[Am-info] Different Views Of Microsoft

[Fred A. Miller]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Different Views Of Microsoft

Just how good--or bad--is the quality of Microsoft's software?=20
It's a tricky question if you're a Microsoft executive with=20
responsibility for developing or selling products. On the one=20
hand, you want customers to have confidence in your operating=20
systems, databases, and applications. On the other, you want them=20
to know you're fully committed to improvement. That dilemma is=20
resulting in some mixed messages at the highest levels.

Bill Gates, Microsoft's chairman and chief software architect,=20
brought attention to the subject in January with his memo on=20
trustworthy computing, which was ostensibly intended only for=20
Microsoft's employees but quickly made its way into the=20
mainstream. "As an industry leader, we can and must do better,"=20
Gates wrote at the time (see "Software's Challenge," Jan. 21, p.=20
22;=20
http://www.informationweek.com/872/bugs.htm ). All of a sudden,=20
Microsoft's software was in a glass house, though not the kind of=20
glass house (the corporate data center) the company has been=20
aiming for with its DataCenter Server. Many of us on the outside=20
are now looking in, our noses pressed against the, well, windows.

What do we see? Certainly, there's a greater sense of awareness=20
of the issues related to software reliability on the Microsoft=20
campus, with many of the company's developers being trained to=20
write better, more secure software. It's safe to assume that this=20
all-hands-on-deck approach will be reflected in a positive way in=20
products that are in the development pipeline, to be delivered in=20
the months and years ahead.

At the same time the company is going through this cathartic=20
process, however, there's a defensiveness that could undermine=20
the well-meaning and praiseworthy goal of establishing greater=20
trust in its products among customers. Over the past few weeks,=20
InformationWeek editors have talked to several top Microsoft=20
officials--Gates earlier this month; group VP Jim Allchin and=20
senior VP Paul Flessner in March--and they not only defend the=20
quality of Microsoft's software but even blamed others for some=20
of their problems.=20

Here's Flessner on Gates' trustworthy computing memo: "I was glad=20
to see Bill capture what we've been doing for a long time. We're=20
doing a huge amount of work, I think ground-breaking work, in=20
software quality."

And Allchin: "I wouldn't say that we're any better or any worse=20
than anyone else. I think it's a disservice to point fingers at=20
us. ... I do believe that systems have worked just fine if=20
they've not been under malicious attack. Malicious attacks don't=20
have anything to do with quality, per se."

Gates: "We're more of a testing, a quality software organization=20
than we're a software organization. ... We love to have people=20
compare our quality to other people's quality. We will win in=20
that any day."

Gates blamed many of the problems familiar to customers on a=20
variety of other things: device drivers, the failure of customers=20
to download updates and patches, and opening E-mail attachments=20
when users have been warned against it.=20

So, there's the rub. Microsoft execs agree that developing clean,=20
bulletproof software is their top priority, but they find it hard=20
to admit, or simply don't believe, that poor programming=20
practices or past mistakes on their part are to blame for the=20
hacks, crashes, and glitches that resulted in a perception of=20
buggy software among customers. But they understand that=20
perception is reality, which explains the urgent effort to get=20
things right.=20

There's a vast gray area in the concept of trustworthy computing,=20
a fact not lost on Gates. When we asked him to rate Microsoft's=20
software on a scale of 1 to 10, Gates gave Microsoft a 9--but=20
acknowledged from the customer's point of view, it's probably a=20
1. That's quite a gap to span, regardless of who's to blame.=20

In a survey by InformationWeek Research on software quality=20
featured in this issue, Microsoft scored last among 16 software=20
companies in customer satisfaction=20
(http://update.informationweek.com/cgi-bin4/flo?y=3DeHPC0Bce7K0V10Bc6e0AH=
=20
). That=20
raises the question: Are Microsoft's practices--past and=20
present--really as good as their veteran managers think? If not,=20
trustworthy computing risks becoming an oxymoron. - John Foley is=20
editor/print of InformationWeek. E-mail him at jpfoley@cmp.com.=20
You can join in on the discussion about this column at:
http://update.informationweek.com/cgi-bin4/flo?y=3DeHPC0Bce7K0V10OT60AY

- --=20
Fred A. Miller
Systems Administrator
Cornell Univ. Press Services
fm@cupserv.org, www.cupserv.org
- --- SuSE Linux v8.0 Pro---
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org

iEYEARECAAYFAjzqqc0ACgkQB9vk4ichYXdkDgCguGgP700qW09xwCPVT1XExjro
p0MAoJzYt3H3vUE3cQklu0jK79ZTMD4J
=3DLBtC
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----