Microsoft's New Core OS Team Learning from Linux 732
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,".
"
More Power To Them (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:More Power To Them (Score:5, Funny)
Re:This is a perfect example of (Score:4, Insightful)
Yep, I know I'm *way* off-topic. I'll slink away like the A.C. I am.
Re:More Power To Them (Score:5, Insightful)
MS doesn't care who came up with an idea. If customers like it, they'll absorb it. If Apple popularized it, then fine, it's popular, and MS will accept it on that basis.
Apple seems to be the opposite. If MS popularized it, they don't want it, no matter how well-liked it is. It seems to offend their sense of being the ones with all the best UI ideas to acknowledge that a different UI approach from Microsoft(!) might actually be better.
Terrific ideas like the task bar, 2-button mice, scroll wheels, quitting an app when you close its document window, etc., have proven themselves in the mass market, but it took Apple forever to add a task bar (they probably couldn't release it until it looked sufficiently different from MS's) and "the mouse you can operate with your foot" is still the standard despite the fact that every seven-year-old in the US is handling a two-button mouse without confusion.
I've always admired Steve Jobs' passion for creating insanely great products, and innovation is a big part of it. But, I think the products could be even better if Apple had the humility to do a little more copying from less innovative sources that still manage to come up with some good ideas every now and then.
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?
Re:More Power To Them (Score:5, Insightful)
It was only a couple days later that Firebird was released, right? Right?
Good thing operating systems are so much simpler than web browsers.
Re:More Power To Them (Score:4, Insightful)
I would add that operating systems are a hell of a lot simpler than browsers. Mainly by virtue of there being 30+ years of research into writing operating systems.
Just skimming through the technologies in a modern browser - XML, HTML, CSS, ECMA, DOM, HTTP, TLS - is enough to make your brain hurt. Add to that the millions of little gotchas and it's no wonder it takes several 100 man years to write a decent browser, whereas a single talented person can write a workable operating system in just a few months.
This really is not news (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:This really is not news (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Re:This really is not news (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:What MS really needs to study: Free Markets (Score:5, Insightful)
Hey, while we're at it, can I get a copy of your house key? What do you mean, 'no'? Why not? Isn't restricting what people copy an inherent burden that is no longer workable in the information age?
Yeah, but if I sent a 100 million coppies of my house key all over the world, and then attached a license to it saying that you are not allowed to copy it - that would be pretty stupid way of controlling who has access to my house wouldn't it. Then if I got the taxpayers to fund the government to search the streets and alleys for every soul who dared to make a copy, that would even be worse. But then if they wanted the ability to tag every single key you owned (think DRM) to prove that you din't have one of my keys - that would be like a police state. Shall I go on?
Re:This really is not news (Score:4, Insightful)
There's an old saying that says good enough is the enemy of great. In the mid-nineties, good enough meant that is was good enough to have Word crash a few times a day. After all, the competitors crashed too. The OSS movement, in its preference of great over good enough, raised the bar of how good commercial vendors have to be for people to still call them good enough. NT5.0 (aka Win2000) is much better than NT4.0 because of OSS.
Better watch that innovation (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Better watch that innovation (Score:4, 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".
Same old, same old from Microsoft (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Same old, same old from Microsoft (Score:5, Insightful)
It's the opensource way!
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.
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.
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.
Ms (Score:4, Interesting)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Ms (Score:5, Funny)
Can't we all just... get along?
Re:Ms (Score:5, Funny)
Bill Gates: Thanks but I have all the power I can currently handle. Nice offer though.
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.
Not really. (Score:4, Insightful)
I think it's more about focus.... or maybe lack of focus...
See, the kernel teams worries about the kernel, and exporting usable interfaces to that kernel. Not that interesting to Mom & Pop jones, but of great interest to other developers... like those who, say, build distributions.
MS takes a whole systems approach... the libraries and kernel and everything altogether.. they don't have a group just concened with releasing the best kernel... they have to meet whatever requirements happen internally.
It's flexible because in the open source world, the kernel team doesn't have to compromise for lazy app developers, or vice versa.
Re:OK then (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
It is however highly unlikely it will meet the same levels of independence that the Linux Kernel Development process has. This being on-top of the open nature of Linux Kernel development.
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.
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!
Re:Shame/fame is also important... (Score:5, Interesting)
Not to mention that in OSS every interested party in the entire world can see where you have been lazy and/or stupid... If that is not a strong motivation for churning out quality code I don't know what is!
Yup. When I ported amd76x_pm driver from 2.4 to 2.6 and posted it onto lkml, I got some remarks on overall code quality. All I did was just a quick hack into changed infrastructure so that it would 'just work'. And then I was getting questions like 'what is this', 'why are there large integer constants' etc. I sure learned not to post inadequate code onto lkml then :)
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)
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.
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?
Re:Difference: Linux developers are cream of the c (Score:4, Insightful)
You compared apples and oranges with that one.
Re:Social not Technical (Score:3, Insightful)
Why would you be interested in emulating the development model if the resulting product isn't good?
Imitation is flattery, regardless of how MS would spin it.
Doesn't it all originate from the social aspect? (Score:4, Insightful)
If you are a company, what else do you have to control other than the "social" aspect.
I think MS implying "social superiority" to the Open Source model is far more damning than admitting technical superiority, because the latter implies a "point of advancement" while the former implies a "rate of advancement." Plus, very few companies have been able to reap the benefits of both the Open Source and Corporate worlds at the same time (though, Mandrake is getting pretty close).
How do you recreate the structure that naturally appears when you open the source and all future benefits derived from that source to all of humanity? Isn't that kind of like trying to recreate the functions of a living organism without DNA?
If you ask me, the best "social" aspect to open source is the amount of heart people pour into it.
Re:Social not Technical (Score:3, Insightful)
Why would it be a cold day in hell to admit they're implementing features of Linux? They've already implemented Unix'esque features, why would Linux do it? Do you guys think Bill Gates has a pic of Linux on his dartboard?
Honestly, some of you need a reality checkup. Microsoft regards Linux as competition, that
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:3, Insightful)
I don't think that security and stability are the
main points against MS anymore, even though they still a long way to go
in that regard. Nowadays, things like DRM, lack of standards and the
content of some EULAs are, in my view, much worse. My main
machine dual-boots XP and RedHat not because of Linux's price or
technical superiority, but because I refuse to be locked exclusively
into somebody else's idea of how I should access my own information. I
struggle a lot when using Linux, but I keep at it so I can some
Re:Interesting concept... (Score:3, Interesting)
For philosophical reasons, I don't see MS's success as anything but bad. One, they are a large corporation, and in a related fashion, a (proven) monopoly. They leverage an obscene amount of power - it's like having a patent on water, in terms of today's business world. Such a large organization can not be unilaterally trusted with such power
Re:Interesting concept... (Score:4, Insightful)
Windows can't even claim to be the victor in that department. The Windows GUI is a mish-mash of Mac and NeXTSTEP, plus other interfaces, in all likelyhood. It's disunified and irritating to use.
If this new MS team can improve the core to the point where it's as good or better than Linux, then the only reason anyone would use Linux would be cost.
And the fact that it's more UNIX-like. And that the sense of community is stronger. And that you can dig into the guts. Actually, I guess cost isn't the only reason at all.
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
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.
Study all you want.. (Score:4, Insightful)
.. they can't learn to have a love of what they do. That's a huge difference between Open Source and proprietary.
What's the next part they'll copy? (Score:3, Interesting)
It'll take them a while before they copy the "free as in Free Software" part.
It amazes me that a company can still charge a premium on what's basically a commodity component (scheduler, memory manager, etc) that's been around for decades. Same for that other company that's charging for relational databases. IMHO they should recognize that after 30 years these parts become commod
Re:Study all you want.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Heh (Score:4, Funny)
Then they despise us
Then they ridicule us
Then they become us...
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)
Re:At least they are thinking along the right path (Score:3, Interesting)
No, that's not what we want (Score:4, 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)
Re:Funny thing is ... (Score:3, Interesting)
I ran it on a 486DX2 66Mhz with 16MBs of RAM and a 500MB hard disk.
OK, so it couldn't print or do anything fancy, I admit that, but it WAS rock-steady!
The minute they pushed Dave Cutler out of the picture and started thinking along the lines of having featuresets by certain sales quarters, everything began to go downhill.
I really believed in Windows then, but now, it's just a big, slow, bloated abomination.
I ha
EOS Strategy at Work (Score:3, Insightful)
Emulate, or Squash.
Squashing hasn't been working too well.
Yes folks, it's called capitalism. (Score:5, Insightful)
Capitalism demands this fierce escalation: it's called competition.
take this a little bit further (Score:4, Interesting)
They got some really bright people there you know.
And what that bunch of bright hackers would want to do pretty soon? Contribute. Just like that Microsoft fellow from the original Haloween documents described - he had the urge to make changes, to improve the open-source code he looked at.
Even it they are prohibited from doing so (which I doubt - engineers and lawyers don't mix), the certain cross-contamination of the ideas is bound to happen.
This will lead to the whole bunch of interesting things - from super-SCO-sized legal battle to Longhorn Linux.
"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.
the assimilation of methods (Score:4, Interesting)
Release Date (Score:4, Informative)
Looks like they're still looking at a 2006 release. (Come on, fourth quarter 2005 always means 2006).
The question is, will assembling this team help them meet that goal or will the initial organization of it take away some time and delay the project more?
I can't say from experience on what the effects of forming a new style of management to a project, no matter how capable that style is, will do as a project is underway but I'd assume there would be some hassles to start things off with and get the ball rolling.
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.
Obligatory... (Score:3, Funny)
Recall that Rob Enderle=Microsoft Apologist (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Recall that Rob Enderle=Microsoft Apologist (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't see him being inconsistent.
His idea in that article was that the economics and vulnerability of distributed development were inferior, not that the kernel was technically flawed.
Anyone can learn something from any other piece of code.
They need a man like Linus at the helm (Score:3, Interesting)
He has the ability to say "no" in a way that doesn't upset everyone.
Dave Cutler of VMS and WinNT fame comes to mind also.
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.
Not Linux Or Open Source (Score:3, Interesting)
This is actually good programming technique. Keep your core simple and consistent so the outer layers can be flexible.
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.
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 tried this. Remember NT 3? (Score:3, Informative)
Microsoft has had a terrible time transitioning people from the DOS-Win3.1-Win95-Win98-WinME family to the NT-based systems. More than half of Windows-based desktops worldwide are still running DOS-family OSs. Even though they've all been discontinued. Even though they have zero security and crash constantly. They're still out there.
Misleading (Score:4, Insightful)
Microsoft didn't say a damn thing about emulating linux, Rob Enderle did. The memo was distributed by MS, but appears to have no content regarding an emulation of Linux development methodologies.
Might want to reign in the horses a bit boys.
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:Microsoft is big enough to be a community (Score:4, Insightful)
Amen. What many fanboys don't seem to realise is that writing a UNIX-like kernel isn't beyond the abilities of any top-quality programmer. The unique characteristic of the UNIX kernel is that it's tiny so it can be implemented by 1 or 2 skilled people in a very short period of time. Thompson and Ritchie did it. Tanenbaum did it. Linus did it. Plus the UNIX kernel has over 30 years of documentation; it's not a secret and there's no new ground to forge. So writing the Linux kernel wasn't all too incredible. However attracting 1000s of developers, smoothing their ruffled feathers when egos came into conflict, coordinating everybody in a single direction... now that's an achievement that demands respect.
Though writing the Linux kernel is also very impressive :-)
Software Design Principles (Score:4, Interesting)
I think it is great MS is changing the way they make OSs. If MS makes a good OS that is stable and secure, it raises the bar for everyone else to compete. They have to change their method. I think they have there divisions implement changes and Software QA verifies build stability the way that most Application development shops work. This seems impossible on the OS level. Linux is great because they have the UNIX design model to work with, everything laid out in a clean working fashion. The Kernel is so stable because they do not make major changes to the way user space is made because it just has to allow for UNIX applications to run (including X). All of the modules like memory and file systems are layed out. Microsoft has ruined their chance of using this model in Win XP by putting the GUI in kernel space, grabbing the messy registry system from Win 95, and whatever they could hack to make a consumer heavy duty OS.
Perhaps MS could have Linus Torvalds come in and be their OS development consultant for a day. They could elect someone as their Linus to check in every major change. They could add features for 6-12 months at a time, and test and revise changes for the next 6-12 months and blamo they have a Linux like development team.
Some Advice for Microsoft (Score:5, Interesting)
Chemistry vs Alchemy (Score:5, Insightful)
We could have told them if they'd asked... (Score:5, Interesting)
Just a guess, but offhand I'd say it through design driven by software developers, versus design driven by marketing and artificial deadlines. In other words, in any organization, the behaviours that get rewarded the most increase, while those that get punished decrease. MS apparently does not reward consistent, flexible design or implementation.
The hard truth is, (Score:5, Insightful)
It's because the Linux kernel is under the control of (no offense) a dictator, where as the MS kernel is under the control of a bureaucracy..
Sometimes dictators are a GOOD thing..
MS doublespeak (Score:4, Funny)
So, are you saying that MS is not doing that currently? Aha! Finally, they admit it.
[sarcasm]
Reeeeeeeally? So when is Longhorn due?
2003 you say.
Now you say 2004.
2005?
2006?!
So how's that Trustworthy Computing thing working?
Never mind.
[/sarcasm]
Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Makes you wonder.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Even with their "we'll show you the source" programs you can't compile and compare checksums to make sure you are shown the source to the code that actually generated the binaries you are running...
Can you?
Re:Ignore parent post (Score:3, Funny)
Never trust anyone who can't spell "lose".
In this case perhaps a Freudian slip? What Microsoft loses in this case is control, when they have to loose their source code. :)
Re:Makes you wonder.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Makes you wonder.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Suggestions (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem is that development methods are not the problem. Microsoft simply cannot understand this. This is not a Microsoft-specific problem. It's just due to the way large companies work.
Basically, some Microsoft analyst team sat down and decided that Linux isn't wildly technically better than Windows. The only other difference must be the development methods -- every software manager knows that software engineering methods are crucial.
And that's where they'd be wrong. The development model is slightly different, but it's not magical. There are groups that feed software up and a few knowledgeable people that review code. It isn't that unique or unheard of.
The philosophy and the *social* structure is what matters. I don't mean from a Richard Stallmanesque "We have an ethical mandate to ensure that software is Free", but simply their goals. The people working on Linux make decisions based on one criteria -- technical merit. They are doing what they are doing because they want to make a name for themselves, because they love the technology itself, because they want to fix a problem that's bothering them, and sometimes even because they want to help others. They have a *reason* to put in the extra effort to make code be really clean. It isn't even just that their work can be viewed by millions (and sloppy Linux code frequently gets harshly panned), but that they want to do their best because they're making something to be proud of. You simply cannot replicate this in a traditional company. A programmer is tasked with implementing a feature. He didn't come up with that feature. The feature was decided upon by a committee that was reviewing input from marketing. The feature then hit a high-ranking person in the software development system, and flowed down to this programmer. He knows that much of the Windows codebase is a mess already. If he does a really exceptional job, he can't keep the code with him or show it off to others. He doesn't have the pride there, and the most enthusiastic project manager or juicy set of incentives can only keep the interest and excitement alive for so long. He's putting in his hours to implement something that's customer-driven, and may not be something that he wants to use. You *cannot* produce a large company that has programmers that produce works of love, because you'd get lots of difficult-to-sell output, and in any case the sheer bureaucracy would stamp the joy out of things.
If I wanted to make a system as close as possible to replicating the Linux system, here's options I'd consider:
* Open source the code. An ultimate reward is allowing programmers to allow others and employers to see their entire body of past work. If you want an incentive to do well, this is a big deal.
* Use only programmers that will use their own work. This is hard for some fields, and extremely difficult for vertical market software -- it's the rare programmer that directly uses banking transaction software. However, the rewards are enormous. The gaming industry has got a pretty good grasp of this. There are a lot of games that have lots of neat visual effects or features, things that were thrown in because the programmer *wanted software* that could do something. They have some incentive to go the extra mile. In the open source world, this is frequently called "scratching the itch". Programmers *want* to write software and will write *better* software, if the result is something that matters to them. "Eating your own dogfood" is a hazy corporate attempt to implement this, but I'm talking about going beyond this -- if you're making a raytracer and need another man on the project, try and find a programmer who ray traces in his free time, and give him free rights to use the product on his own as much as he wants.
* The implementor of a feature should have design influence over that feature. This is a tough one. Software design is harder to do well than software imp
Re:Makes you wonder.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Only a matter of time (Score:3, Interesting)
After all, they already own Virtual PC for Mac - suppose MS did the same trick as Apple - take BSD and use their tools and APIs to make most Windows software run on it. Of course, those parts would be just as proprietary as the GUI on OS X - just the way MS l
Re:Only a matter of time (Score:5, Informative)
They already do shared source for their "partners". I got to see some Windows code when I was trying (and eventually failing) to write a driver.
And don't forget that you can see the source code of Windows CE if you want to.
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.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Ctrl-C Ctrl-P == Studying? (Score:5, Interesting)