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.)
Interestingly... (Score:5, Funny)
About time (Score:3, Funny)
Lots of reasons why I want Microsoft to fail (Score:5, Insightful)
Lots of reasons why I want
It's benefits a criminal organization. Not one that's been found guilty of crimes once or maybe twice, but lots and lots of times. Those crimes are many and varied, but here's just a few of them: Stac Electronics v. Microsoft, DOJ v. Microsoft, Sun v. Microsoft.
P.S. If you want to split hairs, Stac v. Microsoft isn't a criminal action, it's doesn't stem from a criminal abuse of their monopoly like the other two cases. Instead it was just a case of a small company being driven out of business by willful patent infringement, theft of trade secrets, etc.
Microsoft isn't just one thing anymore. It's too damn big for that. I'm sure even Bill himself knows better than to think that he truly controls the whole ship because it's become big enough that he can't possibly know all the projects, people, etc. anymore. But even a really large company still has a kind of collective personality that it exudes and a large part of the personality both internal and external to Microsoft for many years now is that of a total control freak.
If they don't own it, if they don't control it, if they didn't create it, if it doesn't have a broad stamp from Microsoft on it, then they don't want it. Sometimes it's sufficient for the thing to merely exist and they'll refuse to acknowledge it, other times they need to actively stamp it out because they can't control it.
When was the last time you can remember Microsoft saying they supported a standard? That is, not something they invented and submitted a RFC for, an actual, take it off the shelf and re-implement it without renaming it or "improving" it so it doesn't work with anybody else standard. C++? Basic? HTML? A video or audio codec? Java? Anything?
I'm sure there's something, somebody will point out their excellent support for TCP/IP or something and I'm sure that's true. But if you were to look at Microsoft as a person in your life, you'd wonder what was wrong with him or her such that so much had to be controlled by that person.
When your business is selling the operating systems that 90+% of everybody uses, software development tools should not be a profit center.
Why should I have to plunk down a couple of thousand dollars for a "universal subscription" in order to have access to compilers and basic development information? Sun doesn't have to do that? On this point I'll quote from the
Marketing. Have you been "lucky" enough to catch one of the
So they are going to pull a page out of Intel's bum-bum-buh-bum "Intel Inside" playbook and try to sell the brand like it's sneakers and cola. Trust us, you'll look cool if you use it, and we'll keep hammering the brand on TV so somebody who doesn't have much tech savvy in your organization will ask you if you are using it, or have plans to port to it, or whatever, even if he hasn't got a clue what "it" is in this case.
They don't trust you. They don't like what they can't control and they can't control you. They can try and they always will keep trying but ultimately you are going to see them keep trying to do things and always keep a step towards the door just so they can bolt if they have to. Want to see what I mean? Go visit GotDotNet sometime if you haven't already been there. It's the grassroots community website that Microsoft put up to support
Ever been to SourceForge? Of course you have, everybody has because that's one of the hubs of all open source projects. You can go there and get the source of thousands of cool open source projects and it really serves the community well. There's even hundreds of projects now that list C# among their programming languages. So why did Microsoft feel compelled to create their own GotDotNet Workspaces that is clearly just a ripoff of SourceForge?
A few reasons are fairly clear: First, at many of their workspaces you don't get in unless they know who you are. Ever been stopped at SourceForge and asked for a name and password to look at a project? What about download binaries or source? No? At GotDotNet you will, lots of projects are marked with a lock. Second, forget about all those messy licenses that Microsoft might not approve of, you don't need to worry your little head about BSD vs. GPL vs. LGPL. You've got the one true workspace license that you have to agree to, or else you won't be putting your project there. Lastly, well it's kind of obvious, but it's really all about control isn't it. After all, if you aren't under their thumb, that has to be a bad thing. So a SourceForge that they control is pretty much a requirement, isn't it?
It's a really sad way for a lot of people to waste a whole lot of time rebuilding that which already exists. Wouldn't the whole computing world be a lot better if there wasn't a team of people, maybe a couple of teams of people building complete copies of
In the end, we'll all just be left with another way to do the exact same thing only in a different language. Lord knows the world benefits now from being unable to share media between France, Germany, Italy, Spain, the US, and Japan because we can't all speak the same language. I benefit every day from the fact that I can't read a Japanese manga I might enjoy or understand a TV show from Europe. Once you are done building this tower, go build a few more right beside it using Perl, Python, and Ruby too. They're all trailing behind in certain areas, we need to make sure the same set of stuff is reinvented and rewritten for all of them too.
perhaps you have misread... (Score:5, Insightful)
The obvious example, following the main thread focus, on microsft, where millions of people have noted that they did, in fact, abuse their position, that they got to a dominate position via some pretty questionable means, and that their security models combined with this position have put people in the "pretty much stuck" position of spending a lot of money to be abused on an ongoing basis. yes, I am aware of "don't use their stuff", well, this has been answerd over and over again by noting it's pretty hard to not be affected by "their stuff" whether you use it or not, especially if your clients and cuistomers are still using it. Catch 22 there, so we will get past that sticking point, it's been answered. We all use the net, and all of us are affected when a significant size hole appears and gets exploited, and once a pattern of many years time and of noting exactly where those holes appear and exactly who is responsible for them and how much money they continue to make by this inclusion into the internet world of this swiss cheese approach to expensive software, well.... I mean, really.... the sky IS really blue.
As to "corporations", recent revelations over the past couple of years have proven there is a lot of outright lying, obfuscation of finances, over hyping to small investors to shill up stocks worth to absurd and reckless levels-fraud in other words, and so on. It's not a true black and white issue, it's more a pick an example (examples again, say microsoft, enron, etc) and point out data and take it from there, normal empirical analysis. the gestalt is, there sure is a lot of criminality going on, and people are beginning to wonder exactly how widespread this is, after example after example comes to light. It's endemic, and probably epidemic, if you would allow a small amount of anthromorphism to be used to describe it..
Of course this can be called bashing, but to millions of people it's "bashing" based on the reality of an obvious need to bash. Blaming the victims for a crime committed against them is not considered to be an intellectually viable form of expression that is valid, at least not amongst rational civilized people.
Now for me, a regular old 'murican capitalist, and a proponent of self-reliance and independence, and ALSO a proponent of above board rational and ethical business behavior, there are some corps I think do a good job, and others I can see as being..well.. crooks is the word. Serious crooks, crooks who not only need some fines, but some jail time. Want an example? any of the corporations who sold weapons of mass destruction materials to saddam back in the 80's, when he was obviously using them in warfare. any of those corpos officers, chucked in the pokey. the corporations dissolved. Well now, that would sure be an interesting set of bignames now, wouldn't it? I have more examples, that is "enough" for ocnversational purposes. And yes, I could name names, but anyone with google access can find out as well.
And to add to the stewpot in the fines and jail list some of the more bribed politicians who behind the scenes and in collusion with other industry heads (and being conflict of industry heads themselves) and semi-faceless regulatory bureaucrats, who have allowed this sort of behavior to become a lot more of the "norm" then what people are comfortable with. Yep, fines and jail. Yep, their businesses dissolved, as being "not in the public interest". Cross the line, do the time. It's like that for joe little guy, should be the same for frederick fatcat.
I think it's perfectly acceptable to "bash on crooks". I think it's perfectly acceptable to go back to the original founders ideas on state chartered corporations, wherein they were tasked with not only following normal business laws and ethics in order to do their business and accumulate "profits", but they also had an additional duty to be of the public interest and benefit, and if it can be shown a continuuing pattern of unethical behavior, that said corporation should be dissolved, with no thought to whatever "profits" are involved,no more than any petty gangs busting would involve consideration of their "profits", and that officers of said corporation should be brought up on criminal charges, as well as civil charges. No one really much cares what the "financial considerations" are when the local crack house gets taken down, this exact same philosphy should be applied on any scale, because, well, a crime is a crime is a crime. I know as joe littleguy that the system cares not about my profits if I should be convicted of a crime, they are more than happen to seize or incarcerate. It's "funny" to note the regardings these very large enterprises the almost total lack of significant level fines and significant numbers of corporate officers who fail to make it to the pokey once busted and convicted. It isn't the bashers' fault that we notice this, in fact, it's an ethical and moral and common sense stance to take..
This doesn't happen enough to suit my tastes, and I maintain that if it did, we wouldn't be seeing near the bad business that occurs, nor the amount of boom and bust cycles, and practically speaking on a tech oriented forum, the IT and internet world would be more robust, more profitable and not less, and much more secure. That it doesn't happen enough is just obvious-thee is no provision for a "who watches the watchers" in our modern "system". We have a theoretical way to do that, but with the seizure of our governmental system by two for-profit organizations, who operate in a "scratch my back and I'll scratch you'rs" mode, a lot more than what they will admit to, you can see how this system is broken and how abuses will continue. Occassionaly, in order to show they are "doing something", they will "sacrafice one of their own" in order to throw a bone to the "bashers", but it really is more of a busywork facade than any true expression of "cleaning up business and it's partner government".
please excuse remaining typos, spent enough time on this post for now
MOD PARENT UP (Score:2)
Re:Lots of reasons why I want Microsoft to fail (Score:2)
The first paragraph: (Score:2, Funny)
Wow. Without reading the rest of the article, would anyone know what that paragraph meant?
--naked [slashdot.org]
Hey, quoting the article is now "Off topic" (Score:2)
The translation is easy enough. After years of denying that "the network was the computer" MS got caught flatfooted by the internet. They cater to the business now, but have not really come to terms with it.
Least of all the fact that its very existence renders their bread and butter, the shrink wrapped software product, obsolete.
That clear it up for you?
I guess this post is now both off topic and redundant. Go figure.
KFG
Re:The first paragraph: (Score:5, Insightful)
might be referring to James C. Christensen's book, "The Pelican King" having to do with the growth or aging of organizations related to becoming obselete quickly in a very innovative climate. Just quickly did some searching on this so I might be off though it seems like what he was getting at. Also, IIRC, Windows 95 was released and the Y2K scare was in sight at this time and so there was a massive upgrade cycle going on though network fed upgrades were not the norm.
That was also the time of the Internet wave, a phenomenon that Microsoft co-opted without ever really internalizing into product wisdom.
Microsoft was able to win the browser war and get Exchange and LookOut dominant but didn't/haven't been able to proprietize it or enable all their software to effectively use the network. That with the exception of their virus platform.
While those qualified to move the state of the art forward went down in the millennial flames of the dotcom crash,
Many of the innovative ideas and people had their business's collapse around them when the dotcom bust removed much of the funding. Again, a Christensen like reference to better/faster innovation happens in the smaller organizations.
Microsoft's rigorous belief in the physics of business reality saved both the day and the profits.
Might be realated to Microsoft owning the OEM channel and therefore maintaining profits because nobody else could sell their products directly into the channel. Profits keep flowing to Redmond while others lose them left and right.
But the tide had turned, and a realization that "the net" was a far more interesting place than "the PC" began to creep into the heads of consumers and enterprises alike.
It's the network stupid... And finally, that concept is getting accepted throughout the industry.
IMO, this is VERY important to Microsoft because 30% of it's profits come from a PC OS and another 30% come from using that PC OS monopoly to sell their office suite. Because Microsoft is losing the server war to Linux, their plan to make the network proprietary has been foiled while at the same time, their PC OS is becoming less and less important to consumers and the business world.
That's MY take on what that means.
LoB
Re:The first paragraph: (Score:3)
Since when? Linux has about a 17% marketshare on servers, using the most optimistic of measurements. Microsoft is in the 50-60%, with the remaining 25% or so being commercial Unix, Novell and such.
If what you mean by losing is that Microsoft is not making signifigant strides to gain additional marketshare, then ok. But if you mean they're losing marketshare to Linux, then you are incorrect. The only entity losing the server market to Linux is Sun/HP/IBM commercial Unix solutions.
I realize you probably didn't mean to intentionally lie. I'm sure you truly believe that Microsoft is losing marketshare to Linux. But you'd do yourself a favor by looking up the facts, and then deriving conclusions based upon those.
I think the letter is somewhat interesting, but I also disagree. Customers do want networkable solutions, however they still want them as shrinkwrapped solutions that they can run on their own networks. The problem stems from the internet still being unreliable. As that improves, then there will be more acceptance for the networked paradigm.
One just needs look at the ASP model and how it has succeeded and failed. Yes, it's working, but nowhere near as widespread as it's proponents claimed it would be.
Re:The first paragraph: (Score:2)
With Microsoft, winning means total control. Nothing less.
Sorry for the confusion.
LoB
James C. Christensen's Book? Wha? (Score:4, Informative)
"Christensen obselescence" refers to Clayton Christensen's book: "The Innovator's Dilemma: When New Technologies Cause Great Firms to Fail". Christensen is a professor at the Harvard Business school. He is a renowned expert on disruptive technologies, which is really what the Innovator's dilemma is all about, and thus, the reference to the Internet and Open Source.
But, getting the two confused is understandable, they are both BYU grads. :)
Re:James C. Christensen's Book? Wha? (Score:2)
LoB
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.].
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.
Get your Free Windows software Here ----- (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.theopencd.org/mirrors.php
the ISO is about 300 megs or if you want Office alone
get it at:
http://www.openoffice.org/dev_docs/source/1.0.2
Don't forget GnuWin II... (Score:3, Informative)
Plus the mascot is cute.
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?
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
Re: wrapping linux in a proprietary shell (Score:3)
It's a hard line to walk. On one hand I believe the core distro should be free but at the same time you should be able to run whatever closed source apps you want on top of that. For example I would have no problem running a port of Photoshop on Debian, but I would never support a proprietary version of APT no matter how well it worked. I also REALLY don't like companies basing their distro on Debian and then adding a lot of proprietary crap and preventing distribution. That really makes no sense and I always write the companies telling them they should have used one of the BSD's instead.
My logic may be flawed but that's just the way I feel. If the future of linux is distros in which many parts become proprietary and they all cost money then I'll just use something else. It's not about being cheap either. Its about having a quality free OS available that truly belongs to the community and is above commercial interests.
MS Linux/Office for Linux (Score:5, Insightful)
There's a lot of reasons Linux/OSS users don't use Microsoft:
Even if those issues were addressed, it doesn't change the fact that Microsoft's history has been one of "extend and embrace". Regardless of how good their Linux products would/could be, it would be difficult to accept them unless Microsoft changes as a company.
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:5, Insightful)
1. I don't like some things in Windows and I cannot easily change or replace the things I dislike.
2. I don't have to use any specific, Windows-only apps.
3. I have the luxury of letting politics influence my choice in software. I'd rather use OSS then stuff from a company that has been shown to usedispicable bussiness pratices.
A Windows GUI on top a Linux kernel may fix #1, but #3 is a far more important point.
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:hmmm (Score:2, Funny)
Maybe that will make RMS shave and take a bath.
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$GNU/Linux.
Re:hmmm (Score:2)
Re:hmmm (Score:2)
I wouldn't use it unless there was some indication that MS has really changed its stripes: a complete turn-over of management, and the old guard currently in place at MS marched into the center of Redmond campus and hung from the lamp-posts. (Monkey-boy's last dance, as it were).
But hey, if that happens - you can reach me here at /. and I'll cheerfully go out and buy some MS open source software.
Open Source != Free Software (Score:2)
BG
Hmmm, pretending to be a friend??? (Score:3, Interesting)
AS an example: what remains of the Amiga Intellectual Property is now controlled bith directlky and indirectly by MS thru Gateway held patents and an agreement they have with MS and former MS employees now in important positions at Amiga Inc.
The Recent
Here on slashdot even, there is an infilteration of MS from the spectrum of buying ad space to posters.
Exploiting MS’s Fundamental Error (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Exploiting MS’s Fundamental Error (Score:2, Funny)
Truth can be painful... (Score:5, Interesting)
IMHO, I think that M$ 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.
Re:Truth can be painful... (Score:2)
Microsoft is our savior =D
Re:Truth can be painful... (Score:2, Insightful)
This industry will tend towards one monopoly or another. If it was not Microsoft it would be Sun or Apple, or someone else. We like standards, even IF it is a propritary one. We like to be able to pop a disk out and hand it to our buddy and it 'just works'. It doesnt have to be perfect, 'just works' is fine.
Microsoft is now one of its OWN worst enemys. Its software is 'good enough'. The only real reason these days to 'upgrade' is so you can get the latest service packs and patches. They have fairly mature products that have thousands of features in it. There is not a lot of other reasons for people to upgrade.
Open source has a HUGE daunting task. For some reason they have taken it upon themselves to dethrone Microsoft. Well someone else will step in and take their place. Be it Red Hat, IBM, or someone else. We customers LIKE support. Microsoft has given us enough support that we like. Sure open source fixes its problems 'faster' than microsoft. But all we the customer care about is, 'IS IT FIXED YET'. We care nothing about models or politcal infighting at your company. All we care about is 'does it work', 'is it fixed?', 'how can I use this to save me some money'. All Open source does is save you some money. But not enough to answer the other questions in a way we like.
OSS will not succeed unless it is way better that switching is no brainer. Other wise you will have to justify EVERYTHING to managers. Oh and woe be unto you if it screws up in even the slightest way. For 'that other microsoft stuff we had was much better' will be the mantra of managment. Currently both are about the same. Some things in one are better, and in others are better. Not exactly a reason to switch.
MS learned most of its 'bad' tactics at the whip of the OEM market. The likes of Sun, Apple, IBM, Novel, and many others. They learned how to beat them at their own game. They learned the art of the lock out, because they had been locked out. They learned price fixing, because they had it happen to them. The student was better than the teacher. We put them there because they got the job done 'good enough' with a price that we could swallow.
Another thing people do not realize is that companies are lazy. They do not want to fix it themselves. They want it to work. I have seen it hundreds of times. 'Why dont we pressure the vendor that made this crap to fix it. 'we have several thousand copies'. 'we can use the fact that we have thousands of copies to say we might help them in selling someone else, if they give us wizzy bangy feature X.' There are tons of little things companies can do to someone they bought something from to 'get it fixed' and not only fixed but fixed for FREE. They do not need to hire someone to do it. They do not need someone to maintain it. They do not need to get some group of people who like to work on 'cool' stuff to do it. Pressure on the vendor, It just works...
Re:Truth can be painful... (Score:5, Insightful)
The only support you really get (for free) from Microsoft is downloading service packs and security fixes. When MS retires an OS, what happens to those fixes? You must upgrade.
After using RedHat 8.0 for 4 months, I have found the same ease and convenience of updates that MS has only I don't have to reboot unless the kernel itself is updated.
Sure, RedHat may eventually stop offering up2date packages for 8.0. That doesn't bother me because I can get updated packages and install them by hand if I don't want to upgrade.
When MS retires an OS, there is very little hope of fixing bugs and security problems because the source is closed.
As time goes on and that point becomes more and more obvious, look for closed source to go slide into the minority and open source to become the standard.
Re:Truth can be painful... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Truth can be painful... (Score:2)
There's a difference between a university deploying software internally and its associated bookstore selling software to students. Just because the uni is still running Windows 98 doesn't mean that MS is gonna let the bookstore sell it -- you'll push the latest and 'greatest' or nothing, whether that's what you want or not. Don't forget that even though the school might not have needed to upgrade for several years, there's a fresh batch of students coming through every year that will need software.
Altruism (Score:5, Funny)
Right. We 'wannabe' wealthy criminals so badly that we offer our work freely to the world.
Step 2: profit!
"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...
Re:"as MS seems to be too slow to adapt"... (Score:2)
I think the idea is that Microsoft needs to learn to do it themselves instead of adapting by buying out a small company who has already done so.
Re:"as MS seems to be too slow to adapt"... (Score:2)
I agree. And the first part of his advice sounds like it was written in 1996.
"Windows has yet to move past its PC-centric roots to capture a significant part of the larger network space..."
What in the world does he mean by that? Novell, the networking pioneer, has suffered greatly from Microsoft's deep inroads into networking. If it weren't for universities and schools entrenched in Netware, Microsoft would have run Novell out of business.
"Microsoft's reluctance to adopt networked ways is understandable."
Excuse me? The biggest thing at Microsoft is DOT NET, not DOT PC. Web services (XML, RDF, SOAP, WDDI) is all the rage in Redmond. MS was a founding member of the W3C XML Working Group in 1997. They invented the MAPI protocol several years ago. They run an ISP (MSN) and the largest Internet mail service (Hotmail). They make the most popular web browser, the most popular web design program, and the most popular e-mail client. You can publish Office documents to the web (ActiveX required to view, unfortunately), and Office 11 will have XML document formats for all its programs.
I don't agree with the way Microsoft does everything, but to say that they're stalled in the single-PC paradigm is just not true. In fact, people on this forum have expressed fears that MS could almost own the Internet. With IIS/SQL Server/Exchange (servers), Windows (clients), FrontPage (producing non-standard HTML and JavaScript), IE (FrontPage content viewer), MSN, and Outlook, the only part of the Internet they don't have their hands in is the routers and cables.
Even more beyond the PC, they're now selling game consoles (XBox), and they've been trying to get their software into cars [slashdot.org] since at least 1998.
Re:"as MS seems to be too slow to adapt"... (Score:5, Insightful)
When you say networking, you mean LAN. When he says it, he means Internet. MS has beaten Novell in the LAN, but is beaten by free software in the Net.
Novell was a, not the, LAN pioneer, but not networking pioneer. ARPANet and other networking existed much before Novell.
.Net is still PC-centric. Despite Rotor and mono, it is still MS-centric, and that means PC-centric. See, this is the guy behing Rotor, and even him sees it. .Net is still built around proprietarisation -- AKA decommoditisation -- either by non-documentation a la AD Kerberos or by patents & copyrights.
XML is text markup, instrumental as it is to the human interface called Web. SOAP and WDDI are higly contentious, and IMNSHO are the wrong answer to the wrong question. They are mostly pigbacking on HTTP to bypass some inconveniences in RPCs, CORBA, distributed computing -- the problem is that mostly this are inherent issues, and bypassing them will only make things worse in the long run.
See, you talk about Web services. The problem is, the Web is just a human interface. Services are data and communications: we need databases with shared, agreed-upon relational schemas, and standard protocols. The human interface is orthogonal to that. Forcing protocols, formats and a mindset honed on Web onto services is bound to failure IMNSHO.
And even if all these protocols and formats eventually succeed, MS will still decommoditise them, and effectively isolate itself from free software, until it gets critical mass to eventually make MS irrelevant.
So yes, MS (and others) is paying attention to the Net. But it is getting it wrong.
Which was basically created to dumb down the much older, more capable SGML. So what?
Invented? Come on, MAPI is just a interface. You cannot invent an interface, any more than you invent a book. You craft, write, create it, but not invent -- no matter what the USNA patents system seems to think. And MAPI was not an unanimity, having (arguably better) competitors that would have given us a more open, level playing field.
Anyway, what has MAPI to do with all this? It is just a mail API. Never contributed to make MS less closed.
The ISP has repeatedly fallen short of its goals, and I still remember they trying to make it bigger than the Net when it was just another online service. Still has a bad taste in the mouth from those times. Hotmail was bought outside, and is still closed: no IMAP, no POP, vulnerabilities, all that. So what?
Which they bought elsewhere, and the effectively stole from its vendor.
See?
The quality and usefullness of MS Office 11 XML DTDs or schemas remain to be seen. If History is any good as a guide...
...because this would kill it, or at least its openness.
Not surprisingly, this is the part where failure would be most painful to users and companies alike. But for the rest, only the client they have in their hands, and even there they have free software as a potential competitor. All the rest is still up to grabs.
A lousy one, on which they are loosing loads of money they robbed from retirement plans and such thru creative accounting...
With resounding failure, as the BMW series 7 issues make patently clear.
The network is the computer. Film at 11. (Score:2, Insightful)
Microsoft cannot innovate (Score:5, Insightful)
"Stop looking over your shoulder and invent something!"
That's just it: Microsoft has never invented anything. Everything Microsoft ever sold (with the possible exception of that first BASIC interpreter) they either bought or stole (sometimes both [com.com]) from somwhere else. Microsoft can't innovate because they've never known how.
Re:Microsoft cannot innovate (Score:2)
Ok, so I guess you can claim Microsoft invented the one-prong fork.
If you could claim MS invented BASIC (Score:3, Informative)
Bill just wrote a propriatary interpreter.
KFG
Re:Microsoft cannot innovate (Score:2)
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
Re:Microsoft cannot innovate (Score:2, Funny)
They created all of MS Bob, you know.
See? They did invent something.
Re:Microsoft cannot innovate (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Microsoft cannot innovate (Score:2)
And what has come out of this? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Microsoft cannot innovate (Score:3, Insightful)
To the average Luser? Nope. They may get the software for free, but they'll still need help, training, and maintenance (even the most robust system will break eventually).
BG
He is NOT saying Open Source is "good" (Score:5, Insightful)
Some people seem to think that the letter suggests that Microsoft should embrace OSS or that the letter is saying something very positive about OSS. The letter does no such thing.
It's a very candid evaluation of what the threat of open source looks like from someone who is not really interested in the values and politics of the movement and doesn't see open source as innovative:
There you have it. His point, if you read the rest of the article, is that Microsoft is too focused on the PC-client side of things, and that's hopeless because anything Microsoft can create on the PC client document-centric side of things the Open Source "cloners" (his word) will just copy and give away for free, and this eats into MS's profit margin. He wants Microsoft to go into network-centric software that will presumably be difficult for open source to clone.
Basically, he sees OSS as cheap, inferior copies of MS's beautiful software (the "best client") not worthy of admiration except for the fact that cheap customers are willing to settle for the inferior thing.
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.
Fixating on stupidity (Score:2, Informative)
The sins of Microsoft for charging big money for crap like Windows ME deserves a class-action lawsuit. You could argue Windows 98 was not much better than Windows 95.
In the linux world, how dare RedHat charge for their shipping of each version of RedHat. All they do is add new versions of packages and maybe change the kernel. (That's all sarcasm, btw. And consider RedHat as the archetype commercial linux distro.)
There are plenty of costs associated with managing releases from a company standpoint and Apple has been very generous in its updating of Mac OS X. We got disk journaling as a freebie, as an example. With Jaguar, maybe Apple's mistake was not manipulating people with marketing. Should they have called it "Mac OS Y"? Would that make you feel better about spending money? Or are the new features and performance what you want to spend money on?
Hey, I paid for it. (Score:2)
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?
Re:Can I complain to Yahoo about MSN??? (Score:2, Funny)
Almost all the MSN portals work in the latest version of Opera, although I have to admit they seem to be in Sweedish for some apparent reason....
Re:Can I complain to Yahoo about MSN??? (Score:2)
More Slashdot repeated as if it were fact. [slashdot.org]
Re:Can I complain to Yahoo about MSN??? (Score:2)
MSN UK continues not to work in Opera 7.
http://www.msn.co.uk/
and their games were so bad they did this with Technet:
http://www.soap-flowers.com/ms/technet_in_opera
Hypocrit (Score:3, Funny)
"...and disgruntled Microsoft wannabes have poured huge quantities of often inferior, but nonetheless requirements-driven, open source software"
synthesist.net runs on Apache.
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.
Don't worry, I'll tell you what to think ;) (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
To the contrary, it seems clear that he grasps the reasons, and points out that Microsoft isn't paying attention to those reasons. He doesn't say "requirements-driven, open source software" with nothing in mind -- this man knows exactly why open source software exists and thrives, and I believe this is main idea he's trying to get across.
He's saying "Wake up, Microsoft! You're so impractical that people have come down to making their own small software in leiu of buying your expensive bulky crap! Unless you change your closed-minded ways, the people will toss you aside in favor of the streamlined customized software they've always wanted, which the open-source movement will give them."
Great Quotes: (Score:4, Insightful)
Recovering from current external perceptions of Microsoft as a paranoid, untrustworthy, greedy, petty, and politically inept organization will take years.
Linux is certainly a threat to Microsoft's less-than-perfect server software right now (and to its desktop in the not-too-distant future)
My absolute favorite: Any move towards cutting off alternatives by limiting interoperability or integration options would be fraught with danger, since it would enrage customers, accelerate the divergence of the open source platform, and have other undesirable results.
There are many clever and motivated people out there, who have many different reasons to avoid buying directly into a Microsoft proprietary stack.
I like how he doesn't judge people who go against MS - he respects their intellect and their decision making process. OSS folks should do the same for those of us who make the decisions to use MS in certain areas.
Talent pool (Score:3, Insightful)
This is the #1 reason Linux et al will achieve the famed world domination in the not too distant future.
It is like a rite of passage for the best and the brightest. Look at the cost benefit ratio to your CV (cost measured in time, benefit measured in getting a desirable job) of having some of your code accepted into a key high profile OSS. There is no better way to spend your time. This will secure that the very best this world has to offer will add value to OSS. No corporation however rich can match that. No one.
There is currently 1000+ people working on the various aspects of the Linux kernel. (source IBM) How can anyone organization match that. It is like NASA in the 60's or the Manhattan project during later part of WW2.
The idea of MS innovating its way out of this is silly. Innovations will arrise at the grassroot level and continue to rise to the level the initial idea merits. Attracting the skills needed at the appropiate levels thru a natural selection process from an endless pool of talents.
Re:Talent pool (Score:2)
I disagree. I think that OS X has a better chance at this. Apple keeps surprising me left and right on both the software and hardware front.
It is like a rite of passage for the best and the brightest.
No, a $40B bank account is the rite of passage for the best and the brightest. Google is one of my favorite examples for this. They have incredible compensation plans (salary, working environment, benefits (gormet chefs ON STAFF!)), and they get extremely bright people.
There is currently 1000+ people working on the various aspects of the Linux kernel.
Again, Google is a very small company yet they innovate without a large number of people. The Cliche "Too many cooks in the kitchen" comes to mind.
The idea of MS innovating its way out of this is silly.
No, it's not. MS has some extremely bright people working for them, they have contributed a lot to computing, and it's rediculous to attribute all of their success to "luck" or "aggressive business".
Still, as successful as Linux is, I think that OS X is going to start eroding Linux's [potential] marketshare within the desktop OS product space, and eventually the server product space. Heck, if Apple would get it's act together and build proprietary x86 based hardware (which would make cross-platform coding a bit easier, and make Apple's hardware more affordable and performant), I'm not sure if Linux could compete at all on the desktop.
Re:Talent pool (Score:3, Insightful)
Why start now? (Score:4, Insightful)
Microsoft always made its money as a replicator, not an innovator. Why would they want to change that formula when it's gotten them so far?
The Opera version (Score:2, Funny)
Edfeece-a tu Meecrusufft regerdeeng cummudeety sufftvere
(c) 2003 Defeed Stootz
Zee merket fur shreenk-vrep PC sufftvere-a begun its sloo upmerket oouze-a intu Chreestensee oobsulescence-a reeght eruoond zee teeme-a thet Meecrusufft reelly heet its streede-a. Thet ves elsu zee teeme-a ooff zee Internet vefe-a, a phenumenun thet Meecrusufft cu-oopted veethuoot ifer reelly interneleezing intu prudooct veesdum. Vheele-a thuse-a qooeleeffied tu mufe-a zee stete-a ooff zee ert furverd vent doon in zee meellenniel flemes ooff zee dutcum cresh, Meecrusufft's reeguruoos beleeeff in zee physeecs ooff booseeness reeleety sefed but zee dey und zee pruffeets. Boot zee teede-a hed toorned, und a reeleezeshun thet "zee net" ves a fer mure-a interesteeng plece-a thun "zee PC" begun tu creep intu zee heeds ooff cunsoomers und interpreeses eleeke-a.
Dooreeng thees pereeud, must cure-a Meecrusufft prudoocts meessed zee Internet vefe-a, ifee vheele-a cleeeming tu be-a leedeeng zee perede-a. Ooffffeece-a hes yet tu mufe-a pest zee ducooment ebstrecshun, despeete-a zee vurld's veedespreed understundeeng thet vebseetes (HTML, HTTP, fereeuoos imbedded cuntent types, und Epeche-a muds) ere-a fery useffool theengs. Veendoos hes yet tu mufe-a pest its PC-centreec ruuts tu ceptoore-a a seegnifficunt pert ooff zee lerger netvurk spece-a, elthuoogh it mekes a hell ooff a guud cleeent. Meecrusufft defeluper tuuls hefe-a yet tu imbrece-a zee luusely cuoopled meendset thet tudey's leedeeng idge-a defelupers epply tu vurk und pley.
Meecrusufft's relooctunce-a tu edupt netvurked veys is understundeble-a. Zeeur edfunteged puseeshun hes beee booeelt oofer zee yeers by edhereeng tu zee tenet thet sufftvere-a roonneeng oon a PC is zee netoorel pueent et vheech tu integrete-a herdvere-a und eppleeceshuns. Unffurtoonetely, netvurk prutuculs hefe-a toorned oooot tu be-a a fer better feet fur thees meeddlemun rule-a, und Meecrusufft, intent oon pruppeeng up zee PC fruncheese-a, hes hed tu reseest foolly imbreceeng zee netvurk integreshun mudel. Thees curpurete-a cese-a ooff deneeel hes lefft a fecoooom, ooff cuoorse-a, intu vheech herdvere-a cumpuneees, interpreeses, und deesgroontled Meecrusufft vunnebes hefe-a puoored hooge-a qoounteeties ooff oofftee inffereeur, boot nunezeeless reqoourements-dreefee, oopee suoorce-a sufftvere-a. Meecrusufft steell booeelds zee vurld's best cleeent sufftvere-a, boot zee beeggest ooppurtooneety is nu lunger zee cleeent. It steell cummunds zee beeggest mergeen, boot netvurked sufftvere-a veell ifentooelly icleepse-a cleeent-oonly sufftvere-a.
Es netvurked cumpooteeng inffrestrooctoore-a metoores, zee PC cleeent booseeness veell remeeen impurtunt in zee seme-a vey thet ootumuteefe-a munooffectoorers, reeel cerreeers, und phune-a cumpuneees remeeened impurtunt vheele-a zeeur oovn netvurks metoored. Zee PC furm fectur veell poosh furverd; zee Pucket PC, zee Teblet PC, und oozeer furms veell imerge-a. Boot ootumekers, reeelrueds, und phune-a cumpuneees ectooelly munooffectoore-a zeeur prudoocts, rezeer thun selleeng intungeeble-a beets oon a CD tu herdvere-a pertners. Veell Meecrusufft cunteenooe-a tu cunfeence-a its pertners thet sufftvere-a is deestinctly felooeble-a by itselff? Oor veell zee cummudeety netoore-a ooff sufftvere-a toorn zee indoostry oon its heed? Zee herdvere-a cumpuneees, vhu ectooelly munooffectoore-a zee mecheenes, smell bluud in zee veter, und zee oopee suoorce-a sufftvere-a mufement is zee resoolt.
Ispeceeelly in a metooreeng merket, sufftvere-a ixperteese-a steell metters, und Meecrusufft mey fery vell be-a eble-a tu seedestep irrelefunce-a es it hes in zee pest. Zee term "PC fruncheese-a" is nut joost a suoondbeete-a; zee noomber ooff prugrems vreettee fur zee PC thet du sumetheeng useffool (dreefe-a a luum, cuntrul a meelling mecheene-a, creete-a a spreedsheet templete-a, ideet a recurdeeng...) is tremenduoos. Boot tu cunteenooe-a leedeeng zee peck, Meecrusufft moost innufete-a qooeeckly. Iff zee PC is ell thet zee footoore-a hulds, zeen groot pruspects ere-a bleek. I'fe-a spent a lut ooff teeme-a dooreeng zee lest foo yeers perteecipeting in demege-a-cuntrul ooff fereeuoos surts, und I respect zee need fur sereeuoos edoolt sooperfeesiun. Recufereeng frum coorrent ixternel percepshuns ooff Meecrusufft es a perunueed, untroostvurthy, greedy, petty, und puleeticelly inept oorguneezeshun veell teke-a yeers. Beeeng zee looest cust cummudeety prudoocer dooreeng sooch a recufery veell be-a erdoouoos, und veell hefe-a zee seede-a-iffffect ooff chungeeng Meecrusufft intu a plece-a vhere-a creeteefe-a munegers und eccuoontunts, rezeer thun feesiuneries, veell cell zee shuts.
Iff Meecrusufft is uneble-a tu innufete-a qooeeckly inuoogh, oor tu edept tu imbrece-a netvurk-besed integreshun, zee threet thet it feces is zee iruseeun ooff zee icunumeec felooe-a ooff sufftvere-a beeeng coosed by zee oopee suoorce-a sufftvere-a mufement. Thees is nut joost Leenoox. Leenoox is certeeenly a threet tu Meecrusufft's less-thun-perffect serfer sufftvere-a reeght noo (und tu its desktup in zee nut-tuu-deestunt footoore-a), boot oopee suoorce-a sufftvere-a in generel, roonneeng ispeceeelly oon zee Veendoos oopereteeng system, is a mooch beegger threet. Es zee qooeleety ooff thees sufftvere-a imprufes, zeere-a veell be-a less und less reesun tu pey fur cure-a sufftvere-a-oonly essets thet hefe-a becume-a styleezed cetegureees oofer zee yeers: Meecrusufft sells OoFFICE (zee sooeete-a) vheele-a peuple-a mey oonly need a smell pert ooff Vurd oor a beet ooff Eccess. Meecrusufft sells VINDOVS (zee pletffurm) boot a smell oorg meeght joost need a vebseete-a, oor a feeleserfer. It nu lunger feets Meecrusufft's booseeness mudel tu hefe-a muny indeefidooel ooffffereengs und tu innufete-a veet noo eppleeceshun sufftvere-a. Unffurtoonetely, thees is ixectly vhere-a free-a sufftvere-a ixcels und is mekeeng inrueds. Oone-a-seeze-a-feets-ell, oone-a-epp-is-ell-yuoo-need, oone-a-epee-und-demn-zee-turpedues hes toorned oooot tu be-a un imperffect stretegy fur zee lung hool.
Deegging in egeeenst oopee suoorce-a cummudeetizeshun vun't vurk - it vuoold be-a leeke-a deegging in egeeenst zee Internet, vheech Meecrusufft treeed fur a vheele-a beffure-a getteeng veese-a. Uny mufe-a tooerds cootteeng ooffff elterneteefes by leemiting interuperebeelity oor integreshun oopshuns vuoold be-a frooght veet dunger, seence-a it vuoold inrege-a coostumers, eccelerete-a zee deefergence-a ooff zee oopee suoorce-a pletffurm, und hefe-a oozeer undesureble-a resoolts. Despeete-a thees, Meecrusufft is et reesk ooff fullooeeng thees pet, dooe-a tu zee curpurete-a delooseeun thet gues by muny nemes: "better tugezeer," "uneeffied pletffurm," und "integreted sufftvere-a." Zeere-a is felse-a hupe-a in Redmund thet zeese-a ooootmuded epprueches tu sufftvere-a integreshun veell ettrect und keep interneshunel merkets, gufernments, ecedemeecs, und must impurtuntly, innufeturs, seffely veethin zee Meecrusufft sphere-a ooff infflooence-a. Boot zeey vun't
Ixceeting noo netvurked eppleeceshuns ere-a beeeng vreettee. Teeme-a is nut stundeeng steell. Meecrusufft moost soorfeefe-a und prusper by leerneeng frum zee oopee suoorce-a sufftvere-a mufement und by burrooeeng frum und imprufeeng its techneeqooes. Oopee suoorce-a sufftvere-a is es lerge-a und pooerffool a vefe-a es zee Internet ves, und is repeedly eccreteeng intu a legeetimete-a elterneteefe-a tu Veendoos. It cun und shuoold be-a hernessed. Tu efueed dure-a cunseqooences, Meecrusufft shuoold fefur un eppruech thet tuleretes und imbreces zee deefersity ooff zee oopee suoorce-a eppruech, ispeceeelly vhee netvurk-besed integreshun is infulfed. Zeere-a ere-a muny clefer und muteefeted peuple-a oooot zeere-a, vhu hefe-a muny deefffferent reesuns tu efueed booyeeng durectly intu a Meecrusufft prupreeetery steck. Meecrusufft moost impluy deeplumecy tu vuu zeese-a eccuoonts; stoobburn inseestence-a veell be-a but cuoonterprudoocteefe-a und ineffffecteefe-a. Meecrusufft cunnut prusper dooreeng zee oopee suoorce-a vefe-a es un islund, veet a deffenses booeelt oooot ooff leetigeshun und prupreeetery prutuculs.
Vhy be-a deestrected intu luukeeng beckverds by zee cummudeety cluners ooff oopee suoorce-a? Useffool es cluneeng mey be-a fur preece-a-senseetife-a cunsoomers, zee cummudeety booseeness is loo-mergeen und heegh-reesk. Zeere-a is a noo frunteeer, vhere-a sufftvere-a "cullecteefes" ere-a beeeng booeelt veet ed huc prutuculs und veet cloostered defeeces. Rubuteecs und ootumeshun ooff ell surts is ixpuseeng a demund fur supheesticeted noo veys ooff theenking. Cunsoomers hefe-a un unslekeble-a thurst fur noo furms ooff interteeenment. Und herdvere-a fendurs cunteenooe-a tu poosh tooerds ercheetectoores thet veell foondementelly chunge-a zee vey thet sufftvere-a is booeelt by intrudooceeng feene-a-greeened cuncoorrency thet seemply cunnut be-a ignured. Zeere-a is nu cleer cunsensoos oon systems oor eppleeceshun mudels fur zeese-a erees. Useffool sufftvere-a vreettee ebufe-a zee lefel ooff zee seengle-a defeece-a veell cummund heegh mergeens fur a lung teeme-a tu cume-a.
Stup luukeeng oofer yuoor shuoolder und infent sumetheeng!
BFD (Score:3, Funny)
I've given lots of former employers some "parting advice" over the years. It usually centers around a verb synonymous with "stick" or "stuff" or "shove" or the like.
If there is a single fundamental flaw to ms it is (Score:2)
Not impressed (Score:3, Insightful)
The network is the computer - yes, we all learned that several years ago. Microsoft lagged like crazy and ALMOST lost a lot of mindshare and control in their failure to catch up. In fact, they did lose a lot of mindshare and control, and provided the opening for commodity software running on commodity hardware to take over a lot of the low end server market and a lot of development mindshare. This was all the past. This was several years ago.
Mr. Stutz seems to be still looking at this stuff that happened in the past, and looking at Java v.
Mr. Stutz fails to realize that Microsoft's business leadership is as bright as he is and as bright as some of us are, and know perfectly well that large portions of the software world are become commodities. Software just ain't what it used to be. That's why Microsoft has been moving inexorably to take over your living room.
That's right. Microsoft is betting the boat (or perhaps the future earnings) in large part on their X-Box/WebTV/UltimateTV strategy. Shrinkwrap PC software and enterprise software alike are suffering from big hits on margins. The open platform of x86 makes it too tempting for those Open Source people to get their hands into the mix. Though it's not popular to mention it here, companies like Lindows and the like are doing a decent job at taking a Unix-like core and wrapping a Windows-like front end around it, and even making something pretty close to compatible with the Win32 API using Wine. This is, I believe, inevitable. A nice clean desktop environment will likely not be entirely free, at least initially. Though each of those component apps can be developed using the Open Source model, pulling it together, bringing in nice fonts and graphics, and a well-packaged desktop experience does cost money to produce, especially with its non-software components. This can't be prevented by Microsoft in the long run.
Microsoft knows they have to shore up their powerful market position, and knows they have to find ways to sell new products. They really want to be the king of the media stream flowing into your home. If they control the set top box, they can charge for placement of media. They want to beat AOL/Time Warner at their own game. This is a large complex strategy, and the first step in it is spending BILLIONS (well, nearly a billion) of dollars on X-Box development and marketing, and selling the boxes at a loss. If the gaming consoles made by Microsoft dominate the market, the next steps are easier to enact. The integrated media console, connecting the PC to the set top box, bringing in media to the television using the Internet, all with MS-controlled DRM. The X-Box, Media Player DRM - these are the first steps in producing secure boxes controlled by MS. Do they have to be truly and absolutely secure? No, they just have to be good enough that MS can sell the media players on playing nice with them, and if they have a box on top of everybody's TV that talks to everybody's computer, and allows secure media transmission, they'll get a huge cut out of the in-home entertainment business.
Creating new markets, adopting their strong market position (i.e. monopoly on the desktop) and using their immense cash reserves to finance the process - on the contrary, I'm still quite scared of what Microsoft can do. Hopefully we won't all sit on our laurels thinking the hulking behemoth is dying. How many times have people thought that about IBM?
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:Not impressed (Score:3, Insightful)
The quote from the article (years old now) that still sticks in my mind today compares the cable magnates like Ted Turner, AT&T, whatnot to microsoft like this...."..These people (Ted Turner and others) INVENTED the idea of making money through small fees...do you think for one moment that they are going allow Bill Gates to take that away? There's no way they will allow MS to insert a toll booth before THEIR toll booth..."
Or an even better quote from Goodfellas..."...he's skimming our skim!"
In short, the idea that MS is going to end up controlling the living room is nonsense...there are already too many big players there. The cable guys are not going to allow anyone else into their game, unless it's some poor sucker they can shake down for a little extra cash. MS better look elsewhere.
He is right (Score:2, Insightful)
So he is proposing Windows to become network-centric, just like Unix.
I am wondering though, what Microsoft's
The desktop is the computer. The net is the data. (Score:5, Insightful)
"Networked computing" has been through several generations of this idea, most of which suck. Diskless workstations, application servers, and X-servers are examples. Most of the current proponents of the concept have a concept of "networking" that includes a direct connection between the user's wallet and their bank account. This is called a "revenue stream" by them, and a "rent" by everybody else.
The business-model version of this idea was "application service providers". Remember them? Where are they now? Remember those schemes for running pay-per-view Java programs on the desktop? Much of this stuff attempts to emulate the RIAA and telco view of the network - they own, you pay, repeatedly. It's not going to happen.
The data needs to be out on some server somewhere. That's why we have database servers, file servers, and HTTP servers. Those work fine, everybody uses them, and the division between client and server is clear.
Transaction servers, that do something to the data for you, are also key components. But this works best if transactions are relatively infrequent. "Buy ticket" is an appropriate transaction. "Update line in text buffer" is not.
Most of the corporate thrashing in this area is a desperate attempt to avoid the inevitable - mass-market software is going to become a commodity, and a very cheap one. Browsers are free. OS kernels are free. Office suites are becoming free, or very cheap. And you buy computers at WalMart for $299. There's no reason for the computers used by 90+% of the population to cost very much, and they're not going to.
Big problems remain, but at the network level they involve finding your data (typically when you're on a machine different from your usual one) and keeping it secure.
OSS and MS (Score:2)
So which is it?
I guess the "purpose" of OSS is for us to keep promoting crazy shit until it gets popular and then commericially accepted. I'm talking about the remote desktops, jabber-look-a-likes, etc.
Here's where he lost me (Score:2)
Microsoft still builds the world's best client software...
I know I'm going to get flamed as a "slashbot" who can't see objectively about Microsoft, but my reaction to this clause was, "huh!?!?"
-Rob
Value of Software (Score:3, Insightful)
The value of a piece of software is what it does for you. The sticker price is only what the vendor decided to charge you for it. This is why OSS won't destroy the software industry. If it's economically worthwhile to develop a program, someone will pay for it.
In the case of Linux, for example, the software is mostly paid for--in the form of time--by the volunteers who develop it because those people want the features they're adding. If, on the other hand, someone wants a program to run their milling machine, they're pretty much stuck needing to hire programmers to write it. The secret to making money writing commercial software these days is to do something the OSS developers can't or don't want to do.
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:Revelation - innvation cannot be bought this ti (Score:2)
And to think that MS called GPLed software "cancer". Maybe rooting for MS to die isn't the the right thing to do. If MS is cancer then at least the tumor is all in one place where it can be contained. That quote makes it sound like they are about to metasticize.
Few Things I've Read Have Made Less Sense (Score:2)
He keeps harping on "network centric" as the salvation for MSFT. What's to stop Open Source developers from writing "network centric" apps too? Clients dead? Hardly. They can have my hard drive when they pry it from my cold dead fingers, followed by my favorite: "I can't use my word processor--the netork's down". :)
If "network centric" is such a hot deal, why isn't SUNW sending out dividend checks? Don't give me that "network centric is the future" crap either. It's all software. If it makes sense to use the network, use the network. Surely both Open and Closed developers use the network when it makes sense.
If by "network centric" he means "provide services over the network" they have already done that--by purchasing HotMail and setting up MSN.
Look, for MSFT to save itself is not rocket science. It just has to diversify. Whenever you stumble into a tremendous horde of cash, that's what you do. For example, let's say you hold stock in company XYZ, and it gets a huge government contract which causes your stock to increase 100 times in 2 years. You believe the increase is unjustified, the company is overvalued, and will likely drop in value. The drop in value will exceed your tax penalty for selling. Your initial $20,000 investment is now $2 million. What do you do?
Answer: Sell out most of your position and invest in a diversified portfolio.
There are already rumors afoot that MSFT is going to do that, by forming "Microsoft Capital" which will be like "GE Capital". In essence, they will be making loans and investing in a wide variety of businesses.
Once MSFT gets itself in that position, it can invest in whatever technology it can afford using its considerable resources and expertise, Open Source or not.
Stutz hits one key point that jibes with this--the part about innovation coming from accountants and not "visionaries". That's somewhat true for now. MSFT needs to juggle its business to stay alive, but that doesn't mean that innovation can't take place within various divisions while this juggling occurs.
Of course, the whole premise of a guy who just left the company giving them advice on how to survive is... well.. suspect. If he had a plan to help them, the desire to help them, and the means to implement it, he'd have stayed. One of those 3 is missing. If it's the means to implement that's missing (because of opaque management or something like that) I feel for him, but I suspect he just didn't have a real plan or desire to help them, and found an early out more appealing.
Interesting, but I disagree (Score:2)
No, it's about organizations. The genius of Bill Gates is that his vision extends to the people as well as the tech.
Them peeps want a system that doesn't bother them with case sensitive strings and granular file permissions. Furthermore, eye candy=good, command line=bad.
Peeps are as likely to abandon 'Doze for Open Source as they are to exercise regularly, eat healthy things, educate themselves, and live peacefully with their neighbor.
If you roger up for any of the activities in the previous para, you are not a representative sample. Sorry.
This is not a pro-Microsoft troll, for all it might appear to contradict the
Why does Stutz have such a hard-on for MS? (Score:2)
No one has respect for innovators who are kept whores of a mega-corp.
Why do you, David Stutz, get so soft and warm and mushy about your (former) employer? Can't you see what a vastly better place this planet will be once their pernicious influence on the computing landscape is scrubbed away?
Unless your article was a disguised way of telling MS why they suck; but it really does seem like a heart-felt bit of advice to the vicious monster you love; an agonizing "Dear John" letter sent as you set out for other climes.
Influencial? (Score:3, Insightful)
If the guy is so influencial why didn't MS follow his advice before he left? I can understand how you might want to give some parting advice to your employer, but releasing it to the world suggests his motive is really publicity for himself rather than any real concern about the future of MS. Looks like he's positioning himself for Guruism.
Re:Summary: "Hey Microsoft: Embrace Open Source" (Score:4, Informative)
More specifically, he thinks Microsoft needs to stop looking over it's shoulder and actually invent and innovate, intead of maintaining the status quo.
He is also saying that Microsoft has not yet realized that software is nearing the end of its life as a shrinkwrapped-box product. It is quickly becoming just a commodity, and part of an overall package.
One other point he made is that the One-Size-Fits-All approach does not always work anymore - i.e., people don't need a whole Office Suite, or a whole Windows platform for some things. They may just want one little piece of it.
Overall, a pretty good read, nothing ground-breaking or anything.
Re:Summary: "Hey Microsoft: Embrace Open Source" (Score:5, Insightful)
To my reading, that sounds more like a side effect of the arguement he's making, that the golden age of consisting soley on delivering closed consumer-end software packages is wrapping up (no pun intended).
I think what he's suggesting, and what I've been telling people for a while, is that to remain successful in its traditional markets (as opposed to entertainment, 24 hour news, etc), MS will have to migrate into a services-related role. IBM is doing, or trying to do, something like this for its business clients (although IMO they're being symied by pushback from ground-level people who can't get with the program). If MS could do this for the normal desktop user, allow them to use MS to do the hard stuff with their computers and use online resources to work, they'd have found a whole new area of potential to expoit.
The real questions are (a) will MS recognize this shift sooner than later, and (b) will they be able to refocus themselves into a mindset very different from the one which has made them a very successful company up until this point (as I mentioned, I notice that IBM is having serious problems with this -- even if the management of a company sees the shift, there's the obsticle of the ground-level know-it-alls who want to keep doing things the way they used to).
MS might be able to avoid problems with this given the necessarily lower level of direct customer interaction -- they can't send consultants to all of our homes -- but it's still a big change. They got a lot of press for "embracing the internet" back in '94 or '95, but really they just bought some new products. Their existing line is still struggling, as the author of the article noted, to utilize the potential offered them.
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 $500 up-front for as long as you have the disks?).
The fact of the matter is, no matter what Sun Microsystems tells you, the network is most emphatically NOT the computer (and, as I recall, they've mostly dropped THAT slogan, anyway-- there's a telling sign). The computer is quite capable of acting on its own, and to offload trivial tasks from the computer onto a central server (i.e., storage of programs, storage of data, even most of the number-crunching) is a waste of resources and a monumentally stupid way to go about things.
YES, there would be some advantages to having everything done over the network: simplified management, simplified tech support/troubleshooting, and even some cost benefits in the short term. But they don't outweigh the vast waste of resources, and they don't outweight the benefits of keeping a lot of stuff local to one computer (e.g., you're not left with a single point of failure).
Not to mention the fact that most of the software companies that I've dealt with for network-based applications have had really shitty attitudes about users; a typical meeting with one of the companies I dealt with involved the sales and the engineering teams openly mocking my users. Other companies were more subtle, but the same attitude was present: "fuck the user".
Maybe THAT'S why IBM is being stymied-- because network applications are NOT a good solution to most problems.
Re:Summary: "Hey Microsoft: Embrace Open Source" (Score:4, Funny)
That would be the "No Homers" clause.
MS Linux? (Score:2)
Re:The Mozilla Phoenix Browser (Score:2, Insightful)
It's offtopic because the topic is a story on why a guy left Microsoft. NOT Mozilla or web browsers in general. If he wants his question answered, he can post it as an ask slashdot question!
On this topic, I hope M$ continues to ignore this guy. It could be very scary if they actually do anything he says
Re:Is OS so good ? (Score:2, Insightful)
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:Is OS so good ? (Score:2)
fud (Score:2)
you cannot because if you read their eula they cannot be held responsible for damages done by their product.
i'm afraid not, you have to wait for patches, just like you do with open source applications.
the difference here is that you can fix the problems with oss applications yourself or hire someone to do it for you. this is not possible with microsofts business model. if there were enough people interested in the patches for gnome 2.2 they should have forked it.
you say that opensource will never be programed the way the customer wants it. linux running on the new ibm hardware, openoffice being deployed in many organizations across the planet, motorola using linux as their os for their phones , are all examples of opensouce fullfilling the customers needs. not all customers have the same needs, and microsoft will have customers for a while to come.
as software becomes a commodity item, businesses will start to consider using oss to reduce development costs. if you want to sell a pvr, you're not really concerned with making money on the software. if you can find a cheap opensouce platform to build on and get your product to market for less money in less time it's going to be hard for the propritary solutions to compete.
opensource applications will get that polish it needs from companies who want to take advantage of the large code base available. these will be companies who need software to power their hardware-which they intend on making their money.
Re:bozo (Score:2)
Everyone's an "architect" now. I've been an architect since the heady days of client/server systems and I'm surprised at how many 2-bit business analysts and script coders call themselves "architects". But anyway...
His list of contributions (to MS and otherwise) in recent years appears to be
He was also part of the technical evangelism team for the visual tools group back in the VS5-VS6 transition period. He was a nice guy (personally) but not tremendously technical. Which always struck me (and a lot of other people) as surprising considering his unusual involvement with the development teams (as opposed to just preaching).
I don't really know if he wrote WebClasses, but if he did I hope he doesn't sleep at nights. It was the single worst "feature" ever added to VB (but they didn't have anything to do with MTS, BTW. They were IIS-specific).
You're Wrong (Score:5, Informative)
Disclaimer: The above comments do not represent the thoughts, intentions, plans or strategies of my employer. They are solely my opinion.
Re:The Egos' of M$ (Score:2)
Hubris. Its been a human weakness for a couple thousand years. It isn't companies per se, its anything human.
It all goes back to Homer.