- Site menu:
- Latest Discussions
- Latest Newswire
- Archives
- Submit Story
- Story HOWTO
- Syndicate
- E-mail Alerts
A problem too jumbo-sized for Bill Gates to solve?
|
|
|
Comments (13)
OK...An interesting thought tucked beneath some illogic...
me2, O mesozoic throwback. It could have been a good article. But he had to lapse into saying silly things like
"Modern operating systems are staggeringly complicated. In terms of the number of their components, and the richness of the interactions between them, they are far more complex than an Airbus or a jumbo jet."
Like, WTF?? The core Linux kernel team is something like 80 coders. It takes thousands of full-time folks to design and build a jet. Sorry, but 'staggering complexity' is not an excuse for microshaft.
"If the folks at Redmond can't do it, maybe it just can't be done."
[Insert loud long gales of laughter, while ignoring all the many successful operating systems built by small teams.]
The problem is not a technical one, but as the Cretaceous one postulated, a management problem. Successful projects have strong, focused leadership, like Steve Jobs, Linus Torvalds, Andrew Tridgell, and so on. Microsoft is run by thugs. Totally different mindset and goals.
"Modern operating systems are staggeringly complicated. In terms of the number of their components, and the richness of the interactions between them, they are far more complex than an Airbus or a jumbo jet."
Like, WTF?? The core Linux kernel team is something like 80 coders. It takes thousands of full-time folks to design and build a jet. Sorry, but 'staggering complexity' is not an excuse for microshaft.
"If the folks at Redmond can't do it, maybe it just can't be done."
[Insert loud long gales of laughter, while ignoring all the many successful operating systems built by small teams.]
The problem is not a technical one, but as the Cretaceous one postulated, a management problem. Successful projects have strong, focused leadership, like Steve Jobs, Linus Torvalds, Andrew Tridgell, and so on. Microsoft is run by thugs. Totally different mindset and goals.
HPUX, AIX, SGI Irix, and Linux all had versions ready for the release of Intels pure 64-bit Itanium chip.
Microsoft Windows did not.
Some were small teams, some large. One was free and open source (Linux), the rest were closed and proprietary.
They all had technical issues to overcome, but who was able to deliver?
dino is spot on with his comment.
I had a boss in the 1980's who had always bought Caddilacs since he had become successful in business decades before. He got a Cimarron as a loner for a day while his full size Caddy was in for repair. He was so disgusted by it, he traded in his Caddy for a Mercedes the next month.
Good managers, the ones that see the whole picture, can overrule the techies if they are weighing the business reasons accurately against the tech reasons. McDonald's shouldn't hire Cordon Blue trained chefs to cook their hamburgers, even though they are technically better than high school kids. The business reasons can trump the technical reasons, but both sides have to be considered valid.
Look at the number of companies like Amazon, Google, Overstock, and Orbitz that are using Linux to lower their costs. The management sees that the business reasons and the technical reasons coincide, and they profit!
I hope that every publicly traded company that chooses Microsoft has weighed the decision in a thoughtfull fashion. That way when they have to explain to the stock holders why they chose the more expensive technically inferior product that increased costs and reduced profits they will have their answers ready.
We just need to get more stock holders to drive that Cimarron for a day.
Microsoft Windows did not.
Some were small teams, some large. One was free and open source (Linux), the rest were closed and proprietary.
They all had technical issues to overcome, but who was able to deliver?
dino is spot on with his comment.
I had a boss in the 1980's who had always bought Caddilacs since he had become successful in business decades before. He got a Cimarron as a loner for a day while his full size Caddy was in for repair. He was so disgusted by it, he traded in his Caddy for a Mercedes the next month.
Good managers, the ones that see the whole picture, can overrule the techies if they are weighing the business reasons accurately against the tech reasons. McDonald's shouldn't hire Cordon Blue trained chefs to cook their hamburgers, even though they are technically better than high school kids. The business reasons can trump the technical reasons, but both sides have to be considered valid.
Look at the number of companies like Amazon, Google, Overstock, and Orbitz that are using Linux to lower their costs. The management sees that the business reasons and the technical reasons coincide, and they profit!
I hope that every publicly traded company that chooses Microsoft has weighed the decision in a thoughtfull fashion. That way when they have to explain to the stock holders why they chose the more expensive technically inferior product that increased costs and reduced profits they will have their answers ready.
We just need to get more stock holders to drive that Cimarron for a day.
Is Vista UAP getting a bum rap?
"With Windows Vista Beta nearing "feature complete" status, Paul Thurrott wrote this damning article slamming Microsoft Windows Vista for "broken promises" and its new UAP (User Account Protection) mechanism as a "sad, sad joke". A number of other Microsoft critics including Bruce Schneier have piled on the slam-UAP bandwagon for implementing wizards for maneuvering around administrative restrictions. "
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=209
what would happen if M$ rewrote winduhs from the ground up..
Or, even more sensibly, did like Apple and put a pretty interface on top of a BSD or some such?
Hey, quit laughing, it's a legitimate question. Geez, tough crowd. I know, it would throw their entire product line into chaos. All those microsoft foundation classes wouldn't have any reason to exist anymore, visual studio would have to be retired, dot nut would be poop-canned, and I'm not sure how they would handle porting application like ms office and other important must-haves that enrich the lives of computer users everywhere. And all those poor secuarity companies like mcafee and symantec - whatever will they do without having the 1,000th mutation of popular viruses to play with?
I can't think of a downside.
Hey, quit laughing, it's a legitimate question. Geez, tough crowd. I know, it would throw their entire product line into chaos. All those microsoft foundation classes wouldn't have any reason to exist anymore, visual studio would have to be retired, dot nut would be poop-canned, and I'm not sure how they would handle porting application like ms office and other important must-haves that enrich the lives of computer users everywhere. And all those poor secuarity companies like mcafee and symantec - whatever will they do without having the 1,000th mutation of popular viruses to play with?
I can't think of a downside.
tuxchick2: >"I can't think of a downside."
If MS pasted their GUI on top of one of the BSDs, they would lose all of their investment, over the years, in their main marketing point: this version spontaneously blows up less often than the previous version. (Of course I'm making an awfully bold assumption that even MS can't turn a BSD into wincrap).
If MS pasted their GUI on top of one of the BSDs, they would lose all of their investment, over the years, in their main marketing point: this version spontaneously blows up less often than the previous version. (Of course I'm making an awfully bold assumption that even MS can't turn a BSD into wincrap).
I can't shake the mental image of MS devs poking at BSD with a stick and looking mightily puzzled.
You know, you really nailed the core message of their marketing. I must go belly-laugh some more.
You know, you really nailed the core message of their marketing. I must go belly-laugh some more.
> Or, even more sensibly, did like Apple and put a pretty interface on top of a BSD or some such?
I have long thought this is exactly what they should do. So far, though, they haven't called me up to ask my opinion. Ah, that's it. I forgot to setup my consulting firm and have my people call Bill & Steve's people. That's the ticket! I can bill myself as the only consulting firm offering Microsoft strategies for liberating thier software.
I have long thought this is exactly what they should do. So far, though, they haven't called me up to ask my opinion. Ah, that's it. I forgot to setup my consulting firm and have my people call Bill & Steve's people. That's the ticket! I can bill myself as the only consulting firm offering Microsoft strategies for liberating thier software.
As far as I know, MS already uses a lot of BSD. Look in WinXP's ftp .exe and you'll see a 'univ. california' copyright message. Almost all NT was derived from OpenVMS.
On the other hand; writing something from scratch means more than a year of testing, and loosing the rediculous 'Windows fights back against viruses and Trojans' ads. BSD secure levels would mean people can't mount CD's and so, and that would be terrible for most Windows users. (Hell, the Win-users could then switch kernels without rebooting, use OpenBSD's packet filtering and IPSec, have nice manuals which are even better than the GNU ones'... Sounds terrifying compared to XP, doesn't it? Especially since Theo will blame them for not giving anything in return)
About your question with the words 'MS' and 'rewriting' mentioned in the same sentence:
That means MS has to actually _produce_ something, and that's something they don't have experience with. More important: If they can't fix things which are broke, what makes you think they can produce things which can't brake?
Reminds me of somethin I once read on xmms.org: ---In a world without walls and fences, who'd need Windows and Gates anyway?---
On the other hand; writing something from scratch means more than a year of testing, and loosing the rediculous 'Windows fights back against viruses and Trojans' ads. BSD secure levels would mean people can't mount CD's and so, and that would be terrible for most Windows users. (Hell, the Win-users could then switch kernels without rebooting, use OpenBSD's packet filtering and IPSec, have nice manuals which are even better than the GNU ones'... Sounds terrifying compared to XP, doesn't it? Especially since Theo will blame them for not giving anything in return)
About your question with the words 'MS' and 'rewriting' mentioned in the same sentence:
That means MS has to actually _produce_ something, and that's something they don't have experience with. More important: If they can't fix things which are broke, what makes you think they can produce things which can't brake?
Reminds me of somethin I once read on xmms.org: ---In a world without walls and fences, who'd need Windows and Gates anyway?---
Rewrite Windows from the ground up?? http://research.microsoft.com/os/singularity/
Tuxchick:
> what would happen if M$ rewrote winduhs from the ground up...
Well, given current management, probably pretty much what has happened with Vista, which was supposed to be a complete rewrite, at least according to a number of sources.
> Or, even more sensibly, did like Apple and put a pretty interface on top of a BSD or some such?
Well, they'ed take over the market. Seriously. The one thing Gates and company know how to do well is design systems usable by the non-computer literate. With a solid foundation to work on, they could easily devise an extremely user friendly BSD that would blow OS-X away (though it wouldn't look anywhere near as nice). Everyone knows they got Linux ports of Office, et.al. ready to go when needed. I suspect the same is true for BSD,
The only problem I can see is that in order to get the same "functionality" they have now, they'ed have to run as root all the time. But we know at least one other company has tried that, and the sky didn't fall; so I suspect they could get away with it, and still be more secure than Windows is now.
> what would happen if M$ rewrote winduhs from the ground up...
Well, given current management, probably pretty much what has happened with Vista, which was supposed to be a complete rewrite, at least according to a number of sources.
> Or, even more sensibly, did like Apple and put a pretty interface on top of a BSD or some such?
Well, they'ed take over the market. Seriously. The one thing Gates and company know how to do well is design systems usable by the non-computer literate. With a solid foundation to work on, they could easily devise an extremely user friendly BSD that would blow OS-X away (though it wouldn't look anywhere near as nice). Everyone knows they got Linux ports of Office, et.al. ready to go when needed. I suspect the same is true for BSD,
The only problem I can see is that in order to get the same "functionality" they have now, they'ed have to run as root all the time. But we know at least one other company has tried that, and the sky didn't fall; so I suspect they could get away with it, and still be more secure than Windows is now.
"The one thing Gates and company know how to do well is design systems usable by the non-computer literate."
Actually, I disagree with this. Users are force-fed windows, but IMO the learning curve is just the same as for Linux. And most windoze users never learn any sort of system administration or how to install or maintain the OS- they get handed a prefab box and all they have to learn are applications. Which is also fraught with peril and woe.
Anything would be more secure than windows is now, though I suspect they would quickly match their former security record. :)
Actually, I disagree with this. Users are force-fed windows, but IMO the learning curve is just the same as for Linux. And most windoze users never learn any sort of system administration or how to install or maintain the OS- they get handed a prefab box and all they have to learn are applications. Which is also fraught with peril and woe.
Anything would be more secure than windows is now, though I suspect they would quickly match their former security record. :)
tuxchick2:
Thankyekindly for giving me an opening to post a quote.
"As I always say, people who know Windows *don't* know about computers and operating systems - what they've learned is an arbitrary set of Microsoft abstractions that are subject to change by fiat and have little to do with what the computer is really doing." -- Les Bell (http://www.lesbell.com.au/)
And that "subject to change by fiat" means the learning curve you point out has to be endured over and over again with MS stuff.
Thankyekindly for giving me an opening to post a quote.
"As I always say, people who know Windows *don't* know about computers and operating systems - what they've learned is an arbitrary set of Microsoft abstractions that are subject to change by fiat and have little to do with what the computer is really doing." -- Les Bell (http://www.lesbell.com.au/)
And that "subject to change by fiat" means the learning curve you point out has to be endured over and over again with MS stuff.
Post a comment
A free account is needed to post. Write your comment here first: your text is kept in this browser while you sign up or log in, and is waiting for you when you come back.
Your message:Markdown: **bold**, *italic*, [text](https://link), - lists, > quotes, $x^2$ for math. Formatting help
Sign up and post (it is free) or Log in and post
1...2...3...4...5...6...7...8...9...10
Ah!! That's better.
Almost let the author's logical lapses take me off the article's core premise -- that OS's may be getting too complex to be handled by a single organization.
Author ignores a couple of realities. Lessee - IBM delivers multiple operating systems. Sun delivers OS's. Author did mention Apple, but discounted them because Unix is easier to upgrade? I have no doubt that well-written and structured code is easier to upgrade than a convoluted mess, but that has more to do with the needless complexity of the code than it does with the complexity of the code.
Author also makes claim that Microsoft can't be accused of technical incompetence. I believe that Microsoft, even after employee defections over the last few years, is crammed to the gills with very smart and very competent technical people. What matters is not the competence of the techies, but the competence that the corporation permits them to apply.
Managers overrule techies every day in every company in the world. It's the power of being boss. It's also the reality of needing to serve business plans. Management foolishness can trump technical competence to create corporate incompetence.
My favorite computing industry example is not from Microsoft at all, but from IBM (or, if you prefer, Compaq): IBM could easily have brought the first 80386-based server to market. They passed on the opportunity for fear that it would cannibalize their mini-computers. Amazing that the Assemble Dufi didn't figure out that Compaq would use precisely the same logic to justify building one!!
My overall favorite example, btw, is the Cadillac Cimarron, crowning glory of the Roger Smith era at GM. Only an accountant could believe that people would pay top dollar to buy a Chevy Cavalier in Cadillac clothes.