OSNews

Microsoft has already started to adopt a model that's more akin to Apple than anything else: It uses and contributes to projects which leverage its own platform, and could really give a damn about the larger open source developer space. Which is pretty pragmatic. Nobody can credibly argue that Apple is an "open source" company. They simply use and contribute to open source, where it makes sense for their bottom line.

Big problem here is that MS refuses to ship open source, even when it makes sense. I don't know as much about the windows world, but in the dev world it is all over.

Entity Framework was a big resounding failure, people wanted NHibernate with better integration and tooling, not LINQ2SQL with a better design surface.

TFS source control is confusing, as after all these years of effort they have almost got something almost on par with SVN. Why didn't they just buy tortoise?

MSTest, oh how I hate thee. Roughly the same as NUnit, just wayyyyyyyyyy slower. Why? NIH. There was no reason for MSTest, and after its second revision it is still hands down the worst testing framework in .net.

MSBuild. Why?? Same deal as MSTest, a gigantic reinvention of the relatively mature NAnt.

Unity Framework. Ok, lets see, we have StructureMap which is very mature and feature rich, CastleWindsor which has been around for ages, Spring.Net which has roots in a project that has been around since BEFORE .net existed, and Ninject, which is a kickass innovative lightweight container. Why in the name of god do we need another half baked, over engineered IoC container?

I could go on. MS has some fantastic tools, but there are plenty of places that they don't have anything, and open source has robust, mature frameworks.

And yes, I am bitter about this.



One of the great new features of the new windows release management is that nobody is talking anymore about what they are doing. Sure, that bit them on the ass for Vista, but I'm sure everybody would rather they solved the problem by talking and LISTENING rather then just not talking anymore.



They also have to dodge the anti-trust stick, so buying big has to be done extremely carefully.



Here I agree, although for some reason they talk about ODF (of all things) and live mesh in this bullet point. What about IE8??!?

IE7 was the first sign of things getting better, but IE8 will be a major step towards regaining credibility in the web world. IE8 will not fix everything, but it will seriously raise the "least common denominator" bar that those of us who do web work have to deal with.



This point was utter fluff. Gates has been out of the picture for years now, Ballmer has been the (slightly psychotic) face of MS in the media for quite awhile. Maybe not for the WIRED crowd, but definitely people who read OSNews.


I don't understand how this could be considered the least bit insightful.

I do not want to be aggressive, but I see very often: "what MS should do to...", "what Steve Ballmer should do to...", etc.

I think MS is where it is because the people inside there knew how to handle the whole thing. Steve Ballmer is in front of MS several years ago so, nothing different should be done to continue its way.

Microsoft's success has come from Bill Gates. His excellence has flowed down from the top. With more employees and less focus and less Bill Gates and now zero Bill Gates, Microsoft will continue to slow down.

I say that for two reasons -
1 - Steve Ballmer has been "steering the ship" for a while now. Whether he's going in the right direction is another matter, but the departure of Bill Gates will result in little change, imo.

2 - They're going to build Windows 7 using Vista as the base. Given Vista's less-than-stellar acceptance so far, that suggests a resistance to change, and an inability to learn lessons. It'd be nice if MS could be "bold" in some way, but it doesn't seem likely...

If Steve "Da Gorilla" Ballmer is still involved in Microsoft then quite frankly its not changing for the better any time soon.

But Steve is worse.