Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Loses Key Engineer to Google
galdur writes "Microsoft Watch reports Marc Lucovsky, one of Microsoft's key Windows architects has defected to Google. His confidence in Microsoft's ability to ship software seems to have waned, too. Some hypothesize Google working on an OS but in the wake of Google's inroads into Ajax tech applications (GMail, Suggest, Maps), I think Google may have other plans for the chief software architect for Microsoft's .Net My Services ("Hailstorm")" CT Many users are reporting 404s on the Microsoft Watch article, but its working fine for others. Hopefully they'll fix their server soon.
It'll be interesting to see if there is any "Restriction of Trade" in the old contract.
And how useful is this Windows architect to Google if it is to come out with anything built by this guy? With the current silly-patent lawsuits happening every day, this might just give MS a bullet. What this guy "thought of" might have already been patented by MS, and in most cases, it doesn't matter if it's right or wrong.
Rock that crushes, Paper & Scissors that don't matter.
This is big. As the parent touched on, the possibility of "Google OS" is definitely real. It would be utterly non-trivial, to be sure, but if anyone can pull it off, it's Google. Between their cooperation with the Firefox project and now the acquisition of a key Microsoft architect, the sky is the limit for this group.
dmiessler.com -- grep understanding knowledge
I'm sure this is very similar when a key architect from Novell who created Borland Pascal, defected to Microsoft so that they could create MS Money which ended up dominating the accounting software field in the 32-bit arena.
I hope that Microsoft does not see this as Google trying to appropriate insider-knowledge so they can created a FreeBSD-based variant of Windows that supports Win32 API and DirectX because that could have a serious impact in their corporate market share.
Perhaps if MS didn't overwork their staff (read any horror stories of MS driving their coders to exhaustion for NHL Madden 2005 on the XBOX) they retain the talent.
As it is, I feel that Google has gained a valuable resource into their fold and may be able to provide intellisense or similar functionality in their searches.
Which is nice.
I'm telling you man.. this is all about GooOS Link: http://virtualkarma.blogspot.com/2005/02/is-google -planning-gooos.html
fuvoo: watch something
Thursday, March 03, 2005
.Net My Services (code-named "Hailstorm") effort. .Net My Services never materialized in the form -- a set of personal Web services, hosted by Microsoft -- that Microsoft originally envisioned. Instead, the company has folded a number of the .Net My Services technologies into other Microsoft products.
Microsoft Loses Key Windows Architect to Google
By Mary Jo Foley
Mark Lucovsky, a former Microsoft distinguished engineer, has quietly abandoned the Redmond ship for one of Microsoft's archrivals.
One of Microsoft's key Windows architects has defected to Google. But at least so far, no one is talking about what Marc Lucovsky's new role will be at one of Microsoft's major rivals.
A 16-year Microsoft veteran, Lucovsky was one of a handful of "Distinguished Engineers" at Microsoft. He is credited as one of the core dozen engineers that came from Digital Equipment Corp. to Microsoft and built the Windows NT operating system. He was charged with building the Windows NT executive, kernel, Win32 run-time and other key elements of the operating system. NT was the precursor to Windows Server.
In 2000, Lucovsky was named the chief software architect for Microsoft's
Scripting.com's Dave Winer mentioned on his blog earlier this week that Lucovsky had defected to Google, with no further details.
Lucovsky "voluntarily left the company on 11/18/04," confirmed a Microsoft spokeswoman. "Obviously Microsoft can't comment on whether or not he now works for Google."
Google officials did not return calls requesting comments on Lucovsky.
Winer, like a number of industry watchers, are wagering that Google hired Lucovsky to help the search-engine king build an operating system.
But no one knows for sure. And even Lucovsky, whose newly minted blog lists Google as his employer, isn't saying what his new role at Google will entail.
Luckovsky isn't sparing harsh words for his former employer, however, pointing fingers at everything from Microsoft's difficulties in shipping software to its users on time, to its policy of requiring users to validate that they have non-pirated versions of Windows in order to obtain fixes and downloads.
In a blog posting dated February 12, Lucovsky railed against Microsoft for being unable to ship software.
"I am not sure I believe anymore, that Microsoft 'knows how to ship software,'" Lucovsky wrote.
"Microsoft is supposed to be the one that 'knows how to ship software,' but you (the end user) are the one doing all the heavy lifting. You are the one that has to ship their software the last mile, install it on end user machines, ensure their machines still work after you perform this platform level surgery," he continued.
"I would argue that Microsoft used to know how to ship software, but the world has changed... The companies that 'know how to ship software' are the ones to watch. They have embraced the network, deeply understand the concept of 'software as a service,' and know how to deliver incredible value to their customers efficiently and quickly," Lucovsky added.
Lucovsky wrote positively about Amazon.com's model for delivering new software bits to its customers.
When Amazon makes a fix to its software, "not a single customer had to download a bag of bits, answer any silly questions, prove that they are not software thieves, reboot their computers, etc. The software was shipped to them, and they didn't have to lift a finger. Now that's what I call shipping software," Lucovsky said.
I hate to think about it, but how long will it be before Google is the all-encompassing monster monopoly that starts to put out crappy products?
This sig left blank for page turns.
They have already heavily modified Redhat for their own uses, so they know it inside and out. Could google be the group that finally gives us a distro with the ease of entry to lure away the windows crowd?
Back during the peak of the bubble, MS hired one of two key personel from a promising Silicon valley startup. Started by doubling his salary, etc. Went up to 1 million, and the guy took off.
Then MS went after the second guy. The victimized company matched dollar for dollar until MS blew the doors of with a ridiculous 4 million dollar bonus AND he didn't have to work for a year.
Who could refuse that? The programmer apologized and took off.
The company was dead in the water.
MS didn't get these guys to have them work. They got these guys to kill that company.
Now, I don't know if it google's action was ethical, but at least MS finally got a taste of their own medicine.
I read the blog entry and comments. And I frankly agree with Marc.
However, he misses the whole point: Microsoft is not a software business. It's a software RESELLER.
Nearly ALL software Microsoft has sold us had been bought before. Visual Basic, FoxPro, MS-DOS, they even stole the GUI from Apple. Microsoft wasn't founded by a programmer - but by a businessman with a keen eye for investments.
I recall the previous "Ask slashdot" post where this guy left the company because he wasn't comfortable with Microsoft tools.
Is it a mystery that they don't know how to deploy software? And with their flawed architecture, is it a mystery all software updates are major headaches? Of course Microsoft can't deliver software! They designed it (I'm speaking of MS Windows) to be HARD to configure, with their undocumented features, proprietary API, proprietary formats (MS Word)... (btw, I think this is why Microsoft is whining about Linux and GPL - they can't figure out a way to adopt it, embrace it and get money from it).
Microsoft can't deliver software updates because their business model was designed to sell COMPLETE PACKAGES (MS Office), not software updates. And with the major bugs and vulnerabilities, Microsoft is having to cope with their own demons.
My applauses to Marc, i think this is his smartest career move. Keep up the good work.
I think the "Google OS" rumor was started by overzealous Google fanboys. We've heard all sorts of things, from a Google browser to a Google operating system.
They're a search engine company. In fact, their search results have been in the crapper since 2003 when they adjusted their algorithms (some believe it was because they needed to increase the DocID integer size in order to not run out of them).
Google also employs several ex-NSA guys with security clearances. I mean, if we're going to draw conclusions, why not look at Google's privacy policies that state they'll happily turn over anything the government requests on you? Did you know Google sets an IP-tracking cookie that doesn't expire for 30 years? There are bigger things to be talking about regarding Google.
I would argue that Microsoft used to know how to ship software, but the world has changed... The companies that "know how to ship software" are the ones to watch. They have embraced the network, deeply understand the concept of "software as a service", and know how to deliver incredible value to their customers efficiently and quickly.
Now does everyone see the benefit of an OS X update every 1-2 years? "Real artists ship."
Let me answer with a question.
Is it ethical to forbid your employees to work for your competitors if they ever leave?
In Mexico there is this case. The largest TV company in the country, Televisa, had this "shunning" clause on the contract, saying that all artist that left the company were forbidden to make TV appearances in competition's broadcasts.
Due to this fear, all the people were "loyal" to the company. They had no choice, it was the only major TV company.
And we ALL know Microsoft is a monopoly. Don't give them more ideas, please.
If he came over in 1993 or so with Dave Cutler from DEC, then he should be well into the millionaire status from cashed out stock options.
My guess is that he is just tired of working on the same software for 5 versions. Too much baggage, too much non-motivation to rewrite what you have rewritten 5 times in the last 10 years.
I would really like to see him, Dave Cutler, and all of the ex-Digital people do an open source VMS for pocket PC class machines.
Buried in the comments to Marc's blog entry is this reply from Marcelo Lopez, Jr.:
I've come to believe that the ability to DELIVER software is INVERSELY proportional to the size of the company.
Now I'd rephrase that as proportional to the size of the product, not the company, but this comment is almost exactly on the mark. Windows has become so bloated, so patched, so susceptible to every ailment in the IT world, that it is almost impossible for Microsoft to get new updates to the customers because the amount of QA and UAT needed validate the new releases can delay product releases almost indefinitely. That they can release anything at all due to having to test for every single bug on the planet is amazing in and of itself.
Rule #1 -- Politics always trumps technology.
And how hard would it be for them or anyone else to make a system that was a Linux kernel + firefox + plugins, and put it in ROM on a range of cheap ARM-based tablet PCs in 3 sizes (paperback book, trad tablet, imac style desktop version) with wifi (and maybe GPRS/3G) and sell them? Then they have a chepa package that contains everything you need to run their platform.
~~~~~ BigLig2? You mean there's another one of me?
"Playing" with a technology for a few months shouldn't give someone license to name a technology that others have been using for years. I agree. Ditch the stupid name.
I've been doing JS/DHTML type stuff for years. I generally refer to it as 'livepage' (or 'liveevil') because that's the name of the concrete, open source, software framework that allows me to sit down and write the code.
If anything, name the technology or framework being used, or just say "Javascript RPC" or something. but for crying out loud. that 4 letter abbreviation should be anti-memed. And definately never mentioned in a front page slashdot post.
Or, without any real offense intended to the potential users, "Dumb Terminals"??? As so many millions of people want simple easy-to-use, safe, God-please-don't-bother-me-with-details machines, your foresight shall come to pass.
Yea, verily, and the unconscious prescience of our society will have predicted the phenomenon of having a display from that dumb terminal heads-up-displayed in front of their face, and they shall truly be... (wait for it!)
*Google-eyed*
O, the wonder of it all.
Take the 90-Day Challenge! http://rwmurker.bodybyvi.com/
That's no joke. They'll do it. Only they won't outright block it -- that would be too obvious. It will just be a little slow and intermittently fail. Just enough to make people think MSN search works better.
I really don't think MS could get away with that. It wouldn't take long for a techie on here to dig out the code and prove that MS is doing it, and then it wouldn't take long for the media to pick it up and plaster it all over the Net and TV, etc. That would kill what's left of MS's image in the eyes of corporations and many individuals, not to mention anti-trust implications.
"Those who consume the bulk of goods are those who make them. We must never forget this secret of our prosperity."
Right. What I meant was an OS to compete with Windows for the consumer market, which is what some people seem to be suggesting. I wouldn't entirely rule out Google someday releasing something Linux-related to the OS community (if they haven't already), but I can't see them releasing an entire OS or Linux distro, just by itself. What would the point be? That's not their thing.
What they have done is make their search appliances. I assume that they run on Linux or *BSD. But they don't give those away, nor the software that runs on them.
"Those who consume the bulk of goods are those who make them. We must never forget this secret of our prosperity."
IANAL, but I remember two court cases of interest here. The first held that a non-compete in at least one case was invalid because it was intended to take skills off the market. The second held that even without a non-compete agreement, one cannot hire a worker where there is a reasonable expectation that trade secrets will be used in further employment in an anticompetitive way. These were, I think in similar juristictions, and I am sure that YMMV in others such as CA..
In my somewhat educated-non-lawyer opinion, I suspect that noncompete clauses may inform what is acceptable contact in this framework but neither create destroy this framework by their existance or lack thereof.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
> So how can Microsoft kill Google? How can Microsoft take away their revenue stream?
By making it irrelevant. With MS search engine tightened to Longhorn, if it is sufficiently good, lots of people will just use it, as almost 90% of people surfing internet are just using their default (IE) browser, despite the existence of better, free alternatives. Advertisers follow people habits, they will then rather put their ads on MSN Search.