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.

Comments

Interoperability

[moonboy]

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?

EULAs

[cpt kangarooski]

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?

Lay it out for us

[FWMiller]

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

OS X

[neutrino]

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

.NET

[PenguinX]

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?

Re:Microsoft wants to discourage system upgrades.

[jellicle]

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.

Open and compatible protocols

[scruffy]

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?

Copy protection at the hardware level

[iamsure]

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.

AARD...

[mwalker]

Dear Doug, could you clear something up for me once and for all?

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/9309 d. htm

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!

Embrace and Extend...

[mwalker]

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!

Oxymoron: "interoperability" at Microsoft?

[cworley]

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?

Interoperability and Microsoft's long-range plans

[Infonaut]

Mr. Miller, thanks for taking the time to address this forum. I'm sure you've realized that you jumped into a snake pit here.

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?

How will MS OSes compete with each other?

[Infonaut]

Mr. Miller, again thanks for fielding questions from all of us.

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?

When is Windows superior?

[Smitty825]

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?

The "services" model

[Animats]

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?

Microsoft and KDE vs GNOME

[Karma Sucks]

Has Microsoft evaluated the latest Linux desktop technologies such as KDE2.1.1/Qt2.3.0 and Ximian GNOME 1.2? Well, we know you probably did because you mentioned KDE/KFM extensively in your anti-trust trial.

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.

3.1, 3.11, 95, OSR2, 98, SE, ME, XP, ???

[SpanishInquisition]

What's wrong with consistent version scheme?
--

Microsoft vs. Everybody Else

[gamorck]

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

Wine

[GNUman]

How does Wine development fit in with Windows development? Is it seen as a threat or as an advantage?

Change in piracy strategy?

[Pinball Wizard]

Microsoft has since its inception "looked the other way" in regards to the average home user copying its products. Ever since Bill Gates famous Open Letter to Hobbyists became such a debacle Microsoft has vastly benefitted from its products being standardized in no small part from them being spread due to piracy. High school and college students could easily obtain(BASIC, DOS, Windows), and later became customers when they could afford the software. Countries like China were referred to within Microsoft as "one-CD nations". Microsoft went after corporate abusers, but largely left the home user/hobbyist theives alone. And it benefitted them tremendously.

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?

Linux/FreeBSD competitor or tool?

[Fervent]

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?

Okay

[java_sucks]

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?

Impact of DOJ case

[skoda]

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

Re:Alrighty.

[Auckerman]

"...A Web service provider can expose their system (programmed using .NET) using SOAP and UDDI and then you can leverage those services through your site/application very easily...."

This is a bunch of meaningless techno babble and doesn't answer the question. The questions should have been much deeper anyways, so I'll rephrase it.

What is .Net from a End User point of view, how is it different for the features Java, Macromedia, and W3C Compliance can offerer developers TODAY, and why whould I can about it as an MacOS X user?

Explain this piece of competetive strategy to me

[RareHeintz]

Why does it seem that Microsoft routinely ignores glaringly obvious security concerns in favor of "convenience"-related features? Is this a false impression, and if so, why is that the impression so many security professionals form when confronted with the history of security in Microsoft products?

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
--

Licensing

[Phoenix_SEC]

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