Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

A Press Junket To Redmond

Posted by kdawson on from the belly-of-the-beast dept.

christian.einfeldt writes "Our very own Roblimo Miller was invited to an all-expenses-paid tour of the Microsoft campus because he is supposedly 'not friendly' to Microsoft. Writes Roblimo: 'I came away with a sense that Microsoft doesn't currently have a clear sense of what Microsoft should be and where Microsoft should be going... I also think, from what I heard during my visit and what other Microsoft employees and customers have told me at other times, that it has degenerated into a series of disconnected fiefdoms that aren't all moving in the same direction.'" Linux.com and Slashdot are both owned by OSTG.

9 of 329 comments (clear)

  1. glass houses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    That it has degenerated into a series of disconnected fiefdoms that aren't all moving in the same direction.

    How is that any different than the state of Open Source Software?

    not trolling either...

    1. Re:glass houses by QMO · · Score: 4, Insightful

      My (purely off-the-cuff, entirely unsubstantiated, speculative) answer would be: It is arguable that an OSS project often grows, matures, innovates faster and increases in value and resources when it forks.

      When a monolithic brand (like Microsoft) lacks unified direction, it not only loses a chunck of the marketing advantage of being a well-known brand, it also tends to stagnate (slower innovation) and lose resources.

      --
      Exam 4/C again. Maybe I'll do better this time.
    2. Re:glass houses by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well, at least the OSS movement was created in the air of disjointed operations that somehow manage to somehow fit into each other. The approach is a completely different one. OSS is created, and if it's good, it is used by the other developers. If it's crap, it will be tossed aside.

      A programmer at MS on the other hand knows his software or API will be used, whether it's good or not, because it was demanded to exist.

      Now, how do you get other devs to use your tools? By creating good interfaces and at least a working documentation. Only if there is nobody creating a competing interface you can resort to "read the effing source". Which is not really an option at MS either.

      That's the difference.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    3. Re:glass houses by Mr.+Underbridge · · Score: 4, Insightful

      How is that any different than the state of Open Source Software?

      1. Because OSS was designed to actually function that way, whereas MS has not.
      2) Because each individual OSS project doesn't depend on the others for success, whereas MS has intentionally integrated many of its divisions so that they do depend on each other (Windows and Office and IE, for instance).
      3) Because MS has a single leadership, and any a leadership without a coherent plan is a bad one. OSS has many leaders for many projects, and they need not each have the same goal.
      4) Each individual OSS project may in fact have a strong leader with a clear well thought out plan. The successful ones usually do.

  2. Re:why? by harrkev · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I would imagine that it is because they know that they are alienating a large part of their user base (or potential user base). I guess that this is an attempts to win the "hearts and minds" of the people, and it is having about as much success as the US is having with the same plan in Iraq.

    The truly sad thing is that they push WPA, WGA, DRM, Trusted Computing, overly-restrictive licensing, etc., and think that a simple junket and a couple of freebies can make up for treating customers like crap.

    Hey, Microsoft:
    If you are reading this, try treating your customers like you value them. I am about as a law-abiding citizen that you can find. I do not appreciate all of the restrictions that you place on your products in an effort to keep me honest. Your slogan used to be "Where do you want to go today?" Now, it is "You can't go there. We will tell you where we will let you go." Wise up before it is too late.

    --
    "-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."
  3. Re:just what I've always said by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Its not that microsoft is such a "evil company" or intentionally releasing bad product, or not carring about the quality. It is just another case of a company getting too big and trying to do too much. In 10-15 years google will be in the same boat.

    Wrong on all counts:

    - Microsoft can be said to be evil as a company, because they play so rough in the marketplace that they have ruined countless companies in their growing process.

    - Microsoft doesn't care about quality, they care about money. They will care about quality (and they're moving in that direction these days) when shoddy products stop making just as much money as good ones.

    - It is not a case of a company growing too big: Microsoft has been doing a lot for a long time and has been extremely focused so far.

    As for Google, IMHO it remains to be seen if this is not simply an enormous balloon full of hot air... At any rate, Google and Microsoft have very different company cultures, so they're not really comparable.

    --
    "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
  4. Re:Uh.... by harrkev · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Well, he expected a little more out of Microsoft. All he got was a huge grope-fest where he got the whole "look how great this stuff is.." without ANSWERING ANY OF HIS HARD QUESTIONS...

    What if you went to buy a new car, and tried to ask tough questions about horsepower, reliability, maintenance, but were just told to admire the shiny paint job and leather seats over and over again. Wouldn't you be rightly annoyed and walk out of there with an unfavorable opinion?

    Or, maybe you prefer snow jobs?

    --
    "-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."
  5. Don't forget this part ... by khasim · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Yes, Microsoft does have a security program manager. His name is Michael Howard. ... Howard claimed IIS is now more secure than Apache (as witnessed by number of patches, a measure with which many might quarrel) and Vista is the most secure version of Windows ever, so secure that you may not even need antivirus software for it.

    When one of the top "security" guys at a company doesn't even know the basics of security, how can their products be "more secure"?

    It isn't how many patches are released. It is never about how many patches are released.

    It is about the severity of the vulnerabilities.

    One remote root vulnerability is worth 1,000+ local app crashing vulnerabilities.
  6. Reality Check by januth · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I got a kick out of this comment in the article, "This sort of corporate disorganization might be expected in a fast-moving startup with 50 employees, but in a mature company with more than 70,000 people on its payroll it is not acceptable."

    Um, have you ever worked for an organization this large? I have. Several times, unfortunately. It may not be acceptable, but it is , in fact, the norm. It's very easy to communicate a clear, concise corporate vision to 50 employees; it becomes exponentially more difficult as the number of employees rises. An organization of 50 is limber and agile, able to turn on a dime. 70,000 is a lumbering behemoth barreling forward under its own momentum heedless of the need to change direction.