[KLUG Advocacy] Re:Now there's an idea!!! :-) -- now you're talking outside reality ...

[Bryan J. Smith]

Quoting "Robert G. Brown" <bob@acm.org>:
> Insuficcient motivation.

Exactly!

Even though NT 3.1 had been out for over 2 years, and NT 3.5 had just been
release, most developers didn't start looking at Win32 until Windows 95 came
out.  And even _then_ they were still writing to DOS Int21h functions, even the
Visual Studio products wrote such code!

So why oh why did people want to bother spending another 25-50% development
effort writing the extra code for "pure" Win32 that wasn't even fully support on
Windows 95?  _Especially_ when Microsoft announced NT 3.51 which would add
Windows 95 compatibility (which wasn't totally true) that same year?

The result was that there only *2* "native" NT applications available in 1995. 
One was Bentley Systems Microstation, ported from Intergraph UNIX systems (being
that DOS/Windows versions were "crippled" in comparision before NT), the reason
I got to see NT early.  My company was one of their largest users and my boss
was the President of the int'l IGUG (Intergraph Users Group) organization.

As I always say, the second "Chicago" got the nod from Gates in 1994, "NT became
95's bitch."

> that Microsoft is able to act as a cohesive corporate entity;
> translating policy (technical and otherwise) from policy-makers
> to all appropriate levels of the organization.

They weren't able to accomplish that with Win32, and still haven't!  .NET?  80%
of developers use VB and .NET is starting to have to "break" to accommodate
those developers.

When has Microsoft, in their _entire_ history, been able to "standardize" on
_anything_?  There are _always_ two or more "factions" that just _ignore_ each
other.

As I used to say, "BSD and Linux have more interoperability in their codebases
than NT and 95."

> Unless you're talking about "trojan ports" or other silly games.
> If you are, PLEASE desist from replaying that kind of stuff. I sense
> this kind of strategy is well-understood on the list.

Of course.

> {Lots of interesting technology stuff elided for brevity. Whether is
> has any relevence or not might be another thread, but not the one I
> want to  write at the moment}

Very relevant, if you're familiar with not only how ISV (independent software
vendors) develop Windows apps, but even Microsoft's own applicaton and Visual
tool developers "adopt" new APIs.  [ HINT:  Slow as fsck! ]

> Discounted, as we know they are not arguing from any philosophicly
> consistant POV, but merely one that will maximize the value of the
> content of their coffers, and make any other mode of doing business
> the target of ridicule.

Shared Source is about signing over all your IP to Microsoft.  It's the
developer equivalent to the Windows licensing agreement PC OEMs are forced to sign.


-- 
Bryan J. Smith, E.I. (BSECE)       Contact Info:  http://thebs.org
[ http://thebs.org/files/resume/BryanJonSmith_certifications.pdf ]
------------------------------------------------------------------
Microsoft states Linux's GPL is "viral" so I guess all the authors
in the US who require you to pay royalties to print their books
must be the digital "black plague."  Copyright is copyright and
the GPL prevents commercial use without a license from the holder.