19 Comments

Summary:

Updated: Google called to let me know that despite its inclusion on a list released Thursday that named the search giant as a member of the Open Cloud Manifesto Group, when the formal list comes out on Monday, Google won’t be on it.  Spokesman Jon Murchinson […]

Updated: Google called to let me know that despite its inclusion on a list released Thursday that named the search giant as a member of the Open Cloud Manifesto Group, when the formal list comes out on Monday, Google won’t be on it.  Spokesman Jon Murchinson emailed me to say, “While we are not a party to the manifesto, Google is a strong advocate of cloud computing, given the substantial benefits for consumers and businesses. We value industry dialog that results in more and better delivery of software and services via the Internet, and appreciate IBM’s leadership and commitment in this area. We continue to be open to interoperability with all vendors and any data.”

Microsoft’s Steve Martin, senior director of developer platform management at the Redmond giant, posted an inflammatory blog post last night about the creation of open standards for the cloud. In it, he touts Microsoft’s openness, proposes a wiki for the creation of open standards in the cloud, and points to a shadowy cabal of tech companies that are developing what he dubbed an “Open Cloud Manifesto.” That group isn’t so shadowy anymore.

My sources have so far named IBM, Sun Microsystems and Google as participants. Reuven Cohen, founder and chief technologist of Enomaly Inc., is heading up the effort, according to a post today on his blog that defends it. The full manifesto will be released in its entirely on Monday, but he linked to a site where people can discuss the effort now. 

The Open Cloud Manifesto effort revolves around creating open standards that will divorce the underlying cloud infrastructure from the software running on top of it. Those standards would be offered under a Creative Commons licence, much like the standards Martin proposes. There are plenty of companies offering software that helps companies manage multiple clouds, but creating open standards would make it even easier for enterprises to run their apps on multiple infrastructure clouds. So what does Microsoft have against this group, especially since it was asked to join them? In Martin’s words:

“We were admittedly disappointed by the lack of openness in the development of the Cloud Manifesto. What we heard was that there was no desire to discuss, much less implement, enhancements to the document despite the fact that we have learned through direct experience. Very recently we were privately shown a copy of the document, warned that it was a secret, and told that it must be signed “as is,” without modifications or additional input. It appears to us that one company, or just a few companies, would prefer to control the evolution of cloud computing, as opposed to reaching a consensus across key stakeholders (including cloud users) through an “open” process. An open Manifesto emerging from a closed process is at least mildly ironic.”

Just like it’s ironic that Microsoft is whining about open standards, especially given its own history with proprietary file formats. By opening up a wiki, Microsoft would invite anarchy into the process, possibly scaring away the enterprise customers the Cloud Manifesto backers are trying to attract. But getting a strong group of companies behind an open process can help create open standards on which enterprise customers are willing to bet their IT infrastructure. Maybe that’s what Microsoft’s trying to avoid.

  1. Aaron deMello Thursday, March 26, 2009

    Much ado about nothing IMHO. We are dealing with quasi-religious extremes and near-hysteria here; the parties involved in these discussions have yet to get their IM clients talking together, so forget about the fundamental infrastructure upon which business is going to run in the next few years. There will always be at least two camps, and the Us v.s. Them way of thinking is alive and well in the computer industry today – perhaps more than ever.

    Its very admirable what Reuven and co. are doing and as a CCIF member I’m looking forward to their manifesto on Monday, but the name of the doc says it all – manifesto. We need less manifestos and more interoperable standards.

    Share
  2. I agree with Aaron and believe this document is merely a foundation on which to build and generate feedback from the greater community. Looking forward to the manifesto release on Monday.

    Share
  3. Bias much?

    If Microsoft does a document behind closed doors, then they are the evil company, but if the decry a document behind closed doors…suddenly that is a good idea?

    Give me a break.

    Share
  4. I don’t understand you point. Are you supporting open process and Microsoft offer or not? Or you just take this as an opportunity to bash Microsoft.

    Share
  5. Geir summed it up nicely:

    “You’ve got a serious problem when MSFT can call you out on openness and they – despite being MSFT – have a point.”

    This comment on TechCrunch’s colourful Out of Order 2.0 article has some merit too:

    “It was a committee having a secret meeting. End of story.

    This committee should be disbanded and a new one formed, and all the participants of the secret meetings should be barred from the new committee.

    As far as committees and committee rules go, this is an ethical lapse of the highest order.”

    Sam

    Share
  6. Geir summed it up nicely[1]:

    “You’ve got a serious problem when MSFT can call you out on openness and they – despite being MSFT – have a point.”

    This comment[2] on TechCrunch’s colourful Out of Order 2.0 article has some merit too:

    “It was a committee having a secret meeting. End of story.

    This committee should be disbanded and a new one formed, and all the participants of the secret meetings should be barred from the new committee.

    As far as committees and committee rules go, this is an ethical lapse of the highest order.”

    Sam

    1. http://blogs.codehaus.org/people/geir/archives/001785_open_cloud_fail.html
    2. http://www.techcrunchit.com/2009/03/26/out-of-order-20/#comment-8783
    3. http://www.techcrunchit.com/2009/03/26/out-of-order-20/

    Share
  7. How open is this initiative if I cannot even see it! Look, I am no supporter of Mr. Softie, but this thing is already beginning to smell like a half-baked marketing initiative.

    Cloud Computing means so many different things to different stakeholders. Looking forward to the Monday release.

    Also see
    http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/microsoft-pokes-hole-cloud-computing/story.aspx?guid=%7BFE589532%2D894D%2D44AE%2D8FB3%2D14C11DF54892%7D#comments1934232

    Share
  8. Subhash Bose Friday, March 27, 2009

    Which part of microsoft software is open exactly?

    Share
  9. Nobody invited Microsoft to the party? That is just wrong. To rectify the situation, I am pleased to announce the Open Sewer Initiative. Microsoft, please feel free to jump in at any time.

    Share
  10. [...] for openness is complaining about a lack of openness is pretty ironic in and of itself, as many other bloggers were eager to point out — and not always [...]

    Share
  11. [...] Is a cabal of tech companies, including IBM, Sun Microsystems, and Enomaly developing a secretive "Open Cloud Manifesto?" Some say so. [...]

    Share
  12. [...] week, we watched the big names in the IT industry play their little reindeer games over a proposed Open Cloud Manifesto put forth by IBM. I have to say, it wasn’t worth it. As far as Manifestos go, this one is pretty benign. Who [...]

    Share
  13. [...] polémica se desató la semana pasada a partir de una entrada de Steven Martin, de Microsoft, en las que [...]

    Share
  14. [...] week, we watched the big names in the IT industry play their little reindeer games over a proposed Open Cloud Manifesto put forth by IBM. I have to say, it wasn’t worth it. As far as Manifestos go, this one is pretty benign. Who cares [...]

    Share
  15. [...] La polémica se desató la semana pasada a partir de una entrada de Steven Martin, de Microsoft, en las que atacaba la iniciativa y la tildaba de secretista y de oscura.  Steven afirmaba que lo que había que hacer era poner el documento en un wiki y discutirlo abiertamente, y que la cuestión de los estándares precisaba una discusión larga hasta que el proceso se solidificase. El recurso a este tipo de técnicas no es nuevo en la estrategia de Microsoft: reclamar el desarrollo de un proceso supuestamente abierto en el que poder intervenir, para poder llegar a posiciones de fijación de estándares ventajosas mediante la saturación del proceso con “votos amigos” y estandarizaciones de facto. En realidad, el Open Cloud Manifesto es un documento enormemente generalista y abierto, que pretende sentar definiciones y bases de funcionamiento de cara al futuro, y en ese sentido resulta de lo más recomendable revisar cada una de sus seis páginas. [...]

    Share
  16. [...] standards for cloud computing. Matt Asay says it is IBM and others are calling the group a cabal. Not a good start to an open cloud [...]

    Share
  17. [...] polémica se desató la semana pasada a partir de una entrada de Steven Martin, de Microsoft, en las que [...]

    Share
  18. [...] polémica se desató la semana pasada a partir de una entrada de Steven Martin, de Microsoft, en las que [...]

    Share

Comments have been disabled for this post