Interview with Monte Davidoff

Motor writes: "The Register has an interview with Monte Davidoff, one of the men responsible (along with Gates and Allen) for the original Microsoft BASIC. So what does he think of Linux... CPRM... Python... RMS and GNU software? Great stuff."

Comments

It is interesting that he recognizes GNU

[Andy Tai]

For someone who was in the dark side at the very beginning, it is nice that he actually recognizes the contribution of GNU. The contrast between Bill Gates and Richard Stallman is worth noting, for this contrast is shaping what's to come in the software world.

----
"Most of you steal your software... What hobbyist can put years into programming, finding all bugs, documenting his product and distribute for free?"----An Open Letter to Hobbyists, Bill Gates, Micro-soft, 1976

"GNU... is the name for the complete Unix-compatible software system which I am writing so that I can give it away free... Once GNU is written, everyone will be able to obtain good system software free, just like air."----The GNU Manifesto, Richard Stallman, Free Software Foundation, 1985

Microsoft Windows vs. GNU/Linux, 2000

Now it's clear!

[dimator]

"It had to run in 4k. In fact the 8k version had algorithms that were more efficient but that took up more space. By the time the 4k BASIC was done, the 8k version was out."

So, they began doubling memory requirements starting with their second ever software release, and they've continued until this very day!!


--

Bill Gates Interview Pretty Good Too

[xp]

The Bill Gates interview linked at the bottom of the article is actually pretty good. I recommend it highly.

Become a better stock trader with PeakTrader

Halloween Documents

[krappie]

He mentions how Microsoft is spending a lot of money trying to fight opensource ideas. This is funny, because I just read the Halloween documents for the first time yesterday, and I would like to point out a peice of it from section one. I think it is a perfect indication of what Microsoft is doing, from the words of Microsoft themselves.

Open Source Process

Commercial software development processes are hallmarked by organization around economic goals. However, since money is often not the (primary) motivation behind Open Source Software, understanding the nature of the threat posed requires a deep understanding of the process and motivation of Open Source development teams.

In other words, to understand how to compete against OSS, we must target a process rather than a company.

{ This is a very important insight, one I wish Microsoft had missed. The real battle isn't NT vs. Linux, or Microsoft vs. Red Hat/Caldera/S.u.S.E. -- it's closed-source development versus open-source. The cathedral versus the bazaar.

This applies in reverse as well, which is why bashing Microsoft qua Microsoft misses the point -- they're a symptom, not the disease itself. I wish more Linux hackers understood this.

On a practical level, this insight means we can expect Microsoft's propaganda machine to be directed against the process and culture of open source, rather than specific competitors. Brace for it... }

Great

[mickwd]

Monte on Python

Edsger W. Dijkstra's famous BASIC quote

[Delirium Tremens]

"It is practically impossible to teach good programming style to students that have had prior exposure to BASIC: as potential programmers they are mentally mutilated beyond hope of regeneration."

-- Edsger W. Dijkstra, 1982, Selected Writings on Computing: A Personal Perspective

... A quote that didn't age one bit ;-)

Re:Interview (and technology / society comentary)

[hillct]

Agreed. Interesting interview but I would be interested to hear more about Davidoff's take on CPRM. CPRM is frightening as a technology, but I'm not suprised at it's introduction.

Davidoff touches on this only periferally, but CPRM is another example of a society responding to technology, rather than adapting to it or making efficient use of it.

Please bear with me as I rant for a moment:

It's vary interesting to watch as society (as seen threough legislation that defines that society) scrambles to catch up with technology, where a half century ago, we drempt of what it would be like in the 21st century where we'd have flying cars and other astonishing technologies. I whonder if anyone - as part of the dream - envisioned tire manufacturers joining the enviromental lobby to put together legislation to prevent the introductions of cars that didn't roll along on tires.

The MPAA isn't the only industry association to be staunchly protecting a business model that doesn't apply in a new milenium. Look at how long it has taken for gasoline-electric cars to be introduced. Even today, there are only a few out there. The technology exists, and it works but hasn't been widely adopted. What oil company would be in favor of such a technology?

According to Davidoff:

CPRM, is just the most notorious, or the most emblematic of a number of schemes that make the open personal computer into an limited and tightly-controlled playback device. Controlled, effectively, by the entertainment industry

...

"I don't think people are aware of it, in spite of what you and others are writing about. It hasn't made it into the public consciousness," he says. "I didn't hear about the DMCA until after it had been passed."

This is yet another eample of the same phenomenon. Most disturbind, is that he's completely correct, the public is simply unaware of many of these issues.

In the 1950s we were dreaming of new technologies, without concern for how sociaty would react. Now, we have - then unimaginable - new technologies (although no flying cars yet) but society is fighting introduction of those technologies. New areas of law are created efery day as new problems are created, adressed, then others created. We need progressive lawmakers with insight into these technologies to make far more informed decisions. This, however is the catch-22. There will not be lawmakers who can make informed decisions with regard to a technology, unless that technology is widely available, such thet they are familiar with it, and yet, if archaic law is what is preventing the technology from proliferating through society, we will have created for ourselves a techno-evolutionary cul-de-sac from which itwill become increasingly difficult to extricate ourselves.

--CTH

--

Re:Is he a billionaire?

[einhverfr]

After 20+ years, who cares how sustainable it is? Gates & company now have enough dough to get into any business they want.

Sure. However, if you want to get into the industry now or in a couple of years, this is an issue. How can you build a stable company in an ever changing industry on non-sustainable business practices?

Where does Microsoft make most of their money? OEM sales and upgrade cycles (both the same, mostly-- people upgrade their machines by buying a new one all too often). As hardware becomes more powerful, the upgrade cycle becomes longer. Can they sustain their profits?

Obviously not-- hence the service oriented model they keep saying they are moving towards.

Get over it. THere will never be another Bill Gates in the software industry. You cannot be like him, nor can anyone else. THe opertunity is over for that kind of success.

I think that proprietary software will always be around but will probably be relegated to niche roles (don't expect an open-source version of OrCAD any time soon).

Also note the emphasis in the interview on RMS's academic background. It doesn't suprise me that an obviously intelligent programmer here is supporting free software.

Also note that the essnece of making a fortune is not "licensing fees" it is "other people's work." This is true regardless of what one sells. So yes, I think that it is possible to make a lot of money in the OSS market, and that oportunity is slowly beginning to surface, but it will be a little whil before anyone does so.

Is he a billionaire?

[Dancin_Santa]

Support Open Source, remain a lowly software contractor. Demand payment for your product, become the world's richest man.

Decisions, decisions.

Dancin Santa

I worked with Monte in a previous life.

[tuxlove]

I worked with Monte in a previous life. We were never on a project together, but had lots of water cooler interaction and that sort of thing. Played him at checkers once and won, which is surprising because I suck.

There were rumors about his past with good ol' Bill, but I never bothered to ask. It's funny, now that I haven't seen him for several years, to see his past highlighted in the article. The stories I heard about his past seemed unlikely for someone like him (i.e. a reasonably normal guy without obvious riches).

Don't get me wrong. Monte is a cool guy. Nice, friendly, smart and all of that. But to imagine him as one of the first 10 or less at MS is weird to say the least. Obviously he never got the riches out of it that the rest of them did. He always drove around in an ancient Honda Civic with faded and peeling paint. He had a relatively isolated position (in charge of development tools) in our relatively obscure company. Don't know much about his personal life, but I think he took Karate lessons. You could always count on him to ask the pointed, annoying question of the speaker at company meetings. It was inevitable, and they would always look for him in the crowd to get the questions out of the way.

Not the mover and shaker one would associate with the other founders of MS. I wonder if he's sorry he didn't stick around long enough to become a billionaire. If you're reading this Monte, "Hey."

Interview

[WhtDaUWant]

I though that this was an excellent interview. It brough to light some scary stuffas far as PC's go. One of the questions i had on it was how will CPRM effect people who dont run windows? Is really going to end up being ignoredable by programs? After all the entertainment industry has gone to trouble to get it in the door. The next step if it was ignored by programs would be enforcing it in hardware instead of software. Digital fingerprints are all ready being implemented by Napster, it isnt that hard to take advantage of that at all. Really scary stuff.