Open Source Windows?
I had to laugh at Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols tongue-in-cheek suggestion that Microsoft could solve its Vista uptake and quality problems by open sourcing the OS.
Hiding behind his suggestion is the reality that, despite putting thousands of people and billions of dollars into it, Vista doesn't seem to deliver high quality -- this despite several years of Microsoft's commitment to quality (in fact, at one point, they used the quality initiative as a reason for one of the many delays to the product).
Of course, despite its lack of quality, the OS doesn't really deliver much in terms of features, either, as I described in an earlier post. I mean, after five years of trying, transparent icons of your open windows and widgets on the desktop?
What I think is really interesting about Steven's blog posting is his quite rational diagnosis of Microsoft's problems and prescription to address them: let open source coders loose on the product so that the benefits of open source development can be applied to solve the problems.
Open source development methodologies have shown that they fix bugs quickly, rather than letting them fester for years. Open source also allows end users to solve problems that those who control the product don't understand or care to fix themselves.
In the abstract, Steven's ideas have merit, but they founder on one central reality: they conflict with Microsoft's business model, and when user needs and business models clash, business models win every time.
After all, what end user demanded Vista's byzantine hardware security mechanism? The answer is no-one. Hollywood content providers influenced Microsoft, which was willing to listen to them rather than the millions of end users that are inconvenienced by the feature. On the other hand, Microsoft is looking to form lots of business relationships with those providers for other products and services: Zune, Xbox, the inevitable DRM-friendly response to YouTube. In other words, Microsoft's business model trumps end user needs in the core software offerings.
This isn't just a rag on Microsoft rant. I mean, what else would you expect any rational commercial entity to do?
More to the point is where this need to protect its business model will take Microsoft.
By releasing a complex, expensive, light-featured, user-unfriendly feature intrusive, quality-compromised product, Microsoft is failing to meet the needs of its core user
Print
Hiding behind his suggestion is the reality that, despite putting thousands of people and billions of dollars into it, Vista doesn't seem to deliver high quality -- this despite several years of Microsoft's commitment to quality (in fact, at one point, they used the quality initiative as a reason for one of the many delays to the product).
Of course, despite its lack of quality, the OS doesn't really deliver much in terms of features, either, as I described in an earlier post. I mean, after five years of trying, transparent icons of your open windows and widgets on the desktop?
What I think is really interesting about Steven's blog posting is his quite rational diagnosis of Microsoft's problems and prescription to address them: let open source coders loose on the product so that the benefits of open source development can be applied to solve the problems.
Open source development methodologies have shown that they fix bugs quickly, rather than letting them fester for years. Open source also allows end users to solve problems that those who control the product don't understand or care to fix themselves.
In the abstract, Steven's ideas have merit, but they founder on one central reality: they conflict with Microsoft's business model, and when user needs and business models clash, business models win every time.
After all, what end user demanded Vista's byzantine hardware security mechanism? The answer is no-one. Hollywood content providers influenced Microsoft, which was willing to listen to them rather than the millions of end users that are inconvenienced by the feature. On the other hand, Microsoft is looking to form lots of business relationships with those providers for other products and services: Zune, Xbox, the inevitable DRM-friendly response to YouTube. In other words, Microsoft's business model trumps end user needs in the core software offerings.
This isn't just a rag on Microsoft rant. I mean, what else would you expect any rational commercial entity to do?
More to the point is where this need to protect its business model will take Microsoft.
By releasing a complex, expensive, light-featured, user-unfriendly feature intrusive, quality-compromised product, Microsoft is failing to meet the needs of its core user
Previous Post: More Hope for the Linux DesktopNext Post: Yesterday's advantage is today's Achilles Heel
Most Discussed Posts
Cloud computing has emerged as one of the most significant game changers to hit the technology landscape in the past 20 years. With this massive expansion of the cloud, the perception of the IT organization is shifting from a utility player to a change agent. This eBook breaks down five ways progressive organizations are using cloud-based IT Management solutions to help drive innovation and become more strategic, including: adding visibility and analytics, speeding up time-to-value, lowering costs, improving prioritization, and providing a blueprint for future cloud deployments.
Read the white paper to see how IBM helped Citigroup deliver new services and enhancements to their 200 million customers faster.
There are 3 ways to modernize legacy applications: rewrite completely, acquire packaged solutions or migrate existing code. This paper explains why it's best to migrate and how IBM® Rational® software can help.
Accommodating specific lines of business can result in a hybrid ecosystem of applications and servers. The resulting complexity of this architecture makes for an environment that is costly to maintain and difficult to change when addressing new challenges.
This whitepaper will help you to define a mobile device passcode policy. Security managers must attempt to reconcile two opposing goals. They must: 1) create a passcode policy that is strong enough to protect the device if it is lost or stolen, while: 2) not annoying users with needless length or complexity.
This whitepaper, authored by The Radicati Group, looks at the key reasons organizations should consider moving to a cloud-based archiving solution. Email archiving solutions enable organizations to store, monitor, and collect electronic data exchanged by their users to comply with internal policies and regulations.
ATERNITY will showcase a 30-minute demo on how Fortune 500 companies are leveraging its award-winning FPI Platform to deliver a user-centric approach to Proactive IT Management.
For businesses to move forward and tap into the ever-expanding universe of Internet users and network-enabled devices, it's critical to learn how to make the transition to IPv6. Learn the critical steps your organization must take to make a seamless transition-and keep your business world connected.
Learn how IT teams can protect against spear phishing tactics. Harry Sverdlove, chief technology officer of Bit9 offers a frank discussion about spear phishing - the most common technique used in today's advanced attacks.
Learn how to build a solid business case for your migration to Red Hat Enterprise Linux so you can run leaner, innovate faster, be more flexible and own the New Now.
Social media isn't about you; it's about everything around you. As you consider how your customers want to communicate with you, social media is something that can't be ignored. But what should your strategy be? Is social media "just another channel?" What kind of a plan makes sense for your contact center and for your customers? Join our experts as they share their insight and research results.
Hardware tokens were a popular method of strong authentication in past years but the cumbersome provisioning and distribution tasks, high support requirements and replacement costs have limited their growth. The additional log-in steps that hardware tokens require and the resulting user frustrations have limited adoption and make them impractical for larger scale partner and customer applications.
Sponsored Links
