02.01.08
Exchange 2007 Seen as Innately Anti-competitive
The following update has been submitted by a reader who previously shared his observation that Microsoft does not play nice with rival Web browsers. The gist of the previous post is that an upgrade of Microsoft Exchange servers breaks compatibility. This post attracted the attention of other bloggers who probably had encountered similar problems.
I found out definitively that we are not currently running Exchange 2007. They attempted to migrate my officemate to an Exchange 2007 server, but she had a problem in that they could not migrate her old e-mail. The problem seemed to be related to something called a GID (or GUID?) and, apparently, it was so complicated that our administrators punted it over to Microsoft support for resolution. Right now, her options are that she can use the new server without any of her old mail or revert to the old server.
“In general, our Windows administrators do not trouble themselves to test their systems with non-Microsoft software.”As for my problem, I am unfortunately not very surprised that I still have it. In general, our Windows administrators do not trouble themselves to test their systems with non-Microsoft software. They barely even test interoperability with the Macintosh, which we allegedly support. We also allegedly support Firefox, but it is up to rank-and-file users like myself to report interoperability problems with non-Microsoft software such as this. I can only hope that the powers-that-be see fit to investigate these problems and are able to fix them.
When I was growing up, my father worked in information technology. At the time, he was working in an environment which featured IBM mainframes. IBM was then a monopolist, Microsoft was then “the new kid on the block” and my father fancied Microsoft. After all, those people who worked with the IBM mainframes behind the glass walls were arrogant and unresponsive. Why not just cheaply acquire a PC with Windows, Word and Excel and work around the mainframe people? Now it appears to me that we have come full circle and Microsoft has replaced IBM with their bloated and overly complicated systems, complemented by their arrogant and unresponsive minders.
As was stressed yesterday, the Yahoo bid is worrisome because Yahoo has been Linux-hostile when it comes to platform compatibility (or censorship). The same goes for cross-Web browser compatibility.
The scenario above is also worth considering when asking ourselves whether or not Microsoft will play fair as Silverlight, OOXML, SharePoint and so forth actually evolve. Microsoft calls this innovation, not deviation from widely-accepted protocols. █
“We’re disheartened because Microsoft helped W3C develop the very standards that they’ve failed to implement in their browser. We’re also dismayed to see Microsoft continue adding proprietary extensions to these standards when support for the essentials remains unfinished.”
–George Olsen, Web Standards Project
Highlight: Novell was the first to acknowledge that Microsoft FUD tactics had substance. Novell then used anti-Linux FUD to market itself. 
Highlight: Xandros let Microsoft make patent claims and brag about (paid-for) OOXML support. 
Highlight: Linspire's CEO not only fell into Microsoft arms, but he also assisted the company's attack on GNU/Linux. 
Highlight: Microsoft craves pseudo (proprietary) standards and gets its way using proxies and influence which it buys. 
Highlight: The invasion into the open source world is intended to leave Linux companies neglected, due to financial incentives from Microsoft. 
Analysis: Xen, an open source hypervisor, possibly fell victim to Microsoft's aggressive (and stealthy) acquisition-by-proxy strategy.