Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Google Businesses The Internet Microsoft

Microsoft Loses Key Engineer to Google 475

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This discussion has been archived.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.

Microsoft Loses Key Engineer to Google

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 03, 2005 @06:15PM (#11838792)
    Saturday, February 12, 2005
    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 .NET framework for a second. Suppose you wrote something innocent like a screen saver, written in C# based on the .NET framework. How would you as an ISV "ship your software"? You can't. Not unless you sign up to ship Microsoft's software as well. You see, the .NET Framework isn't widely deployed. It is present on a small fraction of machines in the world. Microsoft built the software, tested it, released it to manufacturing. 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. If you want to use .NET, you need to ship Microsoft's software for them. Isn't this an odd state of affairs? Microsoft is supposed to be the one that "knows how to ship software", but you are the one doing all the heavy lifting. You are the one that has to ship their software the last mile, install it on end user machines, ensure their machines still work after you perform this platform level surgery.

    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
  • Coral Link (Score:4, Informative)

    by deadmongrel ( 621467 ) <karthik@poobal.net> on Thursday March 03, 2005 @06:15PM (#11838794) Homepage
    I can get to the page without any problem. Perhaps this might work for those who can't http://www.microsoft-watch.com.nyud.net:8090/artic le2/0,1995,1772125,00.asp [nyud.net]
  • by winkydink ( 650484 ) * <sv.dude@gmail.com> on Thursday March 03, 2005 @06:21PM (#11838870) Homepage Journal
    So that part is moot.
  • by Karpe ( 1147 ) on Thursday March 03, 2005 @06:22PM (#11838877) Homepage
    One of the most interesting and complete descriptions of the history of the Windows NT family of OSes I've seen was this PowerPoint presentation [usenix.org] by Lucovsky.
  • Of course it is (Score:2, Informative)

    by NYTrojan ( 682560 ) on Thursday March 03, 2005 @06:23PM (#11838891)
    it is how businesses work. Microsoft has made a living doing this. Ken Lobb went to Microsoft from Nintendo to help the XBOX. Heck, Microsoft buys COMPANYS to prevent them from working with rival organizations (See Rare).
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 03, 2005 @06:44PM (#11839103)
    I thought they hired the Delphi architect to create C#, not Money.

    Your larger point is true. Microsoft is notorious for direct dialing top engineers from the competitors and throwing money and titles at them. See: David Cutler.
  • by einhverfr ( 238914 ) <chris...travers@@@gmail...com> on Thursday March 03, 2005 @06:58PM (#11839232) Homepage Journal
    The stock Microsoft employment contract has a non-compete clause which, IMO (IANAL) is appropriately scoped. It basically says that you cannot work where your work is likely to overlap with the confiduential information you had access to at Microsoft for a period of a year (and one would assume that trade secret protections last longer than that).

    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.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 03, 2005 @07:07PM (#11839315)
    Mark makes a very key point in pointing out that Microsoft doesn't ship software in a timely manner. Let me give you one example: MSIE and CSS. As any web designer knows, MSIE has some CSS rendering problems that make it more difficult to design pages. For example, MSIE 6 doesn't support the MSIE max-length CSS attribute, forcing me to do some ugly <TD width=number> workarounds.

    Now, let us suppose that Microsoft releases MSIE 7 tomorrow with support for the max-length attribute. How long will it be before I can safely write a web page with "max-length" in the CSS? At least three years. To be safe, I should wait five years.

    Why do I say this? IE6 was released about three years ago. A little over 4% of the web surfers out there are still using IE5. That's too many users for me to ignore in my web page's CSS.

  • by WindBourne ( 631190 ) on Thursday March 03, 2005 @07:10PM (#11839342) Journal
    In fact, they unenforeable in most states in the west. Only back east, do they carry any validity.
  • Re:The Bullet (Score:5, Informative)

    by EddWo ( 180780 ) <`moc.poptoh' `ta' `owdde'> on Thursday March 03, 2005 @07:10PM (#11839351)
    It's interesting you should say that.

    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.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 03, 2005 @07:54PM (#11839705)
    NT was the precursor to Windows Server.

    What? NT is the the server, and workstation line, even today.
  • Shipping Software (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Custard ( 587661 ) on Thursday March 03, 2005 @08:03PM (#11839766) Homepage Journal
    The article severely misquoted his blog:

    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 .NET framework without including it in their installers. "You" does NOT mean "the end user" like mom or pop or kid, as the article editor made it seem.
  • by Lux ( 49200 ) on Thursday March 03, 2005 @09:10PM (#11840213)
    I've asked a lawyer about this. If you agree to a legal venue in a contract, that is binding. The stock MS contract does specify WA as a venue, so if they come after someone who is working in CA, he has to fly up to WA to defend himself in a WA court, subject to WA non-compete laws.
  • by jerryasher ( 151512 ) on Thursday March 03, 2005 @09:43PM (#11840418)
    Washington: Non-compete.

    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.
  • Re:The Bullet (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 04, 2005 @01:40AM (#11841825)
    Forgive me, but Matt Felton doesn't belong in that crowd. Yes, he owned the MS-DOS subsystem, but... Don't get me wrong, Matt's awesome, but...

    On the other hand, you missed Lou Perazzoli, Steve Wood, and Chuck Lenzmeier, and Darryl Havens who were more directly responsible for NT's success.

"If it ain't broke, don't fix it." - Bert Lantz

Working...