OK...An interesting thought tucked beneath some illogic...
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| dinotrac May 07, 2006 5:20 AM EDT |
Hold it.... 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. |
| tuxchick2 May 08, 2006 2:29 PM EDT |
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. |
| number6x May 09, 2006 4:50 AM EDT |
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. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!