Post #29,448
2/22/02 7:17:39 PM
|
Wow...
..you actually seem to believe that Microsoft integrated IE into the operating system to benefit consumers and to improve the "uniform windows experience".
Thats incredible.
Next you'll be telling us how elegant the programming is surrounding Minesweeper and its bundling (oh...excuse me) integration into the OS.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #29,493
2/23/02 5:43:05 PM
|
Now, now...
..you actually seem to believe that Microsoft integrated IE into the operating system to benefit consumers and to improve the "uniform windows experience".
Certainly, the memos on record indicate that some very powerful people at Microsoft wanted IE in Windows primarily to shut out Netscape. The thing is, they could have done that without completely rewriting IE. Remember, IE 1.x and 2.x were standalone monolithic applications\ufffd- not much more than a rebranding of the Mosaic-derived Spyglass browser. But by the time IE 4.x came out, the whole thing had been completely redesigned as a set of reusable services. And that's the version they integrated.
I find it all very interesting. My best guess is that it went something like this. Microsoft's top brass wanted IE in Windows to shut out Netscape, period. But someone at some level at some point must have said, "Whoa, wait a minute guys, this is a clear violation of the consent agreement. If we really want to do this, we must integrate IE instead of just bundling it." That's when the technical people started thinking about how to do that. And in my opinion, by wisdom or dumb luck they came up with something that is truly compelling, and does indeed improve the platform. In fact, in hindsight, it's totally obvious, which I strongly suspect is why it's now being mimicked by so many others.
I don't know if this is how it really happened, but it does explain why Microsoft bothered with the huge task of reimplementing IE as a set of reusable services.
Thats incredible.
Need I say again that we aim to please? :-)
|
Post #29,504
2/23/02 7:20:53 PM
|
I could almost grant such a Pollyanna view of it all..
except that you are speaking of a Corporation with a uniquely controlling Owner - a person who is demonstrably handicapped by autism and who has repeatedly - one might say incessantly - followed one sociopathic action with a sequence of others. He is untempered by any sham 'BOD', we have seen.
In such a milieu - where in fact (if we are to believe the documents) this One Ego micromanages (or used to) virtually every aspect of this Corporation's illegally amassed wealth / power, it is clear that Nothing of their activities happens 'inadvertently'. Thus it is not cynical but merely sensible to extrapolate such a clear pattern forward - where the same prime mover umm moves.
Is your naivete genetic? Even were the Happy Accident you postulate to have been ~ how IE got integrated ?! the damage to this entire field is palpable and, I believe to most informed people - M$ has become an utterly untrustworthy extension of Bill Gates's ego + Ballmer's Babbitt-persona marketing. Untrustworthy on any scale - between speech and performance.
In brief - whatever kewl talents may also be incorporated into the mix - the Package is malevolent to the core. The occasional clever hacks amidst the massive security and stability problems as appear to be insoluble - cannot in any sane way atone for the liabilities. These are starkly evident in the roots of .NET, of Passport, Hail Storm (!) and all the related ominous TLAs.
Extermination soon.. may be unlikely, but the record of the fates of past 'partners' ought to provide some temperance for any present and future wannabes. The significance of this Corporation is no longer much about the competence / incompetence of its software 'design' IMhO: it is about the designs to maintain and extend its monopoly exponentially - in as many fields as it is allowed to leverage into.
Argue about DLLs and 'reuse of code' all you want. That's just technobabble smoke and mirrors, to deflect attention from a sociopathic organism. Only question I see that remains now, is: how near-to extermination (or forced mutation towards less malignancy?) can society achieve next, in self-defense?
Ashton
who believes that M$' Largest crime has been to murder language, in the course of killing-off most chances for this industry ever to 'mature'. Just read the babble about the non-existent .NET
[link|http://www.gotdotnet.com/featured_site/partners.aspx|Here]
to grok the style of inane, empty promises and idiotic 'partnering fantasies' - with Godzilla - as if none of the past ten years had actually happened (!) Shit - maybe Murica deserves this Scourge! ..for present dumbth and for all past idiocies committed? {ugh}
|
Post #29,513
2/23/02 9:29:41 PM
|
As I have been saying for years . .
. . "A Microsoft partner is a victim they haven't gotten to yet".
The latest victims are the CRM (Customer Relationship Management) "partners". Microsoft has just announced Microsoft CRM, integrated with Microsoft Great Plains Accounting and .NET. Microsoft's CRM "partners" say they are still waiting for a statement of intent from Microsoft. Ha! Ha!
Of course, Microsoft can only capture the lower end of enterprise CRM, because their "solution" (problem) runs only on Intel servers, but they'll soon convince the PHBs that Intel servers are more than adequate.
[link|http://www.aaxnet.com|AAx]
|
Post #29,538
2/24/02 3:20:05 AM
|
Do you mean that *recently* the CRM folks spilled their guts
to Billy - in some "partnership" deal? Like.. in last couple / three years ?? Expecting - like Ed Curry - to umm share in the profit$ of the co-developed Insanely Great NEW PRODUCT???
Is *that* what you mean - happened? {Sheesh!}
It's kinda hard to sympathize with freshly-sheared little lambs, after you know that they saw their mamas and papas converted into McNuggets.. And the rhetoric at the .NET link above, indicates that the enthusiasm for self-Nuggetizing is undiminished. So then - nothing has changed in the suited mentation.. after All This Court Activity !!
The dialogue re .NET reminds me of the spiel the used-car salesman gave me, when I was looking at a Honda Prelude (and off-handedly mentioned an Acura Vigor) - this at a place that sells new Acuras BTW. He riposted, "I know a local mechanic who thinks quite poorly of the V." yada yada. (In fact I'd done my homework - 'poorly' would be the word chosen by maybe 1%, re that particular model..)
My 'negotiation expert' friend and I just looked at each other, and then marked down further, what our final offer for the Prelude would be. This was followed by the now traditional Ballmer-style dance as we collected our printouts and prepared to leave... what if we just called it $x,yyy.yy over-the-curb.. hmmm? {heavy sigh}
We walked. Sounds like the CRM folk stayed. For the abattoir. Screw 'em then. Though I don't know shit about the magnitude of a CRM database, I can guess it's gonna stress toy software a lot: won't make no difference ay-tall to the PHBs presented with M$CRM Deluxe-Professional Gold-Version -- over that golf game.
My guess re *you* Andy: nullo illegitimiti carborundum (??) I'll bet this crap doesn't ever get to you because you see the daily humor of the sheep passively grazing enroute to the shearing. As in,
Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle..
Am I right, Sir? (Last words of the dying "Great Memorizer", on stage.. in The Thiry-Nine Steps)
Ashton
CRM eh? Is that an acronym for CReaMed..?
|
Post #29,555
2/24/02 1:24:24 PM
|
Siebel is the main victim here.
Siebel "partnered" with Microsoft Great Plains, allowing Microsoft to inexpensively learn just how one would integrate CRM with Great Plains, so now it's time to eat Siebel's lunch.
At last report Siebel was still waiting to hear from Microsoft about the current status of their "partnership" (victimhood).
Of course, MS CRM is still in beta, but the impact on Siebel's product should be immediate. "Why go with Siebel now, when Microsoft will have their product ready "real soon now", and then Siebel will start having inexplicable problems. Lets wait."
It does amuse me to watch one technology company after another walk eagerly through the feedlot gate, oblivious to the door on the other side clearly marked "Slaughterhouse.NET", and to the fact that the feedlot fence is built of the bones of previous feeders.
"Our long range plan? Yes we're already working on where to have lunch!"
Microsoft Great Plains is currently being recoded in C# for .Net compatibility. Release of the .NET version will be an excellent point at which to break Siebel's compatibility. "We gave them all the help we could to transition to .NET, but they just didn't try hard enough."
Meeting the projected future revenue figures for the Great Plains group will require the demise of practically every other publisher of accounting software for Windows, and expansion into other sources of revenue. I'm sure they have compensated in their market figures for that fact that a number of software publishers will not, in the future, require accounting software of any kind.
[link|http://www.aaxnet.com|AAx]
|
Post #29,557
2/24/02 2:02:55 PM
|
Speaking of Accounting software . .
I just finished a 3-day dealer certification and training class for Vigilant's PoS (Point of Sale) and Distribution software. I have been long familiar with the DOS version (most PoS systems still run on DOS) and knew they were porting to Windows.
Here's the story. They've finally, after 7 years of programming around Windows deficiencies and bugs (some causes of seemingly random file corruption took three years to pin down), they've finally done a first release of the product. They recommend the product be deployed with caution and only in small stores.
The certification class was not, however, on the new Windows product.
In the mean time, they were having trouble with the multi-store polling system in the DOS version. It wasn't the system itself, similar to what is used in large store chains, but due to the small business customers. These customers didn't have IS staff that understood the polling process and they often screwed it up totally when a modem connection failed. Since polling was also secheduled for the Windows version, this was considered serious.
Marketing asked programming "what can we do".
Programming responded "Well, we can try running the DOS version over Linux with DOS emu and have the stores work from a central host". It was so decreed.
It worked, so it was next decreed to port to 32-bit native Linux. This was done in a matter of a few months.
But the customers said, "What if the host connection goes down? Aren't we out of business until it cames back up?" Weeeeeellll, yes, sort of.
So the remote workstations were also set up on Linux, and if the host connection goes down for more than 20 seconds, the workstation continues in "local mode" (even if you were in the middle of an invoice, that invoice is not lost). When the link comes back up for more than 20 seconds, a queued resync is performed. Cool.
The net result: the multi-store Linux product is now the flagship product. The painfully developed Windows product (an absolutely outstanding Windows product, by the way) has been relegated to "Mom & Pop store" status.
Vigilant runs on Caldera Linux 3.1x, since Red Hat's product was found messy, inconsistent and lacking some needed products in the distribution.
[link|http://www.aaxnet.com|AAx]
|
Post #29,570
2/24/02 6:07:44 PM
|
Scary.. 7 years to find all the important glitches
and then maybe - not see any significant revenue. :(
You (Everyone in IT) Poor Bastards!
BTW: Slaughterhouse.NET
Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle..
Kurt V would approve and open-source the title..
As to the impending demise of the collaborator: tough. I recommend a WW-II stigma for collaborators with Nazis (well, Billy's the obvious reincarnation of G\ufffdbbels) - shave head.
Oh.. that's Fashionable now?
never mind
Ashton
Abattoirs R'Us
Redmond Div.
|
Post #183,043
11/5/04 10:21:05 AM
|
Andrew, care to update the current status?
===
Implicitly condoning stupidity since 2001.
|
Post #183,257
11/6/04 6:06:36 PM
|
Update
Vigilant is junking the SQL database in favor of a unified system where the Windows and Linux versions will run against the same database engine (Postgres, I believe) and will have similar though not identical graphic front ends.
Caldera Linux was, of course, dropped. The business side wanted SuSE but the programmers insisted on Red Hat, a decision they may be regretting now that SuSE is Novell (Dell has just signed with SuSE/Novell for servers). Not a big deal to support both though.
On the Microsoft front, everything is bogging down from failure to perform - particularly failure of the Longhorn group to produce the product everything else was supposed to leverage. The Unified File System won't be out now until at least 2008 and is ulikely to be widely deployed until 2013 if ever. By then the window of opportunity may be closed.
Microsoft CRM is still a significant threat, but without "total integration" vs. "total incompatibility" as a selling point, it won't be moving fast, and it's now becoming a victim of "buzzword incompatibility" as CRM fades in favor of SOA (Service Oriented Architecture) Nobody seems to know exactly what that is except that it's hard to achieve.
Without Longhorn, MS Great Plains / Navision have been as hard to sell as any other accounting systems and are waaaaay behind plan for world domination. IF MS CRM continues to hit heavy going I wouldn't be surprised to see the CRM/accounting products divested as a separate company to keep them from dragging down reported results. It's just too much work for too little return.
The problem with total integration is it is totally vulnerable to failure of any part, and Longhorn / Shorthorn / Foghorn / Hornswaggle is filling that role. Microsoft's ability to manage product development has fallen way behind their ambition.
[link|http://www.aaxnet.com|AAx]
|
Post #183,279
11/6/04 9:16:48 PM
|
And Thank God for that.
-- [link|mailto:greg@gregfolkert.net|greg], [link|http://www.iwethey.org/ed_curry|REMEMBER ED CURRY!] @ iwetheyNo matter how much Microsoft supporters whine about how Linux and other operating systems have just as many bugs as their operating systems do, the bottom line is that the serious, gut-wrenching problems happen on Windows, not on Linux, not on Mac OS. -- [link|http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1622086,00.asp|source]Here is an example: [link|http://www.greymagic.com/security/advisories/gm001-ie/|Executing arbitrary commands without Active Scripting or ActiveX when using Windows]
|
Post #29,606
2/25/02 9:44:02 AM
|
Quick question:
[...] + Ballmer's Babbitt-persona marketing. Just making sure: Is that "Babbitt" or "Bobbitt"? jb4
(Resistance is not futile...)
|
Post #29,690
2/25/02 9:57:20 PM
|
'a' as in the Sinclair Lewis book, "Babbitt" Still: :-\ufffd
|
Post #29,530
2/24/02 12:15:05 AM
|
*chuckle*
Ah...so all of the top brass wanted to include IE...but they couldn't do it without breaking the law...so instead they rewrite the application including alot of the applications basic functions in OS libraries. So...now IE is already installed for you...essentially. And just for show...lets use these components for a couple of other minor areas...help files...display...
And this makes it >legal<???
Exactly how?
Microsoft took an >application<. An application that had its own separate marketplace. Even MS itself tracked >marketshare< of IE separately from that of Windows. It then bundled that application into its monopoly OS.
There is a bevy of case law in antitrust that says you're not allowed to do that.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #29,858
2/26/02 3:27:57 PM
|
Re: *chuckle*
Ah...so all of the top brass wanted to include IE...but they couldn't do it without breaking the law...
Right.. At least in the form it was in (a standalone application).
so instead they rewrite the application including alot of the applications basic functions in OS libraries.
Yes, making the platform more compelling for ISVs, and the overall product more compelling for users, at least in theory.
And this makes it >legal<???
I'd say so, yes, since the consent agreement explicitly permitted integrated products.
There is a bevy of case law in antitrust that says you're not allowed to do that.
Then why was the tying claim thrown back?
|
