Slashdot Log In
Microsoft's New Core OS Team Learning from Linux
Posted by
CmdrTaco
on Wed Dec 17, 2003 01:16 PM
from the open-the-os-and-really-learn-from-linux dept.
from the open-the-os-and-really-learn-from-linux dept.
sokk writes "Seems like Microsoft is paying attention to the Linux way of doing things. According to itworld.com, a new central engineering division will work on the core of Windows: "The Windows Core Operating System Division (COSD), within the company's Platforms Group, will be responsible for the core OS platform, including development, program management and testing, Microsoft said in a statement sent via e-mail.". A little further down the page analyst Rob Enderle: "They have been studying Linux extensively. Part of their study has been on how Linux has been able to maintain a high level of consistency in the kernel while groups around it maintain maximum flexibility,".
"
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
This really is not news (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:This really is not news (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:This really is not news (Score:5, Insightful)
"They have been studying Linux extensively. Part of their study has been on how Linux has been able to maintain a high level of consistency in the kernel while groups around it maintain maximum flexibility," Enderle said.
It's doublefunny that "The newly formed division... will report to Senior Vice President Brian Valentine [microsoft.com], the Redmond, Washington, company said."
That's Brian Valentine, of "Linux is the long-term threat against our core business. Never forget that!" [theregister.co.uk] and Our products just aren't engineered for security." [infoworld.com]
Best of luck with that.
Parent
Re:This really is not news (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
What MS really needs to study: Free Markets (Score:5, Insightful)
Once they understand that restricting what people copy is not some kind of inherent right, but an inherent burdon that is no longer workable in the informaiton age - it will probably be too late for them.
Parent
Better watch that innovation (Score:5, Funny)
After years of studying Linux.... (Score:5, Funny)
"It seems that GPL must be in place to bring stability to the thing", said one of the core group leaders.
It is puzzling since the exact same version of Windows was setup and only the GPL-labeled boxes were able to keep an extended uptime. The same core group leader said "It is extremely odd. We suspect that the GPL has some magical attributes to it, making everything under those three letters run better. See, we've made a test and enabled users to select the licensing scheme, whether to follow our usual EULAs or GPL. After the selection, the software was installed as usual, with no differences whatsoever, since we did not let users customize the install after the license selection. We found out that installations made when the user clicked on the EULA option tended to be more susceptible to hangups than installs made under the GPL".
Parent
Just an organizational change? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Just an organizational change? (Score:5, Insightful)
Flexibility is GNU/Linux middle name...
MS on the other hand don't allow their code to be seen anywhere it isn't 'supposed' to be. The lack of restrictions in Open Source development allows programmers to do whatever they want, not to follow the established trail of the development model. Okay, a lot of the trails Open Source follows will be dead ends, but the maximisation of effort (and the open nature of peer review) means that these get seen and die off reasonably quickly. MS on the other hand would have great focus, but wouldn't have as wide a view of the posibilities, nor as honest a view of problems.
Shooting themselves in BOTH feet.
Parent
Re:Just an organizational change? (Score:5, Interesting)
What they seem plagued by are marketing-driven technologies that keep getting bolted on to Windows, broadening the code base and making the overall focus of the development harder for anyone to see. This level of integration may make IIS faster or enable easier functionality for some third party development, also makes it hard to define what Windows core is and who's responsible for it.
A group of developers focused on the core of Windows (kernel, networking, filesystem) should be able to better focus on making it work well and keep security at a higher level, among other things.
The real challenge will be who defines what the core of Windows is, and what they define it to be. If they allow the scope of Windows core to be everything you get in C:\ after installing the OS, it won't be more than cosmetic. However, if they define it succintly and at least internally acknowledge that the kernel, the filesystem and the networking code is the core, and other stuff like IIS or Internet Explorer is not, this could mean real benefits for Windows.
Parent
Re:Just an organizational change? (Score:5, Insightful)
"Core" referring to the kernel and drivers has been an org since at least NT4. After 1999, the various groups all got their own managed codebases (build labs) that were periodically merged. Core OS of course, was the first one.
Parent
OK then (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe because it is open source ? The consistency surely comes from having the entire codebase to refer to, and the flexibility from people being free to suggest any patches they like to the kernel.
Shame/fame is also important... (Score:5, Insightful)
If that is not a strong motivation for churning out quality code I don't know what is!
Too bad for a certain closed source vendor that this is hard (if not impossible) to replicate within their current business model.
But, who knows? Maybe they can learn something else from the OSS process. It's completely open and successfull, so it must be the ideal research subject!
Parent
Re:OK then (Score:5, Interesting)
Or the fact that the core team for the kernel is quite small and the direction of the kernel is ultimately controlled by this group.
This is likely to be an attempt to minimise the undue influence other departments have over the Windows Kernel development team. This being a good thing as it tries to prevent the projects goals being unduly subverted to make another projects life easier.
They didn't state that this was a kernel development team, though the name implies that the kernel will be part of their responsibilities. The core OS could include quite a bit more than the kernel. Kernel mode alone, in the diagram of the Longhorn OS, includes the kernel, HAL, device drivers, protocols (TCP, IPSEC, etc), portions of the storage and transaction systems, part of the DirectX graphics and audio drivers, input manager, memory, power, config, and process managers, plug and play, LPC, and so on. The 'Base Operating System Services' which includes the kernel mode portions also includes the window manager, GDI/GDI+, Direct3D, the CLR, and more of the storage and transactions subsystems. On top of all of that is the crap that's gotten the most attention recently, including Avalon, Indigo, WinFS, and the network class library (which might also be part of the Base OS services, it's hard to tell in the diagram).
Another thing that could be an explanation of this would be reaction to the antitrust cases not only at the federal level, but also from many of the states. If the Core OS is being developed by a seperate group, they could try to hold this up as an example of isolating the OS and API development from the application development, even within Microsoft itself. Of course, that also could backfire on them with any future efforts along the lines of IE and WMP, because they'd have to put more planning into integrating the needed features into the core OS before slapping together another product.
Parent
Social not Technical (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft might say that they admire the way that linux contributors interract, but I think it will be a cold day in hell before the admit that they're implementing technical features of linux.
Re:Social not Technical (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Difference: Linux developers are cream of the crop (Score:5, Insightful)
The reason that Linux's codebase has remained so cohesive, focused, and flexible is that Linux has so many really skilled developers -- the kind that most companies are fortunate to have just a handful of.
Software development is one thing where the difference in output between the most skilled person and the average person can be orders of magnitude.
There really aren't many other fields or occupations where you could argue that the top people/employees are orders of magnitude better than the median person/employee.
Parent
Re:Difference: Linux developers are cream of the c (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, there are 2 classes of Linux programmers: (1) those of us who grew up in a Unix environment before Windows came along (and are thus very experienced) and (2) those who started computing with Windows or DOS but were technically adventurous and confident enough to venture beyond that. Either way, it lifts the average competency of Linux developers.
Linux isn't there yet until Joe Shmoe can throw together a toy app quickly and easily that can keep track of his beer, cigarette, and pork rind expenditures.
Isn't that what Perl is for?
Parent
steve jobs (Score:5, Funny)
Interesting concept... (Score:5, Insightful)
At the same time, Linux's usability has been improving, it'll be interesting to see what happens when MS and Linux converge to the point where they're both as usable AND both as secure/stable/etc.
Re:Interesting concept... (Score:5, Insightful)
I think the point is that yes, my mom IS a GUI usability guru, for the simple fact that she has no technical expertise. The "average" computer user should not need to know anything about editing text-files in
Parent
I'll see your point, and raise a counterpoint... (Score:5, Insightful)
I think this statement is right on, but needs to be thought out some more. Hopefully, the "average" computer user will change. Right now, the Average Computer User (ACU) was probably born when personal computers didn't even exist. Look ahead 50 years, and that won't be the case. The ACU will be much more familiar with computers, and there will be no need to coddle them as much. Unless of course, they are coddled their entire lives. I think at some point the learning curve needs to be adjusted.
And my mom is a newbie to computers too, just using it for email and very minor web surfing. To her, the Windows UI is extremely confusing. Double-clicking was a new concept. Saving a file, locating where you saved it, opening it, all the wizard options, the odd error messages, etc. These were all brand-spanking-new things to her. Nothing was intuitive about Windows. Now I am not saying that Linux would have been, but if she were to start out using computers today, the Linux UI would be no more difficult than the Windows one, because her computing needs are simple. The more things you use a computer for, the more you delve into the particular OS's UI.
The real question is, is the ACU in 50 years going to be just as clueless as to how a computer operates as they are today? I certainly hope not, because that would mean that we are not progressing.
Parent
Interesting (Score:5, Interesting)
Microsoft is going to become more centralized to better compete with a competitor based highly distributed, decentralized development.
I'm amused, of course the proof will be in the bits.
At least they are thinking along the right path... (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, now I get it. (Score:5, Funny)
and now Microsoft wants to be more like Linux. Got it.
but but ... (Score:5, Interesting)
Soon to come: a new development process invented by and patented by Microsoft.
Funny thing is ... (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes folks, it's called capitalism. (Score:5, Insightful)
Capitalism demands this fierce escalation: it's called competition.
"They have been studying Linux extensively..." (Score:5, Interesting)
"Part of their study has been on how Linux has been able to maintain a high level of consistency in the kernel while groups around it maintain maximum flexibility,"
MS, here's a clue: Stop using undocumented/proprietary hooks into your OS from your apps.
Linux is the way it is (in reference to the above quote) because people stick to the "API"... partly because there's no other way, but that's another topic/philosophy alltogether.
Rob Enderle is not a reliable source (Score:5, Interesting)
I would completely discount any report that uses him as a source.
Don't take my word for it. Use Google and judge his veracity and competence for yourself.
Re:Rob Enderle is not a reliable source (Score:5, Interesting)
I like this quote [pcworld.com]:
One issue is the Unix roots in Mac OS X, which is based on the BSD operating system. "This Unix component is working against them," Enderle said. "It's basically Unix with an Apple front end, but from the administrators' point of view, all they see is Unix."
and this is pretty damning [scripting.com]too.
Parent
Recall that Rob Enderle=Microsoft Apologist (Score:5, Interesting)
Answer to their question... (Score:5, Insightful)
I know why and they will never be able to achieve it.
Linux does not suffer from one crippling problem that EVERY big software company has.
Management and Marketing.
If you eliminate the managers, the PHB's and the marketing team from ever communicating to the programmers, then you can do this.
I have seen management utterly destroy some of the most amazing and elegant software ever made.
History has proven... (Score:5, Interesting)
After WWII, Japan (well, Asia et.al.) learned to imitate US technology - we even helped them! Autos, Electronics, Watches and Cameras are prime examples.
The thing to watch for is what happened next - after Imitation came Innovation...and the popularity of those commodities took a swing to the East. The US economy took a pretty good hit, as I recall!
This is a wake-up call for Linux devs to stay sharp and keep up the steam of progress.
Not new (Score:5, Insightful)
It has come to mean good things (not trying to reinvent the wheel, but building a car around it), and bad things (trying to force down the use of the de facto microsoft-owned standards incompatible with de jure ones), but it's the key idea in Microsoft's business decisions. And it's what's behind trying to separate more clearly the Windows kernel from it's GUI and it's shell. Perhaps we'll be seeing plenty of third-party GUIs or shells (I know there's litestep) to Windows.
It was at one point clear (DOS/Win3.1), but then the GUI started to "own" many features (net support, and even CD-ROM access!) from 95 on - and they finally did away with the separated "core system" from ME on.
Perhaps they're starting to see it's a bad idea, or that it's losing them customers. The first thing that attracted me to Linux is how I could have internet access without ever booting the GUI. And while XP is not the nightmare ME was, it's pretty hard to fix when broken in a deeper level.
On an off note, Billy Gates' "Road to the future" is actually an insightful book, you know. You just need to remember he's a businessman, not an actual geek. To him, it's better to admit to having been wrong than losing money or market share. Welcome to the world!
Re:Not new (Score:5, Insightful)
Embrace and extend.
It's actually. "Embrace, extend, destroy." and it is a BAD thing. It is the idea of taking a standard, implementing it and then extending the implementation once you have enough marketshare to destroy its compatibility with the rest of the market. It is how you "take over" what others have worked hard to create as a community.
On an off note, Billy Gates' "Road to the future" is actually an insightful book, you know.
The first revision of the book didn't even include the Internet. Basically this book wasn't insightful at all and has been revised to include events that Gates completely missed when he wrote it in the first place. This book is really a piece of corporate revisionist history.
Parent
So does this mean... (Score:5, Insightful)
<troll>
That Microsoft will someday be able to release a stable operating system?
Sorry, I just couldn't resist...
</troll>
But seriously, it looks as if the mere presence of Linux is having an effect on Redmond. Perhaps Microsoft will produce better systems than they have in the past if they consider Linux a threat to their business model. Nothing inspires excellence like a little competition...
Microsoft is big enough to be a community (Score:5, Interesting)
They've got enough programmers that they could simple go "open source" within the company, and that would be a big enough community to get all the benefits cited by ESR in his Cathedral paper.
A few other big companies could also do this if they wished.
Long term, I think, what Linus himself will be remembered for won't be the Linux kernel itself, but for how he managed the project. Hell, I personally know half a dozen people that could have done everything Linus did on the technical side of things, but I doubt any of them would have been the project manager he turned out to be.
Re:More Power To Them (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:More Power To Them (Score:5, Funny)
Wait... isn't SMP what SCO is freaking about?! Now I get it! You're in the wrong thread! This is a Microsoft astroturfing thread, not an SCO astroturfing thread. Wait a few minutes, and you'll have an SCO thread to work with, okay?
Parent
Re:Ms (Score:5, Insightful)
Linux has taken primarily good UI design from Windows, and now windows seems to be modeling Linux's layered and flexibe design.
Parent
Re:Ms (Score:5, Funny)
Can't we all just... get along?
Parent
Re:Ms (Score:5, Funny)
Bill Gates: Thanks but I have all the power I can currently handle. Nice offer though.
Parent
Re:Same old, same old from Microsoft (Score:5, Insightful)
It's the opensource way!
Parent
Re:Ctrl-C Ctrl-P == Studying? (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Makes you wonder.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Makes you wonder.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Makes you wonder.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Makes you wonder.... (Score:5, Informative)
The penalty for abusing GPLd code is not the compulsory re-licensing of everything. If you're in breach of the terms of the GPL license, then you're breaking copyright law. Nothing makes their proprietary code suddenly open, unless they decide to comply with the GPL rather than fight/settle/re-code.
Parent
Re:Study all you want.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent