[Am-info] NW Mailbag: Most readers agree that Microsoft should halt development for a while

[Gene Gaines]

From=20a Network World newsletter, below.

Gene Gaines
gene.gaines@gainesgroup.com
Sterling, Virginia


NETWORK WORLD NEWSLETTER: DAVE KEARNS ON WINDOWS NETWORKING TIPS
08/18/04
Today's focus:  Mailbag: Most readers agree that Microsoft=20
should halt development for a while

By Dave Kearns
...

There was an overwhelming outpouring of response to last week's=20
"Do we really need that much new software from Microsoft?"=20
newsletter (see link below). While some of you thought it was a=20
bit anti-Microsoft (e.g., "I think you're blowing your=20
anti-Microsoft rhetoric way out of proportion here...") most of=20
the correspondence came down heavily on the side of fixing -=20
once and for all - the existing services, applications and=20
operating systems. I'll get to some of those comments in a=20
moment, but one thing I mentioned in passing did draw some=20
thoughtful response.

I used the prediction (by Bill Gates) that Microsoft would apply=20
for 3,000 patents in fiscal year 2005 as an indication that new=20
development was out of control. But as more than one thoughtful=20
reader pointed out, this is just one more indication that the=20
patent system is broken, not that Microsoft's development is=20
running amok.=20

In today's climate of "patent it, then sue," Microsoft may=20
simply be trying to protect the functions and methods that have=20
been in use for a while. It's fallout, and an obvious one at=20
that, from the ridiculous verdict in the Eolas lawsuit against=20
Microsoft (see "Beware the patent office"=20
<http://www.nwfusion.com/columnists/2003/0825kearns.html> ).

Redmond knows that unless it locks down a patent on everything=20
it does, some other bozo will - and then use it to sue=20
Microsoft, and will most likely win. While it's to be hoped that=20
the Eolas decision is overturned on appeal, Microsoft probably=20
feels it's better to not have to rely on the whim of a judge.

As I said, most respondents agreed that they'd like to see a=20
break in development, if only so that they can catch up. As one=20
person put it:=20
"The truth is that by the time we get an installation completed,=20
build supporting programming to customize things for our=20
environment, and generally get things operable to the point=20
where we actually benefit from the software, Microsoft has moved=20
to the next {Operating System, Office System, Programming=20
System, etc.} and made our investment (that we never profited=20
from) obsolete."

A number of you recommended that Microsoft (and other software=20
vendors) take time off to thoroughly rewrite its code to ensure=20
it is both secure and bug free. That could be a problem, though,=20
for the vendor's sales and marketing people and for its channel=20
partners who would have nothing to do. Still, Microsoft (and=20
Novell and IBM and others) do have deep pockets and could afford=20
to forego some revenue while they got the products right.

Would that be enough for us? Would we be happy? Would we jump=20
for joy and dance in the street? In the eloquent words of one=20
reader:

"While I might smile quietly to myself and give Microsoft a=20
gentle golf-clap for taking a step back and fixing their stuff=20
before they flood us with new brokenware, you won't see me leap=20
up in any sort of a school-girl rush of passionate cheering for=20
the Beast of Redmond if it simply chooses to do the right=20
thing."

There's an image to conjure with.