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)
This really is not news (Score:5, Insightful)
Same old, same old from Microsoft (Score:3, Insightful)
Just an organizational change? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
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.
legacy support (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
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.
"Studying" Linux? (Score:2, Insightful)
At least they are thinking along the right path... (Score:5, Insightful)
EOS Strategy at Work (Score:3, Insightful)
Emulate, or Squash.
Squashing hasn't been working too well.
Errh, from the CORE of Windows!? (Score:-1, Insightful)
Or do you really think Linux developers are copying code from the Windows' core into the kernel (perhaps we have found the cause of some of the more unstable releases . .
I think I will go meta-moderate now . . .
Yes folks, it's called capitalism. (Score:5, Insightful)
Capitalism demands this fierce escalation: it's called competition.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:More Power To Them (Score:2, Insightful)
MS has source available.
If linux users had such source available to look at, you better damned well believe there'd be no more need for MS, anywhere.
Re:Same old, same old from Microsoft (Score:5, Insightful)
It's the opensource way!
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: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.
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.
This is a perfect example of (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Interesting concept... (Score:1, Insightful)
Yeah, because your mom probably learned on ms. The reason why it is preceived that way is because for most people, it is all they have ever known.
Re:This really is not news (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Social not Technical (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Makes you wonder.... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
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:Interesting concept... (Score:2, Insightful)
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
If this ever happends, which seems reasonable, I beleive it will be the software and hardware venders who decide who will win. IMHO, this is why I feel that Linux will always be the underdog in the Desktop enviroment. MS has been in the game to long, and has a lot of ties with SW & HW companies to create support and drivers.
As Linux gets adopted into the server market more companies will participate, but I feel that Linux will never be able to be head to head with MS because of the limitation of SW & HW support.
Finally, I do not think that Linux will fade away because of the lack of HW support, instead expect Linux to almost always be for those who need to tweak systems.
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: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.
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!
No, that's not what we want (Score:4, Insightful)
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:"They have been studying Linux extensively..." (Score:0, Insightful)
MS SQL Server - uses the same API everyone else uses.
Office2k3 - same deal
IE - just a bunch of COM objects.
Where are they using these so called undocumented hooks?
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...
Re:This really is not news (Score:0, Insightful)
That is actually a big part of the problem now. Their products don't suck so it makes it difficult to migrate to products that do suck (or even don't suck to a lesser degree). Don't get me wrong, some of the open source out there is really nice but there are different sets of issues.
Obviously, once the cost issue comes up, issues seems smaller but most people are using their free Office 97 and IE just fine. OpenOffice and Mozilla need a configuration option that will allow them to look/function like their MS counterparts. I use IE because Mozilla Shift+Click doesn't spawn a new Windows (like IE does). Every 6 months or so, I *try* but wind up uninstalling after a few weeks of this bad habbit.
Simply making the interface consistent would probably help OSS garner two to three times more installed base, IMHO.
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 someday get
entirely rid of Windows and be able to choose exactly what my computer
does with my data.
Your point of convergence will certainly be a critical milestone, and I
can only hope that the advocacy efforts of our community mature enough
along the lines I've mentioned above to convince regular users, like
your mom and mine, to switch to Linux, for THEIR benefit.
Cheers,
Morel
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 doesn't mean they can't find the pieces they like and implement their own. How could they compete with Linux (or anybody else for that matter) if they don't have all the same bibbles and bobbles people are buying it for? Microsoft wouldn't be a mega-corp if it was as arrogant as a lot of you make it out to be.
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!
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:Makes you wonder.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Makes you wonder.... (Score:5, Insightful)
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
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.
Re:Social not Technical (Score:3, Insightful)
And lets not forget what really started this entire thing:
Linux, the disruptive technology that was a small fish on the other side of the pond, that is now a big fish and taking more out of the food supply chain than MS first thought would ever be possible.
And that small fish is being fed by every enemy Microsoft pissed off, bought out, stifled, etc... and all while being tagged as the underdog. But an underdog with no defined budget just a framework and ideology that consistently delivers results.
Even nature reminds us of the first rule for survival: Evolve or die.
I would be happy to share with them the "secret" (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Interesting concept... (Score:3, Insightful)
Being an expert would actually disqualify her as a good person for final approval. The guru is the one who will successfully implement the UI specs set forth by the lay-user.
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.
Re:Just an organizational change? (Score:2, Insightful)
On the other hand, I am an architect taking part in the enterprise Linux initiaitive (which is where a large corporation attempts to mimic something it doesn't understand because everyone-else-is-doing-it). So maybe Microsoft is touting its methodology mimicry.
I wish more corps could actually make the mental/cultural shift to employ some of the effective methodologies and practices OS uses. It would make the world of IT not so painfull to look at.
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.
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: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:Study all you want.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:More Power To Them (Score:3, Insightful)
Perhaps the COSD team is aware of this.
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.
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: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.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
zerg (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Difference: Linux developers are cream of the c (Score:2, Insightful)
VB, for instance, builds GUI apps... something that they can see and something they can see changes in very easily. Drag this button here, double click on this button write some code, done. Even designing the forms gives folks a sense of accomplishment sometimes, even with nothing behind it. In Perl, you do a bit of typing (using lots of strange symbols - for someone who at most just sees the characters that can be found in a newspaper column) which is just a bunch of text, then there's nothing to look at when you run it but maybe a prompt asking for you to type some more stuff. Not very exciting... powerful, yes... just not flashy or pretty.
Re:Makes you wonder.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Given that it is unlikely that MS will allow any outside auditors to check their code base for GPLd code, I'd say the risks were minimal. The only way a GPL copyright holder might have probable cause for asking for such an audit would be if a disgruntled MS developer blew the whistle. Another unlikelyhood given the NDAs MS reqiures of its employees.
Re:Difference: Linux developers are cream of the c (Score:2, Insightful)
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?
Actually Its Caled "Open" For a Reason (Score:3, Insightful)
The "O" means "Open" for a good reason. The spirit of OSS is sharing and learning with everyone. This includes Microsoft. If they can learn how to stop making overly complex software that can never seem to quite work from inspecting BSD and Linux then so be it. Linux and BSD have nothing to hide. That sounds like a strength, not a weakness for MS to exploit.
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.
Chemistry vs Alchemy (Score:5, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:This really is not news (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Difference: Linux developers are cream of the c (Score:4, Insightful)
You compared apples and oranges with that one.
Re:This really is not news (Score:3, Insightful)
It's "great is the enemy of the good," not the other way around.
Multics vs Unix was a case study in Great vs Good.
Re:Ms (Score:3, Insightful)
I mean seriously, in this day and age of modular kernels and separate daemons for everything, can't you just kill a service/daemon and restart it without power cycling your machine?!
Can't be done (Score:3, Insightful)
This won't work (Score:2, Insightful)
The answer (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Same old, same old from Microsoft (Score:3, Insightful)
I laughed when I first saw GNOME's "Start button," but with a Foot icon, all those years ago.
Re:Difference: Linux developers are cream of the c (Score:3, Insightful)
In my experience, anything a nurse (or General Practitioner) tells you can be ignored, you'll still get better. A nurse generally gives advice that makes you feel better more comfortable, and possible speeds the process along a bit, but inheirently does nothing to fundamentally change the outcome. Generally I stopped seeing a GP unless I need a bone set, or I have been sick for a week.
However, when you have a bleeding brain, nothing but a brain surgeon will do. When you have a pile of bad C code, a really good programmer, or an average programmer will both get the job done (in differing amounts of time). So there isn't as much selection pressue on the job of a programmer.
If I found a brain surgeon who was nice, I wouldn't let them operate on me. Clearly they aren't a real brain surgeon if they are a decent human being :-)
Finally, if you had quoted the following sentence, I pointed out that, comparing programmers to programmers is just as fair as a nurse to a surgeon. If you made a nurse do a surgeons job, there'd be an order of magnitude difference, if you made a surgen do a nurses job, there'd be an order of magnitude differece in quality. If you took a programmer whose really good a job X and make they do job Y, it's not terrible shocking there is fall of. A lot of programmers take work, and do work in areas they lack experience or knowledge, because it is a good job, and the people doing the hiring can't tell the difference.
Skill as a programmer, because programmers have a very, very broad range of skills and abilities that they need to do to accomplish their job, are inheriently incomparable in most ways. Finally, a lot of great programmers are great on the codebases they work on, but they'd be lousy on other codebases.
Kirby
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..
Re:That convergence might happen... (Score:3, Insightful)
Ground control to Major Tom, your circuit's dead, there's something wrong...
Dude... I like Linux and hate Microsoft as much as the next guy, but uh...
- Dreamweaver
- Adobe Illustrator
- Adobe Photoshop
- Paint Shop Pro
- Microsoft Office (for losers with a lot of vba crap)
- In house VB-app that would need ported.
These are the programs on my system right now at work that would prevent me from moving the work box to Linux. Crossover Office will run all of them except, perhaps, the crappy VB thing, but that sort of nullifies the whole cost savings point of switching to Linux. The only one I'm willing to abandon is Dreamweaver which I'd replace with Bluefish.On the point of crummy software, I imagine the dead and poorly built, half-assed Linux projects on Sourceforge and Freshmeat easily match the number of crummy, half-assed, poorly built Windows apps out there.
Hate to tell you chief, but except for bigshots like PostgreSQL, KDE/Gnome, Apache, etc.... much of what litters the GPL/BSD landscape is garbage, just like the Windows world. Until big time, business-friendly developers like Adobe and Macromedia start building their tools for Linux... too bad. That's a pretty scary step for them though. Build for Linux and have Microsoft pull your "rights" to their proprietary interfaces and APIs? Scary thought. Microsoft, I'm sure, has them firmly by the balls.
When someone new comes on the scene and starts creating competitors to these big name business tools, THEN we'll see people considering a full on switch more seriously. See what OOo has accomplished as of late. We need an OOo of Adobe and Macromedia, etc. in order to wrap up the stragglers.
It's too bad... (Score:3, Insightful)
Legal implications of defining Windows' OS core? (Score:2, Insightful)
If not, it was always my understanding (based entirely of heresay of course <grin>) that the Nt 4.0/Win2k/WinXP kernels were actually pretty good. Wasn't the original NT kernel jointly developed with IBM and OS/2? Again, my hearsay-based understanding has always been that all the "cruft" that is duct-taped to Windows accounts for the lockups and security issues.
I'm too lazy to dig out the links, but I'm sure many Slashdot readers are familiar with Microsoft's legal use of the term "core operating system" (or similar terms anyway). Remember all the stink about bundling Internet Explorer with Windows? Didn't Microsoft claim that IE is an intrinsic part of Windows, that it cannot be removed without breaking the OS? More recently, the Europeans want Microsoft to unbundle Windows Media Player from Windows XP. I'm sure Microsoft is claiming that WMP is part of their "core" operating system.
In short, Microsoft has been criticized so often for bundling applications with Windows. Their response is usually along the lines of "it cannot be unbundled". I call anything that cannot be unbundled part of the core system.
So it looks like this new division will work on the entire Windows product!
Unfortunately, too many people don't care or don't understand the subtleties of this discussion, and will never realize that---yet again---Microsoft says one thing but does another.
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: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.
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:What MS really needs to study: Free Markets (Score:2, Insightful)
That analogy has to die. Really.
Look, of course information is easy to copy, it "wants" to be free and all that bullshit. But see, that's the whole POINT of copyright--to make it harder to copy information. Copyright makes intellectual property behave (in a limited fashion) like "real" property, in that it is illegal to enjoy the fruits of someone else's labor without putting in the effort to earn it. This means that if you acquire the source to Windows and post it on your homepage, don't act all self-righteous when Microsoft uses copyright law--and yes, taxpayer money--to beat the shit out of you, because they'll only be using copyright for the purpose it was designed, designed, in fact, by people far smarter than you or I. You can say that's an unnatural restriction on the free flow of information, and in a superficial sense you're right. But society decided long ago that that's a sacrifice we're willing to make in order to promote creativity.
I don't expect you to fully understand this. Maybe when you're a little older. Sorry if I sound patronizing, and I don't mean to be hurtful, but I don't have the time right now to color my writing in rose for you.
yours
Re:What MS really needs to study: Free Markets (Score:3, Insightful)
That's exactly the thing - that decision was made before the digital age. Copyright was never meant to affect the individual. In its original conception, copyright only affected corporations - those with the ability to copy.
Copyright is not there to promote "Creativity" but to promote "Science and Useful arts" which according to the original interpretations (original copyright laws), means promoting the Public Domain. Copyright has since long stopped promoting the Public Domain.
Lets assume that the original copyright laws were a good balance between the restrictions on individuals and the promotion of the Public Domain. Consider that the original laws:
A) Had everything go into the public domain in 14 years by default or 28 years if extended.
B) Restricted copying when it was a difficult and expensive operation not carried out by individuals
C) Came to promote the Public Domain and to stop NDA's and information secrecy (by offering an alternate way to profit than NDA's/secrecy)
Now consider that current laws:
A) Have everything never go into the public domain (thus not promoting Science and Useful arts as specified and originally interpreted)
B) Restrict copying which is virtually costless (a very heavy restriction on every individual in the world today).
C) Encourage information secrecy by granting copyrights even on things such as binary data that does not promote Science and Useful arts via inspiration of new works.
I would say that the old-time balance of copyright was definitely violated.
I don't expect you to fully understand this. Maybe when you're a little older. Sorry if I sound patronizing, and I don't mean to be hurtful, but I don't have the time right now to color my writing in rose for you.
It was not me you were referring to, but I hold the same oppinions. From my experience, it is the young and ignorant who support copyright in its current form.
If you want to educate yourself, please read some of Richard Stallman's informative and interesting papers [gnu.org].
Re:Interesting concept... (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes, Open Office is crap. yes MS Office is crap. That's why I'm an abiword man. I want a word processor and just a word processor. I don't use those other things, and I probably never will have to. If I did there are seperate programs to replace each part of office all of them better than the suite. Also KOffice is pretty good.
Ok, if you think IE is so great, take the Firebird challenge and prove it to yourself. Use Firebird and Firebird only for about a week. Learn the keyboard shortcuts. Install and play with extensions and themes. Put in the ad blocking. Use the tabs. See if you still think IE is king. If you don't I win. If you do, you're either lying to yourself or you're just dumb. If you're afraid to do it, that means you're afraid I'm right. You've got nothing to lose.
Remember what I said. It takes effort to change. In the end it's better. Your complaing is that it just works. It doesn't work better, it just works with less effort. It's like a porsche and a camry. The Porsche is better, but you have to drive stick. Harder to drive, but definitely the superior vehicle. By using Windows and MS Office you're saying you would rather pay for a Toyota Camry than get a free Porsche just because you don't want to learn to drive stick. Think about that for a few minutes.
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 :-)
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
Not good enough (Score:3, Insightful)
None of this is possible on any Macintosh laptop. Apple's primitive mouse standard is a real problem.