Popular @
Forum Controls
Spotlight Features
The Rich Engineering Heritage Behind Dependency Injection
Andrew McVeigh takes us on a tour of the rich heritage behind dependency injection, what it represents, and tells us why its here to stay.
NetBeans 6: Matisse Updates
NetBeans 6 delivers great updates to the Matisse GUI builder. Spend a few minutes with Roman Strobl and get an expert briefing on what's new and what has changed. (sponsored)
Introduction to Groovy Part 3
In this, the third and final installation of Andres' Introduction to Groovy series, you learn about how Groovy handles variable numbers of arguments, named parameters, currying, and more about Groovy operators. Including, some new operators.
Easier Custom Components with Swing Fuse
Swing Fuse (actually just Fuse), is a framework designed to make it easier to create your own custom desktop components. In this article, Daniel Spiewak shows you how to get started and provides sample source code you can download.
Benchmark Analysis: Guice vs Spring
Willam Louth shows how he uses JXInsight Probes to investigate probable performance issues with code bases that he is not familiar with. He also highlights possible pitfalls in creating a benchmark, as well as in the analysis of results.
Matt & Rick at Microsoft: Day 2 (Update 10:53 AM)
At 1:07 PM on Mar 17, 2005, Rick Ross wrote:
Fresh Jobs for Developers Post a job opportunity
It is surprising that some people really expect MSFT to abandon their economic interests completely and simply open source all of Windows. Without arguing the merit of the idea, it is completely obvious that we're all wasting our time if that is the dominant theme of the conversations here. In a similar way, there is far too much use of the phrase "this is a business" as a rhetorical attempt to evade discussions about how MSFT should responsibly operate in society as a whole.
It will be interesting to see whether anything comes of all this discussion, or whether the Microsoft people have simply acquired better insight into the mindset of those who don't see them favorably so they can better overcome objections. Only time will tell - it's a lot easier to talk the talk than it is to walk the walk.
------------------
8:00 AM
Martin Taylor Keynote
Candid tone this morning. Some people arguing passionately that Microsoft should open source everything, but Martin is direct in replying that this is a ridiculously improbable outcome. He expresses some personal understanding that Java developers are not tied at the hip to Sun, and he states that one of the things MSFT hopes to achieve after writing the $2B check to Sun is a chance for Java to run better on Windows. Nice phrase, we'll see what actually happens. So far it hasn't amounted to much.
This guy could influence the outcome of things more than many others, so I hope he decides to make this conference a step in the direction of reconciliation between his company and a highly disaffected Java developer community. I wouldn't say the probability is high, but if he wants to change things it could get interesting in ways that would be positive for Java developers
--------------------
9:00 AM
CLR session with some very bright people, but basically it's not especially interesting or useful. If we want to use .NET and learn more about thne CLR the resources to do that are abundantly available. This is not useful conversation, even though I have a lot of respect for the particular people they have presenting. If you want more details, then go to a bookstore and get a CLR book.
---------------------
10:30 AM
Scott Guthrie - ASP.net developer
OK, now we're onto an ASP.net presentation. Once again this is a very bright man presenting, but honestly this is not even remotely close to the "conversation" which is supposed to be the purpose of this assembly of people. I'm getting aggravated because these guys are basically doing introductory teaching presentations on MSFT technologies. We could get this kind of material anywhere (if we even wanted it), and we certainly don't need to fly to Redmond for 3 days to do this. The peculiar thing is that all the developers here are shifting into a much less interactive "audience" mode. This thing is going waaaayyyy off track. I definitely hope the organizers can manage to limit the extent to which this "insert MSFT technology name here" 101 classes they are doing.
The speaker is now doing one of the first actual demos of something, which is being received very positively. I guess most of us prefer to see something than to hear someone lecturing us. Scott's demo of the capabilities of VS.NET 2005 is pretty cool, it has tons of automatic validation of html pages with various scripting and standards compliance levels. I have to admit, I would like to have some of these features handy. Also, Scott is a pretty good-spirited guy and the banter with him about what's in Java versus what's in ASP is friendly.
ASP.net is formidable technology with many winning features, but it would be great if there was more than one vendor to provide it. It's the same old story about proprietary lockin that we all know so well, but there's no doubt that this technology definitely gives a strong demo. Scott has shown this system doing many things that I know real developers frequently need to do, and it looks pretty doggoned easy to do them.
-------------------------
Lunch session
Rick Rashid - VP of Microsoft Research
Wow! Sometimes you get reminded that there are people really doing things more interesting than the mere pursuit of the next dollar for their business, and this man showed how MSFT is doing tons of "basic research" that is not at all directed by their product groups. He came to MSFT in 1991 to start the group and still heads it up. They publish tons of research papers and operate in a university-style model. Most of their work is apparently online, although I don't have the URL. I think they even have RSS feeds you can subscribe to in order to keep abreast of their latest publications.
Rick Rashid is evidently an intersting and capable man himself. He wrote the Mach kernel that was (and still is) at the heart of the NEXT and Mac OSX systems, he has written games, started the DirectX project. The guy has done a lot of serious stuff, and he appears to be a deep believer in the university research model.
There's a vast range of projects they are working on with their staff of over 700 researchers. I am looking forward to finding their publication listings and starting to read more about what they are up to. This is a side of Microsoft many of us don't see, and it was pretty cool!
38 replies so far (
Post your own)
Re: Matt & Rick at Microsoft: Day 2 (Update 10:53 AM)
...one of the things MSFT hopes to achieve after writing the $2B check to Sun is a chance for Java to run better on WindowsWhat the heck is wrong in how it runs on Windows right now?
Re: Matt & Rick at Microsoft: Day 2 (Update 10:53 AM)
good stuff, keep it coming.Video Games Gone Funny!
Re: Matt & Rick at Microsoft: Day 2 (Update 10:53 AM)
What I would be interested in hearing is a clear statement from them on interoperability. Whenever somebody says multiplatform, open source or WORA, they say sorry we're not in that business. I can understand that. But then they go on to say, our form of openness is interoperability because that's in the users' interest. I agree. Yet in practice they seem to be rather selective about fulfilling that promise.Two examples that come to mind are IE's lacking support for standards like CSS and their feet dragging and trickery when it comes to opening up Windows networking protocols like SMB. They opened SMB (the windows file and printer sharing protocol) only after an EU ruling and in a way that is unsuitable for open source implementations. And IE finally does seem to get an update, but full CSS support is rumored not to be part of that.
How can we take their interoperability pledge seriously when it doesn't even work for such basic and rather dated things like the web browser and low level networking protocols? Interoperability needs a certain level of mutual trust, that the other side doesn't refuse to go through with it at those points where it might not be in their immediate business interest.
Re: Matt & Rick at Microsoft: Day 2 (Update 10:53 AM)
> ...one of the things MSFT hopes to achieve after> writing the $2B check to Sun is a chance for Java to
> run better on Windows
>
> What the heck is wrong in how it runs on Windows
> right now?
And why on Earth would MS want Java to run better
on Windows? Wouldn't it make a lot more business sense
for them to want it to run worse on Windows? It's
not like they're going to sell more versions of
Windows because people want to run Java apps.
If Java runs poorly on Windows, that would only
help C# and .NET in general.
I don't think it's technically possible to do anything
to Windows to make Java not run well (while everything
else still runs fine). But if there is a way, I'd
expect MS to do it.
Re: Matt & Rick at Microsoft: Day 2 (Update 10:53 AM)
> What I would be interested in hearing is a clear> statement from them on interoperability. Whenever
> somebody says multiplatform, open source or WORA,
> they say sorry we're not in that business.
Or they say "We are multiplatform, we run on ALL
versions of Windows". They also sometimes say
(and this one actually makes a little sense)
"People don't want an application to run on multiple
platforms, people want multiple applications to
be well-integrated on a single platform".
> I can
> understand that. But then they go on to say, our form
> of openness is interoperability because that's in the
> users' interest. I agree. Yet in practice they seem
> to be rather selective about fulfilling that promise.
How are they being selective? MS products are *never*
open or interoperable. I can't think of
a single product that makes a serious attempt at
interoperability. IE has its own HTML tags, and
doesn't support CSS well. Windows makes no attempt
whatsoever at compatibility with other OSs.
Office is infamous for having all proprietary
file formats (which constantly change to keep
everyone else playing catchup).
IIS and Outlook are tightly tied, rather than using
standard protocols.
MSVC++ has Windows extensions. And, of course,
we have J#.
>
>
> Two examples that come to mind are IE's lacking
> support for standards like CSS and their feet
> dragging and trickery when it comes to opening up
> Windows networking protocols like SMB. They opened
> SMB (the windows file and printer sharing protocol)
> only after an EU ruling and in a way that is
> unsuitable for open source implementations. And IE
> finally does seem to get an update, but full CSS
> support is rumored not to be part of that.
IE still doesn't support CSS1 well after all these
years, let alone CSS2.
>
> How can we take their interoperability pledge
> seriously when it doesn't even work for such basic
> and rather dated things like the web browser and low
> level networking protocols? Interoperability needs a
> certain level of mutual trust, that the other side
> doesn't refuse to go through with it at those points
> where it might not be in their immediate business
> interest.
I'm not sure it would help to bring this up at a
"conversation" meeting like this. Saying "you
should make your products interoperate" is just
not in their interests, not in their business plan, not
in their culture.
Re: Matt & Rick at Microsoft: Day 2 (Update 10:53 AM)
> And why on Earth would MS want Java to run better> on Windows? Wouldn't it make a lot more business
> sense
> for them to want it to run worse on Windows? It's
> not like they're going to sell more versions of
> Windows because people want to run Java apps.
That's true on the desktop. But probably not so true when we start talking server. Remember, not many companies choose a server operating system based strictly on its own merits. They choose a server operating system based on whether it can serve their needs or not. Now if a company has already commited to a Java based infrastructure and has 10 or 20 million lines of Java code in place, they aren't going to switch to .NET. However, they still have another choice to make if Java runs well on Windows... Do we go with Linux? Or do we go with Windows Server 2003? There is way to much Java out there for Microsoft to ignore it. They want Java to run well on Windows because they know they aren't going to convertt Java companies to .NET. But they still might be able to get Java companies to run Windows Server instead of Linux.
Re: Matt & Rick at Microsoft: Day 2 (Update 10:53 AM)
> > I can> > understand that. But then they go on to say, our
> form
> > of openness is interoperability because that's in
> the
> > users' interest. I agree. Yet in practice they
> seem
> > to be rather selective about fulfilling that
> promise.
>
> How are they being selective? MS products are
> *never*
> open or interoperable. I can't think of
> a single product that makes a serious attempt at
> interoperability.
Well, they do support Web Services standards and the Office XML document formats are also a good thing. I know you don't like XML in any shape or form, but let's not argue about that again.
> I'm not sure it would help to bring this up at a
> "conversation" meeting like this. Saying "you
> should make your products interoperate" is just
> not in their interests, not in their business plan,
> not in their culture.
I don't agree with that. In any particular case interoperability may or may not be in their interest. It depends entirely on their market position in the area concerned. But on the whole, I think, no vendor, not even Microsoft, can be seen to be an obstacle for their own customers coping with the realities of heterogenous system landscapes. It is definately in Microsoft's interest to help their customers cope.
And therefore, it definately makes sense to remind them that interoperability depends on mutual trust and cooperation and cannot be done selectively without putting mutual goodwill at risk.
Re: Matt & Rick at Microsoft: Day 2 (Update 10:53 AM)
> Well, they do support Web Services standards and the> Office XML document formats are also a good thing. I
> know you don't like XML in any shape or form, but
> let's not argue about that again.
I'm all in favor of XML for data exchange.
But I just assumed (and last I heard) was that
their so-called "XML format" was just proprietary
Word format embedded in a few XML tags.
Maybe that's changed - I don't keep up with that stuff -
but last I heard openoffice.org and everyone else
was stuff playing catchup.
And, from what I've heard, XAML won't help anything.
>
> > I'm not sure it would help to bring this up at a
> > "conversation" meeting like this. Saying "you
> > should make your products interoperate" is just
> > not in their interests, not in their business
> plan,
> > not in their culture.
>
> I don't agree with that. In any particular case
> interoperability may or may not be in their interest.
In theory, yes. In practice, let's look at
their products and see if any of them interoperate
or whether it even makes sense for MS to want to
interoperate:
Windows (including SAMBA)
Office (Word, Powerpoint, excel file formats)
IE (HTML, CSS compliance)
IIS
Outlook
XBOX (Run PS2 games?)
Kerberos
MSVC, MSVC++, J#, C#
.NET
MSN Messenger
Ah Ha! MSG Messenger! MS would love to have that
interoperate with AOL. But only in the sense that
they once had IE comply with HTML standards (that is,
be compliant until all competition is illegally
wiped out, and then do whatever you want).
> It depends entirely on their market position in the
> area concerned.
Can you name a market that MS is in where it makes
sense for them to interoperate (from a strictly
money-making-for-MS point of view)? Is the Messenger
example above the only one?
> But on the whole, I think, no vendor,
> not even Microsoft, can be seen to be an obstacle for
> their own customers coping with the realities of
> heterogenous system landscapes.
MS certainly is seen that way, and for good reason.
The reality is that if you're an MS shop, you're
pretty much stuck with all MS products. And MS will
continue to do everything they can to keep things
that way...it just makes good business sense.
If the playing field is level, MS loses.
> It is definately in
> Microsoft's interest to help their customers cope.
How so? At my job recently, I was told I must use
Outlook, because it's the "company standard". In other
words, it's the only thing that will work with the
IIS server the company had (or at least that's what
the IT dept believed). So MS gains sales of Outlook
by tying it tightly to IIS.
>
> And therefore, it definately makes sense to remind
> them that interoperability depends on mutual trust
> and cooperation and cannot be done selectively
> without putting mutual goodwill at risk.
As I said, they don't do it selectively - they
don't do interoperability at all. And there is no
mutual goodwill to put at risk. Everyone knows
that MS products don't work with everyone else's
products.
Re: Matt & Rick at Microsoft: Day 2 (Update 10:53 AM)
> > And why on Earth would MS want Java to run better> > on Windows? Wouldn't it make a lot more business
> > sense
> > for them to want it to run worse on Windows? It's
> > not like they're going to sell more versions of
> > Windows because people want to run Java apps.
>
> That's true on the desktop. But probably not so true
> when we start talking server. Remember, not many
> companies choose a server operating system based
> strictly on its own merits. They choose a server
> operating system based on whether it can serve their
> needs or not. Now if a company has already commited
> to a Java based infrastructure and has 10 or 20
> million lines of Java code in place, they aren't
> going to switch to .NET. However, they still have
> another choice to make if Java runs well on
> Windows... Do we go with Linux? Or do we go with
> Windows Server 2003? There is way to much Java out
> there for Microsoft to ignore it. They want Java to
> run well on Windows because they know they aren't
> going to convertt Java companies to .NET. But they
> still might be able to get Java companies to run
> Windows Server instead of Linux.
Yea, that's a good point. I hadn't thought about
the server side.
Re: Matt & Rick at Microsoft: Day 2 (Update 10:53 AM)
> Yea, that's a good point. I hadn't thought about> the server side.
It gets better. If Microsoft can work with Sun to integrate Java so that it supports Windows authentication services for example, now users who log in to Java based applications running on Windows Servers will be using Windows authentication. That means Microsoft can sell these companies per-user or per-seat access licenses. They couldn't do that if the Java services were using a seperate authentication system. There is a significant amount of money to be made for Microsoft if Java supports these kinds of things on Windows.
Re: Matt & Rick at Microsoft: Day 2 (Update 10:53 AM)
>IE (HTML, CSS compliance)does Mozilla XUL works with other browsers?
>IIS
And how different is Apache
>XBOX (Run PS2 games?)
Does GameCube runs PS2 games, does PS2 runs GameCube or XBox games?
>MSVC, MSVC++, J#, C#
I have compiled untold numbers of open-source C++ programs written without extensions and OS hook (for Linux) on MSVC++.
Mono let you run a number of C# programs in Linux
J# can't be upgraded to the latest JDK for legal reasons (and lack of will too)
Re: Matt & Rick at Microsoft: Day 2 (Update 10:53 AM)
>outlookIn the company I work we have adopted a linux-based e-mail system.
There are people using it with Outlook (full), Outlook express, Mozilla and Thunderbid.
Re: Matt & Rick at Microsoft: Day 2 (Update 10:53 AM)
> > Well, they do support Web Services standards and> the
> > Office XML document formats are also a good thing.
> I
> > know you don't like XML in any shape or form, but
> > let's not argue about that again.
>
> I'm all in favor of XML for data exchange.
> But I just assumed (and last I heard) was that
> their so-called "XML format" was just proprietary
> Word format embedded in a few XML tags.
It is proprietary in the sense that they develop it, they own the IP rights and it's not based on any "official" standard. But the format is free to use for anybody. It's documented and the XML Schema is publicly available. So for all practical purposes, that makes interoperability quite a lot easier than it was before.
http://www.microsoft.com/office/xml/default.mspx
> > I don't agree with that. In any particular case
> > interoperability may or may not be in their
> interest.
> In theory, yes. In practice, let's look at
> their products and see if any of them interoperate
> or whether it even makes sense for MS to want to
> interoperate:
>
> Windows (including SAMBA)
> Office (Word, Powerpoint, excel file formats)
> IE (HTML, CSS compliance)
> IIS
> Outlook
> XBOX (Run PS2 games?)
> Kerberos
> MSVC, MSVC++, J#, C#
> .NET
> MSN Messenger
Most MS products are interoperable to *some degree* and this selectiveness is precisely what I'm criticising. Of course they do TCP/IP, LDAP, SMTP, HTTP, etc. but most products also have some additional non public interfaces that make them work better in a MS only setting.
However, recently things seem to have changed quite a bit. They have opened the office file formats, which is very important. .NET is much more open than anything that came before. Indigo will be the foundation of everything to do with communictations on Windows and it is based on open standards.
> > It depends entirely on their market position in
> the
> > area concerned.
>
> Can you name a market that MS is in where it makes
> sense for them to interoperate (from a strictly
> money-making-for-MS point of view)?
Yes, all the markets where they don't have a quasi monopoly, that is, everything but the desktop.
> > But on the whole, I think, no vendor,
> > not even Microsoft, can be seen to be an obstacle
> for
> > their own customers coping with the realities of
> > heterogenous system landscapes.
>
> MS certainly is seen that way, and for good reason.
And I think they recognise that this is dangerous for them, so they try to change it without hurting their business.
> The reality is that if you're an MS shop, you're
> pretty much stuck with all MS products. And MS will
> continue to do everything they can to keep things
> that way...it just makes good business sense.
That may be true for many SMEs but it is certainly not true for larger enterprises or governments. They all have a mixture of stuff. You will be hard pressed to find a financial institution in the City of London that does not use Office and Java/J2EE. The combination of a Microsoft desktop and a Unix/Java/Oracle backend is extremely widespread.
> If the playing field is level, MS loses.
That's a delusion.
Re: Matt & Rick at Microsoft: Day 2 (Update 10:53 AM)
> >IE (HTML, CSS compliance)> does Mozilla XUL works with other browsers?
Depends on whether you consider Firefox another browser or not. It does work with Firefox.
> Mono let you run a number of C# programs in Linux
Very few. Because anything that uses the WinFX portion will not work on Mono.
> J# can't be upgraded to the latest JDK for legal
> reasons (and lack of will too)
J# is not Java. It is .NET with a Java like syntax. And it uses the .NET libraries and such.