Steven Martin bitched about the latest tech industry group hug on his blog today in which he complained, without even so much as a hint of irony, that Microsoft wonks were “admittedly disappointed by the lack of openness in the development of the Cloud Manifesto.”

Add: As he choked down a rising gorge of hypocrisy.

Because as we all know MS is all about openness, standards, and interoperability. Same way there is a santa clause and easter bunny, oh and the same way the moon really is made of cheese. You know the MS drone blathering on about the lack of openness in this "cloud manifesto" is really quite funny as I'm absolutely sure that they would be singing it's praises from on high if the closed and locked in "standards" they are currently complaining about were in fact practices/technologies/"standards" that were coming directly out of microsoft's own labs.

After all MS looooves to blather on about openness and standards and interoperability, so long as those things originate with MS, fit within their convoluted notions of those ideas (which are totally different than any other definition), and of course which are still branded/licensed/totally controlled by redmond.

Paris cos she knows more about the true meaning of open standards than MS ever will.

Gosh who would have thought it, Microsoft complaining about lack of openness.

It must be in a different universe where Microsoft had deliberately obscured or not release some of the following information.

NTFS file system

SMB File system

Active Directory

Office .doc format

Hidden Windows API's

etc etc

Why Paris, well there's nothing secret about her!

Oh lawd. Here we go. They bitch about openess when they can't get their hands on it and hide behind "protecting their competitive position" when they've wrapped up the market.

Oh, the irony.

Those reading this article should take account of its numerous inaccuracies. One of particular note,

"Ex-Citrix exec Sam Johnston was quick to hit back at Martin's remarks by posting a comment on the Azure man's blog, and, in doing so, revealed his involvement in the project."

Sam Johnston's wiki and his "cloud computing manifesto", while great contributions to the cloud community, played no role in the drafting of the Cloud Manifesto.

The only reason Macro$lut is complaining about this is because they are having to listen to what others want rather than being able to force their requirements and standards on everyone else.

But this is an example of M$'s innovation through acquisition failing them. They did not buy some cloud startup early enough and are now in catchup mode.

But i predict this "cloud computing" stuff ill go the same way as the Newton and Grid Computing.

"This would help avoid biases toward one technology over another, and expand the opportunities for innovation"

Yes indeed, I feel the pain. What _would_ be acceptable were, of course, biases towards half-baked technologies and "extended" implementations oozing out of Redmond Central. We get the idea.

Still, it is a Strange New World in which "manifestos", which generally consist of etheral spirits collected over cooling towers, lead to premature bitching and moaning in public about exclusionary practices. The glint in upper management's eyes must be positively TREMENDOUS.

Mine's the fluffy one, lying on the floor.

Hmm. "Here's hoping that when this consortium reveals itself...".

Methinks that other companies may be the ones to scrutinize since for a long time all eyes have been turned towards Microsoft.

I'm looking in Google's direction.

Also, this "Cloud Computing" thing - yep, has its place, but how many of the readership of this site would be happy with a low powered, "dumb" terminal in front of them?

or "innovation", God kills a puppy.

MMMMwwwwwwaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhaaaaaaaaaaaa!

A "Ballmerism" if ever there was one.

\" Martin then outlined three principles he feels the creators of the manifesto needed to adopt.

He suggested that interoperability policies and required standards for cloud computing should be defined though public collaboration and scrutiny.

The process should be "vendor-dominated" with support from multiple providers, customers and other interested parties, said Martin.

He added that relevant standards would take time to "develop and coalesce as the cloud computing industry matures." "\

Hmmm, this sounds suspiciously like the arguments that led up to the adoption of OOXML by ISO last year: "public collaboration" via MS partner companies; "vendor dominated" via the same group of providers and customers; "develop and coalesce" long after the standards have been perverted and market dominance is once again assured.

The ONLY way MS will be able to get traction on this plea is to renounce ISO 29500 and adopt ODF once and for all. THEN they can start beating their chest about "closed standards".

Sure, there's some irony in MS calling for more open standards process given their heritage, but they have on occasion been productive members of collaborative standards processes... and more so in the last few years (WS-*, for example).

The company has been changing over the years (don't we all), and it's not totally out of character for the MS of 2009. I even read the other day they're even opening up their cloud to PHP/eclipse developers.

Regardless of their past, Martin makes some good points.

Thanks for clarifying my [lack of] involvement with the offending manifesto - most appreciated.

Sam