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,".
"
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!
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
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,
First they ignore us
Then they despise us
Then they ridicule us
Then they become us...
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?
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.
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.
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.
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, 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
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.
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.
Windows coders are not allowed to get anywhere near linux (or any other code). If a win coder needs to use a linux box, it will have absolutely NO source code on there anywhere. Code contamination scares the hell out of ms becasue if they end up with contaminated code the will be liable for huge amounts in damages and need to rework a large portion of windows(cause everything is intentionally over-integrated) in order to replace the offending code.
"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."
yeah and what's great for them is that no one could prove they were either. yay for closed source development
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.
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
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...
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!
<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.
It would be sweet if they did. Sooner or later it would come out what they did and at that moment a large chuck if not all of the Windows source code would fall under the auspices of the GPL. The difference between SCO and Open Software would be that Open Software would demand that all the code thereafter be made public. That would be a very interesting test of the GPL.
It's not just code they are looking at. Windows and Linux use entirely different kernel architectures. They are looking at development methods.
Saying Java is nice because it works on all OS's is like saying that anal sex is nice because it works on all genders.
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.
What makes me "wonder" is why everyone is accepting speculation on the part of an outside analyst as definitive proof that Microsoft is doing anything other than a dilbertesque reorg.
If you need web hosting, you could do worse than here
"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.
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.
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.
They did pay SCO licensing...what better way to "ensure compatibility with UNIX and UNIX services" than to stick a *NIX microkernel in windows?
MS claims they already did that, with the POSIX support and a Mach Microkernel in NT... Yes I know they are playing buzzword games.
"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".
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.
Does anyone find it funny that COSD is really close to BSOD? There has to be some relationship there...
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.
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! -
No No NO. Did you not read the Groklaw article yesterday or thereabouts pointing out that this scenario is not true?
The penalty for abusing GPLd code is not the compulsory re-licensing of everything. If you're in breach of the terms of the GPL license, then you're breaking copyright law. Nothing makes their proprietary code suddenly open, unless they decide to comply with the GPL rather than fight/settle/re-code.
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 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!
I think up-modding and down-modding should be based on powers of two. One positive vote increases the base score by one point, it takes two more votes to increase the score again, four to increase the score yet again, and so on. The same could hold true for down-modding. It would be just as easy to sort by score and give a boost to the best comments, but it would also put slow down the effect of rushing to say something funny first.
Yep, I know I'm *way* off-topic. I'll slink away like the A.C. I am.
People still use Linux?
That's soooo 2000's...
In the future, we use GNU/SCO Unixware.
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.
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.
We don't. In fact, there was this very allegation a few years ago (along with some supporting proof) made by a group of developers. I don't think it ever went anywhere though.
Is there ANY way to tell if open source apps (not just linux) are becoming integrated into the windows codebase?
I don't think so. Even similar behaviour within the software isn't reasonable enough proof. But again, a few years ago there were some interesting things. Like a BSOD that referenced "/dev/null" LOL. Personally, I think they are integrating OSS code into their software and that is one of the reasons they don't want to open the code up.
Anthony Papillion
Advanced Data Concepts, Inc.
"Quality Custom Software and IT Services"
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.
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.
Oh yes, I'm sure Microsoft is willing to risk their windows source code because a groklaw artical said it was ok.
Given that it is unlikely that MS will allow any outside auditors to check their code base for GPLd code, I'd say the risks were minimal. The only way a GPL copyright holder might have probable cause for asking for such an audit would be if a disgruntled MS developer blew the whistle. Another unlikelyhood given the NDAs MS reqiures of its employees.
... 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
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.
How would you know?
Even with their "we'll show you the source" programs you can't compile and compare checksums to make sure you are shown the source to the code that actually generated the binaries you are running...
Can you?
--Phillip
Can you say BIRTH TAX
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.
1) Having ported lots of code between VC++ and gcc I can tell you that there would be some modification, especially down that low.
e .s html
2) POSIX subsystem compilance was never very advanced, so obviously not much being pulled from there
3) Certainly the file systems are very different
4) The header files aren't even close in the headers that are common between the two
Recognize this directory tree?
http://www.sysinternals.com/ntw2k/info/xpsrctre
Didn't think so. (Means very little however.)
Socket implementation is different, threading model is different, task scheduling is different...
So while there could be plagarism, it would not be without so much effort that you may was well just write the stuff yourself, after being inspired and pointed in the right direction by the GPL'ed code.
I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
...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
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
"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!!
You compared apples and oranges with that one.
Slashdot - the place where you can look like a genius by restating the obvious
You speak of this boss in the past tense, which begs the question....
Just how many stuffed frogs did you collect?
The GPL is strictly based on copyright. You can copy ideas from it, just as long as you don't copy code. You are confusing this with the type of NDA you have to sign to see code from Microsoft. Also Microsoft is very interested in spreading the myth that even looking at GPL code can "contaminate" you, in order to make it sound as bad as their NDA, and you are buying right into this. It isn't, and they know this. So I would not be suprised if they let their top people (the ones trusted to not blab that Microsoft is not practicing their own propaganda internally) to look at Linux source code all they want.
Serious designers want to do things differently, and it turns out that copying source code is pretty useless for this anyway.
They can't, they're still using that code :-)
Using HTML in email is like putting sound effects on your phone calls. Just say <strong>no</strong>.
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
Because Slashdot wanted to post an article entitled, "Microsoft's New Core OS Team Learning from Linux." Facts don't matter.
"Sufferin' succotash."
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."
...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.
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.
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
Personally we ought to do away with the "Use or Loss 'Em" policy -- why? Because sometimes people just don't have the time to use them, or they don't want to use them on the dicussions that are avialbe for the those three days. Point in case -- I lost a couple mod points because I did not want to mod a weekend discussion, since there was nothing going on (it was a weekend when the articles were not personally interesting to me) At least, they ought to give a longer time to mod so that you can take your time and puruse when you have the time. Rushing people gets the first posts points, and those with something intellegent, don't have the opportunity.
At the very least, give the mod points out and then have it so people can not get more mod points until they have used the ones they have. I think then people will get moderated in a way that will reflect the quality of a comment.
The views expressed are mine own and do not express the views of my employer.
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).
"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."
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.
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
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."