Microsoft Defends Its SOA Strategy Against Critics

Share it on Twitter  
Share it on Facebook  
Share it on Linked in  

There's an adage: The problem with being the bottom dog is the view never changes.

It occurs to me you could say the problem with being the top dog is there's always somebody ready to jump on your back.

So it is with Microsoft.

Lots of people have criticized Microsoft and its position on SOA. If you haven't kept up, check out our Q&A with Mulesource CEO Dave Rosenberg, who has a lot to say about Microsoft's lack of leadership.

Last week, I wrote about an eBizQ interview with Microsoft's Dino Chiesa on Biz Talk server, in which Chiesa reveals more about Microsoft's SOA strategy.

If the top dog always has some other dog waiting to attack, the corollary must be, at some point, the top dog will have to bite back.

This week, on "All About Interop," Microsoft bites back. I believe it's Chiesa himself writing, since it doesn't credit any other writer, but the "about this blog" section does note that sometimes others post to the blog.

He mentions my post (and kudos for that!), but his remarks are more generally about the criticisms aimed at Microsoft's SOA strategy. I really like the post, because it's straight-shooting and gloriously free of Microsoft PR-speak. In particular, he addresses:

  • Microsoft's position that open protocol standards are necessary for SOA, but open source is not.
  • Why Microsoft focuses so much on infrastructure. Chiesa contends it will take a good infrastructure for IT to manage all the aspects of SOA. "What's required is commercial-grade infrastructure in the form of tools, process servers, management suites, development frameworks, registries, and user interface technologies."
  • He also takes up arms against the contention that Microsoft's SOA infrastructure works only with Windows, saying "Ninety-two percent of the over 7,000 BizTalk Server customers use the technology to connect with assets on UNIX, Linux and mainframe based systems."

Check it out. Even those of you who are hardcore anti-Microsoft owe it to your profession to hear both sides.