Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft's New Core OS Team Learning from Linux
sokk writes "Seems like Microsoft is paying attention to the Linux way of doing things. According to itworld.com, a new central engineering division will work on the core of Windows: "The Windows Core Operating System Division (COSD), within the company's Platforms Group, will be responsible for the core OS platform, including development, program management and testing, Microsoft said in a statement sent via e-mail.". A little further down the page analyst Rob Enderle: "They have been studying Linux extensively. Part of their study has been on how Linux has been able to maintain a high level of consistency in the kernel while groups around it maintain maximum flexibility,".
"
till M$ makes windows opensource
#
#\ @ ? Colonize Mars
#
...whether they'll be "borrowing" some Linux code during their studies...
It's not like Linux developers haven't learned (or blatently copied) anything from Windows.
Username taken, please choose another one.
If that was the case then they would have already learned from their own.
Carpe Canem - Seize the Dog
Microsoft isn't stupid, Linux is a great study in OS Development, and they are using it to their advantage.
Microsoft better watch out! That GPL software might corrupt their innovation!
Thereby proving that you are unable to learn from the mistakes of others.
Microsoft does not have this failing.
Denigrate it loudly while duplicating it quietly.
Is there any evidence that this is anything other then an organizational change? I mean apart from the thoughts of an analyst who doesn't really know? Analysts get compensated for getting their company's name in the press.
Read Epic the first RPG novel.
Maybe someday we can all work together and learn from each other. Linux got a few ideas from windows. and windows from linux. Hey if windows can be more stable and work more for the user, more power to Microsoft.
Some software money can't buy. For everything else there's Micros~1
I wonder if SCO would give Microsoft's core the stamp of approval once it's completed in 25 years.
Ballmer: Windows is more secure than open source code
Maybe because it is open source ? The consistency surely comes from having the entire codebase to refer to, and the flexibility from people being free to suggest any patches they like to the kernel.
Microsoft might say that they admire the way that linux contributors interract, but I think it will be a cold day in hell before the admit that they're implementing technical features of linux.
Later windows versions always had a handicap of having all this legacy to support, and many design decisions were influenced by this. It's definately a step in the needed direction for them, to find out how to make the system flexible enough for new stuff while keeping the core relatively consistent.
Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
I'm going to go against the grain and NOT make this an "I told ya so" MS-bash. From a business perspective, it makes sense for them to learn from Linux, just as it would make sense for Linux to learn things from MS. Each do things differently that work. It's generally regarded that Linux has a better core, better security, and fewer bloat-features that introduce vulnerabilities. It's also generally regarded that Microsoft has superior usability/UI. In the end, for my mom, Microsoft wins. If this new MS team can improve the core to the point where it's as good or better than Linux, then the only reason anyone would use Linux would be cost.
At the same time, Linux's usability has been improving, it'll be interesting to see what happens when MS and Linux converge to the point where they're both as usable AND both as secure/stable/etc.
Wer mit Ungeheuern kämpft, mag zusehn, dass er nicht dabei zum Ungeheuer wird. --Nietzsche
.. they can't learn to have a love of what they do. That's a huge difference between Open Source and proprietary.
Trolling is a art,
Microsoft doesn't need to study anybody to maintain a high level of consistency as regards the kernel. It is consistently bloated and buggy. It's first thing on the requirements doc and they keep up the effort every single day.
First they ignore us
Then they despise us
Then they ridicule us
Then they become us...
Maybe they should learn to share first.
Microsoft is going to become more centralized to better compete with a competitor based highly distributed, decentralized development.
I'm amused, of course the proof will be in the bits.
Linux is Linux, if One need clarify their dist: <Dist>/GNU Linux
bsds are of course just BSD
So does that mean SCO is going to sue Microsoft, too?
"I like you, but I wouldn't want to see you working with subatomic particles."
If M$ won't adopt Linux, at least it will use ideas developed in the open source community to help Windows become a better operating system. Isn't that what we all want? Better operating systems?
Microsoft Chairman and Chief Software Architect Bill Gates has called Longhorn the biggest Microsoft release of the decade and bigger than Windows 95.
2006 - 1995 = 11 years. Oh yeah, Windows 95 didn't release until 1996.
Microsoft's New Core OS Team Learning from Apple.
Linux is anti-American, unconstitutional, hippie-dippie, probably communistic, causes cancer in laboratory animals . . .
and now Microsoft wants to be more like Linux. Got it.
Someone you trust is one of us.
This only leads the way to a real merging between windows and linux. It is only a matter of time and resources before it happens. Microsoft is just trying to find out how to encorperate it all into 1 big package. Come back to this post in 10 years and you'll see my "I told you so" reply..
That microsoft is scared of linux. Because they want to know their 'enemy' in a sense. But also just from a pure techinical stand point is also good to know how other people do things so you can learn from them and improve on how you do things
Get Movie Posters
My immediate concern is that a huge company like Microsoft that owns patents on all kinds of trivial concepts will next be telling us, "Hey, we found the following Microsoft patented technologies in there while we were poking around! But don't worry, we're a nice company. Just get rid of the infringing code and we'll let it slide. Oh wait, that's 97.5% of your kernel by our estimates."
Hard to say though, as they haven't been that agressive before, and indeed came up on the short end of the stick in a recent patent dispute.
According to the Microsoft apologists and mr Gates himself there is no innovation in Linux...
Soon to come: a new development process invented by and patented by Microsoft.
This is the way that NT started. Dave had total control over the core (and the people) while Bill had control over the API on up. Then Bill took back control of all of it. Bill should have left Cutler in control of the core.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Emulate, or Squash.
Squashing hasn't been working too well.
It's only funny until someone gets hurt. Then, it's hilarious.
Seriously, If you were MS wouldnt you want to know how a bunch of wierdo hackers from around the world keep things like the kernel SANE ?
With all the development and patches, etc most of us take the kernel stability for granted.
MS Has absolute control over every aspect of their development and CANT EVEN COME CLOSE to the code procedures that surround kernel development.
Kinda funny such a diverse group hacker can build a proccess for kernel patches and updates that is superior to a company that has control over all aspects of their kernel development.
The same way The Cathedral And The Bazaar and the Halloween Documents gave us more insight on the way FOSS works, the result of their studies would probably be useful.
Is it just me, or is this article back from the future? It's only 4:25am local time as I write this, but the article says it was posted at 5:16am.
Regards, Ross.
Six boxes to use in the defense of liberty: letter, soap, ballot, witness, jury, ammo.
The newly formed division, described by Microsoft as a "center of gravity for advancing engineering excellence within Windows,"
Isn't center of gravity the point to which all bodies around eventually bash into ? Now that Microsoft has agreed to it, let's continue with our bashing
getSexySig();
Red Hat, Inc. is now Microsoft's #1 competitor in the marketplace. Has Red Hat been studying Microsoft for years? One need only look at kernel support for NTFS or the Samba project to answer that. Now in order to keep up with this arms race, Microsoft must in turn study Linux in order to keep up.
Capitalism demands this fierce escalation: it's called competition.
If guns kill people, then CmdrTaco's keyboard misspells words.
Granted, you couldn't really just copy and paste Linux kernel code directly into Windows source, but this should be enough to get the tin-foil hat guys going...
Developers on both sides of the fence tend to take what they like best about the other and incorporate it into their own.
Take the the desktop GUI for example. Despite what many people think about M$ they did create a fairly easy to use and consistant user interface. Both KDE and Gnome keep implementing the little things that will help them be more consistant and useable. (they have come a long way!)
Perhaps what M$ hopes to learn is not only about the kernel as stated in the article, but how Linux does things in general. The current root/user paradigm seems to work a whole lot better if you ask me than to give Grandma root privs on her Windows machine only to have her accidently delete something pretty critical because an E-mail said to.
Bottom line is there is a lot to learn on both sides of the fence.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
So you got a bunch of MS core people who are _encouraged_ to look at the Linux kernel.
They got some really bright people there you know.
And what that bunch of bright hackers would want to do pretty soon? Contribute. Just like that Microsoft fellow from the original Haloween documents described - he had the urge to make changes, to improve the open-source code he looked at.
Even it they are prohibited from doing so (which I doubt - engineers and lawyers don't mix), the certain cross-contamination of the ideas is bound to happen.
This will lead to the whole bunch of interesting things - from super-SCO-sized legal battle to Longhorn Linux.
"Part of their study has been on how Linux has been able to maintain a high level of consistency in the kernel while groups around it maintain maximum flexibility,"
MS, here's a clue: Stop using undocumented/proprietary hooks into your OS from your apps.
Linux is the way it is (in reference to the above quote) because people stick to the "API"... partly because there's no other way, but that's another topic/philosophy alltogether.
- Preferences: Solaris 10 (servers), Ubuntu (desktops), Solaris 11 (personal servers) -
Microsoft is at another point in its company evolution where it sees a good idea and assimilates it into it's business and product strategy. It is unsuprising, given the fact that the company has in the past profitted from the innovations of others by refining and mass marketing them (i.e. Windows came from observing the innovation of Apple and Xerox's PARC, Internet Explorer came from the observing of Netscape, and the continuing development of PocketPC which came from the observation of Palm.) One can now only hope that they actually implement the philosophy of open source development that has made Linux one of the most robust and flexible operating systems, or whether they simply copy features.... time will tell.
one world | many people
"By closely controlling the OS core, Microsoft will be able to better ensure that Longhorn will arrive on time and meet its quality and security objectives, Enderle said. He expects Longhorn to come out in the fourth quarter of 2005, provided that a beta becomes available as planned in 2004."
Looks like they're still looking at a 2006 release. (Come on, fourth quarter 2005 always means 2006).
The question is, will assembling this team help them meet that goal or will the initial organization of it take away some time and delay the project more?
I can't say from experience on what the effects of forming a new style of management to a project, no matter how capable that style is, will do as a project is underway but I'd assume there would be some hassles to start things off with and get the ball rolling.
"Microsoft Chairman and Chief Software Architect Bill Gates has called Longhorn the biggest Microsoft release of the decade and bigger than Windows 95." What's all the hoo hah about Longhorn? 64-bit support for the masses *who don't yet have 64-bit processors?
Well, maybe by the time it's finally released there will actually be some breakthrough for Windows equivalent to them adding TCP/IP stack in Win 95.
Rob Enderle makes more media pronouncements than just about any other analyst. In general he has no expertise and no information on which to base his statements.
I would completely discount any report that uses him as a source.
Don't take my word for it. Use Google and judge his veracity and competence for yourself.
So does this mean they intend to revamp the windows/nt kernel to be more modular like Linux? And/or base the entire thing on how Linux is designed?
So, when does SCO sue them?
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, it doesn't go away." - Philip K. Dick
Isn't this Slashdot? I though we wanted: (Linux) World domination, fast.
An Indian-American Hindu committed to non-violent thought/speech/action alarmed by the global explosion of radical Islam
Comment removed based on user account deletion
And then you'd have two operating systems of more-or-less identical capability, except one is free and the other costs hundreds of dollars. Monopoly power is only going to get you so far in that situation.
Sean
Mismoderation really damages your faith in slashdot? You deserve a +5, Funny for that one!
But I agree, I don't see what the poster's point is. Maybe you're right on the KDE thing....
I mean, I'm sure openness is a factor.. but from the beginning, things were this way.
I think it's more about focus.... or maybe lack of focus...
See, the kernel teams worries about the kernel, and exporting usable interfaces to that kernel. Not that interesting to Mom & Pop jones, but of great interest to other developers... like those who, say, build distributions.
MS takes a whole systems approach... the libraries and kernel and everything altogether.. they don't have a group just concened with releasing the best kernel... they have to meet whatever requirements happen internally.
It's flexible because in the open source world, the kernel team doesn't have to compromise for lazy app developers, or vice versa.
This just in: The SCO Group and Daryl McBride announced today a new lawsuit directed at Microsoft for even thinking like their software product, recently copied by the evil GPL. McBride says "If the software industry continues to steal our ideas, such as thinking, ALL YOUR BASE BELONG TO US!!!"
Si vis pacem, para bellum! For evil to succeed good men need only do nothing!
Microsoft is doing what they've always done. It's called Co-Opting...I'm supprised they haven't started this earlier.
MS needs a really level headed guy at the helm, like great cars, great operating systems come from a single person's drive and motivation, not a committee.
He has the ability to say "no" in a way that doesn't upset everyone.
Dave Cutler of VMS and WinNT fame comes to mind also.
"They have been studying Linux extensively. Part of their study has been on how Linux has been able to maintain a high level of consistency in the kernel while groups around it maintain maximum flexibility,"
I know why and they will never be able to achieve it.
Linux does not suffer from one crippling problem that EVERY big software company has.
Management and Marketing.
If you eliminate the managers, the PHB's and the marketing team from ever communicating to the programmers, then you can do this.
I have seen management utterly destroy some of the most amazing and elegant software ever made.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Obligatory posts saying that "COSD is dying."
why up-modding should have no limit. One of the funniest EVER!
"I'm just here to regulate funkiness."
Doesn't this remind you of Agent Smith absorbing Neo? Brace for a reboot!
when i see windows.sourceforge.net i'll believe it!!
My problem? I was perfectly gruntled, until some numbnuts came by and dissed me.
Hey, that is our IP they are using..it's called the evolution model..time to send in the lawyers. 8P
no, i think what we want is the freedom to use our hardware and software resources the way we want to. Will MS ever allow that?
Need I say more?
As anyone who has ever worked in a commerical software house can tell you, for every one super-skilled developer writing code, there are dozens (hundreds?) of others who are not.
The reason that Linux's codebase has remained so cohesive, focused, and flexible is that Linux has so many really skilled developers -- the kind that most companies are fortunate to have just a handful of.
Software development is one thing where the difference in output between the most skilled person and the average person can be orders of magnitude.
There really aren't many other fields or occupations where you could argue that the top people/employees are orders of magnitude better than the median person/employee.
By closely controlling the OS core, Microsoft will be able to better ensure that Longhorn will arrive on time and meet its quality and security objectives, Enderle said.
(Emphasis mine.)
It looks that they still need to learn a bit more from Linux (on the other hand, they were pretty good in this respect even before Linux hit mainstream).
It is understandable that Microsoft would attempt to emulate Linux development. The problem comes when the core developer empowerment (to make final decisions) rubs up against marketing wants and needs.
This is an example of the fundamental difference between attempting to emulate something and being that something.
This is actually good programming technique. Keep your core simple and consistent so the outer layers can be flexible.
No electrons were harmed creating this post, though some may have been subjected to electrical and/or magnetic fields.
Shooting from the hip I'm taking this guess at the model for M$ future:
After WWII, Japan (well, Asia et.al.) learned to imitate US technology - we even helped them! Autos, Electronics, Watches and Cameras are prime examples.
The thing to watch for is what happened next - after Imitation came Innovation...and the popularity of those commodities took a swing to the East. The US economy took a pretty good hit, as I recall!
This is a wake-up call for Linux devs to stay sharp and keep up the steam of progress.
db
Cig:
ôô
YEP
This is a quote from an analyst, who has no idea in reality what microsoft is doing.
:P Certainly doesn't seem factual.
"I bet they're doing it in responce to linux".
"I'm sure they're studying linux".
This just looks like pro-linux anti-fud
Never trust anyone who can't spell "lose".
Embrace and extend.
It has come to mean good things (not trying to reinvent the wheel, but building a car around it), and bad things (trying to force down the use of the de facto microsoft-owned standards incompatible with de jure ones), but it's the key idea in Microsoft's business decisions. And it's what's behind trying to separate more clearly the Windows kernel from it's GUI and it's shell. Perhaps we'll be seeing plenty of third-party GUIs or shells (I know there's litestep) to Windows.
It was at one point clear (DOS/Win3.1), but then the GUI started to "own" many features (net support, and even CD-ROM access!) from 95 on - and they finally did away with the separated "core system" from ME on.
Perhaps they're starting to see it's a bad idea, or that it's losing them customers. The first thing that attracted me to Linux is how I could have internet access without ever booting the GUI. And while XP is not the nightmare ME was, it's pretty hard to fix when broken in a deeper level.
On an off note, Billy Gates' "Road to the future" is actually an insightful book, you know. You just need to remember he's a businessman, not an actual geek. To him, it's better to admit to having been wrong than losing money or market share. Welcome to the world!
"Better operating systems" is just part of it. Freedom is the other bit. I don't see M$ adopting that any time soon...
Part of their study has been on how Linux has been able to maintain a high level of consistency in the kernel while groups around it maintain maximum flexibility.
It's real easy... Try not integrating everything on the planet into the friggin' OS! Small, seperate programs that depend on nothing but themselves has always been the Unix way, and DLL hell and The Registry are a complete antithesis to that.
At least, that is what America always seems to preach: "Democracy and Free market spur technological advancement which increases the quality of life."
If you are a company, what else do you have to control other than the "social" aspect.
I think MS implying "social superiority" to the Open Source model is far more damning than admitting technical superiority, because the latter implies a "point of advancement" while the former implies a "rate of advancement." Plus, very few companies have been able to reap the benefits of both the Open Source and Corporate worlds at the same time (though, Mandrake is getting pretty close).
How do you recreate the structure that naturally appears when you open the source and all future benefits derived from that source to all of humanity? Isn't that kind of like trying to recreate the functions of a living organism without DNA?
If you ask me, the best "social" aspect to open source is the amount of heart people pour into it.
Sdelat' Ameriku velikoy Snova!
I just want the source code, then I can make it better myself. Remember better is subjective, only I can make it better for me, but to do that it MUST be open source.
As a programmer, microsoft and windows are useless to me untill I have the source code.
I dont know what they hope to learn from linux, but the most important advantages linux has come directly from its open source philosophy.
If MS arent willing to adopt a free and open method of developing software, and release the source, without restrictions under the GPL, then I cant think what else they are trying to achieve by looking at linux.
Since their patent cliams rights on ANY derivative works, does this mean they'll be suing for a piece of the new Microsoft OS?
"then the only reason anyone would use Linux would be cost"
no, there would still be the free speech/beer issue.
there is much to be learned from RMS.
I have plenty of common sense, I just choose to ignore it. -- Calvin
<troll>
That Microsoft will someday be able to release a stable operating system?
Sorry, I just couldn't resist...
</troll>
But seriously, it looks as if the mere presence of Linux is having an effect on Redmond. Perhaps Microsoft will produce better systems than they have in the past if they consider Linux a threat to their business model. Nothing inspires excellence like a little competition...
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
It'll take them a while before they copy the "free as in Free Software" part.
It amazes me that a company can still charge a premium on what's basically a commodity component (scheduler, memory manager, etc) that's been around for decades. Same for that other company that's charging for relational databases. IMHO they should recognize that after 30 years these parts become commodities and that they need to find somethign else to sell if they want high margin products.
This makes you wonder if MS isn't thinking toward a future where they release the source to the NT kernel at it's smallest, simplest, runnable level.
They could keep the Win32 subsystem, the Windows GUI and everything that uses it closed and proprietary, giving them a huge set of products to sell while getting rid of all the objections to their practice of including things like IE in with the OS.
The kernel would almost certainly receive the same attention from developers that LINUX does regarding clustering, scalability, etc.
Imagine it - LINUX developers could create a kernel module exposing the NT API that Win32 uses and MS could sell all their software to LINUX users.
If that is not a strong motivation for churning out quality code I don't know what is!
Too bad for a certain closed source vendor that this is hard (if not impossible) to replicate within their current business model.
But, who knows? Maybe they can learn something else from the OSS process. It's completely open and successfull, so it must be the ideal research subject!
"First lesson," Jon said. "Stick them with the pointy end."
Microsoft will not win over linux in the market place, because they believe their own propaganda - that copyrights are some type of free market property right and not an overbearing government regulation. The GPL accounts for that, the MS EULA doesn't.
Once they understand that restricting what people copy is not some kind of inherent right, but an inherent burdon that is no longer workable in the informaiton age - it will probably be too late for them.
Microsoft has had a terrible time transitioning people from the DOS-Win3.1-Win95-Win98-WinME family to the NT-based systems. More than half of Windows-based desktops worldwide are still running DOS-family OSs. Even though they've all been discontinued. Even though they have zero security and crash constantly. They're still out there.
Rob Enderle=Quote Mill, and it's just not worth it to pay any attention to him whatsoever. It just feeds his twisted 'Linux users are persecuting me!' fantasies. There are plenty of people who dislike Linux AND have technical knowledge and ability to write, unlike Enderle. Attention is better spent on them; at least we can learn something from them.
How much can they "analyze" and use before it becomes a "derivative work". After all, anything they come up with will certainly not be GPLed.
welcome back K0tter
Nevermind, that's what I get for not testing it. In firebird, at least, shift-click opens a new window... ctrl-click opens a new tab.
philcrissman.com.
Linux has no dumbshit sales and marketing to push around, piss off, and sabotage the activities of the kernel developers. Until the OS people in Redmond have the power to say,"go to hell - we're not welding the browser on and requiring quad proc database servers have IE" they're doomed.
I'm a bit skeptic on the news.
A couple of years ago my friend who worked for Microsoft was explicitly told not to "look at" any GPL source code to avoid "unnecessary legal implication" in "GPL infringement", or something, in the process of software development.
Let's not get into any SCO jokes, what if some GPL works were copied to their core development, without a proper distribution license?
I wouldn't say management in MS would forbid their developers from merely looking at GPL source code nowaday, but I don't think they'd adopt any GPL works in their core. Just my opinion.
"To a certain extent, Microsoft's decision to form a division focused on the OS core was driven by its main rival, Linux, said Rob Enderle, principal analyst at Enderle Group, a consulting firm specializing on emerging technologies, in San Jose, California.
Microsoft didn't say a damn thing about emulating linux, Rob Enderle did. The memo was distributed by MS, but appears to have no content regarding an emulation of Linux development methodologies.
Might want to reign in the horses a bit boys.
before MS releases an OS with a pseudo-OSS license. Something that allows perusal of source code, but 'all your changes are belong to us' would seem plausible. Oh, and they will also still charge for it, probably somewhere in line with Sun's Java OS.
After all, they already own Virtual PC for Mac - suppose MS did the same trick as Apple - take BSD and use their tools and APIs to make most Windows software run on it. Of course, those parts would be just as proprietary as the GUI on OS X - just the way MS likes it.
...is a waste of resources. We could just go with the superior alternative (Linux) and stop spending time, money and energy in Windows.
They've got enough programmers that they could simple go "open source" within the company, and that would be a big enough community to get all the benefits cited by ESR in his Cathedral paper.
A few other big companies could also do this if they wished.
Long term, I think, what Linus himself will be remembered for won't be the Linux kernel itself, but for how he managed the project. Hell, I personally know half a dozen people that could have done everything Linus did on the technical side of things, but I doubt any of them would have been the project manager he turned out to be.
how Linux has been able to maintain a high level of consistency in the kernel while groups around it maintain maximum flexibility
It's open source! Everyone that works in Linux can examine the code, learn from it and adopt the best features while scrapping those that don't work so well. Microsoft (from what I've heard, having never worked there) fosters a competitive atmosphere between groups that doesn't lend itself at all to the sharing of techniques. Deadline-driven timetables don't leave much time for reflection or study of other groups' efforts to see what works well and what doesn't.
creating a new central engineering division that will work on the core of the Windows OS (operating system)... By closely controlling the OS core, Microsoft will be able to better ensure that Longhorn will arrive on time and meet its quality and security objectives
I've always felt that one of the strengths of Linux is that it is not centralized and that development is not tightly controlled. Conversely, Windows has always had one hand at the tiller; Bill Gates'. Most of the design decisions that led to Windows' quality and security problems have been due to one man's philosophies about how the software should be written; Bill Gates'.
In short, it looks like they are trying to emulate processes that work well due to a lack of centralized control by imposing even tighter, more centralized control. They are trying to correct the problems stemming from one man's control of the design effort by giving him even tighter control over the design effort. This is doomed to failure.
The Core OS team is at least 4 months old. I run a site about operating system development and I just finished a run of a Microsoft banner advertising OS developer positions. The banner linked to here if you're interested.
My Hello World is 512 bytes. But it's also a valid Fat12 boot sector, Fat12 file reader, and Pmode routine.
"It seems that GPL must be in place to bring stability to the thing", said one of the core group leaders.
It is puzzling since the exact same version of Windows was setup and only the GPL-labeled boxes were able to keep an extended uptime. The same core group leader said "It is extremely odd. We suspect that the GPL has some magical attributes to it, making everything under those three letters run better. See, we've made a test and enabled users to select the licensing scheme, whether to follow our usual EULAs or GPL. After the selection, the software was installed as usual, with no differences whatsoever, since we did not let users customize the install after the license selection. We found out that installations made when the user clicked on the EULA option tended to be more susceptible to hangups than installs made under the GPL".
You mean Microsoft hasn't figured out the reason Linux works so well is because of the whole Open Source Concept?
Study it all you want Microscum, but remember, if you use any GPL software, you have to release the source. bahahahahahahahahaha...
They'll never get a clue at this rete...
Psst. Here is the secret. It's called freedom. If they offered real software freedom, they too would be able to produce world class software.
Let's see how long before Microsoft files a patent for "Method to develope core system architecture maintaining a high level of consistency [...] while groups around it maintain maximum flexibility"
Does anyone find it funny that COSD is really close to BSOD? There has to be some relationship there...
I just heard some sad news on talk radio - famous monopolist Bill Gates was found dead in his Jacuzzi this morning. There weren't any more details. I'm sure everyone in the Slashdot community will miss him - even if you didn't enjoy his work, there's no denying his contributions to popular culture. Truly an antitrust icon.
awww yeah
The reason that Linux's codebase has remained so cohesive, focused, and flexible is that Linux has so many really skilled developers
That's partly (if not more than partly) because of the (traditionally) high cost for your ticket to enter Linux/Un*x Land (both monitarily and intellectually). Keep the entry barriers high (steep learning curve, tools that are difficult to use, etc.) and the only ones who can stick it out will typically be the above average folks.
On the other hand, make it so that any Joe Shmoe can cobble together *something* that works (at least works a fair amount of the time) and you get more people developing on it (ever hear of VB?).
Things are changing with Linux dropping the cost point of entry and the intellectual point of entry dropping (but still having a good deal of a ways to go, IMO) with the development of more tools on Linux but Linux isn't there yet until Joe Shmoe can throw together a toy app quickly and easily that can keep track of his beer, cigarette, and pork rind expenditures.
now get back to work. I wouldn't be surprised if some linux code finds its way into windows. Does this mean the server edition of windows will implement true POSIX standard, rather than some form of emulation? Does it mean windows server will use unix thread scheduling, instead of the pre-emptive thread scheduling? Stay tuned to find out in 2006.
It seems to me that Microsoft is nneding to revamp the way that they make their OS. If you read about the original development team it was 30 or so people for NT 3.1, a managable development team. NT 4.0 was a couple hundred and now the NT/XP team is huge and they are all working on the OS. The bug count last I heard was in the 40,000 - 60,000 region. It is simply to complex a system to keep track of all changes and bugs. In The Million Man Month they discuss there being no silver bullet for creating perfect software, but definitely putting more people on the team will not help.
I think it is great MS is changing the way they make OSs. If MS makes a good OS that is stable and secure, it raises the bar for everyone else to compete. They have to change their method. I think they have there divisions implement changes and Software QA verifies build stability the way that most Application development shops work. This seems impossible on the OS level. Linux is great because they have the UNIX design model to work with, everything laid out in a clean working fashion. The Kernel is so stable because they do not make major changes to the way user space is made because it just has to allow for UNIX applications to run (including X). All of the modules like memory and file systems are layed out. Microsoft has ruined their chance of using this model in Win XP by putting the GUI in kernel space, grabbing the messy registry system from Win 95, and whatever they could hack to make a consumer heavy duty OS.
Perhaps MS could have Linus Torvalds come in and be their OS development consultant for a day. They could elect someone as their Linus to check in every major change. They could add features for 6-12 months at a time, and test and revise changes for the next 6-12 months and blamo they have a Linux like development team.
- Kill Yourself, spare us all! -
One day I think my head will explode when another marketoid walks in with his moronic ideas that are impossible to implement in real software. Or if I go through yet another reorg, which PHBs do all the time to show their PHBs that they're doing anything at all.
2003-12-16 16:06:37 MS learning from Linux kernel development process (articles,windows) (rejected)
The problem is the mentality of "HEY, if we add functionality to Windows, we'll get more market share!"
New features are not a problem. Features people want are not a problem. New features designed only to "create" a desire in the marketplace is a problem.
how is this insightful? it's nothing but flamebait.
Oh great, this means I can start expecting "Fr1st P0st!!"'s from Bill Gates ...
Karma: Frotzed (mostly due to the Frobozz Magic Karma Company)
How do we know Microsoft isn't just taking code from linux and integrating it into windows? Is there ANY way to tell if open source apps (not just linux) are becoming integrated into the windows codebase? I'd like to know, because I want to make sure that it isn't possible for proprietary companies to just take opensource code and use it without crediting the original authors.
Not Ctrl-P, Ctrl-V... Need to get more than 3 hrs of sleep a night.
Considering that longhorn is now pushed off until like 2008, maybe Microsoft is rethinking their OS strategy. Since they really dont make that much $$ from windows anyway (mostly off of their other sw, particularly Office), why not make windows just a window manager that runs over the linux kernel? They could still sell it, and let the open source community work on the kernel issues, etc freeing up R&D to focus more on their other software.
omg tho, slashdot loaner geekheads couldn't bitch at microsoft for their os or security anymore!
THE HORROR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
it will be a cold day in hell before the admit that they're implementing technical features of linux.
linux is a 'Copy the API of UNIX' environment.
In the Windows NT 3.51 days Microsoft said "NT will be a better UNIX than UNIX"
So Microsoft has already implemented what linux is implemented.
Actually, there are 2 classes of Linux programmers: (1) those of us who grew up in a Unix environment before Windows came along (and are thus very experienced) and (2) those who started computing with Windows or DOS but were technically adventurous and confident enough to venture beyond that. Either way, it lifts the average competency of Linux developers.
Linux isn't there yet until Joe Shmoe can throw together a toy app quickly and easily that can keep track of his beer, cigarette, and pork rind expenditures.
Isn't that what Perl is for?
I just used glade to create my little Sin App.
I wonder if SCO will now claim that the open source movement aspect of Linux is their IP, keeping M$ from from using its development model. License fees for all! Down with free thinking and the common good!
Microsoft does a minor reorg every six months and a major reorg every 18 months. This is just some PR around an otherwise ordinary event trying to get you to associate MS development processes with Linux.
I swear, it's like watching someone in a bad marriage: *this* time s/he'll be different! It's gonna work this time.
It's just so MS can compute the COGS on Longhorn better, and, like I said, it's just something that happens all the time anyway.
What the fuck is wrong with you people? That shit's never been funny and it just makes you look like some piece of shit fanboy. Fucking stop it.
The important question is: Will MS try to 'patent' the Open Source software development method? Don't be surprised if they do.
I am a designer and not a programmer so could someone tell a lamen the significance of this. It would seem good to me that there would be some flexibility in the kernal. Am I confiusing flexibility with inconsistency?
People still use Linux?
That's soooo 2000's...
In the future, we use GNU/SCO Unixware.
While I agree, it was only reciently when I've had to deal with the dozens of others within the same project.
Most of the time, the mix is "all good", "most all good", "a mix", and "nobody here knows how bad they really are".
not only that, there's also the fact that if crappy code is submitted it's just not included. If multiple versions are available, the best may be used, or they may all be ignored the developers sent away told by linus to try again.
Liberty.
I tried Linux, because I wanted a better operating system. Luckily, I found GNU, savoured the taste of freedom, and now there's no way I'm going back from free software. A better Windows, or a no-cost Windows doesn't compare to a free OS, no matter what technical advance they could think of.
I think this statement is right on, but needs to be thought out some more. Hopefully, the "average" computer user will change. Right now, the Average Computer User (ACU) was probably born when personal computers didn't even exist. Look ahead 50 years, and that won't be the case. The ACU will be much more familiar with computers, and there will be no need to coddle them as much. Unless of course, they are coddled their entire lives. I think at some point the learning curve needs to be adjusted.
And my mom is a newbie to computers too, just using it for email and very minor web surfing. To her, the Windows UI is extremely confusing. Double-clicking was a new concept. Saving a file, locating where you saved it, opening it, all the wizard options, the odd error messages, etc. These were all brand-spanking-new things to her. Nothing was intuitive about Windows. Now I am not saying that Linux would have been, but if she were to start out using computers today, the Linux UI would be no more difficult than the Windows one, because her computing needs are simple. The more things you use a computer for, the more you delve into the particular OS's UI.
The real question is, is the ACU in 50 years going to be just as clueless as to how a computer operates as they are today? I certainly hope not, because that would mean that we are not progressing.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
That would be the major reason to ignore this story completely. The *laugh* analyst *laugh* in this case is a known douchebag. The "Enderle Group" is made up of exactly one person. Wild guess who. If anyone takes offense at my use of the word douchebag, you come up with a better word to describe someone that creates a "group" that contains only themselves and puts their last name in the title of said group. Perhaps he has imaginary friends or multiple personalities or pets he counts in his membership totals.
For every annoying gentoo user, are three even more annoying anti-gentoo crybabies. Take Yosh from #Gimp for example.
Yes! And we should put a gun to the head of anyone that says differently!
Shut the fuck up, Stalin.
...the best news that I have read in awhile. Now, if they will a) design security in from the start and b) use a language with bounds checking - NO MORE BUFFER OVERFLOW CRAP! I'm talking about tech that came about in 1970, for christ's sake!
The real question is, is the ACU in 50 years going to be just as clueless as to how a computer operates as they are today? I certainly hope not, because that would mean that we are not progressing.
No, the real question is: if the average computer user in 50 is as clueless as today, will the computer be smart enough to help them figure out what they need to do? 50 years is plenty of time to develop a smarter computer that's relatively weak by the standards of it's time. If we have not done so by then, then programming and it's related fields are not progressing.
To celebrate the occasion of my 1000th post, I will post no more forever on Slashdot. Goodbye.
Subject says it all.
I think, at the kernel level, you`ll find that Microsoft programmers are top notch. If you read something like Showstopper which chronicles the development of NT you will get some idea of the calibre of people they use.
To her, the Windows UI is extremely confusing. Double-clicking was a new concept. Saving a file, locating where you saved it, opening it, all the wizard options, the odd error messages, etc. These were all brand-spanking-new things to her. Nothing was intuitive about Windows.
Amen, brother.
Anyone that has taught elementary computer use (especially to adults), like you and me, will feel your pain.
There's nothing intuitive in Windows for the raw beginner. Nothing!
Cheers,
This is a great idea. This process has long ensured that the Linux kernel arrives on time and completely stable.
The security of Microsoft combined with the timeliness of Linux: the best of both worlds.
The ______ Agenda
If you read down, there are a lot more chiefs involved in the Window OS core, unlike Linux which has imperatur Linus. Nothing will come out, since none of the chiefs will agree on marking each other's turf....and what about the real power...MS marketing nothing be heard there.
They have interesting job opening right now as well:
Job Title: Software Development Engineer
Job Category: Software Development
Product: Not Product Specific
Job Code: 105577
Location: WA - Redmond
Why settle for working on an established product that everyone knows about when you can work on a top secret project that has not yet been announced. You can enjoy saying phrases like "I could tell you, but I would have to kill you" and "Hey, you can't tell anyone what I do". The project for which this job relates is one of them. Core requirements for a development position on this team are ability to work in a high paced environment as a contributing developer, very strong C++ design, analysis, coding, and debugging, strong communication and ability to work with other team members and groups, excellence in engineering, knowledge of Unix and/or Linux system-level functionality (threading, signal handling, memory management, for example), familiarity with server technologies such as Apache, IIS, ASP.NET, ADO.NET, web-services, and determination to make our platform the best in the world. Also required are a Bachelor's or Master's Degree in Computer Science or related discipline and a minimum of 4 years industry experience. Experience with and assembly level debugging skills on Power and SPARC processors are definitely a plus. Psst, hey buddy, want to work on something cool and top secret? Come on over here.
in OSS every interested party in the entire world can see where you have been lazy and/or stupid...
If that is not a strong motivation for churning out quality code I don't know what is!
/me puts on PHB hat..
I know! We'll encourage our DEVELOPERS! DEVELOPERS! DEVELOPERS! DEVELOPERS! to look at each other's code, and we'll accept nominations from them for the laziest and stupidest code. Then each week, we'll give a golden raspberry to whoever wins! If you win three times in a row, you get fired!
Yeah! That should motivate them to produce good code, just like Linux!
/me removes stupid PHB hat.
(note: At one time, I really did have a boss who thought like this - only it wasn't a raspberry, it was a stuffed frog.)
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I mean that in a Microsoft-nuetral way. You either adapt or die off. So, its good to see MS take notice and change its style in some way. More compitition, better product for the consumer.
would you like some ketchup with your hat?
"Mommy, it's too bright in here!" he complained.
I though Sir Haxalot came from somewhere in the UK (I remember he used to quote GBP in his journal).
YOU FAIL IT
Shouldn't they be studying the OpenBSD process? (security) Or the NetBSD process? (run everywhere)
[o]_O
Perl is ok but still daunting for someone with little programming background. There are too many symbols and the contexts where those symbols are used that make it look scary. At least, that's what some friends have told me.
VB, for instance, builds GUI apps... something that they can see and something they can see changes in very easily. Drag this button here, double click on this button write some code, done. Even designing the forms gives folks a sense of accomplishment sometimes, even with nothing behind it. In Perl, you do a bit of typing (using lots of strange symbols - for someone who at most just sees the characters that can be found in a newspaper column) which is just a bunch of text, then there's nothing to look at when you run it but maybe a prompt asking for you to type some more stuff. Not very exciting... powerful, yes... just not flashy or pretty.
No!
Micro$oft!
Indeed.
Choose x in the below:
01. Buy an OS for USD20k-80k (depending who you ask)
02. Market this OS well
03. Grow to an almost 100% market share of desktop OS market (plus associated programs) and a bit of the server market
04. Profit!!!
05. Let people speculate
06. Market grows
07. Develop periphery programs, adapt to new applications
08. Wield more power
09. More profit!!!
10. Go to 05 until something exogenous comes along
11. choose(12,13,12=X%,13=(1-X%))
12. Mega profit!!!, go to 05
13. Company collapses amid falling market share
Hmmmm, what is X? Is X=f(exogenous factor)? Then what must the exogenous factor be? Maybe it is endogenous (incidious?).
I would expect the .Net virtual machine and base class libraries to also be part of the Windows Core. Does anyone have any information on what is included/excluded from the Core?
The only new things to come out in the OS world recently are second generation microkernels (L4) and Matt Dillon's BSD fork of Dragon Fly with its IPC and other architectural changes. These are true multi-processor clustering solutions.
... for the GPL licensed software patents they're obviously incorporating in their products? Oh sorry, no patents... it's free. Had the reverse been true, don't you doubt the PR would have stormed in crying the Communist Hippies had raped and stolen the innovative creation of successful individuals (thus impoverishing the whole world including Antartica and the depths of the Indian Sea). Oops, 'tis ha shame noone has patented the whole Free Software business process... it would have meant sue time.
Mi domando chi à il mandante di tutte le cazzate che faccio - Altan
...I'd have to say no.
I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
You mean the same people who decided to put IE in the kernel?
I remember reading articles back in the 90's (remember, the last decade) that Microsoft was studying Unix and BSD kernels. Some of the impact seems to have shown up but overall it seems like not too much has changed.
Until Microsoft isolates the the kernel calls from user based calls don't hold your breath waiting for a change. Given the legacy code they support I don't think any big improvement will be soon.
"There is magic in the web." - Othello Act 3 Scene 4.
There really aren't many other fields or occupations where you could argue that the top people/employees are orders of magnitude better than the median person/employee.
True, but cooks and whores come to mind.
No matter how many of my rights are taken away, somehow I still don't feel safe. -Frigid Monkey
Besides, Microsoft's Core OS team has more people working on their kernel than any single version of the Linux kernel has.
Why is i say stilen, if linicks and some other free oprating system use them ideas from other systems? Cause linux and other free operating sytems makes idea evolve and them give back to da community. bloatedsoft ha takes ideas from others, cashes in on them ideas, and doesn't even give credit. Capish.
"Free Software" 2000 copiright richard stallman.
"Open Source" 2000++ copiright
WinBloat is a copiright of BloatedSoft Corporation
keo@linux:~> ispell firstsladotpost.txt
ispell: error: bloated32.dll not found
keo@linux:~> shit
bash: poop: command not found
Not me. I be we see an open source "core" of microsoft windows in the next few years. Leaving out the gui and application api. Which they would sell as an integrated product. It certanly would be a better product. I may even use it. (Pay for it? What, are you on crack?)
Linux and other OSS projects are open by their nature. If someone wants to come along and inspect it they can whether or they have alterior motives or not.
The "O" means "Open" for a good reason. The spirit of OSS is sharing and learning with everyone. This includes Microsoft. If they can learn how to stop making overly complex software that can never seem to quite work from inspecting BSD and Linux then so be it. Linux and BSD have nothing to hide. That sounds like a strength, not a weakness for MS to exploit.
I can't believe nobody has made the connection/joke already, but...
Microsoft had better stop studying Linux or they're gonna be liable for that $699 fee per license for their new core OS. That would put each purchase even more underwater than their current Xbox giveaway!
They'll think they should all act like Al Viro
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
...community giving back after it has learned by copying software (Office clones, desktops and window managers, file explorers et.c. et.c.) from Microsoft and Apple.
Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
For 1500 years alchemists worked tirelessly in their secret labs making potions and spells with the ultimate goal of turning whatever into gold. 1500 years wasted because everone kept everything secret. Chemistry came along when people published and studied work of others. After 300 years we know it takes a nuclear reaction to turn something else into gold. Linux is like chemistry. Microsoft isn't. Get the idea?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Aghhhh! Clippy 3000! :-)
Personal computers are complex, and will get moreso, in that they are not single-purpose machines. They aren't like telephones, TVs, or VCRs, that can afford to have a simple interface that are easy to quickly understand. I think that the more we use computers, the more complex things they'll be able to do. This assumes that they don't become single-purpose devices. It is EXTREMELY difficult, if not impossible, to put a simple interface on something highly complex and have it retain its flexibility and usability.
Things are the way they are with computer UI because there is such a wide range of user-levels. I think that will remain, just that over time, there will be no "newbies" remaining, and all of the functions that catered to newbies will go away. I know it is hard for many people to imagine, but I believe that the command line will help solve this. The next "revolution" in computing will be the flexibility and power of the command line. It may not hit the mainstream for years, but I think that the "average" user will have to learn it or won't be able to keep up. Everyone always thinks that the UI must get simpler, but I think it must get more complex. The difference is that the user-base will be able to handle it, and it won't seem complex to them.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
The irony of this development is that M$ is doing internally essentially what Judge Jackson proposed: split the OS out from the rest of the company. Now after fighting that idea tooth and nail, M$ is 'innovating' this wonderous idea into their operation. Hypocrites.
how Linux has been able to maintain a high level of consistency in the kernel
With LOVE!
Something I would lose in the very same moment I'd see Gates and Ballmer in front of me.
The article states that they have been "studying" Linux, but it doesn't specifically say what aspect of it is being reviewed. My natural take on that statement is that MS Engineers are studying the Linux kernel. (Granted my assumption could be wrong.)
If that is what they are infact doing (studying the kernel), wouldn't their be legal ramifications? It's one thing for them so say, "Hey Linux has feature $X, we're going to add feature $X to Longhorn".
( $X = 'Some Cool Feature that Linux has that Windows doesn\'t, like Kernel Modules or something like that\.';)
-Sorry, Installing Oracle via Exceed over DSL. It's painfully slow and I'm bored.
It's something altogether different to be reading Kernel Source on one screen and coding on an other. Even if they aren't "copying". I'd think that SCO would be all over this. Oh my mistake they paid!
Is my understanding correct?
I didn't mean to slander the Japanese Intellect - I was drawing an analogy in what I suspect M$ is steering toward. In all fairness, their per-capita IQ is much higher, call it TQM for the mind...
Never mind the 50's Russian and Japanese knockoffs of the German Leica, Minox and Voigtlander cameras...I'm done with my musing.
db
Cig:
ôô
There is an order of magnitude difference in skill between a nurse, and a brain surgeon. No it's not the same job, but then, coding the Linux TCP stack has very little to do with being a VB programmer developing a new front end for existing applications at a major insurance company.
There is probably an order of magnitude difference between a new carpenter, versus a experienced carpenter who was trained by another very experienced carpenter.
It's only in the computer field where differentiating between the crappy, and the great, and the incredible demand for the skills lets those with so little relavent talent continue to earn a good wage doing so they have no incentive to find another line of work.
I know I'm not kernel coder quality, but I'm a damn fine programmer at C++. So I'm somewhere on the scale, but not at the very high end.
Kirby
Just a guess, but offhand I'd say it through design driven by software developers, versus design driven by marketing and artificial deadlines. In other words, in any organization, the behaviours that get rewarded the most increase, while those that get punished decrease. MS apparently does not reward consistent, flexible design or implementation.
"Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney
Hello?
This happens in ALL skilled professions where quality work output is dependant on ability and knowledge.
Think famous scientists
I get tired of hearing programmers on /. boast about how unique and special they consider their work to be. Thanks for taking the wind out of the sails of the grandparent post.
Slashdot - the place where you can look like a genius by restating the obvious
"Studying" Linux, hehe.
Developer 1: "Ah.. so this is how they do it in this section..." *copies and pastes code and gives it a quick test* "That should do it. Next section!"
We have secretly replaced these Slashdot mods' sense of humor with a rusty nail. Let's see if they notice!!
I call BS. It will never be feasible to anticipate everything possible thing user might want to do, nor would it be worth their time to try. The point is that ultimately computers are just tools that help people accomplish what they want to do. And, like any general purpose tool, a PC requires a certain amount of training and education simply because of its complexity.
OTOH there are simple computers all over the place that are only programmed to do one thing. They are immensely easy to use and reliable They are simple and relatively reliable precisely because they only engage in tasks that the designer intended them to do; that is they limit choice to certain predefined options. I'm thinking things like ATM's and certain consumer electronic devices.
The point is that fundamentally there is a trade of between complexity and easy of use. If you want flexibility and the ability to innovate, then complexity and choice making is the price you have to pay, and that "price" is education.
Maybe most PC users today don't need that complexity, thats fine. They can have their Xbox, MSN TV, AOL for the PS/3 etc. The problem is that the PC is fundamentally a general purpose machine, and no matter how many help screens and dialogs you have, you will never be able to turn that general purpose PC into something as simple as your TiVO or Discman.
----- Question authority, but not ours. Hate the man, but we're not him.
You compared apples and oranges with that one.
Slashdot - the place where you can look like a genius by restating the obvious
Isn't that what we all want? Better operating systems?
Nope. The true Free Software idealogues only want conformity to their idealized vision of how they think the world should work. Cost, usability, stability and other criteria that most people use to evaluate software are irrelevant to them.
The most famous of these is RMS, but there are others. Read your history, and figure out for yourself how history tends to judge those who place "ideals" too far above practial real world results.
The best outcome is usually that some moderated form of the vision ends up prevailing. The worst outcome (when idealists achieve power, and maintaining the power becomes a surrogate for the ideal) is death on a grand scale.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
Computers should make life easier, and simplify complex tasks. That is the reason we have them. Insisting that computers SHOULD be hard to use is totally missing the point of the benefit of computers. Should a layperson have to take classes on legal research to use an online legal resource? Or should the interface of an online legal resource simplify the details of the search, in the interest of being more convenient than a brick-and-mortar library? Why doesn't Google require the user to enter SQL commands for all searches? Perhaps because they realized that the power of a computer could make searching for information easy and fast.
yeah i agree... also if bmw wont adopt mercedes benz cars at least it can use their ideas
moron
You speak of this boss in the past tense, which begs the question....
Just how many stuffed frogs did you collect?
Your comment seems to be "apples to oranges" in regards to open source as far as I can tell. While MS may be centralizing their engineering efforts, this doesn't necessarily mean that their development efforts are not dispersed amongst many technicians. Also, in open source efforts, all the various decentralized efforts eventually get whittled down into what is an accepted core by some central committee.
Hmm, what was that old Microsoft anti-open source argument? That open source doesn't innovate, it is simply copying Microsoft technology? Looks like the shoe in on the other foot, and the foot is firmly planted in the M$ mouth now, doesn't it?
"Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney
KISS Individual empowerment is a great thing and being well rounded is important, but sometimes we are better off specializing and not trying to do everything for ourselves. Instead of trying to turn the PC into a "toaster" we might consider just making the toaster instead, and leaving the PC to those for whom making these choices is not a waste of time. To each his own.
----- Question authority, but not ours. Hate the man, but we're not him.
The problem is simple: Microsoft has a Marketing Department. Linux does not. I for one don't beleive Microsoft is willing to get rid of it's Marketing Department, or seriously reduce it's control over the development process, just to produce better code... but I could be wrong.
"Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney
MS is about power-tripping. Linux development works because it is **not** about power tripping but about technical collaboration. Trying to take on the methods without the underlying ethos is as effective as praying without faith.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
The programmers just wander in, pop a beer and start working on whichever project they feel like today? Their competition better watch out...
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Because Slashdot wanted to post an article entitled, "Microsoft's New Core OS Team Learning from Linux." Facts don't matter.
"Sufferin' succotash."
If we had a patent on the Linux Development process, they could not copy us without infringing, hence we would have to send them a C&D. We could sue them for Billions and call ourselves SCO++.
If the Linux kernel people are smart they will patent this process. M$ will then have to license the Linux business methodology since the U.S. Patent Office does allow the patenting of business processes.
In my experience, anything a nurse (or General Practitioner) tells you can be ignored, you'll still get better. A nurse generally gives advice that makes you feel better more comfortable, and possible speeds the process along a bit, but inheirently does nothing to fundamentally change the outcome. Generally I stopped seeing a GP unless I need a bone set, or I have been sick for a week.
However, when you have a bleeding brain, nothing but a brain surgeon will do. When you have a pile of bad C code, a really good programmer, or an average programmer will both get the job done (in differing amounts of time). So there isn't as much selection pressue on the job of a programmer.
If I found a brain surgeon who was nice, I wouldn't let them operate on me. Clearly they aren't a real brain surgeon if they are a decent human being :-)
Finally, if you had quoted the following sentence, I pointed out that, comparing programmers to programmers is just as fair as a nurse to a surgeon. If you made a nurse do a surgeons job, there'd be an order of magnitude difference, if you made a surgen do a nurses job, there'd be an order of magnitude differece in quality. If you took a programmer whose really good a job X and make they do job Y, it's not terrible shocking there is fall of. A lot of programmers take work, and do work in areas they lack experience or knowledge, because it is a good job, and the people doing the hiring can't tell the difference.
Skill as a programmer, because programmers have a very, very broad range of skills and abilities that they need to do to accomplish their job, are inheriently incomparable in most ways. Finally, a lot of great programmers are great on the codebases they work on, but they'd be lousy on other codebases.
Kirby
"They have been studying Linux extensively. Part of their study has been on how Linux has been able to maintain a high level of consistency in the kernel while groups around it maintain maximum flexibility,".
It's because the Linux kernel is under the control of (no offense) a dictator, where as the MS kernel is under the control of a bureaucracy..
Sometimes dictators are a GOOD thing..
"I'm going to go against the grain and NOT make this an 'I told ya so' MS-bash."
Good, because this article is just speculation from an outside analyst. The only facts we know are that it's just an organizational restructure in Microsoft. Big deal.
"Sufferin' succotash."
If they are studying the code, will any code accidentally become part of a windows build?
Hey, leave comments about my mother out of this!
...that the process isn't two ways. Linux developers should be taking a look at,and studying how windows does some things. Security might not be microsoft's strong point, but they did excel in the area of integration and user interfaces. Linux distrobutions could _really_ use help in both these areas.
BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
Guessing that 90% of the end-users use Windows, because of that news, this approximation will stay the same.
Why? Because population in general is already think that Windows is good stuff. Now, when we'll say to them that Linux is better, they'll say that's not true. Technically, they'll have a point because the Windows kernel will be as good than the Linux Kernel (Because Windows checks how the Linux kernel works). But when we gonna say to them that Linux was like that before Windows was, they won't trust us. And, I tried, population in general don't care if is OpenSource or not. And the worst thing is that this same population will still pay a lot of money for their OS while they can get something that is completely Open Source.
So the only chance for us is to convince the population and I don't know how to do that.
note : English is not my mother tongue so be kind.
Wanna bet someone in their lab will quit MS and start contributing to Linux?
Excellence is _that_ powerful.
Ebony and ivory...
Live together in perfect...
Harmony...
windows popularity is due to integration. creating subdivisions within the os will make it more difficult for things to work together. expect this level of inconsistency to grow.
If not, it was always my understanding (based entirely of heresay of course <grin>) that the Nt 4.0/Win2k/WinXP kernels were actually pretty good. Wasn't the original NT kernel jointly developed with IBM and OS/2? Again, my hearsay-based understanding has always been that all the "cruft" that is duct-taped to Windows accounts for the lockups and security issues.
I'm too lazy to dig out the links, but I'm sure many Slashdot readers are familiar with Microsoft's legal use of the term "core operating system" (or similar terms anyway). Remember all the stink about bundling Internet Explorer with Windows? Didn't Microsoft claim that IE is an intrinsic part of Windows, that it cannot be removed without breaking the OS? More recently, the Europeans want Microsoft to unbundle Windows Media Player from Windows XP. I'm sure Microsoft is claiming that WMP is part of their "core" operating system.
In short, Microsoft has been criticized so often for bundling applications with Windows. Their response is usually along the lines of "it cannot be unbundled". I call anything that cannot be unbundled part of the core system.
So it looks like this new division will work on the entire Windows product!
Unfortunately, too many people don't care or don't understand the subtleties of this discussion, and will never realize that---yet again---Microsoft says one thing but does another.
I'm New Here
They can "study" Linux all they want.
...
It won't make a damn bit of difference in the long run what I plan on doing with the next Microsoft infested company I get a job with.
I will begin by pulling out all of Microsoft server products based on open standards, then once all the servers are BYE BYE, the desktops will be next!
So go right ahead Microsoft and study LINUX all you want, and incorporate development models and source into your products....I can get for nothing, which your propose to sell to
hopefully my competitors.
-Hack
Got Geometrodynamics? Awe, too hard to figure out? Too bad.
They have been studying Linux extensively. Part of their study has been on how Linux has been able to maintain a high level of consistency in the kernel while groups around it maintain maximum flexibility,
The developers at Microsoft are quite capable of great things.
It's just that MSFT management decisions made to obscure things for competitors has created a Big Ball of Mud.
You know, Ballmer's song, "DOS ain't done till Lotus won't run!"
"Provided by the management for your protection."
What M$oft doesn't wanna admit is that they are scared s'less of what IBM is doing with th Eclipse project. It's a bit of an Enigma.
Microsoft wanted it easy for developers to get its tools. They were never free, however. Eclipse is free. But IBM's version (Websphere AppDev) for the enterprise is basically Eclipse, with additional plugins.
I can run Eclipse on Linuz, etc. Same engine. IBM is or has overaken WebLogic in the AppServer market.
----
The idea that MS wants a better OS, so it's looking at Linux is an understatement. Basically, now its... "Okay, we bodged up our OS to justify violating Monopoly laws. Now that we've won.... We just need to undo the code intermingling of End User Applications with the kernel."
Eclipse is the next "killer" app, by going back to the fundamentals of how to build a huge software business.
Short story in semi-point form. No names, lest people I know lose jobs. Car accident, patient in intensive care unit. Young woman, has small children, I believe. ICU doctors want to pull the plug (think it was a neurologist, ie, brain surgeon). No brain scan completed, doctor makes recommendation to family to turn off ventilator, family approves.
Nurse mentions to doctor that patient appears to be responding, and the doctor should get a scan to measure brain activity. She is overridden by the doctor, who maintains that the patient is brain dead, a vegetable. Doctor orders that patient is to be removed from life support. Nurse decides to adminster medication to assist breathing based on a standing order (blanket prescription for the ICU),and then turns off life support as ordered bvy doctor. Only because of medication administered, patient continues to breath. Nurse nearly loses job over this.
A few days later, patient is awake. A few months later, patient is nearly fully recovered, possible loss of recent memories, but is up walking about, part of her family, leading a useful and productive life. As far as I'm concerned, the above doctor should not be practicing, and should be sued for everything he owns, but doctors protect their own.
I don't trust doctors anymore. Period. You should get to know some ICU nurses, and you might want to revise some of your opinions. Personally, I would cause severe physical harm to any doctor with a god complex, before I would let them touch anyone I care about. I would also ask an experienced third party nurse to do an assessment, review a brain scan, and provide a second opinion (insamuch as the law permits nurses to have an opinion), before I would pull the plug on anyone based on a doctors advice.
Slashdot - the place where you can look like a genius by restating the obvious
"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they attack you, then they kiss your assthen you win."
But when I first read about the reorganization, my first (usually correct) assumption was that M$ indeed was trying to emulate the beauty part of OSS for two things it needs/wants:
Better Security
Profit!
db
Cig:
ôô
Though this might be a valid point, there are also reasons to expect just the oposite. As the interface of computers get more and more abstract the knowledge of what a computer actually is fades. And in my opinion knowing how something works makes it easier to use. Sometimes programs are so counter-intuitive for advanced users that they find it more difficult to use than first timers even.
When I was using my 386 (almost) everybody knew what memory and a hard disk constituted. You can nowadays use a computer and know nothing about these things. I've seen people continue to use a computer with heavy memory loads, with disk trashing every single click, and they haven't got a clue what is happening and why everything is so slow.
All said, computers are not progressing as much as I has hoped. An average computer user should not have to know where programs and the operating system is on the HDD. But many programs seem to require this kind of knowledge. Deinstalling applications is a hard thing to do (do you want to remove this dll? RPM -e etc.). Hopefully some of these burdens can be taken away.
"It's flexible because in the open source world, the kernel team doesn't have to compromise for lazy app developers, or vice versa."
Or binary drivers.
There's a usability maxim "Simple things should be easy, complex things should be possible." Since there's really no limit to the complexity of a task someone may want to do, there's really no way to make everything simple. So simplify all you want, but not at the expense of power.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
There really aren't many other fields or occupations where you could argue that the top people/employees are orders of magnitude better than the median person/employee.
I'd have to agree 110%. That's part of the reason why I personally wouldn't mind paying decent US wages for small co-located team of skilled motivated experience developers, as opposed to trying to do "offshoring" with 5x same amount of developers. It's common sense, once you know basics about productivity differences... but for PHBs it's dark mystery they've never heard, or wouldn't believe if they did. :-/
Of course, there is the additional problem of it being difficult to really reliably find talent, even in US. To get that good small team... so generally teams end up following bell curve quite closely (skillwise), at least initially. But that can be fixed over time, as long as there's motivation and learning skills. It won't quite get you diamonds, but at least some cheaper gemstones. :-)
So you are denying that we can ever create something like AI on a computer? Because a turing level interface to a coputer would be simpler than a discman
If you've never worked at Microsoft, then you can only speculate inaccurately on how their development process works. And all of your speculation is incorrect.
i te dtalks/lucovsky_html/
Also, Rob Enderele himself spews a lot of bogus crap speculation. I don't think he has any inside contacts at Microsoft. His idea that Microsoft's Windows division reorg was a reaction to Linux is laughable. If you know Microsoft, you know that they reorg their divisions regularly, usually once a year. It helps to keep the organization healthy by moving star executives around, and reconfiguring the "contact surfaces" between various groups. Sometimes we called it a "nerd sort".
Yes, Microsoft keeps their products on aggressive schedules, but often they slip the schedule to add time to bake in extra quality. For example, the Windows Server 2003 schedule was slipped by about 1 year to allow for additional security-focused code-reviews and bug fixing.
There is a lot of communication and sharing of best practices among various groups, even across divisions (e.g., between Windows and Office and Developer Tools). The Windows OS code is subject to a lot of internal peer review. The code also receives a lot of scrutiny by sophisticated execution simulation and code analysis technology (which often catch bugs that human peer review misses), and is subjected to a ton of stress testing.
The Windows OS development is not controlled by a single man (Bill Gates) as you might think. I doubt Bill even looks at the code. Windows OS development is a very nice balance between centralized and decentralized development. The OS is highly componentized. The core kernel code(process/thread scheduling, HAL, etc.) is still ruled by the original NT architect, Dave Cutler. Other major subsystems (networking, windowing, file systems) are similarly "ruled" by other senior NT engineers. There are also very talented engineers (some in MS Research) that study the entire codebase for very precise issues.
Have a look at this presentation by one of the original NT architects:
http://www.usenix.org/events/usenix-win2000/inv
(I worked as an engineer at Microsoft for about 9 years.)
Microsoft is between the proverbial rock and hard spot. If you consider historical trends and rates of development, Linux is profoundly faster in the rate at which it has been developed than any proprietary OS. Linux once was notorious for its problems with device drivers. These days that problem is long gone. It has been argued that Windows was more convenient and once that was true, but these days, the convenience of not having to reboot Linux after and installation alone reflects poorly on windows, especially when comparatively trivial progams require a reboot to work after installation. The historical evidence suggests that within a comparatively short time Linux user interfaces will be far better than anything MS has. You can argue that linux already has this, but not everyone will agree.
Presently, the only sound reason for using Windows is for the applications and with Open Office and Star Office as well as many others, even this is becoming a weak argument.
Microsoft cannot afford to ignore the manner in which Linux develops. The irony of course is that they can't afford to emulate it as a proprietary company either. The fact is, MS cannot afford to hire a work force of the size and qualifications that marks the group that developes Linux.
------ The only greater hazard to your liberty than n politicians is n+1 politicians.
Right now, the Average Computer User (ACU) was probably born when personal computers didn't even exist. Look ahead 50 years, and that won't be the case. The ACU will be much more familiar with computers, and there will be no need to coddle them as much.
I disagree. I believe the Average Computer User will remain approximately as well-informed as they are today. They will know how to turn it on (as long as nothing goes wrong), and use a few applications (as long as the work properly). Most people believe that a little computer knowledge grants expert status:
- A friend thinks his 6-year-old child is a computer genius because she can use the mouse to play children's games.
- Another friend thinks his teenagers are computer literate. They know how to download songs.
- A college student thought another student was very computer literate because he found her "lost" document in the "My Documents" folder.
- A friend's friend at a party was hailed as a computer genius because he could install anti-virus software, start the scan, and remove viruses if the software knew how.
When I started with computers, they could play a few games. They often required typing in the source code. (We did not call it "open source" then. "Closed source" came on plug-in cartridges, or was in the BIOS. Everything else was open.) I quickly decided it was more fun to program a game than to play a game.
In the early 90s, the computer world exploded. Suddenly tons of people were seen as computer literate because they knew how to "program in HTML". Then the techies added JavaScript. Some of these "web developers" survived by copy/pasting (otherwise known as "stealing", or "borrowing" since all JavaScript is "open source") JavaScript from other sites, or from new websites that collected easy-to-implement code.
None of the people mentioned are likely to become techies. There is also a class of people known as "administrators" who have basic knowledge of installing programs and rebooting computers. They fill the boring roles in the computer world that programmers do not want. (Network architects and a few other jobs are more engineers than techies, and so are not part of this discussion.) Using "scripting" languages has reduced the intelligence/competence/skill-level-required to program, and that is good because we need more programmers, and we have fewer.
The bar for being considered "computer literate" by the public is very low, while the bar for becoming a programmer has been raised. I really started programming on a Commodore PET. IIRC, it booted to a command line that also served as the IDE for BASIC.
- What IDE do I use in Windows? DOS Help was hidden in the extras on the Windows95 CD. QuickBASIC disappeared. MS wants you to use VisualStudio (after giving them much money,) but how many 10-year-olds can afford it.
- Java is easy to install, after waiting for the download, but compiling requires the command line. (I use batch files. Raise your hand if you know what is a batch file. OK. Now explain to that newbie who wants to be a programmer.)
- The best bet for a newbie is to ask for someone's old computer, install Linux, and start playing with all those compilers. But that newbie already knows they want to program. The casual entry of source code is gone.
Computers must become get easier for the average person to use, while programmers become rarer. At least we are guaranteed good income.
I spend my life entertaining my brain.
I'm happy for that. This will make Windows more secure, which will relieve many people out there.
Also, another way to look at it is that this will force Linux developers to come up with even better ideas and techniques to try and stay one step ahead. Competition is a Good Thing (tm).
So who from MS has been detailed to review this thread in detail?
"Academicians are more likely to share each other's toothbrush than each other's nomenclature."
Cohen
"Dear pedantic Slashbots: If cable theft is stealing, why is MP3 downloading "infringement?""
Because (at least for USians) that's what the law says.
Theft of 'telecommunications services', such as cable, are defined and punished under USC Title 47, Chapter 5, Subchapter V-A, Part IV, Sec. 553. That section can be found here.
USC Title 17, Chapter 5 covers copyright infringement, which is an entirely different animal. You may view this section of the USC here.
If reading legalize hurts your head (as it does mine), then try reading here instead. That link leads to a far easier-to-digest version of the laws in play.
If you live in a foreign country where copyright infringement equals theft, then please let us all know where this enlightened utopia is. If you live in the US, then your sig is nothing more than the butt-end of a joke played upon the American public by a group of criminals running a group of corrupt organizations (as defined under Federal RICO statues) which should have been shut down years ago, with their board members imprisoned for their crimes.
I find it amusing that so many voice their support for the rule of law by defending a group of companies and individuals (whose collective criminal activities over the past 50 some-odd years could result in massive (as in Trillions) government-imposed fines and a slew of life sentences (for execs)) from small children and teenagers who, at worst, are commiting a civil offense.
Please change your sig.
-- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
I wholeheartedly agree with the first portion of your argument, but I have to disagree on the second.
e handheld devices (ie., a Palm with a special set of software) to fit new users needs.
The prevalent consumer operating system in use today (I'm extrapolating) is moving toward a more task-based user interface with it's next release cycle. I think we'll see that trend continue, since the same company has the marketing clout to convince the largest number of consumers that is what they want. I think on the more high-end, professional systems (and on hobbyist systems), we'll see a CLI, but it hasn't evolved much, if any, since its early days (just some new programs and scripts to run) and there aren't too many directions it can evolve in.
We'll see the percentage of non-newbie computer users creep up, but I suspect that we'll have more specially-programmed-but-otherwise-general-purpos
Essentially, we'll be keeping the guys at Gizmodo busy with gadgets. I just don't see the CLI becoming the predominant interface again.
But I could be wrong. Worse things have happened.
PS: The person who writes Clippy 3000 will be hunted down like a terrorist madman.
To celebrate the occasion of my 1000th post, I will post no more forever on Slashdot. Goodbye.
Have you tried to talk another human being through a moderately complex task?
That's the level at which you'd have to work if you wanted to replace all human-computer interfaces with an AI. Does the thought send shivers down your spine?
himi
My very own DeCSS mirror.
I don`t follow Window`s developments generally (Linux user) but do know that user-space apps, like Internet Explorer, don`t run "in the kernel" - so you`ll have to give me more specific detail than Google was able to.
The original NT development team was full of very able people - the best known being Dave Cutler. Any software project would be glad to have this kind of talent on board.
the best known being Dave Cutler. Any software project would be glad to have this kind of talent on board.
Assuming they could put up with the temper tantrums, of course. Or maybe he's mellowed in his old age...
deus does not exist but if he does
anyone can see this is just another attempt from Micro$oft in stealing reason for invention and calling it innovation.
IE developers were forbidden to look at Mozilla code without VP approval.
Do you means Dave Cutler is no longer with MS?
"Academicians are more likely to share each other's toothbrush than each other's nomenclature."
Cohen
So, are you saying that MS is not doing that currently? Aha! Finally, they admit it.
[sarcasm]
Reeeeeeeally? So when is Longhorn due?
2003 you say.
Now you say 2004.
2005?
2006?!
So how's that Trustworthy Computing thing working?
Never mind.
[/sarcasm]
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
So basically you end up with an OS designed around the philosophy of Linux but with marketing pressures making it crap. I don't see how developers who are supposedly so bright will remain in a situation like that. If everybody who was bright enough to realise initiated an exodus from Microsoft to start their own company, imagine what you could get out?
Karma: It's all a bunch of tree-huggin' hippy crap!
Yeah, it's just a shame the damn thing is so slow.
Karma: It's all a bunch of tree-huggin' hippy crap!
Uh. If you don't like it, then stop coming here. Nobody's asking you to stay. Go crawl back to your kuro5hin.
Couldnt print? Mine printed fine.
I ran 3.1 on the same box with only 8 megs of ram and had an Epson 1500 laster printer that would rack out an amazing 8 pages a minute, and I would print 150 payroll checks every week. It would play music cds, and do all lot of things. And it was stable.
I did payroll, school reports, played doom, which was all pretty fancy. Even surfed the web. So basically same functionality I have now.
Puto
The Revolution Will Not Be Televised
I have heard that at one point, MS switched their policy of supporting his "Mother of ALL OSes" operating-system and instead wanted things at precise dates and therefore compromising testing and quality.
If you look at what MS is saying now though, they claim to be changing their core OS development philosophy towards something more akin to the way linux is developed.
And linux is "Done when it's done", not scheduled against something like financial quarters.
It's really too late for Microsoft to expect anyone to really care anymore about what they'll produce, now that the word is out that open-source is better, cheaper, and infinitely more adaptable than Windows could ever become.
I didn't have the proper driver.
Your recap makes me marvel at how far we've come though...
Everything improved but software!
LOL
I don't know the meaning of the word 'don't' - J
Except the "Start" button ... errm except at that point the computer is already "started" and one of the slections under start is to shut down the computer.... hmmm.
... it should be a big windows icon ...
There should be no word on that button
If cable theft is stealing, why is MP3 downloading "infringement?" Face it; it's stealing
Your first premise is incorrect.
The day Microsoft creates a product that doesn't suck, it will be known as the Microsoft Vaccuum Cleaner!
"If man could be crossed with the cat, it would improve man but deteriorate the cat." - Mark Twain
Microsoft is trying to learn from Linux. Somehow, they hope to adopt the things that make Linux better without realizing that what makes Linux better than Windows are the very things that Windows eschews.
Linux enthusiasts hope to emulate the success of Windows. Somehow, they hope to achieve the popular success of Windows without realizing that success, in Windows terms, involves sacrificing the very things that made Linux the envy of Windows in the first place.
Contrast a quote from Bill Gates defending Windows "It's not about the bugs!" with a quote from any number of Linux leaders about product release "It will be done when it is done!" to see the difference between the two.
Can ever the twain (every pun intended) meet? I leave you with my original quote at the top of this post and add "and vice versa"!
Then they laugh at you
Then they fight you
Then you win.
- Gandhi.
They are looking at development methods.
The problem is that development methods are not the problem. Microsoft simply cannot understand this. This is not a Microsoft-specific problem. It's just due to the way large companies work.
Basically, some Microsoft analyst team sat down and decided that Linux isn't wildly technically better than Windows. The only other difference must be the development methods -- every software manager knows that software engineering methods are crucial.
And that's where they'd be wrong. The development model is slightly different, but it's not magical. There are groups that feed software up and a few knowledgeable people that review code. It isn't that unique or unheard of.
The philosophy and the *social* structure is what matters. I don't mean from a Richard Stallmanesque "We have an ethical mandate to ensure that software is Free", but simply their goals. The people working on Linux make decisions based on one criteria -- technical merit. They are doing what they are doing because they want to make a name for themselves, because they love the technology itself, because they want to fix a problem that's bothering them, and sometimes even because they want to help others. They have a *reason* to put in the extra effort to make code be really clean. It isn't even just that their work can be viewed by millions (and sloppy Linux code frequently gets harshly panned), but that they want to do their best because they're making something to be proud of. You simply cannot replicate this in a traditional company. A programmer is tasked with implementing a feature. He didn't come up with that feature. The feature was decided upon by a committee that was reviewing input from marketing. The feature then hit a high-ranking person in the software development system, and flowed down to this programmer. He knows that much of the Windows codebase is a mess already. If he does a really exceptional job, he can't keep the code with him or show it off to others. He doesn't have the pride there, and the most enthusiastic project manager or juicy set of incentives can only keep the interest and excitement alive for so long. He's putting in his hours to implement something that's customer-driven, and may not be something that he wants to use. You *cannot* produce a large company that has programmers that produce works of love, because you'd get lots of difficult-to-sell output, and in any case the sheer bureaucracy would stamp the joy out of things.
If I wanted to make a system as close as possible to replicating the Linux system, here's options I'd consider:
* Open source the code. An ultimate reward is allowing programmers to allow others and employers to see their entire body of past work. If you want an incentive to do well, this is a big deal.
* Use only programmers that will use their own work. This is hard for some fields, and extremely difficult for vertical market software -- it's the rare programmer that directly uses banking transaction software. However, the rewards are enormous. The gaming industry has got a pretty good grasp of this. There are a lot of games that have lots of neat visual effects or features, things that were thrown in because the programmer *wanted software* that could do something. They have some incentive to go the extra mile. In the open source world, this is frequently called "scratching the itch". Programmers *want* to write software and will write *better* software, if the result is something that matters to them. "Eating your own dogfood" is a hazy corporate attempt to implement this, but I'm talking about going beyond this -- if you're making a raytracer and need another man on the project, try and find a programmer who ray traces in his free time, and give him free rights to use the product on his own as much as he wants.
* The implementor of a feature should have design influence over that feature. This is a tough one. Software design is harder to do well than software imp
May we never see th
The Windows Core Operating System Division (COSD), within the company's Platforms Group, will be responsible for the core OS platform, including development, program management and testing,
Is it just me or does it strike anyone else as being odd that Microsoft didn't have a group like this in the first place? I shudder to think what kind of development has been going on in there for the last 10 years. (I found the insight shared by a former Microsoft developer in "Barbarians Led By Bill Gates" was especially enlightening. I guess it's a company that hasn't really changed a whole lot)
Ruby on Rails Screencast
I actually think this is a good idea, but it would have to be accompanied by an increase in mod points for each moderator.
Why?
Well, at only 5 moderator points, people would be reluctant to further mod up a post that has already gone up one, knowing that their moderation will only be half as effective. Once a post gets to +2, they'll be even more reluctant, realizing that it will take 4 moderations to push it up a point. And so on.
In order to overcome that reluctance, people would need more mod points.
Alternately, and now that I think of it, this might be an even better solution, you could fractionalize the mod points. For instance, if someone mods a post that is already +2, then they only lose 1/4 point instead of 1 point.
Every Windows laptop has two buttons built in and the most popular models even have an equivalent of the scroll wheel. On ThinkPads, Dells, and others, I can scroll a window without moving my fingers off the center of the keyboard. It's so convenient that I never use an external mouse and almost never have any use for a scrollbar. I can scroll any window in two dimensions by simply pointing anywhere in the window and moving only my right index finger off the home keys.
None of this is possible on any Macintosh laptop. Apple's primitive mouse standard is a real problem.
"Those who have never entered upon scientific pursuits know not a tithe of the poetry by which they are surrounded."
I think the poster meant features not actually direct code
I think a very important aspect of OSS developement is that fact that the people who make the decisions are coders themselves.
At my former job the manager didn't have the faintest idea who was a good coder and who wasn't. He's unable to ask the right questions at job interviews, and because he pays everyone the same, the good coders leave all the time, he doesn't care because he still has enough coders left (the bad ones).
And he wonders why things keep going downhill...
RogerWilco the Adventurous Janitor
At last Microsoft is doing someting right. Maybe in the future well see a nice and free of charge microlinx.
In due time.
Right now, I'm using multiple installations. A "thin" installation with fewer plugins. Because the plugins typically register themselves as "Observers" for certain file types. The fewer observers you have to inform of changes, the better.
What's on my long term wish list is some sort of Distributed version of Eclipse that breaks up the work that one PC has to perform. Wouldn't that be cool? Maybe too complicated.
I take your point that it is hard to teach entities verbally. But consider a fusion of AI and open source, where the code to perform a complex task is shareable between different AI's.
And since anybody can teach another enitity verbally there would be a whole lot of other AIs that might already know how to perform the task you want. Which your AI could ask.
"I think this statement is right on, but needs to be thought out some more. Hopefully, the "average" computer user will change. Right now, the Average Computer User (ACU) was probably born when personal computers didn't even exist. Look ahead 50 years, and that won't be the case." Ah, you mean like the way that people who grew up with cars are, for the most part, perfectly capable of performing maintenance and repairs on their vehicles rather than just driving them with little or no idea about how they work?
yes.
the one major item that was ignored back in the early 1990's by microsoft was listening to user questions, or statements. now people just 'grouse' to m$. i personally gave up, the minute that i hit a wall using m$, i just show how its done cheaper using open source. paying clients like it, and the client doesn't need an a.i. engineer from m.i.t. to maintain their solution.
one of the most constructive methods of software project completion is Listening to the ones that will use your product. i didn't say agree, but Listen. the one thing a person can do with open source solutions is change them if required. this remixes the solution to meet the requirement. the other thing that i personally enjoy is that i can email the developer a question, or explination. damn, you can ALWAYS use a product better it someone tells you how your suppose to use it.
A. You are being irrational and short sighted (both for the nurse and surgeon). Basing your judgement on an for entire classes of medical fields on a single incident is completely and utterly irrational. Change that from nurse to "White Doctor", and from surgeon to "Black Doctor", and re-read your story. Everbody and their brother would call you a racists.
To make that sort of judgement you'd make, you'd have to do a comprehensive study of surgeons and nurses, and the outcome of their recommendations. I'm willing to bet dollars to donuts, that if you do that, the surgeon's (as an entire medical class) recommendations have a far better survial rate then a nurse's (as an entire medical class) recommendations. I've known a lot of nurses (I used to work in on the IT equipment on hospitals). Nurses make mistakes too. I've known nurses who can't calculate how many drops per minute somebody should get in an hour, because they can't do simple algebra problems.
However, in your case, it could be that the doctor is incompetant and should have his license revoked.
B. You have no idea that she recovered because of the medication. The human body, especially near death is very strange. People have recovered from being dead 45 minutes after being put in a freezer. There is no control to state that she lived soley (at least not in your story).
C. When I said nurse, I meant run of the mill nurse at my personal doctors office, not an ICU nurse. ICU nurses have lots of knowledge I would take seriously if they gave me advice. Generally, any nurse at a family practice, will only give you advice that will make you feel better, but you'll get better without the advice. About the only medical advice you'll ever need is: "Take it easy, drink lots, and lots of fluids". For 95% of everything that is ever wrong with you, that's all you have to do.
Kirby
It would be kewl to know start and stop time, and total time, for the world class Linux developers. It's probably lost to history, but think how project management might be turned upside down, inside out, and for good purpose. It's done when it's done and accepted into the Linux kernel.
You mean like Xcode's distributed building?
Karma: It's all a bunch of tree-huggin' hippy crap!
That is exactly my point. You are not an expert on productivity tools. Most technical people aren't.
Office is really better. Significantly better. It is a stunning achievement in technology and user interface that has revolutionized how people work in fields ranging from financial analysis to law.
It just isn't particularly useful for programmers, geeks, and system administrators. We /.'ers need to remember that there are people with other needs, and that in fact that set of needs is in the significant majority.
I've heard that 220 volt electicity is more efficient. I could install a converted and swith to 220 volt appliances. But the fact is, I'm not an electrician, it would be a constant petty hassle, and the lights work pretty damn well.
"All that is required for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke
I didn't realize that Dave Cutler was no longer responsible for the NT kernel, but apparently that is the case. That explains a lot.
:-), but it's too late for that, isn't it? He was right but who cares now ... He probably stepped down voluntarily seeing how all his work (and the truly excellent kernel) was going down the drain.
...
I read somewhere that he argued hard against putting the GDI (and other similar cr*p) in the kernel, but of course he couldn't win against corporate management. On today's machines the overhead of user-mode GDI would have been totally acceptable (see X
In any case, the continued development of a good kernel requires a strong, extremely competent leader like Dave Cuttler was and Linus Torvalds is. I doubt that Microsoft will find anybody else to fill those big shoes.
I will have to go cry too
You should take doctors off that pedestal, and remember that just over a hundred years ago, they were still bleeding people to try and cure their ailments, prescribed arsenic as a medicine, and judged competence based on the amount of blood on their smocks. That is not very many generations ago. Basically, those quacks taught the people who taught the people who are still teaching in the med schools today. Even doctors today only put their pants on one leg at a time, just like the rest of us.
See your point C, in which you stated "ICU nurses have lots of knowledge". I heard it directly from the ICU nurse in question. First hand. Someone who was present at more deaths in a month than you or I will likely ever directly witness in our lifetimes. Thanks for your opinion, but I'll take her word for it.Slashdot - the place where you can look like a genius by restating the obvious
Bah. Replying to my own post. Link to BBC history of Victorian medicine. Supports use of word "quack" in parent post.
Slashdot - the place where you can look like a genius by restating the obvious
One possibility to consider is that this is all a red herring. Microsoft might be doing this to give corporate CIOs a methodology for booting Linux out of business IT. Corporate CIOs want more than anything to use Microsoft everywhere, for everything, forever. The popularity of Linux has been driven from below, and CIOs have been unable to stop it because they had no ammunition to kill it convincingly; that is, they had no PowerPoint slide they could show the rest of the executive staff explaining effectively why Microsoft was better. This new strategy would involve admitting the benefits of Linux, but could reference this new research as proof of Microsoft superiority and thus give CIOs the ammunition they need to keep Linux out. Microsoft doesn't actually have to ever change anything or improve at all.
I guess it's too late for the EFF to launch a patent application on this method of software development as a "business practice", because I would almost bet that Microsoft will.
...while double-clicking may be alien, that is probably the real reason Solitaire is still included in Windows. It gives a new computer user an almost invisible indoctrination on how the user interface works.
I not very familiar with xCode's distributed builds.
But it sounds like what I'm on to. However, building, as in compiling (.java)'s to (.class)'s isn't really that slow under Eclipse. Plus, there's no linking in (.java).
What's really slow is all the gymnastics going on in the background with you simply change a file. At a minimum, all that is necessary is that the (.java) file needs to be compiled to a (.class) file. Something that takes less than 500 miliseconds per 1000 lines.
But... What's going on in eclipse is that you've got a tasks window showing you all your compile errors and warnings. You may have an item for a (.java) file in a different project. What Eclipse does each time you recompile something, is go out and figure out if you've broken something else, or, fixed something else.
Then, there's Deployed and RMIC Code-generation. This currently takes about 20 minutes for a project of about 40 Entities. It's mind-boggling, for 40 tables (entites) we're looking at about 800 (.java) files of various purposes. No kidding!
Yeah, J2EE sucks. Too much boilerplate which could all be handled better by magic reflection proxies.
Karma: It's all a bunch of tree-huggin' hippy crap!
I don't think J2EE sucks. What sucks, is the implementation to date. You're onto something with "Magic Reflection Proxies".
I don't know if that's the same as java.lang.reflect. And the new java Proxies.
The name of the game here is code re-use, extended out to application flow, not just the "Model" part of MVC. I'm trying to tackle the "C" part of MVC to automate development as much as possible. We're not there yet.
Maybe J2EE doesn't suck, but whole parts of it do. EJB for a start.
Karma: It's all a bunch of tree-huggin' hippy crap!
Slashdot is what you make of it. If you don't like it, you don't have to read it. Nobody has yet written a worm that changes your homepage to Slashdot and forces you to read it!
If you don't like apple, say it--nicely.
Tired of free iPod sigs? Subscribe to my blacklist
Well, I'm running XP Pro as I type this, and I can't say that I've encountered any restrictions on what I can and can't do with it, or the other software I have installed.
I've had no problems with activation (I had to reactivate once - I did it over the net with a couple of clicks; no problem), or with DRM. My hardware works just fine, and I can write my own software.
No, I can't modify the OS itself much, but then I never really could with Linux, either. My C is too rusty and I simply don't have the time required to go mucking about with that sort of thing, so practically, it doesn't much matter to me whether the guys who do are working for a company or just doing it for kicks.
This situation may change, and maybe one day MS will do something that does seriously inconvenience me, but so far they haven't.
It's official. Most of you are morons.
We need more programmers?
Yes and no.
Yes, we have more people using computers every day. The world populations grows. The area where technology is useful grows. So the number of programmers should grow to stay proportional with the nuber of users.
No, software is the one field where each task only needs to be completed once, and everybody benefits. We only need one word processor. We only need one spreadsheet. We only need one database. We only need one windowing API. We only need one business application platform. Once a task has been programmed, it should never need to be written again.
The problem with word processors and spreadsheets is that they became proprietary very early. I remember reading the source code for VisiCalc. I have not read the source code for Lotus123 or MSExcel. These applications are returning to the open world, so hopefully programmers will stop making YetAnotherTextEditor.
Databases have stalled. DB2 and Oracle and a few others use ancient technology for large databases. LotusNotes uses newer technology, and is the only usable database for home consumers. I believe the next wave is coming; hopefully it will be open source so everyone can share the benefits. (And if I own the company, do not complain that it is originally released as proprietary. I WILL find a business model where the core engine is open and free. Just give me some time.)
It seems that the windowing API is stuck with 3 popular choices: MSWindows, GNOME, and KDE. MSWindows will die with Microsoft, so the battle is between GNOME and KDE. GNOME was winning because RedHat was doing well as the primary US distribution. Now RedHat has changed paths to follow MS, and SuSE was bought into the US, so we may see a shift to KDE.
The only usable business application platform is LotusNotes. The other platforms still require too much effort for too little gain, or quickly become unmaintainable. But many companies have not installed LotusNotes yet, so we need the tons of programmers required to get anything from those other platforms.
A big problem is that programmers cannot find what already exists.
A big problem is that we change programming languages every few years.
A big problem is that programmers prefer to rewrite everything than use someone else's platform.
Eventually, platforms will be available so new programs can be created by voice control a la StarTrek. But that is at least a decade away. We need tons of programmers to migrate the Microsoft-based applications to other platforms. We need programmers to keep the world running until the new platforms are ready. We will need programmers to help migrate to the new platforms.
I would prefer that all programmers were "true" programmers. But just think: for every two hundred VB programmers in the world, there is one less application that I have to write.
---
My best friend is now a software tester. I wanted him to enter the computer field, but he does not have the creator mindset to be a programmer. Testing is perfect for him, and he is an incredible tester. I like that, as my programmer friends tend to develop inferiority complexes. QA is a worthy field. Be proud of your talent.
I spend my life entertaining my brain.
Let us pretend your daughter was a few years older, and still opened games because they had links to the web site she wants. That implies she does not understand how to make a bookmark/favorite link. That implies she was not curious enough to find an easier method. (If she understands the WindowsXP Start menu, she is very smart. I still have not found the logic behind it, and it is closed source so I cannot read or fix it.) But none of this has anything to do with her becoming a programmer.
.net. I believe the numbers are something like:
Which of your frameworks/IDEs came with the computer she uses? Eclipse may come with some version of Linux, but you make her use MSWindowsXP! Which IDE comes with MSWindowsXP? (And why do you allow her to use MSWindowsXP?)
Would you be a programmer today if you had not started with BASIC at a young age? What language will your daughter use to learn programming?
---
Nobody wants to go down the "Dot Net" route. Even your statement implies that nobody who has learned Java would ever want
- Half of the VB programmers think object programming is too hard, so will stay with the old VB.
- Half of the rest move to Java since it requires about the same effort and pays better.
- The last quarter are moving to VB.Net. They have enough brains to understand object programming, but not enough to understand that bigger paychecks means more stuff.
So MS has managed to cut their development community by 75%. Maybe more of the programmers will migrate. Maybe MS will buy a few colleges and churn out VB.Net programmers. Maybe MS will fold in the next couple of years.
I spend my life entertaining my brain.