Slashdot Mirror
Developers As Pawns and One-Night Stands
jcatcw writes "At the Comes vs. Microsoft antitrust case, last Friday's testimony included evidence that James Plamondon, a Microsoft technical evangelist, in a 1996 speech referred to independent software developers as 'pawns' and compared wooing them to trying to win over a one-night stand. Last week's proceedings also included testimony by Ronald Alepin, a former CTO at Fujitsu Software Corp. and currently an adviser to the law firm Morrison Foerster LLP. He said that Lotus 1-2-3 was killed, in part, by Microsoft encouraging Lotus's programmers to use the Windows API even though Microsoft's own developers found it too complicated to use." The plaintiffs have created a site that includes transcripts of testimony presented in the case.
Yay for Microsoft bashing.
The API thing is hilarious though, if it's true..
which is totally what she said
Witness for yourself the l33t powers of Microsoft's wooing. Not exactly worrying, is it?
Indeed!
in paroxysms of passion. "One-night stands! One-night stands! One-night stands! One-night stands!"
The agreement even states that Apple will encourage its employees to use Microsoft Internet Explorer for Macintosh for all Apple-sponsored events and will not promote another browser to its employees. I had no idea Apple had agreements like this.
Were Java developers any better off until the recent open sourcing of Java? Not really. Neither were most independent developers. When you do that work, you are tying part of your future to another company's good will. That's all there is to it.
Well I am shock and surprised . Have you noticed that Microsoft products tend to have features that you can't easily program yourself. Say back in the late 1990s where Office had icons next to the menu options and Microsofts Own development tools didn't allow you to do so. Or crappy grid controls or page controls (in which Microsoft FoxPro had much superior ones that didn't appear until .net) MS Developers tools force use to stay 10 years behind the times.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
More like peons.
If you're writing an app for Windows, what is the alternative to using the Windows API? How could Microsoft develop Windows applications without using the Windows API? Was Lotus seriously considering developing Lotus 1-2-3 in Java? (Although that might explain the trainwreck called Lotus Notes.)
Comment of the year
ISV's are, in essence, Microsoft's customers. RMS is not a customer of Microsoft. That's the difference, really.
This is Microsoft employees saying their customers, the ones they're supposed to be developing good API's and such for, are pawns and they should never be catered to.
Erm, the point isn't that he heaped abuse on independent developers. The point is that it helps to show the mindset of Microsoft when it was alleged to have actively attacked and drove said developers out of business, which is the unlawful activity Microsoft is accused of, in an actual court case.
Similarly, if someone's accused of a racist attack, then the prosecution can bring a character witness to show that he made a number of racist statements.
It's a different situation with someone verbally attacking Microsoft. We're not in the dock for committing crimes against Microsoft.
See?
Any cross held shares between Apple and Microsoft? End
Ultimately this will/has hurt Windows, as those programs targetting the undocumented APIs -where some MS apps get their features from- will require that hidden API to remain relatively static. And when problems are found in this undocumented API, either you leave the problem in place and work around it (and thereby leave the existing software using it potentially vulnerable), or you have to push an update for all those programs.
Maybe this is part of the reason why Linux's kernel has no fixed ABI?
Indeed!
am I the only one who finds an almost phoenix wright :ace attorney like humour in the IE discussion transcript with all of the "OBJECTION!"'s that occurred.
qoute
MR. HOLLEY: Your Honor, I move to
13 strike that answer as violating prior orders of
14 this Court.
15 THE COURT: Sustained. Stricken.
16 Jury will disregard.
17 Q. Mr. Alepin, from a less variety point
18 of view, and I'm just talking about
19 technological, how has there been less variety?
response then...
25 MR. HOLLEY: Your Honor, same motion
7016
1 to strike the testimony for the same reason.
2 THE COURT: Overruled. I'll allow it
3 as answered. It's different.
Q. In relation solely to the
5 technological effect, sir, how has there been
6 less innovation?
7 MR. HOLLEY: Objection, Your Honor.
8 THE COURT: Overruled.
9 You may answer.
and so on...
OSS doesn't remove tie-in, it adds more. Rather than being tied to a single company, OSS may be tied to more than one company and/or a large population of independent developers. So OSS removes the single point dependency.
It's Microsoft, Anything to win there way into the market is what they are going to do... Done Deal
WulframII - Free Online Mutiplayer 3D Tank Shooting Game
Is it really news that contractors are considered nothing more than replaceable parts? Whenever we've staffed programs with contractors, it's always been understood (by my company and the contractors) that they are essentially mercenaries and not really part of our company and culture. (If they WANTED to be part of our (or any) company and culture, they wouldn't be contractors, right?) When things (i.e., money) get tight, who's the first to go? The contractors, of course. No surprises to anyone. We're not going to lay off our valuable employees. This seems like a ridiculous article/lawsuit.
Also, does anyone else get an image of the robot preacher from Futurerama when they hear the words "Tech Evangelist"?
So if working with Microsoft is a one night stand, isn't doing Open Source like doing 500 guy gangbang?
"You can't cheat an honest man; never give a sucker an even break, or smarten up a chump." - W.C. Fields.
Really, there's a remarkable number of sheeple out there.
Deleted
34486853790
Connection too slow for X forwarding? Try "ssh -CX user@host"
I have high standards, you insensitive clod!
You must be a daemon in the sack.
You must be agile.
No time for debugging your problems.
I will not use a trojan horse.
Time slicing with others is not okay.
Don't ever call my thing a widget.
For he today that sheds his blood with me shall be my brother.
Iowa antitrust case: Microsoft exec called software developers 'pawns'
Eric Lai
January 08, 2007 (Computerworld) A Microsoft Corp. technical evangelist referred to independent software developers writing for Windows and the company's other software platforms as "pawns" and compared wooing them to convincing someone to have a one-night stand, according to testimony presented Friday against Microsoft in an ongoing antitrust case in Iowa.
"If you've ever tried to play chess with only the pieces in the back row, you've experienced losing, OK, because you've got to have those pawns," James Plamondon said in a Jan. 16, 1996, speech to members of Microsoft's developer relations group. His comments were part of a transcript presented as evidence in the Comes vs. Microsoft Inc. class-action lawsuit in Iowa.
"They're essential," he said about software developer pawns, according to a transcript of his remarks. "So you can't win without them, and you have to take good care of them. You can't let them feel like they're pawns in the struggle."
In the speech, entitled "Power evangelism and relationship evangelism," Plamondon continued: "I mean, all through this presentation previously, I talked about how you're using the pawns and you're going to screw them if they don't do what you want, and dah-dah-dah. You can't let them feel like that. If they feel like that, you've lost from the beginning.... So you can't let them feel like pawns, no matter how much they really are."
Plamondon a technical evangelist for eight years at Microsoft, did not return an e-mailed request for comment.
The excerpt was presented during testimony by Ronald Alepin, an expert for the plaintiffs in the lawsuit, who allege that Microsoft charged higher prices to Iowa consumers as a result of illegal monopolistic behavior. The suit seeks $330 million in damages.
In other comments about developers, Plamondon equated working with them to taking someone out on a first date. "It's like you're going out with a girl; forgive me, it goes the other way also. You're going out with a girl, what you really want to do is have a deep, close and intimate relationship, at least for one night. And, you know, you just can't let her feel like that, because if you do, it ain't going to happen, right. So you have to talk long term and white picket fence and all these other wonderful things, or else you're never going to get what you're really looking for."
The plaintiffs have created a Web site that includes transcripts of testimony presented in the case.
Other evidence presented last week included an internal Microsoft memo from Oct. 18, 1991, entitled "Excel brainstorm group." Brad Silverberg, then-head of Windows development, wrote "I'd be glad to help tilt Lotus into the death spiral. I could do it Friday afternoon, but not Saturday. I could do it pretty much any time the following week."
Lotus Development Corp.'s 1-2-3 was the dominant spreadsheet program on Microsoft's DOS operating system in the 1980s, but it lost ground to Excel on the Windows operating system.
Alepin, a former chief technology officer at Fujitsu Software Corp. and currently a San Francisco-based adviser for high-tech law firm, Morrison Foerster LLP, testified that 1-2-3's eventual demise was caused in part by Microsoft encouraging Lotus' programmers to use Windows application programming interfaces (API). Microsoft Excel's own developers had already decided those same APIs "were not worthwhile using because they were complicated," he said. "They used large amounts of memory. They were slower than other ways of doing it."
Alternative APIs, Alepin testified, "were not provided to Lotus and to other companies like Samna [maker of Ami, a GUI-based word processor later bought by Lotus, that was released a year before Word for Windows 1.0]."
The Comes vs. Microsoft trial, which began in early December, is expected to last up to six months. It, along with a lawsuit file
pawn3d
he only cares about revenue, since the beginning slashdot has sucked, and he hasn't cared. Jon Katz anyone?
In many large companies, even well-managed ones, the demands of the stock analysts force the companies to lay off employees, while retaining contractors.
And yes, this is a terrible idea, but itis involuntary (;-))
Been there, done that, as employee, contractor and employee-became-contractor-three-days-later
--dave
davecb@spamcop.net
Probbably because tricking developers into using the Windows API, (which Microsoft knew to be problematic) is a part of Microsoft's anti-competitive behaviour. Anti-competitive behaviour isn't illegal unless you're a monopoly like Microsoft is. The article references Microsoft encouraging Lotus to use the Windows API, and claims that contributed to the decline of Lotus 1-2-3.
AccountKiller
Anybody else get the Microsoft Visual Studio 2005 ad on this Slashdot article (screen shot below)?
6 /slashdot_ms.jpg
http://i64.photobucket.com/albums/h165/bradley197
Bradley Holt
"applications barrier to entry". Dvorak wrote about this last year. He thinks Microsoft should spend thier cash before they loose it.
s p
Read more about it here: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,2070989,00.a
Enjoy,
It's just the normal noises in here.
He said that Lotus 1-2-3 was killed, in part, by Microsoft encouraging Lotus's programmers to use the Windows API even though Microsoft's own developers found it too complicated to use." I recall Lotus Notes ........ and let me say that the only thing that killed Lotus Notes was Lotus Notes itself.
I believe I've found one thing that you can't blame Microsoft for .......
Its not the years, its the mileage
Only if there are no girls involved.
Would you kindly mod me +1 insightful?
Of course, the whole point of a one-night-stand is to get fucked.
dave
We're talking about Linux geeks, here :P
Anyone can "stand up for what they believe", but it takes a very brave individual to change what they believe. - Loundry
None of these API's just fell out of the sky and landed in Microsoft's lap; they were built tediously and at great expense. And let's not forget that these are not the types of functions that are really making Microsoft top dog. Microsoft is top dog due to social and business factors, not API's and technical ones.
Funny that there are endless discussions about the poor technical quality of Microsoft's products, and at the same time rants that Microsoft is gaining an unfair advantage via technical means. Either the technology is good or it's not. If this case is valid, then we must also acknowledge that Microsoft's technology is king too.
I read the headline and thought they were talking about the management at consultancies...?
They say the mind is the first thing to
But isn't the real question, "Will Microsoft respect me in the morning?"
In seriousness, I think most ISVs know the pitfalls of working with Microsoft. At the end of the day, you've still gotta sell your stuff and so far at least, Microsoft platforms have proven to be a good place to sell stuff. I think I like the wooing analogy better than a ticks on the dog alternative!
To the making of books there is no end, so let's get started
By the way,
USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
Somehow I think "It's the gay bukkake of software engineering!" is not a slogan that will win over many folks for Open Source development...
USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
This is a warning to be passed along to all developers.
This crime appears to be occurring in large cities and apparently is well known to the police community. Here's what's happened so far in Redmond.
Software developer goes to a seminar and meets meets a fairly attractive young woman and they hit it off.
Next thing he knows, he wakes up in a strange cubicle, with his hard drive in a tub full of ice. Written in lipstick on the mirror is a note: "use Windows APIs, or you will die".
He calls tech support on the phone he sees sitting on a small table, next to the tub. He tells the operator his story; she already knows where he's going with this and in fact has already called for technicians to reformat his hard drive.
She tells him to very carefully reach around and feel if there is a small network cable protruding from the back of the workstation. He does and tells her he can feel the small cable.
The operator tells him to remain calm, stay in the cubicle and not to move, the technicians are on their way. Apparently this is another crime of code harvesting....
Mod Karma -1: I sed bad wurds. If I cep my mouf shut, I wud be at riyses.
He said that Lotus 1-2-3 was killed, in part, by Microsoft encouraging Lotus's programmers to use the Windows API
OMG! That is soooo Evil!
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
An important subject to be sure, but this is essentially just "Embrace, extend and extinguish" with a more colourful metaphor.
The Office team rolls its own UI widgets, and have done so for years. You refer to Office having icons next to the menu options; well the Office team did that on its own. They haven't used the OS-provided menus since at least Office 97 (their menus are simply toolbars, which is why they can be moved, detached, docked to any border, etc; they are just like any other of Office's toolbars). At the time Office 97 was made, the neither the system nor MS devtools provided toolbars (of the kind that Office uses). It's called "programming"; if neither the system nor the dev tools provide the widgets that you want, you program the widgets on your own!! *gasp*
The Office team did nothing that any other dev wouldn't be able to do.
Are you really telling me that other devs are unable to roll their own UI unless the widgets are provided for them by the OS or the dev tools? Come on, now.
-- "I never gave these stories much credence." - HAL 9000
The main issue is with linking GPL and non-GPL code. It is leagal to do so, but it is illegal to redistribute the result code under any license other than the GPL. Loading a kernel module involves linking it with the kernel.
Others have pointed out the reason for this far better than I could in a few sentences.
The way I see it is that it's one big circjerk where everyone agrees profusely that why yes, Open Source *CAN* cure cancer.
Would you kindly mod me +1 insightful?
And drivers are kernel modules.
Using a GPL "Bite me, RMS" module to re-export GPL symbols with "EXPORT_SYMBOL" instead of "EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL" is perfectly legal. GPLv2 doesn't say "You can't use EXPORT_SYMBOL in GPL kernel modules, you must use EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL." And IIRC Linus himself has stated that GPLv2 will remain the kernel license.
So "EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL" is completely useless. It doesn't prevent closed-source drivers from accessing GPL symbols, because those proprietary drivers can access those symbols using another module that is GPL. And that second module is trivial. Who cares if it's GPL'd and distributed? It doesn't do anything other than export symbols that everyone who can understand source code already knows is there anyway.
Kroah on obscure drivers not being accepted:Possibly your situation is more of a legal problem than it is a technical one. If such a VME acquisition driver is technically feasible, as well as preferable to hacking against a moving target, that is.
Indeed!
This is absurd.
First, what does it have to do with antitrust? Microsoft had no monopoly when the above allegedly took place.
Second, is this guy really saying that Lotus' devs were so incompetent that they couldn't decide for themselves what API to use? They just did whatever Microsoft told them to do? This means nothing in a court, since neither the judge nor the jury (if their is one) have the first clue about software development. But slashdotters, even hating MS as they do, should be knowledgable enough about software development to be above promoting this malarky.
What "killed" Lotus (Lotus 1-2-3 still exists, BTW), was that Lotus, thinking that Windows 3.0 would be a flop like the previous iterations, was slow to begin development of a Windows version of their app, and when they finally did, it sucked (look up the reviews). End of story.
-- "I never gave these stories much credence." - HAL 9000
This is Microsoft employees saying their customers, the ones they're supposed to be developing good API's and such for, are pawns and they should never be catered to.
Umm, those aren't Microsoft's customers, those are their competetors.
If you find a profitable software niche, Microsoft will notice and try to take over that business. If they can't take drive you out, they will do whatever they can to make it unprofitable for you.
Look at their past efforts: Compilers, Word processing, spreadsheets, web browsers, virus protection, console games, etc. If someone else has the affront to make any real money on any form of software, Microsoft will do whatever is necessary to destroy them, no matter what the cost to them is, or how long it takes.
I'm always amazed that companies still make "deals" with Microsoft, as they almost always get screwed. I predict that Novel's deal goes south within a year. Microsoft should already have a plan in the works, probably set up long before the ink was dry on the original agreement. So long Novel, sorry to see you go.
Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
I happen to have been working for Microsoft at the time of the release of windows 3.0. Lotus chose to develop a version of 1-2-3 for OS/2, but for the release of Windows 3.0, they only did Notes. Now Notes was a pretty cool product, but they chose to work on the OS/2 version of 123 instead of the Windows version. They may have been swayed by IBM, but the hallway talk was that Steve Ballmer would have done anything to do a windows version, despite the fact that Microsoft had a competing product. Around that time, someone published a book named 'Undocumented Windows Calls' or something like that. I was a tester for one of the windows applications, and we were given a new task at that time: Find and report as bugs any uses of undocumented API calls. That pass turned up only one or two in the our application's code, and the developer who'd put it in had to drop what he was doing and fix them immediately. The SDK writer's purpose of documenting some API calls and leaving others out was to create a way for new versions of the operating system to be backward compatible without being forced to support the entire api exactly. (I know this, because the author of the SDK explained it to me) Those policies may have changed, but the marketing sea-change between 123 and Excel really started with the release of windows 3. The version of Excel already on the shelves worked with the new OS, and the new OS gave it a platform to really shine from. The reason it worked with 3.0 was because they used the Documented API for win386 exclusively. It's the use of the undocumented API's that is the main source of the 'Blue screen of death' that has been attributed to Windows instability. Not all cases certainly, but the undocumented calls can change from release to release. It got so bad that with windows 98 they had to release 'compatibility mode' api's so that the illegal calls in old programs could be mapped to the new functionality... For the record, I left Microsoft in 2000, and have been less than impressed with the company since before that, but we used to do good work once upon a time...
Do you have any citation that Lotus only choose to develop for OS/2 and what timeframe are we talking here..
"It's the use of the undocumented API's that is the main source of the 'Blue screen of death' that has been attributed to Windows instability"
So Notes failed because it ran on OS/2 and used undocumented API calls. The reason they have to use undocumented API's is that MS keeps hiding them and using them only in its own applications.
was: The actual recollections of someone that was there
davecb5620@gmail.com
No developer for OSS, is like doing 500 hot chicks. So much needs to be done, and you can possible cover it all, but you are having great fun trying.
Sounds like a perfect way to get a virus.
The best response to a sidestepping Microsoft apologist I've seen in quite awhile.
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
You forget that you can expect modern tools only from a modern company. Duh.
Do not trust this signature.
starts on page 6806
I can only imagine the kind of respect they have for their customers because I quit using their software around 1999. It was bad enough then and now you know why.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
If you think it's easy doing one night stands, try coding with this API man! It's a long way to the top when you want to code for all.
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
Best of all, it's free!
Back in the day, the MS founders had to win at all costs because they had small penises. from then on, that's how it's gone....they've probably also held onto the monopoly cos they were premature ejaculators.
Respect
Yes, but they're all doing it for love - not money.
Like we didn't know...
People who deal with Microsoft aren't "pawns".
They're suckers.
Bill Gates and company - and the shills who support them - are assholes. It's that simple.
And they're on the way out.
As Jack Nicholson said in a recent movie, "Act accordingly."
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
By removing tie in to a single entity, you are effectively removing that single tie in. So yes, I believe my original statement still holds value. Using and coding with OSS removes that single entity (big company, in this case) tie in.
/* sig */
I understand your confusion. It's a sick truth that people don't face up to easily, like Jake Gittes in Chinatown:
I'll buy that.
I kind of regret my previous post anyway, after the seeing the filth that followed it.
Yeah, I'm a prude and proud of it.
I don't know about that ... that kind of anticompetitive behavior can still be illegal, regardless of your monopoly status, if you are misrepresenting your products or otherwise committing acts of fraud.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
I've seen about 3 Linux VME drivers.
VME is like the ARM architecture. People hack together shitty drivers for their embedded project, maybe toss the driver out in public, and then move on. Drivers don't get maintained because the product is shipped, and the drivers are hacks anyway. If you're like all the others, your VME driver is a piece of crap full of undocumented system-specific numbers.
Probably you're using the Tundra Universe chip as a PCI-to-VME bridge. This popular chip violates the PCI specification horribly. The VME mapping windows are not exposed via BARs in the PCI config space. They just exist, invisibly, like landmines in your address space. There are also deadlock problems related to IRQs.
VME is a bit like ISA, in that you often can't really see that it is there. It's not plug-and-play at all. It is thus rather normal to drive VME without doing so explicitly. There are in fact a number of Linux drivers that do this for various older 680x0 boards. Eeeew, but that's about what to expect from a non-PnP bus.
Haven't you heard of CompactPCI yet? It's about the same form factor as 6U VME, but it provides a modern PnP bus. It also provides more electrical current to the boards. VME is way obsolete. (and if CompactPCI itself isn't enough for you, add RapidIO over the extra pins -- backplanes with RapidIO crossbars are available)
It doesn't have to UI code, which is besides the point.
Opem Source isn't a gang-bang, it's an orgy.
I can throw myself at the ground, and miss.
This former MS evangalist actually apologized, kinda. It's here
Gentlepersons, In any industry influenced by strong network effects, only one platform can become the de facto industry standard (by definition). The winning platform will thrive, while all others will be marginalized. This is as inevitable as supply and demand -- it is not a "policy" of firms or of individuals. As an evangelist, your job is to establish your platforms as de facto industry standards by managing and exploiting network effects. Generally speaking, the most efficient evangelism strategy is to focus your limited evangelism resources on those firms or individuals who (a) have the most to gain by being among the first to back the eventual winner of the platform battle, (b) can adopt your platform at the least cost, and (c) have the most influence over the platform choices made by others. You encourage these "key industry influencers" to take actions that publicly demonstrate their belief that your platform will eventually become the new standard. These public actions provide later adopters with the "social proof" and "expert opinion" they need to justify take similar action -- that is, to "jump on your bandwagon." Every person who jumps on your bandwagon increases its momentum, causing it to move even farther ahead of your competition. This attracts even more people to jump on your bandwagon, even if they have to jump off of a competitor's bandwagon to do so. Once the majority recognize your platform as the industry's de facto standard, everyone on your bandwagon wins. Clearly, the early decisions of these key industry influencers are critical to your success. Therefore, describing key industry influencers as "pawns" is both offensive and inaccurate. It mis-characterizes the mutually-supportive relationship that must exist between a platform vendor and its platforms' early adopters, such as that which Microsoft and independent software developers created in the 1990's. I regret having used the "pawns" metaphor; I apologise for any misplaced ill-will it may have caused towards Microsoft; and I won't use it in future. Adam Smith's Invisible Hand is at work in Microsoft's relationships with independent developers, just as it is throughout capitalism. As he wrote in The Wealth of Nations, "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own self-interest." Respectfully, James Plamondon P.S.: And anyone who wants to date my 17-year-old daughter better not have the mistaken attitude towards dating that I expressed ten years ago. ;-)