Slashdot Mirror
Working at Microsoft, the Inside Scoop
bariswheel writes "Responding to the public interest, a long-time Apple and UNIX user/programmer, and a JPL/Caltech veteran, writes an insightful, articulate essay on the good, the bad, and the in-between experiences of working at Microsoft; concentrating on focus, unreality, company leadership, managers, source code, benefits and compensation, free soft drinks, work/life balance, Microsoft's not evil, and influence."
Aside from the obvious puff-piece nature of this article, it's a bit of a Trojan Horse. Under the auspices of a broad view of what life at Microsoft is like, the author gets to air out the PR spin that Microsoft's Not Evil in seven contrite paragraphs (the average number of paragraphs for each segment is closer to four).
Also, assign credibility inversely proportional to the distance from the source. This guy works there, okay so the only way to describe "work at Microsoft" is to be there, but come on, are we going to get objective information?
For the record, I once worked at Microsoft, and agree with his observations that the people there are like people elsewhere, and they're bright, and they're hard-working, etc. But, to equate individual ethical behavior somehow with a collective corporate ethos doesn't add up, the calculus is flawed. In my opinion, Microsoft as a corporation exhibits behavior that could be considered evil, certainly some/much of its behavior has been found in a court of law to be illegal.
As for the some of the author's observations:
Yes.
Thou doth protest too much.
Microsoft's ill-gotten gains were long the easy way to sustain the talent pipe-line. Market forces are catching up, and Microsoft is starting to have to compete on more equal footing with other companies to get talent in the door (no more, "you're guaranteed to be a millionaire in fiver years" promises). And, it's a little annoying to hear the Microsoft have-nots whine about this -- join the rest of the world folks.
and no story, \. so soon?
What do you call a convicted criminal (monopolist, in this case)? A reborn and reformed model for society?
It's just unavailable if the referall is slashdot.com, try copying and pasting the link into a different tab.
http://mirrordot.org/stories/fd94ec5aeadb1073126ec 3d15ec58564/index.html
What??? You can't post a story about Microsoft being anything other than the Evil Spawn of Hell, sent to crush all who'd stand between it and the total domination of the world.
/.
Don't they know? This is
I think I think, therefore I think I am.
Sheyah. They all say that until the chairs start flying.
Many Bothans died to bring you this sig.
I wonder if he got permission to publish that? I know it's vaguely approving in an infomercial kind of way, but there is genuine criticism too.
This is priceless, "Maybe I'm being naive, but I find Microsoft's upper management to be very trustworthy." No no no there is no maybe involved, you are DEFINATELY naive.
So, did he leave out anything? Oh yeah, the loos. :)
Working at Microsoft
Home Photos Writing Software Links About Résumé RSS
It seems like there's a lot of public interest in what it's like to work at Microsoft. Here's my personal persepctive on the good (+), the bad (-), and the in-between (=).
Background
As a long-time Apple and UNIX user/programmer, I never aspired to work at Microsoft. (And I'm still a little surprised to be here.) I've never despised Microsoft like so many people seem to do -- it's just that Microsoft products weren't a part of my world.
Then my wife got a job at Microsoft, so I needed to leave Caltech/JPL to work in Seattle. I didn't actually apply to Microsoft -- a friend of ours who worked there circulated my résumé and Microsoft responded rapidly and set up a last-minute interview. Although I had five other offers, Microsoft made the best impression.
And so, here I am. I've been working at Microsoft since October, 1999 as a full-time Software Design Engineer. In that time, I've worked for three teams in two divisions, and had six or seven different managers. Four products I've worked on have shipped, two more are in beta, and I've also "consulted" for many other teams across the company, thereby influencing directly and indirectly a large number of Microsoft's products.
Between my experience and my wife's, I think I've gotten a pretty solid feel for what it's like to work in a product group at Microsoft.
+ Focus
As much as I enjoyed working at Caltech/JPL, it wasn't until I got to Microsoft that I realized that there's an enormous difference between working for a software company and a company where software is just a step towards some other goal (space science, finance, medicine, retail, etc.).
Everyone at Microsoft "gets" software -- the managers, the administrative assistants, the vice presidents... Even many of the "blue collar" workers (cooks, janitors, bus drivers) know something about software -- it's not normal! At NASA, most managers and even some scientists had no real understanding of software or software development. Elevating the common denominator in this way makes Microsoft a wonderful workplace for people who love making software (even if it's far removed from the reality of "the real world", which can cause other problems, like overinflating the importance of software).
= Unreality
As a parent, I've come to understand that there's a wide gray area between overprotecting your children and creating a nuturing environment in which they can develop.
I think Microsoft struggles with a similar problem with its employees. Microsoft provides its employees with a nuturing environment in which they can be most productive. But like children, these employees also need to be grounded in reality and exposed to ideas that can be disruptive or even disturbing. Otherwise a sheltered monoculture can develop that's unhealthy for everyone involved.
It's hard for people who don't work at Microsoft's main campus to understand just how unreal the experience of working there can become. Some employees forget that most of the world doesn't have broadband wireless networking, high-end consumer electronics, luxury vehicles, and enough money that they don't need to live on a budget. Some employees spend so much time using Microsoft products, that they forget about the competition and/or lose touch with typical customers' needs.
+ Personal Freedom
One thing that's worth losing touch with is the strict work environment.
Microsoft gives software developers a lot of personal freedom over both the work and the work environment. I order my own supplies, customize my office as I see fit, schedule my own trips and meetings, and select my own training courses. I choose when I show up for work and when I leave, and what to wear while I'm there. I can eat on campus or off, reheat something from home in the kitchen or scavenge leftovers from meetings. I can even work remotely from home (within reason).
For the most part, I determine what I work
Service Temporarily Unavailable
Until I read the "Microsoft's not evil" part. This must be a hoax.
Really they're very nice once you get to know them and I'm sure family members and personal friends will say the same about dictators who commanded regimes that murdered millions. Microsoft are a nasty company who should stick to selling software instead of lobbying governemnts.
Ah - a feel-good story about someone who has had a good experience working there and hasn't seen any nefarious activities during his or her time there.
Of what value is it to place any confidence in such accounts? It is quite possible to have worked for the mob, be well treated, and not see any nefarious activity. It is not only possible but likely (and therefore infinitely reasonable) that such activities will be concealed from such an observer. If the activities of the organization in question are well documented and proven beyond a reasonable doubt to -in fact- be evil, then such "insider" accounts to the contrary have absolutely no relevance.
The first 1 sentence article I have seen in a while.
The site referenced in the article is already giving out 503's. Here is a google cache of the page:
w ww.qbrundage.com/michaelb/pubs/essays/working_at_m icrosoft.html+&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1&client=fir efox
http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:ILiHKIGJa_oJ:
... 1000 times better than working at most jobs these days. And, if it really sucks at least you can put it on your resume for a better location and position at your next job.
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
...for me, at least. Bear with me for a minute, because it's going to get weird.
I don't give a shit about evil or not evil per se. In my world, good taste begets goodness, and poor taste, or lack of taste at all, necessarily leads to evil. For example, respect for the user in providing a tasteful environment is the direct result of an awareness of the designer's humility towards others, and that implies a sense of one's own place in nature. On the other hand, a developer who flings feces at you via his software probably won't have much respect for you in the non-binary world either.
As for the article, it screams shit taste. The page layout reminds me of the Los Angeles freeway. The content appears to have been vomited out of Microsoft's press organ. I think I'll pass, and pass judgment on those who imagined it'd reflect well.
Bonsai Kitten: TNG
I'm sure working at microsoft is a great career, running microsoft software is a different story.
the good, the bad, and the in-between experiences of working at Microsoft; concentrating on focus, unreality, company leadership, managers, source code, benefits and compensation, free soft drinks, work/life balance, Microsoft's not evil, and influence.
otherwise known as the good, the bad, and the ugly.
The work/life balance was a big watchword at HP about a decade ago. Unfortunately, it is somewhat shortsighted. It might be a good view from a company perspective, but not the perspective that an employee should have. I contend that it should be a "work/life/me" balance. And if you want an example take a look at all the harried "supermoms" out there that try to juggle the work/life so much that there is no "me" left in them! Setting realistic boundaries between the outside forces against your personal space requirements lets one feel that one is in control of at least part of his/her enviornment. And you DO have to set these boundaries. If not either the "work" or the "life" will suck all the resources out of you! I'm an old fart engineer whose kids are almost out of college. During their growing up, there was a constant battle between the job and the family life. Plus, throwing in some time for myself. For awhile, I let the job/life consume my full resources. I suggest that it's not worth it. So what if the boss or the kids are a little mad by you saying no (if it doesn't make the job review THAT bad, or that the kids run away from home.....). The point, YOU have to take the initiative to set the boundaries from the external forces in your life to keep your sanity. It seems to be a constant 3 way battle. Life is too short. No, I'm not going to work the weekend on your little project. No, that is a good enough pine wood derby racer, I'm not investing more work and effort on it to make it the very best. Yes, I am working on my pet open source project......... Again I suggest it's not work/life balance. It's work/life/me balance.
So? We all have access to the source code for Firefox, PHP, Python, Perl, MONO, MySQL, PostgreSQL, Xen, KDevelop, Code::Blocks,
It's interesting. What this guy claims to be advantages, are precisely the FLAWS. Specially with Internet Explorer. Right now it would be much more secure if MS had open sourced it 6 years ago.
The author is either a bigtime suckup, a twit, or too overpaid and comfortable to work for a company that is truly not evil. Hey, just admit that evil pays better and we'll respect you more. These hollow justifications sound more like he's trying to convince himself.
we will end no whine before its time
My friends and I knew a guy at our college (Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology) that was hired on at Microsoft. Prior to leaving, he was always very open-minded about software usage, willing to try various options, be they proprietary or open source. After a while, he came back a changed man. He simply couldn't fathom how it was that we (as students) were using anything but Microsoft products, and would argument, sometimes vehemently, that we shouldn't be using *NIX or anything of that nature. It was truly scary.
"You will pay for your lack of vision..." - Emperor Palpatine to Ray Charles
With the new "live" approach, the new boss from Lotus Notes trying to turn the company, I really think MSFT (and I am no rabid fan) will compete well with SAP and peoplesoft. To bad its the wrong way to go... http://blog.tallsails.com/2006/04/19/google-hooks- up-w-salesforce-and-oracle.aspx
http://www.qbrundage.com.nyud.net:8080/michaelb/pu bs/essays/working_at_microsoft.html
As usual, the most interesting articles are ALWAYS slashdotted and unavailable. I don't suppose someone could post a mirror site - I really want to read this article. COuld someone please just post the article here?
If you read through to the middle of the article, he's quite critical of middle-level management. Basically, he's consistently had a lot of bad managers, and so have others on other teams. A lot and bad are two things you don't want from your manager. It sounds like their influence/reward system at management level is screwed up, leading to stupid political games (he describes 'cult of personalities' managers who cultivate a few die-hard sidekicks and they travel around the company.
The guy seems pretty honest to me.
is quite possible to have worked for the mob, be well treated, and not see any nefarious activity. It is not only possible but likely (and therefore infinitely reasonable) that such activities will be concealed from such an observer.
...And on the other hand, such a wonderfully circular logic loop cannot be debated. 'If I cannot see any source of wrong doing', says the conspiracy nut, 'Then it must be deliberately concealed from me, hence a conspiracy!'
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
"Did I mention I've had six or seven managers in five years? Two were so awful that if they were hired into my current organization (even on another team), I'd quit on the spot."
One has to wonder why he didn't "quit on the spot" previously... say, about the time the second was assigned to supervise him.
In thirty years, working in mid-sized nonprofit, one Fortune 500 company, one ten-person startup, and two mid-sized for-profits, I've only had no managers "so awful that if they were hired into my current organization (even on another team) I'd quite on the spot." I've only had one so awful that if they were hired to supervise me, I'd quit... and when he was, I did. (Honesty compels me to say that it took me a year before I did... but I did).
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
You sig has been bugging me for the past few days. If you are referring to XP solutions that make the uptime claim that you say is impossible, consider this. It's entirely possible to have 100% uptime running WinXP if you use either clusters and/or employ load balancing.
Out of Office Reply: I'm not currently in my office, which is being rennovated to accomodate a swimming pool and a helipad, but am instead on a business trip to Hawaii, for a training course in pearl diving. Once I return to Redmond, I'll be happy to get in touch with you, after sampling the fine quailty pizza left over from the last meeting about Vista. Take care!
GetOuttaMySpace - The Anti-Social Network
Emulation Ninja :D
-W
I wonder if we are going to find this in a previous press release kinda' like the 'switcher' from clip art
why a pr for microsoft ? this mole planted by microsoft to wander into our enclosuer and lie to us about microsoft isn't doing anything ...when there actions prove outherwise . trying to soften there tone with there losses in european courts , there sucking up anywhere they can suck
So, does slashdot just get all of its stories from Digg these days, or what?
I have to admit that even though I could feel the slant of this article I could not help but feel a little bit excited by this. Knowing Microsoft technologies is what pays the bills for me (C#) but I have tried to avoid becoming a fanboy for all things Microsoft. However, after reading this article, I cannot help but think that Microsoft is a pretty cool place to work. The .NET Framework is a massively impressive codebase that I would be psyched to work on. Not to mention that the environment is painted as more Google-esque than I previously realized. How many of us (who have all bashed Microsoft fairly and unfairly) would not drop our current job to take a position at Microsoft? I know that I would.
- Andrew
I meta-moderate because I care.
Until he said this: "No one ever says "Hey, let's go ruin company P" or other things that could be construed as "evil.""
He must have missed the news about Steve B, chairs and Google.
I was going to comment that I thought it was interesting that this guy was mentioned as being from a mixed UNIX, Apple, Caltech, and JPL background. I thought about why that might be relevant.
In any case, this guy is just one data point in trying to get a picture of "life on the inside" of Microsoft. You might find other pictures by reading my (and other MSFTies here - there are many) slashdot posts on the subject, or by reading the minimsft blog, or by trying to decipher the publicly-made statements by our PR people (or by PR agencies working on our behalf). All will paint slightly different pictures.
Unfortuneately i haven't been able to read the article - thanks slashdot effect - but I'm always curious to see MSFT people talking about "life on the inside", to see how their experiences compare to my own.
As far as my own background - as recently as college, i was saying things like "I will never work for a company that expects me to use NT - it's shit", as I coded away infront of my work provided SGI Indy. I gave up Windows after 3.1 and used OS/2, linux, and Solaris at home until college, when I switched to exclusively solaris and irix.
When I joined MS about 6 years ago i was still very anti-MS. I was joining to light a fire under the people that had burdened the world with so many bad things. I figured that peoeple just didn't have the unix expertise and outside world view that i brought to the table. If they only knew, I thought.
I probably made a lot of enemies those first few years, especially people on the outlook and exchange teams. But I also got a few private emails from product support guys saying "i loved reading that.. thank you for flaming person blah...our customers run into this all the time.. somebody should have said this sooner"
I was fond of pointing out that i used Pine against exchange-IMAP because at least Pine knew how to not block its UI threads while trying to access a message. (This is fixed in Outlook XP, Outlook 2003, and works pretty well in Outlook 12 betas, btw)
For a while, it seemed, my strategy of badgering MSFT people about how great *nix was and how much MS sucked was working. I was involved in some of the "how do we compete with {linux,solaris,apache} conversations even though I was some lowly tester off in Visual Studio. I was obnoxious, antagonistic, and I claimed big street cred working in the unix side of the industry. We were struggling at first to get dedicated, experienced people in place to understand the unix-competitive landscape, so much so that it made sense for "them" to talk to a bozo like me about it. Things are better now - there are smart people that work on understanding the *nix landscape full time.
The culture change I've observed here has been pretty satisfying. When I first complained that VB6 didn't work for debugging DLLs if you didn't have admin rights, a PM for VB told me "the NT security model is too hard, we're not going to bother figuring it out". That kind of crap doesn't fly _at all_ any more. We've really "got religion" around non-admin, secure-by-default, etc. That stuff keeps getting better and we're chipping away at the debt of design and code deficienies we have in the face of an always-on, hostile internet that nobody expected years and years ago [historians will note that the _first_ internet worm worked on unix machines.. and unix collectively has had a spotty and evolving approach to practical security.. ]
Naturally, MSFT has changed me as well. I used to come into discussions with the "UNIX roolz, MS suxx0rz" point of view. I was interviewing with a guy in NT and he was trying to ask me technical questions and I was trying to tell him how the NT design sucked because i read it in BYTE magazine. (i flunked that interview)
I've since learned that, actually, when I used to make those sorts of generalizations, I actually didn't know enough about anything to be running my big mouth. I was having an argument with some guy where I was talking about how the S
My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
This article is written with nothing but gross ignorance. Companies (countries, races, etc.) are not "evil" or "good", and they do not have "intentions." Star Trek is science fiction -- there is no Borg mind. Companies, countries, races, and other groups are made up of individuals like you and me, who make individual decisions that determine the group's direction. People who speak of companies (or countries, or races, or other groups) as being good or evil are at best ignorant, and at worst bigots. Last time I checked, stockholders and the board make the main decisions of a company. He even states further up the article that he has no idea how the division heads work. He uses an example of the Borg to illustrate his point but didn't one of the TNG movies show it was led by a pasty white chick? Microsoft is made up of individuals....sure.....just like the Nazis. Even if they are an ethical bunch, something doesn't need to be inethical to hurt the market.
At Microsoft, I've had access to the source code for Halo 1 & 2, Internet Explorer, MDAC, MSXML, the .NET Frameworks and CLR, SQL Server, SQLXML, Virtual PC, Visual Studio, Windows, the Xbox and Xbox Live, and probably several other projects that I've forgotten about. Does it get better than this?
I can't help but wonder how many software development companies would still hire him after that, at fear of lawsuits.
Companies (countries, races, etc.) are not "evil" or "good", and they do not have "intentions." Star Trek is science fiction -- there is no Borg mind. Companies, countries, races, and other groups are made up of individuals like you and me, who make individual decisions that determine the group's direction. People who speak of companies (or countries, or races, or other groups) as being good or evil are at best ignorant, and at worst bigots.
I actually read the article, found it mostly informative and unbiased. But I have to take execption to the above. He castigates people for making broad generalizations, then goes and makes one himself.
I am willing to belive that Microsoft's board of directors and it's executive management don't have a nefarious plan for world domination. After all, they don't need to go to all that trouble, they really just want our money. However, if even half of what I've read that's been attributed to Mr. Ballmer is true, the man is not exactly ethical. And in his position, he is the company, for all practicle purposes, Mr. Gates notwithstanding. And again, while I don't think there's an active conspiracy going on at Redmond, I do think that Microsoft exhibits an inordinate amount of groupthink, drawing from Mr. Ballmer's statements and reflected in their advertising.
I'm right there with ya. I'm spent my 15 years of development for non-software companies. Working at a shop that actually understood what we were doing, and having my work impact the bottom line would be nice.
But I'm sure Microsoft has a case file on me already, given the fact that I've typed discouraging words about them using one of their products.
Harry Partch was an interesting composer with a unique life experience, to say the least.
Your post is hardly "Offtopic" given the socio-economic factors leading to the desperate situations of those who wrote these passages and Microsoft's position in the vanguard of capitalism.
Your friend,
Pablo
So, I dealt with it slowly and passively, you dealt with it quickly and actively, but in both cases we treated it as a big deal, and we dealt with it, and the end result was... we were gone.
Michael Brundage says, "28% of the managers I had at Microsoft were so awful" that in future, there wouldn't be room for him and either of them in the same organization... but it's not big deal.
But then again, I notice he's posted his resume
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
My girlfriend works at Microsoft's Redmond Campus. And being a non-Windows user, I've had some interesting talks with a few MS employees and developers at an occasional party or two hosted by her.
My observation from the few I've talk to is that many are clueless to the world of computing experience outside of the Microsoft sphere. From these employees's perspective, they are working hard to meet goals and objectives. The Company is good. They don't even think about things like not being able to share files with anyone you want because, of course, everyone they know uses the same tools.
And I've observed these employees forget how much a complete suite of Microsoft tools costs to the average consumer because they get all of it a big discount.
They have no say in the EULA or any of the political or legal matters that give Microsoft its bad rap. They think the company should come first before their customers' needs (ie closed file formats, protocols, etc).
These things, I feel, is what outside viewers see but most MS insiders tend to lose focus on.
But I must repeat, this is from observation from a small sample of MS employees.
Working AT Microsoft is probably quite nice.
Working WITH Microsoft (products) isn't.
And having to work AROUND Microsoft (bugs) most certainly isn't!
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
What a tool -- Microsoft is his first software company for Christ's sake. What does he have to compare it to?
.NET will anyway.
I worked at Microsoft for exactly two weeks. But unlike the author, MSFT was *not* my first software company. And I found it to be much less than I'd hoped for. In the end it was worth taking a pay cut not to work there.
My favorite part of "working" there was when they told me I couldn't use any open source software, including stuff I had written that was licensed under Creative Commons! Bleh, you can keep the free sodas -- they'll kill you faster than
YMMV
Somebody give this man a cookie.
I realize this may be completely impossible to believe, but before you start saying this guy is a shill, did you ever stop to think that this just MIGHT be a real article? And there just MIGHT be people who enjoy working at Microsoft? Is it really that hard to believe?
Or are you so bound by your narrow worldview of a particular company being 'evil' that you have to figuratively cover your ears and scream, "I'M NOT LISTENING!" even when something innocent like this crops up? How naive can you get?
1989 Principal Mallet Percussionist, Oklahoma All-State Band
1988 Principal Mallet Percussionist, Oklahoma All-State Orchestra
Yes, someone 15 years out of high school with such credentials on his CV is most likely a suckup and a twit. So you were best in your school at beating your mallet. Get over it; no one cares.
It's like people with "MCSE, MCP" or some other similar combo on their cards/CV. MCP means you've passed any single MS exam. By definition, every MCSE, MCSA, or otherwise is also an MCP. Adding MCP to another MS credential is redundant.
Other than the patents, I doubt the list you quote is that different from what many /.ers could claim. Oh wait, I don't have a gold star from my employer.
Twit indeed.
Well, this explains it. Middle management posturing for upper management, with the coders left to do whatever they want. They should have broken in two. Not only is their code bloated, their org is bloated as well.
I have a theroi about why they have free soda at microsoft:
The free soda at microsoft is there s the programers kep drinking it and get so fat that they cant get out of their chairs very easily. so they stay there and program all night bucause ms pays by the project nnot the time o the job so more projects finished the more money.
its all part of billy's evil plan
Whoops, did I say that?
--
One of my former employers did that, had cans brought in weekly via the commercial delivery.
Was a very nice perk. No clumsy vending machines. Also had coffee service.
The only snag was by buying wholesale and consuming it, they were liable for sales tax, which was kicked out in an audit. No big deal.
Holy cow, that's saying a lot. I used to work for the later, then I worked for the former, then I worked for the later again, and now I work for the former again.
Believe me, it's MUCH more fun to work on software that isn't going to be sold to customers. Why anyone would actually want to work on software-as-a-product is beyond me.
In the course of every project, it will become necessary to shoot the scientists and begin production.
"Star Trek is science fiction -- there is no Borg mind."
Aha! He has been assimilated!
"You're everywhere. You're omnivorous."
Great crimes are committed by people whose conscience is clear.
- Joseph Heller, "Closing Time"
Of course he doen't see how Microsoft is evil. He doesn't work in Marketing, PR, or Legal. Although working in those departments would make pretty much any company look bad. I used to work for a cool little ISP/Consulting company and for a great as the techs and management were, sales/marketing were just evil. It is amazing how many little white lies they can squeeze into even the simplest flyer or advertisment.
-matthew
"THERE IS NO JUSTICE, THERE IS ONLY ME." -Death
Go wash your Che t-shirt. You smell.
No karma whoring intended, posting as AC.
Here's the article on coral: http://www.qbrundage.com.nyud.net:8090/michaelb/pu bs/essays/working_at_microsoft.html
Pulsed Media Seedboxes
A really interesting article, but his take on the whole "Microsoft is not evil" thing by looking at what it's like to be employed there reminds me of the Hank Scorpio episode of The Simpsons. Do you mind helping out with those enemy soldiers on your way out? They're trying to destroy the doomsday weapon we've been working so hard to finish.
Sure it's a fine place to work and the folks are all just family people trying to solve customers' problems... It's just that their customers are IT Managers who want to lock down Windows so that bonehead users can't email javascript files to each other (even as attachments) but apparently have no problem with embedded vbscript in email.
I work in a shop that uses Microsoft on the network side, and Macs on the graphics side. I have to administer both, and I am here to tell you they are both Evil!I hear voices no matter which ones I work on, but when I work on Microsoft stuff, the voices stutter...
I was a contractor, but that was by far one of the most educational and fun experiences of my life. I know this is /. and that I should be hating on them here if I don't want to get modded down, but I wish them well in their endeavors. If the competition wants to get big, do it by being better, not by pissing and moaning that Microsoft is keeping you down.
It's not that hard to be better.
It's easy to believe that the aritcle is real, that there are some very cool aspects to working at Microsoft.
After all, there must be some pretty fantastic things in a job god enough to make you check your ethics at the door.
Sure it's possible he goes day to day and honestly is doing everything as ethically as he can. But in the end he still works to power Micrsoft, which as we have seen from an external view produces results that are NOT so ethically inclined. In the end, as nice as you or your job may be you're still powering Microsoft forward regardless of what they are doing.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Compare the assertion ``all of the division heads (and their staff, and their staff) are top-notch'' with the observation ``In contrast, most of the middle management should be tossed.''
It seems to me that a large responsibility of upper level management is to hire, train and retain middle-management. If the high level folks can't make good decisions on promoting rank and file to management or in attracting quality management from outside, how can they be trusted to not run the company into the ground?
What's absurd about people's attitude towards Microsoft is that people see a dark agenda behind everything they do, usually in defiance of all logic. Microsoft is like the Borgias, that Italian family that did a lot a lot of unacceptable things (how many Popes move their children into the Vatican, or even admit to having children?) but not half the evil things "everybody knows" they did (Lucrecia Borgia, contrary to myth, never poisoned anybody).
Microsoft is really not as evil as people think. But they are a nasty monopoly, and should be broken up. Not just for the rest of us, but for their own good — the pieces would work much better than the whole.
Anthropomorphization, one of those words nobody can spell, but nobody can live without it.
Excerpts from the article:
Companies (countries, races, etc.) are not "evil" or "good", and they do not have "intentions."
Rarely, a sizeable revolt happens and the team kicks the cult out.
Companies do not have intentions, but teams can?
Anthropom... whatever is a very handy mental resource, one of many to deal with complexity, so let's not demonize it. Certainly can lead you to false thoughts, but more often than not allows you to predict certain events with accurancy. If you consider the complexity of a company, the number of people involved in decision-making, and the fact that you know very little of it, you cannot predict anything.
But in the same way, taking into account the number of brain cells that are involved into taking a decision, you cannot predict anything about what a person will do. Who knows the precise neurotransmitter balance in that brain ? But I can predict that my wife won't like it if I see again that ex-girlfriend, and never fail.
And misteriously I can predict that no really open file format for office files will ever be supported by Microsoft, just by thinking about it as a mean spirited old miser that wants to have the cake and eat it too. Companies are legal entities, and can take decisions. When you see a pattern of decisions, you paint a personality, and hey! it mainly works!
I suppose the writer of the FA has no interest in sports, because, after all, the football team you are following now is certainly NOT the same that you were following ten years ago, so your fidelity should go with the individual players. Except if you Anthropomorphi... well, if you think of the team as an individual, and forget about the composing units.
Rome taught me patience and assiduous application to detail. Virtues which temper the boldness of great, general views.
Microsoft's not evil... Shouldnt this go under "Science Fiction"... or "Computer Science Fiction"
"Corporation" derives from the latin for "body", and corporations are considered "persons" in the law. A corporation can be convicted of criminal offenses, sue others for libel, etc.. So perhaps you don't have to be an "idiot" to ascribe moral characteristics to one?
You know, the stuff you like to do. Software testing, that is. Or do you really like to code stuff, since you interviewed for the NT team?
As an outsider, what do you think of how Apple is doing things? You insight seems honest and interesting.
At Microsoft, I've had access to the source code for Halo 1 & 2, Internet Explorer, MDAC, MSXML, the .NET Frameworks and CLR, SQL Server, SQLXML, Virtual PC, Visual Studio, Windows, the Xbox and Xbox Live....
I envy him...
Cheers, Jared
http://phoenix-network.org
You're fired.
Mac OS X and Windows XP working side by side to fight back the night.
I wrote this article 2 years ago.
Seriously, who do you folks think you are. Besides being, on the whole, the basement and server closet dwelling *nix geeks wearing sandals and shorts and playing MMPOGs or coding away your life instead of a reasonable social life you are entirely innexperienced in the mainstream business and software world... you are isolated and insulated, and your opinions simply serve to shed light on your own pathetic existence, your anger, and your VERY narrow world view. Companies are not evil... a corporation may have leadership and direction that can be described as evil, if there is even such a thing, but but the company itself simply is not so and can never be. It is impossible.
PR piece? I think not. Tainted view? A matter of perspetive? Potentially enlightening... obviously not where it counts, and thats with the core audience of this geek fest.
You folks need a tan, a new set of hobbies that are self satisfying without destroying your humanity (or at least your sanity), and you need to get laid.
So pathetic.
...I choose when I show up for work and when I leave...
Anger has its uses. Here, let me show you.
Then why are all employees required to surrender their souls at the door on the way into work each day?
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
Lots of organizations that did evil were primarily staffed by honest, earnest, hardworking people, who just joined up because they needed a job, or needed hope, or needed a place to fit in. That doesn't make them bad people; nevertheless, their company / organization / government was evil. I hereby invoke Godwin's Law, because the primary example I can think of where this was the case was the German National Socialist party in the 1930s. Many of the members were disenfranchised as a result of the horrible hyperinflation, due at least in part to the Great Depression. In fact, the Weimar inflationary period has been described by some historians as the worst example of inflation in history. (I'll leave my rant about the Federal Reserve causing the Great Depression for another thread.)
As a result of Hitler's propaganda and promises to unite the German people and lead them out of depression, many joined the Nazi party. It wasn't because they were evil themselves, but because they believed in the 'party platform'. No rational person would accuse someone for being evil just because they joined the Democrats or Republicans. (In fact, both parties are talking about ways to get out of the $40 trillion unpaid Social Security debt.) The problem with the Nazis was the party leadership, not the working-class Joe. In the same vein, the problem with Microsoft isn't their reverse-tanned legions, it's the geeks at the top of the food chain who are calling the shots.
Since I've invoked the Nazis, I declare this thread to be dead.
This post expresses my opinion, not that of my employer. And yes, IAAL.
good (+), the bad (-), and the in-between (=)
He lost me when he used the assignment operator in place of the equality test operator.
Creationist Textbook Stickers Declared Unconstitutional by CowboyNeal
I realize this may be completely impossible to believe, but before you start saying this guy is a shill, did you ever stop to think that this just MIGHT be a real article? And there just MIGHT be people who enjoy working at Microsoft? Is it really that hard to believe?
Not at all; it just has no bearing on whether or not I should trust him. After all, there are still folks who truly and genuinely believe that Saddam Hussein had a massive stockpile of WMDs that he was going to unleash on the US of A, but that doesn't make their beliefs any less kooky.
--R.J.
Electric-Escape.net
My definition of an evil company is a little different, but Microsoft certainly fits it.
An evil company plays zero-sum games (loss for you = gain for us) with its own customers.
Playing zero-sum with your competitors is standard; no problem.
Playing zero-sum with your partners, distribution chain, and potential aquisitions is rather scummy, and Microsoft is one of the few companies that does this routinely and isn't blackballed.
But playing zero-sum with your customers, the ones who pay your bills, shows you have a position so powerful that you can afford to tell your own customers to sit on it and spin, and still win.
To me that is evil.
I don't need to give examples here (I hope) of the times when Microsoft has deliberately screwed its own customer base over for its own benefit; I'm sure you can think of plenty. But they are all, to my mind, evidence of abuse of monopoly, and also evil.
We all ended up retiring before 30. Some with money, some without.
I was a contractor at Microsoft from 1995-1997, working on MSN.com when it first came out, before Internet Explorer existed. As a result, I was apart of the permatemp class action lawsuit.
My Microsoft experience was both good and bad.
I got to work with some really talented and highly skilled people and learned a ton. The original lead engineer on Slate.com was a great guy and mentored me on his own, even though I wasn't a "blue badge" and not entitled to such perks. He had been recruited out of college back in the late 80s so he was a millionaire. He retired a few years later after his second marriage/wedding since he had already lost his first marriage to Microsoft and didn't wish to repeat the experience. He also told me that only people hired on at or promoted to a certain level got really lucrative stock options. From what I saw, he was right.
I shared an office at one point with an amazing programmer, super smart and super nice guy. I remember him telling me that he had to learn to not care so much about his work because the business and marketing departments always rule in the end. He had a product he had worked on that he was really proud of, the users were really happy and he was excited about working on more features. He never got to because the product was outsourced and no more versions were going to be released, it was just to be supported as is and it didn't matter if the support was mediocre, just that it was cheaper. He said he found that a hard pill to swallow because he really believed in producing great products but he learned to accept it and was "watching the clock" meaning waiting his 5 years for his stock to vest. I met several fulltimers watching the clock and they seemed to me to be the some of the most talented people there.
I met many people who worked very hard and others who were coasting, some arrogant and rude with no social skills whatsoever and some genuine, amicable and highly skilled, both fulltimers and contractors.
I worked with great managers and incompetent ones. One manager was so bad that when the first round of contractor layoffs happened at one point, he cut a really skilled programmer who was vital to many projects in favor of keeping around the pretty, no experience or technical ability, woman that he was boinking, much to the dismay of the rest of us who had to workaround the incompetence of both of them. He was arrogant and had a mullet, a paradox beyond comprehension.
I did not envy the people who became fulltimers during this time. Compared to contractor pay which included overtime, their pay was cut in half and their hours stayed the same or increased. One friend had to move somewhere cheaper due to the pay cut and carried 3 pagers at all times resulting in her moving closer to work as well. Her first year of employment was what was then called the "probation year" meaning she would not receive any stock options until after that first year. She and other people who went fulltime soon realized that the stock options were not going to make them millionaires but simply restore the compensation that had been cut when they took the salaried fulltime job. I knew several talented people who left before their options vested as a result.
Some contractors-to-fulltimers I knew did ok with stock options meaning they were able to gain an extra 200-250k and after taxes bought themselves a nice house and/or car. But no one retired early.
I knew several fulltimers who once they hit their 5 year mark, cashed out their stock and left the Microsoft with propriertary information on which they based a new company, hoping to get bought out by Microsoft and make more money. Some were sued, some weren't sued but didn't get bought out as they hoped, some did.
Overall, it was an interesting place to be during the time I was there. That said, I'm inclined to think that the author's experience is not the norm given the high status at which he entered the company. If he had come in as an entry level contractor or programmer, his experience would be much different.
- tokengeekgrrl
"I love source code. I love reading it, writing it, thinking about it.
.NET Frameworks and CLR, SQL Server, SQLXML, Virtual PC, Visual Studio, Windows, the Xbox and Xbox Live, and probably several other projects that I've forgotten about. Does it get better than this?"
At Microsoft, I've had access to the source code for Halo 1 & 2, Internet Explorer, MDAC, MSXML, the
Yeah, if everybody has access to it.
At Microsoft, I've had access to the source code for Halo 1 & 2, Internet Explorer, MDAC, MSXML, the .NET Frameworks and CLR, SQL Server, SQLXML, Virtual PC, Visual Studio, Windows, the Xbox and Xbox Live, and probably several other projects that I've forgotten about. Does it get better than this?
uhh, yes, it does. Maybe you should visit www.gnu.org.
The only difference is that when *I* look at operating system source code, I don't have to sign non-compete agreements, and I dont have to agree to fund my existance with money gotten from business practices that are greedy, dishonest, and harmful to the marketplace.
And I dont have to live in seattle. zing!!! (j/k)
Why stick up for big business?
Even in the Mafia, they do have a code of honor. More so.
It is always the people that thieve, that stress on having honest people working for them. It makes it easier.
I am not saying that M$ is evil, but I am saying 'no evil company' would encourage their subordinates to lie and cheat, mostly because they will cheat the company.
The point I am making, is just because the top management keeps stressing on honesty, integrity, generosity.... does not mean they are ethical themselves Nor would you in your day to day dealings with them guess they would be unethical.
my 2 cents.
Corporation: an ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility.
When evil individuals use the shield of corporate law to avoid being held accountable for rape, murder and torture (Unocal) only an ignorant fool quibbles over whether the company or the individual is evil.
Microsoft the corporation is legally responsible for the actions of its individual leaders so it makes perfect sense to label them good or evil based on their leader's actions just as it makes sense to label the International Red Cross as good or evil based on the actions of its members.
Service Temporarily Unavailable
;-)
The server is temporarily unable to service your request due to maintenance downtime or capacity problems. Please try again later.
Apache/1.3.33 Server at www.qbrundage.com Port 80
Kindda minimalist, not to mention that it doesn't match the article title....
Horns are really just a broken halo.
And Google's cache...
An article about working at Microsoft, referenced on pro-Linux Slashdot, running on an Apache server, dead in the water.
I don't think that Microsoft has their talent spread too thin. The real issue is not to my mind the lack of focus in product improvements but the lack of technical maturity of the systems as a whole. I would point out that in 2000, Microsoft finally came around to technology that had been in use for nearly seventeen years (Kerberos). In short the real problem is their approach to the market, not spreading themselves too thin, etc.
;-)
Win9x for example, was a real improvement over Win3.x because it added some real technical advantages, but it was sort of a hybrid or shim approach to technical problems that ideally could have been handled better if DOS was designed better from the start (anyone remember what QDOS really stood for?).
Microsoft is the proto-Wal-mart of the software world (you know, the seller of cheap plastic junk). The approach has generally been that it doesn't have to be better, just cheaper and more appealing to the lowest common denominator. This price advantage of Microsoft has been probably on the whole beneficial to the industry in that it has made computing more ubiquitous and therefore has helped the development of the internet and even open source as a global phenominon. However, Microsoft software tends to be poorly thought out and poorly implemented.
The NT architecture is, after all, a severely crippled reimplementation of VMS with a nice GUI running on it and some Windows emulation
The rush to market and the unwillingness to spend the time necessary to get things right has meant a great deal of trouble for users of Microsoft software. Indeed even when Microsoft attempted to reimplement UNIX (their Xenix product that they later sold to SCO), it was worst in class.
In essence, Microsoft is largely a marketing company that sells cheap, poorly implemented software. Bad systems trump bad people, so the problem is not a lack of talent so much as a system in place that prevents people from making good software.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
Microsoft's "ethical" and "customer oriented" practices are explained when you consider that Gates is a thief. Ever see a guy on the street hawking pirated CD's who was a dick to his customers? Thieves are bottom-dwellers, they make the nicest impression on as many people as possible.
This is very different from being a bully, which is to make the worst impression on people. Microsoft isn't a bully. It would call attention to their gaping lack of R&D.
Yes, I know the company spends billions of dollars. But somehow it's always the smaller, independent programmers who keep inventing things like, the web browser (Andreesen), instant messaging (MIT), network authentication (MIT), the window server (MIT), microkernels (academia), encryption (academia), type-safe objects (Sun/academia), WYSIWG (Apple), spreadsheets (Lotus), vector web (Macromedia), typesetting (Knuth), video editing (Adobe), ergonomic keyboards (not Microsoft), blogs (not Microsoft), mpeg compression (not Microsoft), p2p distribution (not Microsoft).
When you are consistently this far behind the technological curve, it comes as no surprise that you bend over backwards.
Companies (countries, races, etc.) are not "evil" or "good", and they do not have "intentions." Star Trek is science fiction -- there is no Borg mind.
I actually entirely disagree here. Corporations, especially large ones, tend to suffer from what I call "hive mind" or "borg mind." In reality, both metaphores are surprisingly apt.
The complex "hive mind" behaviors in bees, ants, and similar insects occurs because the insects communicate with eachother via scents and/or body language. Thus behavior spreads from insect to insect until you see what looks like a more elaborate mind when it is really the result of a system of minimally programmed units which communicate with eachother. The concept of the borg mind in Star Trek is not that far removed as it is based on the complex information exchange between the different units.
In any sufficiently large organization, you get structures which provide a great degree of organizational inertia. In other words, at some point it doesn't even matter what Steve Ballmer really thinks, the actual organization can only continue to evolve in its own niche. Other management interests, stockholder interests, and so forth, will see to that. This brings me to my next point: Corporations, though they seem to personify non-conscious forces seem to personify the sort of collective mind that we see in the insect world. Except that we communicate via sound vibrations, pushing buttons on a keyboard, or making marks on paper.
The final point is that for anyone who has ever worked in a corporate environment (I used to work for Microsoft), it is very easy for the workers to begin to believe the propaganda of the company. This tendency actually increases as one goes up the management chain because often company loyalty (and gullibility) are rewarded with promotions at least as far as middle management, and for upper level management, they are sufficiently isolated from what goes on at the ground level that they don't have sufficient feedback. So the corporate mind is self-sustaining, viral, and can take over your thought processes. One ends up with a corporate cult, and Microsoft is no exception (but is rather the rule).
I prefer working on my own in a small consulting business. Sooner or later we will need a management infrastructure, but when this occurs, I intend to take a close look at how these problems can be solved.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
the companies you mentioned are also very large
"Microsoft's not evil..." Oh yeah? So the guy is a Mac user. Hurrah, good for him, and so am I and millions of other people. So he is a former UNIX programmer. That's great! But it has nothing to do with the very limited content of the article, so I don't give a flying fuck to be honest. The "Mac user", "Unix programmer" and "Microsoft's not evil" rubbish kind of gives it away immediately, doesn't it? What a smelly load of untenterresting cack.
Beauty is in the beholder of the eye.
Companies (countries, races, etc.) are not "evil" or "good", and they do not have "intentions."
It's hard to know what he might mean by this. Companies are persons in law, and have the ability to take action in the world under the guidance of more-or-less consistent policies, just like human individuals. To claim that properties like "good", "evil" and "intentionality" cannot be ascribed to such an entity, which has all of the attributes we normally ascribe to good, evil and/or intentional entities is more than a little weird.
The very fact that he would introduce such a naive and transparently false position suggests that there's a lot he'd like to sweep under the rug. After all, if companies "just can't be evil" you don't have to argue that Microsoft's monopolistic practices aren't actually evil, or good, or anything. They are like the rocks and the seas--just there. Or perhaps by some similarly specious make-believe logic they don't "really" exist.
Of course, neither do people--we are just a collection of cells.
Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
If you're so damn happy about working for a non evil company then do us all a favor and fix the frickin browser so I don't have to use a damn hack when for IE.
Bullshit.
I'm here at MS right now. I've come and gone, as have many of my peers. MS doesn't give alot of information in their references for liability reasons, but they don't slander by any means, and old employess are welcome back.
You know, it is possible (even likely) that after seeing how the software development process works both in the open source world and inside Microsoft, someone would decide Microsoft's way was far better. This has personally been the case for me. I would trust Microsoft's development processes, quality control, and code quality far beyond what I've seen in most open source projects.
I'm not going to bother to read the article. It's real, in the sense that it has words that make sentences. Other than that, who knows. Microsoft has squandered any trust they may have once had. Even if the opinion was genuine, it's irrelevant.
Microsoft has invented people before. The Apple Switcher is a good example of that. They took stock photos and wrote up a story of how Apple sucks and Microsoft rocks. Is this blog any less fake? You don't know unless you know the person you can't tell. Because you can't tell, reading is a waste of time.
Reading is also a waste of time because the thing described is irrelevant. I've read enough articles describing the process of begging Bill Gates to know that no employee can ever make a difference. Even if they could, M$ has a long way to go before they are anything but third rate. Bill has screwed his partners, customers and his investors to create this stuff I could care less about. How he treats his slaves is something even less important to me than the software itself.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Should have used IIS....
I found this quote a little amusing:
Given that Microsoft's been convicted of monopolistic practices, it may shock you when I say that Microsoft's upper management strikes me as very ethical. They talk about ethical behavior all the time, and as far as I've seen, lead by example. Maybe I'm being naive, but I find Microsoft's upper management to be very trustworthy.
It reminded me of a contract I took with a particular company a few years ago when I worked for myself. During the discussions of whether or not we wanted to take on the project, and work together, the customer kept talking about "intellectual honesty," and saying how everything had to be of the highest integrity. I found this kind of odd, but figured he had been burned recently by a dishonest contractor or customer, so I assured him I wanted the same thing.
Turns out it was all a ploy. What he really wanted was someone he could totally take advantage of, then not pay. I figured it out really early on, so I was able to minimize the damage done, but what I learned was that people who talk a lot about such things are the least likely to actually want to live up to them. It's kind of like in high school how the kid who talks the most about having sex is the one actually having the least sex.
I get the same feeling from reading his description above.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evil
scroll down to "Hacker Jargon"
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
So what's the point? Sounds like a textbook article that you can make up yourself just by closing your eyes. "My company's great" "I love my job" "I want to be in upper management."
In typical fashion, the standard of living provided by Microsoft, what he's achieved, and comparisons to other companies are left out.
There's the usual badmouthing of middle management that you can read about in every garbage dumpster. Never a mention of the fact that lots of people write software that influences millions of people. Never a mention of the fact that lots of people write software that gets books written about it. Never a mention that the tools Microsoft provides to allow him to impact 30% of the product are available to anyone with a web browser.
Michael: (Finishes typing) There, are you happy? Microsoft is not Evil. Can I go home now.
Steve: Yes you can. (Puts down chair)
Fair enough steal their finds when they're of current interest, but regurgitating their regurgitation is just shoddy.
... there's a wide gray area between overprotecting your children and creating a nuturing environment...
hate to be his kids...
Hey! MS "encourages charitable giving". OK! I got one, how about all the little microsofties "charitably" PAY for all the millions of people who have had their boxes hosed and owned, when they have to drag them to the friendly 60 buck an hour computer fixit shop! Wouldn't that be a nice "charity", seeing as how it's YOUR FAULT THAT YOU PROFIT FROM, from the bugware that became some sort of standard due to illegal collusion, extortion,and strong arm tactics? Of course, oh no, that wasn't evil, it's just business!
How about every VICTIM of using MS so called products gets to have one good swift kick to the nads to a random MS employee, in order to have a "balanced work/life" and improve morale? RIGHT in the "middle" of a "manager", a little "rearrangement of priorities" they can "enjoy on campus". Those other people got to get UNBALANCED in THEIR "work/life", so don't they deserve a little payback?
Enjoy your fat check while it lasts, the future is free software, and the importance of code (and where coders money *is* going to come from), is going right back where it belongs, actually doing something productive with it, actually *producing wealth* with it. USING the tool, not just re-designing the same hammer over and over and over again and getting paid billions for it.
BTW, hope you and your close personal friend and business associate HU can get together for a little dissident BBQ! Won't that be fun! You can sit around and comment how non-evil you are!
When I say "solved" I mean that the structure is set up so that the business has the maximum ability to continue to become what the directors and officers envision that it is. THis probably means a very shallow management hierarchy and a relegating middle management to computer systems as much as possible (i.e. have lower level management report directly to upper level management, but use computerization as a way to handle as much of the coordination between the groups as possible).
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
FTA:
"The thing is, I haven't seen any evidence of that on the inside -- and I'm usually very critical of these things. For as long as I've worked at Microsoft, ethics have been a real part of employee performance reviews. It's not just talk, but the way work goes each day. Most product designs revolve around addressing specific customer needs. No one ever says "Hey, let's go ruin company P" or other things that could be construed as "evil." Instead, it's "customers Q and R are having trouble with this, and I have an idea how we could fix it..." and other positive, constructive statements.."
I guess Google is not included. No one can out right say they want to end competition. FYI: I have worked in Telecommunactions for most of my life; and those phrases cannot be uttered. Why? Because it is called anti-competitive and we would have the FCC on our case. In MS; it would be??? Who ever.... Any ways; I have been privi to various conversations in the industry (telecom); the wording is one thing; the meaning is something else. Just my two cents worth.
Most Microsoft employees are good, dedicated people, and from what I can tell is a good place to work.
The company has had some problems, like hiring too many smart but inexperienced people out of college and giving them tasks they weren't up to, but even that largely stopped as the company has matured.
Nevertheless, some people at Microsoft haven't matured, notably at the top. People like Ballmer still behave like they're running a small, fast-growing company that has a license to do anything in order to compete. But that sort of behavior is inappropriate for a company that has >80% market share in some markets. I don't know whether "evil" is the right word, but, in the end, Microsoft's business practices are increasingly running into trouble not only with regulators, but also customers and investors.
If anything, Microsoft seems to have the opposite problem, in which employees sometimes design or cut a feature or product without fully appreciating the huge impact their decision can have outside the company.
Among the different forms of evil, that is actually a major one: if you have a lot of power and impact, it is your duty to think about the consequences of your actions carefully, otherwise you indeed are evil.
The reality is that Microsoft is made up of mostly honest, earnest, hardworking people. People with families. People with hardships. People with ordinary and extraordinary lives.
Yes, but the reality is that Microsoft's competitors are made up of mostly honest, earnest, and hardworking people as well. The problem is that Microsoft's senior management has adopted policies and strategies in the past that unfairly deprive the mostly honest, earnest, and hardworking people in those other companies of the just rewards of their hard work.
No one ever says "Hey, let's go ruin company P"
Actually, some people are on record saying that. People like Ballmer, for example. And that's what people refer to when they say "Microsoft is evil", namely that the people in charge have behaved unethically (not to mention illegally).
But there's one thing people do that really drives me nuts: anthropomorphization.
It drives me nuts, too--in particular, it drives me nuts that corporations have managed to get the rights of real persons in areas like free speech. However, given that they have, it seems only fair that at least we anthropomorphize them when we talk about them.
Overall, I think there are lots of good, well-meaning people working at Microsoft. But as long as there are on-going legal problems over monopolistic practices and as long as people like Ballmer are in charge, there continues to be reason to apply the label "evil" to the company as an entity, no matter what fraction of the employees are not evil.
I have a couple friends who work at MS. My impression is that how much you like your job there very much depends on what you're working on. One of my friends works on .NET, and he loves his job. I mean, the man writes programming languages for a living. He's got a great job! Of course he loves it.
My other friend, on the other hand, works on a product that I will not name, except to say that MS totally undervalues its importance and does not dedicate nearly enough resources to it. Although I wouldn't say that he hates his job, I would say that he, at very best, tolerates it.
Regardless of your specific job at MS, I will say that Redmond is the most disappointing site you will ever see. You would think that the headquarters of the world's largest software maker would be impressive, right? Wrong. It's like every other crappy suburb that you've ever seen, except all the office parks are owned by one company. Lame. Although you don't have to live in Redmond to work at MS, your only alternative is to live in Seattle and make the > 1hr commute every day.
But in his case, his management churned so quickly that he was working for someone else before he was ready to leave. I've been there myself - by the time I realized my lead was so bad I wouldn't work for him, I was already reporting to someone else. When he says he would leave right away, that's his hindsight speaking. If your bad manager had been replaced after six months, and been replaced with someone you enjoyed working for, you'd be in the exact same position: saying (sincerely) that you'd quit if you had to work for him again.
I guess what you are saying is that since you are still there, you have not yet experienced this misery. Well, my friend, prepare for the day when all your colleagues are approached by a more senior colleague who says there is a very good reason why you are no longer there. LOok at transcripts from the trial years back and oyu will find alot of claims of disinformation and general rumor dissemination. I can't remember any colleague, except for those that went to MS-blessed affiliated companies that did not get fantastic (emphasis on the "fantas" base) stories attributed to them. First two dozen times I bought it, but the pattern emerged after that. Foreign minorities are especially vulnerable as they are unknown quantities in their local community. But your boss should be proud of your nationalistic approach to defending the fort.
Geezus - innovation in office? I could get by with office 95 - and probably with something older than that.
Everybody always shouts about innovation in office, but then when we get something new we shout about how bloated it is.
Everybody using the same thing is good for business. Business is what counts, not choice in office products. When will the slashdot crowd get that through there friggin ms hating heads?
I'm a Citrix admin. I install office. It works. Everybody knows how to use it. I move on the to the hard clinical apps. Thank you very much.
>Believe me, it's MUCH more fun to work on software that isn't going to be sold to customers.
What, the TPS report generator of accounting system number 6.023*10^23? <pukes>
>Why anyone would actually want to work on software-as-a-product is beyond me.
Why would anyone want to ski down the expert course instead of the bunny slope? It's the exhiliration, man. The fear and excitement of knowing that your product will improve the lives of tens of thousands or even millions of people (or have them screaming for your head (yes, yours and no other) on a pike).
Er, yes, but some of the things that Sony ships...
As a contractor for Microsoft from time to time - I have been asked - no demanded that I put tape over the word "UNIX" on my laptop bag I carry. That is no joke - my client/manager saw it when I arrived in her office at Microsoft one day. From the people in that building's reaction, I am never surprised when I hear stories like that.
I have a friend who works at Apple on Quicktime - I should ask him how Windows logo products are viewed there??
My favorite quotes:
"And so, here I am",
Ah, i see, you just fell in there eh?
Amnesiac, victim of friends and spouse's consiracy lands 6 figure job!! news at 11!
"Companies (countries, races, etc.) are not "evil" or "good", and they do not have "intentions.""
umm, companies, countries and races (never mind the etc's) should Never be grouped together, in any context. Companies ARE individual's in the eyes of U.S. Law and last i heard evil can indeed reside in an individual.
Intentions? yup, companies have them, its called a business plan. And very often its Evil, (see, Wal-mart, Tyco, Global crossing, Enron, etc)
This one is great too:
"People who speak of companies (or countries, or races, or other groups) as being good or evil are at best ignorant, and at worst bigots."
The bragging just proves he's "yet another annoying overpaid ". Management needs to write down his name and gut his pay.
I am simply oddities in peoples logic. Your turn:
We are being asked to believe Microsoft's upper management is extremely "ethical" by a Microsoft employee who thinks working there is pretty good, and hasn't himself been privy to the illegal decisions we know as a matter of public record that organization has made.
If he hasn't been privy to the illegal decisions, how can they be a matter of public record? Are these some sort of public records that are public for everyone but MS employees?
BTW, it is a minor point, but MS is not really 'evil'. Lets assume that all of MS's bad behavior was planned from the start to destroy their rivals in the most expedient method available. It still isn't evil. The bolshevik communist party was evil. The Khimir Rouge was evil. The Nazi party was evil. Microsoft was at worst, unethical. Please don't confuse organizations that purvey true evil and misery on the world with a bunch of greedy executives.
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
I rushed to this section to point out pretty much exactly what you wrote there.
The path to hell is lined with good intentions. Although individuals of an organization might be good people, the direction of the organization is not dictated by this. It's the brain that is responsible for the movement of the body, not the cells. Actually, I find it astonishing to what extent a company rather takes character by its top management.
Apple is kind of stylish, like Steve Jobs. Although I don't know about Bill Gates, Microsoft rather seems to have Aspergers...
1. Pretentiousness
Brundage didn't get across the results of the "Influence" factor. Employees know everybody is watching and the software has a huge audience. They understand that they are truly important people in the world. Sometimes this gets quite pretentious. Sometimes things that would be pretentious anywhere else are actually appropriate for Microsoft employees. In many other companies I've worked at the employees only view the company as a way to earn money to get along -- not so at Microsoft.
The other result of the huge audience is that many (not all) developers have become exceedingly careful about creating anything that is a bug, looks like a bug, will be mistaken for a bug, or will generate support questions. A million emails or phone calls to complain about something that's "Actually correct" is very expensive to handle. It has to look right too.
2. Intelligence
Two or three of the people I've worked with at Microsoft are so intelligent it was actually frightening to watch them think. They could do things that I didn't know could be done. Look at a whole new program and gather it's purpose at a glance -- and see the bugs!
3. Popularity breeds cynicism.
By now all the important developers at MS are aware that solving the security problems are an ideal way to install additional controls on user and developer behavior; Such as changing protocols so that only MS products can interface with each other. Not that this is universally done. But it's an available tool. Likewise,the withdrawal of the Macro Assembler is for security but adds to MS control. MS has better software development tools (compilers and linkers, for example) than it sells to its customers use. This is perfectly legal and sensible but not an "Open" philosophy. It is easy for the OS to tell the difference between applications developed in-house, with retail compilers, and with competitive compilers. Occasionally there is a good reason to do this, so there is plenty of cover.
C++ frameworks for Windows development were, in my subjective opinion, deliberately sabotaged. Any really "Good" C++ class library for programming Windows could be ported to Apple or Linux, but MFC could not. Observe the history of ATL/WTL. They "Solved" this problem with .NET, which allows development with good tools that don't threaten MS with portability of applications.
4. Middle Management and "Reorgs"
A bane of existance at Microsoft. This actually may be one of the reasons that the company is so successful (I'm not sure) but the constant shake-ups are disruptive and expensive. The matrix of Product Managers, Program Managers and Project Managers is confusing even to the people with the titles.
5. More features than they can market.
There is no way the image of the company or of any of it's products can be allowed to be as complex as the actual products. Important inventions, features and innovations get buried. Abortions like OLE and even COM get over-emphasized. Bad designs like "IO completion ports" get promulgated to the world and can not be withdrawn.
6. The Caste System
There are several distinct layers of MS technical employees. At the top are the "Software Design Engineers". Next in line are the "Software Design Engineers in Test" ("S/DET's" who write internal test code). Within each of these, the caste is split between full-time blue-badges and lowly temp workers. The third caste is "Testers", sometimes referred to as "Monkeys", likewise split between full-time and temps. By the way, I learned at MS that there is such a thing as a talented tester. People who can break things more quickly and don't seem to mind keying and mousing the same thing over and over for each release. A good developer is not necessarily a good tester.
Social mobility between the castes is rare but it does happen. I've also seen people jump a level and then get fired when they don't work out.
I18N == Intergalacticization
This guy really needs to read "Brave New World" to get a handle on reality. He talks about the disconnect Microsofties experience due to the campus' isolation from the real world as well as the cost of what they use - well, he's living proof of his observation! As long as MS is charging several hundred dollars for a desktop OS, an office suite etc. customers will be robbed. Where could my company better put a few hundred thousand dollars to use (instead of buying Software Assurance [aka extortion pay])? I can think of a few pressing business problems that could use the cash. They have an effective monopoly and pricing policies that abuse it. Who'd pay $500 for Office if they had a choice? There are no choices because they've all been killed off. And please, someone honestly tell me how you can justify the cost of this software in terms of value delivered to the consumer. I am sure the privileged in communist regimes could defend their having access to the best and most expensive while others lived in poverty. -- Intelligence is no guarantee of wisdom
Intelligence is no guarantee of wisdom
ANYONE who claims more than months or even weeks uptime in XP isn't applying patches!
You're right. There's no reason to apply patches.
Seriously, if you don't run IE or any MS mail client, are behind a hardware firewall, and don't have MS Office installed, you've removed 99% of your vulnerabilities. The only reason I rebooted in the past 8 months is 2 upgrades of my ATI video driver (once for Half Life 2, once for Oblivion).
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
This is not the first and not the best example of an employee an employer.
This is not the first and not the best example of an employee **you**know**what** an employer.
I thank all those who have written to tell us about their experiences whilst employed by Microsoft. While this is fascinating reading, it seems that all the people who wrote were involved in development, an activity that makes up very little of what Microsoft actually produces on a day to day basis. It would be nice to hear someone in legal explain how they create their defense strategies or someone from acquisitions describe how they decide to buy a company or simply co-opt the needed technology. The most interesting tales would probably come from someone that works in the building where the fud machine is kept. I imagine that a machine of that size would create a lot of noise and probably runs 24/7 and so those employees are too busy or too tired to write about what they do. --
"The ferrets, they're every where I tell you!"
I think people are getting hung up on the idea that an organization or community being "evil" necessarily means that its members are evil.
First, we should note two meanings of the word "evil". Crudely categorized, to some people "evil" means actually setting out to "do bad things" just for the sake of doing it, wreaking havoc and mayhem for no particular reason beyond just enjoyment. To others, "evil" can be simply a lack of conscience, ruthlessness; even if there is a specific purpose (e.g. "to make more money"), causing bad things to happen to others in fulfillment of this goal would be "evil". In my opinion, both of these definitions apply, but more people would agree upon the second definition in the case of Microsoft.
Now, this refers to the corporation/organization as a whole, composed of many individual parts. My point: YES, the whole organization can be considered as a unit, with its own intentions and decision-making characteristics. This is supported by the law, which defines the corporation as having a separate status, its own rights (much to the chagrin of many Slashdotters), and its mandated goals ("to increase shareholder value"). Thus the corporation can take action which is evil, even if its many individual parts aren't able to collectively see its aggregate evil.
For a comparison, take a typical "evil" dictator. He carries out various actions which, by themselves, aren't evil: improving conditions for his employees, increasing the nation's trade, recruiting to the armed forces to defend the country. But the consequences of his actions can be evil: he tithes the farmer's produce to feed his palace guards, and exports a large portion of the remaining produce to bolster the trade, leaving the common folk with but a fraction of their income. This leads to increased crime and unrest, but the ranks of the local police have dwindled, since the members are being recruited into the army instead.
So, as we foreigners look upon the land of this dictator, we see what evil he has wrought; but he himself may not see it, and indeed may *choose* not to see the consequences of his actions. Each of his underlings may not see the big picture, believing themselves simply to be taking their well-earned wages, improving foreign trade or loyally defending the country. That is why rulers of nations have advisors whose job it is to see the big picture, to bring the big picture to the guy in charge.
Michael Brundage, in his web text, says that Microsoft isn't evil because the people around him are ethical, and the upper management talks about ethics all the time, urging people to give to charitable causes. This has nothing to do with anything. The business leaders of Microsoft have collectively decided certain actions with regard to business with competitor companies, policies about marketing, and sales of its operating system. If I were one of the corporate bigwigs, I too would spout off all the time about donating to help the Poor Starving Children In Africa, if that's all that would take to blind people to the overall consequences of my companies actions.
Being a Microsoft employee, Mr. Brundage may actually find it harder than the rest of us to look at the bigger picture. We should not fall into the same trap, and maybe we should even help Mr. Brundage.
404555974007725459910684486621289147856453481154 in hex is "You sank my Battleship?"
[GPG key in journal]
They follow the magic 150 number for organizational groups and are more a collection of semi-independent colonies than one large hive.
n g_at_gore.html
This from http://www.gore.com/en_xx/careers/graduates/worki
"At Gore you'll find direct communication, a team orientation, and one title - associate - that's shared by everyone. It's an unusual corporate culture that contributes directly to our business success by encouraging creativity and opportunity.
Gore's 'Lattice' structure gives associates the opportunity to use their own judgment, select the right projects, and directly access the resources they need to be successful. For more than 40 years, the talent, determination, curiosity, and inventiveness of our associates have contributed to the introduction of new products at a pace that few global corporations can match.
We're proud to have been repeatedly named a great place to work. In fact, we've been listed on each of Fortune magazine's list of the "100 Best Companies to Work for in America."
------
I believe the 'hive mind' is nothing more than group dynamics creating an artificial structure to maintain the wholeness of the group. A vicious circle develops where the organization develops a life of its own. A corporation is just one example of this.
There might be positives and negatives to microsoft, and in the end it might or might not be evil, just a company trying to make maximum amount of money it can. However these do not negate the fact that, due to nature of the concepts 'software' and 'compatibility', microsoft has become something that is very harmful to free competition, new titles of software in the areas it did put foot in, and in general small or starting establishments in software field. Some of the areas it set foot in, like o/s field, is impossible for start ups, and i guess very little of you who read my comment have ever thought of setting up a start up and producing an operation system to sell it commercially. There was icq first. Now the number of people using icq is not increasing, if not decrasing rapidly. Because msn messenger has become something that is directly put in front of any pc user upon installation of a windows xp system. Many people do not know the past of internet, the opportunities and different software to use for any task, and take what they are served as the prominent one. This is not a good going. It should not be let to continue, people should have freedom to choose whatever they use.
Read radical news here