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,".
"
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!
Nah, Linux developers have cut out the middleman and are copying Apple directly now :)
- Adam L. Beberg - The Cosm Project - http://www.mithral.com/
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.
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.
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
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
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.
"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) -
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.
Denigrate it loudly while duplicating it quietly.
It's the opensource way!
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.
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.
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
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.
"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".
So, how did the Linux developers get the Windows SMP code? Or are you saying that any functional SMP implementation comes from Windows?
Wait... isn't SMP what SCO is freaking about?! Now I get it! You're in the wrong thread! This is a Microsoft astroturfing thread, not an SCO astroturfing thread. Wait a few minutes, and you'll have an SCO thread to work with, okay?
It might also be due to Linux Kernel developers not being directly controllable by other areas of development (i.e. projects). For example with the mingling in Win95 of Explorer and the Kernel, for usability and not considering the consequences of such a decision.
Or the fact that the core team for the kernel is quite small and the direction of the kernel is ultimately controlled by this group.
This is likely to be an attempt to minimise the undue influence other departments have over the Windows Kernel development team. This being a good thing as it tries to prevent the projects goals being unduly subverted to make another projects life easier.
They didn't state that this was a kernel development team, though the name implies that the kernel will be part of their responsibilities. The core OS could include quite a bit more than the kernel. Kernel mode alone, in the diagram of the Longhorn OS, includes the kernel, HAL, device drivers, protocols (TCP, IPSEC, etc), portions of the storage and transaction systems, part of the DirectX graphics and audio drivers, input manager, memory, power, config, and process managers, plug and play, LPC, and so on. The 'Base Operating System Services' which includes the kernel mode portions also includes the window manager, GDI/GDI+, Direct3D, the CLR, and more of the storage and transactions subsystems. On top of all of that is the crap that's gotten the most attention recently, including Avalon, Indigo, WinFS, and the network class library (which might also be part of the Base OS services, it's hard to tell in the diagram).
Another thing that could be an explanation of this would be reaction to the antitrust cases not only at the federal level, but also from many of the states. If the Core OS is being developed by a seperate group, they could try to hold this up as an example of isolating the OS and API development from the application development, even within Microsoft itself. Of course, that also could backfire on them with any future efforts along the lines of IE and WMP, because they'd have to put more planning into integrating the needed features into the core OS before slapping together another product.
-PainKilleR-[CE]
They already do shared source for their "partners". I got to see some Windows code when I was trying (and eventually failing) to write a driver.
And don't forget that you can see the source code of Windows CE if you want to.
All's true that is mistrusted
It was only a couple days later that Firebird was released, right? Right?
Good thing operating systems are so much simpler than web browsers.
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?
And if only Apple weren't so resistant to copying back from MS.....
MS doesn't care who came up with an idea. If customers like it, they'll absorb it. If Apple popularized it, then fine, it's popular, and MS will accept it on that basis.
Apple seems to be the opposite. If MS popularized it, they don't want it, no matter how well-liked it is. It seems to offend their sense of being the ones with all the best UI ideas to acknowledge that a different UI approach from Microsoft(!) might actually be better.
Terrific ideas like the task bar, 2-button mice, scroll wheels, quitting an app when you close its document window, etc., have proven themselves in the mass market, but it took Apple forever to add a task bar (they probably couldn't release it until it looked sufficiently different from MS's) and "the mouse you can operate with your foot" is still the standard despite the fact that every seven-year-old in the US is handling a two-button mouse without confusion.
I've always admired Steve Jobs' passion for creating insanely great products, and innovation is a big part of it. But, I think the products could be even better if Apple had the humility to do a little more copying from less innovative sources that still manage to come up with some good ideas every now and then.
"Those who have never entered upon scientific pursuits know not a tithe of the poetry by which they are surrounded."