Slashdot Log In
Microsoft Loses Key Engineer to Google
Posted by
CmdrTaco
on Thu Mar 03, 2005 05:10 PM
from the google-os-rumors-aflutter dept.
from the google-os-rumors-aflutter dept.
galdur writes "Microsoft Watch reports Marc Lucovsky, one of Microsoft's key Windows architects has defected to Google. His confidence in Microsoft's ability to ship software seems to have waned, too. Some hypothesize Google working on an OS but in the wake of Google's inroads into Ajax tech applications (GMail, Suggest, Maps), I think Google may have other plans for the chief software architect for Microsoft's .Net My Services ("Hailstorm")" CT Many users are reporting 404s on the Microsoft Watch article, but its working fine for others. Hopefully they'll fix their server soon.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
The Bullet (Score:4, Interesting)
And how useful is this Windows architect to Google if it is to come out with anything built by this guy? With the current silly-patent lawsuits happening every day, this might just give MS a bullet. What this guy "thought of" might have already been patented by MS, and in most cases, it doesn't matter if it's right or wrong.
Re:The Bullet (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:The Bullet (Score:5, Insightful)
*cough*Corel*cough* (WordPerfect anyone?)
*cough*IBM*cough* (What did they do to OS/2 again?)
I am SURE there are others. Those weren't, for their time, "small" companies with no money to defend themselv's.
Parent
Re:The Bullet (Score:5, Interesting)
There was much, much more going on there -- perhaps you're unfamiliar with Microsoft's involvement in OS/2?
Parent
Former Microsoftie Here (Score:5, Informative)
So. Mark can't go and work on a Google OS.
But I doubt that is what Google wants to do anyway. What would they enter a crowded market and compete with all the Linux distros out there? It doesn't really fit with their portfolio.
Instead, I suspect that Mark will be working on new and improved web apps at Google. Great news for Google, and great news for Linux users. But some of the speculation is, I think, overblown.
Parent
Re:Former Microsoftie Here (Score:5, Insightful)
There is no chance whatsoever that Google will set out to build its own OS. Linux works perfectly well and Google is well aware that they have more to gain by contributing to the common development pool.
No, Google is setting out to build a web service infrastructure, powered by its 100,000 node (at last count) Linux supercomputer. And after all, this guy's job at Microsoft was to build a web infrastructure.
By the way, it is very doubtful that in California he can be prevented from working in his area of expertise, no matter what his employment contract with Microsoft says.
Parent
Re:Former Microsoftie Here (Score:5, Informative)
California [nolo.com]: Note: Covenants not to compete are not enforceable against employees in California. Since a California statute invalidates noncompete agreements except in very limited circumstances, California judges won't enforce a noncompete agreement against an employee. However, California employers can use nonsolicitation agreements and nondisclosure agreements to protect their trade secrets, client lists and employees when an employee leaves. (See Nondisclosure Agreements for an in-depth discussion of nondisclosure agreements.)
And I'm in Arizona. Non-compete. Sigh.
Parent
Re:The Bullet (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Re:The Bullet (Score:5, Informative)
I was reading "Showstopper!", the story of the creation of NT, a few weeks ago. It looks like Lucovsky was one of the original seven engineers that followed Cutler to Microsoft from Digital.
According to the book there was a standoff on their first day, as they all refused to sign the employment contract because it contained a 'paragraph 10' that specified that on leaving Microsoft they would not be allowed to work at a competitor for at least a year.
They reasoned that if their contracts with Digital had such a stipulation, then Microsoft could not have hired them away so easily. It only seemed fair that Microsoft could not impose that restriction on them either. In the end Cutler complained, and with the cooperation of Microsoft's lawyers that paragraph was removed from the contracts before they all signed.
That doesn't mean Lucovsky was still working under the same contract in 2004 as he started with in 1989, but its an interesting question.
Parent
Re:The Bullet (Score:5, Interesting)
I just finished reading Showstopper [amazon.com], the story about the creation of Windows NT. IIRC, Lucovsky originally came to Microsoft with about a dozen or so former Digital employees. But instead of a nice honeymoon period, the first thing that happened was a showdown over MS's no-compete clause in their contract. After a legal standoff that lasted most the day, MS relented and the employees were allowed to start working without agreeing to that clause.
Some other interesting tidbits about Lucovsky, from the book:
Many people felt that Lucovsky was a jerk. He was hard to manage but showed the pep and initiative that every team needs. Even more valuable, Lucovsky sought to understand how the many pieces of NT interacted as a system. [...] Lucovsky had a rare ability to learn the intricate details of his own pieces and at the same time clearly see how all the pieces fit together.
At Cutlers behest, Mark Lucovsky, the team's most versatile programmer, filled the gap. He tracked check-ins on a white board in his office and managed the now twice-weekly builds. Before each build he compiled a list of proposed changes, then spoke with each code writer about the rationale for the change and its affect on the stability of NT. Lucovsky's opinions carried weight; he probably understood the mosaic of NT better than anyone else, including Cutler. And he didn't tiptoe around fellow code writers but battered their egos with criticism. "If Lucovsky didn't write it, everything is a piece of shit," said one colleague.
And for those of you who would make cracks about NT or its children, 2K and Win server, please read the book or know what you're talking about before you pipe up. Sure, MS gets a lot of things wrong, and I'm no MS apologist, but name one other company/organization that has released a world-class, brand new OS in the last decade that runs most of the world's servers and computers. Cutler, Felton, Kimura, Whitmer, Abrash, Lucovsky and a host of others I'm probably forgetting. If those names don't mean anythign to you then you don't know some of the best software engineers alive. From an engineering standpoint, NT was a damned fine achievement.
Parent
Name One? (Score:5, Insightful)
I know this just barely exceeds your statute of limitations, but how about two:
Sun (Solaris 2.x was their "NT")
Apple (Mac OS X)
This isn't to belittle Microsoft's accomplishment, but to claim they are the only company would be in error, as several OS vendors have had to go through at least one overhaul, and convince their user bases to stick with them through the transition.
Parent
I wonder (Score:5, Funny)
Mirror (Score:5, Informative)
Apple (Score:4, Interesting)
Now does everyone see the benefit of an OS X update every 1-2 years? "Real artists ship."
Parent
Heh... (Score:4, Funny)
Man, what'd they use to call it when Microsoft did it to their competitors... There was an actual term associated with it when they'd drive up to their competition in Limo's and try to hire away their best staff for million dollar salaries... (like they did to Borland)
And I end with a quote from Oliver of Bloom County:
"Hackers don't handle obsolescence well."
Coral Link (Score:4, Informative)
What's the penalty for that crime? (Score:5, Funny)
Seems like 20 to life might be appropriate for this bit of malfeasance.
You may have heard of Mark... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:You may have heard of Mark... (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:You may have heard of Mark... (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh no it shouldn't.
Before this newborn word draws breath, let us strangle it in its crib, as we should have done for "normalcy", "incent", and "misunderestimate".
Parent
Re:You may have heard of Mark... (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
AJAX... (Score:5, Insightful)
for clarification... (Score:4, Funny)
Windows NT: thank god he's not from the Darkside of the Force...
Great (Score:4, Funny)
not an *OS* - a platform (Score:5, Insightful)
Web apps are pretty nice these days: use a browser that supports XUL like Firefox and it's not dissimilar to a real, locally installed app. And who's partnering with Firefox....?
Fan-fscking-tastic (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Fan-fscking-tastic (Score:5, Interesting)
It's especially disheartening when it is wrong. I was repairing a machine with its Active X controls all hosed up (from spyware). MSKB suggested to reinstall ActiveX on top of itself.
But since ActiveX was messed up, their download site's test for a valid WinXP image failed, thus keeping me from downloading the latest ActiveX.
This was an OEM install on a 3-month old Dell Dimension.
Parent
Right now... (Score:5, Insightful)
Wait, don't mod this as 'funny' because I'm completely serious.
From what we know about Sir Bill, he easily loses his temper, especially when someone other than Microsoft is succeeding in the technology marketplace. Google is succeeding at doing many of the things Microsoft wants to be doing right now. Google is taking the 'net to the next level -- they're turning it into a "platform" the way Netscape wanted to. Netscape failed to do this mainly because their engineers got a little too full of themselves a little too quickly, but Google appears to not be making this mistake. They're careful about who they hire and they're careful not to make too much of their own noise -- they just create new technology and let the buzz appear on its own.
Right now, Bill Gates is in his office screaming at his top-level henchmen. He's ordering them to do whatever it takes to kill Google, just as he ordered them to do whatever it takes to kill Netscape back in 1997.
It's going to be an ugly show.
How can MS kill Google? (Score:5, Insightful)
Good post, BTW.
As I understand it, MS killed Netscape by giving away IE and bundling IIS with Windows. How could Netscape survive if they had to give away their product for free to compete? They weren't a services company like Google (not mostly, anyway).
Google is different. Google gives all of its products (services) away for free already (not counting its appliances, which are niche products). The end-users get all of Google's services for free. So how can Microsoft kill Google? How can Microsoft take away their revenue stream? Just as MS has critical mass with Windows, Google has critical mass with search and AdWords. How can either overcome the other in their respective areas? (Not that I think Google is going to make an OS; that would make no sense at all to me.)
Parent
It seems he's being a little hard on MS (Score:5, Insightful)
When a Microsoft engineer fixes a minor defect, makes something faster or better, makes an API more functional and complete, how do they "ship" that software to me? I know the answer and so do you... The software sits in a source code control system for a minimum of two years (significantly longer for some of the early Longhorn code). At some point, the product that the fix is a part of will "ship" meaning that CD's will be pressed and delivered to customers and OEM's. In best case scenarios, the software will reach end users a few months after the Release To Manufacturing (RTM) date. In many cases, particularly for users working in large corporations, they won't see the software for a year or more post RTM...
While this is true of major software releases and service packs, it's certainly not true of critical updates, is it? And besides, software on the scale of Longhorn or Office 2006 is vastly different than a point-and-click problem on a web page.
Key Engineer? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Is it ethical? (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Is it ethical? (Score:5, Insightful)
That's like asking if it's ethical for there to be more than 1 company on the planet.
Parent
Re:Is it ethical? (Score:5, Insightful)
As for leaving one company to go to a competitor, I see no problem with that. It's not like corporations have loyalty to their employees and guarantee a job until retirement. Why should employees have the loyalty to stay with an employer until the employer decides the employee is no longer wanted? Is someone morally bound to stay with one company that they're not happy at if the only companies who would pay the same or better money for their skill set happen to be competitors?
Now, certainly to give trade secrets from your former employer to your new employer would be unethical and most likely illegal, but an employer can not reasonably claim that all of their employee's knowledge and skills can be classified as trade secrets.
I'd hope the people at Google are smart enough not to hire someone away because they hope to steal some future Microsoft product. But regardless of what you think of Microsoft, you have to admit they employ some smart people, and Google wants smart people. Are they supposed to find smart people with no prior experience in software development and teach them how to program?
Parent
Re:Is it ethical? (Score:4, Interesting)
Is it ethical to forbid your employees to work for your competitors if they ever leave?
In Mexico there is this case. The largest TV company in the country, Televisa, had this "shunning" clause on the contract, saying that all artist that left the company were forbidden to make TV appearances in competition's broadcasts.
Due to this fear, all the people were "loyal" to the company. They had no choice, it was the only major TV company.
And we ALL know Microsoft is a monopoly. Don't give them more ideas, please.
Parent
Re:Is it ethical? (Score:5, Insightful)
There's not even a shred of ethical dilemma here.
The simple economic fact is that Microsoft didn't compete hard enough to keep that developer, and now he's gone -- too bad, tough shit to MSFT, and now Google is one (presumably) very-competent architect richer, at the expense of probably six-figures a year in salary and benefits from Google. But Google believes he's worth it, so they're happy; Marc Lucovsky is happier at Google, else he wouldn't have jumped ship, and MSFT - well, who knows whether they care or not.
Perhaps MSFT cares - perhaps they valued Lucovsky enough to keep him at the conditions of his previous employ, but clearly they didn't value him enough to keep him at newer, higher conditions which in Lucovsky's mind beat the conditions of working at Google. And perhaps MSFT doesn't care at all; that they think they can get along just fine without him - we don't know, and probably won't know for a long time, if ever.
In the end, this is a nice example of labor economics benefiting the laborer (Lucovsky), by his playing a game of wage/benefits/happiness shopping, and "buying" the package Google offered while "selling" the package MSFT was providing. Again, there is not even a *shred* of ethical dilemma here...
If I can't convince you on the sheer fundamental economics of the situation (in which case, please try Econ101 sometime), can I at least get you on a "Microsoft is evil, so it's good that quality developers are jumping ship" argument?
Parent
Non-competes non-enforceable in California (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Non-competes non-enforceable in California (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Non-competes non-enforceable in California (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Blog entry is gone already? (Score:4, Informative)
Shipping Software
A few weeks ago I had lunch with the now famous "Mark Jen". I never knew Mark while we were at Microsoft, even though we both worked in the same group. Funny how large groups at Microsoft can get...
We had a great Google style lunch at a sunny table in Mountain View. I was too dense to notice that Mark was doing research for his blog. One thing he said got me thinking... Something that many have said over the years, that Microsoft "knows how to ship software".
Being a 16 year Microsoft veteran, a Distinguished Engineer, key architect and code writer for windows, architect of the largest source code control and build system ever attempted, I deeply believed that Microsoft knows how to ship software. We know how to build it, test it, localize it, manufacture it, charge lots of $$$ for it, etc.
Mark and I talked about this briefly at lunch that day, and I have been thinking about it from time to time since...
I am not sure I believe anymore, that Microsoft "knows how to ship software". When a Microsoft engineer fixes a minor defect, makes something faster or better, makes an API more functional and complete, how do they "ship" that software to me? I know the answer and so do you... The software sits in a source code control system for a minimum of two years (significantly longer for some of the early Longhorn code). At some point, the product that the fix is a part of will "ship" meaning that CD's will be pressed and delivered to customers and OEM's. In best case scenarios, the software will reach end users a few months after the Release To Manufacturing (RTM) date. In many cases, particularly for users working in large corporations, they won't see the software for a year or more post RTM...
Consider the
When an Amazon engineer fixes a minor defect, makes something faster or better, makes an API more functional and complete, how do they "ship" that software to me? What is the lag time between the engineer completing the work, and the software reaching its intended customers? A good friend of mine investigated a performance problem one morning, he saw an obvious defect and fixed it. His code was trivial, it was tested during the day, and rolled out that evening. By the next morning millions of users had benefited from his work. Not a single customer had to download a bag of bits, answer any silly questions, prove that they are not software thieves, reboot their computers, etc. The software was shipped to them, and they didn't have to lift a finger. Now that's what I call shipping software.
I would argue that Microsoft used to know how to ship software, but the world has changed... The companies that "know how to ship software" are the ones to watch. They have embraced the network, deeply understand the concept of "software as a service", and know how to deliver incredible value to their customers efficiently and quickly.
posted by Mark Lucovsky at 9:38 PM
18 Comments:
thomas woelfer said
Parent
Shipping Software (Score:5, Informative)
From the article: "Microsoft is supposed to be the one that 'knows how to ship software,' but you (the end user) are the one doing all the heavy lifting."
A few sentences earlier, he wrote in his blog:
From his blog: "They "shipped it", but it will take years for it to be deployed widely enough for you, the ISV to be able to take advantage of it."
The "you" in that sentence refers to Independent Software Vendors (ISV's) having difficulty taking advantage of the
Parent
Re:Google OS (Score:5, Insightful)
Even Apple is struggling agains Windows and they already have a superior desktop OS, and penetration in audio/video and design markets.
Heck, look at even Linux. It's free, it's useable, it's secure. And it took Linux a long time to be considered a viable desktop alternative.
I like Google's services, but I don't think they could pull off a profitable OS.
Parent
Re:Google OS (Score:5, Interesting)
What if google makes a bunch of swell services that are server centric? All computing is made on google servers and the user is just presented with a web interface like for eg. cgiirc.blitzed.org. I think thats whats going on, extending the google concept of clean easy interfaces to other services like IM and stuff.
Things like theese makes it easier to later on make another OS since they pull code away from the client into the servers. I dont think Microsoft likes that, not one tiny bit...expecielly since theyve lost the battle of the web long ago.
Parent
Re:Google OS (Score:5, Insightful)
Furthermore, Google's main expertise is in the field of searching, and so far, literally ALL of its products services have been based around that. Where would an operating system fit in there?
Parent
Honestly... (Score:4, Interesting)
They're a search engine company. In fact, their search results have been in the crapper since 2003 when they adjusted their algorithms (some believe it was because they needed to increase the DocID integer size in order to not run out of them).
Google also employs several ex-NSA guys with security clearances. I mean, if we're going to draw conclusions, why not look at Google's privacy policies that state they'll happily turn over anything the government requests on you? Did you know Google sets an IP-tracking cookie that doesn't expire for 30 years? There are bigger things to be talking about regarding Google.
Parent
Re:Google OS (Score:5, Insightful)
Google Chat
Google IM
Google portal
Google hosting
Google Forum's
A Google version of .Net Passport
Google WAP and mobile device services (which would make sense if you take into account the recent push for technology in this area).
They are definately in a position to do such thing's without placing too much effort into other area's of the I.T world. I can not see Google creating an OS, licensing that goes with it, HCL's etc etc.
Parent
Re:Google OS (Score:5, Interesting)
I mean, what do people actually do with a client PC that you couldn't, in theory, do with a browser and some plug-ins?
You can read news, e-mail, IM, blog, phone, listen to streaming audio and video, look at a recipie database, access an ERP or CRM system, upload the pictures from your digital camera, configure a firewall.
What if Google introduced a GWord that let you do basic word processing and store the documents in your gmail account? And a GSheet? GQuicken? (privacy nuts would freak, of course) GCalendar with a way to sync with a mobile phone? (SMS messages perhaps? Or would your always on 3G phone just access gcalendar.google.com/pda and beep when the alarms are due?)
Google are ideally placed to keep expanding this until Windows, Linux, OSX, etc. become irrelevant except for a handful of specialised tasks. Everything is in a browser; wireless is everywhere; and your computer becomes a phone handset or a TV/PVR or a imac style intelligent screen in it or a tablet or a seat in an internet cafe or a thing between PDA and tablet the size of a thin paperback novel.
I read somewhere something that gave me pause for thought. When electricity was new, companies had electricity departments and electricity managers and chief electricity officers and so on. Nowadays that sounds silly, electricity just works. Won't computing go the same way?
Parent
Re:Google OS (Score:5, Interesting)
What's much more interested is that he was chief engineer on Hailstorm (MS Passport) for the past 5 years. Given Googles service spread and the fact that MS axed the Passport team, its much more likely he moved to Google to continue his vision of a centralized web authentication system.
If I was going to make wild predictions out of this announcement, I'd say Google is going to try a run around the Liberty Alliance and establish themselves as Passport with a more friendly face. Of course, just about everyone was predicting they would start working towards this months ago, so its just reinforcement.
Parent
Re:Predictions of Doom (Score:5, Funny)
Ooo! Does this mean we can start calling Microsoft "beleagured"?
What fun! It's like FUD Karma!
"Hmmm... I suppose you could go with an Exchange Server, but I hear Google plans to come up with a new OS which will probably drive Microsoft out of business, and then what kind of support will you be left with? Let me show you some Open Source alternatives for your mail server which you know you can depend on..."
Parent
Re:Ohh Yes another OS! (Score:5, Funny)
But then again, being a geek, any chance of me actually having sex would be next to impossible. So I really wouldn't be giving up much.
Still, BeOS was fantastic.
Parent