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

[Gene Gaines]

John,

Thank you! Your inline comments below are excellent, and
I recommend a thorough read to all.

I'll excerpt a few lines from below to whet appetites:

> [Microsoft] became cancerous somewhere in the late DOS/early Windows stage,
> and appears to be insatiably consuming or killing the healthy parts of the
> industry around about it.

May I forward your comments to several other lists?  I could:
  (1) send intact with your name and email address,
  (2) leave your name but remove your email address,
  (3) remove both your name and email address, or
  (4) don't forward at all.

Gene
gene.gaines@gainesgroup.com

On Thursday, August 19, 2004, 8:45:34 AM, John wrote:

> On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 05:30:14 -0400, Gene Gaines quoted David Kearns:

> Some good points here Gene, but as a CA may I comment on these, please:

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

> This I call the "treadmill" argument: "We gotta stay on the treadmill 'cos
> we'll lose (or bust) too much trying to jump off!"

> The argument should not be allowed to hold water. If a project was worth
> doing in the first place, then it should retain it's value regardless of what
> later "progress" MS or other tools suppliers make - or /appear to make/ <g>.

> The key point is the "IF..." at the beginning. Some projects are survival
> jobs - if you don't do them you fall behind the competition. Can anyone
> imagine not doing business by phone? But once there were no phones, and
> someone had to decide to spend money on the new-fangled Bell technology
> ("but, what about our written contracts? Can we push them in through the
> mouthpiece thingy here? Maybe we don't need the Postal Service." <g>).

> Some projects are ego jobs - they should NEVER be started, but hey that's
> human nature. They are suckers for the treadmill argument, unfortunately
> because ego loves the geekiness of the latest available technology.

> In between are projects with a positive ROI, or fast payback or a more
> efficient way of doing things etc. No doubt the various justification/s for
> commencing a computer software project can be heard in our minds. But recall
> that often they will be justified on the basis of tools, resources, in-place
> systems etc. *as seen today* - not as expected from MS or a tools supplier in
> 12 months. So if they pass muster as of today, they are still worth doing,
> and then who cares about the treadmill argument?

> Other projects may be apparently justified on the basis of something due for
> release in the next year. But businesses who live on that kind of bleeding
> edge are always at risk of losing an arm or a leg. 'Nuff said?

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

> This argument is the "industry treadmill" as opposed to the "customer base
> treadmill" argument I outlined above. The industry is badly addicted to high
> growth rates and huge cash flow surpluses.

> Some computer businesses only discovered their addiction when the market
> shifted, took the cash away and left them to cope 'cold turkey'. Even IBM had
> to go through a painful methodone treatment. 

> Microsoft has been *the* unique business in this crazy industry. I would say
> it is self-consciously aware of its addiction and persists as a matter of
> choice. To that extent it and its executives are knowingly morally culpable,
> regardless of the putative quality of its products or the demand for them in
> the community.

> It therefore became cancerous somewhere in the late DOS/early Windows stage,
> and appears to be insatiably consuming or killing the healthy parts of the
> industry around about it.
  
>>Would that be enough for us? Would we be happy? Would we jump 
>>for joy and dance in the street? In the eloquent words of one 
>>reader:
>>
>>"While I might smile quietly to myself and give Microsoft a 
>>gentle golf-clap for taking a step back and fixing their stuff
>>before they flood us with new brokenware, you won't see me leap
>>up in any sort of a school-girl rush of passionate cheering for
>>the Beast of Redmond if it simply chooses to do the right 
>>thing."
>>
>>There's an image to conjure with.

> You bet. But I am not holding my breath waiting for it.

> It remains for those capable of harnessing the external forces of change to
> come to grips with the serious nature of the MS disease, and begin radiation
> therapy.

> Some of that is happening - Newham Council in the UK f'rinstance experimented
> with Open Source alternatives to MS. For the Council it was always a Win-Win
> experiment: either (1) they found enough OSS at a sufficiently attractive TCO
> to make the change away from MS, or (2) MS was going to cut their prices to
> meet the threat. So far (2) is the outcome, and MS cash flow is crimped.

> The next iteration may be better prepared to fend off a tainted analysis by
> MS-selected consultants, and actually choose the OSS alternative
> (Burgermeisters of Munich, maybe). 

> Let constructive debate be joined!


> Best regards
> John Angelico
> OS/2 SIG
> os2@melbpc.org.au or 
> talldad@kepl.com.au
> ___________________

> PMTagline v1.50 - Copyright, 1996-1997, Stephen Berg and John Angelico
> ... Yes, I know I'm weird, but around here it's hardly noticeable.
> _______________________________________________
> Am-info mailing list
> Am-info@lists.essential.org
> http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/am-info


--