Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Microsoft Books Media Book Reviews

Breaking Windows 107

Posted by timothy from the those-shards'll-getcha dept.
With Open Source software projects, understanding why certain features are developed while others aren't, or even why entire projects split apart into contending factions, is often as simple as reading mailing list archives and web sites where the involved parties hash out (or at least air) their differences. Within a large corporation, it's a lot harder. Slashdot reader (and "former Microsoftie") Adam Barr contributes this review of Breaking Windows, which he describes as an imperfect but revealing look into the internal politics of Microsoft, and how clashing groups within the company have struggled to get their vision of Windows on the desktop -- sometimes a messy process.

Breaking Windows
author David Bank
pages 288
publisher Free Press
rating 8
reviewer Adam Barr
ISBN 0743203151
summary Tells the story of the battle that raged within Microsoft from 1997 to 2000, between those advocating sticking with the Windows strategy and those wanting a full-fledged shift to the Internet.

The Scoop

This is one of the best-written books about Microsoft that I have read, and as a former employee I have read most of them. Focusing on the internal battles gives a new perspective on the company. It hopefully shatters, once and for all, the myth that Microsoft is a hive community marching in line behind Bill Gates. Executives and regular employees are shown battling over issues large and small, with a consistent public story emerging only at the end, if at all. Bank also shows how Microsoft's legal strategy in the Justice Department case was affected by the political and technical battles that were simultaneously going on within the company.

What's To Like

The book does a great job of telling its story efficiently and clearly. Bank quotes from internal emails, but doesn't overuse them, preserving the value of these rare glimpses into the Microsoft decision-making process. He gives just the right amount of history, and avoids ill-fitting analogies to describe the various pieces of software (in most cases he simply gives a minimal explanation, which might confuse a computing novice but is perfect for a typical Slashdot reader). He also describes the right reasons for Microsoft's success: not marketing as many people say, but its strategy of defining a small number of software platforms and evangelizing them to other developers.

The battle being fought here is between the "Windows hawks," led by Microsoft Vice President Jim Allchin, and the "Internet doves," led by another Vice President, Brad Silverberg. Allchin was in charge of Windows NT; Silverberg shipped Windows 95 and early versions of Internet Explorer. The book has some great insight into how this battle proceeded and why the participants acted as they did.

For example, the book discusses Jim Allchin's famous email in early 1997, in which he discussed competing with Netscape and wrote, "I do not feel we are going to win on our current path -- I am convinced we have to use Windows, this is the one thing they don't have -- We need something with more Windows integration." This email was brought up in the Justice trial to show that Microsoft used browser integration to unfairly attack Netscape, but the book shows that Allchin at the time was trying to counteract feelings within Microsoft that the browser was all that mattered, and was therefore concerned not so much that non-integration would hurt the browser as he was concerned that non-integration would hurt Windows.

Or consider the following sentence from the book: "In the same way that Gates began to view Microsoft's Internet team as the internal representation of Netscape, he came to see Microsoft's Java team as the internal agents of Sun Microsystems." This is an extraordinarily perceptive statement, and the fact that a reader can appreciate its meaning 74 pages into the book is a tribute to the explanatory powers of Bank's writing.

What's To Consider

If the terms "Internet doves" and "Windows hawks" didn't tip you off, Bank is trying to show that the "fumble" of the subtitle occurred in 1997, when Bill Gates decided against supporting a Microsoft project known as Megaserver. This would have been a platform for Internet development: a set of back-end services, tied in to the browser.

Bank also discusses another, more well-known "fumble," the mismanagement of the Justice Department lawsuit. His writing here is still excellent, but this topic has been covered elsewhere so the information is not as surprising.

In the Justice lawsuit, he does a good job of showing how Gates was the main force behind two of Microsoft's poorest showings in the case: Gates'evasive videotaped deposition, and the response to the judge's order to allow computer manufacturer to ship Windows 95 without Internet Explorer (which involved allowing them to either ship a two-year-old version of Windows 95, or one that did not work at all).

In fact Bank spends much more time talking about the legal foibles than talking about his first argument, that Gates blew his role as technical leader of Microsoft by not endorsing Megaserver in 1997. But this really needs to be the core of his argument: saying that Gates' main mistake was made in the legal arena, in which he was a novice, is not nearly as compelling as claiming that Gates, the ultimate geek, botched the kind of technical decision that should have been his strength.

Megaserver was a Brad Silverberg project, and Jim Allchin was the main opposition. In Bank's mythology, Silverberg is the hero, pushing for the Internet. Allchin is the villain, sticking with Windows. But what really went on here?

Consider a story Bank relates from a Microsoft developer named Ben Slivka, one of the most strident of the Internet doves:

Slivka recounted the experience of one Windows developer who presented Allchin with his ideas for a simply, reliable operating system suitable for home users. Instead of saying "Great idea, go do it," Allchin had insisted that the new operating system be based on Windows NT. The developer objected that the huge NT operating system wasn't suitable for the drop-dead simple appliance he had envisioned. Allchin challenged him to list the parts of Windows NT he would strip out.
To me this looks like Allchin is doing his job. What would happen if he authorized everyone who so desired to go off and write their own operating system? I/ll tell you what would happen: Windows CE. Enough said.

Allchin also had little patience for Microsoft employees who were advocating a move towards Java and free software:

I don't want to be remembered as the guy who destroyed one of the most amazing business in history. We could have done it [meaning we could have destroyed the business] with engineers who didn't understand and didn't have any responsibility for the financial aspects of the company at all. Who live in this paradise where the stock goes up, revenues keep going up, earnings keep doing up. And all they have to do is crank software. Somehow it gets into packages and makes money. Well, it doesn't work that way.
Sounds reasonable to me. The notions of first-mover advantage and trading profits for users have been discredited in the dot-com meltdown. But the quote doesn't fit into Bank's view of Allchin as the bad guy, so he simply throws it out there, with no discussion.

History is often written by the winners, but in some ways the middle of this book is history written by the losers. The path not taken is discussed, but since it exists only as a perfect creation in the minds of its inventors (who obviously had Bank's ear when he was doing his research), it is depicted as flawless. Statements claiming that the new goal "was not to get thousands of developers to adopt your arcane PC programming interfaces but rather to get tens of millions of users to use your services every day=94 are accepted as holy truth.

Bank is convinced that Megaserver would have somehow "expanded the commons" of software development, that any Internet platform would have been an open platform. But consider what the Megaserver would have been as proposed back in 1997: A set of Microsoft servers with Microsoft data, talking to a browser that was customized to talk to those servers.

In short, it would have been a clone of AOL. Furthermore, this would have been architected by the team that brought you Windows 95. Would this have been a good thing? Does integrating your browser with your Web servers produce a more open environment than integrating it with your operating system?

Thus, it is hard to fault Gates for not supporting Megaserver in 1997. In fact, Microsoft is now pushing heavily towards .Net, which is the 2001 version of Megaserver. Why support it now? As Bank himself writes, about Microsoft executive Paul Maritz, "He had long known the problem was bigger than Win32, Maritz said. But now he could articulate the message. The difference, he later said, was XML." It was not so much that Microsoft did not recognize the need to move beyond the Win32 API; it was that in 1997 it didn't have the technology to do so.

Bank makes the claim that Gates was forced out as CEO because of his "fumbles." This is arguably the big revelation in the book, but it is hard to prove this conclusively: The trial missteps certainly did happen, Microsoft was drifting from a technology perspective, and Gates stepped down. Did he fall or was he pushed? The timing of events supports either conclusion. In any event, I found the behind-the-scenes descriptions much more interesting than this particular allegation.

Furthermore, Bank points out that Gates allowed an employee to set up a hands-off incubator within Microsoft that eventually led to the company-wide adoption of XML and .NET, and was the only top executive who really understood the .NET protocols. Thus it is hard to fault him for not supporting an Internet platform in 1997, when he planted the seeds for an Internet platform in 2001.

If the middle of the book is imperfect but still fascinating, the last chapter gets really strange. After playing Brad Silverberg up as the hero, Bank suddenly cuts him down. Earlier in the book, the decision to adopt Active Desktop in Windows 98 is mentioned, but with mysterious silence on who made the final call; it merely states that after seeing Netscape demonstrate a similar product called Constellation, "the browser team was given the additional job of creating a shell for all of Windows." That shell was Active Desktop, and this particular decision got Microsoft in antitrust trouble both because it increased the amount of browser integration that Microsoft had to defend in court, and because Microsoft started leaning on computer manufacturers in an effort to freeze out Netscape's product. Furthermore, the battle was basically for naught since Channels, the big Active Desktop feature, went nowhere. Gates himself said later, "That's a case where the browser guys, they had the Internet religion, but they pushed it too far in terms of what was a practical user experience."

So who decided to go with Active Desktop? You figure it had to be Silverberg, but Bank doesn't say that. In the final chapter, however, he slips a bit, pointing out that Silverberg's team was responsible for the tying of the browser, the semi-exclusive contracts with content and access providers, and the war against Java -- the main issues that the Justice department sued over. Furthermore, if the Megaserver strategy had been pursued, Microsoft might have been in even more legal trouble.

Gates, meanwhile, gets rehabilitated in the last chapter. His tactics in 1998 and 1999 are now described as a strategic stall, waiting for the right technology to appear for Microsoft's Internet platform: "The power to control the pace of innovation is a competitive advantage at least as crucial as the ability to innovate itself." Gates is portrayed as a leader once again, planning strategy ten years out, and the book ends with a prediction (for no reason other than the author's gut feeling) that Gates will do the right thing and usher in a new age of innovation, whatever that consists of.

I'm not sure what to make of this flip-flop. I assume this book was originally proposed to a publisher in 1999, written in 2000, and polished up in early 2001. In 1999 a book about the demise of Microsoft seemed a plausible undertaking, but two years later it turned out that the story wasn't over, and Microsoft appeared to be bouncing back. So Bank had time to equivocate, modifying his original thesis and explaining how perhaps Microsoft had a future after all.

Describing this latest turn of events, however, Bank doesn't have reams of email released during a trial, or sympathetic former Microsofties to interpret it for him. As a result, he can fire off sentences like, "The infrastructure for the digital age will be based on competition on the merits and a common code of open interfaces," with apparent complete sincerity. He believes that Microsoft asking AOL to open its Instant Messaging protocol is a harbinger of this golden future, and that Microsoft's Shared Source program shows it is moving towards open source. In short, he is buying the current Microsoft PR story, hook line and sinker.

Well, let this former Microsoftie (and former Windows hawk who worked in Allchin's group) explain a few things. Statements like "Interoperability, not lock-in, has become the winning strategy" are patently false. Right now there are two Internets: The AOL one, with its own client, servers, content, email, messaging, authentication, billing, security, and all the rest; and the plain old Internet. Microsoft wants to create a third Internet, the .NET Internet, with all the stuff that the AOL Internet has. Then it will pursue a lock-in like the world has never seen before.

Summary and Table of Contents

But hey, enough quibbling. Bank may be wrong about the future of Microsoft, but he does a fantastic job covering the past. I spent some time discussing what I disagreed with, but there is so much more that I agree with. I knew about a lot of the events that are described in the book, but I still learned an incredible amount. If you want to know what things are like inside Microsoft, buy this book.

Table of Contents

  • Prologue: The E-mail Trail
  1. Track the Inevitable
  2. Hawks and Doves.
  3. The Path Not Taken
  4. Citizen Gates
  5. Vicious Cycle
  6. Monopolist's Dilemma
  7. Loosely Coupled
  • Key Dates
  • Notes
  • Acknowledgements
  • Index

You can purchase this book at Fatbrain.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Breaking Windows More

Breaking Windows

Comments Filter:

  • Who needs a book (Score:1, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    when you can get the video [ntk.net]?
  • ...strife has not produced more spinoff groups from MS. Is working for MS that good that nobody wants to leave to start a new business? I can't see that from this book. It looks like there are very clearly defined groups. If one of these groups becomes angry/upset/etc.. enough, will they break out to become some competition? Can they?
    ---------------
    • There's a few things to look at here:

      1) There are probably some contract terms that prohibit MS employees from working in the same field for N months/years. While these are occassionally, if not routinely struck down, it does cause some employees to not consider that option.

      2) The "Anything you develop while working here is ours" clause. If J. Random Employee starts up some little software company and starts releasing programs, if MS doesn't like it, they definitely have more cash to throw at legal proceedings and can bog down things for the guy trying to prove that he developed whatever on his own time.

      3) Dotcom crash. If you were an investor right now would you support a new startup? Especially one that's likely to have legal troubles? (Based on point #2)

      Now, I'm not saying that no one has ever left MS and started up their own company. But given the current state of things, it would be a much riskier thing then in the past.

      Kierthos
      • 1) Washington is a "right to work" state. Yellow-dog contracts have absolutely zero legal basis here. It wouldn't even get to the subpeona stage. I just mention it because I've been job-hunting in the past year or so.
    • I believe that Microsoft makes all employees sign a contract that says they will not work for companies that compete with a Microsoft product for one year. Since Microsoft has products in just about every area, it would be difficult for a software engineer to consider leaving.
    • Take a look at Drummond's Renegades of the Empire. Alex St. John wound up leaving Microsoft to form WildTangent after Chrome bit the big one. Just one example; I'm sure there's more.
    • This question is a very good one, in that it is unanswerable. Most people that leave MS do so after their stock options vested, and by that time they may not have lost their wild hairs, but at least adjusted their views to include the 1, Microsoft Way, as a possibly correct one (if with modifications).

      One thing that struck me about successful start-ups from the post-MS area is that they invariably hinge on some as of yet unharvested opportunity left by MS, as opposed to the blank-slate approach that herald most innovative enterprises.

      Raise of hands here, folks. Outside of Sun's move with OpenOffice, and Netscape's attempts at opening the browser, which new enterprises dared to challenge the MS monopoly^Walleged monopoly?

    • My uncle started his own software company after leaving Microsoft.

      http://www.windward.net/ [windward.net]

      He also does some consulting work I believe.
    • What about Valve Software? Gabe Newell and Mike Huntington (I think that's his name, but I probably got it wrong) started the company up shortly after leaving Microsoft. Then they made Half-Life.

      Of course, it's not like they're competing with MS on any level, but it is an example of a successful company started by ex-MS employees.

  • .NET aimed at AOL? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by SideshowBob ( 82333 )
    It's interesting that he casts .NET as an M$ strategy to compete with AOL. I hadn't thought of that before, but it makes sense now. I think the reason I hadn't seen that is because I've never used AOL. Ever. I've seen it being used over the shoulder of a couple different people, but for the past 11 years I've used what he describes as the plain old Internet.

    I plan to continue that course: I'll avoid .NET just like I avoid AOL.

    I imagine it's going to be difficult to avoid without completely avoiding XP and future M$ OSes; I currently have 3 machines, a Mac, a Linux x86 box, and a Win98 box (mostly for gaming). I think Apple and the Powers That Be in the Linux world need to get the word out that if you value personal privacy and want to see an Internet in the future that isn't locked up by M$ (and M$'s henchmen), then people should consider using an alternative OS.
    • Most people in the world will not be able to avoid .NET. Windows XP fill force to use the MS internet wheather they like it or not. You don't really think MS will try to win on technology alone or a superior product do you? Bundle, bundle, bundle that's how MS wins.
    • .NET is nothing like AOL. AOL is a big Tcl interpreter. It's completely nonstandard (even down to the transport protocol.) It gives the server control over the wrong things (almost everything.)

      .NET offers a lot of the old OLE automation features with a friendlier intermediate format (XML.) The CLR is supposed to facilitate this aim across platforms. It's a much more extensible design than AOL.
  • To those more interested in winning than in stroking their ego, turn off your flame throwers and listen:

    (1) The world consists of secretaries, suits, and engineers. Suits employ engineers to make their secretaries happy. Secretaries do all the real (read: boring) work. Therefore: engineers are less important than secretaries. Internalize this.

    (2) Software is capable of having "sizzle". Sizzle goes beyond mere functionality and correct operation (read: massive uptimes and high scalability). Sizzle is the attribute that makes you go "that's fucking cool." Do not forget to provide sizzle to all groups mentioned in (1).

    (3) In mathematics, all constants can be redefined as 1. An algorithm can be O(n) + C. The principle of 4GL software is that we can have what we previously thought of as the god awful biggest C that is unworkable, but in reality as n grows large enough C is effectively equivalent to 1. Read: You can make money with a O(n) + C algorithm, and a large C provides sizzle. Don't sweat the size of C.

    That's it.
    • That's true.
      Even writting a login name, and then the due
      password, is just TO MUCH COMPLICATED for
      secretaries. For that reason they fight a
      war even against WindowsNT or Windows 2000.
      What they really want is something, that after
      booting opens Word.
  • I really like the title of this book. :)

  • Some other books (Score:4, Informative)

    by worldwideweber ( 116531 ) on Sunday August 05, 2001 @10:10AM (#2126219) Homepage Journal
    If you are interested in "inside microsoft" type stuff.. some other books you might want to read:

    Microserfs, Douglas Coupland -- about the geeks inside microsoft -- funny and light reading.

    Renegades of the Empire, Michael Drummond -- a more positive view of the inside of Microsoft.

    Hard Drive, James Wallace -- about Bill Gates and the beginning of Microsoft -- a little more impartial.

    • Re:Some other books (Score:3, Informative)

      by AdamBa ( 64128 )
      Microserfs is a good read but only the first chapter or so is really about Microsoft.

      Renegades is interesting but mostly just story-telling. I mean jeez he is talking about three *evangelists* and he never really picks up on how significant their position is within Microsoft -- instead he talks about how zany they were (and they were!)

      Showstopper I'm not too excited about. First of all I don't think the author really understood how software works. His analogies are execrable. Plus he makes it sound like the whole thing was written by about 15 people and they were all freaks. And he never mentioned me.

      That's why I liked "Breaking Windows", it was the first book about Microsoft (besides mine, natch) where I did not spend some significant period of time shaking my head in disbelief.

      - adam

    • Re:Some other books (Score:1, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Better

      Barbarians Led by Bill Gates

      The Microsoft File : The Secret Case against Bill Gates
      • Best

        The 12 Simple Secrets of Microsoft Management: How to Think and Act Like a Microsoft Manager and Take Your Company to the Top - Dave Thielen - The best book on how Microsoft works.

        Gates: How Microsoft's Mogul Reinvented an Industry-And Made Himself the Richest Man in America - Stephen Manes, Paul Andrews - The most accurate history of Microsoft (the only one not based on repeating undocumented industry gossip)

        • Re:Some other books (Score:2, Interesting)

          by Kalani ( 66189 )
          The 12 Simple Secrets of Microsoft Management: How to Think and Act Like a Microsoft Manager and Take Your Company to the Top - Dave Thielen - The best book on how Microsoft works.

          Ha, that's my uncle's book. :)

          He's pretty proud of it I gather. If you're a regular slashdot reader, he's the father of the girl whose sociology Science Fair project was censored by Mesa Elementary in Boulder, CO.

          Personally, I really liked "Showstopper!" (about the making of WinNT)
          • "If you're a regular slashdot reader, he's the father of the girl whose sociology Science Fair project was censored by Mesa Elementary in Boulder, CO."

            What if you`re not a regular slashdot reader? Who`s father does be become then?

            :)
    • I'm surprised nobody's mentioned this yet, but a while back there was a Slashdot Review [slashdot.org] of a book called Proudly Serving My Corporate Masters by a fella named Adam Barr. He talks about his 10 or so years at MS and a small start-up that was bought by MS. If you look through the comments you can find a link to a page that has the entire contents of the book online.
  • It's allways good to get the inside scoop like this. Working in IT for a large corp. myself, I can tell you that looking in from the outside you don't allways get the full view. Speaking of life on the inside of MS go here http://www.ntk.net/ballmer/dancemonkeyboy.mpg It's balmer at his finest during a internal MS meeting/pep rally! (Yes I ripped the link from K5). Funny stuff!
  • Right now there are two Internets: The AOL one, with its own client, servers, content, email, messaging, authentication, billing, security, and all the rest; and the plain old Internet. Microsoft wants to create a third Internet, the .NET Internet, with all the stuff that the AOL Internet has. Then it will pursue a lock-in like the world has never seen before.

    Sums it up for me.

    I would not mind a three or four way break up of MS:

    Office and related; Windows/desktops; Browser/email/related clients; Backend Servers and database apps (includes .NET); Dev tools

    okay a five way breakup

    ;-)

    • I wouldn't ask for a break up if we could enforce a 'chinese wall' between their operations:

      • An operating system that includes minimal OS functionality and a CD of optional software (think SCO skunkware [sco.com]
      • Consumer applications, including Internet Explorer, Microsoft Office, etc.
      • Server applications, including IIS, Proxy, etc.

      Unfortunately, Microsoft would argue for years about what each constituted and would never do it They swore in the early 1990's that they didn't include undocumented functionality in Windows specifically for their Office products (but did -- See "Undocumented Windows").

      • A Chinese wall won't work. Not only does Microsoft just not want the competition from third parties, it is simply cheaper and faster to develop software assuming that you know everything about every other part of the system. And, besides, nobody has time to review anyway what assumptions one part of the code makes about another part of the code.

        The only solution I can think of would be to break them up and to force public source availability of many of their products.

        • >it is simply cheaper and faster to develop
          >software assuming that you know everything
          >about every other part of the system

          Come now, Microsoft holds internal competitions for it's modules, two sets of teams write a module, and the first to complete it, gets a bonus... And the Desktop team doesn't know anything about the Menu team's code... Therefore, microsoft has internally walled itself in...

  • Warning: Does not compute (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 05, 2001 @09:59AM (#2127852)
    Warning! Warning! Warning!

    The above does not fit my convenient ./ worldview. Therefore, I return this thread to regular slashdot blather:

    MS is Borg / MS is Borg / MS is Borg. Information must be free, so buy t-shirts and stuffed animals to support our site! I listen to ESR for dating advice! Micro$oft, Microshaft, Mickeysoft, Microcrap, Mickeyshank ..zzzz. Some idiot managed to install a Commodore 64 in his hat!


    • Bad things really do happen. Hitler and Stalin really did kill people.

      Microsoft really is abusive. Microsoft's abusiveness costs billions of dollars in lost time. For example, Microsoft releases software with poor security. Right now the Code Red II worm and the SirCam virus are causing huge amounts of damage. These both exploit Microsoft security weaknesses.

      My opinion: Microsoft is far more abusive than any one Slashdot reader knows. My support for that opinion: Often when people mention a Microsoft abuse that is particularly troublesome to them, they are different ones than have been mentioned before. This suggests that a complete list of abuses would be far larger than any one person imagines.

      Talking about Microsoft abuses is not Microsoft-bashing. Discussing the abuses is pro-Microsoft, not anti-Microsoft. The reason? The world is not efficient at responding to abuse by monopolies or dictatorships, but eventually the abuse is eliminated. For example, look what happened to IBM's PC business.

      When you discuss Microsoft's abuses, you make it more likely that Microsoft will learn not to be so self-destructive.

      You can think of Hitler in terms of the damage he did to the world. But the real story is that another person became self-destructive.

      Similarly, the real story of Microsoft is not the enormous aggravation and damage Microsoft causes the world, but the fact that a large organization has become very unhealthy, and is unable to stop destroying itself. The real intellectual challenge is to understand why.

      The failure of Slashdot is not that we criticize Microsoft too much. The failure is that we are not systematic enough and comprehensive enough in our criticism.

      The U.S. Department of Justice, for example, needs a comprehensive document that shows the enormity and totality of Microsoft abuses.

      I think we Slashdot readers could contribute something to the world by writing such a document. We could have a "List Microsoft Abuses" Slashdot story, and everyone could contribute what they know. I could list several that I have never read on Slashdot. Contributors could mention that they contributed their intellectual property rights to the cause. In a week, we could write a book. We could pay an editor to edit the book, and publish it. The proceeds could be donated to Slashdot.

      Understanding self-destruction is a subject that should be of interest to every Slashdot reader. If you don't understand it, how do you know it won't happen to you?

      Microsoft is not the only self-destructive company. In just one month, Adobe attacked both Dr. Kai-Uwe Sattler and PhD student Dmitry Sklyarov. Adobe went from a company respected for the quality of its software to a company known for the heavy-handedness of its management.

      After spending at least 2 billion dollars developing the OS/2 operating system, IBM killed it with poor marketing and poor technical management.

      Abusiveness is a global issue that affects us all. When you stand up against abuse, you help make a better world.

      We don't criticize Microsoft enough!
      • Microsoft really is abusive. Microsoft's abusiveness costs billions of dollars in lost time. For example, Microsoft releases software with poor security. Right now the Code Red II worm and the SirCam virus are causing huge amounts of damage. These both exploit Microsoft security weaknesses.

        This isn't a microsoft abuse. I can go down the street to bob's lawn care and get materials to create a car bomb. Does that mean that Scott's Turf Builder is responsible for my actions? Microsoft creates a product (outlook) that checks email. It checks email, and fairly well, and in a way that is easy to understand and simple to use.

        This is simple applied economics, supply and demand. There are more windows users out there than anything else, by alot. And the average windows user does not know as much about how their computer works as the average *nix user, again, by a lot. To bring the supply and demand into it, it is easier to write code for windows, there are far more windows boxen, and the users know less about the inner workings - therefore more time is spent by hackers/scriptkiddies learning exploits and writing viruses. If linux was the world's premier operating system, and my mother used KMail or Pine, i'm sure the k|dd|3z would be writing exploits for that.

        Now, i don't pretend to say that Microsoft makes a superior product. It is definately less secure. However, there's a world of difference between a windows user who may, sometime in the lifespan of his computer, go to www.windowsupdate.com and download patches, and Bruce Perens using apt-get update [slashdot.org] on a daily basis. You can't reasonably hold microsoft responsible for the upkeep and mantinence of literally millions of desktop computers in the united states alone. Nor can you fault them for releasing a product that is not "hack-proof", as, to my knowledge, no such product exists.

        To listen to CNN and some of the posts by the slashdot crowd, you would think that Microsoft created Windows solely for the purpose of propagating the Code Red Worm. Let's not forget the simple fact that somewhere, someone wrote that bug, and they wrote it for the platform that would allow it to do the most damage, and that platform is windows.

        Now, if you're gonna criticize microsoft, put your money where your mouth is, and write your own operating system, and get it on the desktop of 97% of the computer users in the united states, and have it impervious to viruses. Or be logical, and talk to people about linux. Educate them that there's something better out there, more secure, crashes less. Put debian on your mom's box, teach her Opera. Use the line i saw on someone's .sig here - "Frustrated? Don't throw your computers out the window, throw the windows out of your computer!"

        Less bitching, more solutions.

        ~z

        • I made an assumption about the reader when I blamed the Code Red worms and the SirCam virus on Microsoft.

          I assumed that the reader knew, or thought, that the security weaknesses in Microsoft products are more than just mistakes. They are the result of a widespread lack of caring about making a good product. The lack of caring is possible for a monopoly, but is, over the long term, self-destructive.

          People who are programmers, and understand the issues of program development, often say that the vulnerabilities of Microsoft products go beyond the normal software bugs. If you look at the patterns of bugs, there seems to be a sloppiness that true professionals don't allow.

          An instant way for a programmer to make a name for himself or herself would be to find a serious security bug in Open BSD. They have been bragging for four years that there haven't been any serious remote exploits. (http://www.openbsd.org/ "Four years without a remote hole in the default install!") There must be many, many people who would like to find such an exploit, because of the way it would look on a resume. But there hasn't been even one.

          During that time, there have been more than 300 serious security bugs in Microsoft products. At some point, it seems reasonable to say that the bugs are more than just the inevitable programmer mistakes, but are indicative of a failure in management that is giving Microsoft billions of dollars of bad publicity. That's self-destruction.
          • As much as I love OpenBSD (I myself am a 2.7 user), you've got to remember that it's a much smaller (in terms of lines of code) operating system than Windows NT or Win2K. Microsoft constantly wants to incorporate new "features" into Windows thus adding to the code bloat which inevitably makes it harder to get all of the bugs out. Also, as I believe another poster pointed out, MS programmers have PHB's to report to who may think that this doodad (ie ISAPI) is the next coming of Bob
            ; - ) and don't want to hear about or overrule any security-related concerns that the programmers have regarding this new "feature". In fact, if I was the programmer, I might leave a beauty bug like this in my code if my boss had pissed me off big-time and it made him look bad.

            Finally, the people in OS movements such as the BSD or Linux communities aren't under the same pressure to produce (not developers at Red Hat, SUSE etc, but the kernel developers and package maintainers) on a schedule. OpenBSD in particular has a zealous group of followers whom I believe almost to a person would agree that they'd rather have the code late but tight than sooner and buggy (this accurately reflects my feelings).

            MS OTOH is doing it's best to compete with the various commercial *NIXes and trying to prove that it belongs in the datacenter with respect to robustness and scalability. They are hoping that if they have additional features and greater ease-of-use that they can point out to the middle management that makes the purchasing and strategic direction decisions, they may displace the use of a *NIX or *NIX-like OS. And the sad fact is that in most any middle to large sized company security is very low on the list of priorities (usually until it's too late and they've had a serious compromise), so these vulnerabilities don't mean as much to them. They pay people such as myself (lowly sysadmins) to clean up the f'ing mess.

            So in short, your definition of a good product is secure and as bug-free as possible but still functional, while MS' is one that has tons of new features which they hope will further increase their market share - bugs and security be damned. My apologies to individual employees within MS many of whom probably are very concerned with bugs/security but the corporation as a whole doesn't seem to care much based on it's track record.
          • I see your point of view, and let me clarify a few things:

            I do not think it is ethical that microsoft is allowed, as a corporation to release insecure software over and over. I mean, you'd think that once they figured out that it was insecure, they'd fix it next go-round, right? Yeah, well....
            What i was trying to bring to people's minds for a second is that this might not be the fault of the programmers, but of the administration. For example: When's the next major dot release of the linux kernel comming out? No one knows for sure, cause technically no one's up against a deadline, as a generalized statement about open source. When no one is paying you to write code, you get it done when you get it done, and done right. When someone is paying your paycheck and matching your 401k, you get it done when they want it done, tested or not. I mean, it may have a hole, but you gotta feed your kids, right?

            All that to say hold Microsoft as a corporation liable for the holes, as a business practice, not the programmers as lazy. To bring it full circle, I believe that many of the problems with Microsoft deal with the issues in the book that started this thread - internal competition, etc.

            The other thing i meant, with the last paragraph of my post, was that I like to focus on the posative side of things. Don't tell people why microsoft sucks, tell them what makes *NIX better. People relations is the way to change people's minds. Granted, linux is becomming more user friendly, but its still not idiot friendly. We need more "linux is rad" and less "microsoft sucks". Saying M$ sucks (besides being reduntant) leaves the person you're talking to with no alternative. I work in a compuer sales field, and as such, come into contact with lots of people who complain about windows. I help them as i can, but sometimes, if i think the user is "ready", i reccomend Linux to them ("well if you're gonna be buying a new one, why not put linux on the old one. Its only $20.") When you explain to people that there is a thriving linux community willing to help them for free, in addition to countless newsgroups and message boards and no end of documentation on how to do ... well anything, it usually shocks them. Most people aren't use to getting free help for windows.

            Well, i don't know if i accomplished anything w/ this post, but there it is. I've had about two too many nyquill, i'm gonna go read a book and stuff.

            ~Z
        • somewhere, someone wrote that bug, and they wrote it for the platform that would allow it to do the most damage, and that platform is windows.

          Exactly! But the reason Windows allows it to do most damage is because Windows is full of security holes because of Microsoft's insistence on reinventing everything, badly.

          The "path traversal" bug in IIS was one of the most egregious flaws ever: a URL like /scripts/../../winnt/system32/cmd.exe allowed crackers to execute arbitrary commands on a web server. This is basic, web server design 101 - don't allow access outside the published directory tree.

          And most other Microsoft "security holes" aren't much better. It's plain incompetence, the result of throwing a million programming monkeys at the task of reinventing the software that drives the Internet, and shipping it regardless of quality.

          Less bitching, more solutions.

          Want solutions? Switch your servers to Linux, or Solaris, or anything but Windows. An entire class of Internet-wide worms and viruses will disappear.

        • The list of abuses of the consumer, their competitors, and their partners is a long one. The fact that MS makes insecure operating systems and applications is just one very minor abuse in a haystack full of criminal and unethical behaviours.

          "Now, if you're gonna criticize microsoft, put your money where your mouth is, and write your own operating system"

          This is where you are way off base. The proper response to criminality is not to make yourself a better person. The proper response is to hold that criminal responsible for their actions and the remove them from society so that they can not harm others. MS is a criminal organization. They have been tried and found guilty and that guilt has been upheld in the appalate courts. Not only that but several executives who have committed crimes (evidence tampering, witness intimidation, perjury) etc who need to be charged and tried and if found guilty spend some jail time.

          Yes we should educate, yes we should write better software but that should not be in response to crimes committed by Bill gates and his cohorts.
        • This isn't a microsoft abuse. I can go down the street to bob's lawn care and get materials to create a car bomb. Does that mean that Scott's Turf Builder is responsible for my actions? Microsoft creates a product (outlook) that checks email. It checks email, and fairly well, and in a way that is easy to understand and simple to use.

          I think Microsoft is directly responsible for these problems: they are using development tools that causes their software to be susceptible to buffer overruns and they put features into their products that make them easy to attack. It's like shipping cars without safety belts and blaming drivers when they get killed in accidents, or building homes without front doors and wondering why the burglars wander in.

          If linux was the world's premier operating system, and my mother used KMail or Pine, i'm sure the k|dd|3z would be writing exploits for that.

          Who said that Linux was necessarily better? Linux shares many of the problems that Windows has, in part because the more modern components of Linux have been copied from Windows. By setting the bar so low and pushing outdated technologies into the educational system, Microsoft sets the tone for the whole industry and damages the quality of both commercial and free software.

          Still, I suspect that crackers would find it a lot harder to create a "Code Red" worm for KMail or Pine.

          Now, if you're gonna criticize microsoft, put your money where your mouth is, and write your own operating system, and get it on the desktop of 97% of the computer users in the united states, and have it impervious to viruses. Or be logical, and talk to people about linux.

          The value of Windows isn't in the code. The value of Windows is in the community built around it: the software vendors, services, hardware vendors, and users. Microsoft only got that because they got the original IBM PC deal. Even much better and much easier to use technology wasn't enough to displace them from that lead. To Microsoft's credit, they didn't fumble. But Microsoft has an enormous head start, and displacing them even with a much superior product and massive investment is still an uphill battle. Though, it will happen...

    • Astroturfers and propagandists in pay (Score:1, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Damn. There's not a minute of the day someone isn't in these forums posting tripe like this. Insulting the editors of this forum, posting pro-Microsoft propaganda to counter the stories, or simply disrupting the forum with links and/or ascii "art" of offensive material. One would think this is an organized and funded effort to destroy this forum. What I find so striking is the trail of suspect moderation that happens almost instantly after stories get posted. Usually the moderation is evened out after the story grows old, but not before the majority of comments are posted. So forum readers and writers get a skewed look at what the community finds interesting while the story is hot, and only those interested enough to look into a story a day later learn how the forum community might have reacted without these dirty tricks. These are the same games the CIA plays in foreign countries when they want to skew an "election," though I'm not suggesting this is CIA work (it's clearly a corporate game).

      It really is time for Rob to implement consorship ala K5 here on /., so us old timers and computer professionals can get our damn forum back.
  • I stayed up until 4am one morning finishing the book. Whatever you think of the author's conclusion's (I for the most part agree), it's a good read, and a story worth knowing if you're reading this on a computer screen. You are, aren't you?
  • Proudly Serving My Corporate Masters [proudlyserving.com] is Barr's account of his own ten years at Microsoft. The company's internal culture is much more complicated than the typical portrayal of Gates and his devoted minions. At the same time, the whole Allchin/Silberberg split on Windows vs Internet strategy portrayed in Breaking Windows is definitely the key to understanding why the company makes the decisions it does.

    Paul Boutin | professional journalist [paulboutin.com], amateur search engine optimization [hotwired.com] consultant

  • "He believes that Microsoft asking AOL to open its Instant Messaging protocol is a harbinger of this golden future, and that Microsoft's Shared Source program shows it is moving towards open source."

    The fact that I'm having trouble logging into my MSN Messenger account through Everybuddy but doing fine with my AIM account makes this seem awfully sinister...

  • History is often written by the winners, but in some ways the middle of this book is history written by the losers.


    I work in PR (don't throw stones, it's higher education) and I can't help but come to the early conclusion that this book offers an extremely jaded view of what happens at Microsoft. Sure, I bet some of the horror stories are true enough -- people are territorial by nature and it helps to wonder how it would feel if that was your projects/ideas/etc. being scrutinized/killed/etc. But this is the real world folks -- let's not forget that we could all be worrying about other things: food, shelter, mating, etc. Even education and non-profits are run like for-profit megacorps -- organizations can not exist if they fail to balance the books and stay on track (hence the spawn of many nearly worthless mission statements ;-).

    So, how am I on target here? Here's how: everyone is always debating how money can be made on Linux. What's the difference between some of the Linux business-related horror stories I've read about on /. and the horror stories in this book? Work with me here -- I'm not trolling, I work in higher education PR and normally ask the "So ... why is this news worthy?" kind of questions, and I'm starting a thread on an otherwise dead page. Is there anything that the Linux community can learn from this book (things to avoid, things to do religiously, situations and incidents that offer a specific insight, reasons why middle management should or should not exist in a Linux-based company, how/why the democratic nature of Linux can or can not prevail over these situations/incidents, etc.)?

    In other news, I'd wet my britches if I could pimp Linux to the popular media. Enquiring minds want to know!

    • Beause the D in FUD is <d>isinformation,
      Understanding is the key, not blaming.
    • You are right, there is no difference in linux horror stories or microsoft horror stories. In the company I work for, we have two 'departments' one specialised in MS technology and one (I'm in this one) specialised in Java/Solaris/Orcale/Linux/etc. technology. Perhaps we got carried away with our passions one day as we started quareling our personal passions, which was just bad for the good workfloor atmosphere. We worked things out, sometimes somebody places a joke, but we work together, we are a team.

      In my proffesional life, I therefore choose to be platform neutral and pragmatic: the right tool for the right job. In my private life I have an absolute preference for Linux.

      I must admit that the review states some interesting business strategies, in which I believe it can be a commercial success. RedHat adopts some of these strategies - ie limited suppliance of software in their product. Anyhow, as Microsoft has internal strubbles, I still think it is interesting to read about them. Microsoft really does influence every day life for many people, so it's nice to know that there are vulnerable people working for that company.

      I think your criticism is a little unjust, as we're not discussing Linux versus Microsoft here, I gues it is temptation.

    • Re:Um, what the reviewer said .... (Score:4, Informative)

      by greenrd ( 47933 ) on Sunday August 05, 2001 @11:25AM (#2139707) Homepage
      Even education and non-profits are run like for-profit megacorps -- organizations can not exist if they fail to balance the books and stay on track (hence the spawn of many nearly worthless mission statements ;-).

      There's a big difference between failing to exist, and failing to expand. Megacorps have to expand so they can meet their shareholders demands for more profits. For nonprofits, expansion can allow them to do more good work in some cases, but it's not always pursued, and it doesn't have to be.

    • If Bill Gates tells some people at Microsoft, "No you can't pursue that project," then they are basically done with it. They won't get the resources to work on it, they won't be able to check in changes, they might not even get access to the source code they need. Sometimes skunkworks projects are shielded by sympathetic VPs but it is rare.

      Meanwhile if some Linux people want to do something unusual, they are free to do it, then present it to the rest of the community when they see fit. No need to justify it ahead of time or battle out with other projects needing resources. Of course their work may still be rejected but they can get a much better shot. In a sense this can lead to more work "waste" but also more avenues are explored.

      - adam

  • Great Review (Score:1, Flamebait)

    by gargle ( 97883 )
    Wonderful review, but can Timothy please spare us the irrelevant bullshit the next time around?

  • It's all about perception of invincibility (Score:5, Insightful)

    by alewando ( 854 ) on Sunday August 05, 2001 @10:11AM (#2152126)
    We all know that Microsoft is king of marketing, but even more important than marketing your product to consumers is marketing your image (an image of invincibility) to your competitors.

    To pick an inappropriate example, look at the former Soviet Union. They suffered numerous political, economic, and technological setbacks, but how many did we hear about in the west? In 1960, no one in the US knew that almost a hundred people died on the pad of a failed R-16 ICBM launch (the Nedelin Disaster [russianspaceweb.com]). Half the arms buildup during the 1980s stemmed from a misconception about Russia's actual military capability. Frankly, they did a great job of marketing their image towards us.

    If Microsoft appears suitably invincible, then all sorts of things just fall into their laps instead of requiring effort on their part to obtain. Competitors are more likely to get out of their way when a vaporware product is announced. Even lawenforcement is likely to give a good hard second look before diving headfirst into a prolonged legal battle. There is no downside.

    Does it surprise me that any of this internal strife has occurred? Hardly. Does it surprise me that it's rarely come toight. Again, hardly. That's just the way these things go.
    • Half the arms buildup during the 1980s stemmed from a misconception about Russia's actual military capability. Frankly, they did a great job of marketing their image towards us.

      I sincerely hope Microsoft's "marketing" strategies are a little less extreme than those of Soviet Russia. What Russia was doing was not marketing, but pure propaganda and draconian information control. A lot of people died, many more were constantly brainwashed and basically everyone was subject to censorship in order for the USSR to maintain their precious image. Even the very few ones who somehow managed to escape and take refuge in Western Europe didn't really escape the long hand of Kremlin... Hey, now that I think about it, this *does* sound like something Microsoft would do. :-)
      • What Russia was doing was not marketing, but pure propaganda and draconian information control.

        Actually, that's a pretty good description of "marketing." Have you yet known a marketing person who didn't produce propaganda and engage in "information control" -- i.e., getting their story out ahead of all others; spin, spin, spin?
    • It's not *exactly* analogous, but your description reminded me of the odd nature of spitball pitchers in baseball. Once a pitcher has a reputation for throwing them, he doesn't have to throw them; the belief that he is throwing them is enough to make batters miss.

    • It wasn't Russian marketing, it was US Paranoia (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      The Soviets didn't have to engage in any sort of marketing effort. Every report on Soviet military strength that came out (ever since 1946) vastly overstated Soviet abilities, capabilities, and mythologized things. Kennedy's famed missile gap never existed, and never could have existed.

      The GAO (General Accounting Office) has time and again criticized the practices used in estimated Soviet military strength.

      The Soviets didn't market shit to the West. It was all the same paranoid, ultra-right-wing "we need space based weapons" ilk that were part of the Reagan cabinet, and are now part of the Mini-Bush cabinet. The very countries space-based weapons are supposed to work against are incapable of getting a missile to fly within 4,000 miles range of the U.S.

      However, if you wanted to hide a nuke inside a shipment of a coupla of tons of cocaine, you could get it across the U.S. border in a few minutes, and then pay some trucker a coupla hundred cash to deliver that "shipment" anywhere. Far cheaper than a space program. No defense against it.
    • "Microsoft is king of marketing, "

      I really don't understand what this comes from, I have seen many post on slashdot suggesting this.

      Can it be more untrue? Show me another company as big as microsoft with so little advertising (and quite cheap ones to).

      Compare this to a company like coca cola, huge advertising campaigns, really expensive ones to.
      • Not sure about that. Here (Ireland, Europe), Microsoft has ads plastered everywhere, sunday papers, t.v., all sorts of crap. There's a laughable one where they prate on about w2k's superior reliability.... when compared to previous MS products. In effect, "our previous product was shite, so you should buy our new one, which we say isn't shite, (just like we said our last one wasn't shite back when we released it.)".
        Fortunately, at least some people over here are sensible enough not to fall for that crap. Plenty do, though, enough to keep MS in business, obviously.

        They also do a lot of product placement - making sure the windows logo is displayed in the background of a t.v. broadcast about computers, etc.

        Then again, they may be fighting harder in europe because they're less secure here - the european governments that matter (france, germany) want to get reduce E.U. dependency on american tech.

  • When comes right down to it, the reason I left Microsoft was because of rise of Jim Allchin. Now I generally don't agree with the "evil MS" view of the world I do all attribute all the evils at MS to Allchin. This guy is the epitome of the Evil Corporate Executive bent on World Domination. His methods are unethical, his goals nefarious. Bill Gates, at heart, wants to do good. Brad Silverberg and Ben Slivka were the souls of MS, warts and all. Now all MS has at its core are..well...Evil People.
  • Some of the Allchin insights where he's chastising the MS geeks "money doesn't grow on trees yadayadayada" is the very heart of the difference between corporate and open software. The open software allows much more freedom of exploration. Something that's cool and good will first pick up a small cult following, then get bigger based solely on its merits. Look at Python. I don't really know if using Python alone will revolutionize computing, but not having to worry about profit, instead technology, has given a great language solid legs. Profit is a harsh, blind master. Somebody has to lay down the cash in exchange for something that will in turn do them right on their own profit hunt. But the greater reality is different. I download/investigate a lot of stuff that looks cool, eventually I sort through it and get going in maybe one or two directions. For example, right now I'm looking at Lisp and Python and wondering if doing functional programming in Python offers any advantages. What got me on this path was a /. link to Paul Graham and a series of articles at IBM by David Mertz. This is a much more natural way to handle the evolution of computing and IT. No stampedes, no hype, no sweat. The open source world will progress in a far more natural way, while the corporate world will lurch from one lock-in/safe-bet monopoly technology-for-dummies to the next. The more I hear about super-big IT firms, the more obvious it is that their precarious "skunkworks" nooks and crannies are pale shadows of the greater open source world. Why worry about secretive, proprietary nervous skunkworks-ware just days from the accountants' axes? Microsoft and their ilk will always be a murky world for good technology to ever thrive in. Open source will triumph because their proponents are free people.
    • Some of the Allchin insights where he's chastising the MS geeks "money doesn't grow on trees yadayadayada" is the very heart of the difference between corporate and open software. The open software allows much more freedom of exploration. Something that's cool and good will first pick up a small cult following, then get bigger based solely on its merits.

      The problem, though, is that commercial software (like Windows) will always have the option of using open source software to further itself. However, open source software (like Linux) can't compel developers to port commercial apps (like MS Office).

      If MS ever gets to a place where they feel that Linux is encroaching on them, what will they do? Simple, hire a team of programmers to start porting Linux apps over to W2K. Or, do a clean room conversion to a proprietary Windows app, but instead of reverse engineering, they'll have the full, documented source code available. Embrace and extend, with Windows-only features.

      The way I see it, by the time Linux has the tools, the apps, and the widespread adoption of MS in 2001, it will be 2011 and MS will have moved on to the next big money maker. When it comes to mass-market adoption, the open source movement is horribly slow.

      • I think IBM's commercial work with open source is a more accurate barometer. They act as a rich uncle to Linux and many open source projects. They share a garden with the independent open source community. Sure, open source can be slow; the proprietary commercial outfits can throw lots of bodies and money in some direction and get (good?) results faster than open source. But commercial outfits can also augment open source, and indeed they do. But is slow bad? Jerry Mander (something of a Luddite) believes technology should have a much longer ramp-up time. Look at Linux. It coatailed on Unix and suffers far less security and stability-wise. It's simply more mature. The real problems I see are outright theft and open source license violations, as well as non-productive version forking. On the first problem, if MS ever truly stoled, say, GPL code and didn't follow its license, all hell would break loose. This first anti-trust lawsuit didn't arouse great open source passions because it was too weird and vague: browser wars, huh? But if MS started stealing, that's a different story. The second problem is actually more serious because it really has no solution. Recently RH decided to jump in with a Postgres version, and promises not to fork the codebase. But they very easily could have, and, thus, cause chaos among Postgresers. Just look at the latest MySQL flare-up. But IMHO this is exactly the future of our entire economy! I look forward to the day when outsiders with better methods can "corporate raid" anybody's enterprise. If auto production was "open source" somebody could put together a more efficient car and demand the reigns of production. Of course this doesn't work today outside of computers because the means of production with computers are cheap and ubiquitous while auto production costs billions of dollars. Still, the basic open source model of anyone being able to make a better product and then either shift the product's existing direction or morph a new version is a fabulous step in the direction of pure supply and demand. Today's so-called free market only approximates pure supply and demand--far better than communism, but still greatly lacking. The proof is MS itself: today's free market with its emphasis on property rights allows impregnable fiefdoms to be set up, and monopolies and lock-in are inevitable. To some extent they're plugged into supply and demand, but its far slower and clankier than pure supply and demand. W. Brian Arthur (http://www.santafe.edu/arthur/) rocked the classical economics world when he suggested that monopolies and lock-in to less-than-best goods and services is far more prevalent than we want to admit. I think the open source model will triumph by purifying supply and demand. So, to me, open source may have a socialistic tinge to it, but if it improves supply and demand, it trumps today's medieval free market.
      • Agreed, mass-market adoption is slow with open source and marketing in and of itself in Osource is is relegated to niche markets. However, step in the powers that be (the ones with lawyers, guns and money - aka taxpayer money) that slap down new rules to the game and the landscape changes. If the U.S. District courts have any insight to the world of computing (and there's no garuantee that this is the case) then forcing MS to open up its code in the form of standards (that's market share/MS standards) and API's and then many short=comings associated with OSource are likely to be bridged. On the other hand, there's still the problem of visibilty. Not many commoners now about OSource like Linux and this brings us back to marketing. This is part two of MS' strength - Marketing. The other part of MS' strength is Propriety. Take that away propriety and MS is weakened. The question remains - will we ever see a Linux add in prime time media (aka a television commercial). As far as MS porting apps from OSource over, this may be the case someday. However, giving the rate of development in OSource, by the time MS gets these programs to market they will most likely be out of date. Development in OSource can, and often does, move at a considerable pace in comparision to that of large corporate envirionments. How long did it take to get the next version of NT to market after the marketing department released it press statements about the next version - way back when?
    • > Why worry about secretive, proprietary nervous skunkworks-ware just days from the accountants' axes?

      Well said!

      Let's face it, Open source is simply better because security is handled by the users, bugs are fixed because the people creating it use it daily, and it's a labor of love...

Slashdot Top Deals

"Why should we subsidize intellectual curiosity?" -Ronald Reagan

Close