Skip to main content

"Those who do not understand Unix...

...are condemned to reinvent it, poorly.” — so spake Henry Spencer’s sig, in 1987. And here we are, eighteen years later, and everybody’s favourite blame-server finally gets around to beginning the process. And I quote from Page 2:

A newcomer to the Windows group, [Corporate Vice President, Windows Core Operating System Development] Mr. [Amitabh] Srivastava had his team draw up a map of how Windows’ pieces fit together. It was 8 feet tall and 11 feet wide and looked like a haphazard train map with hundreds of tracks crisscrossing each other.

That was just the opposite of how Microsoft’s new rivals worked. Google and others developed test versions of software and shipped them over the Internet. The best of the programs from rivals were like Lego[®] blocks — they had a single function and were designed to be connected onto a larger whole. Google and even Microsoft’s own MSN online unit could quickly respond to changes in the way people used their PCs and the Web by adding incremental improvements.

What I suspect that they haven’t begun to really come to terms with is just how very deeply so very many applications reach into that non-Flying Spaghetti Monster of code.

I’m sure that the WINE and Win4Lin people will be having a good chuckle to themselves over this one. Seeing Microsoft’s efforts to chain customers to their codebase come back to bite them on the butt must be quietly satisfying, and now Microsoft faces de-engineering much of the spaghetti out of their own code.

Which means...

Since people are going to be rewriting applications for Vista now, Linux and BSD advocates have yet another fabulous opportunity to say “Well, why not make it portable this time, so you don’t have to go through the same drama again next time Microsoft changes stuff? And in the process grab yourself some access to emerging markets — the Linux which Microsoft so rightfully fears will eat their corporate lunch, and the revitalised Macintoshes?“

I already know of an Australian application developer eagerly porting to Kylix and PostgreSQL from Delphi and MS-SQL-Server, ready to join others who develop on Linux for cross-platform targets (through Free Pascal, they can target x86, PPC, AMD64, 68k, Arm and Sparc on a variety of platforms, specifically including Linux, Win32, Mac OS <=9, Mac OS X and FreeBSD).

They and their customers have started noticing how much “seats” cost and how much Microsoft’s software limits their other hardware, software and support choices.

The next major release of their premier application will run end-to-end natively on Linux (their current release runs under WINE but for .xls export, however is still tied to the database). This vertical-market application is an expensive lump sum to swallow, but rolling it out on Linux, OpenOffice and PostgreSQL across a fifty-seat business roughly halves the overall cost to the customer without the slightest loss of profit to the developer, and the customer still has the option of running it on MS-Windows workstations and/or servers and/or application base if they want to.

If you know a developer, talk to them about it. Tell them that other developers are going portable, and why. Even if they don’t jump on the idea right away, a seed might be planted.

Comments

Leon RJ Brooks said…
True, alpha, true. And I look forward to OpenOffice’s coming revolution.

Quite a few projects have bitten the bullet and done an extensive rewrite (PostgreSQL’s been through a few, so has KDE in a piecemeal fashion), usually with excellent results.

However, even after David Cutler revitalised MS SQL Server, I never thought I’d see the day that MS’d do the same with MS Windows.

Popular posts from this blog

An Open and Shut response to Darl McBride

Hi, Darl. I see you’re being dishonest again . It’d be really nice if you could shoot straight for a change, but I think Kerry’s Dad will be selling snowplows in Hell first. Three years ago, when I first joined The SCO Group, we focused the company on the area that was most profitable and provided the most benefit to customers, investors, resellers, developers and employees: UNIX No, you focused the company on suing people, which was most profitable to lawyers and provided some golden parachutes for your buddies. People thought we were crazy. They were right. But since SCO owns the UNIX operating system The SCO Group does not own UNIX® in any sense of the word. The Open Group owns the UNIX trademark, definition and other rights , The SCO Group does not. The SCO Group doesn’t even own the UnixWare® or OpenServer® code, the rights to those are held by Novell and TSG use them only by permission and under certain conditions — which they have violate...

5x7 text dot-matrix in five minutes...

This is a fairly primitive toy I threw together today for a specific purpose, published in case it’s any use to others... feed it a list of words as command arguments, which it will then display as a 5x7 ASCII dotmatrix with ‘#’ as a dot & ‘_’ as a blank. /* * display text using a 5x7 bitmap font in ASCII letters */ static unsigned char font [] [5] = { { 0x00,0x00,0x00,0x00,0x00 }, // 0x20 32 { 0x00,0x00,0x6f,0x00,0x00 }, // ! 0x21 33 { 0x00,0x07,0x00,0x07,0x00 }, // " 0x22 34 { 0x14,0x7f,0x14,0x7f,0x14 }, // # 0x23 35 { 0x00,0x07,0x04,0x1e,0x00 }, // $ 0x24 36 { 0x23,0x13,0x08,0x64,0x62 }, // % 0x25 37 { 0x36,0x49,0x56,0x20,0x50 }, // & 0x26 38 { 0x00,0x00,0x07,0x00,0x00 }, // ' 0x27 39 { 0x00,0x1c,0x22,0x41,0x00 }, // ( 0x28 40 { 0x00,0x41,0x22,0x1c,0x00 }, // ) 0x29 41 { 0x14,0x08,0x3e,0x08,0x14 }, // * 0x2a 42 { 0x08,0x08,0x3e,0x08,0x08 }, ...

Citizens Augmenting Government Waste

So here we have Microsoft-funded “ Citizens Against Government Waste ” (CAGW) heavily criticising Massachusetts’s switch to an internationally accepted and open document standard (not open source, open standard — but I seem to remember a large monopolist who frequently confuses the two when it suits them). I remember CAGW, they were the organisation who had dead people writing in to support Microsoft in court a few years ago — thanks to sbergman27 for the link — is this “the dead hand of CAGW” at work again? Let’s follow the money and find out. Who stands to lose the most money and control if Massachusetts switches to an unencumbered document format? Big surprise, it’s CAGW sponsor Microsoft, through their dominant MS-Office suite. Why did CAGW list Microsoft’s suite last, after two other much-less-dominant examples which are waning anyway? If you’re inclined to wallow in additional irony, consider that at leas...