This
afternoon, I see that I’m quoted on the .NET
Developer Journal site in an article regarding the announcement about Windows
source being distributed to MVP’s. I just don’t understand the
big deal about having the source to the O/S. Furthermore, how many people
will be able to manage that gigantic set of source?
I
understand that Microsoft has some customers saying that they would feel more
comfortable if they can have the source. Customers who spend money do
have a say at Microsoft. But I have not heard why this is beneficial for
customers. And in the above mentioned article, I give a parallel similar
to my usage of airplanes.
Check it out and see if you agree with it. You can check out and
add comments there on the bottom of the page.
Naysayers
This morning, I was in Nashville
giving a presentation on mobility. Afterwards, a couple of folks were telling
me how they thought Microsoft represents a closed environment. I
questioned and questioned “how is using Microsoft tools and platforms a
closed deal?” They thought it was a good deal that Microsoft
was sharing source with people. In these environments, I really try to listen
to hear what people think in the marketplace. So, here are some of the
answers:
Because Microsoft charges for Office
upgrades
I can’t understand why Microsoft can’t charge for upgrades.
They spend lots of money every year to learn what people are doing, how
they use the current version of a product, and what works well in a product.
Then they pay smart people to convert this into software projects, build
the new versions, offer beta testing, market the improvements, and support the
next release via technical web content, support people, conferences, etc.
Don’t you think that costs lots of money? (And I don’t think
the PDC is making a profit.)
If you
don’t need the Office upgrade, don’t buy it. However, I would
advise that you check into this version.
Because we don’t want to be tied to
one vendor
I agree with this in principle. One of the folks
that I talked to today said that they were having some of their projects done
in PHP and some in .NET in order not to be on a single web platform. One
of the guys said that his company will start using StarOffice in order
not to be pushed around by Microsoft. Based on these statements, there
are choices in software, tools, and operating systems. Therefore,
you’re not tied to a single vendor. Everyone makes choices about
which products they use and I haven’t heard any stories where Microsoft
held a gun to a potential client’s head.
The problems
come into play with having too many vendors. For smaller companies,
choosing more than one vendor can create problems. Is it smart to have
set of PHP developers and a set of ASP.NET developers? The ASP.NET
developers could also create Windows apps, Windows Services, Compact Framework
apps, Mobile Control apps, and even console based apps – and all of these
can be done in different languages.
Because they are arrogant
This response is unfortunate but I understand one of the ways that this
happens. Microsoft is a big company spread all over the world but
sometimes you wonder where they are in the field. At my previous job, I
worked for a company that had built a videoconferencing control system on top
of the Windows platform. We found it incredibly hard to get a chance to
meet local Microsoft employees and discuss what we were doing. Finding
the entry point is tough even though Microsoft has all sorts of programs.
But if you ever meet one of their folks, typically they are the nicest
people that you’ll meet and they want to help. And you’ll
usually find that they have more requests than they have time.