Dave Stutz's Parting Advice To Microsoft 314
thasmudyan writes "Like probably many others I followed the recent link to Heise only to get a much more interesting story than the one about Mozilla/OpenOffice: Dave Stutz, an influencial guy at Microsoft, is resigning his position. He posted an open letter to his ex-employer and this rest of the world, explaining what MS is doing wrong in his opinion. I thought it made an interesting read, maybe Open Source projects should consider some of the key points (as MS seems to be too slow to adapt, it may be good time to move faster than 'the industry')." (Read this Slashdot post from 2001 to see an interesting interview with Stutz about "shared source" and .NET.)
hmmm (Score:5, Interesting)
But what if M$ tries to get in the Linux market? Would you guys use it? I mean, is it about Linux to you guys or strictly OSS?
Hmmm, pretending to be a friend??? (Score:3, Interesting)
AS an example: what remains of the Amiga Intellectual Property is now controlled bith directlky and indirectly by MS thru Gateway held patents and an agreement they have with MS and former MS employees now in important positions at Amiga Inc.
The Recent
Here on slashdot even, there is an infilteration of MS from the spectrum of buying ad space to posters.
Exploiting MS’s Fundamental Error (Score:2, Interesting)
Truth can be painful... (Score:5, Interesting)
IMHO, I think that M$ will never be able to recover from these stigmata because M$ refuses to change. For example, I go to the University of Wisconsin Platteville and we aren't going to be able to renew our M$ contract for next year. Why? Because M$ has decided that the amount we paid a few years ago to renew is no longer sufficient even though we have not deployed any new software from them!
Another unfortunate side effect is that fact that the students who were able to purchase software at discounted educational prices are going to be hurt to discover that their licenses won't be valid any longer! So try explaining to a student who knows nothing about computers that the $30 he forked over for Office XP was just wasted.
"as MS seems to be too slow to adapt"... (Score:5, Interesting)
Sure, a small development team may be able to change directions more quickly, but that's an apples-to-oranges comparison.
So, if MS really wants to adapt to something, they will, and they will do it quickly, and they will roll over anyone who tries to stand in their way. And, as far as I see, their current strategy is still making money and is still leading the software industry.
Just for concession's sake, though... the fact that the open source movement (or for that matter, Apple) has been able to live and thrive on the niche markets and margins of the software/hardware industries is a great credit to their tenacity and robustness. It's a difficult market out there...
bozo (Score:1, Interesting)
First off, Stutz by his own admission is trained as a musician. This "software architecture" thing appears to be more or less a lark.
His list of contributions (to MS and otherwise) in recent years appears to be:
- "WebClasses" - a failed alternative to VB components for Microsoft Transaction Server
- the "Shared Source CLI" - the underpinnings of Microsoft's vastly successful C# implementation
It seems Microsoft hired this guy to be their token, quirky open-source iconoclast and Stutz got more than a little upset when nobody wanted to listen to him.If he were genuinely an influential guy, then he would have used whatever political power he wielded to further his own goals, either inside Microsoft or outside. Instead he spent his time writing an O'Reilly book, ironically, to convince people that .NET was not such a bad thing after all.
People who are influential don't feel a bipolar-esque need to bemoan their employer and make Cassandra forecasts of doom and gloom; they work to get what they want. It's people who are not influential who end up blogging a "fuck you, you are stupid" letter to their former employer.
Before this gets modded down as flamebait, I'm not attacking open source so much as questioning the exponents you choose.
Can I complain to Yahoo about MSN??? (Score:5, Interesting)
He was spot on with this - they made MSN break Opera browsers and it sure pissed off a lot of people, (especially me).
I have a side question to any Yahoo staff here.
Your terms for being submitted to Yahoo Directory include the requirement that the site must work properly across different browsers.
You have MSN, msn uk etc. listed under Portals in the World Wide Web section.
Many of MSN portals still do not work properly in Opera. What procedure do you have in place for delisting those Microsoft sites that do not support different browser?
If MS based Windows on Linux (Score:5, Interesting)
No, it would be because they did it on the Apple model. Take an open source core and heavily wrap it in a propriatary shell.
Odds are I wouldn't like the shell either, and would be just as constrained from changing it as I am in changing Windows now ( where I have to hack the executable binary just to change the label on the "start" button).
I've already rejected a pure Linux company's offering for similar reasons. That would be Lycoris. Why should I accept MS's?
KFG
Not sure what to think (Score:5, Interesting)
Unfortunately, network protocols have turned out to be a far better fit for this middleman role, and Microsoft, intent on propping up the PC franchise, has had to resist fully embracing the network integration model. This corporate case of denial has left a vacuum, of course, into which hardware companies, enterprises, and disgruntled Microsoft wannabes have poured huge quantities of often inferior, but nonetheless requirements-driven, open source software.
Huh? Open sourcers are "disgruntled Microsoft wannabes"? Most open source software was created because either
a) There WAS no such program, and someone needed it
b) There was a program, but it lacked certain features/was too expensive/the author just wanted to write a new one, etc
He clearly understands how big a force the Open Source community is becoming, and how it will affect Microsoft - but he doesn't seem to grasp the reasons. And his remedy was very vague to me. So, Microsoft should stop looking over their shoulder, and go with network apps instead of their OS... what network apps would those be? Yeah, if Microsoft doesn't change and roll with the punches, they surely will be going down. But I'm not sure their future lies in some fluffy concept of platform-independent "networked applications". I don't think we'll see a networked linux version of Office anytime soon, but it's good to know the ol' 800 pound gorilla is starting to get anxious.
Re:Summary: "Hey Microsoft: Embrace Open Source" (Score:1, Interesting)
They won't open theyre code thats not in theyre best interest to. Only assist projects like MONO and trillain etc to increase its user base for more subscriptions.
Thats where its at. XBox also, pay per play. Thats where the money is, not open source per se. Its the software SERVICE.
Re:He is NOT saying Open Source is "good" (Score:3, Interesting)
Hell, Apple made people pay for a point release (Jaguar) - and Mac fans willingly do so. Perhaps the kind of stuff included there (e.g. the iLife suite, and OS X's stability) would be the sort of thing MS should try to offer in the next rev of XP, rather than a more subtly DRM-crippled Winamp competitor than nobody will use? Just a thought.
Actually, this bit right there. . . (Score:5, Interesting)
Naturally MS, and MS's employees, would be most aware of the OSS software specifically designed to make the switch easy for Windows users. This is also the software that the MS oriented computer press focuses on, and the software that new Linux users are most likely to come in contact with.
Just because the innovation is below your radar doesn't mean it's not there. Linux is now the OS of choice for those doing innovative work, particularly in the academic setting, most because it's the most viable OS for *doing* just such work. It's free, you have the source, and the right to dick with it all you want.
If he wants an example of something the OSS model has already produced he could start with the World Wide Frickin' Web.
KFG
It means people use netsites more than programs (Score:3, Interesting)
That's his point. What do I spend time on my computer doing? Well, I use emacs (for coding), freeciv (for fun), slashdot and indymedia (for news).... What's out there on the net is as important as what's in here on my computer. It's a big shift -- and one M$ has been trying to ignore.
Of course, what's on the computer seems to make a whole lot more money than what's on the net, so this decision has done well for them so far. They just can't keep it up.
Re:Is OS so good ? (Score:2, Interesting)
The High Priests of the Bazaar
This paper presents a case against the open source movement and explains why the open source model does not work economically for the vast majority of those involved in the production of commercial software. There are several arguments against the OS (open source) model.
Open Source Doesn't Make Economic Sense For Most
The open source organization has presented a few cases that supposedly explain why OS works economically. However, if you examine the cases objectively you will find that the cases are flimsy and non-specific and do not address any specific concerns. They attempt to bolster their case by pointing out a few "successes", among which Caldera and Red Hat are displayed as shining examples.
The real economic question of the OS model is how is money made, and who is making the money. Who is being rewarded financially for the enormous development effort? The open source initiative claims that there are at least four different models that allow someone to reap rewards. Oddly, it is not mentioned that it is not necessarily the people who did the development work that gain financially.
The four primary business cases mentioned by OS proponents are "Selling Support", "Loss Leader", "Widget Frosting" and "Accessorizing."
The first case proposes that money can be made via selling support for the free software product. This is by far the strongest case and is proven to work, for a few small companies. The two companies that are shown as positive examples of this business model are Red Hat and Caldera, who distribute and support the Linux operating system. What is never mentioned is that neither of these two companies has contributed significantly in relative terms to the Linux development process. Its important to note that using this business model, the people that make the money are usually not the ones who have invested in the development process. So much for the strongest case.
The second case is based on the idea that you give away a product as open source so you can make money selling a closed source program. This also can work, but it should be noted that the money is being made off the closed source product and not off of the open source. An example of this model would be Netscape, who gives away the source code of their client browser so the OS community can do development, but keeps their "cash cow" products completely closed. Obviously, this case may only work if you have a software product that lends itself to this sort of "give away the razor and make money on the blades" system. The truth is that the vast majority of software is monolithic. So much for the loss leader case.
The third case, "Widget Frosting", sounds completely practical. The premise that hardware makers produce open source software so that the OS development community will work for free to produce better drivers and interface tools for their hardware products. It sounds great on the surface, especially for the company that produces the hardware: they get free drivers and do not have to pay for expensive developers. The OS community wins by getting presumably stable drivers and tools. What is not mentioned is the reason hardware makers usually don't do this is because they do not want to reveal trade secrets regarding their hardware design. Production of efficient drivers requires an intimate knowledge of the hardware the driver is for. It is almost always the case that it is in the hardware developers' best interest to keep their hardware secrets close to home. This also brings up the question of why isn't hardware "open"? So much for the frosting case.
The final case, "Accessorizing", is similar to the first, but throws in the idea of selling books and complete systems with the open source software, and other accessories as well. It is obvious that selling books qualifies as support, and that it really belongs in the first case. The idea of selling computer systems, T-Shirts, dolls, again begs the question: "Who is making the money?" As with the first case, it is not necessarily the people who have done the development work. Additionally, the question of how much money can be made selling books, t-shirts, mugs, etc, is never answered. O'Reilly Associates is frequently used as an example to be a company who has made money using this case. The reader should notice that O'Reilly Associates are not the people doing the development work. Indeed, it is never asked why all the O'Reilly books are not available for free or at least at manufacturing cost? This also brings up the question of why isn't book production "open"? Perhaps they are waiting to see if they could sell enough O'Reilly T-Shirts to pay their bills. So much for the accessories.
Open Source Does Not Necessarily Produce Better Software
The open source proponents frequently state that OS necessarily produces better software. This statement is made without any evidence. Indeed, there is evidence to the contrary. GCC is a standard compiler produced by the GNU organization. It lags its commercial counterparts in both efficiency and features. The reason behind is illustrates the largest weakness in the OS plan. It is very hard to convince qualified engineers that they should do such boring and unglamorous work without any sort of financial reward. The idea of throwing large quantities of people at the source does not work in this case, since there are not large quantities of qualified individuals available.
Open Source Did Not Make the Internet Successful
Another statement made by the OS community is that somehow open source was responsible for the success of the Internet. The reason behind this is probably a result of the confusion between what is open source and what is an open protocol. It is easy to see that the foundation of the Internet was built on open protocols. This does not equate to open source, for the two are quite different. The vast majority of the machines on the Internet run on closed source operating systems running mostly closed source software, which communicate using open protocols.
Where Does Open Source Work?
Open source does work in certain cases. A good example of where it may work well is Netscape. The act of giving away the source to the OS community so they can work for free and produce a product that helps the sales of their server software was a stroke of genius and proved very profitable for the relatively few at Netscape. But is this truly making money off of open source? Isn't the money is made off of the closed source software?
Another example of where it does work is the aforementioned Red Hat. Red Hat has been successful making money off of the work of thousands of others who have contributed to the Linux operating system and the associated GNU programs that have shipped with the Linux distributions. The question is: do those who work at Red Hat deserve to be rewarded, or do the people who do the actual development work deserve to be rewarded? Should the money go to the few, or to the many? It seems that the High Priests of the Bazaar believe the former.
THIS DOCUMENT CAN BE RECOPIED AND REDISTRIBUTED WITHOUT RESTRICTION, HOWEVER ADDITIONS/MODIFICATIONS/CORRECTIONS SHOULD BE LABELED AS SUCH WHERE THEY OCCUR.
Re:Not impressed (Score:2, Interesting)
Their Internet software is over-priced. This is why open-source software has lower TCO for internet apps. The web service standards I see catching on (SOAP, XML over HTTP) do not seem to require Microsoft.
Now, Microsoft and others can still make money on clients. OSS has not done as good a job there and people are willing to pay something for this. However, without the inside track on operating system APIs one wonders what Microsoft's basis for competition is. My cut, look for a resurgence of Apple given their interface design expertise and the lesser importance of proprietary APIs in software creation.
Re:Summary: "Hey Microsoft: Embrace Open Source" (Score:3, Interesting)
You mean IBM is not making money because people don't want what IBM has to sell?
Gasp-gaspity-gasp!
IBM is not being stymied by ground-level folks who can't "get with the program". It's being stymied by the fact that the subscription model for software is LIMITED to very few applications and markets.
Areas where leasing makes sense include SOME areas of research and development (for instance, there are a lot of VERY expensive ASIC tools; these are mostly on a subscriptions model already, and have been for years), a few types of business applications (though ADP and similar firms seem to have payroll tied up nicely, there might be a few places where outsourcing is good), and MAYBE some publishing tools (though I doubt it-- $50 a month for 12 months for Adobe Acrobat, or $500 up-front for as long as you have the disks?).
The fact of the matter is, no matter what Sun Microsystems tells you, the network is most emphatically NOT the computer (and, as I recall, they've mostly dropped THAT slogan, anyway-- there's a telling sign). The computer is quite capable of acting on its own, and to offload trivial tasks from the computer onto a central server (i.e., storage of programs, storage of data, even most of the number-crunching) is a waste of resources and a monumentally stupid way to go about things.
YES, there would be some advantages to having everything done over the network: simplified management, simplified tech support/troubleshooting, and even some cost benefits in the short term. But they don't outweigh the vast waste of resources, and they don't outweight the benefits of keeping a lot of stuff local to one computer (e.g., you're not left with a single point of failure).
Not to mention the fact that most of the software companies that I've dealt with for network-based applications have had really shitty attitudes about users; a typical meeting with one of the companies I dealt with involved the sales and the engineering teams openly mocking my users. Other companies were more subtle, but the same attitude was present: "fuck the user".
Maybe THAT'S why IBM is being stymied-- because network applications are NOT a good solution to most problems.
I just want Microsoft to fail with right reasons (Score:1, Interesting)
If MS can improvement the standard with better support on their own platform, it is a benefit to all Windows user. C++? yes, it is not following all the ANSI standard. MS claims that they'll provide better support on ANSI standard in next version. Basic? Who would like to do Windows programming with standard Basic? I think VB is really a merit for RAD. HTML? When you found that you can't read standard HTML with IE? Yes. MS support lot of their own extension, but they never give up the standard (only those stupid web designers/programmers give it up by writing something for IE only). Video and audio codec? Is there anyone can't play MP3 or Ogg under Windows? Is there anyone can't play DivX under Windows? WMA, WMV, etc... is proprietary. But who decide the popularity of it? Not MS, but those stupid developers/CEO/CTO and the users. Java? Sorry, it is not standard, even C# can claim it.
If you're running a company, everything should be profitable. If you wanna contribute to the world, please code for free software. If there is no developer pay for such expensive tool, how can a OS obtains 90+% of users? Why there is developer willing to pay for such expensive tool?
Are you wanna agree with "One language/platform rules them all"? Then why you don't say, if everyone uses Windows, then we all need not to trouble for cross platform, compatability, or even waste the time on porting software? Or you believe in "One Java rules them all" is better than "One Windows(with VS) rules them all"? Think about why there's GNOME and KDE, why there's MySQL and PostgreSQL, why there's C++, Java, Perl, PHP, etc.. and why we all have different DNA.
Really too much anti-MS post here. I also don't like MS (and Sun too), but better provide right reasons. MS is evil not because we're anti-MS.
Re:hmmm (Score:3, Interesting)
The idea of value in software is fiction. Once its written, the effort to create it has been spent - the idea of copyright is a stranglehold (before you hit reply: An idea that has been debated at lenght on
The *Freedom* aspect of GNU software attracts me. Im also have very left politics, and abhor Corporate Masters, be they MS or GM. Using GNU/Linux allows me to be free of that 'influence'. No, I wouldnt use M$GNU/Linux.
Revelation - innvation cannot be bought this time! (Score:3, Interesting)
As even more have pointed out, Microsoft cannot innovate on thier own... they buy innovation.
Here's the real problem with open source. More and more innovation is originating from the open source world. Therefore, there is nothing for Microsoft to buy!! They are unable to simply borrow froom projects because they would mean others could do the same - they need to buy something, and all of its patents, outright or the culture is not going to want it. That, more than anything iis the real problem for MS, even more than the whole $$$ "free" thing.
What do they do to solve this crisis? I don't know, but I am rooting for them to remain clueless and floundering. The more true innovators leave, the more they will flounder... hopefully it's a repeating cycle. The only fear I have is those leaving Microsoft bringing the same value system into other companies.
Re:The first paragraph: (Score:3, Interesting)
MS has not had a real profit since 1.995, as Bill Parish [billparish.com.] has shown [billparish.com.].
And another (Score:3, Interesting)
Several months ago, I had to use Visual Studio 6, for the first time, and within a day had found several bugs in it. Now whether these bugs were me not knowing the "proper" usage, or genuine bugs, that has been typical of my experience with M$, and leads to the second point, inflexibility.
If you don't use M$ products in the M$ way, you can't use them at all. Take windows, for instance, multiple windows. You get click to focus and raise on focus whether you want that or not. Sometimes I like to have several windows open for reading while typing into another window which is mostly hidden behind the others, and the mouse is in the small visible piece of hat window and thus my typing goes there while reading from the windows I have arranged so I can read what I need. This is not an everyday usage, but often enough that using M$ windows frustrates the heck out of me.
Lack of ethics is the third reason, but not nearly as important.
Re:hmmm (Score:3, Interesting)
That's not politics, that's level headed reasoning and solid business practice. Microsoft's licensing system gives them alot of power over you. To take just one example, they can force a software audit on you, and even if you keep perfect records it will cost you non-trivial time and money. If you don't trust Microsoft to use this power in a way you accept, it's only a logical business decision to switch aware.
Free Software also means Freedom from control by corporations you don't trust. Free Software means you don't need to trust anyone but yourself, that has real value to business or personal users.
Re:And what has come out of this? (Score:2, Interesting)
Absolutely NOT. I completely object to your statement. The tablet PC is a side effect of Bill Gates, at Comdex, seeing a product I worked on - shipped by National Semiconductor. It was the Geode WebPAD reference platform. Please DO NOT give Microsoft the benefit of another so-called design win, which QNX produced. From what I understand, the product demonstration upset Mr. Gates substantially; he left the trade show floor and was very upset that WinCE was not being demo'd.
Re:And what has come out of this? (Score:2, Interesting)
Apple's Newton opearting system had these innovations in 1994.