The more offerings, the better, as far as Microsoft is concerned. However, I'd like to see if the other ZDNet bloggers will even acknowledge this move...
Other blog postings by other authors still call Azure proprietary when all of the storage offerings are REST based (just like Amazon and Google's which somehow are not proprietary).
In terms of the Open Source advocates concerns, what is it they want, exactly? They'd complain (correctly) if Microsoft only let Microsoft technologies run and access Azure. If they allow other technologies, its viewed with suspicion. Even when the amount of 'openness' matches the competitions offering.
So, what, exactly, does Microsoft have to do to have the Open Source advocates as happy as they are with the Rackspace / Amazon AWS / Google App Engine offerings? It can't be source code: Google and Amazon don't offer the source code behind their offerings. The cost is approximately the same as well.
How about a nice, "Good Job Microsoft.. It's a nice start, and we hope you'll continue allowing Open Source, non MS software to interact and run on your platforms."
But, I guess that'd be too much to ask for.
The best of ZDNet, delivered
ZDNet Newsletters
Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox
