... Cullinan blamed the decision on a previous antitrust settlement between the two companies, which prohibits Microsoft from making any changes to the Java software that it includes in Windows. "If there's a security hole found or a security problem found, we can't fix it," ...
Wait a second, isn't that a rather "open source" way of looking at things? So, they want to change other people's source to work better with Windows, but they don't want anyone else to have the same ability?
The government won't stop Microsoft, Microsoft will do that all by themselves.
All good points on the practices we "should be" doing, but what about why we're not practicing them?
Do we lack the skills to be quality software developers? Some of us, probably. But the entire software industry not knowing how to create quality software? I don't think so. Even our average software knowledge distributed across a bell-curve would yield more than enough highly savvy types to create powerful and clean software.
Rather, I think we choose to build our software this way.
Why? Because we've learned our trade in an atmosphere of business. Software has been, and still is, seen as a get-rich-quick technology by the business world. "If you can build this in six weeks before ABC corp does, we can take their market share".
Distilling this down to its base, we come to a simple balancing act. More money and fast competition on one end, and higher quality software on the other. Of course software quality would take a second seat to profits - who wouldn't make that decision?
Open source is growing in part because it's based on our satisfaction lobes. We build our software towards quality - because it's satisfying - which keeps us building better software. That's the feedback loop a lot of us are missing - and our software could use.
True, this isn't the coffin door closing on M$. But the descriptions of how M$ limited technology by using it's OEM muscle against Intel, Apple and others definitely goes into anti-trust areas. See the paragraphs relating to NSP and Quicktime around 96-100. Hopefully, the DOJ will prove that you can't squash out innovation with your money and expect get away with it. If your product sucks, make it better, don't force out the innovator.
Slashdot Mirror
This wouldn't have anything to do with EBay signing a deal last year with IBM instead of Microsoft would it?
.NET, FUD 'em"
"If they won't use
-anonymous MS Exec
A quote from the related article on Reuters:
...
Cullinan blamed the decision on a previous antitrust settlement between the two companies, which prohibits Microsoft from making any changes to the Java software that it includes in Windows. "If there's a security hole found or a security problem found, we can't fix it,"
...
Wait a second, isn't that a rather "open source" way of looking at things? So, they want to change other people's source to work better with Windows, but they don't want anyone else to have the same ability?
The government won't stop Microsoft, Microsoft will do that all by themselves.
All good points on the practices we "should be" doing, but what about why we're not practicing them?
Do we lack the skills to be quality software developers? Some of us, probably. But the entire software industry not knowing how to create quality software? I don't think so. Even our average software knowledge distributed across a bell-curve would yield more than enough highly savvy types to create powerful and clean software.
Rather, I think we choose to build our software this way.
Why? Because we've learned our trade in an atmosphere of business. Software has been, and still is, seen as a get-rich-quick technology by the business world. "If you can build this in six weeks before ABC corp does, we can take their market share".
Distilling this down to its base, we come to a simple balancing act. More money and fast competition on one end, and higher quality software on the other. Of course software quality would take a second seat to profits - who wouldn't make that decision?
Open source is growing in part because it's based on our satisfaction lobes. We build our software towards quality - because it's satisfying - which keeps us building better software. That's the feedback loop a lot of us are missing - and our software could use.
True, this isn't the coffin door closing on M$. But the descriptions of how M$ limited technology by using it's OEM muscle against Intel, Apple and others definitely goes into anti-trust areas. See the paragraphs relating to NSP and Quicktime around 96-100. Hopefully, the DOJ will prove that you can't squash out innovation with your money and expect get away with it. If your product sucks, make it better, don't force out the innovator.