I'm not dogging you, but I believe that this approach is why we have such crappy software.
When we think..."Oh, software is so...ahhh...touchy-feely - it's like art! [eyes roll back in head - head detaches from body and floats dreamily by...]
Sure, there are some very elegant constructs in programming. And these constructs are by artists. But the design and implimentation of a program doesn't and shouldn't be approached like art.
Watch how some great engineers solve problems. I'd say that the result is artistic. But the approach to solving the problems and the result is not art like. It structured, methodical, and calculated. That doesn't mean that I can't look at the end result, and say wow, that's elegant.
The result may be art, but the process of getting there WASN'T!
Lastly, I believe that if we built MORE software the same way we build bridges, we'd get much better software. We'd also find that it was lots less expensive in the long run.
The inventor creates an idea, and a rough sketch or prototype in implimenting it.
The engineer takes that rough design, and works it into a real product that has real design parameters that works with the way it has to be manufactured etc.
The end result, is that we need far fewer CS people and many more SE's. (Perhaps that's what we need now anyhow...)
For every inventor, there need to be many implimentors (engineers). We only need a few inventors - too many, and nothing gets done!
In general I like your points about the generality of CS as compared to SE. I just don't think that most current CS people fit into the inventor niche, and wonder where we're going to stick 'em.
Would you consider it acceptable for your car to go kaput and just quit working as often as your software does? Even if it didn't cause a crash, or threaten life or property? [If you do, please drink the Koolaid now!]
The reason we don't require software to meet the same standards as other products, is that as a general rule, we think we can't - and THAT IS A CROCK.
This touches on anther/. story today about TCO.
Bad (buggy) software probably costs more than good (bug-free) software.
The difference is that bad software is cheaper in the initial acquision. That's where PHB's focus on these things. After the product is in use, the real costs for crappy software rise quickly.
I'd rather pay up-front for something that works, and then get to enjoy the lower costs of continuing to use that good software.
Until we (the ones who know - the tech community) decide that crap software has to GO - even if it doesn't threaten your very life or property.
I can't say this enough - good software is cheap. Bad software is expensive. Bug-free/Good (or nearly so) isn't a totally impossible task.
It may be difficult, but the results would be impressive.
The real barrier to getting bug-free software is that software manufacturers are shielded from civil suits that would make them liable for the crap they produce.
I think the point of Mundie, and also you, is wrong. (bad grammer I know)
Mundie wants to make like there isn't a choice. He basically claims - Once there's GPL software, it creates a vast wasteland where no innovation can occur.
What a crock. If you like GPL code, go approach the creators - who own the unrestricted copyright. They can sell you a non GPL version to use as you see fit. It might not be cheap, but if you really need it, and it's such great code, the option is available.
For the right amount of money, I'd bet that even our "beloved" RMS would sell a branch off of his GFL programs. And why shouldn't we. GPL is a "lifestyle" - if you don't want the lifestyle, you can have other options - they just come with different costs.
The GPL isn't viral. You always have a choice. Pay the GPL program creator, or program it yourself.
TCP was a defined standard - i.e. RFC. The code was just a representation of that RFC. The reason that TCP made it, was because it was not protected by IP. The RFC was available for all.
You're harming me! If'in I can't take the code that you produced and take it without compensating you and use it to build my own successful megabucks empire - YOU'VE DESTROYED CAPITALISM - you pinko communist.
That's what capitalism is! Exploiting the workforce! [Sheesh]
Frankly, I think that the CS degree should move to the Engineering department, and become a true software engineering degree. The CIS degree belongs in the business department. [I'm one of the latter.]
But I've never understood the random ways that schools go about producing the CS people. Not that they're bad, it just seems to have no real standard.
Software Engineering ought to be more like ENGINEERING! Not just throw code at the compiler until it sticks.
I have faith, mostly, in the structural engineers, and the chemical engineers, and the electrical engineers. But software engineers?
Here's an appropriate poke with a sharp stick...
A DESIGN PARABLE
Once upon a time, in a kingdom not far from here, a king summoned two
of his advisors for a test. He showed them both a shiny metal box
with two slots in the top, a control knob, and a lever. "What do you
think this is?"
One advisor, an engineer, answered first. "It is a toaster," he
said. The king asked, "How would you design an embedded computer for
it?" The engineer replied, "Using a four-bit microcontroller, I
would write a simple program that reads the darkness knob and
quantizes its position to one of 16 shades of darkness, from snow
white to coal black. The program would use that darkness level as
the index to a 16-element table of initial timer values. Then it
would turn on the heating elements and start the timer with the
initial value selected from the table. At the end of the time delay,
it would turn off the heat and pop up the toast. Come back next
week, and I'll show you a working prototype."
The second advisor, a computer scientist, immediately recognized the
danger of such short-sighted thinking. He said, "Toasters don't just
turn bread into toast, they are also used to warm frozen waffles.
What you see before you is really a breakfast food cooker. As the
subjects of your kingdom become more sophisticated, they will demand
more capabilities. They will need a breakfast food cooker that can
also cook sausage, fry bacon, and make scrambled eggs. A toaster
that only makes toast will soon be obsolete. If we don't look to the
future, we will have to completely redesign the toaster in just a few
years."
"With this in mind, we can formulate a more intelligent solution to
the problem. First, create a class of breakfast foods. Specialize
this class into subclasses: grains, pork, and poultry. The
specialization process should be repeated with grains divided into
toast, muffins, pancakes, and waffles; pork divided into sausage,
links, and bacon; and poultry divided into scrambled eggs,
hard-boiled eggs, poached eggs, fried eggs, and various omelet
classes."
"The ham and cheese omelet class is worth special attention because
it must inherit characteristics from the pork, dairy, and poultry
classes. Thus, we see that the problem cannot be properly solved
without multiple inheritance. At run time, the program must create
the proper object and send a message to the object that says, 'Cook
yourself.' The semantics of this message depend, of course, on the
kind of object, so they have a different meaning to a piece of toast
than to scrambled eggs."
"Reviewing the process so far, we see that the analysis phase has
revealed that the primary requirement is to cook any kind of
breakfast food. In the design phase, we have discovered some derived
requirements. Specifically, we need an object-oriented language with
multiple inheritance. Of course, users don't want the eggs to get
cold while the bacon is frying, so concurrent processing is required,
too."
"We must not forget the user interface. The lever that lowers the
food lacks versatility, and the darkness knob is confusing. Users
won't buy the product unless it has a user-friendly, graphical
interface. When the breakfast cooker is plugged in, users should see
a cowboy boot on the screen. Users click on it, and the message
'Booting UNIX v. 8.3' appears on the screen. (UNIX 8.3 should be
out by the time the product gets to the market.) Users can pull down
a menu and click on the foods they want to cook."
"Having made the wise decision of specifying the software first in
the design phase, all that remains is to pick an adequate hardware
platform for the implementation phase. An Intel 80386 with 8MB of
memory, a 30MB hard disk, and a VGA monitor should be sufficient. If
you select a multitasking, object oriented language that supports
multiple inheritance and has a built-in GUI, writing the program will
be a snap. (Imagine the difficulty we would have had if we had
foolishly allowed a hardware-first design strategy to lock us into a
four-bit microcontroller!)."
The king wisely had the computer scientist beheaded, and they all
lived happily ever after.
Now that all the CS people hate me...I'll slink into the shadows.
Personally, I don't think there ARE any REAL TCO numbers.
You might reach some general conclusions about the GENERAL TCO of some system, but all the TCO numbers I've seen are either by the marketing department or "consulting" firms that don't have a clue!
Look it over, decide for yourself. Don't rely on TCO numbers - you might as well get advice from a witch doctor.
MS is THE premiere player in trying to sell cheap/free until they get marketshare, then raise the price.
Here in Portland OR, MS convinced First Interstate Bank to install NT 3.11 instead of Netware in their new 3000+ employee loan center - and almost purely because it was cheaper than upgrading from Netware 3.X
The bank didn't have any serious tools (Sniffer etc) in the old environment, and the hardware was ancient. But the OS was going to save them like 20K+.
What most of the outside world didn't know, was that the network went down almost daily for months. The result was thousands of people sitting idle (a double drain - their getting paid, and NOT making money).
Finally, after coming hours from chucking the whole thing, the MS engineers finally called the ONE guy who wrote the TCP stack. After a short conversation, the MS programmer suggested an undocumented TCP stack option. All of a sudden, the SNA session timeouts just stopped.
The point? MS SOFTWARE was like 20K cheaper, but the whole experiement cost the bank like HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS (possibly even millions) of dollars. Even without the NT problems, the costs were VERY substantial to switch vs. staying on Netware.
MS has used the "IT'S FREE" or "IT'S LOTS CHEAPER" approach more than I can believe - Office bundled with the OS, (Office 4.3/95) IE/OE, NT (early on), MS Windows Plus, Windows 2.X-3.X (Bundled with Windows).
BP may not have dealt with the entire problem, but frankly, the PHB's aren't looking at TCO. If they were, we'd have run screaming from IE/OE a LONG time ago. We'd have set ourselves on fire when we see the rising cost of Office (Now it's MUCH more expensive than before - un upgrade used to cost like $200, now it's like $400), and the moving platform of MS's site licensing (I forget what MS called it - I think it used to be License+, now Select something? Doubled and Tripled in less than 5 years - loss of concurrent licensing)
PHB's only see the INITIAL costs. If they are concerned about TCO, they will look at the HUGE problems with viruses, crashing boxes (Re-Image anyone?!) and lots of features that really waste time and aggrevate users. (Clippie Anyone? How about how Word decides how you REALLY NEED that numbered list done etc!)
Sure, it's difficult to learn a totally new platform. But I do think that the Linux platform isn't any more difficult to administer. Ever tried to figure out Active Directory - it's got me confused! [Grin] How about when Exchange just stops sending mail in or out, but everything LOOKS fine - but a reboot fixes it? What about when IIS gets remote rooted and you get to rebuild your entire server?
I don't think you were defending the MS status quo, but even if you were, I think that defending MS will be a loosing battle in TCO. Bugs and security problems seriously compromise the TCO calculations on ANY MS software.
Finally, TCO numbers are SO perfect for manipulation. Everyone can make TCO numbers say anything they want. It's like the 10 year USA Gvmt budget. You can CLAIM you know where things are going to be, but frankly, you don't have a clue. TCO is usually just a massive marketing ploy.
MS Bundled it with the OS, and went from like 60% market share to 95+%.
Then, notice, that MS no longer bundles Office with the OS... In fact, the cost of Office has gone up dramatically. It's cost is way above that of any of it's competitors. Like as much as 100% higher.
I don't think we're really talking about anything else. You and I may agree. I think the only way in which you'll actually acomplish a OS that isn't tied (financially/technically/otherwise) to some other app (Office/WMP/Java/Etc) is to hack them in half. It's clear that their respect of the law hasn't kept them from unlawful behavior in the past, and it's foolish to believe that they will all of a sudden start...
I fundamentally disagree with your assesment of the structure of AT&T and Standard Oil, but what I think we agree on, is this. - MS shouldn't be able to use the Monopoly of the OS to leverage into new areas. Where they have used this power, they should be punitivly punished.
Also, keeping middleware, is, in at least this case, an effort to maintain the monopoly. Java, clearly was seen as eventually replacing the OS. From MS's perspective, it wasn't middleware. It was middleware that could grow to replace the OS. or at least make the OS a commodity - it could be Windows or Mac or Unix or Linux etc.
How about exclusive licenses - for every system you sell, you must license Windows. You can't just choose to license it when the customer requests it. There are more examples too...
Anyhow, I think you're missing the boat to believe that the case only shows cases where MS used it's monopoly to extend into other markets. The evidence, and I believe the findings show both abuses.
Ahhh...but is Sun big enough to actually prevail with these practices?
See, I could threaten you (I'm a small guy) but the threats wouldn't have any credibility. But if I'm 6'8" and 350 Lbs, then the threats really take on a credible dimention.
Sure, possibly Sun could make this stick, but I doubt it.
I also notice you use "WE." I assume that means you're an employee of Sun...I would then assume that you're just a wee bit biased.
Now, please don't get me wrong - I've been a VERY sharp critic of MS, clear back to the late 80's. But my point is that given the opportunity, I believe that virtually everyone would take advantage of the situation.
But, hey, I'm probably stoned, and Sun is ready for translation to heaven, but I suspect not.
Gosh, you're a dope. You completely take what I said out of context, and ignore the complete argument.
If you manage a commons, you have certain obligations. If you don't want the power of running the commons, you're free to do as you want. If you want to manage the commons (monopoly) you must then manage for the common good.
You have a chicken and egg. Windows has the apps, so it gets the market share.
If there were more apps, Platform would get more users.
Hmmm...If Office were available for Platform X, there would be lots more people willing to consider the platform.
Thus, simply offering Office, for example, on Linux would all of a sudden make Linux for the desktop a real option. Suddenly, Linux for the desktop might get more serious attention, even from the MS Office group (i.e. They might do some development, just to jumpstart a new platform). Hey, if Linux (which is free) all of a sudden took off, there probably would be more profit for the Office group. (Total system costs are now $100 less than before, give $80 back, and you made an extra $20 - Plus it's cheaper too!)
The basic reason that most apps are windows only is because of chicken and egg. Also, I'd bet that if you develop for both platforms, MS isn't going to make life easy for you, esp if you're large enough to show on the radar screen. No advance SDK's etc.
He wasn't a self important prick. He took IBM from the brink of destruction to a powerful, restored to health IBM.
It is possible to be polite and self-deprecating, but still be effective. In fact, I think leaders who fulfil these attributes are BETTER leaders than those who are full of self importance.
Who would you rather work for. Who would you rather do business with?
Sorry, but Scott M, is just a plain jerk. His head is SO big, I'm waiting for it to explode.
In a corporation the stuff runs downhill.
BillG and ScottM are both power/ego freaks. Heck, if I meself had all my clients my the short and curlies, i'd probably do it too.
Sun/IBM/MS/Standard Oil - they're all the same. The only difference is that right now, Sun doesn't own you. They have to play nice. As soon as they do, (and this goes for more than just Sun, it goes for everyone) just kiss it goodbye.
If ANYONE has you by the short hairs, don't ever expect them to act nice - because eventually they won't. You rose colored view of Sun is just misplaced. Even the most saintly of us, would probably do the same as MS given the chance.
If I make all the roads that the world drives on, should i also be able to control the traffic - ie the cars. If you drive on MY roads, you MUST only drive one of my cars.
See, you buy a license for GSloop roads, it's only $150/day, and the cars, gas, tires and everything else come for free.
Not only that, I can use my monopoly power to sell Cars/Tires/Gas/Oil cheaper than you - well, actually they're free - so you'll never be able to compete, and thus, either you won't try, or you'll go out of business.
The only way to break my monopoly is to go into Road manufacturing yourself. Except that building your own roads will require massive funds. If you complete a few roads, I'll just sell my road license cheaper where your roads are. All the people will choose to use my roads, and incidentally free cars/gas/tires etc. Since you can't make it, you go bankrupt. Future investors see this failure, and learn quickly - don't invest in the whole roads/cars/gas thing. GSloop Inc. will really screw your investment.
That's not a fair market. Never was, never is.
The OS is a commons. It's like telephone lines, electric lines etc. It makes the most sense to only have a few sets, rather than make everyone build theirs too. Plus the uniformity is good. That's all well and good, as long as the owner of the "Commons" manages the commons for the general good.
As soon as GTE/US West (commons owners) start competing for outside services, they start to manage the commons for their own good, not the good of the customer. Soon the customer has no choice, and then bad things start to happen.
The choice is clear. If you own a commons, you have an obligation to manage it for the good of all. If you want to give up your commons, you can then start to compete with others, and not be worried about the common good. BUT YOU CAN'T DO BOTH. That's just the law.
What disgusts me, is that MS wants protections afforded by your said "capitalist society" - namely copyright protection. But they only want part of the deal, and not all. When it comes to the rules for monopoly governace, well - Screw that...that's life in a capitalist society, take it or leave it.
MS can't choose one, but not the other. Get used to it. If you want the freedoms afforded here in our capitalist society, you also have to suffer some of the regulations that keep the system fair. Copyright/Private Ownership of Capital/Monopoly governance - They're all a package. Take one, I don't want to hear whining about the others.
It's not like the code for Office is really useful in the OS group - is it?!
If you mean information sharing, that's exactly the problem. They should have to share information between their groups (OS/Applications) the same as outside competitors.
Frankly, the PC OS/Apps market might just explode too. If you're in investor, why would you invest in the PC Apps space that MS might find interesting sometime soon. If they do, you might get bought, or MS might just decimate you. As an investor, that should make you nervous.
If MS wasn't such a massive gorilla, then there probably would be lots more innovation and investment in the PC OS and Applications space. I think that this could be a huge boon, both for innovation and for choice.
Perhaps you could explain yourself a bit better. I'm afraid that I'm misunderstanding you.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not dogging you, but I believe that this approach is why we have such crappy software.
When we think..."Oh, software is so...ahhh...touchy-feely - it's like art! [eyes roll back in head - head detaches from body and floats dreamily by...]
Sure, there are some very elegant constructs in programming. And these constructs are by artists. But the design and implimentation of a program doesn't and shouldn't be approached like art.
Watch how some great engineers solve problems. I'd say that the result is artistic. But the approach to solving the problems and the result is not art like. It structured, methodical, and calculated. That doesn't mean that I can't look at the end result, and say wow, that's elegant.
The result may be art, but the process of getting there WASN'T!
Lastly, I believe that if we built MORE software the same way we build bridges, we'd get much better software. We'd also find that it was lots less expensive in the long run.
[Rant off]
Cheers!
What you're comparing this to is this:
The inventor creates an idea, and a rough sketch or prototype in implimenting it.
The engineer takes that rough design, and works it into a real product that has real design parameters that works with the way it has to be manufactured etc.
Inventor = Computer Scientist.
Engineer = Software Engineer.
I don't think that's quite what you had in mind.
The end result, is that we need far fewer CS people and many more SE's. (Perhaps that's what we need now anyhow...)
For every inventor, there need to be many implimentors (engineers). We only need a few inventors - too many, and nothing gets done!
In general I like your points about the generality of CS as compared to SE. I just don't think that most current CS people fit into the inventor niche, and wonder where we're going to stick 'em.
Cheers!
It's called a signed bill of sale...
Not much different than a receipt, when you get accused of shoplifting.
Should put the matter to rest!
Cheers!
Would you consider it acceptable for your car to go kaput and just quit working as often as your software does? Even if it didn't cause a crash, or threaten life or property? [If you do, please drink the Koolaid now!]
/. story today about TCO.
The reason we don't require software to meet the same standards as other products, is that as a general rule, we think we can't - and THAT IS A CROCK.
This touches on anther
Bad (buggy) software probably costs more than good (bug-free) software.
The difference is that bad software is cheaper in the initial acquision. That's where PHB's focus on these things. After the product is in use, the real costs for crappy software rise quickly.
I'd rather pay up-front for something that works, and then get to enjoy the lower costs of continuing to use that good software.
Until we (the ones who know - the tech community) decide that crap software has to GO - even if it doesn't threaten your very life or property.
I can't say this enough - good software is cheap. Bad software is expensive. Bug-free/Good (or nearly so) isn't a totally impossible task.
It may be difficult, but the results would be impressive.
The real barrier to getting bug-free software is that software manufacturers are shielded from civil suits that would make them liable for the crap they produce.
Cheers!
Sheesh, they may be suckers...
but...I DO feel bad that they got taken to the cleaners.
Are you really that heartless?
[Sheesh]
Cheers!
I think the point of Mundie, and also you, is wrong. (bad grammer I know)
Mundie wants to make like there isn't a choice. He basically claims - Once there's GPL software, it creates a vast wasteland where no innovation can occur.
What a crock. If you like GPL code, go approach the creators - who own the unrestricted copyright. They can sell you a non GPL version to use as you see fit. It might not be cheap, but if you really need it, and it's such great code, the option is available.
For the right amount of money, I'd bet that even our "beloved" RMS would sell a branch off of his GFL programs. And why shouldn't we. GPL is a "lifestyle" - if you don't want the lifestyle, you can have other options - they just come with different costs.
The GPL isn't viral. You always have a choice. Pay the GPL program creator, or program it yourself.
TCP was a defined standard - i.e. RFC. The code was just a representation of that RFC. The reason that TCP made it, was because it was not protected by IP. The RFC was available for all.
Ok rant over.
Cheeers!
No! DAMMIT!
You're harming me!
If'in I can't take the code that you produced and take it without compensating you and use it to build my own successful megabucks empire - YOU'VE DESTROYED CAPITALISM - you pinko communist.
That's what capitalism is! Exploiting the workforce! [Sheesh]
[Grin/groan]
Cheers!
Frankly, I think that the CS degree should move to the Engineering department, and become a true software engineering degree. The CIS degree belongs in the business department. [I'm one of the latter.]
But I've never understood the random ways that schools go about producing the CS people. Not that they're bad, it just seems to have no real standard.
Software Engineering ought to be more like ENGINEERING! Not just throw code at the compiler until it sticks.
I have faith, mostly, in the structural engineers, and the chemical engineers, and the electrical engineers. But software engineers?
Here's an appropriate poke with a sharp stick...
A DESIGN PARABLE
Once upon a time, in a kingdom not far from here, a king summoned two
of his advisors for a test. He showed them both a shiny metal box
with two slots in the top, a control knob, and a lever. "What do you
think this is?"
One advisor, an engineer, answered first. "It is a toaster," he
said. The king asked, "How would you design an embedded computer for
it?" The engineer replied, "Using a four-bit microcontroller, I
would write a simple program that reads the darkness knob and
quantizes its position to one of 16 shades of darkness, from snow
white to coal black. The program would use that darkness level as
the index to a 16-element table of initial timer values. Then it
would turn on the heating elements and start the timer with the
initial value selected from the table. At the end of the time delay,
it would turn off the heat and pop up the toast. Come back next
week, and I'll show you a working prototype."
The second advisor, a computer scientist, immediately recognized the
danger of such short-sighted thinking. He said, "Toasters don't just
turn bread into toast, they are also used to warm frozen waffles.
What you see before you is really a breakfast food cooker. As the
subjects of your kingdom become more sophisticated, they will demand
more capabilities. They will need a breakfast food cooker that can
also cook sausage, fry bacon, and make scrambled eggs. A toaster
that only makes toast will soon be obsolete. If we don't look to the
future, we will have to completely redesign the toaster in just a few
years."
"With this in mind, we can formulate a more intelligent solution to
the problem. First, create a class of breakfast foods. Specialize
this class into subclasses: grains, pork, and poultry. The
specialization process should be repeated with grains divided into
toast, muffins, pancakes, and waffles; pork divided into sausage,
links, and bacon; and poultry divided into scrambled eggs,
hard-boiled eggs, poached eggs, fried eggs, and various omelet
classes."
"The ham and cheese omelet class is worth special attention because
it must inherit characteristics from the pork, dairy, and poultry
classes. Thus, we see that the problem cannot be properly solved
without multiple inheritance. At run time, the program must create
the proper object and send a message to the object that says, 'Cook
yourself.' The semantics of this message depend, of course, on the
kind of object, so they have a different meaning to a piece of toast
than to scrambled eggs."
"Reviewing the process so far, we see that the analysis phase has
revealed that the primary requirement is to cook any kind of
breakfast food. In the design phase, we have discovered some derived
requirements. Specifically, we need an object-oriented language with
multiple inheritance. Of course, users don't want the eggs to get
cold while the bacon is frying, so concurrent processing is required,
too."
"We must not forget the user interface. The lever that lowers the
food lacks versatility, and the darkness knob is confusing. Users
won't buy the product unless it has a user-friendly, graphical
interface. When the breakfast cooker is plugged in, users should see
a cowboy boot on the screen. Users click on it, and the message
'Booting UNIX v. 8.3' appears on the screen. (UNIX 8.3 should be
out by the time the product gets to the market.) Users can pull down
a menu and click on the foods they want to cook."
"Having made the wise decision of specifying the software first in
the design phase, all that remains is to pick an adequate hardware
platform for the implementation phase. An Intel 80386 with 8MB of
memory, a 30MB hard disk, and a VGA monitor should be sufficient. If
you select a multitasking, object oriented language that supports
multiple inheritance and has a built-in GUI, writing the program will
be a snap. (Imagine the difficulty we would have had if we had
foolishly allowed a hardware-first design strategy to lock us into a
four-bit microcontroller!)."
The king wisely had the computer scientist beheaded, and they all
lived happily ever after.
Now that all the CS people hate me...I'll slink into the shadows.
Cheers!
Personally, I don't think there ARE any REAL TCO numbers.
You might reach some general conclusions about the GENERAL TCO of some system, but all the TCO numbers I've seen are either by the marketing department or "consulting" firms that don't have a clue!
Look it over, decide for yourself. Don't rely on TCO numbers - you might as well get advice from a witch doctor.
Cheers!
You ARE right...but it's truely ironic.
MS is THE premiere player in trying to sell cheap/free until they get marketshare, then raise the price.
Here in Portland OR, MS convinced First Interstate Bank to install NT 3.11 instead of Netware in their new 3000+ employee loan center - and almost purely because it was cheaper than upgrading from Netware 3.X
The bank didn't have any serious tools (Sniffer etc) in the old environment, and the hardware was ancient. But the OS was going to save them like 20K+.
What most of the outside world didn't know, was that the network went down almost daily for months. The result was thousands of people sitting idle (a double drain - their getting paid, and NOT making money).
Finally, after coming hours from chucking the whole thing, the MS engineers finally called the ONE guy who wrote the TCP stack. After a short conversation, the MS programmer suggested an undocumented TCP stack option. All of a sudden, the SNA session timeouts just stopped.
The point? MS SOFTWARE was like 20K cheaper, but the whole experiement cost the bank like HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS (possibly even millions) of dollars. Even without the NT problems, the costs were VERY substantial to switch vs. staying on Netware.
MS has used the "IT'S FREE" or "IT'S LOTS CHEAPER" approach more than I can believe - Office bundled with the OS, (Office 4.3/95) IE/OE, NT (early on), MS Windows Plus, Windows 2.X-3.X (Bundled with Windows).
BP may not have dealt with the entire problem, but frankly, the PHB's aren't looking at TCO. If they were, we'd have run screaming from IE/OE a LONG time ago. We'd have set ourselves on fire when we see the rising cost of Office (Now it's MUCH more expensive than before - un upgrade used to cost like $200, now it's like $400), and the moving platform of MS's site licensing (I forget what MS called it - I think it used to be License+, now Select something? Doubled and Tripled in less than 5 years - loss of concurrent licensing)
PHB's only see the INITIAL costs. If they are concerned about TCO, they will look at the HUGE problems with viruses, crashing boxes (Re-Image anyone?!) and lots of features that really waste time and aggrevate users. (Clippie Anyone? How about how Word decides how you REALLY NEED that numbered list done etc!)
Sure, it's difficult to learn a totally new platform. But I do think that the Linux platform isn't any more difficult to administer. Ever tried to figure out Active Directory - it's got me confused! [Grin] How about when Exchange just stops sending mail in or out, but everything LOOKS fine - but a reboot fixes it? What about when IIS gets remote rooted and you get to rebuild your entire server?
I don't think you were defending the MS status quo, but even if you were, I think that defending MS will be a loosing battle in TCO. Bugs and security problems seriously compromise the TCO calculations on ANY MS software.
Finally, TCO numbers are SO perfect for manipulation. Everyone can make TCO numbers say anything they want. It's like the 10 year USA Gvmt budget. You can CLAIM you know where things are going to be, but frankly, you don't have a clue. TCO is usually just a massive marketing ploy.
Cheers!
I was pretty nervous before I read your piece.
Now I'm really nervous!
Perhaps you might have some solution to "promote" GWB _and_ all his cronies to some other job right quick? Please!
Oh, before I forget...THANKS - no really! [Grin]
Cheers!
How about Office?
MS Bundled it with the OS, and went from like 60% market share to 95+%.
Then, notice, that MS no longer bundles Office with the OS... In fact, the cost of Office has gone up dramatically. It's cost is way above that of any of it's competitors. Like as much as 100% higher.
I don't think we're really talking about anything else. You and I may agree. I think the only way in which you'll actually acomplish a OS that isn't tied (financially/technically/otherwise) to some other app (Office/WMP/Java/Etc) is to hack them in half. It's clear that their respect of the law hasn't kept them from unlawful behavior in the past, and it's foolish to believe that they will all of a sudden start...
I fundamentally disagree with your assesment of the structure of AT&T and Standard Oil, but what I think we agree on, is this. - MS shouldn't be able to use the Monopoly of the OS to leverage into new areas. Where they have used this power, they should be punitivly punished.
Also, keeping middleware, is, in at least this case, an effort to maintain the monopoly. Java, clearly was seen as eventually replacing the OS. From MS's perspective, it wasn't middleware. It was middleware that could grow to replace the OS. or at least make the OS a commodity - it could be Windows or Mac or Unix or Linux etc.
How about exclusive licenses - for every system you sell, you must license Windows. You can't just choose to license it when the customer requests it. There are more examples too...
Anyhow, I think you're missing the boat to believe that the case only shows cases where MS used it's monopoly to extend into other markets. The evidence, and I believe the findings show both abuses.
Cheers!
Perhaps you didn't see my earlier post.
How Lew Gerstner at IBM?
If he was a self-important prick, he certainly didn't let that image show to the outside world...
Just wondering what your reaction might be...
Thanks again,
Cheers!
Thanks for the reply. Perhaps my view of Sun is a bit skewed. - Though Scott M sure does appear to be as I said earlier - "a self important prick."
But perhaps you're right. I'd hope so. I do respect lots of what I see come from Sun, at least technically.
Hopefully should Sun get to the point that MS has, they will treat us better.
Cheers!
Ahhh...but is Sun big enough to actually prevail with these practices?
See, I could threaten you (I'm a small guy) but the threats wouldn't have any credibility. But if I'm 6'8" and 350 Lbs, then the threats really take on a credible dimention.
Sure, possibly Sun could make this stick, but I doubt it.
I also notice you use "WE." I assume that means you're an employee of Sun...I would then assume that you're just a wee bit biased.
Now, please don't get me wrong - I've been a VERY sharp critic of MS, clear back to the late 80's. But my point is that given the opportunity, I believe that virtually everyone would take advantage of the situation.
But, hey, I'm probably stoned, and Sun is ready for translation to heaven, but I suspect not.
Cheers!
Gosh, you're a dope. You completely take what I said out of context, and ignore the complete argument.
If you manage a commons, you have certain obligations. If you don't want the power of running the commons, you're free to do as you want. If you want to manage the commons (monopoly) you must then manage for the common good.
Dope! By the way, are you related to GWB?
Cheers!
Generally I don't respond to AC's,
You have a chicken and egg. Windows has the apps, so it gets the market share.
If there were more apps, Platform would get more users.
Hmmm...If Office were available for Platform X, there would be lots more people willing to consider the platform.
Thus, simply offering Office, for example, on Linux would all of a sudden make Linux for the desktop a real option. Suddenly, Linux for the desktop might get more serious attention, even from the MS Office group (i.e. They might do some development, just to jumpstart a new platform). Hey, if Linux (which is free) all of a sudden took off, there probably would be more profit for the Office group. (Total system costs are now $100 less than before, give $80 back, and you made an extra $20 - Plus it's cheaper too!)
The basic reason that most apps are windows only is because of chicken and egg. Also, I'd bet that if you develop for both platforms, MS isn't going to make life easy for you, esp if you're large enough to show on the radar screen. No advance SDK's etc.
Cheers!
That's because SUN never had the opportunity!
Sun (and virtually anyone else, including me) probably would do what BillG has done, given the same opportunity.
If you think otherwise, either you're a whole lot more "sainted" than I am, or you haven't looked very deep.
Cheers!
So, Microsoft didn't buy anyone?
How about the Access DB. How about SQL server. That was a software cross license from Sybase.
I could go on and on.
Standard Oil didn't merge. They bought out much smaller companies that had no choice but to fold or sell.
How's that different than MS?
Cheers!
The bells never merged. There was AT&T and that was it.
The "baby bells" came from the breakup of AT&T.
Standard Oil didn't merge with anyone. They bought or crushed all their competitors.
How about documenting the first statement?
Cheers!
How about Lew Gerstner?
He wasn't a self important prick.
He took IBM from the brink of destruction to a powerful, restored to health IBM.
It is possible to be polite and self-deprecating, but still be effective. In fact, I think leaders who fulfil these attributes are BETTER leaders than those who are full of self importance.
Who would you rather work for. Who would you rather do business with?
Cheers!
Gosh, I DID use alot of funky terms huh?
Thanks, I really like your dictionary - have you thought about doing it for profit?
[Grin]
I do have a modification.
GWB - (1) George W. Bush, (2) George W. Bush Jr, (3) See President of the USA
(4) See - Clueless Dolt
Cheers!
Sorry, but Scott M, is just a plain jerk. His head is SO big, I'm waiting for it to explode.
In a corporation the stuff runs downhill.
BillG and ScottM are both power/ego freaks. Heck, if I meself had all my clients my the short and curlies, i'd probably do it too.
Sun/IBM/MS/Standard Oil - they're all the same. The only difference is that right now, Sun doesn't own you. They have to play nice. As soon as they do, (and this goes for more than just Sun, it goes for everyone) just kiss it goodbye.
If ANYONE has you by the short hairs, don't ever expect them to act nice - because eventually they won't. You rose colored view of Sun is just misplaced. Even the most saintly of us, would probably do the same as MS given the chance.
Cheers!
If I make all the roads that the world drives on, should i also be able to control the traffic - ie the cars. If you drive on MY roads, you MUST only drive one of my cars.
See, you buy a license for GSloop roads, it's only $150/day, and the cars, gas, tires and everything else come for free.
Not only that, I can use my monopoly power to sell Cars/Tires/Gas/Oil cheaper than you - well, actually they're free - so you'll never be able to compete, and thus, either you won't try, or you'll go out of business.
The only way to break my monopoly is to go into Road manufacturing yourself. Except that building your own roads will require massive funds. If you complete a few roads, I'll just sell my road license cheaper where your roads are. All the people will choose to use my roads, and incidentally free cars/gas/tires etc. Since you can't make it, you go bankrupt. Future investors see this failure, and learn quickly - don't invest in the whole roads/cars/gas thing. GSloop Inc. will really screw your investment.
That's not a fair market. Never was, never is.
The OS is a commons. It's like telephone lines, electric lines etc. It makes the most sense to only have a few sets, rather than make everyone build theirs too. Plus the uniformity is good. That's all well and good, as long as the owner of the "Commons" manages the commons for the general good.
As soon as GTE/US West (commons owners) start competing for outside services, they start to manage the commons for their own good, not the good of the customer. Soon the customer has no choice, and then bad things start to happen.
The choice is clear. If you own a commons, you have an obligation to manage it for the good of all. If you want to give up your commons, you can then start to compete with others, and not be worried about the common good. BUT YOU CAN'T DO BOTH. That's just the law.
What disgusts me, is that MS wants protections afforded by your said "capitalist society" - namely copyright protection. But they only want part of the deal, and not all. When it comes to the rules for monopoly governace, well - Screw that...that's life in a capitalist society, take it or leave it.
MS can't choose one, but not the other. Get used to it. If you want the freedoms afforded here in our capitalist society, you also have to suffer some of the regulations that keep the system fair. Copyright/Private Ownership of Capital/Monopoly governance - They're all a package. Take one, I don't want to hear whining about the others.
Cheers!
Why do they need code sharing?
It's not like the code for Office is really useful in the OS group - is it?!
If you mean information sharing, that's exactly the problem. They should have to share information between their groups (OS/Applications) the same as outside competitors.
Frankly, the PC OS/Apps market might just explode too. If you're in investor, why would you invest in the PC Apps space that MS might find interesting sometime soon. If they do, you might get bought, or MS might just decimate you. As an investor, that should make you nervous.
If MS wasn't such a massive gorilla, then there probably would be lots more innovation and investment in the PC OS and Applications space. I think that this could be a huge boon, both for innovation and for choice.
Perhaps you could explain yourself a bit better. I'm afraid that I'm misunderstanding you.
Cheers!