The Microsoft Exec Exodus

June 21, 2006 1 Comment

On a topic I've covered multiple times recently, more execs are stepping down from Microsoft. Both Martin Taylor and Ted Hase are already gone, in fact. From the respective articles:
Microsoft did not give details on why Martin Taylor left the world's biggest software maker after the 13-year company veteran was appointed in March to lead marketing efforts for Windows Live.
“After 16 exciting, interesting years in one place challenging conventional thinking, introducing fresh approaches, creating new businesses opportunities, and managing, leading and being influenced by some of the brightest minds in the industry I've decided that it's time for a change,” Hase said.
As you can see, both have been with the company well over a decade. Both of them seem to have come to recent hasty decisions or were pushed out. Cringely has some interesting ideas on what we'll see in the coming months. I agree with a lot of what he says, and I came to the same conclusion – Ballmer has to go. He takes that assessment further though and says “several dozen of his (Gates) closest and oldest associates” must also leave for this to be done correctly. The “Microsoft Way” must fundamentally shift in a major way, which in essence means a regime change at this point. Shift away from what you ask? I think this recent comment from Bill is telling:
When they invented radial tires, they should have shot the guy,” he said. “The whole industry went through a crisis, because it took nine years to squeeze out the extra factory capacity, because the tires lasted longer.”
That's what Microsoft has thought of innovation recently. Anything that cuts into sales, even if it saves lives is bad. I hope you're no longer wondering why Microsoft doesn't innovate. Whether they can pull a fundamental paradigm change off in a company the size of Microsoft remains to be seen, but a lot of longtime Microsofties will have to go in the process for them to have any change at all. This one could get ugly.
–jeremy
, , ,

Filed under Linux, Main Page, Microsoft, Open Source

Mundie Speaks on OSS

June 19, 2006 Leave a comment

Craig Mundie, who was recently made chief research and strategy officer at Microsoft, was interviewed by eWeek and commented on the GPL. His response to the question about interoperability with Open Source (and specifically the GPL):
I have been one of the principle people architecting the way we are going to step up to this bigger question around interoperability, and that will certainly be a focus of mine going forward, along with Bob Muglia.
Let's not forget though, Mundie in the not too distant past was the Microsoft “anti-open-source poster child“. In fact, the Perens open letter that was signed by everyone from Stallman to O'Reilly, was addressed to Mundie. Has he done a mental 360 or is this just lip service? As I've mentioned in the past, words mean very little at this point and we need to see some action, and some significant action at that. Complying with the EU anti-trust case would be a start, but you don't get many points for simply following the stipulations of a lawsuit. With the history that Microsoft has, the olive branch they need to extend has to be almost tree-sized at this point. Let's stop the words and get to the actions, we're all waiting to see what happens.
–jeremy
, , , , ,

Filed under Linux, Main Page, Microsoft, Open Source

Should Ballmer Leave Microsoft?

June 16, 2006 Leave a comment

It seems that Business 2.0 thinks so. From the article:
Since Gates stepped down as CEO in 2000 in favor of Ballmer, the company has floundered technically and strategically. As the company's chairman, chief software architect and supposed visionary, Gates deserves blame for missing the wave of Web-based software that has propelled Google and Yahoo.
But Ballmer has made gaffes of his own in his longtime role as head of the company's business side. They include an undistinguished push into business applications to compete with Oracle, financial maneuvers that have failed to stir the stock – which has slumped 16 percent so far this year – and continuing antitrust problems in the United States and Europe.
Not a very flattering summation. I asked if Bill and Steve were holding the company back about 18 months ago. So what do I think now? With Bill phasing himself out, the company is at a crossroads. I don't think they can turn the corner with the current CEO in place. He has the old Microsoft too ingrained in him and I don't think he'll allow the company to grow in the directions it needs to in order to turn itself around. I think it's clear at this point that he probably should step down in the next two years, but somehow I don't think the hubris will let him. I'd guess he sincerely thinks he can turn things around. Whether that will change as the two years wear on remains to be seen.
The question that arises from there is, if he does step down who will take his place. The odds are on one of the two Kevin's. Kevin Turner, the COO, seems like the most favored at this point. The fact that an ex Walmart exec may become the CEO of Microsoft is absolutely stunning to me. From the reports I've read of the moves he's made since coming aboard, this one seems like a bad choice to me. They already have morale problems and he just seem to be exacerbating them. I don't know enough about the situation to know why he's the favorite, but on the surface it doesn't make sense on a couple levels. Kevin Johnson, co-president of Microsoft's Platform and Services division, is a long time Microsoftie (which at this point I don't know if that's for or against him) and seems like a better fit. With Ozzie and Mundie filling Bill's shoes, the short list seems to end there. Dare they go outside the company for a replacement? I doubt it, but then again I guess it depends on just how long Ballmer stays.
–jeremy
, ,

Filed under Main Page, Microsoft

Bill Gates to Step Down from Microsoft

June 16, 2006 1 Comment

And I thought Scoble leaving was big news. That was until Microsoft announced plans for a July 2008 Transition for Bill Gates. From the press release:
The company announced that Chief Technical Officer Ray Ozzie will immediately assume the title of chief software architect and begin working side by side with Gates on all technical architecture and product oversight responsibilities, to ensure a smooth transition. Similarly, Chief Technical Officer Craig Mundie will immediately take the new title of chief research and strategy officer and will work closely with Gates to assume his responsibility for the company’s research and incubation efforts; Mundie also will partner with general counsel Brad Smith to guide Microsoft’s intellectual property and technology policy efforts.
This will certainly begin to usher in a new era for Microsoft. One they sorely need at this point. Ozzie has a different outlook on things than others in the past have and I think with his promotion we'll see an even bigger focus on services. Bill really stepped down at an opportune time. The stock is sagging, the Vista debacle is raging, competition is heating up. You have to give him credit for putting in the time that he does for as long as he has. He seems to be taking the path of the barons of yesteryear who in increasing years turned into benefactors of humanity in order to ensure their legacy. This brings up one thing that I don't often see talked about though. The Gates foundation really does do more good things than they get credit for. You may not agree with how Bill got his money, but what the Gates foundation does is extremely commendable and should be applauded. I think I speak on behalf of everyone in wishing Mr. Gates the best in his future endeavors.
–jeremy
, ,

Filed under Main Page, Microsoft, Open Source

Can Windows and Open Source Learn to Play Nice?

June 15, 2006 Leave a comment

Bob Muglia, the senior vice president of Microsoft's server and tools business, talked about just that question with eWeek at the recent TechEd conference (where I am told there was at least one LQ shirt on the floor ;) One quote that stuck out to me was:
A commercial company has to build intellectual property, while the GPL, by its very nature, does not allow intellectual property to be built, making the two approaches fundamentally incompatible, Muglia said.
That's one problem with Microsoft. A commercial company should have to build value. Someone should tell Red Hat, MySQL AB and the other myriad commercial companies making money with GPL software that it's not allowed. Aside from that, he did have some good things to say. One problem here is that Microsoft is going to have to take the first step here, and it's going to have to be a large step. The company has a sordid history of business partnerships being completely predatory and interoperability meaning “embrace and extend”. I think what we may be seeing here is Microsoft reaching the acceptance stage. They've ignored, they've laughed, they've fought, and now they are realizing that this is for real and while they still have the dominant position in many places now, things are demonstrably changing. As I wondered in my last post though, I'm not sure Microsoft is yet ready to change alongside us.
This seems to have been a popular topic at Tech Ed, with Jeremy Moskowitz calling for a truce between Windows and Linux. I don't see much of a war going on, and if there is Microsoft is the only one fighting it from what I can tell. Linux and Open Source develop to Open Standards that are available to anyone. By doing that, interoperability is a non-issue. Anyone who develops to the standard is inherently able to work with anyone else who develops to the standard. The fact that Microsoft does not develop to many standards doesn't make a war. On a funny note, he also says:
Windows has more patches, but Microsoft releases them more frequently and fixes things more quickly,”
The fact that he thinks a company that has a specific day to release patches (Tuesday) releases things quicker than anyone is amusing to me. Looking at the average response time from report to patch for Linux vs. Windows and I think you'll find the ascertation by Mr. Moskowitz quite misguided.
A note to Microsoft, you can join the party anytime. But that means joining the party. No predatory practices, no anti-competitive behavior and no monopoly abuse. Open Standards is the way for Open Source and proprietary software to interact. Clean documented interfaces and API's mean the license of two interacting programs don't even come into play. The truth will set you free :)
–jeremy
, , , , ,

Filed under Linux, Main Page, Microsoft, Open Source

Broken Windows Theory

June 15, 2006 Leave a comment

An interesting post from a former members of the Windows team on why he thinks Vista slipped. It's clear at this point that Vista is complicated… almost certainly more complicated than it needs to be. An architectural diagram of Windows would suggest there are more than 50 dependency layers (never mind that there also exist circular dependencies). Circular dependencies?? While Microsoft may not like UNIX, it's clear they need to understand the “UNIX way”. It's what allows a decentralized and largely uncoordinated team of disparate developers to come together and write something like the Linux kernel. A modular and logical separation of functionality brought together by standard interfaces. Windows on the other hand seems to be a jumbled mess that requires all developers to understand far too much of the puzzle. It's also telling to see just how out of control the management scheme seems to be at Microsoft. I'd guess we'll see it change drastically after Vista actually ships, but by then it may be too late. Microsoft is losing a lot of ground here. Linux is steadily gaining both ground and mind share while OS X continues to deliver features that were cut from Vista long ago. Meanwhile, Google is looming from the other direction. And that's just the beginning. The lack of innovation is finally catching up to Microsoft. They are having an extremely tough time replacing the talent they lost during the bubble and it's showing. They're playing catchup in almost every place they compete. With even their proprietary formats, one of the tried and true forms of lockin, under fire things are looking shaky at best. Don't be too worried though – with $50 billion in the bank and an entrenched install base, Microsoft isn't going away any time soon. I think it's clear though that the king-fu death grip they've hand on the industry has loosened and will never be regained. Where exactly the company goes from here is the interesting question to me. I still wonder if they can fully grasp the potential that still remains with the current leadership in place.
–jeremy
, , , ,

Filed under Linux, Main Page, Microsoft, Open Source

Reliability Survey: Windows Servers Beat Linux Boxes

June 7, 2006 Leave a comment

Well, we haven't seen one of these reports in a while. From the article:
Windows 2003 Server, in fact, led the popular Red Hat Enterprise Linux with nearly 20 percent more annual uptime.
20 percent more annual uptime?!?!? What math was used to come to that conclusion? Well, they don't say…but it seems like a hefty number to me. Also from the article:
The Yankee Group made a point of stressing that the survey was not sponsored or supported by any server OS maker.
But, guess who did the survey? Laura DiDio. That's right – the same Laura DiDio that said SCO had a good case and the same Laura DiDio that – well, insert clearly biased claim here. The ascertation that this survey was unbias because it was “not sponsored or supported by any server OS maker” goes right out the Window when you see a name with that kind of track record behind it. I can't find the entire results of the survey and the linked article is quite lacking when it comes to details, but I'd guess it's like the last one they did, where each shop had to be running both operating systems to be part of the survey. When you get a bunch of Linux boxes setup by MCSE's it's no wonder why things came out like they did. The completely hilarious thing about this is that the Yankee Group has absolutely no business even talking about uptime when they can't keep their own web server up for more than 20 days. It incidentally runs Windows 2000.
–jeremy
, , , , ,

Filed under Linux, Main Page, Microsoft, Open Source

Lenovo To Shun Linux

June 7, 2006 Leave a comment

In an extremely odd move, computer maker Lenovo will not install or support Linux on any of its PCs, including Thinkpads and a series of new notebooks. Why is this odd? Well, the Thinkpad had an extremely large Linux following – one that IBM worked fairly hard to build. Go to any Linux convention and you'll see rows after row of Thinkpads and Apples. While it's no surprise they won't be installing Linux, officially calling it not supported is a big step. One has to wonder what IBM will use internally if Lenovo starts to move toward laptops that simply won't run Linux. That part alone could get interesting. But that's not the odd part though. Just a day before this announcement from Lenovo, the government-run Central Trust of China mandated for the first time that all desktop computers purchased from now on must be Linux-compatible. Those two items didn't seem to jive, so I started doing some more research. It seems Lenovo may now be back tracking a little, according to this CNet article. One has to wonder what happened here. Was there something more to the recent 1.2B dollar deal between Microsoft and Lenovo? Would the company really leave Linux completely unsupported despite a Chinese mandate that all government desktops be compatible? Hard to tell at this point, but I didn't like the deal when it happened and I am liking it less and less now.
–jeremy
, , , ,

Filed under Linux, Main Page, Microsoft, Open Source

Steve Ballmer Attempts to Fix Spyware

June 7, 2006 2 Comments

It looks like Steve Ballmer recently offered to uninfest someones computer and wasn't able to fix it, nor were a team of top Microsoft engineers. So says Jim Allchin in this article. Seems more like a marketing ploy than a true story to me. The odds the Ballmer would try this hard to fix a machine, and then a team of top engineers would not be able to fix it seems far fetched. However, it does show that Microsoft is aware of what's going on in the real world.
This really opened our eyes to what goes on in the real world,” Allchin told the audience.
Makes you think they may actually fix it this time, eh? To me the real story here is Windows Live OneCare. We now have a company selling a product with so many problems, that they are going to sell another product to fix the first product. The best part for Microsoft here is that the second product is a subscription product. No more having to get people to upgrade to a new version of Windows, they can just get the $50+ a year out of them for OneCare. The scary thing is, people will buy this. Of course, Symantec and Mcafee are hurrying similar products to market now, but it's going to be hard to compete with Microsoft in the space. Here's hoping that this situation will help open the average consumers eyes to just how bad the current situation has gotten.
–jeremy
, , ,

Filed under Main Page, Microsoft, Open Source

The 25 Worst Tech Products of All Time

May 27, 2006 Leave a comment

I found it interesting that 3 of the top 10 in the 25 Worst Tech Products were of Microsoft origin. The one that really sticks out to me is Microsoft Internet Explorer 6 (2001), coming in at number 8. The fact that the most current browser from a company that has a huge majority share of the browser market is over 5 years old is almost unintelligible. Think of how much has changed on the web since 2001. That's redefining stagnation. Ask yourself if they'd be working so hard on IE 7 if Firefox hadn't seen its meteoric rise in popularity. Monopolies are bad – and this is just a single example of why.
–jeremy
, ,,

Filed under Main Page, Microsoft, Open Source

← Older posts

Newer posts →