Developers As Pawns and One-Night Stands 268
jcatcw writes "At the Comes vs. Microsoft antitrust case, last Friday's testimony included evidence that James Plamondon, a Microsoft technical evangelist, in a 1996 speech referred to independent software developers as 'pawns' and compared wooing them to trying to win over a one-night stand. Last week's proceedings also included testimony by Ronald Alepin, a former CTO at Fujitsu Software Corp. and currently an adviser to the law firm Morrison Foerster LLP. He said that Lotus 1-2-3 was killed, in part, by Microsoft encouraging Lotus's programmers to use the Windows API even though Microsoft's own developers found it too complicated to use." The plaintiffs have created a site that includes transcripts of testimony presented in the case.
Developers, developers, developers (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
from ballmer.c (Score:3, Funny)
By the way,
Interesting stuff... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Interesting stuff... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
I dont know if you remember, but at one point microsoft owned a substantial share of apples stock [...]
No, they didn't.
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: Removes it??? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: Removes it??? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:It's just the name of the game (Score:4, Funny)
Some companies' good will was somewhat more credible than a "one-night stand" even before Java was open-sourced.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Java?"
Well yes, in a Word. For one thing Java has never really been controlled by a single vendor and the JCP, for all its faults, has worked pretty well for around 10 years now.For another the source for much of Java has always been visible and available and clearly specified. And finally whilst Microsoft deliberately keeps parts of the Windows API hidden from developers to give it an edge, the same has never
tagged as Duh! (Score:4, Informative)
Re:tagged as Duh! (Score:5, Informative)
FoxPro was initially developed in a cross-platform manner, by a different company. Also, the team inside Microsoft that eventually took it over was separate from the MFC team. There's really no reason why you should expect that all of their custom controls should be made available as part of a library. It's not like they wrote to some hidden high-quality grid control in the MFC that wasn't exposed to non-Microsoft developers - they just built a better grid control using the same interface that was exposed to everyone, the same way you'd have to if you wanted the same functionality. I've seen some code for the grid control of another MS product, and it is pretty much straight to Win32 drawing calls, event handling, etc. It looked like it was very painful to get right.
Of course, I'm personally of the opinion that MFC is total crap, but then again I've been spoiled by well-designed libraries like Qt.
Office rolls its own UI, has done so for years (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
There ARE APIs in the core windows DLLs that are undocumented. But those are for use by other parts of windows and are not used by MS application products (I havent seen any use by microsoft products)
Stupid-ass Question (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
For example, you could program your app using the API provided by QT, and have QT deal with the rest. This would give you the added benefit that your application would work cross-platform.
Re:Stupid-ass Question (Score:4, Informative)
The original example from Win 3.1 that's always talked about is a certain timer function. The function that would provide timers to programmers could fail with insufficient resources, and you had to code around that. MS had an API, not in the documentation, used in Office, that would return a timer no matter what. They never had to code the error condition, where everyone else did.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Stupid-ass Question (Score:5, Informative)
Microsoft actually had two layers of API. There was an internal API used by other Microsoft employees, and the public API advertised and documented for other devleopers to use.
There were several articles in Dr. Dobb's Journal detailing diferences between the APIs, written by people who were trying to tear under the hood in ways Microsoft STILL describes as criminal.
Some of the public API structures did nothing but rearrange the arguments, call a delay timer, and then call the internal API. Seriously.
The material described in these articles was part of the first big push about Microsoft abusing it's monopoly position. After all, people were builidng proof that Micorsoft was specifically making it impossible for anyone to write applications that could finction as cleanly, quickly, smoothly as Microsoft's own, or that could even be as small as Microsoft's own. They used the natural OS monopoly to make it impossible to compete fairly in the application market for that OS.
I wonder why Microsoft calls the efforts to uncover the API differences criminal?
And for those who want to call this blatant Microsoft bashing, go check Dr. Dobb's Journals from the early Windows 3.1 era for yourself. I don't have to make this up. The facts do more bashing than anything I could make up.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
By what standard? Did any of the competitors you mention ever have more than a single-digit marketshare? By the time Windows 3 was out was their any chance it would ever happen? And to top it off, it was impossible to compete with Microsoft on their platform, which was running on around 90% of desktops at the time. That's a monopoly in my book.
What I always thought was ironic was that _this_ was how Microsoft cemented their monopoly, and the whole "b
Re: (Score:2)
Probably the same reasons regular people still work with bookies and the mob. They see the potential offerings, and think the consequences won't happen to them.
Re: (Score:2)
And Office (as of at least 2003, don't know about 2007) uses undocumented functions. Compare the import tables of the executable and DLLs to the libraries provided with the SDK and the export tables of the syste
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I wasn't implying these were used in Office, but there's certainly functions in the other system DLLs that are (imported by ordinal, exported by ordinal only, not in the public
Re:Stupid-ass Question (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Well, AFAIK, Microsofts own apps do use the windows API, but the published Windows API (available and recommended for use by third party devs) is only a subset of all that's available.
People are crying foul because some of the hidden stuff is quicker/easier to use/more reliable than the published stuff thereby giving MS an advantage when developing its own apps over a 3rd party doing the same (1-2-3 vs Excel for instance) AN
Re: (Score:2)
I use Delphi since then, already did dozens of small and medium apps with it, and, altough sometimes necessary, it's pretty rare to use direct Windows API calls. AFAIK, one of today's most famous application made with Delphi is the Win32 client for Skype, but many shareware and corporate apps uses it too.
Re:Stupid-ass Question (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Use wxWidgets, QT, GTK or a different GUI toolkit.
How could Microsoft develop Windows applications without using the Windows API?
The same way, but they buy it and call it "Visual name.NET 2007 Professional Edition".
Re: (Score:2)
And of course, all of those *do* use the Windows API anyway, so it still doesn't really answer my question. The only way I know of to code a Windows app without using the Windows API is using Java.
Re: (Score:2)
News flash - sky still blue! (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:News flash - sky still blue! (Score:5, Informative)
Many organizations work with contractors because it's easier to hire and release a contractor than it is to hire and release a full-time employee with positional power. With contracting, there's typically a trial period during which the organization has made no guarantee of your employment with them. So the contractor benefits from higher wages, and the organization benefits from one less salary commitment.
Re: (Score:2)
easier to hire and release a contractor
I've never understood this. I'm a U.S. programmer in a company who has more engineers in its India office than here. As a result, I live like the sword of Damocles is hanging over my head all the time. (It's pretty liberating, as this means termination is no threat. "Yes, I know we have a no-moonlighting policy. If I give it up, that means I can keep my job for what? One more day?")
Everyplace I've ever worked has an application you sign stating you accept at-will employment. And then a handbook that doe
Sidebar on contractors (Score:2)
In many large companies, even well-managed ones, the demands of the stock analysts force the companies to lay off employees, while retaining contractors.
And yes, this is a terrible idea, but itis involuntary (;-))
Been there, done that, as employee, contractor and employee-became-contractor-three-days-later
--dave
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I have survived several RIFs in some large banks as a contractor, while FTEs I sat and worked with were let go.
Contracting is a much more honest relationship between employer and employee. I don't work, they don't pay. They don't owe me anything, I don't expect anything from them. I don't put up with the corporate bullshit, they don'
And this is relivant because ______ (Score:5, Interesting)
Also, does anyone else get an image of the robot preacher from Futurerama when they hear the words "Tech Evangelist"?
Re:And this is relivant because Anti-competitive. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I am begining to think that slashdot is trolled with the most stupid quotes in order to gain support for the other side of cases.
pssssst...'Futurama'.
Never give a sucker an even break (Score:2)
Really, there's a remarkable number of sheeple out there.
ok... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
1) Chess matches are often won by sacrificing pawns. I, for one, have no desired to be sacrificed for someone elses aggenda.
2) do you relizes that what you are saying boils down to "WHen a pawn does occasionally succeed, it is sacrificed as a matter of course for somoen of a high 'class'?" Having been on a team that created a piece of software that saved a financial institution 100 Million a
Re: (Score:2)
I was trying to turn a nasty comment into something pleasant and more motivational to independant developers rather than the "you are scum of the earth" type comment the person I quoted said.
Finally, yes, I do know of such a person, who is a "top star" coder, does maintenance, QA and documentation, but so what? You won't believe it and I'm certainly not giving out
One-night stand? (Score:5, Funny)
You must be a daemon in the sack.
You must be agile.
No time for debugging your problems.
I will not use a trojan horse.
Time slicing with others is not okay.
Don't ever call my thing a widget.
Ironic MS Ad (Score:5, Funny)
http://i64.photobucket.com/albums/h165/bradley197
ABTE (Score:2)
Read more about it here: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,2070989,00.a
Enjoy,
"One night stand" metaphor is very apt (Score:5, Funny)
dave
Unbelieveable (Score:2, Insightful)
Funny that there are endless discussions about the poor technical quality of Microsoft's products, and at the same time rants that Microsoft is gaining an unfair advantage via technical means. Eith
In The Morning (Score:2)
In seriousness, I think most ISVs know the pitfalls of working with Microsoft. At the end of the day, you've still gotta sell your stuff and so far at least, Microsoft platforms have proven to be a good place to sell stuff. I think I like the wooing analogy better than a ticks on the dog alternative!
Developers Beware! (Score:2)
This crime appears to be occurring in large cities and apparently is well known to the police community. Here's what's happened so far in Redmond.
Software developer goes to a seminar and meets meets a fairly attractive young woman and they hit it off.
Next thing he knows, he wakes up in a strange cubicle, with his hard drive in a tub full of ice. Written in lipstick on the mirror is a note: "use Windows APIs, or you will die".
He calls tech support on the
One night stand with Microsoft? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Woo (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Woo (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
But
Undocumented APIs (Score:4, Interesting)
Maybe this is part of the reason why Linux's kernel has no fixed ABI?
Re:Undocumented APIs (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That said, I think the whole GPL-only symbols thing is stupid, myself -- it means that Free-but-non-GPL projects like OpenAFS get hamstrung.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I don't see what the problem with OpenAFS is. Either it's GPL-compatible, in which case it can be included, or it's not, in which case it can rot.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
BSD?
Re:Undocumented APIs (Score:5, Insightful)
Clearly, you want to have a proprietary driver. Thus, you want to do something that the developers have ACTIVELY and CLEARLY stated that they are working against, and give no quarter for. You obviously don't like that, and that's your right. But you didn't write their code, nor pay for it, so they are not responsible for your desires... and that is their right.
This is very different from the Windows situation. Microsoft has kept some APIs quiet, and even the very existance of some APIs. In contrast, this Linux kernel policy has been clear for over a decade. You may not like it, but you have no right to complain; this policy was certainly there before you decided to write a line of code. As long as an organization makes clear what the rules are, then you try to work against them at your peril.
Yes, a stable internal API of the kernel would be a possibility. Windows, for example, has one. But most Windows crashes are from BAD DRIVERS; the drivers cannot be fixed, and the Windows interface can't be fixed either. That's not good evidence that this would be a GOOD thing for users. The reliability of Linux is actually pretty good evidence that their process actually works better for end-users.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
But it wouldn't be proprietary if you gave it to them...
Well, there isn't much point if they're going to keep it to themselves. How many hobby
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
this would be similar like calling every application developer that runs on windows a "windows developer".
if you were a kernel developer, your driver would be in kernel, and it would be updated for most changes, at least so i've heard.
as for what benefits not-fixed abi/api gives...
i think http://lwn.net/Articles/159313/ [lwn.net] has it quite well put (also see comments).
rephrasing what i can reme
Re:Undocumented APIs (Score:4, Informative)
The way to be sure would be to take every executable file (.exe,
Re:Undocumented APIs (Score:5, Interesting)
This courtesy of the people who unearthed the Sony Rootkit, which goes to show it takes someone with knowledge of deeply intertwingled cruft to find it?
But more importantly: if ISVs behave in this way with limited knowledge of undocumented functions, how do you think Microsoft uses them?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Woo (Score:5, Interesting)
Now asking *why* Office does this, that might be a valid question. But implying that it's some kind of conspiracy is stupid.
Hell, Apple used to provide basically a plug-in architecture for drawing menus, windows and buttons since they knew overriding the default appearance and behavior would be popular. It was a code resource in Mac OS Classic and if you had one in there, Mac OS would automatically load your code whenever it needed to handle a click on menus. (Obviously a bad idea from a security standpoint... it was disabled long ago.)
Re:Woo (Score:5, Informative)
their api's. This fact has been brought up in court numerous times. Just recently they tried to hold
back the security api until it became public they where doing so. If it was just a conspiracy they would not be having to produce a actual published api for the EU.
When you develop software for windows you are coding on a platform owned by your direct competitor. The fact that they hold back stuff for internal use should really be no surprise.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I've never seen confirmation that MS apps make any significant use of non-documented OS APIs. The Office group writes much of their own code to be sure, but most of the big players do that.
It is easy enough to use a dependency checker and find all the symbols that a program imports from a DLL. If you cross reference the imports with the documentation in MSDN, it is easy to spot something that is not documented. Given all the axes to grind out there, I can't believe someone hasn't done th
Re:Woo (Score:5, Informative)
While I agree with you that the current Office developers are simply good and talented coders and aren't simply leeching off of some undocumented API for their spiffy graphics, it's long been alleged that Microsoft has used undocumented APIs for Office. While I can't find the cite, I believe this was a key part of the anti-trust lawsuit.
You can see "documentation" for many of them on the Sysinternals [ntinternals.net] site. One thing I'd warn against is actually using these calls in production code. Undocumented means unsupported -- MS could decide tomorrow to yank these in their next XP hotfix, and your code would be left hanging high'n'dry. Not that they're likely to do it, but what if one of these had a worm come along exploiting it? The quick and obvious fix would be to simply remove it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Wow32 is Windows on Win32, i.e. the Win16 API. Excel 5.0 was released in 1993. Microsoft wasn't an OS monopoly in 1993. Your one example is 14 years old-- too old.
For one thing, that site is from ntinternals.net by Tomasz N
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It is not really a conspiracy but a well known fact that they do not publish large portions of their api's.
You are wrong.
This fact has been brought up in court numerous times.
Cite some examples.
Just recently they tried to hold back the security api until it became public they where doing so.
This is not correct.
If it was just a conspiracy they would not be having to produce a actual published api for the EU.
The EU has asked for documentation of protocols, not APIs.
Re:Woo (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Ok Windows fan boy, chew on this a little bit..
In its Findings of Fact, the District Court found that Microsoft had repeatedly withheld such information from ISVs, or used its disclosure as an incentive for 'friendlier' behavior, in an effort to preserve the applications barrier to entry (Findings, 84, 90, 91).
The rest I am not going to bother addressing, go back to playing with your rental operating system.
Re: (Score:2)
http://undocumented.ntinternals.net/ [ntinternals.net]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Woo (Score:5, Insightful)
There is no reason that someone else could not make controls that fade in with graphics and color menus. No secret Windows APIs are or were required to do this, even at that time. Windows has always allowed applications to draw whatever they want in their windows, and that includes transparency and fading. The win32s extensions [wikipedia.org] for Windows 3.11 even offered support for non-rectangular windows. Even easier, Microsoft licensed their Office controls to applications developers who wanted to do it. There are no special undocumented API calls required to do this stuff.
Re:What's The Big Deal (Score:5, Insightful)
This is Microsoft employees saying their customers, the ones they're supposed to be developing good API's and such for, are pawns and they should never be catered to.
Re: (Score:2)
Similarly, if someone's accused of a racist attack, then the prosecution can bring a character witness to show that he made a number of racist statements.
It's a different situation with someone verbally attacking M
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Eww...
That would take therapy, and antibiotics.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)