 |
 |
 |
|
Re: There you go again
Doc, I see you have reverted to your old xenophobic exclusive, ignore-everyone-but-Microsoft-and-the-open-source-promoters-mode, so I thought I should post the comments I deleted from Scripting News, as a way to further enflame the debate, over here where there's already ample zeal. I see there's still a need to preach inclusiveness. Let me explain. First, I wonder why Mundie keeps beating this horse. He made an interesting speech earlier in May and said some things that imho needed to be said. If Microsoft delivers superior results, then they're going to win in the market. But they already have won. Remember, they own Windows and the Web. (I've been tiptoeing around that one, but come on get real, if you control the Web browser, you own the Web. No one seems to want to say this.) One of Mundie's premises is quite misleading. Generally the innovation in commercial software has not come from Microsoft. Usually it comes from developers Microsoft competes with, using their ideas, and with a few exceptions, they win. I think of Microsoft more and more as the place where interesting software ideas go to die. Mundie is heading into some dangerous (for Microsoft) territory, imho, by speaking on behalf of innovation in the software industry. Some of my own work has found resting places in Microsoft's product line and they don't speak for me on the subject of innovation in software. Shall we start a list of software ideas that went nowhere after Microsoft wiped out its competitors? Or a list of features they copied that were invented by others? It wouldn't be a pretty picture. Now you can say they won the categories fair and square, and in the early days, the 80s, I would concede that, but not necessarily agree. Novell, Apple, IBM, Lotus, WordPerfect, all failed in competition with Microsoft, and I think they all contributed substantially to their own downfall, so let's assume the competition was fair. Until Microsoft claims they invented LAN networking, easy to use graphic interfaces, desktop computers, spreadsheets and word processors, I have nothing to object to. But when they start speaking on behalf of the innovators they crushed and consumed, and the ideas that died at Microsoft, then I start having a problem. I'm still waiting for both sides, the open source leaders, and Microsoft, to start talking about a world bigger than themselves and each other. This is the way Microsoft keeps its dominance, btw, by focusing at least half the conversation on themselves. The open source leaders are just the latest foil for them. It's an old formula. Ask Mitch Kapor, Craig Burton, Jim Cannavino, John Sculley, and Pete Peterson. At one time or another each of these people were on the "other side" of Microsoft. It must be fun for Linus et al to be so important, but it's not Zen-like for them to own the conversation, and definitely not smart. Reading their manifesto, I think how naive they are about Microsoft, and wonder if they, like Marc Andreessen and Jim Barksdale, are getting bad advice. Now, in case they're looking for some good advice, here are themes that work in competition with the Microsoft of 2001. 1. Freedom for developers. 2. Inclusiveness. 3. Choice for users. It's pretty clear that Microsoft wants to create a new lock-in for developers and users. Not saying they're doing anything wrong (maybe they are) but that's not the point. You won't hear them talk about freedom too much in their hype, because it's against their interest. Some freedom is OK, like freedom to chose your programming syntax. But the runtime must be Microsoft's. That's the locked trunk. Some of us won't go in, but they're betting that most will. So if we offer complete freedom for developers, then we've got a big feature advantage. (BTW, a lot of developers want this, that's why WORA was a popular idea.) #2 fixes a bug, it's the way Microsoft will win this conversation if you guys don't lighten up on the exclusivity in your pitch. They've embraced the popular open source scripting languages. They all run in the CLR and are supported in their development environment. So you must counter that by working deals with other commercial developers. It's time to partner, or become as irrelevant as the previous partisans that Microsoft has nuked. This means acknowledge the contributions of non-Microsoft non-open source developers, and stop lying about who invented the Net. The Net is the amalgam of everything that came before it. We're using all our knowledge to build it out. We've been having this stupid discussion for years. Yes Unix runs the servers but not all of them, and most ot the desktops and workstations are Windows and Mac. You use a Mac yourself. Not much open source there. Windows and Mac were designed by people who learned how to program on Unix. There's no line where you imagine one. Even Eric Raymond noticed how Unixy my software is. Where do you think I learned that stuff. On Unix dammit. But I make Windows and Mac software now. (And Unix too halleluljah, praise Murphy.) BTW, the one guy who (apparently) gets all this is Miguel de Icaza. Do you understand why he's on the Dot-Net mail list that Developmentor operates? He's cloning them. (Or at least that's what he says.) I like this a lot. I hope he does a good job.  This may be why Microsoft is freaking out. (That and the other obvious thing -- IBM is out selling against them with open source stuff, they must be making some headway.) I think, honestly Doc, we're hearing from the usual suspects, and they are not being very smart about this. You have to be smart to win here. Just as Andreessen should have acted in the interest of all non-Microsoft developers, it's time for Linus et al to wake up and see that they have friends outside their little community and stop spinning so negative on us as they take their shots at Microsoft. They're taking the bait. It's stupid!! At least maybe I get an I-told-you-so by now on Netscape and their bluster re Microsoft. What do you say Doc?
There are responses to this message:
|
