What could have been done differently?

Wed Jan 29 04:57:20 UTC 2003

On Tue, 28 Jan 2003, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:

:They do have a lousy track record.  I'm convinced, though, that
:they're sincere about wanting to improve, and they're really trying
:very hard.  In fact, I hope that some other vendors follow their
:lead.  My big worry isn't the micro-issues like buffer overflows
:-- it's the meta-issue of an overall too-complex architecture.  I
:don't think they have a handle on that yet.

Excellent point.  I have been saying this since the dawn of Windows
3.x.  Obviously, software engineering for such a large project as an(y) OS
needs to be distributed.  MS has long been remiss in facilitating 
(mandating?) coordination between project teams pre-market.  You're
absolutely correct that complexity is now the issue, and it could have
been mitigated early on.  (Who knows what?  Is "who" still
employed?"  If not, where are "who's" notes?  Who knows if "who" shared
his notes with "what"?, Who's on third?...)

Now, it's going to cost loads of $$ to get everyone on the same page (or
chapter), if that's even in the cards.  For MS, it's a game of picking the
right fiscal/social/political tradeoff.  It's extremely complex now, as
the project has taken on a life of its own.

Someone let the suits take control early on, and we all know the rest of
the story.

Any further discussion will likely be nothing more than educated
conjecture (as was the above).

cheers,
brian