link

Joe Beda, Microsoft's development lead for Avalon, has a response to the discussion around essays such as Joel Spolsky's How Microsoft lost the API war.

Why do people write web based client/server apps over writing rich client apps for Windows?

1. Frictionless deployment story
2. Cross platform interoperability
3. More fun to code — you can set up your own API system and abstract HTML to a large extent
4. Built in network/server awareness

You put all of these together and you have a pretty darn compelling story for many scenarios. How can the Windows client compete with this? The key is to take the good things of the web that we can (1, 3 and 4) and combine that with all of the goodness from having stuff run on the client. Don't get me wrong — I still believe in the web as a way to interoperate and exchange content and as a lowest common denominator for UI interaction. But we can do so much better than HTML with the horsepower that is sitting on our desk when it makes sense to do so.

The problem for Microsoft is that there is no compelling reason to remove #2 from this list. If you are making something that runs in a sandbox, does not depend on legacy windows APIs, is network-transparent, and uses high-level languages, you don't have to compile those languages into Win32 binaries. You might even be tempted to compile them to, say, Microsoft's .NET CLR, which is practically cross platform today.

If Microsoft figures out what features belong in Avalon and then makes it Windows-only, their features will quickly be cloned by cross-platform systems. Java will grow into this space quickly, and Novell will have plenty of time to develop a business here before Longhorn ever ships. These cross-platform clients will either support Avalon directly or provide a more appealing alternative (cross platform + free would beat Windows-only + expensive + bundled in Longhorn and thus taking 2 years to reach critical mass). The end result either way is that Microsoft will abstract away its most profitable market, the desktop OS.

So what's Microsoft to do? Go with the flow. The world is going to be deploying a lot more applications. They are going to have rich interfaces. They are going to be bought on-demand. They are going to evolve quickly. And there will be so many of them that consumers are going to need some way to shop around and take delivery from trusted sources.

To date, Microsoft has made one major step forward in improving the maintainability of their software. They created Windows Update. Windows update isn't novel; in fact, it's pretty primitive and limited to a single (though large) software product. But it is a huge win for both Microsoft and its customers: faster patch application means better security—good for customers and good for MS's reputation; a prolonged relationship with customers; more control of software even after it's shipped.

Windows Update could be even more useful if it applied to other products. Making Windows Update handle SQL Server service packs would certainly be considered an illegal anticompetitive practice, but it would be helpful to many. But opening Windows Update to other software vendors would be huge. Then, expanding Windows Update to support purchases of software—not unlike how Apple's iTunes supports purchases of music—would only be logical.

Like Apple with iTunes, Microsoft could take a cut of each sale; they could also charge for hosting patches. But also like Apple, they'd make their biggest cut selling more iPods Windows machines.

link

The SCO Group, not content to die a quiet death, has over the past year transformed itself with a new business model. Starting with a lawsuit against IBM, SCO has been suing corporations it alleges have violated its licensing agreements for the Unix operating system, which SCO owns.

I am not a lawyer, but I believe that legally SCO has no leg to stand on. In their first allegation, they accuse IBM of violating their Unix license by copying code into the Linux kernel. Not only have they failed to publish any evidence that this is actually the case, but because SCO itself published Linux source code under terms that release these kinds of proprietary claims, that may not even matter.

SCO was probably hoping to be acquired by IBM as a settlement for this case. But IBM's stubborn desire to fight the trumped-up accusations hasn't spelled doom for SCO: somehow, despite huge declines in their original business—software—SCO's stock price has shot way up and they have received new rounds of venture capital financing. It's a little perverse to watch: investors are giving this company money on the theory that it can generate enough fear to extort protection money from its former customers and business partners.

What's scariest is that, as Cesar Brea points out, it's working. Although when the cases go through court SCO is likely to lose and might give up, its directors and the small army of lawyers and consultants they retain have profited greatly. Just by looking like a bully, they've inflated their stock price enough to cash out at a huge profit.

This is an interesting case. A couple of years down the road, I hope it will serve as a catalyst for some improvements in our legal system and the complete humiliation and financial ruin of SCO Group and every one of its executives and lawyers.

link

"Federal and state regulators are concerned that Microsoft may be violating the terms of its antitrust agreement with the "Shop for Music Online" feature of Windows XP, and have filed a court briefing regarding the issue. According to a CNET article, the "Shop for Music Online" feature raises concerns because it launches Internet Explorer and not the users chosen default browser. Microsoft has responded that it believes the feature falls within guidelines. The issue may be resolved by the courts if Microsoft and regulators are unable to reach an agreement." - Spymac

link

I can edit Shimon's notes!

—Josh

I know! I write shitty software!

—Shimon

The Santa Cruz Operation, those crazy litigators with the surprisingly cool name, are just a cornucopia of bullshit! CEO Darl McBride virtually ignores the lawsuit issues in this letter, which is mostly focused on fleshing out an apriori framing of SCO as defenders of the rule of law against nearly terroristic Free software advocates. But if you have a sense of humor there are some great parts:

SCO asserts that the GPL, under which Linux is distributed, violates the United States Constitution and the U.S. copyright and patent laws. Constitutional authority to enact patent and copyright laws was granted to Congress by the Founding Fathers under Article I, section 8 of the United States Constitution: Congress shall have Power to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries….

This is so creative— totally out of left field, zany even! If these guys weren't evil, they would have probably made good writers for the TV show The Family Guy.

Anyway, after rambling about how well legally established copyright is, Mr. McBride jumps to:

Thus, SCO is confident that the legal underpinning of our arguments is sound. We understand that the litigation process is never easy for any party involved. Our stance on this issue has made SCO very unpopular with some. But we believe that we will prevail through the legal system, because our position is consistent with the clear legal authority set down by US Congress, the US Supreme Court and the European Union.

This leap— from general remarks on the law to the merits of a specific case— is so brazenly illogical that anyone with any clue about law or copyright will see this as a pathetic smoke screen. It's like saying that because murdering people is clearly illegal, you can't own a gun. To be the slightest bit swayed by this kind of argument indicates a disturbingly weak understanding of causality and consequences. Which I suppose makes it just adequately convincing, if you're psychotic.

link

If CIOs want to receive upgrades, patches and access to tech support—as inadequate as it can sometimes be—they have to pay the yearly maintenance fee. Software companies earn a significant amount of cash from these fees. So it's in the manufacturer's best interest, at least financially, to make products that need maintenance and that have to be continually improved with successive updates, patches and versions that CIOs pay for up front. In sum, bad software works for the vendors.