Microsoft: All XML, all the time (News.com)

Posted Sep 12, 2002 23:23 UTC (Thu) by xorbe (subscriber, #3165) [Link]

"It's very hard to innovate when you're in a decentralized mode."

Sounds like NHI syndrome.

Posted Sep 12, 2002 23:46 UTC (Thu) by crispin (guest, #2073) [Link]

"It's very hard to innovate when you're in a decentralized mode."

On the other hand, it is relatively easy for Microsoft to 'innovate' when they remain willfully ignorant of the literature, and re-invent things like symbolic links http://www.langston.com/Fun_People/2000/2000AGA.html or when Microsoft 'independently innovated' StackGuard http://online.securityfocus.com/archive/1/256416/2002-07-28/2002-08-03/0

Crispin
----
Crispin Cowan, Ph.D.
Chief Scientist, WireX http://wirex.com/~crispin/
Security Hardened Linux Distribution: http://immunix.org
Available for purchase: http://wirex.com/Products/Immunix/purchase.html

Posted Sep 12, 2002 23:58 UTC (Thu) by warthawg (guest, #3055) [Link]

Hard to innovate when you're decentralized?

Then what excuse does MS have for the fact that they are the least innovative force in the industry?

See ya,
Joe Barr

Posted Sep 12, 2002 23:59 UTC (Thu) by faramir (subscriber, #2327) [Link]

This story is also running on linuxtoday.com where the juxtaposition
with a story of the Sun/GNOME user accessibility project is hilarious.
In Allchin's comments, he says that in Open Source's distributed development
environment it's hard to innovate. He's gives, as an example, the
problems that would result if one tried to add handwriting recognition
to a system because the changes would be pervasive. It seems that
Sun, the GNOME community, and others are receiving the Hellen Keller
award for their efforts to provide new input/outut methods to make their
software more usable by the blind or those with physical disabilities.
Although not handwriting recognition, I think that this qualifies
as an innovation with equally pervasive effects on the entire system.
The American Foundation for the Blind considers this an example for
the entire computing industry.

Posted Sep 13, 2002 1:17 UTC (Fri) by HalfMoon (guest, #3211) [Link]

Poppycock.

Innovation is much easier that way ... it's only control of the innovation that's harder. If you're not obsessed with that control (maybe to tilt playing fields in your favor) what's the worry?

Just look at what he's calling innovation there. Stuff like UDDI and SOAP ... old hat, just translated into XML. Or "Integrating handwriting recognition into the whole system" ... implying that doing it "right now" is more important to customers than something else like security or bugfixes.

That's not so much innovation as what we used to call Big Science. Massive funding to create showy results, but you should avoid discussing how much value it's really providing. Because you'll very likely find that your priorities differ strongly with whoever's doing the funding ... and they won't like the valuation you've put on their work.

Posted Sep 13, 2002 7:23 UTC (Fri) by tawtao (guest, #3187) [Link]

Let them believe that they have a good
model of innovation, say "centralizing."
It does help M$ to increase their
innovation, doesn't it?

Posted Sep 13, 2002 16:01 UTC (Fri) by ajcamp (guest, #3244) [Link]

HA! What a joke!!!!

MS has Innovation!!! Wow. What drugs are they on.

I recently read that more than 50% (correct me on this if I'm wrong)
of Microsoft installed users were still using WIN98, and Microsoft Office 97! Now if that's not a slap in the face of their innovative prowess, nothing is. Let me get this straight - in the last 5 years the sum total of M$ innovation has left more than 50% of their customer base behind?

Gates! Wake up and smell your ignorance.

So to correct this uhegm "cash flow problem" of not being able to pawn off their latest OS scams on their customer base (See my posting about Toshiba Laptops) they invent the Software Assurance Plan (for SAPS) to muscle their way into their customer's pockets. Now I will admit that their SAP plan is real INNOVATION.

Long Live Linus Torvalds and OpenSource.

Posted Sep 13, 2002 17:15 UTC (Fri) by jvotaw (subscriber, #3678) [Link]

Microsoft claims it is inventing truly new and revolutionary technology. Let us deconstruct what Microsoft does so that we can understand what they mean by "innovation". Microsoft:

1. Writes software that fills users' needs, even if the users do not yet know those needs themselves. (Open-source development sees this problem from another angle: the users are the developers.)

2. Makes computers easy to use, which requires making applications both easy to use and interoperate with one another. (Note that this does not mean that all applications must come from the same vendor: good human-interface guidelines address usability, and open standards address interoperability.)

3. Incrementally improves existing concepts and implementations. For example, they integrated their file manager and their Web browser, but invented neither. We all stand on the shoulders of giants.

4. Finds (and creates) markets for its software, and sells as much of its software as it can.

In short, Microsoft does what all software development companies do. It is more financially successful than other companies, but not fundamentally different.

Allchin's best quote in this interview is: "Look at the Linux kernel. Do you think there's a lot of innovation there? It's not that they're not great developers--they are. I have great respect for them, but I think it's hard, because of the model, to do. They can do innovation--great innovation--in small pockets."

Is the Linux kernel innovative as a whole? Not very, if we use a standard definition for "innovative" (after all, Mozilla has not yet been integrated into it). However, the Linux kernel is innovative if we use what appears to be Microsoft's definition of the word. The Linux kernel:

1. Fills users needs. It is stable, fast, runs on a lot of hardware, and makes developing software on top of itself easy.

2. Makes computers easy to use by providing a consistent interface for developers on a wide array of platforms and interoperating with a ton of existing systems.

3. Contains many incremental improvements, and some genuinely new ideas, over existing kernels.

4. Is used by many companies in a wide variety of markets, both directly (running RedHat on a server) and indirectly (embedding Linux in an appliance, then selling the appliance).

The core issue seems to be a double standard in Microsoft's definition of "innovative". Allchin lambasts Linux for being merely good engineering, while believing that Microsoft's own software is somehow different.

-Joel