][ stefano maffulli

Lots of talking about Microsoft lately.  As I expected, Ray Ozzie’s public appearances are increasing with declarations of love for the magic word interoperability and with a new, more open, attitude.  I believe it’s true that “Microsoft fundamentally, as a whole, has changed dramatically as a result of open source,” as Ozzie said.

Roberto wrote a long post about Microsoft Open Source strategy. Having talked to him long enough, I know he sees the big potential for new Open Source firms to prosper on Microsoft ecosystem.  I suspect he is right, given the fact that the *nix competitors have lost 15 years of evolution fighting each other instead of building a common (superior) platform. Only with GNU/Linux such common platform arrived, but it probably came a day late and a dollar short.

Contrary to Roberto, I think that Microsoft change is not sufficient yet for Free Software advocates like me to merrily lift the precautions. I can still hear Ballmer shouting threats and see him trying to twist the arms of the EU Commission (as Carlo remembers very well). I’m not confident yet that these moves represent a new strategy and they’re not merely tactics to penetrate the FLOSS market and break it from the inside (patent lawsuit?).  If I were a developer I wouldn’t trust any promise not to sue by Microsoft, even if that promise uses the same (murky) words of IBM’s promises. I don’t care: Microsoft track records on Free Software is bad, bad, bad and worse. Microsoft must do better than IBM, it must be perfect (they can, if they want to).

I love geo-information.  I still work on GIS, every now and then (I’ve just finished a project to map damages in Venetian buildings together with Politecnico di Milano and others) and it’s so much fun.   It’s great when you can integrate data from different sources and make sense of different phenomenons. The Venice application maps damages in buildings and it allows to integrate also data from marine flows, traffic in the canals (and their waves), winds and so on, in search of cause-effect correlation. Integration is a powerful tool and you need interoperability for that.

Fabrizio integrated Dash with with myFUNAMBOL,

which now pushes to the device my calendar events. That is, if I put an appointment on my Outlook and I add the location in it, it shows up in the car. I mean, I get in the car and I have all my appointments there. One click and I get routed to the place (with the fastest route, avoiding traffic jams).

This new gadget sounds so cool, I almost want to finally buy a car (I never had one, I prefer carsharing), get a Dash and move to California.  For now I’ll stay in Milano, keep the scooter and participate to OpenStreetMap in Milano next Sunday.

Come funziona sta cosa? Il Comune di Milano “regala” a tutti i suoi cittadini residenti i prodotti non interoperabili di un monopolista?

Il servizio è sperimentale, gratuito e ti permetterà di utilizzare tutti i servizi di Windows Live tra cui: account di posta, messaggistica istantanea, avvisi, calendario ed eventi, spazio di condivisione e collaborazione…

Mi pare strano che  il Comune demandi il trattamento dei dati personali a Microsoft, mentre il servizio è offerto dal Comune (almeno così pare). Per l’iscrizione vengono chiesti dati importanti, oltre a nome e cognome anche codice fiscale e numero della carta di identità. E non è affatto chiaro chi custodirà i dati personali come gli scambi di email, IM ecc.  A queste condizioni non faccio neanche la prova per vedere.

Incomprensibile: perché il Comune si fa veicolo di pubblicità per Microsoft senza avere niente in cambio?  Si sono resi conto gli alti dirigenti del Comune che la maggior parte di quei servizi sono già offerti da Microsoft (e da Yahoo e Google e Tiscali ecc ecc)  gratuitamente?  Che valore sperano di offrire così ai cittadini?

Standards can be a Royal PITA and every developer and hacker knows that. But for users they’re the only way not to go crazy. Web standards give users the possibility to connect to the Internet from any device and blog, check email, get and make information. The debate is heating up on top of the Opera-vs-Microsoft complaint. A nice summary is: Is the Sacred Cow of Web Standards Headed for the Slaughterhouse?

There’s a movement afoot in the web development community that says it’s time to move beyond standards and take the web to a new levels. Unhappy with the pace of innovation at the W3C, many developers are calling on browser manufacturers to go beyond supporting official W3C specifications and develop tools to support new features.

I understand hackers and their frustration, but we must be aware that power in the digital domain is mainly in hackers and developers, users are at their mercy. But powers must be balanced and at the moment I see the W3C as the only organization that can still balance freedom for hackers to innovate with users’ freedom of choice. I wouldn’t trade my freedom as a user with that of developers to push proprietary tools like Flash or Silverlight and patented formats.

Here we are again with the European Commission being asked by a competitor to remind Microsoft that competition doesn’t mean abuse of dominant position. I have a sense of deja-vu. Opera Software has asked the EC to investigate if Microsoft is abusing its dominant position by tying its browser, Internet Explorer, to the Windows operating system and by hindering interoperability by not following accepted Web standards.

As in the past antitrust case, won by the EC, there are two parts: one is the bundling IE with Windows and the other is the interoperability issue. As before, the bundling issue is less important because the real problem is interoperability, a word that Microsoft has always interpreted in a monopolist way: I do whatever I please, and I set ‘industry standards’ by myself convincing clients and partners to either follow me or be squashed.

There is little doubt that Internet Explorer doesn’t support W3C standards well as Safari/WebKit, Firefox and Opera do, but nonetheless many web application prefer to support the non-standard browser because of IE has 80% market share. So, the question whether Opera is right to complain to the antitrust authority is a clear yes. Opera made a tactical move to pressure the dominant gorilla and at the same time inform the public about the interoperability issue. If Opera really cares about interoperability it should also support the W3C to keep its power and resist against Nokia’s proposition to remove referent to patent-unencumbered OGG format from HTML5.

Update: Microsoft informed that internal builds of IE8 pass the ACID2 test