|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
On Sun, 4 Oct 1998, Brian Massey wrote:
> 1. Microsoft generally has access to the best minds in the world. Not only
> do coders know they will likely become rich (NT building has among the
> highest paid employees at MS) but they know there code and ideas will be
> far-reaching. So there's a higher probablity that the best code from the
> best minds will work come from Microsoft.
The highest paid minds aren't always the best minds. Microsoft hires the
talent that is available at the time for a price they're willing to pay.
The best minds will be available for the right price when needed. This is
true in all companies and Microsoft is probably no exception. In the case
of Linx and the Unix community, the best minds tend to gravitate to the
highest quality projects, not the highest salaries.
> > 2. I could see where Linux would be typically developed in acadamic
> settings, and often a learning platform for the uninitiated and
> inexperienced. This really the only thing developers who spend their time on
> Linux stand to get from their experience. Since the goal of most software
> individuals is to make money, they leverage this experience in a company
> like MS.
It has already been pointed out that the goal of many Linux developers is
more altruistic. For many it is a labor of love, *not* of profit. And
even if they leverage this experience at company's like Microsoft, that
doesn't exclude their contributions to the open source and Linux movement.
Also I think that any "naive" code developed by the uninitiated would be
improved on or replaced before thhe product even makes it to the
marketplace. Why? The massive peer review and penchant for improvement
that is pervasive in such open software projects.
> 3. Microsoft has massive internal code reviews so how do these differ and
> fall short of the peer reviews for Linux. Coders at Microsoft have to be
> directly accountable -- their livelyhood depends on it whereas Linux
> developers can just walk away. I could see this as a critical flaw in the
> open-source development model -- this translates into less incentive and no
> direct accountability for existing problems.
An interesting argument that simply ignores the facts. The open source
model works and results in solid, reliable code that is quickly fixed...
meanwhile, massive code reviews and accountability at Microsoft have not
produced a superior product or bug fixes that are any more timely than
Linux... speaking of timely... when is Windows NT 5.0 shipping?
> 4. Microsoft also produces mission critical code -- their livleyhood depends
> on it. If the marketplace is screaming for a feature, Microsoft has a
> hsitory of producing software that addresses features requested by the
> greatest numbers of people.
For every "feature" added there are another dozen bugs to correct. I'm
not impressed by buckets of features at the cost of quality or
reliability.
> But OK, ignoring the above can Linux stand toe to toe with these critical
> features of NT (and I'm not an NT expert).
> 1. app and network stability/recoverability
> 2. ease of use (GUI)
> 3. API access (coders)
> 4. backwards compatiblity (with Windows and DOS)
Linux is quite capable in all of these areas. Argument 4. is totally
specious. Do you expect Windows NT to be backward compatible with Linux
executable formats?
> 1. The software industry desparately needs standardization. Windows gives
> us that. It saves programmers time and users time. With ad hoc input from
> so many different people how can Linuex continue to standardized new
Windows is *not* a standard. Windows is a product with a very large user
base. That does not justify it as a standard for developers (except in
the eyes of Microsoft). Standards are not created on the whims of
manufacturers to secure their market share.
> developments in the future. There has to be a central decision making
> commity or no one will agree. Without Stand. We'd back in the DOS daze of
> computers when everything was different unfamiliar and you had to spend too
> much time learning the interface.
And yet there is no such massive chaos within the Linux development
community so your premises are all false. Either Linux adheres to
commonly accepted and understood standards, or the beaurocratic
cnetralized decision making model is inefficient and poisons the product's
technical merits. Or both.
> 2. Does Linuex have a GUI? Contrary to the belief by some hackers that
Yes Linux has a GUI. And its a commonly accepted standard GUI too.
> somebody that may not even care tomorrow about it. If I'm a large company
> then I want to use a product that not only is compatible with all other
> offices but also I want accountability. Linux isn't made by one company so
> there's no accountability. It's buyer beware because you're only solution
> if something doesn't work is to hack it yourself!
Yet if you buy from *one* company you are forced to accept whatever level
of quality or support that this company provides. It's because certain
companies do not adhere to standards that you are forced to buy from
"Fortress Microsoft" so as to achieve compatibility with between all of
your offices. This kind of thinking allows companies like Microsoft to
gain market dominance through the lemming like acceptance of MIS managers.
You definately need to get some deeper insight on how Linux is developed
and distributed. Go to www.radhat.com and www.linux.org for starters.
Support and bug fixes are available for Linux much like Windows.
Oh by the way, where is Microsoft's manual describing how to maintain and
correct problems in the registry when it becomes mysteriously corrupted?
Or how about setting up those ".BAT" and ".INI" and ".SYS" files scattered
all over my file system? With closed proprietary systems like
Microsoft's, the software better be flawless or I'm screwed because I
don't employ an IS department to maintain my operating system for me.
As for accountability and compatiblity, Microsoft gets low marks in my
book for compatibility with standards that have been accepted by the rest
of the world. Let's take Java for example. Or Microsoft's embedded
Active X controls... usable only by Internet Explorer. You have
mistakenly confused the words "standard" with "market dominance."
> Thanks,
> Brian.
- Hacker
---
Dark Hacker | Fortress Of Computation
hacker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx | http://www.computation.com/pub/hacker/
Investment and Market Outlook:
http://www.computation.com/pub/hacker/Investment/index.html
Bishop Protein Analytics:
http://www.computation.com/pub/hacker/Bishop/index.html
____________________________________________________________________
"Building our future... one twisted freak at a time."
|