Hello Jack,
Well, things have progressed since we last talked ... a lot of new information to digest ...
> Also, you are telling me to "imagine" above, yet when I point out
> to you that we need to understand and quantify the opportunity cost
> we have paid in personal and business productivity losses due to
> being shackled by Windows licenses, you say "you can't say that,
> because we don't know what we have lost".
Yes ... I still feel this way. I am a firm believer in evolution and chaos theory, and combined these state that there is no simple way to say "if we are here right now, and change this one thing (out of millions!) in the past, then we'd be over there right now!" ... there is no way to fully understand the cause-and-effect that takes place.
Could anyone ever imagine that by fighting the cold-war, and bringing down the communist government, we would create the world's first Mafiacracy? Did we understand that we created an environment where it was simple for the mafia to rush in a fill the void? Not at all ...
Likewise, there is no way to look at where we are in the computing world and say "If we removed Microsoft and their tactics, we would be {x}!" ... chaos theory tells me that you can't predict such outcomes ...
> The bell started tolling today Scott, the company that has been
> touting products like "Forthcoming Windows NT 5.0", "Forthcoming
> Windows 2000", "Forthcoming Active Directory", "Forthcoming
> Kerberos Security" (you know, they could make a claim for
> FORTHCOMING as a secondary mark through use) and on and on, for
> THREE YEARS (21 Internet years?), and telling us to **ck Off if we
> didn't like it, is being exposed for the bloated group they are.
... and how does this relate to the fuel cells and electric cars that I've been promised since being a kid? And video telephones? High-definition TV? Space stations? Oh yeah ... and the "balanced budget"?
More to the point ... gosh I heard a lot of hype about this "savior of software" called Java! Can you tell me how many Java applications you're running on a daily basis today? Where is Java?
Closer to home ... how many Novell announcements have fallen in the gutter? Where is your SuperNOS today? The whole NetWare/UNIX pitch?
I guess that unlike a lot of people, I completely understand the situation in the computer industry where you are selling vision, and moving forward in its development, while supporting existing customers. A company should try to remain flexible and move in the directions that seem to offer the most revenue and opportunities. Unlike many companies that just don't get it, a company should also do a "good enough" job to continue to make progress. There is no such thing as perfect people, or perfect software ... so why focus on trying to develop it? You're going to have to rewrite the software anyhow ... (this is a whole new school of programming called Extreme Programming ... very innovative thinking ...)
> When their monopoly driven pre-load revenue stream goes away,
> and they have to sell product based on providing better value, we
> will see how well your definition of the "fittest" company
> performs. I can't wait to watch.
Neither can I! ;-)
One thing that comes to light with your statements, is that we have very different perspectives on time. You seem to be someone who is talking in absolutes ... and insinuate that nothing changes. I, on the other hand, fully understand that nothing is absolute and everything changes.
First, in your statement above, you seem to indicate that "they have to sell product based on providing better value", but we both know this might, or might not, be the case. You seem to have in your mind a scenario that we are about to see play out. Can you describe this for us? Who is going to rush in to "conquer" Microsoft? What companies and products are up to the task? I agree that *something* is going to happen, but I don't seem to have as clear a vision as you do ... I'm wondering if you could explain some of the potential scenarios that you see ...
Second, your fixation on the absolutes is the reason that you can't understand my statements. If you were to re-read my posts, you would see that my statements are that Microsoft is the "fittest" and has survived the best so far. Today. You seem to think that this is a "forever" kind of thing. But I have never suggested that ... merely that they are the "fittest" today. What we are now going to witness is the "changing of the environment" in which these companies operate. And so chaos theory and evolution takes over and indicates that a changing of the playing field merely means that we are now going to test the adaptability of the various players and see who is "fittest" to survive in this new environment. It might be Microsoft, it might be someone else ...
I *do* know this ... it's going to happen again in the future ... and again ... just in slightly different ways or markets ... maybe with different names involved ...
I guess that core to my beliefs are that "things that thrive in an environment are the 'fittest' for that environment, but that means nothing in a new environment" ... again some basic science ...
> Hey, here's an example on which to possibly forecast the future -
> They paid $400 million dollars for Hotmail in 1996, have lost money
> on it every year, can't get even a portion of it off of UNIX onto
> NT Server without totally blowing it up, and can't sell it to
> anyone for even a fraction of what they paid for it. Wow.
This is another common misunderstanding in the computer industry. It seems that people outside of the software process feel that "perfect" systems can be designed and then built. I believe that "robust" systems evolve.
What you are missing in your statements above, is that Microsoft, and their engineers and employees, have learned *huge* amounts of what they need to do with NT to get it to work in these environments. I remember reading the book "A Road Less Travelled" as a kid, and the most incredible things that I got out of that book was that learning *only* comes through failure. There is no way for Microsoft, or any other software company, to understand the "holes" in their products, except by trying and failing. You just can't design and build perfect systems ... the builders, sorry to say, are just far too imperfect.
So I would caution you, and others, when they criticize the bugs that are found in NT, because through each failure they are learning, and fixing, the problems ... and making a stronger product. Likewise, through every failure to get NT as the foundation of HotMail ... they are failing ... but learning.
I would suggest that this is why I was overjoyed to see MyRealBox appear on the Internet ... Novell is now starting that process of failing and learning ... to hopefully increase the robustness of NetWare on the Internet.
I guess that we'll just see how things pan out ... the articles seem to indicate that the Microsoft appeals process could go until 2001 ... ;-)
Scott C. Lemon |
