Why Microsoft should embrace Linux. | The Coffeehouse

androidi

Gary Wisniewski on Scrapping The Windows Codebase (quotes from part 2/5)

Microsoft already tried to re-invent Windows once with Windows NT. The problem is, while one set of OS experts in Microsoft is devising an excellent security framework, another set of "experts" is violating all the rules in the interest of "dumbing down the features" for users.

The Windows codebase is in bad shape. It's unlikely that Microsoft, or indeed anyone, can fix it. I am certain they will create a usable version of Vista. But, I expect that one year after its release, we will not be looking back, happy that the problems are solved. Instead, such an albatross of design can only yield new problems, and new challenges for Microsoft.

Get rid of it, and replace it. But with what? In the next post (coming in a couple days), I'll suggest that Linux be a part of a new strategy to revitalize the product line.

I am waiting to hear more of his "New Win-Win Strategy" before any judgements, though this quote from the About page already speaks for itself...

... got screwed by Microsoft ...

W3bbo
The Master of Baiters

Strangly enough, I can see Microsoft continuing just fine as an applications vendor for Linux/BSD, although knowing them they'll rig their programs so they only work on Microsoft's own distribution of Linux.

jamie

LINK PLEASE!!! Wink

jamie

is that someone using ie7? ( Tongue Out

)

Cornelius Ellsonpeter

Interesting read. I wonder if the author has any low level experience with either system? But somehow I see this unlikely event going the way Java did. Kind of like W3bbo said above, it would be the Microsoft version of kernel. I'm sure the Microsoft engineers have pulled apart the Linux kernel a few hundred times, though, and have already taken what they can from it.

jamie

re: androidi: "The problem is, while one set of OS experts in Microsoft is devising an excellent security framework, another set of "experts" is violating all the rules in the interest of "dumbing down the features" for users.

Linux or no linux - ms has to open up more

In a post the other day - Labomba replied:

You know of all the UI stuff that is annoying, like the multiple dialogue warnings when delete stuff, all the extra bubble pop-ups,

you'd have to imagine that MS will give you the option to disable those.

They'll have something there for the Power Users, if not control panel options, maybe a power toy, if not a power toy, somebody will find the registry hack.

Minor annoyances such as these can be easily corrected.

I should have appened the post that prompted that reply with: but it is everywhere - every little thing you do - has been moved for what seems like movings sake. many are not adding value - just noise. people know windows ok? its been 10-14 yrs - dont take out "arrange by size" and replace it with tagging for teens.

jamie

WOW

i agree with that first paragraph

not sure about linux or replacing it..

AndyC

Am I really the only person to think it's just a tiny bit stupid to suggest replacing the underlying kernel, when all your gripes are directed at the user-mode interface? Or to see no business sense whatsoever in ditching control of over 90% of systems out there in favour of a fragmented, directionless alternative which is a very long way from running even 10% of the applications businesses rely upon?

alwaysmc2
It's not stupid; It's advanced!

But we are forgetting that the kernal in Vista is almost compleatly re-done, yes?

And why do people keep on suggesting that Linux's way is better? Does Linux own over 90% of the market share? If Linux was so monumental, it would have risen up and toppled the capitalist overlords and created a classless society.
but I digress.

jamie

agreed. nt kernal (for now) then singularity (hopefully) later

*they need to be more open like linux though - im sure some people would help out Smiley

edit: erik (mastercompiler) on c9 has my new vote for president of ms. get it out, get it down, get it done. period.

*in that case id want scoble as ceo ( hey hes been conteplating other offers) charles as cto/cio - mini as head of hr and c9 to replace USER testing Smiley

edit: and of course Sampy - he runs xbox!

*edit - yes yes bill is chairman - and steveb is sales architect... Tongue Out

jamie

jamie wrote:

*edit - yes yes bill is chairman - and steveb is sales architect...

no..wait - bill and steve co-chair. a first? i ran the co this way! well i ran it that way! - agree .... heres our decision

man - id hate to go up against that monster

DoomBringer
Doom!

How would he know that the Windows codebase is fubard? He sounds more like a Linux zot that anything at this point.

rjdohnert
You will never know success until you know failure

You have to remember, these guys are tech journalists, they are not developers, they do not work on OS code. They just sit there and type like they know what they are talking about. If you sat em in front of an IDE they couldnt write a line of code to save their life. Most Linux users are the same way. The average Linux user and average Linux journalists are not developers nor do they write OS code. They simply repeat the same ignorance that they have heard through the "experts" in their community. Sure, Microsoft has made tremendous mistakes with the Windows kernel, but at least they are trying to fix the problems. The problem with alternative OS users is that they think everything not made by Microsoft is perfect.

alwaysmc2 wrote:
But we are forgetting that the kernal in Vista is almost compleatly re-done, yes?

And why do people keep on suggesting that Linux's way is better? Does Linux own over 90% of the market share? If Linux was so monumental, it would have risen up and toppled the capitalist overlords and created a classless society.
but I digress.

IRenderable
Pi

Cornelius Ellsonpeter wrote:
Interesting read. I wonder if the author has any low level experience with either system? But somehow I see this unlikely event going the way Java did. Kind of like W3bbo said above, it would be the Microsoft version of kernel. I'm sure the Microsoft engineers have pulled apart the Linux kernel a few hundred times, though, and have already taken what they can from it.

I doubt it. They are probally to scared of getting sued to look at the Linux kernel because it's GPL. BSDs, probally.

alwaysmc2
It's not stupid; It's advanced!

IRenderable wrote:

Cornelius Ellsonpeter wrote: Interesting read. I wonder if the author has any low level experience with either system? But somehow I see this unlikely event going the way Java did. Kind of like W3bbo said above, it would be the Microsoft version of kernel. I'm sure the Microsoft engineers have pulled apart the Linux kernel a few hundred times, though, and have already taken what they can from it.

I doubt it. They are probally to scared of getting sued to look at the Linux kernel because it's GPL. BSDs, probally.

Why? It's open source. free, free, free. And it would be impossible to prove that they copied and pasted code from the Linux kernal into the Windows Kernal, especially because that wouldn't work.

RJ

I dont think it is about the community. It is mainly about the architecture. The thing is windows is complicated but regular users dont care because it is packaged on every computer you could by for the past 14 years or something. That builds consumer loyalty although somewhat forced.

Yea so the kernal is bloated, who cares, they still make money off of windows right. Come on what average computer user is going to switch to linux and be happy? None, because people are afraid of change and they personally care what is going on with the computer. As long as the can surf, play solitare, write up a document and check email they will be fine.

DCMonkey
Monkey see, monkey do, monkey will destroy you!

I sometimes get the feeling that those who suggest this (scrap the current Windows codebase and rebuild it on Linux) watched Netscape's massive loss of market share while they spent several years rebuilding Mozilla from scratch and are trying to get MS do the same with Windows for the same result.

But I'm especially amused by those who suggest this as a way to get Vista or even Vienna+ out sooner than it will be in its current state.

spoofnozzle
Bite my shiney metal a$$!

The number of people outside MS, who have an intimate knowledge of the NT kernal, would be few and far between... I very much doubt this guy is one of them, or even has spoken directly to one of them.

As for comparing a graphic of lines and dots, supposedly representing IIS calls to Apache calls... and claiming that is a comparison of NT vs. LINUX... what is this guy smoking ??

The fact is that there have been only a handful of truly outstanding O/S architects in the last 30-40 years... Thompson/Ritchie (UNIX) and Cutler (RSX, VMS, NT) are definitely the pre-eminents.

W3bbo
The Master of Baiters

RJ wrote:
Come on what average computer user is going to switch to linux and be happy? None, because people are afraid of change and they personally care what is going on with the computer. As long as the can surf, play solitare, write up a document and check email they will be fine.

If the computer came with Linux (which can do all of the things you said out-of-the-box) with an Explorer-like shell then they wouldn't care because it does the "mom and pop" things quite easily. (Thunderbird really is waaaay better than Outlook Express, for example, or how OpenOffice Write > WordPad)

So you've defeated your own argument really Smiley

Now the only problem emerges when they want to install third-party software and games.

Cairo
I want my waffle sundae, give me my carbs!

AndyC wrote:
Am I really the only person to think it's just a tiny bit stupid to suggest replacing the underlying kernel, when all your gripes are directed at the user-mode interface?

Not the only one, no. NT was and is fine. It's the Win32 layer that's problematic. They basically glued Windows 3.1 to VMS, and out came NT.

The thing Cutler et al worked on didn't even have a GUI until Windows 3.0 succeeded in the marketplace.

TimP

alwaysmc2 wrote:

IRenderable wrote:

Cornelius Ellsonpeter wrote: Interesting read. I wonder if the author has any low level experience with either system? But somehow I see this unlikely event going the way Java did. Kind of like W3bbo said above, it would be the Microsoft version of kernel. I'm sure the Microsoft engineers have pulled apart the Linux kernel a few hundred times, though, and have already taken what they can from it.

I doubt it. They are probally to scared of getting sued to look at the Linux kernel because it's GPL. BSDs, probally.

Why? It's open source. free, free, free. And it would be impossible to prove that they copied and pasted code from the Linux kernal into the Windows Kernal, especially because that wouldn't work.

The Linux kernel is not public domain. If you take code from it you have to follow the rules of the GPL.

alwaysmc2
It's not stupid; It's advanced!

TimP wrote:

alwaysmc2 wrote:

IRenderable wrote:

Cornelius Ellsonpeter wrote: Interesting read. I wonder if the author has any low level experience with either system? But somehow I see this unlikely event going the way Java did. Kind of like W3bbo said above, it would be the Microsoft version of kernel. I'm sure the Microsoft engineers have pulled apart the Linux kernel a few hundred times, though, and have already taken what they can from it.

I doubt it. They are probally to scared of getting sued to look at the Linux kernel because it's GPL. BSDs, probally.

Why? It's open source. free, free, free. And it would be impossible to prove that they copied and pasted code from the Linux kernal into the Windows Kernal, especially because that wouldn't work.

The Linux kernel is not public domain. If you take code from it you have to follow the rules of the GPL.

but is it even possible to copy kernal-level code?
At anyrate, even if Microsoft decided to copy Linux code (which would make little sence) it would be impossible to prove it beond a shadow of a doubt.

giggles

Microsoft IP and GPL, like oil and water. Sorry, my english bad

alwaysmc2
It's not stupid; It's advanced!

giggles wrote:
Microsoft IP and GPL, like oil and water. Sorry, my english bad

Well it's good enough. I understood it. Wink

garywiz

I am waiting to hear more of his "New Win-Win Strategy" before any judgements, though this quote from the About page already speaks for itself...

... got screwed by Microsoft ...

LOL. Yes, speaks volumes doesn't it. I'm the guy, of course, that wrote that (and the post). I looked at my About a few days ago and thought "Hmmm, maybe I should take that out. People will think I'm on some kind of vengeance kick!" but felt I should just leave it there and get ready for having arrows in my back.

But, though there was a screwing for sure... "it was business, not personal". I learned a lot from it. In fact, I probably set myself up for being screwed. When VB1.0 came out, we thought "gosh it needs a database". So, we developed Agility/VB. At Comdex, MS even gave us a booth right at the front. Praised the product. Lots of accolades and really showed off the product.

Naturally, we knew that eventually MS would add database support. At Comdex that year they assured us that "it was at least a year to 18 months away", so we felt we had a good window. 3 weeks later, they announced that VB3 would have database support. Our sales went (literally) to zero. Instantly. The guys at MS in the ISV program felt bad, they really did. They knew it would kill our product line. I guess it was something they "had to do for the greater good". Oh well.

I sure wish they would have been a bit more honest with us, but maybe they couldn't. Business is like that. And we took pieces of the "killed" product and developed TrueGrid, which became a best seller for VB3. So, we ended up being OK.

Maybe I should change that about page so it doesn't sound like I feel so bitter about it. I don't. It just happened.

(BTW, I haven't been at that company for 12 years. It was Apex then, it's now Component One, still doing great products I'm sure.)