Everything I need to know about SOA I learned from Linux

,----[ Quote ]
| There are five important principles SOA architects can learn from Linux and
| the OSS community...
`----

http://www.itmanagersjournal.com/feature/27533


Related:

More obvious misgivings about Microsoft and SOA

,----[ Quote ]
| My take is that inside of Microsoft its aggressor A-types are all about
| dissing SOA and promoting .NET ad nauseam. At the same time the Microserfs
| and developers must understand the inevitability of SOA for at last a portion
| of the most advanced and innovative enterprises’ and service providers’
| architectures. * *
|
| And so, as the world turns toward SOA, Microsoft will fight quietly inside of
| itself about what it really is as a company — a partner to its customers, or
| a parasite on the hide of productivity. *
`----

http://blogs.zdnet.com/Gardner/?p=2538


Microsoft: My way or the highway with SOA?

,----[ Quote ]
| Microsoft isn’t changing its tune with SOA, the authors say, noting
| that “Microsoft again appears to be crafting its own rules and vision. The
| company has so far declined to participate in certain key emerging industry
| standards relevant to SOA. It has a different perspective on what SOA is and
| a different approach for crystallizing its vision.“ * *
`----

http://blogs.zdnet.com/service-oriented/?p=931


Microsoft absent from open standards movement around SOA

,----[ Quote ]
| Now, a new series of SOA standards is headed to OASIS, ones that could
| create a whole market segment around SOA common programmatic principles,
| but Microsoft is nowhere in sight. The absence of Microsoft from the
| Service Component Architecture (SCA), and its sibling Service Data
| Objects (SDO), definitions process can mean one thing: Microsoft will
| pursue its proprietary approach of baking pseudo-SOA into its
| operating system stack as long as it can.
`----

http://blogs.zdnet.com/Gardner/?p=2483


Halloween Memo I Confirmed and Microsoft's History on Standards

,----[ Quote ]
| *By the way, if you are by any chance trying to figure out Microsoft's policy
| *toward standards, particularly in the context of ODF-EOXML, that same
| *Microsoft page is revelatory, Microsoft's answer to what the memo meant when
| *it said that Microsoft could extend standard protocols so as to deny
| *Linux "entry into the market": * *
|
| * *Q: The first document talked about extending standard protocols as a way
| * *to "deny OSS projects entry into the market." What does this mean?
|
| * *A: To better serve customers, Microsoft needs to innovate above standard
| * *protocols. By innovating above the base protocol, we are able to deliver
| * *advanced functionality to users. An example of this is adding
| * *transactional support for DTC over HTTP. This would be a value-add and
| * *would in no way break the standard or undermine the concept of standards,
| * *of which Microsoft is a significant supporter. Yet it would allow us to
| * *solve a class of problems in value chain integration for our Web-based
| * *customers that are not solved by any public standard today. Microsoft
| * *recognizes that customers are not served by implementations that are
| * *different without adding value; we therefore support standards as the
| * *foundation on which further innovation can be based. * * * * *
`----

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?s...70127202224445


Microsoft needs REST

,----[ Quote ]
| Yaron Goland defended his Microsoft colleague, Dare Objasanjo, as a poor
| sitting duck. He justifies the decision to scrap APP as tactical and not
| strategic. He states: “We considered this option but the changes needed to
| make APP work for our scenarios were so fundamental that it wasn’t clear if
| the resulting protocol would still be APP… I also have to admit that I was
| deathly afraid of the political implications of Microsoft messing around with
| APP.” According to Goland, “we couldn’t figure out how to use APP without
| putting an unacceptable implementation and performance burden on both our
| customers and ourselves.” * * *
|
| The implications for this APP vs. Web3S debate can potentially be enormous.
| Just as we are on the brink of creating simple architectures that are
| interoperable using simple standards, the industry risks splitting into
| separate, incompatible camps again. It is probably no coincidence that we
| have Microsoft on one side and Google, IBM and Sun on the other. This will be
| a fundamental problem for enterprise customers if Microsoft extends this
| strategy into any REST architectures that it introduces into the enterprise.
| Any enterprise systems that expose their data using APP, which is likely in
| the near future, will be incompatible with any Microsoft system that expose
| their data with Web3S. * * * *
`----

http://blogs.zdnet.com/Newton/?p=14