Fog Creek Software
Discussion Board




Microsoft, spend your money!

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,1601482,00.asp

He has a point, you know.

Homo sapien
Monday, July 26, 2004

After reading an article about Alan Greenspan's strategy in Businessweek (http://www.keepmedia.com/pubs/BusinessWeek/2004/07/05/495680 free registration required), I had a theory.

The economic slowdown is due to the fact that MICROSOFT HAS ALL THE FRIKKIN MONEY!!!!!!!!

www.MarkTAW.com
Monday, July 26, 2004

What is Dvorak's point? That he doesn't know anything about software development?
I'd propose that having NT entirely written by Dave Cutler would be far more secure than having 1000000 little components, all written by people with slightly different interpretations of security. And that proposal is made without knowing what Cutler's interpretation of security is.

References:
_The Mythical Man-Month_

?
Monday, July 26, 2004

Doesn't he rather discredit himself with this:

"...couldn't a new architecture be designed that would break the OS into 10,000 parts, each of which could be coded in a few months, then put back together?"

Alternatively they could travel back in time and ensure the code was written right the first time.

Ged Byrne
Monday, July 26, 2004

Dvorak has been a twat for many years. He has also been anti-Microsoft for many years, to the point that it can cloud what little judgment he possesses on other issues.

This latest mediocrity doesn't surprise me at all.

.
Monday, July 26, 2004

Having read the article again, I think these qualify as the highlights (apart from the shocker Ged mentioned):

1. "A company that develops an e-mail client that lets you casually pass around active executable code as attachments has no clue about security and never will." Mwah... mwahaha... MWAHAHAHAHA! Translation: EVERY vendor of email client software until very recently. This problem was and is most certainly not specific to Microsoft. However Dvorak has a special way of looking at the world: whatever the problem is, Microsoft is big enough that they deserve some blame... well... all the blame.

2. "And it's not as if the company is giving the software away. Windows XP, which Microsoft sells for $180, probably costs $5 or less per unit to manufacture". Let's read that again... to manufacture... TO MANUFACTURE! This is a deliberate attempt to mislead people. Manufacturing costs are a tiny percentage of a software company's costs, for a good reason. Development however is very expensive. Software developers know this. Dvorak knows it as well, but chooses to mislead in order to score what he thinks are rhetorical points in his personal crusade against the big bad Goliath.

Dvorak has had a mammoth hardon for the Microsoft Antitrust cases since day one. I stopped reading him in about 1997 for this reason. This may actually be his first article I've read since then.

.
Monday, July 26, 2004

[1. "A company that develops an e-mail client that lets you casually pass around active executable code as attachments has no clue about security and never will." Mwah... mwahaha... MWAHAHAHAHA! Translation: EVERY vendor of email client software until very recently.]

I think the key here is "active executable". He might allude to the fact that the e-mail client is rather prone to attacks because it executes attachements if they seem executable, for instance when in preview mode.
That is something that makes it stand out security-wise from all the other vendors.
But his choice of words does not readily indicate that this is what he meant.



[2. "And it's not as if the company is giving the software away. Windows XP, which Microsoft sells for $180, probably costs $5 or less per unit to manufacture". Let's read that again... to manufacture... TO MANUFACTURE! This is a deliberate attempt to mislead people. Manufacturing costs are a tiny percentage of a software company's costs, for a good reason. Development however is very expensive. Software developers know this. Dvorak knows it as well, but chooses to mislead in order to score what he thinks are rhetorical points in his personal crusade against the big bad Goliath.]

There is no indication of how he arrived at $5, or what he means exactly by manufacturing. He does go on to say "Even with all the overhead included...".
So he might include development in the entire manufacturing process.
Given the scale Microsoft sells at, this is not entirely unlikely. They may have sold many millions of copies of by now.
But, again, his choice of words is very unclear, and drawing any conclusion about meaning would be unfair without further clarification. Whatever his bias.

Practical Geezer
Monday, July 26, 2004

I find ''Dvorak either spot-on or very wrong.

He was one of the first to see through the dot com bubble. His "If you really believe e-commerce will take off then buy a van" was classic.


This article is just plain silly though.

Stephen Jones
Monday, July 26, 2004

"As far as I'm concerned, the company has just one real job: to provide an operating system that works well for users. Nothing else counts"

He makes a couple good points and a fair amount of stupid ones.  Who cares how expensive Bill's house is?

Formerly someone else
Monday, July 26, 2004

And what about his keyboards.  Can't he leave the QWERTY people alone?

Formerly someone else
Monday, July 26, 2004

Dvorak does seem to either get it totally right or totally wrong.

As I recall, in my PC mag reading days, he was one of the first major proponents of the UnInstall feature in Windows.

Was also one of the first calling for more integration across office apps (the office suite that we now take for granted).

Tapiwa
Monday, July 26, 2004

It seems to me that he is to Microsoft what Michael Moore is to the Republicans.

A puffed up, self righteous, ego-maniac that will twist, ignore or create any fact in order to prove his point.

The Wanderer
Monday, July 26, 2004

It seems to me that he is to Microsoft what Dubya is to the Republicans.

A puffed up, self righteous, ego-maniac that will twist, ignore or create any fact in order to prove his point.

_
Monday, July 26, 2004

They should pay the investors. The investors would have the freedom to diversify their portfolio by investing the MSFT stock revenues in other ventures they feel is worthwhile. You don't want a situation where everyone put all their money into a few research power houses and forget all about the little guys.

Li-fan Chen
Monday, July 26, 2004


"It seems to me that he is to Microsoft what Michael Moore is to the Republicans."

And they're both fat, pasty white guys with bad haircuts.

I see a trend developing.

Huh?
Monday, July 26, 2004

But you're all missing the main point: that Microsoft has so much money they should be using some of it to get shit done.

Neanderthal man
Tuesday, July 27, 2004

*  Recent Topics

*  Fog Creek Home