Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 10:35:25 -0700 From: Lorin Lund <fbsd@wbs-inc.com> To: questions@freebsd.org, "Charles Burns" <burnscharlesn@hotmail.com> Subject: Re: Advocacy help for CS professor Message-ID: <QL1Y0405HGA8UREBXTB05ICWQHEPKT.3c9b6b5d@Presarionb> In-Reply-To: <F118QCIRDE2e0ghLGRI00009136@hotmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
3/21/2002 11:41:47 PM, "Charles Burns" <burnscharlesn@hotmail.com> wrote: >I have a CD professor who has a masters in CS and EET from a top 50 >university yet is enveloped in the Microsoft way of life. While this isn't >necessarily a bad thing, he is indirectly advocating Windows over Unix for >all tasks based on knowledge from the Unix of years ago. Alot has changed! >Showing him that Unix (BSD/Linux, etc) make a great server is easy, but Unix >is now a great desktop platform as well. This is what I need help with. I >have written several advocacy messages myself, but they are typically >targeted to people setting up servers. > >I would like to make some specific arguments that will show him that Unix is >worth giving a try, and if he doesn't like it, fine, his choice. He is >willing to read what I have to say about it and listen to me as a peer, and >considering his position as the head of the CS department, this could >benefit FreeBSD and Unix in general (if you are interested in that sort of >thing). > >This person has the following additude: > >- Microsoft has money, therefore can buy the best programmers, therefore has >the best products. > The argument that more money means more productivity (whether in quality or volume) has been amply shown to be false by labor union's inability to produce the increased performance they promise at the bargaining table. Motivation comes from emotions. If people aren't excited about what they do they will inevitably give lackluster performance even if they have great potential. People come to feel they deserve whatever level of pay they are accustomed to - paycheck motivation therefore fades with time. >- Microsoft is very successful, therefore has the best products (though he >is not using the popularity alone as an argument as he does have extensive >knowledge of logic) > >- OSS programmers could not possibly be as good as Microsoft programmers, >because Microsoft sponsors such things as nat'l programming competitions and >hires the winners/hires the best of class from top universities, etc. I need >specific reasons and hopefully links (not to slashdot, to reputable neutral >news sites and such). OSS has Greenman, DeRaadt, Torvalds, Hubbard, Lehey, >and others which are certainly among the top 100 programmers on earth. How >to prove, though? I have pointed out that academics and contest winners are >different from people that naturally love to code, but he is in a commercial >mindset. I have seen many great logical abstractions of this concept on >various sites, but finding them would be impossible. > >- He is using examples of MS products being superior to other Windows >products, examples in which he is right. Netscape 4.7* vs. IE4--No >comparison. MS Office vs everything else--for it's intended audience, it >really is the best. Media player, etc. He quoted Outlook Express, but being >in the field he uses Eudora because of OE's jaw-dropping security record. I >already made the Evolution comparison, but I really need more examples in >which an OSS Unux product is superior. >----Note that I am not trying to convince him that Unix makes a better >overall desktop, or that OSS software is necessarily the best, only that >there are many great OSS apps-some of which are better than MS counterparts, >and that he should give it a try. (he is busy and doesn't want to waste time >on something that he is pretty sure will suck) > >- He says Unix is fragmented, therefore cannot have a unified vision and >focus, and that this automatically makes it inferior to Windows which is >under one company with theoretically one vision and focus.(to own everything >:-) IBM's experience with OS/360 that was recorded in the book about the man-month being a myth (I don't remember the title) shows that communication overhead in a large team eventually becomes unbearable. My own experience confirms that large teams can end up doing poorer work than small teams precicely because of communication overhead. If the price and delay of proper communication were followed through on the only effect would be cost and delay, but when communication is costly enough some programmers will make assumptions or and go on with their work rather than wait for an answer (oftentimes thinking to go back and fix things if the eventual answer is different than the assumption). Small intimate teams often do the best work. As far as MS having the best apps: MS Money has never gained serious market share against Quicken. It took MS several tries to come close to Stacker's file compression software. When MS Access first came on the scene there was another GUI desktop database. I don't remember the name - just that it started with an 'A' like Access. All the reviews I read put the other program way ahead of Access. But I never saw it on the shelves in the computer stores. A year later the trade journal help wanted ads listed MS Access programmers wanted but no demand for programmers for the 'superior' competing product. MS success is no evidence of superior product. In many cases MS success is due to advertizing budget. In other cases it is due to momentum. In other cases it is due to MS PR hype. Years ago IBM was the giant. IBM never gave more bang per buck than it's competitors. Yet it was said (and largely true) that no-one ever got fired for choosing IBM. Nowdays it is a very rare thing that some gets fired for choosing MS. MS often gets chosen in business because it is a 'safe' choice, not necessarily because it is the best choice. MS gets chosen in homes by default. It comes pre-installed on the computer. In other cases people choose MS software because that is what they are familiar with. Citing market success as evidence of technical superiority shows shallow thinking and a predisposition to find MS as the answer. MS PR hype often speaks of MS as being innovative yet: MS-DOS was bought from Seatle Software. VB was one mans innovation and development work married to MS Basic. COM objects are an evolutionary out growth of one mans vision that spawn VB not really innovative. Windows is a conceptual rip-off of Mac/Lisa which is a conceptual rip-off of Xerox PARC. IE started with purchased source code. SQL Server started with purchased source code. While MS PR hype would have us believe that MS produces the best software because it employees the best programmers MS is not above oursourcing: Windows NT as designed by MS was strictly 32-bit. When MS recognized that many customers expected to be able to run their old Win-16 apps rather than having to buy all new apps to move to WinNT, MS outsourced the Win-16 support subsystem. Anyone who understands the internal structure of Win95 understands that: MS's claim that Win95 was 32 bit throughout was a bold-faced lie. MS has resorted to very awkward kluges to be able to re-use old DOS code. The security holes in OE that motivate the professor's use of Eudora are evidence that high salaries don't necessarily produce quality code. I.E. the professor gives proof against his own argument but since he won't acknowledge that any other valid evidence will similarly fall on deaf ears. The one more concept that I don't have particular figures for is that academic success is not always a sure indicator of ability to perform well in a working world environment. I remember being surprised at a study that showed how low the correlation is but I don't have any recollection of the source on that. The one thing I can almost point you to is an article in "Datamation" reporting a study that yielded a statistical personality profile of a D.P. Manager. A majority of Data Processing managers at that time were college dropouts. This article was circa 1983. I.E. success in real-world computing has no strong correlation to education. Bill Gates is a case in point. One more concept which, in my experience applies to the MS user world but may not apply to the to the MS software development world: People that seek computer training because they hear, "That's where the money is." Tend to go for MS training. They learn only enough to get certified and get the job. Most of the people I've met in the unix world are people who learn because they are curious. They keep learning, even on their own. Whereas people who originally sought learning only to get a job will seek more learning only when they see their job threatened. Even if they have opportunities to get more training at their employers expense, the motivation to learn as much as possible probably isn't there. The motivation instead is to learn only enough to get the credentials. One last concept: When you ponder on the fundamental deceitfulness of the astroturf campaign and some of their other blantant lies it becomes apparent that MS's moral standards (here I'm referring to the pattern of top-managment decisions - not to impune the personal integrity of any particular worker.) are like Bill Clinton's - only as strong as public sentiment demands. If MS can engender confidence in their product by PR hype they are not motivated to actually provide quality. If they can overwhelm news of evidence of bugs or poor quality with media hype they will do it. When you see a company concurrently employing three different PR firms you have reason to wonder if the company is willing to let the quality of it's products speak for themselves. > >I have already made some arguments and given some examples, but I would >greatly appreciate any compact and strong anecdotes, facts, quotes, >examples, theories, logical proofs, rhetorical questions, etc. that apply. >Please don't tell me that Windows really is a better desktop OS--whether it >is or not isn't the point. > >Thanks ahead of time. > >_________________________________________________________________ >Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. >http://www.hotmail.com > > >To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org >with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?QL1Y0405HGA8UREBXTB05ICWQHEPKT.3c9b6b5d>