This is simply amazing. I’m not even sure I believe it. How does a multi-billion dollar corporation do this to itself?
Dvorak thinks MS needs to start again and acknowledge that everything after “Windows 2000 Professional or even Windows NT 4.0” was a mistake.
Of course, none of this is possible if the code isn’t well enough documented, and you get the distinct feeling that half of Windows is poorly documented. I’ve been convinced for years that one of the reasons Microsoft does not want to reveal its source code to the European Union under edict (or to anyone else) is because the code is so sloppy and poorly documented that it would be subject to extreme ridicule. Seriously, it probably is.
Part of the problem is what I’ve been hearing for years. Microsoft does not keep anyone on the Windows team who understands how it works. So it’s become a mishmash of spaghetti code. It’s a mess—and running on spit and a prayer.
Only Microsoft management can be blamed for this, because they don’t have a “Windows Pope” who would be expected to understand the innards of the OS and be able to pass the secrets on to a protégé who would become the next Windows Pope. Instead, you had a bunch of guys who wanted to do this or that and float around the company as middle managers or “idea men.” Over time, I’m told, not a soul at the company has a grip on the overall nature and structure of Windows itself. Thus, you have a mess because of ambitious coders who all want to be bosses.
This reads like an expose of the economy under the USSR.
Some truth in this and some falshood. Dvorak doesn’t really understand Open Source. Forking is actually not the norm (although it does happen). For example, the Linux kernel has never forked as far as I know. The Gnu compiler, GCC did fork once and then re-aligned for a net positive effect.
From my own experience as an administrator who works with both win2k and XP, I can affirm that win2k is more stable. I think his idea to go back to win2k is a good one but it will never happen.
The reality that we really don’t know much about Windows code is presented indirectly here. We simply don’t know if it’s documented well since we can’t see it. That’s the complete opposit of Linux of course. Anyone can see the code and learn from it (or pay someone to fix it if they like).
But Mark, have you read any of the seminal FOSS docuemnts? We need to get you off of this Micro$oft kick.
CatB for a starter…
More for you to consider. Take note on the section containing the dialogue between the Micro$ofty and FOSS rep.