RE: Battling Google, Microsoft Changes How It Builds Software
Interesting article. Some of it is spot-on, some of it is complete fairy tale. Google is moving to undercut the "look-and-feel" portion of what makes Windows popular, but Microsoft really needs to be more concerned about Apple and Linux. Microsoft is losing the server battle to Linux. Mozilla and Apple are encroaching on the desktop terrain all the time. In the last year or so, the KDE team has really worked hard to produce a solid desktop as well. With multiple flavors of Unix and Unix-like operating systems around for small systems, KDE could be poised to join Apple as a viable alternative to the Windows desktop.
A couple of interesting items:
Longhorn was irredeemable because Microsoft engineers were building it just as they had always built software. Throughout its history, Microsoft had let thousands of programmers each produce their own piece of computer code, then stitched it together into one sprawling program.
I'm a little surprised to see this admitted publicly. Software professionals have known for years that the Microsoft development method resembled nothing so closely as it resembled growing kudzu. As far as pure code quality goes, Microsoft has varied for years between poor and mediocre.
Microsoft's Windows can't entirely replicate that approach [rapid application deployment], since the software is by its nature a massive program overseeing all of a computer's functions.
This is silly. The Linux kernel developers and the developers of the hundreds of pieces and parts of supporting software that goes into Linux are completely agile. And they are agile on little or no budget. Keep in mind, the vast majority of Linux developers are volunteers. Microsoft can't replicate that response because it is too engrained in the development culture that made it what it is today. For years, there was no market motivation for them to improve, so they cranked out mediocre crap. As long as they cranked out some new mediocre crap fairly often, Windows users would put up with the cockroaches that infested the code.
Microsoft's holy grail is a system that cranks out a new, generally bug-free version of basic Windows every few years, with frequent updates in between to add enhancements or match a competitor's offering.
Nice spin job. I particularly liked the bug-free part. I guess all those blue screens of death don't count. I forgot, those were features. And those frequent updates aren't adding new features all that often. That is, unless you count the bubblegum patches to Microsoft's leaks-like-a-sieve security model as a new feature.
Microsoft is finding itself in the position of being influenced by market forces for the first time ever. They don't seem to like it very much. I say it's about time.
A couple of interesting items:
Longhorn was irredeemable because Microsoft engineers were building it just as they had always built software. Throughout its history, Microsoft had let thousands of programmers each produce their own piece of computer code, then stitched it together into one sprawling program.
I'm a little surprised to see this admitted publicly. Software professionals have known for years that the Microsoft development method resembled nothing so closely as it resembled growing kudzu. As far as pure code quality goes, Microsoft has varied for years between poor and mediocre.
Microsoft's Windows can't entirely replicate that approach [rapid application deployment], since the software is by its nature a massive program overseeing all of a computer's functions.
This is silly. The Linux kernel developers and the developers of the hundreds of pieces and parts of supporting software that goes into Linux are completely agile. And they are agile on little or no budget. Keep in mind, the vast majority of Linux developers are volunteers. Microsoft can't replicate that response because it is too engrained in the development culture that made it what it is today. For years, there was no market motivation for them to improve, so they cranked out mediocre crap. As long as they cranked out some new mediocre crap fairly often, Windows users would put up with the cockroaches that infested the code.
Microsoft's holy grail is a system that cranks out a new, generally bug-free version of basic Windows every few years, with frequent updates in between to add enhancements or match a competitor's offering.
Nice spin job. I particularly liked the bug-free part. I guess all those blue screens of death don't count. I forgot, those were features. And those frequent updates aren't adding new features all that often. That is, unless you count the bubblegum patches to Microsoft's leaks-like-a-sieve security model as a new feature.
Microsoft is finding itself in the position of being influenced by market forces for the first time ever. They don't seem to like it very much. I say it's about time.
posted by Anonymous | 5:07 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home