>> Microsoft has shown a commitment to making the software work well as a universal directory infrastructure for a corporate organization

That's hilarious. I suppose Microsoft shows a commitment to work well with others whenever they have not yet established their monopoly. And of course, they do no such thing in substance at any point. It's one of the head fakes they are so fond of throwing.

Open source works well with others by definition. Microsoft has everything it needs to know to inter-operate with open source. In contrast, Microsoft provides almost nothing of real use for open source to interact properly with them. In the complex technical machine that is software that requires precision in component "sizes" and timing, all it takes is a few gears to be off or missing to keep the systems from inter-operating.

The open source and open standards world create while Microsoft takes and adds their own secret incompatibilities. That's how Active Directory got started in the first place. That's how Internet Explorer got started.

The company has no shame in their use of deception when they sell their products. Microsoft is the antithesis of open and of standards. That won't keep them from trumpeting that a few of their gears are standard sized however. As if it mattered.

I think what the quote above actually meant was that "Microsoft has shown a commitment to making the software work ... as a universal infrastructure for a corporate organization." The only "well" there is towards other Microsoft products. And of course Microsoft wants their software to dictate the rules to the network. How else can they facilitate their way to monopoly control over the whole network. And buy Novell, too. Their "Linux" is polluted to work well with Microsoft (at least until their contract runs up in a few more years). Having Novell along should seal the bond to Microsoft and Microsoft's escalating pricing [one of the perks of monopoly control.. meanwhile real Linux is well priced when you factor out the liability incurred, from years of tying oneself to Microsoft products, that kicks in when you want to dump Microsoft; but it only gets worse.. again, the perks of having a monopoly].

Micorosft's anti Open Source strategy as outlined in Halloween II at work.

http://www.catb.org/~esr/halloween/halloween2.html:


In the section 'Beating Linux' we read:

'Beat commodity protocols / services

Linux's homebase is currently commodity network and server infrastructure. By folding extended functionality into today's commodity services and create new protocols, we raise the bar & change the rules of the game.

Some of the specifics mentioned in the OSS paper:

o DNS integration with Directory. Leveraging the Directory Service to add value to DNS via dynamic updates, security, authentication

o HTTP-DAV. DAV is complex and the protocol spec provides an infinite level of implementation complexity for various applications (e.g. the design for Exchange over DAV is good but certainly not the single obvious design). Apache will be hard pressed to pick and choose the correct first areas of DAV to implement.

o Structured storage. Changes the rules of the game in the file serving space (a key Linux/Apache application). Create a compelling client-side advantage which can be extended to the server as well (e.g. heterogenous join of client & server datastores).

o MSMQ for Distributed Applications. MSMQ is a great example of a distributed technology where most of the value is in the services and implementation and NOT in the wire protocol.


'

Sorry to follow up on myself. Halloween I (http://www.catb.org/~esr/halloween/halloween1.html) states it even more explicitly:

'Blunting OSS attacks

Generally, Microsoft wins by attacking the core weaknesses of OSS projects.

De-commoditize protocols & applications

OSS projects have been able to gain a foothold in many server applications because of the wide utility of highly commoditized, simple protocols. By extending these protocols and developing new protocols, we can deny OSS projects entry into the market.

David Stutz makes a very good point: in competing with Microsoft's level of desktop integration, "commodity protocols actually become the means of integration" for OSS projects. There is a large amount of IQ being expended in various IETF working groups which are quickly creating the architectural model for integration for these OSS projects.'