The Rewrite Game

While drinking my morning cappuccino, I ran across this opinion piece on page 4 of the business section in the Sunday edition of the New York Times. Basically, the author is asking Microsoft to rewrite their operating system completely from scratch instead of continuing to enhance it as they have done for decades. He uses Apple as an example of this. They did a complete rewrite of their operating system when they moved from version 9.8 to 10. This is not the first time that an Apple advocate has publicly called on Microsoft to rewrite their operating system.

Why is this noteworthy? Anyone who has written software for public consumption will eventually be faced with the very hard question of whether or not it is time to rewrite. As you enhance or fix software, every change makes the software a little bit more brittle. Over time, this raises the cost of maintaining software. This is really not that much different from the car buying decision. You buy a new car and for years it just runs and all you have to do is normal maintenance stuff like oil and tire changes. As the car gets older, it starts to break down more and more. Eventually, you realize that you are paying more in repair bills than what a car note would be.

Why hasn't Microsoft rewritten their operating system? Because it is too expensive. It has been theorized that Vista has over fifty million lines of code. Think about that number for a minute. You would have to have already celebrated your 95th birthday in order to have lived that many minutes. It takes a lot more than a minute to write a line of code, especially when you are talking about operating system code. Time, mind, and money spent to rewrite what they already have is time, mind, and money not spent on entering all these markets that Microsoft so ambitiously wants to enter in. Google would like nothing more than for Microsoft to rewrite their operating system.

How did Apple do it? They didn't worry about backwards compatibility. If you bought a software product for Macintosh version 9.8, then it would not work on OS X. You would have to make another software purchase just to get the same functionality on the new operating system. Apparently, IPod hugging kids with strange facial hair are more willing to part with their hard earned cash than those pudgy business suit types who just might take their unhappiness to a more litigious level.

Why does backwards compatibility make the rewrite so much more expensive? Well, for one thing, Apple didn't really rewrite OS X from scratch. They took their work on Next Gen and BSD and started from that. Microsoft doesn't have that luxury.

Will Microsoft ever rewrite their operating system? Who can ever say? They do rewrite parts of it from time to time. Also, they really have two operating systems now, one for servers and the other for workstations. Nobody, that I know of, ever really complains about the server OS which I believe to be more strategic for the company over the long haul. It's probably easier and more in line with their long term objectives to relinquish the workstation market to the Apples and the Linuxes of the world than to rewrite Vista.

Bucky Fuller Revisited

I ran across an article in last Sunday's New York Times about everyones favorite cold war era stalwart visionary inventor, engineer, author, and architect Richard Buckminster Fuller.

I remember being quite impressed with this man's writings. While I was in college, I read his Operating Manual for Spaceship Earth and Critical Path books. He introduced the concepts of synergetics and tensegrity to me through these writings. A prolific inventor and thinker, he held 28 patents and was great at reframing complex concepts in new and intriguing ways. People are verbs more than they are nouns. The universe is that "omni-interaccommodative, nonsimultaneous, and only partially overlapping, omni-intertransforming, self-regenerating scenario." To that affect, he was also prolific at coining new terms such as "livingry" and "dymaxion." I was so influenced by this man's work that I even named my startup company Dynamical Software, Inc. as a sort of reverent nod to this man.

Like almost any modern example of good journalism, the New York Times article references a recent event and presents a mild expose. The recent event is an upcoming exhibit (June 26, 2008 through September 21, 2008) of his work at the Whitney Museum of American Art. The expose is a debunking of his "suicide story" in which he claims that, after dropping out of college, failing at business, and becoming a heavy drinker, he seriously considered suicide. Just as he is on the precipice of that dark commitment, he receives an epiphany which causes him to devote his life to the betterment of mankind as a sort of cosmic experiment. Based on research at Stanford University and an upcoming book called "Reassessing R. Buckminster Fuller," the New York Times counter-claims this famous suicide story to be a myth created by Bucky himself. This research does assert that he did have a nervous breakdown after an extra-marital affair, with a women half his age, fell apart.

Gaming and Video Convergence Reloaded

I keep my eyes open for examples of technology convergence such as the convergence between the movie and the video gaming industries. That's why this announcement caught my attention.

The details are a bit sketchy at the time of this writing and the announced deadline is way out but it looks like the Sci Fi Channel is going to simultaneously co-produce both a TV show and an MMORPG.

How is this is different from other movie/MMORPG combinations such as Star Wars and The Matrix? In those two Sony franchises, the movies were made first then the MMORPG followed. The story arc of the game always follows what has already been revealed in the movies.

It appears that what might be different this time is that both the television producers and the game designers will have equal creative say in the franchise. The writers of the series will study what the gamers have done online to work plot elements into the show. They may also schedule events online that dovetail with what is going on in individual episodes. This new innovation kicks media demographic research up a notch from other convergence ties such as CSI:NY on SL.