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.
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.
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.
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
I'm sure working at microsoft is a great career, running microsoft software is a different story.
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.
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
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!
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
I wonder if we are going to find this in a previous press release kinda' like the 'switcher' from clip art
Before you attack a person with Ad Hominem charges, check out his CV. The gentleman has more scholarly awards than a roomful of SlashDot readers:
Awards
2003 Microsoft Gold Star Award
2003 US/International Patent (Pending) 304064.1 Common Query Runtime System and API
2003 US/International Patent (Pending) 303845.1 Query Optimizer System and Method
2003 US/International Patent (Pending) 301638.1 Query Intermediate Language (QIL) Method and System
2002 US Patent 1911574.1 XML Views Over Relational Data Using XML Schema
1996 NASA Grant NRA-96-10-OSS-055, A Collaborative Environment for the Space Interferometer Mission
1994 Caltech Hinrichs Leadership Award
1993 Caltech Don Shepard Essay Contest Winner
1992 Caltech Robert Andrews Millikan Scholar (again)
1991 Caltech Robert Andrews Millikan Scholar
1990 National Merit Scholar
1990 Oklahoma Academic All-State
1990 Valedictorian, Midwest City High School
1989 1st in seven-state region, American High School Mathematics Exam
1989 Principal Mallet Percussionist, Oklahoma All-State Band
1988 Principal Mallet Percussionist, Oklahoma All-State Orchestra
signature pending slashdot approval
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.
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!
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.
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.
You're right. I would never question the authority of a "Principal Mallet Percussionist", especially one who mentions it on his CV.
Just don't let this guy near a machine room...
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."
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
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 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.
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?
Who would think otherwise? This may or may not have been looked over by PR before he was allowed to send it out, but to me it sounds like someone expressing their opinions. Lots of people work at MS and most of them are fairly average people. They hire a lot of coders right out of college and teach the the "Microsoft Way" and they get paid decently in a mediocre work environment. There are a number of ex-MS employees working with me at my current company.
Or are you so bound by your narrow worldview of a particular company being 'evil' that you have to figuratively cover your ears...
The author of this look at MS goes on about his personal rationalizations about how MS is not "evil" all the while not touching on the important aspects of it. MS does a lot of very bad things. They break the law. They lie. They cheat. They destroy innovation and crush good companies in their search for one thing, money. He talks about how the people he knows there are "good" people (well except 1/3 of his managers who are incompetent and all those people who partake in personality cults rather than working for the greater good). He says the policies he know about are similarly "good." He says the upper management must be "good" because they do so well at keeping him securely employed. In all it is a very small-minded view.
Corporations are legal entities granted many of the rights of people. These entities, however, generally exist only for the expressed purpose of making money. What would you call a person who was wholly devoted only to greed? "Evil" may not be such a far-out description. Add to that the fact that the corporation cannot be punished for crimes as individuals are, only fined money. Since they are basically greed incarnate they will then break the law whenever it will gain them more money than it will lose them. Thus, MS breaks the law, a lot. Adding in other unethical behaviors that are not technically illegal and we get an entity made of good people with good policies, that has a terrible effect upon the computer industry and the world in general.
And within that company is this fellow, trying to justify to himself and us why he works there and how it is really not evil despite the fact that it keeps doing "evil" things. I think I have another person in mind who might be "figuratively covering his ears."
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.
"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?
Too scared of someone rebuking you to actually pick a comment to attach this to?
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.
You're fired.
Mac OS X and Windows XP working side by side to fight back the night.
...I choose when I show up for work and when I leave...
Anger has its uses. Here, let me show you.
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.
No. The *cluster* may have an uptime of %100, but a single XP machine does not.
Still, I don't see grandmaw getting a cluster installed so she can keep Messenger running for 3 days while she' waiting to hear about the birth of her latest grandchild.
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
I don't mean to dis this guy, but this award list should not be used as a demonstration of impressiveness. It's very typical of a person in his situation. He's doing fine, but there are PLENTY of /. readers doing just as well, thanks. Of course there are also 13 year olds but...
While at NASA he got a grant -- from NASA. Internal grants of institutions like this are generally easier to come by than external ones (trust me, I have many), and more importantly, they're usually the result of a large number of people working on a proposal. Likewise, he has four patents listed, all variants of the same item: almost unquestionably this is joint work he's done with as a team member while at Microsoft. This is all good stuff to have on your resume, but it's not atypical.
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
"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.
"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..."
You got that sterotype wrong. I'm sitting in a major corp office space with a red stapler, TPS reports, cubicals and all. And if you are not a POSIX type you must be that "other" blowhard type that cracks us up even more.
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.
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.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evil
scroll down to "Hacker Jargon"
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
hey no fair. This morning I was +5 Insightful. Now I'm a troll. Why did the retarded mod come after the smart one? I am saddened.
we will end no whine before its time
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.
... there's a wide gray area between overprotecting your children and creating a nuturing environment...
hate to be his kids...
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
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.
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.
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]
Aren't they the ones that invented the internet?
Just kidding.
Thanks for the information. I personally think that management can have a very valuable role if the management hierarchy is sufficiently shallow (2 layers, tops-- in other words, there should be no more than 3 steps up the chain of command from the worker on the floor to the board-appointed executives). Ideally, this should be kept to a single layer of management in between the executives and floor workers, and direct communication should be encouraged at all levels. Middle management would be replaced by project leads which don't actually manage the projects but provide an advising rather than mediating or delegated role.
This means that the chain of command is no more than 5 layers deep and is ideally 4 layers (Worker->Manager->Executive, i.e. VP->Board). Everything ought to be able to be accomplished using a paramanagement rather than an extended management structure.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
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
I heard once that MS studied linux kernel development process and wanted to structure their own kernel dev team in similar fashion. So, LKLM folks are probably exceeding MS methods. Of course, among kernel hackers there are many corporate professionals hired by companies such as IBM, Novell, etc.