Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : How high will Microsoft fly? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dave who wrote (59892)	7/16/2001 1:25:13 PM
From: Bill Fischofer	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 74651

Re: Portability Portability is a surprisingly overrated attribute of software. Almost all software written in the past twenty years is portable in the sense that only a small percentage of the code in any large program has any hard architectural or OS dependencies. Which platforms a vendor supports these days is largely an issue of target market size and support costs rather than any technical effort involved. This is a perfect example of the real differences between programming in the large vs. in the small. There are certain fixed costs associated with maintaining and supporting a separate distribution of any product which for large programs significantly dominate overall project costs to a degree that the costs of the port per se are not relevant to the business decision of which platforms to target. The reason for this is simple. The internal structures necessary to support large-scale programming of necessity dictate that the program be organized in a modular fashion which makes porting a relatively straightforward proposition. The sections of code in a database such as Oracle, for example, which have architectural or OS dependencies are very localized not because Oracle management presciently planned for portability but rather because there is no other way to viably build and maintain programs of this size. "Spaghetti" may make a fine meal in an Italian restaurant, but it hasn't been on the menu at any successful software company for a very long time. The larger question is not why don't all programs support all platforms but rather why so many platforms exist at all? This is especially true in the Unix world since the often hairsplitting differences that separate the various proprietary flavors of Unix serve mainly to enhance vendor margins more than anything else.

To: Dave who wrote (59892)	7/16/2001 6:00:05 PM
From: dybdahl	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74651

I think you underestimate how many hours there have been put into the Linux OS. If the amount of source-code, that makes up Linux, would have been developed commercially at standard costs for the same amount of source-code, Linux would have cost in the order of 1 billion dollars to do. In fact, Red Hat Linux 7.1 is a far bigger product measured in lines of source-code, than Sun Solaris, and approx. the size of Windows XP. The big difference between Microsoft and other software companies, is that Microsoft has been very focused on maintaing the value of it's customer's software, that is based on earlier Microsoft products, and that Microsoft products typically were not as future minded as it's competitors. For instance, think of the drive letters. A sick invention, a not very scalable solution, but it worked well when it was invented, and MSFT has kept them in order to maintain backwards compatibility in both applications and Windows knowledge. Lars.