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

30 years?

[Anonymous Coward]

Windows hasn't been around since 1976, has it? According to this find FortuneCity website, it was announced in 1983, which would make it 23 years old. I doubt a 23-year-old person would consider themselves 'almost' 30 years old!

PS - The one-page version of the article can be found at http://www.eweek.com/print_article2/0,1217,a=18381 8,00.asp

Re:They sound like a reform plan

[NexFlamma]

I realize this is going to be an unpopular opinion here, but no one ever considers the idea that maybe Microsoft is trying to actually change it's old business practices.

Now, don't get me wrong, they're still in it for the money, and they'll never be Google, but is it entirely unfathomable that maybe Microsoft is trying to better the state of computer software as a whole? Many reasons could be cited as to why this would be a useful move for them in the long run, and I don't think that we should just automatically assume that their every action is designed to round up souls for them to harvest.

And the condensed version of their 12 principles

[The Mutant]

Embrace, extend, and extinguish.

I think they missed a few:

[level_headed_midwest]

13. We will fully disclose our file formats so that greater interoperability with other platforms can be achieved- we will not "lock in" customers any longer.
14. We will not treat the user as a criminal.
15. We will fully respect the user's privacy. As such, we will install a working hosts file and NO Microsoft program can send any information back to us without explicitly stating what will be sent back, why, and who gets to see it. The Windows firewall will also be able to block all incoming and outgoing traffic, including traffic that reports to Microsoft. We will not put "backdoors" into our products.
16. We will fully respect the user's sovereignty over his or her own data. We will never allow the OS or any Microsoft programs to prevent people from accessing, modifying, or distributing data on their computers in whatever manner they wish to.
17. We are not the police. We cannot and will not attempt to stop users from doing any act on their computers that may violate any license, ordinance, or act in their particular region. It is the user's responsibility to comply with all local laws and regulations.

Re:Where the rules came from

[Tim C]

While I agree with your analysis on the most part, it is entirely possible that they *did* figure out things that their customers want, but it took the various law suits and potential for more to force them to actually implement those things.

Do not make the mistake of thinking that MS is full of stupid people; they know exactly what they're doing. Just because their aims and methods are not ours doesn't make them any less able.

Re:Let me guess

[Neoncow]

I took a look at that Unix Philosophy article and noticed that it links to an intriguing related philosophy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worse_is_better. I believe Microsoft is following this one.

Quoth the link:

As long as the initial program is basically good, it is easier to port to new machines and situations, and will take much less time and effort to implement initially. Thus, its use will spread rapidly, long before a program developed using the "MIT approach" has a chance to be developed and deployed. Once it has spread, there will be pressure to improve it by improving its functionality, but users have already been conditioned to accept worse than the "right thing". "Therefore, the worse-is-better software first will gain acceptance, second will condition its users to expect less, and third will be improved to a point that is almost the right thing.

(Just replace the bit about "porting to new machines" with "attracting new users")

Microsoft has permanently stuck themselves between steps two and three.