Microsoft's 12-Step Program

NevarMore writes to tell us eWeek is reporting that Microsoft, after almost 30 years of Windows, now has 12 philosophical tenets outlining Windows development. From the article: "Smith said the principles largely come from things Microsoft picked up in the consent decree the software giant signed in settling its landmark antitrust battle with the federal government, but that more recent developments led to the crafting of some of the other principles. The 12 principles are based on three main areas: choice for computer manufacturers and customers, opportunities for developers, and interoperability for users, Smith said."

Comments

Re:Let me guess

[Doug Merritt]

They are twelve ways to deny all of those?

Pathetic, isn't it? I had expected to see a list of issues like, perhaps

• Huge and bloated is beautiful
• Ship a prototype as soon as possible
• Embrace captive user interfaces
• Write programs that do thousands of unrelated things
• Write programs that don't particularly work together
• Write programs that handle lots of proprietary data formats, but not text streams
• (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix_philosophy)

Instead their list of "philosophies" is more like

• Don't poison the customer
• Don't shoot the customer
• Don't bomb the distributor
• Don't ignore direct orders from the court

etc. Unbelievable.

It does not bode well

[denoir]

It does not bode well when a company calls "computer manufacturers may add shortcuts to the start menu" a philosophical principle. It is such a sad statement of no core beliefs or belief in the future. Compare it to Google's naive, but uplifting "Do no evil".

Microsoft badly needs a reboot with people in charge who can give this company a real vision.

Re:Let me guess

[Dolda2000]

They are twelve ways to deny all of those?

Not too far from it, from what I can see:

10. Communications protocols. Microsoft will make available, on commercially reasonable terms, all of the communications protocols that it has built into Windows and that are used to facilitate communication with server versions of Windows. To facilitate this, Microsoft will document protocols supported in Windows as part of the product design process. We will also work closely with firms with particular needs to address interoperability scenarios that may require licensing of other protocols.

11. Availability of Microsoft patents. Microsoft will generally license patents on its operating system inventions (other than those that differentiate the appearance of Microsoft's products) on fair and reasonable terms so long as licensees respect Microsoft's intellectual property rights.

(From Microsoft's site)
So in other words, it's a no-go for free software.

I also found the 12th point interesting:

12. Standards. Microsoft is committed to supporting a wide range of industry standards in Windows that developers can use to build interoperable products. Microsoft is committed to contributing to industry standard bodies as well as working to establish standards via ad hoc relationships with others in the industry.

What a commitment! I think I can pretty much count all the open standards that Microsoft can be said to be committed to support on one hand: the IP stack, DNS and HTTP. Even their FTP implementation is half-assed, to say the least (considering how one cannot get out of the initial cwd), and I doubt anyone would argue that Microsoft actually "supports" any of the web standards (that is, if one isn't viewing support of the version of 10 years ago as a "commitment").

The second sentence is interesting in its own right. I, for one, cannot interpret it to mean anything but inventing their own, new standard instead of the ones that already exist and work. "[W]orking to establish standards via ad hoc relationships with others in the industry" doesn't even need a comment...

All the other tenets were pretty well summed up by another poster as "don't poison the customer", "don't shoot the customer", "don't bomb the distributor" and "don't ignore direct orders from a court of law". They are probably reserving the rights to boiling the customer, burying the distributor alive and following order from a court of law at their own pace, however.