Home Messages Index
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index

Re: Microsoft Chief on Linux: "I am Scared" (Comes vs MS - exhibit px07168)

Ezekiel wrote:
"Matt" <matt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:yR1dl.87281$JA5.84901@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Ezekiel wrote:
"Matt" <matt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:C0Tcl.22089$1k1.698@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Ezekiel wrote:
I don't expect it would take much to know more about OS than nearly all the senior execs at Microsoft.
That's why there's often people who manage "business" and other people who manage the technical aspects of a company. But it's ridiculous to believe for one second that there aren't some very, very smart technical people working at Microsoft.

Oh, I wouldn't dispute that. For instance I find now that Allchin has some very impressive technical accomplishments, also that he came from poverty, also that he didn't much want to work at MS but was convinced by Gates to join.

It ended up working out pretty well for him.

An interesting question is why he didn't want to go to MS. By his emails about how MS had lost its way, and by his resignation upon Vista's release, you sense that he has some vestige of conscience, that he would like MS to be true to the beneficent image it presents of itself.

Years ago (early 90's) my company sent me to a week long C++ training course over at IBM. The guy teaching the C++ course (forget his name) once worked for Microsoft. He would talk to us during the break and told us that he was something like employee #18 or employee #24 or something like that so he worked there right when MS was getting started. He didn't work there very long and ended up leaving because he didn't think the company had much future potential and he got a better job with some other company (that nobody ever heard of.)

Another one was the Turbo Pascal guy, who joined MS and designed .NET or something.

If it's the guy that I'm thinking of then (no wikipedia peeking) it's an ex-Borland guy who designed Delphi.

I don't see that their occasional technical excellence justifies their habit of attacking standards.

I don't agree that developing new technologies and products is attacking standards.

Of course it isn't, but hiding your APIs and arbitrarily and heedlessly changing your APIs so that competitors can't use them is not an essential part of developing new technologies. The pattern you should discern is destruction of standards that they can't control.

Windows NT (back when Cutler wrote it) was a new product. Delphi was a new product. .NET is a new product. Back when only "C" existed the C++ was a new product. Computer technology evolves. You can't just sit around and not develop anything new because of some imaginary attack on standards.

The Turbo guy was a perfect fit because he already had a history of extending standards so as to create lock-in.

Companies extend standards to provide additional functionality that doesn't exist in the standard. Firefox has non-standard features in their browser. The gcc/g++ compiler has non-standard compiler features. MySQL has it's own set of features that aren't part of the SQL standard. What's the point in developing a language like Python.... what "standard" does Python adhere to? Clearly Python exists to create lock-in and to attach languages like Perl.

Once again... computer technology evolves and changes over time. Things would be extremely stagnant if nobody released any features until they were officially part of some committee approved standard that took months or years to approve.

We've been through all this before. There is a clear pattern of hostility to standards that they don't own as well as hostility to competitors using their APIs (e.g. DR-DOS). Their intent is to advance MS, not primarily to advance technology. Now that the possibilities for OS improvement have pretty much run out, advancing the technology isn't even much of an option. They can't do much other than to keep changing the APIs, and hardly anybody wants to buy it.

Linux is driving the price of Windows and Office closer to zero in one market after another, and they will be running short of revenue to pay for development.

I believe I mentioned the MS identity crisis in a previous post, and you denied that there was one. Allchin's email clearly shows that there was one in 2002. Has it somehow been resolved?

MS will survive in some form for many years yet, but they know their old business model in OS and office software is not going to work much longer.

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index