From owner-freebsd-questions Fri Mar 22 20:49:38 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from hotmail.com (f131.law11.hotmail.com [64.4.17.131]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A89D637B419 for ; Fri, 22 Mar 2002 20:49:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 22 Mar 2002 20:49:27 -0800 Received: from 68.6.82.67 by lw11fd.law11.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Sat, 23 Mar 2002 04:49:27 GMT X-Originating-IP: [68.6.82.67] From: "Charles Burns" To: fbsd@wbs-inc.com, questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Advocacy help for CS professor Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 21:49:27 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 23 Mar 2002 04:49:27.0558 (UTC) FILETIME=[1CB94A60:01C1D226] Sender: owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG >From: Lorin Lund >To: questions@freebsd.org, "Charles Burns" >Subject: Re: Advocacy help for CS professor >Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 10:35:25 -0700 > >3/21/2002 11:41:47 PM, "Charles Burns" 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 _________________________________________________________________ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message