Adequacy front page
Stories Diaries Polls Users
Google

Web Adequacy.org
Home About Topics Rejects Abortions
This is an archive site only. It is no longer maintained. You can not post comments. You can not make an account. Your email will not be read. Please read this page if you have questions.
Poll
Greatest innovation from the Linux kernel team:
um... 0%
ah... 0%
er... 50%
um.. 12%
make xconfig? 37%

Votes: 8

 Innovation

 Author:  Topic:  Posted:
Apr 22, 2002
 Comments:
Continuing Adequacy's ongoing series of intellectual headbutting matches held regularly in the diaries section, I'd like to explore one of the more frequently recurring themes we've seen in diary entries written about Microsoft.
diaries

More diaries by T Reginald Gibbons
The Funeral of Bin Laden
An Apology
An idea Hollywood would probably pay millions for
Ask The Mad Scientist
An Important Issue
Question for The Mad Scientist

For the past few years, Microsoft have gone to great lengths to draw attention to the contributions they have made to computing. Despite, or perhaps because of this, every time the word "innovation" is mentioned in connection with their business, it is greeted with howls of derision and letters of refutation from the open source peanut gallery. One noteworthy feature of these exchanges is the complete absence of supporting evidence on the open source side. Besides endlessly reiterating the "MS Bob sucks" line, Microsoft's detractors have never presented any counter-arguments at all. Surely Microsoft's claims are based on more than one failed product.

In fact, Microsoft have been doing quite a lot to extend the state of the art. Microsoft Research was one of the first research laboratories established by a software company, over ten years ago. It currently employs over 600 researchers worldwide, many of them top industry figures, such as their current head, Rick Rashid, the mind behind the Mach kernel. Over the past ten years, Microsoft Research have been repeatedly recognised with the industry's highest honors, such as the ACM's Turing Award.

Those readers who are interested in learning the truth behind Microsoft's Freedom to Innovate will no doubt be curious as to what directions Microsoft Research has taken. Well, they certainly haven't been idle! There isn't an application of computing technology that Microsoft Research hasn't taken an interest in. User interfaces of all kinds, systems research, graphics, artificial intelligence...it would take the computer science departments of several of the world's finest universities combined to equal Microsoft's contributions to the field over the last ten years. Microsoft's research efforts have placed them in the same league as organisations such as Xerox PARC, Bell Labs and IBM.

It should be clear at this point that Microsoft's reputation as a center of innovation in the computing industry is well-deserved. With a world-class research facility directing efforts into both practical and theoretical areas of investigation, Microsoft is one of the top dogs in innovation. Their research efforts have yielded considerable rewards for their customers too, with concepts from Microsoft Research fueling advances in everything from games to enterprise technologies. At Microsoft, research works closely with development to put brand new technologies into the field faster than anyone else.

Quite a different portrait than that painted by their detractors, who are little more than contrary and argumentative crackpots tinkering with a 30 year old operating system design, while muttering about the lack of innovation at the only company in the last decade who has successfully brought any new ideas to the OS market. And MS Bob. I expect we'll still be hearing about that when the linux kernel finally collapses under the weight of it's own unmanageability.

       
Tweet

you don't say (none / 0) (#1)
by detikon on Mon Apr 22nd, 2002 at 01:33:03 AM PST
Microsoft's detractors have never presented any counter-arguments at all.

What about that story by Willaim whatever? You know the one that mysteriously disappeared.

Microsoft Research was one of the first research laboratories established by a software company, over ten years ago.

Really? Try telling that to all the other companies invaolved with University projects. First my ass. You go on to mention PARC and the Bell Labs. I hope you know that the PARC and the Bell Labs (birth place of Unix) are much older than MS. It was an antitrust trial against AT&T which forced their breakup. I guess you've heard of Southwestern Bell, Pacific Bell and the like?

it would take the computer science departments of several of the world's finest universities combined to equal Microsoft's contributions to the field over the last ten years.

That's funny...
Microsoft Research works in partnership with universities around the world through its University Relations Group. The group engages with university researchers, faculty, staff and students to support the use and integration of Microsoft technologies in Computer Science research. We also work with accreditation boards, publishers and industry partners to provide resources and tools in support of university efforts.


It should be clear at this point that Microsoft's reputation as a center of innovation in the computing industry is well-deserved.

Yeah it's easy to say you have a reputation along that lines when it's touted by Microsoft. Amazingly enough it's a view not shared by many in the industry. You have to give MS licensing credit. It allows them to rip off companies and protects them in a number of ways from lawsuits.




Go away or I will replace you with a very small shell script.

Educating detikon (none / 0) (#3)
by T Reginald Gibbons on Mon Apr 22nd, 2002 at 02:16:01 AM PST
...and NAWL "The Brick Wall" returns fire with yet another demonstration of his own inability to read.

Are you terrified of links? I assure, we aren't going to steal your IP tokens. Please, humour me: visit Microsoft Research again. Pay special attention to the huge list of researchers employed directly by Microsoft Research. I believe there's somewhere in the region of six hundred researchers working for MS directly. That's in addition to their partnerships with University research.

Now for some reading comprehension: Neither Xerox nor IBM nor Bell nor any university is a software company.

Once again, Microsoft's position has been demonstrated to be unassailable. So far, this round is going exactly as predicted: Zero evidence presented by the open source zealots in support of their ludicrous claims. We have one statement about an imaginary story by someone called "Willaim", two poor attempts to undermine the credibility of my article, which failed on their own lack of merits, and one closing statement supported by nothing more than baseless speculation about the views of the industry.


do your research (none / 0) (#4)
by detikon on Mon Apr 22nd, 2002 at 03:01:58 AM PST
Now for some reading comprehension: Neither Xerox nor IBM nor Bell nor any university is a software company.

Reall now. IBM is a software company. Software is not the only business venture for IBM but niether is it for Microsoft. Microsoft also manufactures some hardware. IBM develops Linux software, OS/2, AIX, and Mac OSX on top of manufacturing PPC microprocessors for Apple.

Xerox develops software such as office suites, knowledge sharing, production and printing as well as system management and administration.

Bell, as you put it, cannot really be considered a software company because it isn't a company. The link which you provided in your story only links to one of the bell labs, Lucent, yet none of the others. I suggest that you take a look at SBC for example.

I am not Yoshi or osm. I don't worry about IP tokens because they don't exist. Your vague understanding of networking leaves little to be desired.

If you don't like the Microsoft Bob argument perhaps you would enjoy something else. I found the list used in the story I mentioned before. Though not a complete list it should be enjoyable.

Auto/hiding task bar
CD-ROM Autorun
ClearType
Customizable Tool Palettes
Excel/Multiplan
Hypertext Help
Microsoft Smartcard
Natural Keyboard
QBASIC engine
RTF (Rich Text) File format
Talking Paper Clip
VFAT Filing System
Word for DOS




Go away or I will replace you with a very small shell script.

I've anticipated your argument (none / 0) (#7)
by T Reginald Gibbons on Mon Apr 22nd, 2002 at 04:01:23 AM PST
So I spoke with Thomas J. Watson of IBM and Alexander Graham Bell of Bell. I asked both of them what business they were in. Mr. Watson told me he sold computer hardware, and Mr. Bell replied that he dealt in telephones and related infrastructure. When I asked my Bell about software, he looked baffled and mumbled something about pillows. Xerox, of course, make photocopiers, faxes and other electronics. None of these companies makes money from software. If these are software companies, then Mercedes-Benz is a well-known keyring manufacturing concern.


Funtastic typos (none / 0) (#8)
by T Reginald Gibbons on Mon Apr 22nd, 2002 at 04:08:03 AM PST
...when I asked my Bell...

That should, of course, read Mr. Bell.


oh...Ha...Ha...Ha (n/t) (none / 0) (#9)
by detikon on Mon Apr 22nd, 2002 at 04:14:31 AM PST





Go away or I will replace you with a very small shell script.

Is T Reginald Gibbons really Bill Gates? (5.00 / 1) (#12)
by firebob on Mon Apr 22nd, 2002 at 08:53:19 AM PST
So, at first I had to ask myself, "Is T Reginald Gibbons really Bill Gates hiding behind an alias?"

I mean, WTF I've never seen someone so pro 'Join the "Save the Microsoft" Foundation'.

Then I thought "NO, Bill Gates knows his competition, like who makes money off of visual cafe, and websphere." and "I'm sure he would remember ripping off/buying company's ideas about GUI, RAD tools, database engines, 3D engines, web browsers, streaming media, MSIL (remember Java Byte code?)"


Then it came to me. This loser must work for adequacy.org. They are using the "controversial topic" with an "extreme minority wing" ploy to lure us into writing about a topic that everyone really already knows enough about. Microsoft is a big hairy monster that consumes every company it finds to have a usefule product, and uses muscle power and sheer numbers to try and destroy anyone they can't buy out. That's just a simple fact of the matter.

I'm no advocate either way, I've got linux on a box, win2k on 2 others. My webserver, one of the win2k's, is running JRun and CFServer. My linux server is running the same.

I'd sooner kill myself than spend the rest of my life writing Visual C++.net code (Visual C++.net is a variant of C++ based off of the .NET platform initative, it is far inferior in speed to the stardards initially from Bjarne Stroustrup[creator of c++] at Bell Labs) on a win2k box to host mobile pages for a winCE based cell phone. I am a person who requires variety.

Microsoft's goal is to eliminate every that's not Microsoft's Goal.

btw, if you every need examples, I got ton's of examples.... I've been around for a while, and I stay fresh.


Sir. (none / 0) (#15)
by T Reginald Gibbons on Mon Apr 22nd, 2002 at 07:03:21 PM PST
I assure I am not the esteemed Mr Gates. I am merely an extremely well-educated gentleman of these United States, who is interested in getting to the root of matters, rather than simply slinging invective at things which I have arbitrarily defined as the enemy. I am not supporting a "Save the Microsoft" movement, I am merely looking for the truth. The truth, in this case, is that Microsoft is actually a highly innovative company. If you were willing to actually explore the Microsoft Research website, you would have no choice but to concede this point. The evidence is incontrovertible. If you would rather rattle off a list of "unsuccessful" innovations by Microsoft, in a misguided attempt to prove that Microsoft has not innovated at all, I suppose I can't stop you. This is America, and although I do not agree with you, I will defend to the death your right to make poorly argued, outrageous claims in defiance of all the available evidence.


Nothing to concede (none / 0) (#17)
by firebob on Mon Apr 22nd, 2002 at 09:32:03 PM PST
If you would rather rattle off a list of "unsuccessful" innovations by Microsoft

To the contrary, they are all successful ideas that are fulfilling their destinies on desktops and servers all over the world. They're just not Microsoft's ideas.

The truth, in this case, is that Microsoft is actually a highly innovative company. If you were willing to actually explore the Microsoft Research website, you would have no choice but to concede this point.

OK, I explored, I dare you to click on and report back an one of those links. I will, in turn, tell you who came up with the idea first. Microsoft is certainly one of the kings of improving things, and remaking things that are intended on not being compatible with the rest of the way things work, but they are far from innovative. Innovation, I would say (and dictionary.com agrees), implies something new. A new idea. A new concept.
Are speech synthesizers new? what about virtual reality? How about cryptography? Are these Microsoft innovated technologies? I hardly think so. I apologize, but i just randomly clicked on some of the tree items, if you find something in that list that IS a Microsoft Innovation, please let us know. And please forgive these late night run on sentences.



You really don't want to know, do you? (none / 0) (#19)
by Anonymous Reader on Tue Apr 23rd, 2002 at 02:38:50 AM PST
Tell me this, sir: when did your beloved Linux start to optimise for http service over multiple ethernet interfaces?

Go on. You know the answer, and you know it well.


Tell me who... (none / 0) (#24)
by The Mad Scientist on Tue Apr 23rd, 2002 at 04:43:34 AM PST
...needs it, and for what?


 
Poorly argued as ever (none / 0) (#21)
by T Reginald Gibbons on Tue Apr 23rd, 2002 at 03:29:39 AM PST
The dictionary: The plank one clings to when one's argument is sunk. I would present the view that your linked definition makes no statement about the size or impact that a newly introduced idea should have in order to be considered innovative. Your interpretation is entirely self-serving. If I was to accept such a ridiculously narrow definition of the word, flying in the face of accepted usage as it does, I would be forced to concede that there have been only two innovations in computing in the last thirty years. Obviously this not the sense in which any sane person uses the term.


You now see the point. (none / 0) (#22)
by because it isnt on Tue Apr 23rd, 2002 at 04:05:52 AM PST
I would be forced to concede that there have been only two innovations in computing in the last thirty years. Obviously this not the sense in which any sane person uses the term.

Finally, you admit the truth. There's nothing really innovative about Microsoft, or anyone else working with computers. I hate when people pretend that there is. "innovate" is marketing mumbo-jumbo. It's like people that call their product "a paradigm shift in usability". In science, a paradigm shift requires all scientific work to be rewritten. It is a major upheaveal. It does not happen every Tuesday when you've got a new product to launch. If computing software previous to this "paradigm shift in computing" continues to function properly, it is not a paradigm shift in computing.
adequacy.org -- because it isn't

That's a little harsh (none / 0) (#23)
by T Reginald Gibbons on Tue Apr 23rd, 2002 at 04:24:31 AM PST
Of course there are very few paradigm-shifting ideas in computing. That sort of thing is incredibly rare in any field. This does not mean that nobody is doing interesting, new or useful research in computing. Research which leads to innovation of a very real sort. Whole new fields of endeavour may not be opening up as a result of this research, but an innovative new idea to enhance an existing technology is deserving of the term. Microsoft provides plenty of these sort of innovations. It's one of the reasons their products sell. Microsoft may not have invented the GUI, but they do have the most advanced desktop available, for reasons which, in light of this discussion, I shouldn't have to explain.

With the efforts Microsoft is making in the research arena, it would not be at all surprising if the next sea change in computing came from their labs.


holy crap (none / 0) (#34)
by detikon on Tue Apr 23rd, 2002 at 07:02:42 AM PST
Whole new fields of endeavour may not be opening up as a result of this research, but an innovative new idea to enhance an existing technology is deserving of the term. Microsoft provides plenty of these sort of innovations. It's one of the reasons their products sell.

I would say it's better marketing. Notice how there are plenty of comapnies out there with the same ideas being researched. MS just market products and many times fails to deliver on all their promises. Take .NET for example. Gee, uh Java, Websphere, Zen Networks (i believe that's it). Hell even Apple's digital hub ideology is older than .NET. Sure it's not as wide scale as what all the others are doing but at least you know it works.

Microsoft may not have invented the GUI, but they do have the most advanced desktop available, for reasons which, in light of this discussion, I shouldn't have to explain.

Really? There are those that would disagree with that. MacOS has a much better UI than Windows. Must be why they try to copy it. Just compare MacOSX (Aqua) to the Fisdher price GUI in WindowsXP (Luna).

Some people have theories about the future of Apple and it's next moves. Moving to x86 processors from Intel or AMD. Maybe porting more apps to the PCs (ie iTunes to work with the iPod, coming soon). Others believe Apple will port MAcOS to the PC which is rather silly since MAcs are PCs because PC is nothing more than an acronym which stands for peronal computer. You can already get parts of MacOSX on you IBM-compatible machine. Just download and install DarwinOS x86. Imagine how many people would drop Windows if they could run MacOS natively on their PC. With the efforts Microsoft is making in the research arena, it would not be at all surprising if the next sea change in computing came from their labs.

When was the last time you saw a news report about MS working on computers you wear? Screw PDAs. Imagine the screen built into your sunglasses and all input done through voice and and a small touchpad. Then next wave for the box on WinTel machines you'll see will be from hardware manufacturers when the finally drop the friggin floppy drive. Until then they'll just copy the cool case designs from Apple.




Go away or I will replace you with a very small shell script.

Wearable computers (none / 0) (#42)
by The Mad Scientist on Tue Apr 23rd, 2002 at 01:21:39 PM PST
When was the last time you saw a news report about MS working on computers you wear? Screw PDAs. Imagine the screen built into your sunglasses and all input done through voice and and a small touchpad.

...and gesture recognition and spatial sensitivity, etc, etc, etc.

No, it will be as always. Others work like mad, making their dreams true. Then they get results. Then they start getting popular. Then they get noticed by Microsoft. Then Microsoft buys them or duplicates their results in fractional time (because they know what to aim for instead of doing all the research on their own). Then Microsoft's money buy a massive PR campaign, claiming how innovative we-know-who is.

Then only a few people will know the names of the original inventors.

There is no justice in capitalism. Only money.


Wearable computers... (none / 0) (#43)
by tkatchev on Tue Apr 23rd, 2002 at 01:41:47 PM PST
...are a completely ridiculous idea, and you are an idiot if you think it will ever happen.

(I could tell you what will certainly be profitable and useful in the future; I won't waste space here for stuff that any normal person realizes already.)


--
Peace and much love...




just a second (none / 0) (#44)
by detikon on Tue Apr 23rd, 2002 at 01:46:51 PM PST
What's the difference between wearing sunglasses and clipping your cell phone or pager to your belt? Not to mention having one of those small earpieces to talk on your phone.

No one is looking to seriously make people look like they just stepped out of an old low-budget movie made in the 70/80s.




Go away or I will replace you with a very small shell script.

There is a huge difference. (none / 0) (#45)
by tkatchev on Tue Apr 23rd, 2002 at 01:56:41 PM PST
You see, g**ks do not realize that healthy people do not worship technology.


--
Peace and much love...




Niether do I (none / 0) (#50)
by detikon on Tue Apr 23rd, 2002 at 04:48:36 PM PST
I don't worship technology. I don't have a PDA nor would I ever buy one. Now if my boss shoved one in my hand and told me I was required to use then maybe (maybe) I would. I wouldn't wear a computer (unless it was all built into my sunglasses, I probably wouldn't mind too much).

It's not a necessity. Hell I don't even have a cell phone. Got rid of it. If someone needs to reach me they can call me at home. Need to reach me at the office? Send a text message to my pager. It's there for emergencies. You know like when one of the dumbfuck MCSEs puts the installation CD in upside-down or the floppy disk in backwards.




Go away or I will replace you with a very small shell script.

you may not worship technology... (none / 0) (#56)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Apr 24th, 2002 at 04:12:56 AM PST
but if it wasnt for Microsoft (and Adequacy), your life would lose what little purpose and meaning it has.

--- Shut up, NAWL


uh no (none / 0) (#57)
by detikon on Wed Apr 24th, 2002 at 06:52:01 AM PST
Actually I just come here for laughs. I then move on to good reads at Newsforge, Newfactors, TheRegister, OSOpinion, and various other outlets.

If Adequacy.org suddenly disappeared it would be no big deal. I think some of the stupid things Gates and Ballmer have been saying during the ongoing trial is much funnier.




Go away or I will replace you with a very small shell script.

 
Remind me... (none / 0) (#46)
by The Mad Scientist on Tue Apr 23rd, 2002 at 02:09:28 PM PST
...to not take you as R&D advisor.

Wearable computers, or any principially similar form of intertwining of humans and computers, are inevitable development.

You don't worship technology. It's your right. Your employers (and/or peer pressure) will force you to use it anyway.

If it will raise your effectivity as a capitalist society cog, you will have to use it. Look at the cellphones.

Sorry to break your illusions.


Remind me... (none / 0) (#47)
by tkatchev on Tue Apr 23rd, 2002 at 03:00:44 PM PST
...to never take anything you write seriously ever again.

There is a world of difference between a cellphone and a wearaable computer, and any intelligent (that is, not you) marketing guy understands this.

P.S. Humans and computers are not "intertwined", unless you are a g**k who doesn't have a nearby farm animal to relieve your hormonal frustrations out on.


--
Peace and much love...




Difference? What difference? (none / 0) (#48)
by The Mad Scientist on Tue Apr 23rd, 2002 at 03:43:53 PM PST
There is a world of difference between a cellphone and a wearaable computer, and any intelligent (that is, not you) marketing guy understands this.

<snipe>Intelligent marketing guy? I thought they are a myth?</snipe>

But back to the main problem. I will take a PDA as the example; cellphones are getting increasingly fitted with PDA-like functions anyway, while PDAs are getting fitted with GSM transceivers.

Where is the world of difference between a wearable computer and a PDA/cellphone? So the display is "virtualized" directly in one's field of vision instead of on a display on a device in the pocket. So the keyboard is on one's wrist or as a chord keyboard (or any other implementation) instead of a classical keyboard on a device. So you get alerts visually in a discrete silent way instead of a box beeping or vibrating at you. So you wear your computer instead of having it in the pocket. Big deal.

I ask you again: Where is your world of difference?


Ye gods (none / 0) (#49)
by walwyn on Tue Apr 23rd, 2002 at 04:38:35 PM PST
I will take a PDA as the example; cellphones are getting increasingly fitted with PDA-like functions anyway, while PDAs are getting fitted with GSM transceivers.

What the fuck does this mean?

So you get alerts visually in a discrete silent way instead of a box beeping or vibrating at you.

This is a 'good thing'? Perhaps if your name is Homer a method of alerting you to danger is needed, but a siren wail would probably be more effective.

Earlier you bitch about Capitalism and money yet are wedded to consumerism and devices to keep you under control.


PDAs and Warwick (none / 0) (#51)
by The Mad Scientist on Tue Apr 23rd, 2002 at 05:24:23 PM PST
What the fuck does this mean?

That the distinction between cellphones and PDAs is gradually losing its meaning. Is my Nokia Communicator a cellphone with a PDA, or a PDA with a cellphone?

This is a 'good thing'?

Hey! Kevin rocks! Besides, the brain-computer-muscle system could be very good for prosthetics.

I am not sure about the methodology he wants to use for emotions; but he could be pretty certainly successful. Reportedly Jose Delgado achieved good results in this regard with animals few decades ago. I have a bit mixed feelings about this, though, but it could be helpful in cases of ie. prolonged depressions, with less side effects than the "happy pills".

Perhaps if your name is Homer a method of alerting you to danger is needed, but a siren wail would probably be more effective.

What if the danger is invisible, like ie. someone messing around my computers, or radiation? What if the alert isn't about a danger (who mentioned danger here first?) but about a situation like an incoming call or a message, or just a navigation information, or personal dossier of a person I am just talking with?

Earlier you bitch about Capitalism and money yet are wedded to consumerism and devices to keep you under control.

If I have to suffer that shit let's at least get some toys. (Though I'd gladly exchange the number of toys for their increased quality.)

And as far as I am in full control of my devices (ie, open-source (or at least reverse-engineered) firmware, can switch them off if required for security reasons, and can monitor their activity for suspicious operations) I can enforce my security to quite good extent. Knowledge is power.

You have to play with the cards you have in hand even if you don't like the game.


Oh (5.00 / 1) (#52)
by walwyn on Tue Apr 23rd, 2002 at 06:00:48 PM PST
Is my Nokia Communicator a cellphone with a PDA, or a PDA with a cellphone?

...you mean one of these.


Not exactly... (none / 0) (#53)
by The Mad Scientist on Tue Apr 23rd, 2002 at 06:38:15 PM PST
...I meant one of these. Obsolete as hell, but nice. Except that the battery died and I am now feeding it from a small 12V/1.5Ah lead cell battery with a 12-to-7.2V stepdown circuit. (Originally an over-the-weekend improvisation from what I had on-hand, then it stuck.) I needed something for unlimited number of SMS messages, a text editor, a calendar, and a telnet client and VT52 terminal. I got it.

Now I'd only need a SSH client for this beauty and I'd be completely happy (though GPRS would make me even happier - SSH over GPRS with full 80x25 terminal, even in tiny font, would be a *real* gift). There is an ssh client for 9210, but that model is way too expensive for what it is. I heard rumours about such client for 9110 as well, and if it's true I'd be willing to upgrade to that.


 
Uhm... (none / 0) (#18)
by Anonymous Reader on Mon Apr 22nd, 2002 at 11:06:43 PM PST
So, are you looking for the truth, or trying to dictate what truth is? Make up your mind please, or post things that aren't so contradictory.


Truth (none / 0) (#20)
by T Reginald Gibbons on Tue Apr 23rd, 2002 at 02:53:33 AM PST
I have provided ample proof for the statement that Microsoft is responsible for a great deal of innovation. I'll even repeat the source of that proof: Microsoft Research and their easily accessible and informative website. For further proof, I advise you to look at the authors section of every second internet RFC and note the number of Microsoft researchers who have been involved in that process. I have yet to see any similarly convincing proof from the opposing side. All we have so far is the contention that Microsoft have made some things that were made previously by others, with no evidence that Microsoft ever claimed responsibility for these inventions. Empty invective, in other words.


really now? (none / 0) (#32)
by detikon on Tue Apr 23rd, 2002 at 06:43:24 AM PST
I have provided ample proof for the statement that Microsoft is responsible for a great deal of innovation.

Where?

I'll even repeat the source of that proof: Microsoft Research and their easily accessible and informative website.

I failed to find anything innovative on that list.

For further proof, I advise you to look at the authors section of every second internet RFC and note the number of Microsoft researchers who have been involved in that process.

And look where they came from. Most of the work was notable works were pre-MS. You think the MAch kernel was being developed from within MS? Pathetic.

I have yet to see any similarly convincing proof from the opposing side. All we have so far is the contention that Microsoft have made some things that were made previously by others, with no evidence that Microsoft ever claimed responsibility for these inventions. Empty invective, in other words.

As soon as I can find someone who converted their commercials to mpg or such I'll provide them. I love that line "another innovations from Microsoft". Don't they use that in their .NET commercials. You want proof yet you don't want to list any supposed MS innovations. Funny isn't it? There are multiple people ready to refute you claims. Talk about empty. You want to talk about innovation but don't want to list any. Go ahead and try.




Go away or I will replace you with a very small shell script.

What is proof, really? (none / 0) (#35)
by T Reginald Gibbons on Tue Apr 23rd, 2002 at 07:08:21 AM PST
Proof is an enormous list of active research areas, publications and awards (including the Turing Award given to Jim Grey in 1998). Lack of proof is pretending that proof doesn't exist because it effectively renders unreasonable any argument against Microsoft's status as an innovator. Unreasonable arguments persist to be used, however. Could you please present some real support for your arguments, seeing as I have been so good as to provide extremely convincing proof for mine?

While you're doing that, could you show me where I claimed that MS created the Mach kernel? Quoting the sentence exactly, if you would be so kind. It will help us laugh at you when I demonstrate that the sentence in question is not only completely true, but that it is also further evidence of your incompetence with written communication.


wrong (none / 0) (#41)
by detikon on Tue Apr 23rd, 2002 at 12:44:35 PM PST
Could you please present some real support for your arguments, seeing as I have been so good as to provide extremely convincing proof for mine?

You haven't provided squat. All that you have offered was a link to research.microsoft.com and told people to look at what they are working on. Not once have you listed a single innovation nor have you proven that MS innovates. Everything on that list is based on the works of others. Not once have you even bothered to show as to what areas Microsoft has been considered innovative. Are the quotes from others in the industry in your article? No. Have you even attempted to list an innovation? No.

I have gone on to show the Microsoft doesn't innovate.

"Look at this innovative Windows desktop thingy"

Oh you mean that feature that been in MacOS for at least 5 years or more? You mean that feature that works right on the Mac but doesn't in Windows?

MS offered the first innovative GUI, blah blah blah.

Innovative was the Amiga which had a complete OS with a GUI under 1MB. Something that Bill Gates said couldn't ever be done. I guess he didn't know about that old Amiga that people were using long before he even made that statement.

You can stop with the look at research.microsoft.com crap. Look for what? Look where? Where is this innovative thing I'm supposedly missing? No proof. You sound like osm and Yoshi. I don't have to prove my point. Do your own research and find out I'm right. Sorry people here do there own research and always seem to find you're full of shit.

I really like this article. It includes stuff about Microsoft's claims of how it brought about the computing boom.

Would you like a better one? How about the new relational filesystem that will be used in future versions of Windows? They claim it's never been done before on a commercial OS. Obviously Microsoft forgot about BeOS. Windows on a database - sliced and diced by BeOS vets.




Go away or I will replace you with a very small shell script.

No, you do have to provide proof (none / 0) (#54)
by T Reginald Gibbons on Tue Apr 23rd, 2002 at 06:47:55 PM PST
Microsoft Research is doing original work. That's why one of their researchers has been given a Turing Award. Evidently the ACM disagrees with you. I know you're another one of those nitwits woh thinks innnovation means "world changing idea", but it doesn't, and it never has. Microsoft Research provides plenty of innovation, and it is purely stubborn, deceitful hatred that prevents you from agreeing with this. The evidence is there. They are doing solid work. They aren't stealing other people's ideas.

If we had to adhere to your criteria for innovation, the Web wasn't a new idea, and the internet wasn't either. Both are heavily based on work that preceded them.

You haven't shown that they don't innovate. You've listed inventions that they never claimed credit for and proving that they didn't invent them. Congratulation, you're clearly a genius.

Show me, with examples, what your first article has to do with the topic at hand. Since besides a brief mention of IE innovation that more or less undermines your views, the article looked to me to be about Microsoft's current court proceedings. The second article could only be construed as ""Microsoft innovation proven false if we allow you to put words in Microsoft's mouth. Thankfully we don't have to.

Once again, we are back where we started: A list of research areas (with descriptions of the research being carried out), awards and publications from Microsoft placed against baseless mudslinging offered up as proof from their detractors.


 
A piece of advice... (5.00 / 2) (#13)
by elby on Mon Apr 22nd, 2002 at 10:53:16 AM PST
Your vague understanding of networking leaves little to be desired.
Maybe you should try to use smaller words and less complicated sentences.

-lb


 
this is sillyness... (none / 0) (#2)
by gNinja on Mon Apr 22nd, 2002 at 02:01:50 AM PST
everyone knows that for world class software, you need Microsoft.

Linux SMP scales to 4 or maybe 8 cpus... Windows 2000 scales to 64 cpu's. For people that can't do math (linux programmers) that's 8 times more processing power than Linux.

People who don't have 64 cpu's can easily verify windows superiority by trying to do the industry standard cpu benchark: Quake III. On windows it runs at 90 fps right out of the box. On Linux it only works on 1 in 50 computers and it has no hardware acceleration.

What I really like though is OSX. Before Steve Jobs came back Apple hated Microsoft, but now that he has come back Apple and Microsoft are friends and Apple can use the powerful Microsoft technology and merge it with the Apple technology to create the best user experience ever. OSX represents the pinacle of computer software.


only half the story (none / 0) (#5)
by detikon on Mon Apr 22nd, 2002 at 03:18:18 AM PST
Linux SMP scales to 4 or maybe 8 cpus... Windows 2000 scales to 64 cpu's. For people that can't do math (linux programmers) that's 8 times more processing power than Linux.

And for people that don't know I hope you or your company won't be surprise to learn how much they'll need to shell out for Windows 2000 Datacenter to support that many processors. Windows 2000 Professional and XP Professional sure as hell don't have support for that many processors.

People who don't have 64 cpu's can easily verify windows superiority by trying to do the industry standard cpu benchark: Quake III. On windows it runs at 90 fps right out of the box.

I believe you have those backwards. Link

Before Steve Jobs came back Apple hated Microsoft, but now that he has come back Apple and Microsoft are friends and Apple can use the powerful Microsoft technology and merge it with the Apple technology to create the best user experience ever.

Even before Steve Jobs left Apple he didn't like what Microsoft did. Actually he didn't care too much for Bill Gates. The relationship between the two is dependent on contract negotiations 5 years ago. That contract expires soon. MacOS really only uses two piece of MS software, Microsoft Office and Internet Explorer. With a blurry future between MS and Apple, Apple is already looking to move away from MS products. They are already looking at OpenOffice and ThinkFree for office suites and have already begun replacing IE in some screenshots for MacOSX with offerings from AOL. Compserve (owned by AOL) has already switched out support for IE for Netscape. AOL is planning on using a Gecko-based web brower such as Netscape (likely) or Mozilla in release 8.0




Go away or I will replace you with a very small shell script.

Hi! (none / 0) (#10)
by Anonymous Reader on Mon Apr 22nd, 2002 at 04:27:09 AM PST
Detikon, if you don't know this one yet, you'll love it.


well now (none / 0) (#30)
by detikon on Tue Apr 23rd, 2002 at 06:25:43 AM PST
Either William "whatever" ripped off the article of William --------- isn't his real name. It's not an easy choice which to believe. I myself would never use my real name as a user name.




Go away or I will replace you with a very small shell script.

quite so. (none / 0) (#40)
by nathan on Tue Apr 23rd, 2002 at 12:11:29 PM PST
I myself would never use my real name as a user name...

In fact, you don't even use your username as your username.

Nathan
--
Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

 
"scales"? (none / 0) (#6)
by because it isnt on Mon Apr 22nd, 2002 at 03:42:07 AM PST
Windows 2000 scales to 64 cpu's.

Firs't, lear'n ho'w t'o us'e a'n apostroph'e. Secondly, I could piss 64 CPUs. For proper parallel processing, you need UNIX. Save the pretty graphical interfaces for the puny, underpowered computers.
adequacy.org -- because it isn't

Stick to the point to avoid looking stupid... (none / 0) (#25)
by nrp on Tue Apr 23rd, 2002 at 05:01:23 AM PST
> Firs't, lear'n ho'w t'o us'e a'n apostroph'e

Using an apostrophe to make a set of letters plural is common English usage, so CPU's (cpu's) is valid.



Oh dear. (none / 0) (#26)
by because it isnt on Tue Apr 23rd, 2002 at 05:07:41 AM PST
Using an apostrophe to make a set of letters plural is common English usage, so CPU's (cpu's) is valid.

NO! WRONG! TOTALLY WRONG! WHERE'D YOU LEARN THIS? STOP DOING IT!
adequacy.org -- because it isn't

Really? (5.00 / 1) (#27)
by walwyn on Tue Apr 23rd, 2002 at 05:48:02 AM PST
If you use comic strip rules you get comic strip writing.

Cpus sounds like a gangrenous ocean to me.


Apostrophe's. (none / 0) (#31)
by because it isnt on Tue Apr 23rd, 2002 at 06:29:25 AM PST
Cpus sounds like a gangrenous ocean to me.

Next, you'll be saying "Your so wrong, Mr. Isn't", blatantly mistaking the contraction of "you are" (you're) with the possessive form of "you" (your).

"CPU" is an acronym, meaning "central processing unit", that has become a noun in the English language through popular usage, however it is only correctly spelt in upper-case letters. So "cpus" is wrong, "CPUs" is correct. Likewise, RAM (random-access memory) is not a ram (a male goat). There are no rules for the English language which say you pluralise nouns by adding "'s". Nor are there any rules which say "all words ending in 's' should have an apostrophe". Apostrophes are used for contraction and showing possession. They're even used occasionally as a substitute for double quotes.
adequacy.org -- because it isn't

Your so wrong Mr. Isn't (5.00 / 1) (#36)
by walwyn on Tue Apr 23rd, 2002 at 08:19:20 AM PST
Next, you'll be saying "Your so wrong, Mr. Isn't", blatantly mistaking the contraction of "you are" (you're) with the possessive form of "you" (your).

Whilst pedants might rage against it 'Your' for 'you're' is establishing itself fast.

"CPU" is an acronym, meaning "central processing unit", that has become a noun in the English language through popular usage.

You have so little understanding of how language works. "CPU" and "RAM" are capitalized today, but the trend, particularly amongst geeks, is to write 'cpu' and 'ram'. Don't just take my word for it though look here.


What's this handbasket? Where's it going? [n/t] (none / 0) (#37)
by because it isnt on Tue Apr 23rd, 2002 at 08:37:12 AM PST

adequacy.org -- because it isn't

Tut (none / 0) (#38)
by walwyn on Tue Apr 23rd, 2002 at 08:47:49 AM PST
tut.


I'll rephrase that. (2.00 / 1) (#39)
by because it isnt on Tue Apr 23rd, 2002 at 08:55:05 AM PST
"I dunno, all these bloody kids who can't fucking spell, this country is going to the dogs."

Better?
adequacy.org -- because it isn't

 
I didn't learn English from cartoons... (5.00 / 1) (#28)
by nrp on Tue Apr 23rd, 2002 at 05:50:29 AM PST
OK, I'm confused. I've seen this rule in a fairly well respected English text book (I didn't believe it could be true until then) and I've looked around before writing this and seen references that are "for" this rule, "against" it, or don't even mention it.

Anyway, the main point I was making is that pehaps you should stop criticising what you consider to be other people's (minor) mistakes in their use of English to score cheap points. This is especially true when your English is far from perfect. It makes you look rather petty, which I'm sure does you a disservice.



 
cpus (none / 0) (#14)
by DG on Mon Apr 22nd, 2002 at 02:17:58 PM PST
bah, 64?, sun can do over 100, cost a bundle though.. so would 64 and data center though
2002, DG. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

 
This is my view (none / 0) (#11)
by Narcissus on Mon Apr 22nd, 2002 at 08:50:36 AM PST
First off I will not say I don't use Microsoft software, hell I use it everyday basically, in fact I'm using it here at school right now so I don't have to get on a command line and use lynx to read this site.

The problem I have with MS is not necessarily the software, although the frequency of bug finds and its ratio to bug fix update time sucks ass, it is the fact that they stifle competition. In the U.S., THE greatest economy in the world, the capatilist philosophy we use encourages competitive business because it stops trusts which stagnate growth and drives up prices (which I won't go into here because I'm not writing about economic principles).

There isn't an application of computing technology that Microsoft Research hasn't taken an interest in.

Comments like these only strengthen my resolve that the company is a bona fide monopoly. The company takes interest in everything new that comes out and basically annihilates the innovator by either offering him a high paying job or by out right buying the company out by coming out with less effective but more idiot friendly products that could be seen as similar in function.




--------------------------------
Ok, who picked the flower???

MS anti- (none / 0) (#29)
by detikon on Tue Apr 23rd, 2002 at 06:21:49 AM PST
I'm so sick of these arguments that MS is the greatest player in capitalism. Capitalism is encouraged through competition. Since Ms stifles competition it is therefore anti-capitalist in the long run. It's not about the ideal, it's about lining the pockets of a few people and forcing the people to play your games with your toys. Sounds more like radical Islam and communism.




Go away or I will replace you with a very small shell script.

 
BSD (5.00 / 1) (#16)
by DG on Mon Apr 22nd, 2002 at 09:00:41 PM PST
FreeBSD has some innovations, the port collection namely, i've never heard of an os that does this, if i'm wrong i'd like to hear of others, becides other bsds since they got the idea from freebsd, softupdates is inventive, and so is the linux compatiblity layer. linux doesn't go for innovations, they go for more experimental ideas, i have yet to find anything made by ms like the ports in freebsd, in fact, i'd call the ftp install innovative, if the others didn't use it.. oh well lets see if i get flamed/shot down/bitched at.. off to install the preview of fbsd 5.0
2002, DG. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

 
The most important software innovations (5.00 / 1) (#33)
by The Mad Scientist on Tue Apr 23rd, 2002 at 06:56:53 AM PST
David A. Wheeler: The Most Important Software Innovations

This should shed some more light at the problematics.

Warning: Mr. Gibbons, you will not like the conclusions.


what a good link.. (none / 0) (#55)
by DG on Tue Apr 23rd, 2002 at 08:34:25 PM PST
i agree with the papers author, we havn't had any notable innovations as far as propritary software is concerned, look at the last one.. 1994!, we havn't had an innovation in software from any big names in 8 years, i'm sorry followers of all things microsoft but its true.. ms seems to just rehash and retune old ideas, hardware though.. ibm,intel,sony, panasonic, etc show some new stuff every 6 months
2002, DG. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

 
Microsoft and Software (none / 0) (#58)
by Chrono Expert on Fri May 17th, 2002 at 05:06:28 PM PST
We've all been forced to use Microsoft software at one point or another in our computerized lives, so we all know about the wonders (and the headaches) of it's products. Microsoft does good work, I'm not sure if I'd say it's innovative or on the cutting edge of technology, but it's pretty good. The only down side, is that the Microsoft production team releases products too quickly and therefore sacrificing quality. Other companies (software/hardware) have modeled themselves after this as well, take for example Network Associates (the producers of Mcafee Virusscan, a widely used virus killing program). Bugs and glitches are becoming all too common in their programs too, and does anybody remember Y2K? The date glitch caused because Mr. Gates was in too big of a hurry to sit down and make sure the clock turned over? (I know I'm beginning to sound biased now, so I'll try to return to a neutral tone) The whole industy is seemingly operating at a gruelingly fast pace. The only company that gets it seems the be Apple, having always sacraficed it's time for the quality of the product. That's maybe why nobody likes Apple, it doesn't make as many so-called "innovations" just tweaks an already flawless product, and believe me, I hate Apple too, but I can still appreciate this.
So the point is, Microsoft's "innovations" are really just some Nitro thrown into the software creation engine to get it a few inches ahead of the opposing cars, but naturally, there's damage done to that engine, and eventually the engine can take it no longer and gives out. Can we really live without Microsoft? A question we will face eventually...


 
Dear Mr. Gibbons (none / 0) (#59)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu May 23rd, 2002 at 04:11:25 PM PST
I find everything that you have written on this site to be absolute garbage. You have nothing to offer society except your withdraw from active society. I fell very sad for your children - growing up in a household where their father is such a controlling freak.
How can you deny your children a higher education - you are condemning them to flipping burgers in a McDonalds. You, sir, are the most ignorant, brainwashed person I have ever had the displeasure of reading. From what I have read, your obsession with raising your children in a "Godly" fashion will scar them for life. You have most obviously been tricked - like the many other sheep - by the Catholic Church and its horseshit propaganda. Don't get me wrong - I believe in Father, Son and Holy Ghost - however the church is nothing more than a political machine.
Your article on hacking was the single most idiotic thing I have ever read. I will not even go into the specifics aside the fact that hacking is not an "evil" pursuit - it is an exploration of computers to understand them and know them better. The term for breaking into computers is called "cracking". Your article about your children's future made we feel very sad for them and their grim minimum wage future. The article about cars is a joke. I hope your kids make enough money to pay for the hundreds of hours of therapy they will need in the future. Since I am not a coward like you - feel free to email me.
Disgusted,
tim@netaxs.com



 
Not very inspired Reg... (none / 0) (#60)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri May 31st, 2002 at 08:31:23 PM PST
You could of at least listed some of Micorsoft's innovation's, such as the Internet and the World Wide Web, both based on the revolutionary concept of the so-called "socket", of course developed at Micorsoft. Innovations such as bit compression technology for allowing files, normally stored as so-called "bytes", to be stacked in the users computer, were also developed by Micorsoft Research. And who could possibly deny the staggering importance of the "Excel" program, so absolutely critical for tracking home finances, but powerful enough for the congregation's books also! Using "rows" and "columns", brilliant!



All in all, I was quite disappointed. This article does not measure up to your previous work. There is no question that Micorsoft Research is driving the global economy and you should be ashamed to have presented this fact so poorly.


 
Intellectual? Don't make me laugh! (none / 0) (#61)
by Odius on Tue Jun 4th, 2002 at 11:02:09 PM PST
1. Linux is free! Yes if you don't know this you might as well get the hell of this thread. Linux cannot die because it is FREE! Tell me one thing good in life thats free... besides the FPS game being created by the US Army.

2. Unmanagbility? Stay away from puff the magic dragon, man. Linux is only limited to your intellectual capacity (which suffice to say is very limited). Thus, the name OPEN SOURCE.

The only problem with Linux as I see it now is A. it is not compatible with most software out there (except good old Halflife!), and B. It does not have quite the power of Windows XP and OSX.

But look at the pros: Its immune to almost all viruses, it cannot be infected by the evil ad-ware which plagues the internet, and is much more free than OSX or XP. And, believe it or not, you probably depend on Linux one way or another. IBM currently uses Linux on servers, and if not then Solaris or Unix (a close relative of my friend Linux).

Finally, a little comment on you- loosen up, man! I may be assuming, but you seem like a anal-retentive square who prefers Kenny G to Miles Davis, Celeron to AMD (The brand of choice), Christianity over Muslim (Everyone says they were the bad guys.. trying to start a genocide?) and probably English over Japanese (those guys have anime and technology- who could ask for more?). And lastly, try not to talk about technology, it makes you seem like an ignorant Mennonite :p
-Odius the Ranter


 

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest ® 2001, 2002, 2003 Adequacy.org. The Adequacy.org name, logo, symbol, and taglines "News for Grown-Ups", "Most Controversial Site on the Internet", "Linux Zealot", and "He just loves Open Source Software", and the RGB color value: D7D7D7 are trademarks of Adequacy.org. No part of this site may be republished or reproduced in whatever form without prior written permission by Adequacy.org and, if and when applicable, prior written permission by the contributing author(s), artist(s), or user(s). Any inquiries are directed to legal@adequacy.org.