Comments on: Inside the Windows Bureaucracy http://techliberation.com/2006/12/04/inside-the-windows-bureaucracy/ Keeping politicians' hands off the Net & everything else related to technology Fri, 25 May 2012 18:27:01 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Noel Le http://techliberation.com/2006/12/04/inside-the-windows-bureaucracy/comment-page-1/#comment-36256 Noel Le Tue, 05 Dec 2006 21:09:56 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2006/12/04/inside-the-windows-bureaucracy/#comment-36256 <p>Anyways, Tim, you should consider not only "efficiency" but magnitude of profits. Sure, FOSS products need to recoup less to pull a profit, but that says nothing. Further, decentralization is a bit vague. Microsoft involves subsidiaries around the world in developing Windows, and contracts with many third party developers. Would you call that decentralized. Also, Microsoft, like any business, works on many projects concurrently. If a project intended for Windows is cut from the final release, Microsoft will recycle that work for the next version or for another product. Finally, every fiscal year business execs go through a round of slash/burn- cutting off unnecessary ops costs and overhead. If you think Microsoft is not efficient or non-evolving, then why isn't Linux the leading OS despite being around just as long as Windows.</p> <p>I'm not predicting what OS will be dominent in a couple years, but based on your post Tim, you provide little argument to any such prediction.</p> <p>On the other hand, I could care less what OS wins. Whoever charges me less (including service fees:) for a better product is who I'll go to.</p> Anyways, Tim, you should consider not only “efficiency” but magnitude of profits. Sure, FOSS products need to recoup less to pull a profit, but that says nothing. Further, decentralization is a bit vague. Microsoft involves subsidiaries around the world in developing Windows, and contracts with many third party developers. Would you call that decentralized. Also, Microsoft, like any business, works on many projects concurrently. If a project intended for Windows is cut from the final release, Microsoft will recycle that work for the next version or for another product. Finally, every fiscal year business execs go through a round of slash/burn- cutting off unnecessary ops costs and overhead. If you think Microsoft is not efficient or non-evolving, then why isn’t Linux the leading OS despite being around just as long as Windows.

I’m not predicting what OS will be dominent in a couple years, but based on your post Tim, you provide little argument to any such prediction.

On the other hand, I could care less what OS wins. Whoever charges me less (including service fees:) for a better product is who I’ll go to.

]]> By: Noel Le http://techliberation.com/2006/12/04/inside-the-windows-bureaucracy/comment-page-1/#comment-50005 Noel Le Tue, 05 Dec 2006 21:09:56 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2006/12/04/inside-the-windows-bureaucracy/#comment-50005 <p>Anyways, Tim, you should consider not only "efficiency" but magnitude of profits. Sure, FOSS products need to recoup less to pull a profit, but that says nothing. Further, decentralization is a bit vague. Microsoft involves subsidiaries around the world in developing Windows, and contracts with many third party developers. Would you call that decentralized. Also, Microsoft, like any business, works on many projects concurrently. If a project intended for Windows is cut from the final release, Microsoft will recycle that work for the next version or for another product. Finally, every fiscal year business execs go through a round of slash/burn- cutting off unnecessary ops costs and overhead. If you think Microsoft is not efficient or non-evolving, then why isn't Linux the leading OS despite being around just as long as Windows.<br><br>I'm not predicting what OS will be dominent in a couple years, but based on your post Tim, you provide little argument to any such prediction.<br><br>On the other hand, I could care less what OS wins. Whoever charges me less (including service fees:) for a better product is who I'll go to.</p> Anyways, Tim, you should consider not only “efficiency” but magnitude of profits. Sure, FOSS products need to recoup less to pull a profit, but that says nothing. Further, decentralization is a bit vague. Microsoft involves subsidiaries around the world in developing Windows, and contracts with many third party developers. Would you call that decentralized. Also, Microsoft, like any business, works on many projects concurrently. If a project intended for Windows is cut from the final release, Microsoft will recycle that work for the next version or for another product. Finally, every fiscal year business execs go through a round of slash/burn- cutting off unnecessary ops costs and overhead. If you think Microsoft is not efficient or non-evolving, then why isn’t Linux the leading OS despite being around just as long as Windows.

I’m not predicting what OS will be dominent in a couple years, but based on your post Tim, you provide little argument to any such prediction.

On the other hand, I could care less what OS wins. Whoever charges me less (including service fees:) for a better product is who I’ll go to.

]]> By: chuck http://techliberation.com/2006/12/04/inside-the-windows-bureaucracy/comment-page-1/#comment-36255 chuck Tue, 05 Dec 2006 19:46:01 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2006/12/04/inside-the-windows-bureaucracy/#comment-36255 <p>microsoft-bashing, here as well. this is just the last straw. fuck you, i'm done reading this crap.</p> microsoft-bashing, here as well. this is just the last straw. fuck you, i’m done reading this crap.

]]> By: chuck http://techliberation.com/2006/12/04/inside-the-windows-bureaucracy/comment-page-1/#comment-50004 chuck Tue, 05 Dec 2006 19:46:01 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2006/12/04/inside-the-windows-bureaucracy/#comment-50004 <p>microsoft-bashing, here as well. this is just the last straw. fuck you, i'm done reading this crap.</p> microsoft-bashing, here as well. this is just the last straw. fuck you, i’m done reading this crap.

]]> By: Tim Lee http://techliberation.com/2006/12/04/inside-the-windows-bureaucracy/comment-page-1/#comment-36254 Tim Lee Tue, 05 Dec 2006 12:27:49 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2006/12/04/inside-the-windows-bureaucracy/#comment-36254 <p>David: As you say, Mac OS X is increasingly built on open source software. The reason that Apple can produce such a cutting-edge operating system at a far lower cost and with faster turnaround time is that they don't try to build it from the ground up: they take open source software other people have developed and add a thin layer of proprietary eye candy on top. In this sense, Apple is a middle case between the extremes of Microsoft (which tries to build a proprietary OS from the ground up) and Ubuntu (which tries to build the entire OS in an open manner. And not surprisingly, their costs are in between: far more than Ubuntu, but far less than Windows.</p> <p>Mike: That's precisely my point. Developing Ubuntu was cheap precisely because the Ubuntu team was able to piggy-back on other peoples' work.</p> David: As you say, Mac OS X is increasingly built on open source software. The reason that Apple can produce such a cutting-edge operating system at a far lower cost and with faster turnaround time is that they don’t try to build it from the ground up: they take open source software other people have developed and add a thin layer of proprietary eye candy on top. In this sense, Apple is a middle case between the extremes of Microsoft (which tries to build a proprietary OS from the ground up) and Ubuntu (which tries to build the entire OS in an open manner. And not surprisingly, their costs are in between: far more than Ubuntu, but far less than Windows.

Mike: That’s precisely my point. Developing Ubuntu was cheap precisely because the Ubuntu team was able to piggy-back on other peoples’ work.

]]> By: Tim Lee http://techliberation.com/2006/12/04/inside-the-windows-bureaucracy/comment-page-1/#comment-50003 Tim Lee Tue, 05 Dec 2006 12:27:49 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2006/12/04/inside-the-windows-bureaucracy/#comment-50003 <p>David: As you say, Mac OS X is increasingly built on open source software. The reason that Apple can produce such a cutting-edge operating system at a far lower cost and with faster turnaround time is that they don't try to build it from the ground up: they take open source software other people have developed and add a thin layer of proprietary eye candy on top. In this sense, Apple is a middle case between the extremes of Microsoft (which tries to build a proprietary OS from the ground up) and Ubuntu (which tries to build the entire OS in an open manner. And not surprisingly, their costs are in between: far more than Ubuntu, but far less than Windows.<br><br>Mike: That's precisely my point. Developing Ubuntu was cheap precisely because the Ubuntu team was able to piggy-back on other peoples' work.</p> David: As you say, Mac OS X is increasingly built on open source software. The reason that Apple can produce such a cutting-edge operating system at a far lower cost and with faster turnaround time is that they don’t try to build it from the ground up: they take open source software other people have developed and add a thin layer of proprietary eye candy on top. In this sense, Apple is a middle case between the extremes of Microsoft (which tries to build a proprietary OS from the ground up) and Ubuntu (which tries to build the entire OS in an open manner. And not surprisingly, their costs are in between: far more than Ubuntu, but far less than Windows.

Mike: That’s precisely my point. Developing Ubuntu was cheap precisely because the Ubuntu team was able to piggy-back on other peoples’ work.

]]> By: MikeT http://techliberation.com/2006/12/04/inside-the-windows-bureaucracy/comment-page-1/#comment-36253 MikeT Tue, 05 Dec 2006 12:16:57 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2006/12/04/inside-the-windows-bureaucracy/#comment-36253 <p>As I have pointed out in the past, the estimates on how much it would cost to reproduce Debian, Ubuntu's foundation, are conservatively at $1.9B. $10m is for the Ubuntu-specific changes which are nowhere near as extreme as the process of actually writing all of that software. Ubuntu is to the projects that built up Debian what a shoe-shiner is to a shoe-maker.</p> As I have pointed out in the past, the estimates on how much it would cost to reproduce Debian, Ubuntu’s foundation, are conservatively at $1.9B. $10m is for the Ubuntu-specific changes which are nowhere near as extreme as the process of actually writing all of that software. Ubuntu is to the projects that built up Debian what a shoe-shiner is to a shoe-maker.

]]> By: MikeT http://techliberation.com/2006/12/04/inside-the-windows-bureaucracy/comment-page-1/#comment-50002 MikeT Tue, 05 Dec 2006 12:16:57 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2006/12/04/inside-the-windows-bureaucracy/#comment-50002 <p>As I have pointed out in the past, the estimates on how much it would cost to reproduce Debian, Ubuntu's foundation, are conservatively at $1.9B. $10m is for the Ubuntu-specific changes which are nowhere near as extreme as the process of actually writing all of that software. Ubuntu is to the projects that built up Debian what a shoe-shiner is to a shoe-maker.</p> As I have pointed out in the past, the estimates on how much it would cost to reproduce Debian, Ubuntu’s foundation, are conservatively at $1.9B. $10m is for the Ubuntu-specific changes which are nowhere near as extreme as the process of actually writing all of that software. Ubuntu is to the projects that built up Debian what a shoe-shiner is to a shoe-maker.

]]> By: David McElroy http://techliberation.com/2006/12/04/inside-the-windows-bureaucracy/comment-page-1/#comment-36252 David McElroy Tue, 05 Dec 2006 04:38:28 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2006/12/04/inside-the-windows-bureaucracy/#comment-36252 <p>While I'm certainly not a believer in central planning from governments, I'm not sure this example proves your point. Apple spends far less money than Microsoft in its development of Mac OS X, but it produces an OS that is ahead of MS in many, many ways. You could say that Apple is building on the base of BSD and Mach, but so is Ubuntu, so the point would be moot in the comparison. Apple is very, very focused on building products which satisfy one "customer" at the top -- Steve Jobs.</p> <p>Yes, modern operating systems are complex, but they CAN be built well in a top-down fashion. In fact, I'd say that the single, unified vision for what the end result should be is one of the things that makes Mac OS X an excellent operating system.</p> <p>MS's problems in developing Longhorn/Vista seem to have more to do with a culture that has become choked on success. Its developers tried to please too many people (internally and externally), and nobody seems to have been able to say, "No, THIS is how we're going to do it." The only reason they seem to finally be getting it out the door is that the final reorg put the power into the hands of someone who COULD make those calls.</p> While I’m certainly not a believer in central planning from governments, I’m not sure this example proves your point. Apple spends far less money than Microsoft in its development of Mac OS X, but it produces an OS that is ahead of MS in many, many ways. You could say that Apple is building on the base of BSD and Mach, but so is Ubuntu, so the point would be moot in the comparison. Apple is very, very focused on building products which satisfy one “customer” at the top — Steve Jobs.

Yes, modern operating systems are complex, but they CAN be built well in a top-down fashion. In fact, I’d say that the single, unified vision for what the end result should be is one of the things that makes Mac OS X an excellent operating system.

MS’s problems in developing Longhorn/Vista seem to have more to do with a culture that has become choked on success. Its developers tried to please too many people (internally and externally), and nobody seems to have been able to say, “No, THIS is how we’re going to do it.” The only reason they seem to finally be getting it out the door is that the final reorg put the power into the hands of someone who COULD make those calls.

]]> By: David McElroy http://techliberation.com/2006/12/04/inside-the-windows-bureaucracy/comment-page-1/#comment-50001 David McElroy Tue, 05 Dec 2006 04:38:28 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2006/12/04/inside-the-windows-bureaucracy/#comment-50001 <p>While I'm certainly not a believer in central planning from governments, I'm not sure this example proves your point. Apple spends far less money than Microsoft in its development of Mac OS X, but it produces an OS that is ahead of MS in many, many ways. You could say that Apple is building on the base of BSD and Mach, but so is Ubuntu, so the point would be moot in the comparison. Apple is very, very focused on building products which satisfy one "customer" at the top -- Steve Jobs.<br><br>Yes, modern operating systems are complex, but they CAN be built well in a top-down fashion. In fact, I'd say that the single, unified vision for what the end result should be is one of the things that makes Mac OS X an excellent operating system.<br><br>MS's problems in developing Longhorn/Vista seem to have more to do with a culture that has become choked on success. Its developers tried to please too many people (internally and externally), and nobody seems to have been able to say, "No, THIS is how we're going to do it." The only reason they seem to finally be getting it out the door is that the final reorg put the power into the hands of someone who COULD make those calls.</p> While I’m certainly not a believer in central planning from governments, I’m not sure this example proves your point. Apple spends far less money than Microsoft in its development of Mac OS X, but it produces an OS that is ahead of MS in many, many ways. You could say that Apple is building on the base of BSD and Mach, but so is Ubuntu, so the point would be moot in the comparison. Apple is very, very focused on building products which satisfy one “customer” at the top — Steve Jobs.

Yes, modern operating systems are complex, but they CAN be built well in a top-down fashion. In fact, I’d say that the single, unified vision for what the end result should be is one of the things that makes Mac OS X an excellent operating system.

MS’s problems in developing Longhorn/Vista seem to have more to do with a culture that has become choked on success. Its developers tried to please too many people (internally and externally), and nobody seems to have been able to say, “No, THIS is how we’re going to do it.” The only reason they seem to finally be getting it out the door is that the final reorg put the power into the hands of someone who COULD make those calls.

]]> By: Mike Linksvayer http://techliberation.com/2006/12/04/inside-the-windows-bureaucracy/comment-page-1/#comment-36251 Mike Linksvayer Tue, 05 Dec 2006 03:04:26 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2006/12/04/inside-the-windows-bureaucracy/#comment-36251 <p><em>Vista ... supports a wider range of hardware</em></p> <p>You mean 2006 vintage x86 hardware.</p> <p>Not that it changes your point, which I wholly agree with.</p> Vista … supports a wider range of hardware

You mean 2006 vintage x86 hardware.

Not that it changes your point, which I wholly agree with.

]]> By: Mike Linksvayer http://techliberation.com/2006/12/04/inside-the-windows-bureaucracy/comment-page-1/#comment-50000 Mike Linksvayer Tue, 05 Dec 2006 03:04:26 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2006/12/04/inside-the-windows-bureaucracy/#comment-50000 <p><em>Vista ... supports a wider range of hardware</em><br><br>You mean 2006 vintage x86 hardware.<br><br>Not that it changes your point, which I wholly agree with.</p> Vista … supports a wider range of hardware

You mean 2006 vintage x86 hardware.

Not that it changes your point, which I wholly agree with.

]]>