Slashdot Mirror
Windows Marketing Executive Doug Miller
Doug Miller is Director of Competitive Strategy in Microsoft's Windows
Server Marketing Group. Doug is responsible for a team within Microsoft
focused on competitive strategy and enterprise interoperability
products. He's been spotted at Linux shows. He uses vi. He was a Unix guy for many years. His previous company, Softway Systems, was acquired by Microsoft in 1999. What are you going to ask him today? Up to you, but one question per post, please. We'll send Doug 10 of the highest-moderated questions and post his answers next week.
Is Microsoft planning on having their own Linux distribution ?
Jim Allchin.
said something to the effect that copylefting software (GNU, open-source, GPL, Free Software, you know the deal) is harmful.
He said:
In later clarifications, he claimed that he really only meant the GPL, and really only in the context of tax-supported, government-developed software. In other words, tax-paying American companies should be allowed to release proprietary versions of any software developed with tax money.
That issue has been flogged thoroughly elsewhere.
As a parting off-topic shot: Microsoft pays no taxes, so Allchin's claim that tax-paying companies should be allowed to co-op taxpayer-funded code doesn't apply to Microsoft anyway. Put that in your tax-loophole pipe and smoke it.
--Patrick
When will Microsoft ditch it's spamlist, and convert to full verfied opt-in, while sending out "We nuked this spammer on our network" for your MSN dialup services? Taking these steps will go a long way towards making Microsoft's reputation belivable.
--
WolfSkunks for a better Linux Kernel
$Stalag99{"URL"}="http://stalag99.keenspace.com";
--
# Canmephians for a better Linux Kernel
$Stalag99{"URL"}="http://stalag99.net";
1) It's "Kerberos."
2) The Kerberos support is standards-compliant. The protocol specifies a vendor-specific field, and Microsoft puts all vendor-specific information in that field, as the standard specifies. Information about their use of that field and interoperability concerns is available on their website.
3) IE is very W3C compliant. Not 100%, but for a long time it was the most compliant browser in common use. It's been much better than Netscape 4.x for a long time, and Netscape is only recently catching up with the newer builds of Mozilla (and Opera is pretty good these days too).
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Considering the misinformation coming from *both* sides of the Linux/MS-Windows debate (the general "Windows Sux" vs "open source is UnAmerican"), how can the two operating systems co-exist?
Do you ever see a time when Linux and MS-Windows will be judged on merit, rather than hype and propoganda? Or is does Microsoft consider this a true "war," with a winner and a loser?
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
The general category for such software is "malware".
--
Xenu loves you!
Okay, fess up--a lot of the recent news we've been hearing out of Microsoft is carefully designed to sway public opinion, isn't it? It seems a bit odd that you, charged with competitive strategies, would make such a bold statement as "Linux is going down," then not long afterward another of your co-workers decided to go on a crusade against government projects using the GNU Public License. If that was the intent, the Slashdot-reading public performed admirably. Among non-Linux users, I've noted a definite negative attitude toward Linux and Linux users recently.
Also, would you care to comment on such issues as astroturfing?
Stating on Slashdot that I like cheese since 1997.
I think this would be an interesting question to round off the interview:
In recent months, we've heard a number of Microsoft executives giving off mixed signals about various issues: for example, you guys can't seem to agree whether Linux is a threat or not. Some might say that this shows that MS is not as paranoid about its press relations as is, say, Apple, but personally I get the impression that the views expressed may have been tailored towards their respective audiences.
With this in mind, can I ask:
This question baits Microsoft with a presupposition that isn't even true. Take a look at the survey itself, and you'll see that while Apache numbers continue to outgrow MS numbers, MS actually holds a dominant position on SSL sites within the US. Now, given that a good percentage of the total web traffic is concentrated in the US and that most companies worth a damn have SSL sites, and you'll see that MS isn't hurting as bad as just a simple look at the first graph might tell you.
The thing none of those graphs show you is a relationship between hit rates and server usage. I'd be willing to bet that a good 60% (probably more) of those Apache servers are just people like me who run Apache at home for a small personal web server. I work for a managed hosting company, and more people request IIS than do Apache, although we generally use Apache more because we feel it's better (that's part of sales, though).
IIS is not struggling. It's gaining ground and acceptance in the corporate world, and when you pit a Wintel enterprise-class web solution against a Unix-based enterprise-class web solution (note I said "enterprise-class" which I don't feel Linux can really handle yet), they're actually rather competitive.
I'd rather see non-BS questions coming from the Slashdot community rather than questions that twist and manipulate facts to put the interviewee in a bad position before he even answers.
Bah, wish I could mod this up. CowbertPrime is right.
"It is still an interesting question as to why they originally released it "
It's really only an interesting question if you have a corncob shoved up your rear end.
Honestly, I can't think of any reason why one would continually berate a company for something they did a year ago that was subsequently fixed.
What kind of Microsoft shill are you?
Seriously, this is the first time I've ever seen someone at slashdot actually verify something before posting it.
Way to go!
You're confusing C# with .Net.
.Net than just the common language runtime engine.
There's a lot more to
A good chunk of the core is the interoperability present with web services. Which has nothing at all to do with Java.
As far as I've seen, Sun only recently discovered this was a great idea and jumped on board. That was shortly after Microsoft, IBM and the others announced the idea.
Giving Java credit for something Java didn't do seems odd.
Ok, now that's not true...
From everything I've heard, Microsoft is dead serious about adhering to standards. Honestly, they've already done a very good job at adhering to standards over the past several years.
:)
As far as who is first... Keep in mind that everything new is old.
Most of what Sun created was done elsewhere by others. Even the web is just a new shell over the old mainframe terminal methods... ok, so it's got pretty pictures instead of just text.
Yeah right, remote objects over RMI versus remote objects over DCOM. Entirely dissimilar.
Now SOAP on the other hand is a completely different paradigm, which you obviously know little about.
No here we have a situation of a lot of people with corncobs stuck up their rear ends.
Microsoft didn't modify the standard, they followed it exactly to the letter. The fact that the Kerberos authors now say "oops, I guess we hadn't thought anybody would use that field" says nothing about standards compliance.
The Kerberos implemention of Microsoft's does interoperate with Unix implementations.
I know, because I have Unix machines in my home lab authenticating to a Win2k domain controller, the whole 'single signon' realized.
As far as Microsoft declaring war, keep in mind that the swarm of corncob laden assholes declared war on Microsoft first in full force by spreading lies about Microsoft standards compliance and interoperability. So I don't know how you could possibly take the moral high road on that one.
And like I said before, the only people who remotely cared about how Microsoft responded were those same corncob challenged individuals.
Yes, SOAP is an extension of XML-RPC.
As far as your other babble... Interesting, but entirely wrong.
Well of course 'Web Services' can be tacked onto Java. That's sort of the whole point.
Sigh, you obviously don't understand the platform independence aspect of SOAP.
Java with RMI isn't platform independent, it's just a whole new platform.
Whatever.
I'm certainly familiar with The Open Group. I used to admin a number of OSF/1 boxes back in the early 90's.
I did a quick search looking for such a discussion, but couldn't find it. I assume this must have been used at sometime within DCE or something? Interesting.
Ahh, found an article that mentions it.
3 -1 999.html?nf
http://www.nwfusion.com/archive/1999/75257_09-1
Yep, the field is also used in DCE, exactly like Microsoft uses it. And exactly like Microsoft, the information on how the field was used has been open and published.
So it does seem that the corncob regiment is a bit questionable in their outrage.
Well, considering your posting record, I'd have to say the only person brainwashed is yourself.
:(
You appear to have at tendency to go off on topics you know little about towing the Linux anti-Microsoft line. This just happened to be another such case.
Malcontent says "We are BORG! Resistance is FUTILE!"
Why doesn't Microsoft port over SQL Server to Linux?
Why is MSFT support SAP (Secure Audio Path)?
What benefit does this tech provide the consumer?
Microsoft representatives are often talking about innovation and it is well known in the developer communities that Microsoft often seeks to "embrace and extend" certain technologies. Examples include Kerberos and Java (although I'm sure there are others.)
Many readers/posters on Slashdot like to joke about this philosophy calling it instead "embrace and extinguish" because it seems that Microsoft, in their "extending" a particular technology, also make it incompatible with the originating technology. This "extending", coupled with Microsofts huge (some would say monopolistic) presence in the marketplace, places the original technology in jeopardy.
In another interoperability area, the SAMBA software suite has encountered more than a bit of difficulty in making it easier for Unix and Unix-like OS's to interoperate with Windows.
My question:
Since your focus at Microsoft seems to be the interoperability of your products with others, could you explain Microsoft's reluctance to "play fair" and adhere to existing standards?
Co-founder and designer at Music Nearby: http://musicnearby.com
Moderators, please do not let this question through.
Aside from the obvious linguistic snafu (the word "candor" is not fitting here, "inviting manner" is not really applicable when you answer), there are some PR/political concerns here.
A cheap point for Doug Miller is "we don't consider ourselves enemies of the devoted good folks in the open source community". In fact, he would then strenghten an earlier PR stunt by Microsoft labelling the Linus & Co "Robin Hood and his diciples of the Sherwood Forest". Not to mention that even thinking of "enemies" here is extremely childish.
Second, using loaded descriptions like "struggling marketshare" about IIS requires some backup - backup that does not exist. IIS is not struggling by any accounts. Despite its many security flaws, it has a solid foothold in a space that's fairly new to Microsoft. No doubt he would refer to Microsoft's many other products with a similar beginning - Microsoft Money, Microsoft Office, Microsoft Internet Explorer, even Microsoft Windows had low market shares during the first couple of releases.
Folks, please let us give questions in a neutral tone.
In the face of competition from open source operating systems like Linux and *BSD, Apple chose to reuse and enhance existing OSS software. With hardware prices spiralling down to sub-basement levels, shouldn't Microsoft consider scrapping win32 and adopt one of the freely available operating systems? Won't the economics of the Operating System market force Microsoft to search for cheaper ways to deliver its software services?
Good question.
You haven't seen the vi lovers home page have you?
Current copyright law has certain interesting provisions. For instance there are statutory exceptions that permit users who have legally obtained software to install and run it, and to back it up, without the necessity of agreeing to a license.
Fair Use provisions both encoded in law by Congress and recognized by the Courts prior to and regardless of Congress' opinion on the matter permit users to buy, sell and trade software as desired, as well as discuss and review it.
Yet programmers are still entitled to copyrights on their software - the copyrights simply don't expand into those areas, not at all.
With this in mind, how do you justify MS's draconian EULAs for single-user software? The laws discussed above negate any need for them to protect either party, after all. Additionally, how do you justify the upcoming licensing scheme that will tie installations closely to hardware, again given that MS would be just as protected under the law if it had no licensing at all. Why is it desirable? If you don't think it's desirable, what specifically are you doing within MS to get rid of these practices?
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
- imaginary beings
- uninterested in journalistic integrity
- doomed to repeat history (see also "Mozilla doesn't support XML", revisionist history*)
- all of the above
*: ZD, instead of publishing a retraction, performed an Orwellian edit to the column, changing "XML" to the unqualified statement "key web technologies". They also removed all but one TalkBack post pointing out the error, although, to be fair, most of it was hair-trigger flameage.We're not scare-mongering/This is really happening - Radiohead
This sig intentionally left blank.
Think about it for a second... would Ford Motor Co. going out of business harm the U.S. economy? Probably. Are they a monopoly? No.
Your question doesn't really make sense.
What's that like, going from Unix to Windows? I mean, used to drive a Porche, but now I have a Razor scooter, so I can sympathize.
-Waldo
How will Microsoft guarantee the privacy and security of documents that are no longer created and stored locally on the client?
I'll put is straight on the line:
Can you ever see Microsoft applications like Office, Visio, and Project being ported to Linux, and why or why not?
FM
Frank W. Miller
With the recent release of MacOS X what are your reactions to it and what plans do you have to compete with a truly user-friendly desktop OS combined with the stability of a UNIX backend?
--neutrino
History has the relation to truth that theology has to religion-i.e. none to speak of. - Lazarus Long
If MicroSoft has a whole team devoted to interoperability, why was I only able to achieve any level of interoperability through Samba?
-- Don't Tase me, bro!
True, it is *now* freely available. It is still an interesting question as to why they originally released it with the silly click-through license and then sent a C&D to /. to get it yanked.
It is not a surprise that, after it was widely published and the click-through license was easily averted that they decided to go ahead and publish it after all. If only others (RIAA) were as clueful to give up when the genie (DeCSS) got out of the bottle.
-- Don't Tase me, bro!
How often do you post on slashdot, and do you identify yourself as an MS employee when you do?
-- Don't Tase me, bro!
D'oh. The RIAA's task is to realize that the MP3 genie is out of the bottle.
-- Don't Tase me, bro!
It's not like this is the first time MS ever took a standard and modified it with the hopes of killing the competition. That's what makes the question interesting. Here we have a case where MS went out of it's way to take a standard and keep others from working with it (while under investigation for anti-trust violations, no less). As an answer to the criticism, they released a document that virtually declared war on anyone that tried to *use* it. After it was widely distributed and unable to stop, they threatened legal action against those that published it. After realizing that they couldn't stop it, they quietly gave up supressing it.
-- Don't Tase me, bro!
The PC* standards are primarily driven by Microsoft.
Of course they've been widely ignored before (for example, making parallel/serial "optional" before USB support shipped for NT). But they do serve to provide cover for OEMs to do certain things, such as get rid of ISA slots.
--
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
If you are looking for a history lesson, I think he was sort of dancing around the point about the 286. Turns out this was a braindamaged processor, but was insanely popular in the PC AT (1984) and IBM and their subcontractor Microsoft committed to shipping a next gen OS for it. This move politically kiboshed Microsoft's original plan which was to replace DOS with UNIX/XENIX.
This OS was OS/2 1.0, which shipped in 1987 as a 16-bit 286-specific OS to an enormous amount of hype, but unfortunately was already obsolete because i386 machines were already on the market from Compaq and others. It also put the dampers on IBM's big PS/2 Microchannel rollout, because IBM wouldn't ship a i386 CPU, and this led to the impression that the market leader was falling behind and sigificantly tarnished the sell of MCA as an advanced solution.
Anyway, the dumping of XENIX for OS/2, and the later (1990) IBM-Microsoft divorce (primarly over OS/2 development and marketing issues) set back the state of PC operating systems by a number of years. Meanwhile, Windows 3, which was always supposed to be a half-assed stopgap solution, got popular, and still to this day most PCs ship a direct decendant (WinME).
--
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
How does the ninth post, and the first that wasn't a troll, rudundant?
You say you want a revolution....
We keep hearing rumours that Microsoft will eventually be coming out with this or that for Linux, but on the flip side, Microsoft PR has some very negative things to say about Linux. What I am wondering, is there any truth to the rumours, and given the recent announcement that Microsoft will be developing a product with Transmeta, will we be seeing Microsoft put a kinder face towards Linux?
You say you want a revolution....
Now that Digital, the Alliance, and OpenVMS are all historical footnotes, is there a similar (successor) plan -- using, for instance, Compaq's "big iron" (the wildfire boxes in particular) and Tru64 Unix in place of OpenVMS?
MOO;IANAL.
MOO;IANAL.
There used to be a picture linked here.
Microsoft was reported over a year ago to be one of only a very few companies publically supporting UCITA. How could this support be justified?
Caution: Now approaching the (technological) singularity.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
When deciding how to "compete against Linux", how does Microsoft's marketing strategy take this into account?
--
send all spam to theotherwhitemeat@ropine.com
And just how much is a soul going for these days? ;^)
I have discovered a truly marvelous sig, unfortunately the sig limit is too small to contain i
Balmer recently said that Microsoft.NET will interoperate on multiple platforms, including MacOS X and Linux to name a few. How do you suppose that this will be technically possible? Will Microsoft bring Internet Explorer to Linux or will they create Netscape 6 / Mozilla plugins for what will run Microsoft.NET.
Furthermore, how will it be marketed? I have learned that consumers typically do not take well to products that are turned into services. From the consumers standpoint they were able to own Microsoft Office, however with .NET it will follow a service bureau model instead.
Just for kicks I will throw out the 27 million dollar question, what is your opinion concerning the future of Linux in the server / desktop / small devices markets? Do you think that it has been successful, what (of the Linux market) would you improve if you could?
-Why did Microsoft choose to support Perl? .Net framework?
-What are the latest developments with the support for Perl in Visual Studio and the
-Can we expect alot of proprietary enhancements and extensions?
-Will we be able to develop code in a Windows IDE for use on a Unix (like) environment?
-How does your marketing team distinguish Perl from Visual Basic?
-Any thoughts on support for a mod_perl like embedded interpreter for IIS?
Do you see Linux as a threat to Microsoft?
11.0010010000111111011010101000100010000101101000
in 'vi' how to I ^M
get rid of all these^M
pesky DOS line-feed^M
characters^M
^Z
Are you free to speak honestly ?
No, they stated they would bring .NET server support to Linux, no mention of clients.
I've often wanted to meet Bill just to ask him this. Does Bill contribute any code to any of Microsoft's products? If yes, how much?
What this will do is clutter the desktop (the physical one), which is always the one thing I hated about Macs. The drive was external. The floppy was exteral. The CD was external. The modem was external. You have a dozen things plugged in, and they consume more space, and more power, than they would have had the computer case been a little bit bigger.
Plus, how the hell are you supposed to keep the system quiet when there's a dozen little fans spinning away cooling all those external devices.
If you want to make it modular, make it internally modular. Here's where the modem plugs directly onto the motherboard, and it's this big, with the connectors in exactly this spot. Boom, it snaps on like adding RAM.
Building more into the motherboard is nice, but when built-in components fail, it's more expensive. Modularity = Low Price.
If all this is a beef against device drivers (which I recall MS as claiming was the single biggest source of problems), then have higher device driver standards.
I concede that the desktop is beginning to become cluttered. Not my choice. However, the new fascination with externalizing everything (like the iPaq's modem) in a large case is frustrating.
Your motherboard may come with a built-in modem. Why can't you replace it with a modem made by a different manufacturer? Or the built-in NIC? Or the built-in sound card. Swap that cheapo 16-bit soundcard for something more powerful. If the onboard (insert component here) fails, why do you have to junk the entire motherboard?
If we want to get PC's to be smaller, we need to get something smaller than the PCI or AGP bus. MicroATX, FlexATX and MiniNLX aren't small enough.
My (small) company creates web-based applications and delivers them as an ASP. We use Linux, Apache, MySQL and Perl or PHP (LAMP), and we're happy with the results. Our software costs approach zero, and we don't have to worry about per-seat or per-server licensing.
On occasion, a feature we need is missing from the LAMP toolset. This feature is available in a Microsoft product, and we think about switching. However, when we look at the economics of the situation, we find a way to work around our "need" for the feature.
I'm no Linux zealot -- I've been in this business for 15 years, and I've used (and been happy with) Microsoft products. But, as a small software shop, the business decision to use LAMP instead of Windows 2000, IIS, SQL Server and ASP seems like a no-brainer.
My question: How does Microsoft compete with LAMP in this kind of environment?
I would strongly suggest people read Microsoft's OEM guidelines before believing this. Slashdot received a submission of this early this morning, and I downloaded and read said guidelines from MS's web site. Microsoft has some suggestions for an "Easy PC", a sort of IMac for the PC world - it should have bright colors, interesting designs, no confusing upgradability, etc. etc. It is clear from reading the specifications that there is no intent for ALL PCs to be "Easy PCs" - this would be just for certain product lines intended for new PC owners.
So, ZDNet is full of shit. At best they are poor readers. At worst they are intentionally confusing these guidelines for the Easy PC with all of the other guidelines (in the same document) for regular desktops, servers, etc., none of which say anything about expansion cards except for notes like "All expansion slots in the system are accessible for users to insert cards" (that's a direct quote from the general system guide, by the way).
There are plenty of things going on in the hardware world that people need to be concerned about. Copy protection is being built in at a very basic level. But in this particular case, ZDNet is entirely wrong.
Microsoft has a reputation for not playing well with others, both for having closed networking/internet protocols and for making incompatible versions of open protocols. Do you think Microsoft deserves this reputation? What is Microsoft's position on open and compatible protocols? What is Microsoft's position on reverse engineering efforts of its closed protocols?
In terms of user experience, the Windows 2000 command prompt is the only part of windows that is not competive with UNIX-based operating systems. Does Microsoft have any plans to improve the command shell in future versions of windows?
Download a fast DirectX Tetris Clone [276 k]
MS is now running commercials stating that the SQL server database "plays nice with others". OTOH MS provides no technology to connect to SQL server from any other OS.
I can connect to an Oracle, DB/2, postgres, mysql, sybase server from any operating system using just about any language I can imagine but the only mechanism ms provides for SQL server are windows only.
War is necrophilia.
More importantly will it pursue copy protection with the same vigor in all countries? Will MS work to prevent people in china, africa, south america, middle east or will it let the North american and European consumers subsidize the widespread piracy in third world countries.
How can MS justify it's anti piracy efforts in the US and Europe when it does nothing to preven piracy in other parts of the world.
War is necrophilia.
So where are the API specs for native access to SQL server? I imagine if it was published the freetds or PHP folks would be thrilled. Instead they are trying to reverse engineer something that MS keeps changing.
War is necrophilia.
There is nothing you can't do with a one button mouse that you can do with a two button mouse, if your have good enough programmers.
War is necrophilia.
SOAP is nothing more then dressed up XML-RPC. It's actually so vague as to be almost non usable. It specifies almost nothing as a standard and lets vendors do whatever the hell they want. As a result MS will be generating SOAP envelopes that contain GUIDS which will be useless in unix machines. Not one single soap packet originating from an MS server or client and an MS app will be usable on a unix machine. Any MS generated SOAP packet will need a windows machine to process it.
War is necrophilia.
Two wrong make a right?
War is necrophilia.
Notice the "extend" part. MS extends specs and leverages their monopoly to cripple competitors. Your comments are an excellant example of how MS does things. In both the HTML and kerberos the "embrace and extend" crippled competitors products.
MS gives lip service to interoperability but like everything else coming out of their mouths it's a big fat lie. People interested in interop would not hide their implementation spec.
War is necrophilia.
Time will tell wheater the people running MS finally stopped worshipping the devil and found God but I don't think they did. MS has a vested interest in keeping their monopoly and will do anything and everything possible to sbotage other vendors especially the hated oracle and sun. People at MS are brainwashed daily with hatred for anybody who does not work there and the cult they built up is formidable. The the priests of this cult suddenly betray the cause they minions might revolt or at least bolt.
War is necrophilia.
You my friend are truly stupid if you can't connect my post with my sig. Go ahead and think for a few second more.
War is necrophilia.
TDS as released by sybase is published. TDS as implemented by MS is not (and no they are not the same).
War is necrophilia.
"Well, considering your posting record, I'd have to say the only person brainwashed is yourself."
Apparently you have never spoken with an MS employee. MS is a religion not a company for them. Why else do you think they put in 70 hour weeks for less money it sure as hell aint stock options.
War is necrophilia.
I believe that line belong to Bill Gates.
War is necrophilia.
MS is now running commercials stating that the SQL server database "plays nice with others". OTOH MS has no JDBC drivers, UNIX ODBC drivers or any other tool to connect to a SQL server from a unix environment. MS also does not support the Freetds project which attempts this. In fact MS is moving away from TDS which will render this project useless.
What exactly does MS mean by "plays nice with others?". What does "interoperability" mean to you and to MS. Does MS plan on providing JDBC drivers for any of it's databases.
War is necrophilia.
Agreed. Why would MS consider that desirable, other than to prevent people from noticing Plug-n-Pray failures?
/.
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
1. What has been the hardest thing for you to deal with from a marketing perspective? The DOJ trial, or something else? What do you think the next difficult thing is that's coming up?
2. Do you view Windows as a competitor to Linux? :)
How did you feel when you were acquired by Microsoft? Would you prefer to be back using Unix, or are you happy where you are now?
Visit the
How do you sleep at night?
How we know is more important than what we know.
The ZDNet article you linked to states it is a set of "guidelines and recommendations for PC manufacturers... Some of the items I've listed are requirements and others are mere recommendations or best practices." While Microsoft may for some reason want you to not be able to upgrade your components, there is nothing to indicate it is a requirement and not just a recommendation, and the overall ridiculousness of it implies to me that it is more likely to be a recommendation than a requirement (though I wouldn't put anything past MS).
Just an example: the GUI was a great concept, and though Microsoft didn't actually invent it they built it into their OS with great success.
I see nothing wrong there. Anyone building something new, or improving something will look for proved and well working concepts to include, and for new concepts just emerging to consider. It's how a software product stays at the edge of technology: looking at what the competition is doing and trying to make it better.
My question is, what new concepts (in competing software products) do you deem worthy of considering and why?
"By the way if anyone here is in advertising or marketing... kill yourself." -- Bill Hicks
The ability to run applications on an Unix server from an NT desktop would be great for people like me who need to run Windows in order to be able to read MSWord enclosures in my email whilst also running graphical applications on the departmental numbercruncher. The third party tools to do this are expensive and flakey. Surely an X11 server is something that should be part of any default graphical OS ?
The quality of applications that come bundled with the various incarnations of MSWindows is noticeably poorer where these are apps intended to provide connectivity to other OSs <i>c.f.</i> MSTelnet, hyperterminal & command line ftp.
Isn't this omission of quality connectivity tools a blatant example of how Microsoft is using its monopoly on the desktop to mike life difficult for people who want to connect to a robust multi-user OS ?
How often has a producer of a good thats in high demand refused to sell it to consumers?
How long did it take from the sale of the VCR's to the movie studio's selling prerecorded cassetts?
How long did it take from the sale of the magnetic audio tape to citizens before the RIAA started selling prerecorded tapes by the bucket?
Thus, why is this situation different? Why would the movie studio's or music publishers NOT rush out to sell this new market?
One thing that has bothered me for many years now, is the windows update site.
This is a multi-part question, but all about one topic.
1. Why is it that in over three years of using said update site on hundreds of combinations of hardware and software is it that I have *never* seen "driver updates" available. This one-source-for-driver-updates feature was a HUGE idea, and one I have continued to try, and *never* had work. I see that it is in Windows XP as well, and yet.. it still doesnt show any "updated" drivers.
2. How do you feel about the "incremental updates" patent recently released by Symantec, in relation to windowsupdate?
3. Why can't I tell the site that I dont want to see the listing of some 30 foreign languages!?
Thanks for your time and responses.
GPL'd web-based tradewars themed space game
What are the current, and future opinions at Microsoft about Copy Protection at the hardware level?
:)
If a spec is developed that has TRUE hardware-industry support, would Microsoft utilize it in its software, would it ignore such abilities, or would it give consumers the right to check a box to turn it on or off?
(And if you choose the check option, what would the default be)
Thanks for your time.
GPL'd web-based tradewars themed space game
Dear Doug,
I'm pleased to learn that you use "vi". When will the Windows ME port of "vi" become available?
Thanks for your input!
--
What happens when you outlaw guns
Dear Doug, could you clear something up for me once and for all?
9 d. htm
Was the "AARD detection code" bug a true self-modifying virus, intentionally planted by Microsoft? And if not, how did self-modifying, XOR encrypted code get into Windows?
Here's the link to the AARD code:
http://www.ddj.com/articles/1993/9309/9309d/930
Thanks for your reply! Microsoft's years of silence on this have really had me wondering whether MS really unleashed a stealth virus on its users. Please tell us they didn't!
--
What happens when you outlaw guns
Dear Doug,
Much of Microsoft's strategy in the past has involved embracing a standard, and then changing it in such a way that specific interoperabilities (specifically, MS client to non-MS server) are disabled.
Some examples of protocols that have been adapted in this manner are HTML, SSL and Kerberos.
Which protocols, in the future, do you intend to apply this paradigm to?
Thanks for your input!
--
What happens when you outlaw guns
Please moderate the above post down - I think the answer is obvious and other questions are more pertinent.
For a consumer, SAP means they can actually acquire music from big name label artists and listen to it digitally.
Currently, one can do so, but only if
a) They purchase the entire CD (rather than a few select tracks). This is legal in non DMCA states although the music industry wouldn't have you believe so.
b) You steal the track from someone else over the net. This is illegal in the opinion of lawmakers and most people, and morally wrong in my own opinion.
SAP has the support of the record companies of the artists that have the most people listening to them.
When SAP is implemented, I can get the latest Aerosmith track without having to buy the whole album, and with it being legal.
Being in marketing or working for Microsoft?
Someone you trust is one of us.
Never mind that Netscape was the first to fork the HTML specs (blink, anyone?)
--
OliverWillis.Com
OliverWillis.Com
An Operative with an Agenda
-----------------------
Nicotine free Amish .sig.
So here's the question: have you ever been really passionate about computers and software? Have you ever gotten up in the middle of the night, thinking not "we're going to make a ton of money", but "this product is so cool it's going to change everything." And if you have, isn't Microsoft going to make you sell your soul?
--
314-15-9265
In re-reading my post I see how the following phrase could be interpreted as an attack: "Do you consciously set out to eliminate all competition...". It was not meant as such. Perhaps I should have said "Is there a conscious effort to eliminate competition from the market".
Thanks
-drin
I regularly see published diatribes about the monopolistic attitudes inside Microsoft and the "crush 'em" competitive strategies used by the company to dominate markets (not to mention the DOJ case and subsequent initial ruling...).
Can you give us some insight into how you (personally and as a Microsoft-employeed individual) approach the generation of a competitive strategy when entering a new market? Do you consciously set out to eliminate all competition, or is there a deeper, broader, more long-term strategy at work?
-drin
The mirror is bordered with stock options - lots of them.
Wow! A slashdot editor researching an anti-Microsoft article before posting it!
Sarcasm aside, thanks for the research and the information. Someone please mod parent post up.
Mmmm.. Donuts
Are you on crack? The guy is in marketing. Why would he have been in a development meeting?
MS just went along for the ride. MS was in the right place at the right time, that's all.
Really? I thought Microsoft was successful because of their business practices. Now you say it's just luck? You'd better give Judge Jackson a call, and explain this revelation to him so he knows that he should reverse his decision on the antitrust suit!
Who's the ass that goes around moderating these as "overrated" after they've dropped off from /. visibility!
/.?
/. front page?
Does Microsoft have some shills at
Doesn't this coward moderator have the balls to do this while it's still on the
When I die, please cast my ashes upon Bill Gates -- for once, make him clean up after me!
Anyway, I believe Intel's got parts of their x86 instruction set patented -- if you implement those instructions, you pay Intel.
You are correct that the old license agreement ended last year, and AMD is not currently paying Intel. The problem is: they have not yet negotiated a new agreement:
source
When I die, please cast my ashes upon Bill Gates -- for once, make him clean up after me!
When Compaq (later followed by others) loosened the Golden Ring from IBM's grasp by reverse engineering their proprietary bios, the Open Hardware PC platform revolution was ignited. Motherboards, memory, adapter cards, etc... could be made by anybody; hardware innovation increased at a rapid pace, and prices plummeted.
That left only two proprietary pieces atop the Open Hardware PC: the Intel CPU and the Microsoft OS.
Intel's been loosing ground, especially with clone maker AMD (but, AMD still has to pay Intel royalties for every clone processor).
The OS, though, has proven tough to emulate. Not only does it reach the pinnacle of complexity (where chaos kicks in), but any emulator must chase Microsoft's tail: the emulation will be worthless come Microsoft's next OS patch (i.e. the DRDOS settlement).
Ballmer has recently stated that he thinks Linux is Microsoft's biggest potential competitor.
Could Open Source be a revolution similar to the PC Open Hardware
revolution of the early 80's, bringing true competition and innovation to PC software, or is Ballmer's statement just a ruse?
When I die, please cast my ashes upon Bill Gates -- for once, make him clean up after me!
I would think someone in charge of "interoperability" at Microsoft would be akin to the guy at the NRA whose job it is to promote new gun control legislation.
Software has traditionally been a 1-player game: the "proprietary lock-in" (using proprietary formats, protocols, and standards to assure incompatibility) captures customers in the vendors grasp. It's not just Microsoft's game, the Unix vendors play too (not as well). Once a customer is hooked, they have to stay with that vendor; switching software risks loosing old data, and requires a steep/expensive learning curve. As if once you bought a Ford, you'd always have to buy a Ford (or have to completely relearn how to drive on a totally new road system). Open Source has the promise to allow true competition in software, not allowing any vendors' proprietary protocols, standards, or formats (at least with the foundation of the distribution).
This "interoperability" could be an attempt to show the Justice Department that Microsoft is committed to competition.
Then again, it could a ruse to throw the Justice Department off your trail.
When I think of other "interoperability" attempts at Microsoft (i.e. Posix and Streams compliance), it was really a bait-and-switch tactic: Microsoft produced half-baked software in order to lure unix-based customers with the promise of NT compatibility. Once the customers were committed, they found that the "compatibility" was nonexistent, and they had to hurriedly switch to Microsoft proprietary API's in order to cover their poor decision to switch to Microsoft.
So, are you:
making Microsoft look like it promotes competition, or,
part of the bait-and-switch team?
When I die, please cast my ashes upon Bill Gates -- for once, make him clean up after me!
My question is this: Most Slashdot readers have been around long enough to have witnessed some of what has been referred to as Microsoft's "Embrace and Extinguish" strategy.
With .Net, Microsoft is pushing the idea that Microsoft technologies will play well with others. In the past "interoperability" at Microsoft has seemed to mean, "we'll make our products work with yours just long enough that we can match your featureset then bury you with marketing and add many new features that only work in a homogeneous Microsoft environment."
What about .Net is different in this regard, over the long haul?
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
Given that Microsoft now supports Win3.1, Win95, Win98, WinNT, Win2000 in its various flavors, WinCE, EmbeddedCE, and probably other OSes I'm not even aware of, how do you intend to differentiate these OSes in a way that doesn't confuse people?
To me it looks like these days Microsoft is doing what Proctor and Gamble has been doing for years - competing with its own brands against its own brands. It's hard not to chuckle when I see an ad comparing Win2k performance to WinNT performance. It's just like those "more whitening power" ads for Tide, but there are actual numbers behind the claims, and they don't make NT look very good at all.
My understanding is that at companies like P&G, separate brands are handled as separate profit centers - small companies inside larger companies, competing against each other. But Tide doesn't have to be interoperable with Clorox - you buy one, or you buy the other.
How do you think MS will deal with this going forward?
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
Do you think that Linux will ever have a successful, user-friendly GUI interface? Windows' success comes mainly from the fact that people can understand it and are familiar with it; Should Linux "borrow" Microsoft's GUI ideas (as Microsoft borrowed them from Apple, who borrowed them from Xerox), or instead continue down the established path of Linux GUIs?
Got Rhinos?
What are your thoughts about the "Microsoft Breakup Theory?" Is it really going to happen? If so, what will the future look like?
Got Rhinos?
How has Microsoft's marketing strategies evolved over the years? How have the software market, competition, and social trends affected how Windows is packaged, advertised and sold?
Got Rhinos?
William Gates III is, no doubt, the most hated figure among geeks and at the same time can be revered and honored by the press/media for the innovations of the last two decades. While his popularity is dubious or at least dichotomous, his fame and fortune are unquestionable. My question is: What's it like working with the second richest man in the world? What's he like as a person? (man behind the mogul, as it were) Any personal anecdotes that you feel obliged to share? What does Mr. Gates really think of Open Source etc...?
El Karma: excelente(principalmente la suma de moderación hecha a los comentarios de los usuarios)
Hypothetically, if Microsoft was working on it's own version of Linux, how would Microsoft market it to the public?
Would they emphasize compatibility with Windows or would they try to make it stand on it's own merits or what other strategies would be used?
Things you think are in the Constitution, but are not.
Since the Linux community suffers from poor to no marketing, what advice would you give to the Linux community to improve their marketing? Keep in mind that the Linux community does not have unlimitied marketing funds what would be the most effect ways to market Linux to the public?
Things you think are in the Constitution, but are not.
I know that Windows 2000, and supposedly XP support the ability of a user to use a remote terminal; enabling a user to run programs, etc. from a remote computer.
This is useful, of course. My question is this: As far as I'm aware, the Windows strategy is incompatible with X-Windows, with no sort of interoperability. I'm sure there are good reasons that this was done, but I still wonder: Why re-invent the wheel?
-- Sometimes you have to turn the lights off in order to see.
Every OS has a place. I don't dispute that MS wants to be the the popular OS. But why must MS engage in business tactics that do not give the consumer choice?
Since you are the "Server Marketing Guy" at Microsoft, and not the director of corporate strategies, as so many people seem to think, here are a few questions that you might be able to answer. :-)
In what situations have you found that Microsoft Windows NT/2000 servers preform better on similiar hardware than Linux/Unix/BSD systems? What situations do Unix servers work better?
Doh!
I'm still waiting for my "I survived service pack #2" t-shirt. Do you know when they will be shipping?
--Richard
When I see Gates saying "all Microsoft software will be rented in ten years", I see IT managers scheduling exit strategies from Microsoft products. Clearly, a services model benefits Microsoft, but do you really think corporate America will go for it?
Do you regularly read slashdot.
So close and yet so far from the world's perfect ID number
The advances that these projects have been making is incredible. And at the same time differences between these projects is amazing. So what is Microsoft's evaluation of the situation. What does Microsoft think of KDE vs GNOME, in terms of the consequences for Microsoft and Linux?
Thanks Doug! Here's to an entertaining answer.
(Please browse at -1 to read this comment.)
that would be really cool if they did a unix port and all of the .net stuff. just think they could have it installed in:
/usr/local/.net , /$HOME/.net , /etc/.net , /.net
.NET stuff from m$."
i can just see it know:
"So did you install that
"i think so?! i just can't seem to find it"
still talk to you?
--
Je t'aime Stéphanie
And if yes, what are your general impressions about the quality of programming happening in there?
--
Je t'aime Stéphanie
Do you it's reasonnable?
--
Je t'aime Stéphanie
What's wrong with consistent version scheme?
--
Je t'aime Stéphanie
I'm replying to my own message, but what the hell. Katz never seems to reply to *any* messages, so I'm merely compensating for lack for lack of Katzian input on this -- oh so very! -- proletarian message boards.
To my diatribe above, I would add this: the upshot to the "secure box" will be a complex (but legal! very, very legal!) matrix of agreements between Microsoft and various marketers in which MS pledges to give data generating by the secure box running Windows XP 2002.
The secure box will be the first, truly *low-cost* PC because it will be subisidized by money-hungry marketers desperate for data. (All of it encrypted, of course.) You think the anon TIVO data is bad, just wait until some cypherpunk decrypts the data stream to the markets that will be coming out of the ass of the secure box 24/7.
*This* will be the first salvo of the new privacy wars. And this will get ugly: MS will have popped its last gasp with the secure box. The fact that their encrypted marketing stream will be decrypted will be the beginning of the end for Microsoft.
The second thing I'll add is this: that all of this -- the secure box, the decrypting of the encrypted 24/7 marketing stream -- will herald the *true* computer revolution. And everything will start over. Fresh. It'll be like the TRS-80 Model I 4K Level I all over again.
The only thing all this is leading to -- and, no, it won't be in my lifetime -- is a computer rennaissance. It might be a revolution -- or, yeah, I suppose it might be a counter-revolution.
But what'll happen is that MS secure box running Windows XP 2002 will be so fucking secure that it will turn into a granite cube. (I'm serious. Maybe not granite -- but it'll turn from a "computer" into a "cube". Not the Mac cubes. I mean, it'll be so secure that it'll -- physically -- even be stripped of any identifying mark.)
And then people will start talking about computers again -- as if they'd forgotten about computers in the first place.
(I say this jokingly -- the idea of the granite cube -- but it would seem to me that at some point technology evolves so much that it actually starts regressing. And it will be after a full-scale regression that people will, once again, start talking about computers. They'll understand that something has happened -- that the secure box turning into the granite cube -- and has taken us full course. And, then, FINALLY! -- the computer revolution will begin.)
Well, there's two ways to interpret this "no access" policy.
The first is that it's not a requirement of WinXP per se but is instead a recommendation for builders like Dell and Gateway: that the ideal, low-cost, affordable "WinXP" box should be an all-in-one solution. As has been pointed out, this is probably good news for Dell and Gateway since obsolecence will happen much, much faster.
So it's not so much an ex cathedra pronouncement as it is a goal: make the box in such a way so that the user will get X months out of it and not worry about having to muss and fuss with video cards, sound cards, and nics. (I imagine this is way MS will spin it. They'll say that this "no-access" policy is actually a thing that their basic users have been wanting for a long time: "Hey, all we want is a low-cost computer to browse the web. We don't want to have to worry about added a sound card."
Moreover, the sentence here says that *end-users* won't have access. The alternate way of spinning this is that MS here is trying to throw some business over to those wonderful Best Buy tech wizards. Maybe MS is looking to create a series of "Authorized Service Centers" -- Best Buy, for example -- that can install all the sound-cards that the user wants. But, dammit, if you break this "seal" then you null-and-void your warranty. (Because, as you'll note, there are "no user servicable parts" inside.)
Obviously, this is a way to keep the WinXP experience "pure" -- sorta the same way that Apple tried to keep the "Macintosh" experience pure (at least in the early days) and, say, the way that TIVO attempts to deter folks from tinkering. (Obviously it hasn't worked in the case of Apple or TIVO, but that's never the point with these kinds of corporate dictums.)
THe second -- and certainly more sinister -- view is that this is the first murmur of the "secure box." MS is working on the "secure box" and it could be that their in the beginning stages of "molding the customer experience" away from the do-it-yourself box of today to the "all-in-one" box of the future -- complete with the RIAA, MPAA, and NSA (for crypto) stamps of approval.
I'm *sure* that MS is in fairly intense negotiations with the RIAA and MPAA (and probably the NSA, too) to begin crafting the specs of the secure box that will be most probably be released in 2002/2003. Signed drivers only, no analog outputs, secure video and audio paths.
My theory is that they'll position this as the "consumer box". Windows XP 2002 (or whatever it will be called) will only work on the "secure box". Authorized service centers will appear that will service the box. The "professional box" will be the computer that we're using now, but if you want to run Windows on it, you'll need the "professional" version of Windows XP 2002 which will be prohibitively expensive for the ordinary consumer. (It will probably cost more than the hardware itself and be subject to hefty licensing restrictions. In fact, MS might only offer Windows XP 2002 in some sort of corporate multi-pack. You will not be able to purchase 1 copy of Windows XP 2002 Professional.)
They'll also make sure that whatever new browser they release -- IE 7.0 -- will only run on the customer or pro versions of XP 2002. Users who continue to use Win2000 or WinME will find themselves unable to browse sites "optimized for IE 7.0". (MS will implement some wacky signing/bizarre crypto that forces non-MS browsers to either upgrade to the 'secure path' or stop browsing.)
Now here's the kicker. I'm almost positive this is what will happen within the next 12 months:
Ballmer -- around the time of the XBOX release -- plans to leverage the "complexity" of Linux (a blatant falsehood, but it will be something that we'll hear more of once we start hearing about Windows XP 2002 -- the "Next Generation of Net") and will force ordinary users to choose between the all-in-one MS "secure box" or the more "complex" Linux option. Ballmer won't denigrate Linux, but he'll gradually shift his spin to indicate that, yeah, Linux is an option. It will always be an option. But we at MS have the monopoly on the low-cost, easy-to-use compute r-- our secure PC running XP 2002. Sure, go ahead and get Linux. But why? It's complex, unwiedly, and cannot be easily supported. (Again, all of this isn't true, but this is the direction of future FUD: complexity. There might also be a salvo of FUD -- and this is trickier -- which will focus on the "legality" of the secure PC running XP 2002. Copyright violators will be targetted, and part of the allure of the secure MS pc will be that it will be the "legal" choice. Mom's and Dad's: don't worry that that your kids will get arrested. Get a secure PC and we guarantee that they'll be safe. This will tie into MS's positioning of themselves as a friendlier, "family" option.)
It will be interesting to see how XBOX fits into the scheme here, but my guess will be that somehow it will be the "satellite" PC -- the main PC in the home will be the secure box running XP 2002 with some sort of secure datapath going to and from the XBOX which will -- in two years -- turn into a dumb terminal since most homes will have several XBOXen, all of which will communicate with the secure-box.
I must admit, I do not see Microsoft will ever successfully lock us down completely. They will certainly continue to try, of course, but companies tend to be too invested in other solutions (say, Oracle databases, DNS, etc.) to go Microsoft-only.
Of course, the company I work for is a Microsoft-only shop. But we never had Oracle databases or any other similar thing.
--
Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia.
What do your peers at Microsoft think of your participation of this interview with Slashdot?
Daniel
Do your answers to the questions posed in this interview represent solely your personal opionion? If not, how much are they a reflection of the opinions of your Microsoft peers, and/or official policy? Thanks.
Daniel
What is your take on Microsoft's "corporate culture" versus that of other companies you have worked with? Does it resemble the all powerful Empire of Star Wars that oh-so-many Slashdotters seem to believe in - or is it just another company with all the action items, BS initiatives, and corporate doublespeak that we have all come to know and love? (Note: feel free to present your own alternative answer to the choices - should you feel compelled to do so).
Thanks for your time,
Jay
I love idealists not because I am one, but because they make life bearable for pragmatists such as myself.
How does Wine development fit in with Windows development? Is it seen as a threat or as an advantage?
The system does not allow end-user access to expansion bus cards. This means users will no longer routinely open their PCs to add peripherals.
If true, this is really mind-blowing. I imagine the big system makers would probably love this, as it could help accelerate the upgrade cycle. The consolidation in the add-on hardware business (nVidia and ATI on the video side, Creative on the audio side) may be such that the major hardware manufacturers don't mind too much -- given that they would expect to get the bulk of the OEM contracts. Of course, this has obvious potential problems for Linux and other non-MS OSes.
I also note that there is a requirement the BIOS display no message on start-up -- which obviously would thwart the aspirations of Phoenix and the like (or the OEMs) to splash something in front of users' faces before the MS logo comes up.
I hope someone at the DOJ knows about this.
Now, with Windows and Office XP, it looks as though Microsoft is finally going to make it difficult for the home user to copy the software. Do you really think home user piracy is damaging to Microsofts' business? In reality, it has done more to estabish Microsoft as a standard than it has to reduce revenue. Why the change?
No, Thursday's out. How about never - is never good for you?
Microsoft recently announced that .Net would provide support for Linux and Unix servers. How will your group present this given the intergration problems and lack of standard support in the past. (i.e. The non standard use of Kerebose, the lack of W3C conformance in IE, etc.)
Where do *you* want to go today?
---
In the wake of the recent developments in the area of standard, will Microsoft open their interfaces - both to and from the public?
I'd like to elaborate on this: while Microsoft published most of its basic interfaces (like Windows API), it does not publish the more intricate workings, for example Windows NT's interal API, various network protocols, filesystems, authentication and so on. They could be published to the great relief of the people who are forced (or like) to use both Microsoft and Linux at the same time.
It is also possible for Microsoft to make its own operating system more flexible, so it could be made more interoperable by third parties. A possible example is making GTK (Linux UI library; the foundation of GNOME) apps run natively on Windows without having to rewrite significant parts of them.
At one point, the site had a description of something to the effect: "from within Microsoft, there is a section of computers that turn on to the familiar tone and icon of the friendly Mac."
My question is, is there a Linuxtopia somewhere in Microsoft we don't know about?
- I don't care if they globalize against free speech. All my best free thoughts are done in my head.
This might have something to do with the hardware "monitoring" feature of the install program, and how it takes a snapshot of the system. Perhaps moving expansion card around screws it up?
- I don't care if they globalize against free speech. All my best free thoughts are done in my head.
Do you feel Windows is becoming more like the Unix world in recent years (in terms of protected memory, process management, etc.), or is the Unix world becoming more like Windows (in terms of usability, graphical interfaces, etc.)?
- I don't care if they globalize against free speech. All my best free thoughts are done in my head.
We know the spiel with the marketers, but from within Microsoft do the programmers view OSes like Linux and FreeBSD as a bonefide competitor to the Windows platform, or a tool to help improve the platform? Is the GPL'd source code ever looked at and used with some modifications?
- I don't care if they globalize against free speech. All my best free thoughts are done in my head.
Reports from WinHec (such as this story from the Register) speculate on Blade as being the up and coming Linux killer from MS. Blade servers are intended to be cheap, slam-in-and-go boxes that Web hosting operations can just peel off the roll (almost) and shove in whenever they need more server capacity. Web Servers are a core market for Linux. What can you say as far as the long term MS corporate strategy in this regard (i.e. regarding Linux)?
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
Why would you subject yourself to the rabid zealotry and hateful accusations of the Slashdot crowd, who are more interested in vilifying the company you work for than listening to what you have to say? Not that they'll believe you're telling the truth if they do listen.
-Poot
Have you ever taken part in a meeting where there has been discusison of *breaking* an interface or an API to reduce interoperability or backwards compatability with other products?
Being in charge of Enterprise Interoperability products you must be aware of the (some say deliberate) incompatibilities that Microsoft introduced into the Kerberos protocol. Why were these changes made and is there any intention of rectifying them at Microsoft?
Slashdot: Proof that a million monkeys at a million typewriters can create a masterpiece
Recently I came across the GORILLA.BAS and NIBBLES.BAS QuickBASIC games from the DOS days. I used to play those as a boy, and had great fun with such simple games.
When I tried to run them under yabasic and pbasic, two BASIC interpreters for UNIX. Lo and behold, I was greeted with incompatibilities. Not in the mode for porting these old games, I tabled them, until I came across Microsoft VisualBASIC 5 Control Creation Edition. I tried to run them, and was again greeted with incompatibilities.
yabasic and pbasic didn't surprise me. Microsoft has long been known for their "embrace and extend" strategy, so I didn't expect old QuickBASIC programs to work with these UNIX interpreters.
However, I was quite shocked and disappointed that VB 5 wouldn't run these. It seems that in addition to embrace and extend, Microsoft has developed an "obsolete and cripple" strategy for moving old apps of the market.
What is Microsoft's response to my anger and disappointment that they have taken a language which has been around longer than Microsoft's flagship product, and mutilated it so I can't run my boyhood games? Do they really think that this sort of behavior is even acceptable?
It is my belief (many share this belief) that the only reason Microsoft dominates the market is because the general computing public is too stupid to reject them.
A new year calls for a new signature.
Will Microsoft bring Internet Explorer to Linux or will they create Netscape 6 / Mozilla plugins for what will run Microsoft.NET.
Yeah, they'll just use the natural choice: Java applets.
No, wait a minute...
"And like that
I'd guess that this was strongly encouraged by the manufacturers, to decrease customer service costs, and by hardware people, to increase USB & Firewire sales.
Most users don't want to fiddle with the innards of their computer. If upgrading to a new drive, peripheral, etc. is merely a matter of plugging in USB cable, then life is easier for consumer, and service costs for manufacturer go down. (I've experienced this recently with a USB printer and scanner. When it works, it's very nice.)
As for large corporate installations, this has the potential to cut costs a great deal. The tech people would not need to hassle with opening up cases; instead, just plug cord in, insert driver disk, and job done.
as for the hardcore tweakers, well, they don't buy XP certified PCs from Dell anyway; they build it themselves, so they wouldn't be affected.
-----
D. Fischer
ShoutingMan.com
Interesting...haven't gotten the (-1, Flamebait) before. (But I should have realized that asking timely questions about significant current events that could impact the future of our economic/political/judicial systems was equivalent to trolling :)
FWIW, I am genuinely interested in whether Microsoft is taking any notice of the DOJ case, or if it's just business as usual. As the largest, and arguably, most influential companies in the US (if not world), I think it's extremely interesting to know how/if legal proceedings against the company filter down to the work process & ethic of the employees.
But that's just me.
-----
D. Fischer
ShoutingMan.com
In what ways, if any, has the DOJ anti-trust case affected Microsoft's "competitive strategies", as well as the work towards "interoperability"?
-----
D. Fischer
ShoutingMan.com
It's where I work =)
e-speak is open source.
http://www.espeak.net
It's not currently, shall we say, polished to a glowing shine, but it's out there. It's goal and intent is to allow e-services (web being a superset of this. PDAs, cell phones, cars, and other devices could be serviced as well as PCs) in which 'composition' and 'mediation' can occur between services from different vendors or suppliers.
It currently runs on HPUX, Red Hat Linux, and Windows NT. It's known to have been compiled to run on Win2k, Madrake, and Debian, but those aren't supported.
It's cross platform nature is due to it's being written in Java, though there are XML, Python, and C interfaces (some are a little dusty)
Geek dating!
GPL Deconstructed
Those two concepts - interoperability and competitive strategy - seem difficult to conciliate. What can the developers expect to make their work the most interopereable possible ?
Men are born ignorant, not stupid; they are made stupid by education. Bertrand Russel
The system does not allow end-user access to expansion bus cards. This means users will no longer routinely open their PCs to add peripherals.
What Microsoft wants is for every WinXP PC to have four USB ports and at least two IEEE-1394 ports (one on notebooks). Essentially, this means that Microsoft wants to discourage users from undertaking major upgrades. Of course, there will never be IEEE-1394 video cards, and the best and fastest drives connect to either IDE or SCSI on the inside of the system. For all hardcore computer users/builders, this is outright blasphemy and a threat to the user's right to augment his/her system with new and more powerful devices.
Needless to say, I'll be sticking with Windows 2000, since there's no such draconian hardware policy embedded in the OS. Either Doug Miller will have some serious explaining to do, or he'll have to continue with Microsoft's current plan of marketing XP to the newbies and yuppies who can't tell IDE from AGP.
"Ancillary does not mean you get to rule the world." --U.S. Circuit Judge Harry Edwards, speaking to the FCC's lawyer
What exactly is .NET from a user point of view and why should I care about it as a OS X user?
Burn Hollywood Burn
Mod this up! This is, IMHO, the single most important question that a Linux professional can ask of MS.
The next Slashdot story will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and slashdot the links early!
OK,
- B
--
http://www.bradheintz.com/
- updated
--
http://www.bradheintz.com/
- updated
OTOH, historical examples aside, when was the last time you heard about an active-content worm trashing some significant portion of all *nix mail servers? Not that worms or insecure mail software don't exist on *nix platforms, but I think a case can be made for singling out Microsoft's negligence, especially in light of their unresponsiveness to security issues that don't get lots of press.
OK,
- B
--
http://www.bradheintz.com/
- updated
As an example, I'd single out (though it is by no means the only example) Microsoft Outlook. The inclusion of active code (scripts, ActiveX controls) in what was formerly static data (SMTP email) combined with defaulting to the least secure configuration (opening and running emails without user intervention) left the door wide open for the Melissa virus and its desendants. What happened here?
OK,
- B
--
http://www.bradheintz.com/
- updated
In what ways should Windows become more like the *NIXes?
In what ways should the *NIXes become more like Windows?
The only thing that we learn from history is that nobody learns anything from history.
I have long been a fan of Excel on the Macintosh -- since its earliest days, in fact. I miss the sort of cooperative tone the future held for us all in those days.
In your view, how can Microsoft and *nix/xBSD communities work together to make the brightest future for all of us?
-B...
I think you miss the point of Microsoft's strategy: the next version of office will be based upon .NET, but consumers won't be forced to resubscribe at first. It is only after users have come to rely on storing all their documents in MS Word 9.x format that they will activate subscription features.
Microsoft products are backwards but never forwards compatible, and the version/format of documents is one of the ways that Microsoft ensure s that whatever new things they decide to add to their products, be it a component technology or a web browser, you are forced to accept them.
"Perfect numbers like perfect men are rare." -Descartes
As a side note, I really like a uniform text viewing/editing so that I don't have to think about what commands are available in _this particular app_ to do basic commands that I do all day long. For example, at work I use Outlook for mail, but have to fight with the editor to do simple things. I also use DevStudio, which has a different editor (and can be kinda spawned externally to another editor). Interesting enough many people that I know use DevStudio as a _text editor_ because it has some of the above meantioned features.
Being a Linux user for only a little while I have noticed that it lacks two things: a consistent, easy to use graphical interface, and a powerful, interoperable "Office suite" set of software that is being used in the workplace. What work is being done to port Microsoft Office to Linux/*nix while maintaining cross platform interoperability, since that has been one of Microsoft's most successful software pieces to date?
With .NET on the horizon, how will users be assured that their data is secured, in the applications that are being user on .NET...what if I am working on a very important PPT presentaion on .NET, and I need to show it in 15 minutes...and all of the sudden I lose my internet connection, or .NET goes down, and I am unable to complete it. What then does the user do? It just seems silly to me to have everything on .NET...I can't see going on the internet to do a Word dosument...
"Look where we worship" -- Jim Morrison
My question is more directed to your clustering and reliability solutions like the new Application Center 2000 for the Windows 2000 Server series. One of the competitive advantages that Linux has leveraged is that you can purchase a bunch of cheap commodity personal computers and string them together in a Beowulf cluster configuration to create a high performance solution, replacing the older paradigm of large, central mainframes and supercomputers. Companies like Google have definitely profited and proved that such solutions, that used to only be found in academia, can be extremely valuable. More and more it seems like Microsoft is moving towards bringing clustering and load balancing to the Windows 2000 server product line while adding the Microsoft trademarks of usability and simple administration. How does Microsoft plan to push usability and simple administration in the areas of advanced clustering solutions, and where do you see Microsoft going in the future in bringing more complex reliability solutions such as warm state fail-over like that in Sun Cluster 3.0 to the Windows server world?
From Dictionary.com:
"candor (kndr) n.
Frankness or sincerity of expression; openness. Freedom from prejudice; impartiality.
[Middle English from Old French from Latin from candre, to shine; see kand- in Indo-European Roots.] "
Now, Microsoft is not exactly known for being open or forthcoming when it comes to their products and business practices, and I think it's quite respectable for Mr. Miller to agree to do the interview in the first place. Especially considering the large number of blind anti-MS bigots and flame warriors that read Slashdot. Regardless of his responses, the fact that he's even speaking to "the enemy" is a positive step.
Slashdot: Open Source, Closed Minds.
And now my question:
Mr. Miller, a quick trip to Netcraft's site shows that Microsoft's IIS is struggling for marketshare among web servers. Considering that corporations and businesses are a large source of Microsoft's revenue, I was wondering what Microsoft has in store in the future to help entice more business customers into using Microsoft's own products. I must admit that I'm impressed with Win2K's stability and uptime, but what else does Microsoft have in store for it's users that would justify spending several thousand dollars on a Microsoft based infrastructure as opposed to a quite capable free alternative?
Slashdot: Open Source, Closed Minds.
I wonder why microsoft doesnt just leave all that stuff turned off by default. If a user *must* have that stuff, they should have to turn it on themselves. I doubt those features would be popular if a user turning them on had to click on a warning stating that they were enabling the primary method of viruses to infect their box
"Weapons should be hardy rather than decorative" - Miyamoto Musashi
I think that goes for OS's too
Although Xenix was announced in 1980, it wasn't actually released until 1983 (the original IBM PC was simply incapable of running UNIX, and it took a while for machines with the necessary add-on hardware to become available). Then, after introducing the AT (which was still incapable of running a modern OS), IBM insisted on staying with the 286 for far too long, until Compaq's success forced its hand. This also held back the PC hardware architecture somewhat.
UNIX has never been nearly as popular as DOS/Win3/Win9x. Neither has WinNT/2000, although it's already surpassed UNIX in that respect. Apart from the historical reasons mentioned above, it's harder for hardware and software developers to do super-neato tricks when the OS won't let them directly access the hardware. NT and UNIX force developers to play nicely, and not all of them want to (and most home users rate features/performance of their hardware/software above stability anyway). DirectX and similar technologies were designed to solve these problems by providing efficient interfaces to certain features of the hardware, without compromising the system.
Incidentally, bash has nothing to do with UNIX. It's an enhanced clone of the old UNIX shell (the Bourne shell), but there's nothing stopping NT users running the current UNIX shell (the Korn Shell), which is freely available from AT&T (part of U/WIN, which runs on top of Win32), or even bash (via CygWin, which also runs on Win32). Since both are available in source form, they can presumably be built for Interix too, but that costs extra (though it's a native subsystem, not an emulation layer running on Win32). The problem is >90% of computer users don't want bash.
Doug, I was reading a review of Windows XP today, and came across some interesting information on the new licensing scheme. From what I read, the XP will use the current hardware configuration to generate an id string (I believe they called it a fingerprint), which you then tell Microsoft, over the phone, to get the license key for your machine. In an end-user environment (especially laptops), configurations change constantly, and thus the user would be calling in regularly to get a new key.
At the same time, several OS developers (e.g., Apple, various Linux distributions) are moving in a very different direction by open-sourcing their operating systems.
How do you feel this difference in policy will affect Microsoft in terms of new computer purchases (e.g., choosing a different OS - even a previous version of Windows) and upgrades to existing systems?
Thanks in advance,
Phoenix_SEC
If Linux/Free software in general is no real threat, why bother with this interview?