Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Developer Explains Why Windows Kernel Development Falls Behind
New submitter mha writes "In a response that truly seems to be from a core Microsoft developer, we are told about why Windows kernel development continues to fall further and further behind that of the Linux kernel. He says, 'The cause of the problem is social. There's almost none of the improvement for its own sake, for the sake of glory, that you see in the Linux world. ... There's no formal or informal program of systemic performance improvement. We started caring about security because pre-SP3 Windows XP was an existential threat to the business. Our low performance is not an existential threat to the business. See, component owners are generally openly hostile to outside patches: if you're a dev, accepting an outside patch makes your lead angry (due to the need to maintain this patch and to justify in in shiproom the unplanned design change), makes test angry (because test is on the hook for making sure the change doesn't break anything, and you just made work for them), and PM is angry (due to the schedule implications of code churn). There's just no incentive to accept changes from outside your own team. You can always find a reason to say "no," and you have very little incentive to say "yes."'"
These NIH type problems are hardly unique to Microsoft, or even proprietary software. It's human nature. Big success contains the seeds of its own destruction. Open source has the forking mechanism which provides an outlet against some of the worst abuses (only).
I submitted this story. I am only human - what was I thinking? I guess I thought of the many strange comments I could elicit...
I am so sorry, guys. I must say that shortly after reading the story reason set in (but I was too quick on /.) - there is nothing unexpected in it. It is no big deal. It is a non-story. Everything described is not "Microsoft", it is human, including the complaints. I don't think the points are invalid, it's just that one can make a long list like this for ANY large (or even medium) project. Life is messy - but I got my first story submitted (which means nothing).
My apologies.
I just hope that the guys managers, should they find out, react maturely - by doing exactly nothing (at least no punishment). Stuff like this happens, and if it does so only once it should be overlooked.
PS: On the other hand, enough people voted this to the front page...
"Oh god, the NTFS code is a purple opium-fueled Victorian horror novel [...]" -- lol!
Wouldn't that make it on par with XFS and ZFS? Modern filesystems have their advanced features by breaking the traditional layers, which makes them much harder to organize, and makes it seems like they have dirty tentacles branching out into everything else.
Why not? "The hand that feeds you"? What kind of corporate-slave joke world do you live in? The company owes him for his services just as much as he owes them for his salary.
If you fired somebody who is allegedly one of the only good engineers in the organization what value would you have brought to the table? You can fire people who make you look bad? Why is it about you in the first place? It seems his complaints about Microsoft target the kind of attitude that you yourself have - that politics, punishment, and "managing up" matter more than real engineering work.
If I was his manager I'd ask him to post the retraction a bit more publicly since its been buried under the initial criticism, but then I'd try and carve out areas where the barriers he described could be broken down and improvement could be made. I'd also reward incremental improvement and argue for my colleagues and managers to as well - whether that be a fool's errand or not.
No, I'd promote that guy (maybe put him in a position to have as many as four people working right underneath him). He cares enough to bitch.
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
It sounds like MS has become like most IT departments in the world; the department of NO.
Generally IT people are operating under a a system where they are brutally punished if things go wrong, are vaguely rewarded if they do what someone wants, and not rewarded for doing things that people don't understand (like simplifying the usage of VPNs). So these IT departments see any change requests as increasing the possibility of disaster and thus bad. This results in a combination of refusing to adapt to the company's needs as both dictated through employe requests and through changing technology. This is evidenced through many larger older organizations still running a bunch of SUN servers or a Novell network.
But it is often far more vicious where you have IT people actively reaching out into the company and telling them what technology they may use and how they might use it. One advantage of the iPhone over the Blackberry was that generally iPhones were impossible to ruin through "Corporate Policy" and BlackBerries could be completely neutered through an easy to use interface. But out of control IT people need not fear for long as horrible companies came along to give them the tools to mangle even the iPhones.
IT people might blah blah about corporate security and various data management laws but the simple fact is that if companies don't exist for the sake of their IT departments. IT is a tool that most companies use to achieve their core goal. Yet you have IT departments treating say the head of marketing of a $20 billion dollar company like an infant "for his own good". Where I find it interesting is when IT meets the President or the CEO. Often the president will say something like "I don't want to change my password every 30 days" The IT people don't dare pull the "corporate policy" card but resort to whining about the rational with the CEO concluding, "I'm going to change my password at the exact same frequency that I change the head of IT. So set things up accordingly."
Again this is not all because IT is filled with evil trolls but because their rewards are structured incorrectly. The best run companies that I have ever seen structured IT really well so that when some guy comes in with his Vic-20 and wanted to use it for presentations they either showed him how bad an idea it was or made it happen but then billed his department for the effort. Saying NO just wasn't something they were insented to do. The result was the more stupid the requests from various departments the more budget that went to IT. This way you don't cut ITs budget you told the various department heads to be less stupid with their money.
Back to Microsoft. It sound like MS has created a similar case of fiefdoms that have perverse incentives that are not aligned with the basic goals of the company. I know in the old days of MS they would hand out stock options like candy. This resulted in many people becoming insanely rich. Maybe they need to go back to that same structure. If a small department does something extraordinary they get some big bucks. This would have to be carefully managed as I can see a few superstar programmers doing the heroic only to watch their manager pull up in a new Porsche on Monday and for them to quit on Tuesday.
Instead of everyone getting upset because they have work to do while making adjustments to new changes, how about you just do your damn job and maybe things will get done faster, with better quality. It's not a war, it's software development. If you want to stay relevant, you will do everything in your power to understand this and become better at what you do. In the case you don't want a job, keep getting "pissed" every time changes come down the pike. Consumers don't care about your personal struggle with adapting to change. This isn't a daycare, it's business.
It has been said that the job of a good software manager is less about getting the developers motivated than it is about keeping them going while not de-motivating them. Geeks have a tendency to drive themselves, and often drive themselves harder than they can be driven by others. The challenge is less in getting them to work than in getting them to work on the right things.
I worked once in a company which practised Management By Intimidation, and swore afterwards that no amount of money would ever persuade me to work for another company like that ever again. Pushing phrases like "if you want to stay relevant", "do everything in your power", and "this isn't a daycare" will have me heading for the exit faster than you can scream "You're fired!".
Ultimately, I'm in the profession for 2 reasons. 1: I enjoy what I do. 2: I'm pretty good at it. I'm not really in it for the money. I could make a lot more doing other things in other places, but I like what I'm doing now and it suffices. In that, I think I'm a lot like most of the Linux developers. They have their own agendas, and while Linus may not be the ultimate diplomat, he's a leader, not a manager.
Microsoft, conversely, is a lot about driving the developers rather than persuading them, and if I was to be really cynical, I'd even suggest that their marketing-driven agendas passed on to low-cost developers has a lot to do with their current woes. The Linux developers are often unpaid, but there's never been a "Slaves of the Penguin" book to match "MicroSerfs" and the thought of Linus telling his minions that "if they want to stay relevant..." strikes me as outright comical.