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.
http://mark-lucovsky.blogspot.com.nyud.net:8090/20 05/02/shipping-software.html
In case of Slashdotting, break mirror.
I'm sure this gentlemen acquired enough ethics at Microsoft, so this will not be an issue.
What keeps me going is my inertia.
That's like asking if it's ethical for there to be more than 1 company on the planet.
Don't blame me; I'm never given mod points.
Seems like 20 to life might be appropriate for this bit of malfeasance.
I don't think that the limit is the sky. I think the limit is the fact that Microsoft OS is installed on over 90% of world's desktops.
Even Apple is struggling agains Windows and they already have a superior desktop OS, and penetration in audio/video and design markets.
Heck, look at even Linux. It's free, it's useable, it's secure. And it took Linux a long time to be considered a viable desktop alternative.
I like Google's services, but I don't think they could pull off a profitable OS.
If you don't know what AltaVista is (was), get off my lawn.
can we please ditch this acronym? it was lame last week when whats-his-name had to write a big article about this cool new technology (which has been around in one form or another since at least 1998), it's still lame now, and it will continue to be lame in the future...
If I don't put anything here, will anyone recognize me anymore?
Apart from what others have already said, I think you're missing one key question here: why would Google actually *want* to create their own OS? The dot-com bubble days of "we'll do it just because we can" are over; these days, (most) companies will only do things if they reasonably expect to make money with it.
Furthermore, Google's main expertise is in the field of searching, and so far, literally ALL of its products services have been based around that. Where would an operating system fit in there?
quidquid latine dictum sit altum videtur.
his discontempt ? So he actually admired their practices ?
Google Chat
Google IM
Google portal
Google hosting
Google Forum's
A Google version of .Net Passport
Google WAP and mobile device services (which would make sense if you take into account the recent push for technology in this area).
They are definately in a position to do such thing's without placing too much effort into other area's of the I.T world. I can not see Google creating an OS, licensing that goes with it, HCL's etc etc.
And if their bug tracking tool hadn't been a 16-bit app, they might've reported even more bugs.
It's interesting you should say that.
I was reading "Showstopper!", the story of the creation of NT, a few weeks ago. It looks like Lucovsky was one of the original seven engineers that followed Cutler to Microsoft from Digital.
According to the book there was a standoff on their first day, as they all refused to sign the employment contract because it contained a 'paragraph 10' that specified that on leaving Microsoft they would not be allowed to work at a competitor for at least a year.
They reasoned that if their contracts with Digital had such a stipulation, then Microsoft could not have hired them away so easily. It only seemed fair that Microsoft could not impose that restriction on them either. In the end Cutler complained, and with the cooperation of Microsoft's lawyers that paragraph was removed from the contracts before they all signed.
That doesn't mean Lucovsky was still working under the same contract in 2004 as he started with in 1989, but its an interesting question.
"Taligent is still pure vapor. Maybe they'll be the last who jumps up on Openstep... "
Right now, Bill Gates is in his office screaming at his top-level henchmen. He's ordering them to do whatever it takes to kill Google, just as he ordered them to do whatever it takes to kill Netscape back in 1997.
Good post, BTW.
As I understand it, MS killed Netscape by giving away IE and bundling IIS with Windows. How could Netscape survive if they had to give away their product for free to compete? They weren't a services company like Google (not mostly, anyway).
Google is different. Google gives all of its products (services) away for free already (not counting its appliances, which are niche products). The end-users get all of Google's services for free. So how can Microsoft kill Google? How can Microsoft take away their revenue stream? Just as MS has critical mass with Windows, Google has critical mass with search and AdWords. How can either overcome the other in their respective areas? (Not that I think Google is going to make an OS; that would make no sense at all to me.)
"Those who consume the bulk of goods are those who make them. We must never forget this secret of our prosperity."
I just finished reading Showstopper, the story about the creation of Windows NT. IIRC, Lucovsky originally came to Microsoft with about a dozen or so former Digital employees. But instead of a nice honeymoon period, the first thing that happened was a showdown over MS's no-compete clause in their contract. After a legal standoff that lasted most the day, MS relented and the employees were allowed to start working without agreeing to that clause.
Some other interesting tidbits about Lucovsky, from the book:
Many people felt that Lucovsky was a jerk. He was hard to manage but showed the pep and initiative that every team needs. Even more valuable, Lucovsky sought to understand how the many pieces of NT interacted as a system. [...] Lucovsky had a rare ability to learn the intricate details of his own pieces and at the same time clearly see how all the pieces fit together.
At Cutlers behest, Mark Lucovsky, the team's most versatile programmer, filled the gap. He tracked check-ins on a white board in his office and managed the now twice-weekly builds. Before each build he compiled a list of proposed changes, then spoke with each code writer about the rationale for the change and its affect on the stability of NT. Lucovsky's opinions carried weight; he probably understood the mosaic of NT better than anyone else, including Cutler. And he didn't tiptoe around fellow code writers but battered their egos with criticism. "If Lucovsky didn't write it, everything is a piece of shit," said one colleague.
And for those of you who would make cracks about NT or its children, 2K and Win server, please read the book or know what you're talking about before you pipe up. Sure, MS gets a lot of things wrong, and I'm no MS apologist, but name one other company/organization that has released a world-class, brand new OS in the last decade that runs most of the world's servers and computers. Cutler, Felton, Kimura, Whitmer, Abrash, Lucovsky and a host of others I'm probably forgetting. If those names don't mean anythign to you then you don't know some of the best software engineers alive. From an engineering standpoint, NT was a damned fine achievement.
Have fun: Join D.N.A. (National Dyslexics Association)
Why not? It's competition. If Alice offers Bob a better deal than Charlie, then why shouldn't Bob leave and take Alice's offer if Bob thinks it suits him better than his current job working for Charlie?
;-)
There's not even a shred of ethical dilemma here.
The simple economic fact is that Microsoft didn't compete hard enough to keep that developer, and now he's gone -- too bad, tough shit to MSFT, and now Google is one (presumably) very-competent architect richer, at the expense of probably six-figures a year in salary and benefits from Google. But Google believes he's worth it, so they're happy; Marc Lucovsky is happier at Google, else he wouldn't have jumped ship, and MSFT - well, who knows whether they care or not.
Perhaps MSFT cares - perhaps they valued Lucovsky enough to keep him at the conditions of his previous employ, but clearly they didn't value him enough to keep him at newer, higher conditions which in Lucovsky's mind beat the conditions of working at Google. And perhaps MSFT doesn't care at all; that they think they can get along just fine without him - we don't know, and probably won't know for a long time, if ever.
In the end, this is a nice example of labor economics benefiting the laborer (Lucovsky), by his playing a game of wage/benefits/happiness shopping, and "buying" the package Google offered while "selling" the package MSFT was providing. Again, there is not even a *shred* of ethical dilemma here...
If I can't convince you on the sheer fundamental economics of the situation (in which case, please try Econ101 sometime), can I at least get you on a "Microsoft is evil, so it's good that quality developers are jumping ship" argument?
Is Capitalism Good for the Poor?
I know this just barely exceeds your statute of limitations, but how about two:
Sun (Solaris 2.x was their "NT")
Apple (Mac OS X)
This isn't to belittle Microsoft's accomplishment, but to claim they are the only company would be in error, as several OS vendors have had to go through at least one overhaul, and convince their user bases to stick with them through the transition.