I can accept your opinion here and agree in parts I am having mixed feelings about the approach. Would I do it differently probably but it's just full steam ahead ?
Also just know that a journalist did most of the work based off some tweets so really my efforts were just the final pieces he needed to position a story he's had in the queue for sometime. I know other journos have similar stories so I think it was coming either way or person at the helm? -- Sent from my mini iPad nano (excuse my spilling and grammar as I have giant man like fingers and this device as small keys) On 15/09/2010, at 2:31 PM, Paul Stovell <p...@paulstovell.com> wrote: > Hi Scott, > > >> It's exposing a lot of hidden conversations both internally and > >> externally, is that good or bad? > > I appreciate the work you put in while at Microsoft to make sure issues from > guys like me were being raised internally (I mean that). The problem I had > with this post isn't that you kicked off a good discussion about > HTML5/Silverlight/WPF (which I agree needs to be had), it's that it was done > by exposing those internal conversations, without full context or evidence. > > I care about Microsoft and the direction that they go in, and I care about > progress, but I care a lot more about stability. I'm happy to have > discussions that help define the direction and create progress, but airing > internal issues damages stability. There are plenty of small ISV's and IT > departments building Silverlight/WPF applications right now. A few days ago, > they were pretty sure Microsoft had it all planned out and they were > confident they were going in the right path. Now, assuming they've seen the > news articles that picked up on your opinion piece, they're not confident. It > puts business at risk. I care about that a lot more than I care about > Silverlight v HTML 5 :) > > If you were just an Average Joe writing an opinion piece, it would be one > thing. As a former insider, people take what you say a lot more seriously. > And you weren't just airing your own opinions, you were airing opinions you > claim to be from Microsoft. > > It's the difference between Average Joe writing a rant about the mining tax > in The Advertiser's opinion section, and Mark Latham writing a rant in the > AFR about the internal divides he's overheard within the Labor party on the > mining tax. In the first case, no one listens. In the second case, employees > at mining companies are worried about their jobs, they stop spending, and > small businesses close down. Personally, I care less about the hurt feelings > of governments and mining companies, and a lot about small businesses. I'd > argue that for the sake of stability (plus just being a nice guy), it's > better to leave internal conversations internal. > > I hope that explains where I'm coming from. I'm grateful for the work you did > (and perhaps still do) as an influencer within Microsoft to improve things. I > just don't think it was a good thing for the market to do it the way you did. > > Paul > > > > On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 1:45 PM, Scott Barnes <scott.bar...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hmm, I'm a little shocked of all people you wrote the below Paul ? (i > mean that with sincerity). > > You and i have had a few discussions around this space, you've shown > frustration that Silverlight has gotten more attention than WPF and so > on. The reality is that whether you agree or disagree with the way i > went about the approach I took, at the heart of it all is that kind of > conversation that yourself, others and myself have had over and over. > I initially started out with some venting tweets sitting in LAX after > reading yet another "great feedback, lets take that offline" dismissal > from some folks on an issue that another community member put forward. > I still stand by my decision as being one of good intentions for the > greater good of WPF/Silverlight and it's created a polarizing > conversation around the globe at the moment on this subject. It's > exposing a lot of hidden conversations both internally and externally, > is that good or bad? i honestly don't know, but i do know it needs to > be had. > > I knew the moment i posted it i'd expose myself to first character > attacks but also yeah, it does put parts of my career into a red flag > area - yet, thats ok, as long as we get to the root of what dead vs > alive is. > > You state that WPF is done? really, engineering wise sure, i can argue > that with you - there are some things i'd like to still see but that > aside, WPF is done. Now what? you've built it how do you then go to > market with it? market opportunity is 6million+ developers and we are > probably sitting at around 7% of that... is that done? when was the > last event you saw WPF being shouted from the roof tops about this > year? How was teched? get much out of the amounts of WPF discussions > there? What's the last Windows development campaign you saw? Seen any > Evangelists talk about WPF recently at your local User Group? > > Which is more popular, Wp7 or WPF at the moment? When Windows 7 came > out, did you hear much in the way of value propositions around WPF > development for the new Windows platform? even if it was the same as > Vista still, good opportunity isn't it? How much of the developer > share do you think Enterprise makes vs Consumer/Web? anyone have the > numbers on this one? i do... well according to Microsoft anyway... > > As for FUD? yeah i can buy into that, but i also don't see Microsoft > staff volunteering to support the claims out loud? i mean would it be > fair to say that's a career limiting move within the company? how do > you support this? grab a document or two and post that to the > interweb - yeah i could do that i guess, but then i'd cross a very > clear legal line or two. Its why it was posted on a blog, by > definition it's an opinion piece. You can choose - that being the > keyword - to believe it or not, but thats where I stand. > > Jose, Jordan, John etc are looking to get to the root of this, > Corneliu, David and i'm guessing others are more focused on the person > not the issue? what gains do we get with the later? sure put me in a > position of embarrassment that could work and you prove a point or two > (personally i've had a variety of people express their opinions about > me, i long since cared what others think years ago) that i'm flawed > but in the end did it change the outcome of this initial issue? > > > > Regards, > > Scott Barnes > > http://www.riagenic.com > > > > On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 12:40 PM, Paul Stovell <p...@paulstovell.com> wrote: > >>> Wpf has had little or next to no investments beyond what the vs2010 team > >>> needed and some basics from variety of community sources if any. It's had > >>> zero marketing budget and wasn't even mentioned as a developer story in > >>> win7 > >>> launches > > I get that feeling too, but I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing. > > I really like that the changes in the latest version of WPF are driven by > > their own dog-fooding needs, rather than "guessing" at what their customers > > might want. That's where the best frameworks come from. There are some small > > things I'd like to see improved in WPF, but .NET 4.0 fixed most of my > > complaints and overall I'm pretty happy with it. A skeleton team of 3 people > > and a chicken is probably fine, since it's already come so far. In short, > > it's not about being "dead", it's about recognizing that it's "done". > > If they had a spare 500 developers to work on it, what exactly would they > > do? I expect they'd be out of real problems to solve, so they'd invent > > problems to solve, and the framework would get bloated. I'm actually quite > > happy with the idea of Microsoft taking some time to build their own > > applications on WPF, and letting it evolve slowly and properly. > > WPF has a nice market niche in the ISV/disconnected client world, a world > > that simply cannot use Silverlight/HTML5. That market is simply not as big > > as the market of people building websites, and I don't think it needs to be. > > WPF competes with Windows Forms/VB 6 and Cocoa, not HTML5 and Flash, so I'm > > not sure it really needs a huge marketing budget. > > Now, to the thing that annoys me about this post. Having an opinion on > > HTML5/Silverlight/WPF and the direction they should go is one thing, and > > sharing those opinions on ways to improve can be helpful. But airing what > > you claim to be internal "Microsoft" laundry, while not actually sharing any > > proof or enough context, and trading on your credentials as an "insider" > > just adds Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt to the market. The post has plenty of > > opinions and hyperbole, but no actual evidence to back it up. Despite the > > post, we can't be sure that Silverlight/WPF are going to "die", however much > > you might think so. But what we can be sure about is companies that were > > about to start developing new applications are now going to be stuck in > > limbo because they're suddenly unsure of what's going to happen to the > > stacks they're building on. That's not good for the market, and I fail to > > see what "good" comes out of a post like this. > > Paul > > > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 11:45 AM, Scott Barnes <scott.bar...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > >> > >> Nice post Jordan ;) > >> My thoughts personally is there is room for both and I'm on record by > >> saying msft should consider using sl + ie together to handle the html5 > >> execution silently - it drives ubiquity and upholds both sides of the isle. > >> Wpf has had little or next to no investments beyond what the vs2010 team > >> needed and some basics from variety of community sources if any. It's had > >> zero marketing budget and wasn't even mentioned as a developer story in > >> win7 > >> launches. Declaring it dead is easy, burying the corpse is the hard part ;) > >> Win8 team aren't taking bets on it so say what u will but either I am > >> right or msft tomorrow makes an official declaration of how they plan to > >> pump some momentum behind it. Either outcome is pushing the old with new > >> forward for a greater good and won't be suddenly dumped on everyones laps > >> at > >> a point where it's too late to steer a different direction. > >> Dead doesn't mean instantly gone it can take years - look at xp. It just > >> signals to all "get off or else" is all :/ > >> I am pro wpf / silverlight btw and want these to continue to grow > >> > >> -- > >> Sent from my mini iPad nano > >> (excuse my spilling and grammar as I have giant man like fingers and this > >> device as small keys) > >> On 15/09/2010, at 11:17 AM, Jordan Knight <jak...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> I'd also like to raise some points RE HTML5 and WPF/SL etc. > >> Back in the 1890's the head of the US patent office declared he was going > >> to close the office because he thought that there was nothing left to > >> invent... rather short sighted given hindsight... > >> My point is that HTML5 will bring to the masses through standardisation > >> the features that consumers have come to demand thanks to agile plugins > >> like > >> SL and Flash. To quote the SL team blog post that flamed the debate - > >> SL/Flash trailblaze and HTML5 will then pave the road. These features are > >> already out there and pervasive (demanded) - so why not standardise and > >> give > >> them the ultimate reach they deserve! Bravo - it's a really good idea, and > >> consumers win. The stuff that was around years ago will now be available > >> through standards. > >> But there is new stuff now... that stuff has been done - tech moves on. > >> Where consumers *also* win is that SL and Flash are all about ideas and > >> tech that doesn't/didn't exist yet + getting it to market fast. It's a > >> playground for great ideas. 3D video. Surround sound, adaptive smooth > >> streaming (for the SL = video zealots). Multitouch, multi screen, multi > >> bloody everything. Rapid development (through Des/Dev workflows) + awesome > >> tooling. > >> Consumers like apps too remember. They would much rather read their EPG in > >> an app than have a link to a web page on their desktop. > >> And what about other ideas that don't really exist yet. To say that WPF is > >> dead and/or dying - well I say to you - there is more to the world of UX > >> and > >> consumerism than just the browser/current thinking. I think that WPF is > >> _still_ ahead of its time. Tech/devices are moving wayyyyy too fast for > >> HTML5 spec to keep up with (what about this cheap new > >> device? > >> http://www.engadget.com/2010/09/13/microsoft-principal-researcher-bill-buxton-surface-will-be-in-h/)... > >> I think the HTML5 vs the world debate is forgetting about the consumer > >> app/hi-tech/new shiny device market - it will/(*is*) be hooooooge! And we > >> need to keep the consumers happy (which means being nimble!). > >> HTML5 is great, bringing what we demand to spec. Yaay for Vimeo working on > >> my iPhone! Plugins are great bringing us the latest tech quickly. And... as > >> new screens are added (Surface, phones etc)... then you can be sure i'll be > >> betting the farm on ripping out apps quickly on tech like WPF... > >> Cheap Surfaces, every shop... WPF = killer. > >> My 2 cents :) > >> > >> On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 9:01 PM, Tatham Oddie <tat...@oddie.com.au> wrote: > >>> > >>> Even as the web standards zealot in the corner, I wouldn’t agree with > >>> many of Scott’s points. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Jordan Knight and I just discussed the relationship between HTML5 and > >>> Silverlight across two episodes of Frankly Speaking: > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> http://www.noisetosignal.com.au/franklyspeaking/?p=256 > >>> > >>> http://www.noisetosignal.com.au/franklyspeaking/?p=260 > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> -- > >>> > >>> Tatham Oddie > >>> > >>> au mob: +61 414 275 989, us cell: +1 213 280 9140, skype: tathamoddie > >>> > >>> If you’re printing this email, you’re doing it wrong. This is a computer, > >>> not a typewriter. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> From: ozsilverlight-boun...@ozsilverlight.com > >>> [mailto:ozsilverlight-boun...@ozsilverlight.com] On Behalf Of > >>> danlaz...@arcamis.com > >>> Sent: Tuesday, 14 September 2010 6:33 PM > >>> To: ozSilverlight > >>> Subject: Interesting article re: WPF/Silverlight/HTML5 on riagenic > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Via CodeProject 'Daily News' (14/09/2010) - > >>> http://www.riagenic.com/archives/363 > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Dr. Dan Lazner, PhD | Software Architect/Engineer/Developer > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> ozsilverlight mailing list > >>> ozsilverlight@ozsilverlight.com > >>> http://prdlxvm0001.codify.net/mailman/listinfo/ozsilverlight > >>> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> ozsilverlight mailing list > >> ozsilverlight@ozsilverlight.com > >> http://prdlxvm0001.codify.net/mailman/listinfo/ozsilverlight > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> ozsilverlight mailing list > >> ozsilverlight@ozsilverlight.com > >> http://prdlxvm0001.codify.net/mailman/listinfo/ozsilverlight > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > Paul Stovell > > > > _______________________________________________ > > ozsilverlight mailing list > > ozsilverlight@ozsilverlight.com > > http://prdlxvm0001.codify.net/mailman/listinfo/ozsilverlight > > > > > _______________________________________________ > ozsilverlight mailing list > ozsilverlight@ozsilverlight.com > http://prdlxvm0001.codify.net/mailman/listinfo/ozsilverlight > > > > -- > Paul Stovell > _______________________________________________ > ozsilverlight mailing list > ozsilverlight@ozsilverlight.com > http://prdlxvm0001.codify.net/mailman/listinfo/ozsilverlight
_______________________________________________ ozsilverlight mailing list ozsilverlight@ozsilverlight.com http://prdlxvm0001.codify.net/mailman/listinfo/ozsilverlight
