What is Bill Gates Learning From Open Source? 194
christian.einfeldt writes "In the world of Free Open Source Software communities, Microsoft is often viewed as the very epitome of the Cathedral-style model of software production. But is Bill Gates learning from the software development phenomenon that he once compared loosely to communism? In commenting on the results of a Microsoft-commissioned survey of approximately 500 board-level executives about the importance of interpersonal skills versus raw IT coding skills, Gates starts to sound a bit more like a member of the Apache Foundation than the take-no-prisoners king of cut-throat competition: 'Software innovation, like almost every other kind of innovation, requires the ability to collaborate and share ideas with other people, and to sit down and talk with customers and get their feedback and understand their needs.'."
right (Score:5, Funny)
Re:right (Score:5, Interesting)
No need to fight 'em, that just gives them a reason to struggle harder and live on.
Good approach on 3/2/1 but I'd suggest trying 2/1
One can compare Microsoft under Bill and Steve to IBM under Prescott Bush, good for propping up various dictatorships and their future attrocities (and laundering money to them before and during World War II) but evil to the core. Microsoft is like that IBM, and despite anyone's wishes, it will not die, not anytime soon, and in 20 years, they'll be the "good guys" (most likely against Google's rather insidious ways) the same way as IBM today is the "good guys" against Microsoft's insidious ways. Do not forget that at one point, in the 70's and 80's, it was Microsoft that was seen as "good guys" to IBM's being "purveyors of fine FUD". None of this has changed, they're all bad guys, its just the temporary alliances that have changed. IBM needed a way to sink Microsoft and improve their public image, helping the Linux community at large was a cheap way for them to do this while gaining more than they lost.
I predict that eventually, Microsoft will lose enough ground to Google to become deeply worried. Google will ally with various dictatorships and tyrannies (including the various fledgling police states of the Western world) and turn their impressive reach into people's lives into a device for spying and creating evidence of malfeasance where there truly was none. They'll become the basic paid snitch looking to entrap innocents in the 21st century, and only the people they hurt and those close to each case will hate them for it but that will not stop their deeds nor redeem the various forces employing their services.
At that point someone else will pop up as an alternative to keep the system going and keep people plugged into this struggle. But ignore them and focus on what needs to be done, mock them if it makes you enjoy life, and then move on, get done what you have done. Mock them and ignore them but walk away from their products. I used to "fight them" too, and then at one point I gave up the struggle and became polite about it. Even my mocking of M$ has been relatively humorous in nature when facing people upset over their products. Over time, I've replaced quite a few Windows installs with Linuxes, all except the truly hard core gaming computers (no need to work with gamers who aren't willing to tweak, and the new generation is nothing like the overclocker and system builder generation of old), but frankly, those who spend too much time gaming, have other issues in their lives they need to fix, emotional needs, physical needs, etc. I'd say stick to mocking Microsoft cleverly and appropriately, lose the anger, and replace just about everything you can replace when the client is willing. If they want Microsoft and insist, let them have it. More cash for you. Later on, if they bitch, remind them that you offered a better (though slightly more involved at the onset) solution.
Re: (Score:2)
What did Prescott Bush ever have to do with IBM? He never ran IBM.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry thats not possible. People mock them because they are angry. Without a doubt some of the angriest people Ive ever met are linux nerds who hate microsoft. Its like the web feeds into some kind of 2-minutes of hate. We get it here on slashdot all the time. I think geeks in general are prone to anger and its really time they started mellowing out. MS is just a company, its not Hitler.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly, you can kill Hitler, you cannot kill Microsoft. You can only make them irrelevant, short of civilization as we know it being ground into dust, I don't see the end of Microsoft any time soon.
Hell, I dislike M$ more than most, but I've discovered that putting Linux boots on the ground, so to speak, will solve more than trying to trash talk Microsoft to death. We've been there, done that, didn't get shit done doing it.
That's easy ... (Score:5, Interesting)
That said, you have to understand that Gates is far from stupid. His public comments about open source have, historically, been just what you'd expect the CEO of Microsoft to make. That doesn't mean that he doesn't privately understand the issues perfectly, and now that his role at Microsoft has changed, now that he's an ex-CEO, he may feel free to speak more honestly.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
What about Google then? I don't see Google open-sourcing their search engine, GMail interface, or any of their other major tools and yet they're held as the epitome of a "good" company. All of their stuff is proprietary and kept very closed-source.
Re:That's easy ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Really? I may be wrong, but I don't think I can run Google News on Yahoo.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Say what? By whom? Self-rating hardly counts, and most of the time outsiders mentioning "dont be evil" seems to be mostly in sarcastic references to the failure to live up to the proclaimed motto.
That's simple (Score:4, Insightful)
How could OSS really benefit from Google open sourcing their search engine? By publicizing the inner workings of their main asset, it would divert attention away from google. Google supporting OSS in the ways that they do wouldn't matter so much anymore if nobody was paying attention to them. If everyone had what made Google unique, then others could get the attention Google deserved but put it to a use that may not be leaning towards OSS so much, and then OSS wouldn't be as much of a benefit anymore. It serves Linux well because an OS is something every computer needs, but a search engine doesn't need to be run by anyone, and Google seem to be doing a good job. It's not like there aren't any OSS search solutions. But OSS seems to be benefiting as much from Google as the other way around.
Don't you think Google is giving something back to the OSS community just by standing as a viable example of people using OSS in a commercial environment? Don't you think that buys OSS credibility? They run on Linux, they are putting a lot of force behind Firefox, and all the other stuff I mentioned above.
What exactly do you want Google to do, and how do you think it would actually benefit OSS in reality more than what they are doing now? You're really unhappy about the current scenario?
NIH happens everywhere (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Microsoft is no more evil than the average person. The people that run MS occasionally do bad things like all people, but (without knowing them personally) are probably decent people.
The people that run MS are doing with the company what all people do...trying to grow. The only difference is we usually root for the little guy until they become the
Re:That's easy ... (Score:4, Insightful)
There's no point in going over Microsoft's other evils, such as the fact that it is a Grade-A government-certified illegally acquired-and-maintained monopoly. Now, monopolies aren't necessarily evil or illegal
And so far as Apple and Google are concerned, it sounds like you're excusing Microsoft's bad behavior because well, you know, Apple and Google might be as bad, but we don't know yet so let's give Microsoft a pass for now. Look nobody knows whether we are alone in the Universe
So yeah, Microsoft is evil, and the pattern of general nastiness persists to this very day. Why do you think the European Union is giving them such a hard time? Have you been following the OOXML fiasco, with Microsoft attempting to buy their way into a standard? No, I suggest you keep Googling Microsoft: it's obvious you've not been around long enough to have experienced their evil firsthand. I've been in the software business since before Microsoft was a gleam in Bill Gates' eye, and I've seen the damage he and his brainchild have caused.
Bill can give all his money to charity if he wants, but there's no Undo button for what he's done.
What have M$ learned from OSS? (Score:2, Funny)
Very little. (And yes, I have used Vista enough (unfortunately) to say that. Arch Linux/Ubuntu user primarily)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
As to what is wrong with Vista, the fact that Portal plays more reliably under WINE than Vista does say something (the Vista nVidia drivers crash every 10 seconds with any Source-based game, it seems.)
But yeah, it's not particularly that Vista is terrible (although it is pretty bad, I'd say XP is the best thing M$ put out), mo
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:What have M$ learned from OSS? (Score:5, Interesting)
It's classic Microsoftie newspeak. If Microsoft release a product that doesn't work properly on otherwise perfectly useable hardware, it's the fault of the hardware itself.
For instance, downstairs I have a new duel core box (AMD) with 1Gb of ram and a gforce 7300 on a 10 Mb network running Vista. It's slower then my main machine, which is four years old and has a two year old AMD 400+ 64 bit chip, 1gb ram and a gforce 6200. Network performance from the Vista machine is a joke when compared to all the other machines on that network, well not a joke, because that would mean it was funny. Do you think it's the hardwares fault?
That particular machine isn't mine, hence why it still has Vista on it, but I booted it into the Ubuntu livecd for a test. The difference? well lets just say 'fuck me', and leave it there.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, lets.
But you have to understand the Microsoft perspective on this issue. As the only relevant vendor of operating system software, hardware should conform to Microsoft's needs
I'd say XP is the best thing M$ put out (Score:2)
I'd say NT 4.0 was the best thing MS put out, that I have used. NT4 was the only Windows OS I did not have crash while I was using it. XP on the other hand froze the very first tyme I booted up a computer using XP. And it wasn't a noname PC, it was on a brand new Dell, a Dimension I think though I'm not sure.
FalconRe: (Score:2)
What is so wrong about Vista? (Score:3, Interesting)
Activation, bloatware, and spyware. If I buy software whether an application or an operating system as long as I enter a valid key I shouldn't have to Activate it. Nor should my software spy on me, stamp documents with a guid [wikipedia.org], or need to be Activated again if I change hardware. All the provider of the software has any use for is whether there is a valid key, for proprietary software.
FalconRe: (Score:2)
It does nothing better than the product it replaces, and many things considerably worse [dotnet.org.za].
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I said that I have used Vista enough to talk about it, and also, I never said Vista was bad, I just said it hadn't learned much from OSS. You, sir, are clearly an idiot.
There are things wrong with Vista. Compared to my Linux distros it is slow and bloated, I have to pay for it and software for it, there is no package manager, there is no Compiz Fusion, It is less secure, etc...
I am by no means a fanboy. A fanboy is someone who mak
Re: (Score:2)
The day that a linux fanboi actually uses vista and gives it a chance they will realize there is nothing wrong with it.
Does that mean that Vista finally allows one to fix the big key to the left of the "a" key to be control, instead of capslock? That Vista allows one to replace all the weird keybindings with something familiar like the bog-standard emacs key bindings we've used for decades? That Vista finally has multiple virtual desktops? That Vista finally supports a reasonable mouse cursor/keyboard focus model like Focus follows Mouse? Just asking.
Well, in a manner of speaking... (Score:2)
Does that mean that Vista finally allows one to fix the big key to the left of the "a" key to be control, instead of capslock? That Vista allows one to replace all the weird keybindings with something familiar like the bog-standard emacs key bindings we've used for decades?
You've been able to arbitrarily rebind keymappings since Windows 2000, through the registry. Documentation here [microsoft.com]. Example registry script you can run to rebind caps lock to control here [johnhaller.com].
That Vista finally supports a reasonable mouse cursor/keyboard focus model like Focus follows Mouse?
Again, Windows NT has always had this capability. It's a single registry edit [burningcutlery.com].
That Vista finally has multiple virtual desktops?
Not natively, but there are many (open source) programs [sourceforge.net] which add the capability.
So no, for most of those, Vista hasn't 'added' them, because they've been there all along. May I recommend Google [google.com]?
Re: (Score:2)
That Vista finally has multiple virtual desktops?
Not natively, but there are many (open source) programs which add the capability.
I guess that means no.
So no, for most of those, Vista hasn't 'added' them, because they've been there all along. May I recommend Google?
It's a whole lot easier to use an O/S that lets me do all that in a few keystrokes without an internet connection. I expect computers and software to cater to me, not vice versa.
Thanks for the search engine suggestion!11!!1! I've never heard of that one before, I'll have to give it a try as it looks uber cool!!!1!!!!!111! Since you did me a favor, I'll give you a link back http://www.peacefaq.com/stockholm.html [peacefaq.com]
Heh.. nothing new here.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ah. The "what's mine is mine, and what's yours is negotiable" approach to life. Yeah.
Bill is okay, Steve Ballmer is the problem (Score:5, Insightful)
Bill seems to be careful to base his opinions on fact and not overstate things.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
I think marrying him was the penalty for it. Me, I would have chosen death.
Re:Bill is okay, Steve Ballmer is the problem (Score:5, Funny)
I remember seeing stacks of this book. There was actually a sticker on the front that read: "Now revised to include the Internet". I recall thinking that this was a probably inadvertent admission that the author could not really see the road ahead.
Re: (Score:2)
Nah, he saw the back roads just fine
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Bill is okay, Steve Ballmer is the problem (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Bill is okay, Steve Ballmer is the problem (Score:5, Insightful)
I think it was the book Innovator's Dilemma or it might have been some other management or business book, that said that a company listens to its customers, becomes successful and grows. Then there comes a point when the company keeps listening to its customers but the customers are giving it bad advice, along the lines of, "more of the same, but bigger or faster and throw in this". The product outgrows certain niches or is customized too much for a subset of large customers. At this point smaller companies with a different way of ding things can squeeze into the cracks answering the needs of the customers left behind. Using this as a base, the new companies grow and kill off the old company.
This applies to Microsoft if you understand who their customers are: other businesses, not consumers. All their decisions make sense if you understand that fact. Each new OS requires (not takes advantage of, but requires) larger hard drives, more memory and faster processors. Like Vista , all the previous OS versions required an upgrade to use, by design. This keeps Dell, Gateway etc happy as people throw out their old PC and buy a brand new one. If the consumer was Microsoft's customer they would be finding ways to write more efficient code that runs faster on existing hardware. As hardware advances, that code would become even faster instead of the situation we have now, where each new version of an application on faster and faster hardware delivers roughly the same word processing performance.
DRM is the same. The customer is not the consumer who would like to watch movies or listen to music with his computer. The customer is Hollywood and the RIAA. Microsoft listens to them. They say: "Find us a way to charge the consumer every time he listens to a song and we will give you a cut of the income." The consumer says: "Find me a way to make it easy to organize and listen to the large collection of CD's and albums I have collected and paid for over the years". Microsoft says, "Where's my cut?" to the consumer and then listens to the RIAA instead.
The third major customer is businesses or governments. In this case Microsoft is not trying to keep the business or government as a whole happy, they are cutting deals with the decision makers to preserve their monopoly. The citizens of a country will be better off if their government uses open file standards but this will threaten Microsoft Office's monopoly. Government employees get kickbacks, sweetheart deals and job offers from Microsoft in order to get them to choose Microsoft's products over what is in the ultimate customer, the citizen's, best interest.
The same thing happens in businesses where Microsoft cuts deals with other companies in return for stock, investment or the promise of future acquisition. It would really be in the companies interest to use a free OS like Linux or an alternative file format for music or movies but Microsoft cuts deals with individuals in management that screw over the business in the long term. The managers who sign the deals don't give a crap. They are getting their pay off down the road. See all the companies that signed up for Fair Play, or whoever was behind SCO or the hundreds of other instances that show up daily on Slashdot.
Remember that fact: You are not Microsoft's customer.They do not care about you.. Remember that and all their decisions make sense. Their customers are the memory, disk drive and PC manufacturers, the content providers and any other business they can cut a deal with and sell you down the river for. This is not a Ballmer thing. This has been going on s
Re: (Score:2)
I don't see how that applies to Microsoft. Their first big customer was IBM, who they promptly screwed over. After that, comes a long history of screwing over their OEM customers, software partners, and so forth. I don't think the idea of serving the customer has ever entered the collective mind of Microsoft.
Interesting post. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The best argument FOR their tactics, (and I think this is a more favorable analysis than they deserve,) is that they tend to buy up the front-runner in any competition when the software is 75% good enough and shut out competition by putting their OS
Re: (Score:2)
Steve Ballmer seems to be much more for DRM then Gates ever was, all Gates wanted to do was make some cash and make the computer easy to use, the same vision as Apple.
Actually Bill Gates was always about making money. Back in the 70s when Gates hacked a Basic interpretor for the Apple he got very upset that microprocessor hackers or Homebrewers [wikipedia.org] and hobbyists shared Basic with friends without paying him. It's ironic that sharing hardware plans and software is what got the personal computer revolution st
Re: (Score:2)
Steve Ballmer seems to be much more for DRM then Gates ever was, all Gates wanted to do was make some cash and make the computer easy to use, the same vision as Apple.
That's a creative version of history and maybe if you repeat it enough times, some day it might even be true.
DRM/copy protection has never been much more than a strip of police tape across an open door saying "um don't cross this line, or ur, um, bad things may happen to you, at least maybe". It's only been in the most recent past that technology has upgraded it to at least duct tape assisted with draconian legislation. It's difficult to conclude anything based on adoption of such a feature.
The vision of
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, actually the vision of a GUI came from Doug Engelbart.
Engelbart was the inventor of the mouse and his name is on the first mouse patent. I stand corrected. Thank you.
I found this http://www-sul.stanford.edu/siliconbase/wip/control.html [stanford.edu] link if anyone else is interested in the True History of the mouse.
In the Wiki page you linked, this stands out:
He never received any royalties for his mouse invention, partly because his patent expired in 1987, before the personal computer revolution made the mouse an indispensable input device, and also because subsequent mice used different mechanisms that did not infringe upon the original patent.
I may be in a minority because of my age, but I'm sure I'm not the only one here using only mouse based computers starting since before 1987 (though they were Suns and Unix boxes).
If anyone ever deserved royalties
Re: (Score:2)
Learning a new recipe (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Contradiction? (Score:4, Interesting)
Its funny that, because the needs of nearly all your customers is that your operating system is reliable and user friendly and runs fast, and every OS that's released from Microsoft is worse is most of those categories compared with the previous version.
I write software that's used in medical analysis of blood, urine, tissue and other samples... we follow extremely strict design, coding and testing rules to ensure that there as few bugs in our program when it reaches the end user as humanly possible...
of course, then its run on Windows... which in my POV just negates all our work, especially seen as its now going to be run on Vista, which has brought us no end of troubles with discrepancies between XP and Vista!
Re:Contradiction? (Score:4, Interesting)
Like you, I develop Windows software for a living (in some fairly mission critical environments as well), none of which would have been possible had the NT kernel not become part of Microsoft's mainstream operating systems. Matter of fact, in those days we shipped Unix boxes because there was no way in Hell you could use Windows 9x for real-time data acquisition and process control. But NT4 was pretty solid, and the GUI improvements in Windows 2000 helped a lot too. I initially found XP to be less stable than Windows 2000, but XP did improve substantially over time, and nowadays is halfway decent.
But I agree about Vista. From my perspective going to Vista right now would be very risky. Maybe in a year or two when Microsoft has had a chance to fix some of the worst issues it'll be worth another look. Maybe
Re: (Score:2)
NT4 and XP (Score:2)
Not to be difficult, but Windows NT4, and its successors Windows 2000 and Windows XP, were vast improvements
Moving from NT4 to XP was I think a leap backwards. I've run NT4 for years and didn't have a problem with the OS but the first tyme I used XP the computer froze while booting up.
FalconRe: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's why I said "vast improvements over Windows 9x. I run XP on a couple of my own workstations, but my server is Win 2K.
Though I've had trouble with Windows 95, 98, and ME none of them froze the first tyme I booted them.
NT4 won't run a number of apps that I need and has been EOL'ed for way too long anyway and is no longer supported by hardware vendors.
True, what makes it worse for me is that I have NT4 installed on a PC with a DEC Alpha [wikipedia.org] cpu. Once I had to reinstall NT4, but not because of a prob
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Or what will make you any money at all. As I mentioned in my previous post, my company used to sell systems based on various Unices (this was way before Linux happened) because, at the time, it was the best choice. Unfortunately, as you say, customers have all been brainwashed into wanting Windows applications so we had to deliver just that. If we hadn't, well, the competition would have just taken the market away from us.
Our new overlords (Score:5, Insightful)
Perhaps for board-level managing, but certainly not for doing IT jobs. That's a big problem in corporations when you get "professional" managers. In the old days top-level managers were usually people who had risen from factory jobs. They understood what made the business tick.
Enter the business schools. Managers start believing they can command any corporation without understanding how the production works. They start doing things like transplanting a CEO from Pepsi to Apple. Dismal results.
I, for one, do *NOT* welcome our new board-level executive overlords!
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Oddly enough the other day I read an article from an ex Microsoft guy making the same point -
http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2006/06/16.html [joelonsoftware.com]
Re: (Score:2)
If you haven't noticed who it is.... *coughs*
Even at the bottom level, productivity and profitability goes *way* up when everybody likes each other works well together.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Knowledge and Knowledge (Score:2)
I agree with your comment about the Overlords. However, I think that they do have a point that having IT skills alone is not good enough. You should know what you need to produce as well as how to produce it. In the ideal world, IT customer and IT supplier would be the same person (or at least share a brain) which would presumably ensure perfect understanding of what the customer needs (not the same as what the customer wants). In reality, it is enormously important that IT people have the ability to unders
Treat MS like your politicians (Score:4, Insightful)
Remember who we're talking about (Score:2, Insightful)
* * *
The latest story in my series about a company imprisoned for theft addresses the sham called a financial system. Read "Bank Shot" here
Re: (Score:2)
Parent post makes some good points, and brought this discussion into focus for me.
Corporate investments in Outlook and Exchange Server are now coming to the fore as the best reasons for big customers to stay with Microsoft products. That is not due to a change in Microsoft strategy. It is because the MS Office team has shot itself in the foot with the OOXML debacle. And the Vista team has struck out with its dismal failure to address business needs. The Outlook/Exchange Server is Microsoft's last remainin
Wait, what? (Score:4, Interesting)
Collaboration not the cornerstone of MSFT's biz (Score:2)
Contr
Actions speak louder than words! (Score:5, Insightful)
1. His departure from the Chairman post indicates very troubled times ahed for his company; and he is reluctant to be associated with a declining company that even customers speak poorly about. This is largely due to the influx of open source and more recently, open standards.
2. The features removed; the h/w requirements; broken s/w compatibility etc. in Vista shows that ignoring the merits of Open Source will only hurt his company even more. The fact that he has not learnt the lessons and abandoned Vista; and continues to brazen it out indicates he does not want to hear the truth... only self-sponsored eulogies from 'independent studies'.
3a. One of the biggest reasons for the success of the Windows platform has been that developers have been attracted to the commodity stuff so that everyone could win. Despite Gates' best efforts, Java and PHP have built up a commendable market-share; while after being bitten badly by the abandonment of VB, Foxpro etc.; developers are extremely cagey of adopting to
3b. The loss of the developer community will pave the way for eventual collapse of the flawed Upgrade-And-We-Will-Solve-Your-Problems approach which has been Microsoft's business model for well over 2 decades.
4. For home users, the only hassle is getting broadband on Linux. Like Google, Linux has spread like wildfire by word-of-mouth; and even longtime friends of MS such as Dell, HP etc. have had to listen to customers and offer Linux bundles. The arrival of small form factor PCs like the OLPC, the XO laptop, the Asus EEE PC on Linux is further accelerating the success of Open source and the downfall of Windows. Microsoft is seeking to delay this by offering XP on these systems; but since long term avblty of XP is a question mark, OEMs, costomers or shareholders aren't very enthused.
All in all, Mr. William Gates has learnt his lessons well in advance; and as Eben Moglen remarked while launching GPL3; this is the beginning of the end for proprietary code.
Wrong (Score:2)
2. I can run 12 year old software in Vista without modification. Can you run a 12 year old binary in Linux and have it still work? Unlikely. Most binary drivers break with a simple kernel upgrade.
3a. Link? In my experience people choose php because frankly its piss easy, Jav
broadband on Linux (Score:2)
4. For home users, the only hassle is getting broadband on Linux.
More than a year ago I bought a PC with Linux preinstalled. Once I unpacked and set it up I was able to immediately connect to my cable provider. There was no editing configuration files or changing settings or anything like that. The PC immediately recognized the connection and allowed me to go online.
FalconRe: (Score:2)
Enough with consumer abuses (Score:2)
What happens when programming is done right and consumers can use an easier to use interface to create programs with, for themselves?
General automation is not difficult but wide scope capable [abstractionphysics.net]
Software innovation? (Score:2, Insightful)
Customer satisfaction indec ... (Score:3, Informative)
Big news, given that the concept of 'customer satisfaction' has been embraced since decades, even by not exceptionally innovative companies (e.g. GM). Microsoft fails both in IT and 'customer satisfaction' [theacsi.org] (a related comment: Microsoft falls below the average in customer satisfaction survey [arstechnica.com]).
CC.
Slow down there... (Score:5, Interesting)
Much as Microsoft churns out a lot of junk, whenever I read their developer blogs, I'm always impressed by the amount of thought that goes into their design. Now, a lot of times their product teams go in the wrong direction, focus on the wrong things, get told not to fix something, or simply get hamstrung by their own legacy code. But to the extent that that reflects on the developers at all, it reflects on their design skills, not personal skills. And, frankly, most of the problem at Microsoft seems to be a management issue in the first place.
Meanwhile, a surprising number of open-source projects are led by one brilliant-but-eccentric guy who everyone tolerates because he invented the thing and he writes a lot of good code. Then, someday, another brilliant-but-eccentric guy joins the project, and a year later it forks, and they spend eternity sniping at each other on USENET, which nobody else reads anymore, while each claims to have plonked the other.
I'm having trouble remembering the last time I saw a lead Microsoft developer:
* Give a presentation featuring a "Fuck You" slide,
* Get indicted for killing his wife,
* Call his rivals idiots,
* Boot someone off a mailing list or forum,
etc. etc.
Let's face it - with a few notable exceptions, FOSS tends to attract zealous, dogmatic, fiercely independent people whose idea of good interpersonal communication usually involves a die with more than six sides and some Monty Python quotes.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, more of a Jonathon Sharkey [jonathonth...ent2008.us]...
Re:Slow down there... (Score:4, Insightful)
* Give a presentation featuring a "Fuck You" slide,
* Get indicted for killing his wife,
* Call his rivals idiots,
So. Yeah. At the lead developer level, Microsoft might be reasonably civilized. That behavior does not extend up the ladder. So Microsoft might possibly be cured of its problems without affecting its software expertise with a simple headectomy.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There is little information on what they are working on/planning. There are few avenues for providing feedback/bug reports (I don't consider pay for options viable). When feedback is provided it is not clear that it is being acted upon.
Because FOSS is developed in the open, the internal process are exposed also, hence more of the stuff mentioned above.
Good counter (Score:2)
Mod parent up! I have been appropriately humbled.
Business Model versus Engineering (Score:3, Insightful)
So what is it about OSS that Bill Gates dislikes so much? The business model. OSS threatens Microsoft via its business model and this is what he actively attempts to show as inferior to the closed-source way of doing things.
I think once this distinction between business model and engineering are taken into account, his views are relatively easy to understand.
Actions, not words (Score:2)
talk the talk but not walk the walk (Score:2)
Aside from that, open standards are now being tauted and as such they more than anything threaten Microsoft who does not want standards to be open but want them to be closed and only
The Cathedral building metaphore is wrong (Score:2)
As for the way to develop software, some free softwares are built in house with little connexions to the outside until it has reached some level of completion and some proprietary software are built with the same methods describe
Free/opensource software is social (Score:2)
Companies do the mistake to misunderstand free software and open-source in many ways. Some companies think that free software and open-source are the same thing (it's not). Others think that merely putting some code under the GPL makes it truly free software (a licence isn't enough). Some see opensource simply as something to get from, rather than sharing with it.
Free software is a social process. Merely saying "look guys, our code is GPL now, we are an opensource shop! buy from us, we are good!" isn'
Re: (Score:2)
Requiring authenticate signature before a program is allowed to run would only take care of the users who promiscuously open things they download from the web. In this case, a browser that simp
Re: (Score:2)
m$ does not understand the significances of free and open source software.
This is patently ridiculous.
If MS didn't understand the significance of F/OSS, they would never even bother about it.
The fact that they are doing everything they can to stop it means that they understand it all too well, but don't want to give their users any freedom they don't have to.
And why would they?
Vendor lock-in means a steady revenue stream. And that's all that matters.
Give your users freedom, and they might fly away. And then you'd have to work on getting them back.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, and we're breeding. Be afraid, be very afraid.
Bill Gates (Score:2)
great he's the richest guy around
Not anymore, Bill Gates is no longer the richest person around. Now a Mexican holds that title. But he's in a related industry, he owns CompUSA, among other businesses I'm sure.
FalconRe: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In community open source projects, testing is left to the community after the developers do the best job they can to find and fix problems. Microsoft has apparently adopted this model, releasing early versions of their products so that users can find and report problems. They have extended that model to paid versions of the official releases, too, resulting in frequent Patch Tuesdays and massive Service Packs. Why pay for internal testers when you can get your customers to do it for you?
Actually Micros
Re: (Score:2)
That's our Bill. Oh, and Ballmer too.
Re: (Score:2)