4 ms·

It's funny how software developers have no problem whatsoever dealing with complexity, except when it comes to corporate behaviour, when they are unable to conc

It's funny how software developers have no problem whatsoever dealing with complexity, except when it comes to corporate behaviour, when they are unable to conceive of a company as anything other than a single, gestalt entity, with a single opinion and purpose, whose actions are driven by the most basic emotions and can be classified as good or evil with absolutely no grey-area. In the real world, companies are made up of lots of individuals, all with strong, differing opinions. Some people at Microsoft undoubtedly hate open source. Some of them undoubtedly love it. Many of them are probably, like most developers, somewhere in-between. They have no ideological investment, they just make use of it when it's useful. Having actually worked in the Microsoft ecosystem in past, I know that there have been people there for years who like open source, and who have pushed to make Microsoft a more open company. There's no doubt that competitive concerns have driven some of Microsoft's embrace of particular open source technologies, but to characterise their entire approach to open source as being: 1) entirely recent, and 2) completely fearful and reactive, has no basis in recorded fact, and does an appalling disservice to the many people who have spent many years (successfully) trying to change Microsoft's internal culture and make it more friendly to open source.

Pica_soO 9y ago
Well, maybe he is not talking about those people, but about the decision makers. And those strategic decision makers (a rather small community) dont love open source. Yes, even the new generation. Nobody does risky moves out of the sheer joy of doing them, especially if you have shareholders holding the Damocles sword of share-value over your neck. You do them, when you run out of options.
munificent 9y ago
I think a lot of people get into software because they dislike complexity and code gives them the opportunity to tackle it. You can't "solve" the complexity of humans and human interaction.
gmiller123456 9y ago
>they are unable to conceive of a company as anything other >than a single, gestalt entity, with a single opinion and >purpose, whose actions are driven by the most basic >emotions and can be classified as good or evil with >absolutely no grey-area. Seems like quite a straw man argument, there probably isn't a single person that actually fits your description. And it certainly does not describe a typical developer. As infamously documented in "The Windows Shutdown Crapfest" [1], in order for anything to be publicly observed outside of most large bureaucracies, a large number of people are involved, and their only common interest comes from very high up in the bureaucracy. So you usually do end up with a single, simple ideology presented to the public, even though there are a lot of people internally fighting for different things. [1] http://moishelettvin.blogspot.com/2006/11/windows-shutdown-crapfest.html http://moishelettvin.blogspot.com/2006/11/windows-shutdown-c...
g051051 9y ago
> completely fearful and reactive, has no basis in recorded fact, and does an appalling disservice to the many people who have spent many years (successfully) trying to change Microsoft's internal culture and make it more friendly to open source. If you're not already familiar with the "Halloween Documents" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halloween_documents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halloween_documents) then you should take a look. They were pretty much the definition of "fearful and reactive". Microsoft has historically had an ideological investment in killing everything that wasn't Windows. Microsoft has been roused in this fashion 3 times before that I can think of. 1. The internet. If you don't remember, MSFT completely misjudged the importance of the internet. A heroic effort by Bill Gates turned the company around and got them on track to seize control of the web (until Google drove them back). 2. Java. It was so successful that MSFT had to create a nearly identical tech stack that they controlled, after Sun beat them in court. 3. Linux. Open source, well supported, loved by tech people, runs on almost every conceivable hardware platform. It's been a herculean effort just to fight for market share. If it weren't for lock-in, MSFT would have gone the way of Solaris and HP-UX. Now open source is the only way to try to get back that developer mind share that they've been losing for so long. This is a good thing in the long run, but to couch it as anything but "fearful and reactive" is to discount a lot of history.
DonbunEf7 9y ago
You're not wrong, but you're not sufficiently right yet. You are saying that folks see only the forest, but you want to point out that there are lots of trees. Open your eyes: There are trees and forests. A corporation has a power structure which necessarily is independent from any one person. It follows that there is something about corporations which is distinct from its employees. Look at a business as both having employees, who are people, and being a corporation, which is like a golem.

Pica_soO 9y ago

Well, maybe he is not talking about those people, but about the decision makers. And those strategic decision makers (a rather small community) dont love open source. Yes, even the new generation. Nobody does risky moves out of the sheer joy of doing them, especially if you have shareholders holding the Damocles sword of share-value over your neck. You do them, when you run out of options.

munificent 9y ago

I think a lot of people get into software because they dislike complexity and code gives them the opportunity to tackle it. You can't "solve" the complexity of humans and human interaction.

gmiller123456 9y ago

>they are unable to conceive of a company as anything other >than a single, gestalt entity, with a single opinion and >purpose, whose actions are driven by the most basic >emotions and can be classified as good or evil with >absolutely no grey-area. Seems like quite a straw man argument, there probably isn't a single person that actually fits your description. And it certainly does not describe a typical developer. As infamously documented in "The Windows Shutdown Crapfest" [1], in order for anything to be publicly observed outside of most large bureaucracies, a large number of people are involved, and their only common interest comes from very high up in the bureaucracy. So you usually do end up with a single, simple ideology presented to the public, even though there are a lot of people internally fighting for different things. [1] http://moishelettvin.blogspot.com/2006/11/windows-shutdown-crapfest.html http://moishelettvin.blogspot.com/2006/11/windows-shutdown-c...

g051051 9y ago

> completely fearful and reactive, has no basis in recorded fact, and does an appalling disservice to the many people who have spent many years (successfully) trying to change Microsoft's internal culture and make it more friendly to open source. If you're not already familiar with the "Halloween Documents" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halloween_documents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halloween_documents) then you should take a look. They were pretty much the definition of "fearful and reactive". Microsoft has historically had an ideological investment in killing everything that wasn't Windows. Microsoft has been roused in this fashion 3 times before that I can think of. 1. The internet. If you don't remember, MSFT completely misjudged the importance of the internet. A heroic effort by Bill Gates turned the company around and got them on track to seize control of the web (until Google drove them back). 2. Java. It was so successful that MSFT had to create a nearly identical tech stack that they controlled, after Sun beat them in court. 3. Linux. Open source, well supported, loved by tech people, runs on almost every conceivable hardware platform. It's been a herculean effort just to fight for market share. If it weren't for lock-in, MSFT would have gone the way of Solaris and HP-UX. Now open source is the only way to try to get back that developer mind share that they've been losing for so long. This is a good thing in the long run, but to couch it as anything but "fearful and reactive" is to discount a lot of history.

DonbunEf7 9y ago

You're not wrong, but you're not sufficiently right yet. You are saying that folks see only the forest, but you want to point out that there are lots of trees. Open your eyes: There are trees and forests. A corporation has a power structure which necessarily is independent from any one person. It follows that there is something about corporations which is distinct from its employees. Look at a business as both having employees, who are people, and being a corporation, which is like a golem.