Yes.
'nuff said.
I think your a freakin moron...or maybe not
Perhaps you should try listening to those with opposing views, rather than pulling out the standard Microsoft line like you do each time.
The reason that people hate Microsoft is that they've *seen* these actions over many years. They have also heard Microsoft deny these action over and over! Like they'll listen to yet another Microsoft spout about how "things are changing inside". Everyone's heard this before- and it's never been true before.
If you *ever* hope to change the fact that a lot of people hate your company, you'll need a show of good faith - a change in action.
Just spewing "but investor money is on the line!" and "but we live in a capitalist society!" over and over isn't going to help the situation.
It is because you do this that I read your blog and enjoy reading it. Tyler's comments are a perfect case in point to your post.. you promote dialog, which in turn grounds all of us who read this. Tyler has a point it gets old to here the responses that are quoted there. However, your responses are true for any business/corporation and to just wave your hand and say bah... that doesn't matter is as nieve as saying that Microsoft makes perfect software.
SAMark
"Do you like when I point to people who call me names and take me to task?"
I do if I learn something new as a result. If I wade through people repeating known positions at each other then that time wasn't well invested. That Slashdot discussion on Sparkle/SVG/Flash got to me yesterday, for instance... disjointed, predictable, no synthesis. Getting a new way to look at the world is the big thrill.
jd/mm
Robert,
I hope I don't call you names too often 
. I give you a hard time because I'm hoping you're open minded enough to listen.
I want Microsoft to become like IBM. Possibly even more than Microsoft, IBM used to be hated and feared. They now have a much more respected and admired image. I'll admit, they don't make as much money as they did when they were are monopoly, but the rules change for someone in your position. They aren't a monopoly any more, so if your goal is to hold onto that monopoly at all costs then I don't think this comment will help. Note that IBM didn't have to change from creating proprietary code, neither would Microsoft.
What I'd like to see is Microsoft applications, both client and server apps, running on different platforms. Solaris, AIX, HPUX, Linux, FreeBSD - you name it. This "Windows at all costs" philosophy is damaging to you (IMHO). It isn't creating products customers want to use, it's creating products customers are *forced* to
(hmmm. Last comment got truncated for some reason). I was saying :
It isn't creating products customers want to use, it's creating products customers are *forced* to use. Customers don't like it.
It doesn't mean giving up Windows. Windows clients and servers, not my products of choice admittedly, are used happily by many millions of people. But it does mean giving up the typing together of clients and servers by proprietary (and quite possibly illegal for a monopoly) means. It means opening the protocols.
No one wants Microsoft to release code (at least no one who has to write code for a living - there's much too much of it to even begin to digest , but we do need you to be more open.
If you don't do this you'll win in the short term, but long term your fall will be rapid and brutal for all involved. I'm hoping that doesn't happen, I'm hoping you can change.
Jeremy.
Robert, I like that you point to dissenting views. I could give a rat's ass about the folks who post here calling you names. It's not useful information, just more noise competing with the signal.
I give you a hard time because I've found your insights useful in the past, and so hope to return the favor. Provoking a change in Microsoft's behaviour is merely a secondary goal, and one which I persist in pursuing because it is a low risk/low probablity/high reward course of action. If it can be done at all, it will only be via the kind of publicly visible external dialog that you are engaged in.
Microsoft is a huge and successful company. The playing field is also currently tilted in Microsoft's favor. Microsoft has in the past done things to maintain this status quo. What I am asking for as an independent developer is primarily for the playing field to be leveled, or at the veryt least for Microsoft to give up the tools that it has used in the past to maintain the tilted field
(cont.)
I can accept that from inside Microsoft it looks like I am asking for the field to be tilted the other way, but that is *not* the case, I just want a level field, even if Microsoft remains one of the biggest players.
I am, however, not content to let Microsoft just put away the tools that have been used to such devastating effect in the past, and rely on promises that they are not and will not use them in the future. I want those tools *gone*. Does that mean more work for Microsoft to accomplish other things without those tools? Yes, I'm sure it does. Tough. That is the investment Microsoft must make to regain the trust of the marketplace.
To bring this out of the land of metaphor: Show me more interoperability (which means that a Microsoft component can be replaced) at every layer of the infrastructure stack. 'Value added' needs to mean just that, and not 'interoperability subtracted'.
To bring this out of the land of generalities: I still have not heard why e
(cont.)
To bring this out of the land of generalities: I still have not heard why exactly the relational storage that lies behind WinFS cannot be swapped for another relational database. Storing Directed Acyclic Graphs in a relational database, while not exactly a common design pattern, is hardly breaking new ground in and of itself (however innovative it is in combination with the other WinFS components).
Michael: easy. We have a limited number of developers and testers and our investors insist that we ship a new version of Windows soon. Doing what you want would take more resources than what we have and would take longer than our investors are willing to give us.
Robert, "we can't afford to spend the time to make it interoperable" is the wrong answer now, and "well, we can't make it interoperable now because to do so would break backward compatibility" will be the wrong answer later.
I thought you wanted feedback on the Longhorn bits before they were set in stone?
So, when you were asking for what Microsoft could do to make things a win-win, you didn't actually mean to include designing and building the software right in the first place?
Build it (and other infrstructural bits) in an interoperable way now, and you will 1) increase developer buy-in, and 2) reduce Microsoft's costs later.
Or is Longhorn supposed to be the last operating system Microsoft produces?
Michael, you misunderstand me. We have entire teams working on interoperability. But, tell me again, how am I supposed to make Flight Simulator work on the Macintosh and on Linux again?
We're making Windows dramatically BETTER than Linux or Mac in the next version. So, tell me again how we can get total interoperability until those two platforms catch back up.
Look at it another way. Imagine you told Apple back in 1984: "hey, why don't you take the time to make PCs and mainframes work like Macs?" Imagine the stares you get. That's why there's such a huge disconnect between what you're asking for and what you're gonna get.
the problem is that it's "common wisdom" that Microsoft has more than $40 billion in the bank, so your point doesn't *sound* true. "how can they talk about resource constraints with that kind of safe deposit"
you'd have to explain that Microsoft has hundreds of products which would have to be supported on every "supported" platform. everybody focuses on Office or Windows, but that's a very uninformed view of what Microsoft does.
if MS "supports" other platforms, it will be commited to them. it will have to train staff to support customers, to train staff to test products, to write new documentation, it will have to educate all its partners etc. It's far from just a technical decision.
why is SMB so bad ? you have two choices 1) because MS code monkeys are dumb 2) because it's a 20 year software project where one of the many constraints was to stay compatible with all the legacy (with OS/2, with DOS, with Windows 16, with Windows 32, with Windows NT etc.) and amaz
why is SMB so bad ? you have two choices 1) because MS code monkeys are dumb 2) because it's a 20 year software project where one of the many constraints was to stay compatible with all the legacy (with OS/2, with DOS, with Windows 16, with Windows 32, with Windows NT etc.) and amazingly, from a user standpoint, it works rather well.
the case for Microsoft to support other platforms is very thin. you want MS to spend less resources on supporting its existing customers in favour of platforms where they have no customers. if WinFS has to interoperate with Oracle and MySql and Postgres, MS will put less developpers on the team ensuring that it interoperates with Access, with ODBC, with OleDb, with SQL Server etc. MS *current* customers will be sacrified for something which Jeremy Alisson "feels" would be better.
Who is most likely to buy Longhorn ? A MS existing customer, or a Slashdot reader ? So MS has to make sure first that it interoperates with the products of its existing
interoperates with the products of its existing customers. And they don't have the opportunity to postpone the release to ensure interop with others, because some customers signed a "software assurance".
Frankly, that's exactly why capitalism works. MS is in a sense bound by it's existing customers, so this leaves opportunity to you to start a new business to serve customers who have other, new needs. This is what leaves room for companies who are legacy free (Nokia, RedHat, Google, Macromedia, even Apple in a sense etc.) And this is, I suspect, why MS has so much money in the bank, for the day when it will truly have to reinvent itself. Longhorn is maybe MS' PS/2. Nobody knows, only the market.
"That's why there's such a huge disconnect between what you're asking for and what you're gonna get."
So don't port. Simply document how the client and server work together and let others create the software for you. Simple - increases interop, improves support for Microsoft protocols. Everyone wins....
Oh wait. You lose control that way. So you can't have that, can you....
No change. All talk. As people in my home town of Sheffield used to say, "all mouth and no trousers" .
You're not fooling anyone Robert .
Jeremy.
Jeremy: never say never. We opened up Office formats. I never thought we'd do that.
I'm not saying never, I'm saying I haven't seen anything yet.
Deeds, not words. So, does Office 2003 save by default in these nice new documented (but patented) XML schemas ? If not, then the default still isn't different.
I wouldn't know, I use OpenOffice .
Jeremy.
No Robert, you're misunderstanding *me*.
Did I say anything about making Linux computers work like Longhorn? About porting WinFS to the Mac? Making your applications work on Linux? No.
I took WinFS, one part of Longhorn (almost at random) drilled down to the underlying infrastructure (storage of DAGs in a relational database) and asked why not make it interoperable with other relational databases. This increases data portability, lets you keep the actual value-added layers on top as proprietary as you like, preserves options both for MS, its customers, ISVs, and competitors, and demonstrates that MS isn't locking anyone's data in a trunk.
As a side-effect, besides allowing other RDBMS vendors on your platform to play in this space, it would create an incentive for other system developers to make their equivalent for WinFS compatible with WinFS (because WinFS could (at least in theory) mount a relational DB on a Linux server for storage), rather than reinventing the wheel in
(cont.)
[...] rather than reinventing the wheel in a way that *is* interoperable with many systems and RDBMSs, but not with WinFS.
Win-win-win.
Of course you can't switch out *everything*, especially if an equivalent doesn't exist elsewhere, but I wasn't talking about doing it everywhere, just everywhere possible. And this is definitely one of those spots.
If, instead, all you have as an exit strategy is to do a data dump to an ordinary file system that loses all the schema and metadata, then there is no reason for me to adopt WinFS unless I already trust Microsoft, or only care about the data but not the metadata (in which latter case there isn't much value in WinFS, is there?).
Storing and retreiving the data and metadata is in theory a point of control, and Microsoft has to not only demonstrate that it *won't* use it, but that it *can't*, before I (and many others) will be willing to consider the value proposition WinFS offers.
Lather-rinse-repeat for all ot
(cont.)
Lather-rinse-repeat for all other points of control that can be made interoperable.
Taking this approach where you can will lower the risk for those who want to experiment with adopting microsoft technologies piecemeal, instead of requiring that we swallow a monolithic all-or-nothing bolus.
I'll say it again: If Microsoft wants to gain my trust, it must relinquish control, the apearance of control, and the potential for control. Then I can relax and trust Microsoft to act in my best interest (or the equivalent for the largest number of its customers) because they will have to.
What?, don't they know who we are? http://findhome.freewebpage.org/
Finally figured this out - my http://www.findspot.net/commerce...te-
hosting.html
You are invited to visit the sites about...
Ralph:
Privater Telefonsex, Privater Telefonsex - - Telefonsex Fetisch, Telefonsex Fetisch - - Telefonsex Livecam.
sgh
cnftdakk [URL=http://zufppebi.com]pnfzppjd[/URL] ulhppyzo http://fgrjrimu.com kowofxiv uwncyife
one day one day i went shopping outside ，and in an UGG store，I found some kinds of uggs i love most。they are: ugg classic tall boot ugg classic tall boot ugg classic tall boot ugg classic tall boot ugg classic tall boot ugg classic tall boot
Commenting by HaloScan
