Re: Things that Longhorn seems to be doing right

[Joseph Pingenot]

>From Dax Kelson on Wednesday, 29 October, 2003:
>On Wed, 2003-10-29 at 16:03, Hans Reiser wrote:
>> If they have a beta today, and we are not doing anything today in that 
>> area, they are probably going to beat us to shipping something in that 
>> area unless we make a real effort.  That means well-earned advantage for 
>> them.
>Except, they didn't release a beta.
>They released a developer preview (not even alpha), mostly to show off
>the APIs.
>AFAIK the developer preview has no WinFS bits in it at all.

Regardless, it's an interesting idea, and one which might be fruitful.  

I give you then two bits: our treatment of the tech and the reality of their
  tech:

00: ISVAPOR | TAKESEROUSLY
01: ISVAPOR | IGNORE
10: NOTVAPOR | TAKESERIOUSLY
11: NOTVAPOR | IGNORE

If we come up with a working implementation and it *is* just vaporware, then
  we're ahead.
We're way ahead.
  
If we merely dismiss it as vaporware and it turns out to be,
no net change.

If it's not vaporware and we take it seriously and look at something similar
  for Linux and 'nix, we're still ahead (especially if we get to it first,
  and do it better).
We're somewhat ahead.

If we merely dismiss it as vaporware and it turns out NOT to be, 
we are behind, _potentially_with_patents_blocking_our_progress_.


Conclusion: the optimal case would be for it to truly be vaporware and we
  make it real.  Next case would be for it to not be vaporware, but for us
  to get there first and/or do it better.  Next to last would be us to not
  take us seriously and for it to actually be vaporware.  LAST and certainly
  LEAST would be for it to *not* be vaporware, and for us to not take it
  seriously.  In that case, we face not only being behind in tech, but also
  potentially _the_INABILITY_ to work towards this, since Microsoft would
  have patents (it's highly likely) on the work and would use them to block
  our Freedom to Innovate.
Conclusion: best to take it seriously and work on it; those two cases
  are the most optimal.


The Linux community should investigate it and potentially offer a similar
  functionality (e.g. improved ability to search for document content),
  since it looks interesting, and we could have it way before they do.
Maybe a search engine group could team up with a filesystems group and
  potentially others.  This is something where maybe Google and other
  minor players would like to get in on the action, given Microsoft's current
  bent to control the world's searching via the MicroSoft Network (see
  also, slashdot).  We need to team up for the best chances of beating
  the 800lb Orc.  :)

My two pfennig; take it or leave it.

-Joseph
-- 
Joseph===============================================trelane@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"Asked by CollabNet CTO Brian Behlendorf whether Microsoft will enforce its
 patents against open source projects, Mundie replied, 'Yes, absolutely.'
 An audience member pointed out that many open source projects aren't
 funded and so can't afford legal representation to rival Microsoft's. 'Oh
 well,' said Mundie. 'Get your money, and let's go to court.' 
Microsoft's patents only defensive? http://swpat.ffii.org/players/microsoft
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/