of the graphical user interface (GUI)."
  • 3. Microsoft's senior leadership is middle-aging.
  • Google resembles Microsoft in the 1980s and 1990s:
  • Microsoft's middle-management structure is too large.
  • 5. Microsoft's corporate culture is risk adverse.
  • Microsoft's
  • . Microsoft was nimbler during the transition from mainframe to PC dominance. IBM had built up massive corporate infrastructure, large customer base and revenue streams attached to both. With few customers, Microsoft had little to lose but much to gain; the upstart took risks IBM wouldn't for fear of losing customers or jeopardizing existing revenue streams. Microsoft's role is similar today. Two product lines, Office and Windows, account for the majority of Microsoft products, and the majority of sales are to enterprises -- the same kind of customers IBM had during the mainframe era.
  • Gary Edwards on 30 Aug 11
     
    Excellent summary and historical discussion about Microsoft and why they can't seem to compete.  Lot's of anti trust and monopolist swtuff - including file formats and interop lock ins (end points).  Microsoft's problems started with the World Wide Web and continue with mobile devices connected to cloud services.
Gary Edwards

Compatibility matters: The Lessons of Massachusetts - 0 views

www.diigo.com/...compatibility-matters

msoffice ooxml odf openoffice massachusetts productivity-environment bound-business-processes MSOffice-ecosystem unified-productivity compatibility interoperability

shared by Gary Edwards on 15 Jul 09 - Cached
  • Gary Edwards on 15 Jul 09
     
    Gary Edwards's List: Compatibility matters - The lessons of Massachusetts are many. Application level "compatibility" with existing MSOffice desktops and workgroups is vital. Format level "compatibility" with the legacy of billions of binary documents is vital. And "ecosystem" compatibility with the MSOffice productivity environment.
Paul Merrell

Archive of W3C News in 2009 - 0 views

www.w3.org/2009

HTML5 working draf W3C

shared by Paul Merrell on 03 Jul 09 - Cached
  • 2009-07-02: Today the Director announces that when the XHTML 2 Working Group charter expires as scheduled at the end of 2009, the charter will not be renewed. By doing so, and by increasing resources in the HTML Working Group, W3C hopes to accelerate the progress of HTML 5 and clarify W3C's position regarding the future of HTML. A FAQ answers questions about the future of deliverables of the XHTML 2 Working Group, and the status of various discussions related to HTML.
  • 2009-08-26: The HTML Working Group has published Working Drafts of HTML 5 and HTML 5 differences from HTML 4. In HTML 5, new features are introduced to help Web application authors, new elements are introduced based on research into prevailing authoring practices, and special attention has been given to defining clear conformance criteria for user agents in an effort to improve interoperability. "HTML 5 differences from HTML 4" describes the differences between HTML 4 and HTML 5 and provides some of the rationale for the changes. Learn more about HTML. (Permalink)
Paul Merrell

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) about the future of XHTML - 0 views

www.w3.org/xhtml-faq.html

W3C XHTML XForms compound documents HTML5 Wins

shared by Paul Merrell on 03 Jul 09 - Cached
  • In its specifications and process, W3C seeks a balance between stability (for interoperability) and flexibility (to accommodate evolution). HTML 5 has a number of extensibility mechanisms, but none yet that satisfies the requirement XML namespaces was designed to address of decentralized extensibility - allowing parties to include their own elements or attributes in content without risk of name collisions (whether those names are the result of a consensus process or not). An HTML Working Group issue on decentralized extensibility is still open and unresolved. The text/html serialization of HTML5 contains extensibility points but does not provide a decentralized mechanism. One of the open questions is what extensibility mechanism can be used such that, when it is parsed from either the HTML or XML serialization, the DOM that results is the same (see HTML Design Principles section 3.5).
  • Work will stop on these documents (likely to be published as Group Notes): XHTML 2.0 CURIE XFrames HLink XHTML+MathML+SVG Profile XHTML Modularization 1.0 Second Edition
  • W3C plans to continue work on XForms within the Forms Working Group (see information about deployment
  • ...1 more annotation...
  • As of June 2009, many parts of HTML have been written primarily for browser implementers. W3C has heard the demand from authors for a specification that addresses authors. This is still an open issue and W3C welcomes volunteers to work with the Working Group on a version for authors
Gary Edwards

Compatibility Matters: The Lessons of Massachusetts - 0 views

docs.google.com/View

lessons-of-massachusetts compatibility interoperability ODF OOXML MSOffice OpenOffice document-wars

shared by Gary Edwards on 15 Jul 09 - Cached
  • Gary Edwards on 15 Jul 09
     
    This document discusses the primary reason ODF failed in Massachusetts: compatibility with the MSOffice productivity environment, and, the billions of binary documents in use by MSOffice bound workgroups and the business processes so important to them.
Gary Edwards

The Battle Of Microsoft Mirrors The French Revolution | BNET Technology Blog | BNET - 0 views

industry.bnet.com/...-mirrors-the-french-revolution

shared by Gary Edwards on 16 Jul 09 - Cached
  • Of course, we can believe the "three guys without a garage" (http://www.robweir.com/blog/2007/10/cracks-in-foundation.html) that IBM, Sun, Google, Oracle and Microsoft are plotting together to destroy interoperability, while pretending to be competitors, with little ol' me as the evil genius in charge.
    • Gary Edwards
      Gary Edwards on 16 Jul 09
       
      rcweir is once again citing himself as the authoritative reference. This particular blog is filled with lies and distortions. The facts involved are thoroughly documented, and rcweir knows this. He lies anyway.
Paul Merrell

"Windows Management Framework" is here for Windows XP, Vista, Server 2003, 2008 - Remot... - 0 views

coolthingoftheday.blogspot.com/...agement-framework-is-here.html

Microsoft WMF WinRM 2 BITS 4

shared by Paul Merrell on 30 Oct 09 - Cached
  • Windows Management Framework, which includes Windows PowerShell 2.0, WinRM 2.0, and BITS 4.0, was officially released to the world this morning.
  • “Windows Management Framework, which includes Windows PowerShell 2.0, WinRM 2.0, and BITS 4.0, was officially released to the world this morning. By providing a consistent management interface across the various flavors of Windows, we are making our platform that much more attractive to deploy. IT Professionals can now easily manage their Windows XP, Windows Server 2003, Windows Vista, Windows Server 2008, Windows 7, and Windows Server 2008 R2 machines through PowerShell remoting
  • WinRM is the Microsoft implementation of WS-Management Protocol, a standard Simple Object Access Protocol (SOAP)–based, firewall-friendly protocol that allows for hardware and operating systems from different vendors to interoperate. The WS-Management Protocol specification provides a common way for systems to access and exchange management information across an IT infrastructure.
  • ...1 more annotation...
  • BITS is a service that transfers files between a client and a server. BITS provides a simple way to reliably and politely transfer files over HTTP or HTTPS. File downloads and file uploads are supported. By default, BITS transfers files in the background, unlike other protocols that transfer files in the foreground. Background transfers use only idle network bandwidth in order to preserve the user’s interactive experience with other network applications, such as Internet Explorer. Foreground or typical transfers are also supported.
« First ‹ Previous 41 - 47 of 47
Showing 20▼ items per page