Asa Dotzler: Firefox and more

I'm not a big HTML or web guru, but it looks like the lack of a closed emphasis tag in this post (for the "everyone except IE developers" line) may be responsible for italisizing the rest of the text on this page as well as feedhouse.mozilla.org and Henrick Gemal's blogupdates.
This makes reading other blog entries from those pages rather distracting.
Like I said, I'm no expert and so could very well be wrong.

This also makes me wonder if there is not a method by which blog collectors, such as feedhouse, can screen the html of individual entries and close any open markup.

AMEN

Asa,
Love the brick/fishbowl analogy - though I don't think it's entirely appropriate. I would say the different is a fishtank and a pond - a fishtank is a contained environment, though you can see in from all sides. A pond is more dependent on the external environment.

Yes, we still have an internal bug system, and that is not publicly exposed. In fact, as it's part of the overall Windows system, that choice would be outside the IE team's control anyway. At any rate, I don't think Al (or anyone else here) intended to imply that the IE public bug reporting system was "like Bugzilla" in the sense of letting the public look at everthing the IE team is doing. It does, of course, allow the public to file feedback, get that feedback to us by inserting it into our usual reporting tools, and allows the public tp investigate whether other people have filed similar feedback, and see when issues get resolved, which of course is all a lot of people want.

-Chris Wilson
Group Program Manager, IE Platform

Internet Explorer Feedback is a step in the right direction. However, I hope that the Microsoft feedback portion of this project does not degenerate into what I'm already starting to see:

Entered by Microsoft on 3/24/2006
Thank you for contacting the IE team. We will be examining the reported issue and sending it to the appropriate parties.

Er, does that mean it's being looked at, is already a known issue, has been verified, a comment bot went crazy and sent that by accident, no human's actually seen the feedback? Cut-and-paste feedback isn't feedback. :(

"We know, we're looking into it." <=== that's golden.

You...

JBrunette,

Would you prefer that feedback is entered and no acknowledgement was given?

I wrote the comment you quote. I sent them to all active issues that came in last Friday except for the ones that I resolved in various ways. The purpose of the feedback is to acknowledge that we see the bug and it came in. If it was already clearly a known issue, the bug would be resolved as a "duplicate" with a comment that it is a known issue.

If you read my blog post on the Feedback system, you will see that we cannot commit to a specific turnaround on any issue that comes in. The bugs will be given to the product team and team members will update as things happen. That could be tomorrow, next week, or even next month. They aren't treated differently by our developers, testers, and program mamangers from normal bugs but we also do not look at incoming bugs all of the time every day.

There isn't going to be a live response an hour later with the details of the bug. These bugs go into our normal system and then we work through things in the context of test passes, checkins by developers, and the normal work of making software and shipping it.

- Al Billings [MSFT]

Al...

Do not misunderstand...I am not criticizing the project or it's goals. I have no expectations about turn-around times or even replies to comments in general. I have read your blog comments and understand the goals fully. I know Microsoft's going to see the feedback, I trust that.

Just don't lose the human touch. :)

Al Billings,

So what you're saying is that it's like a brick compared to a fishbowl. What you call "feedback" is just garbage. The "we sent it to the right parties" feedback is like saying "we did nothing at all". It's so vague that in pragmatic real world terms, it is meaningless and useless to the user. I suppose some users can settle for that kind of nonsense as a "feel good" pacifier. But just like a real pacifier, it has no calorie value, it's just some rubber to suck on. It's very disrespectful to users. It's like saying that while you're smart enough to file this bug, you're too stupid to follow its progress (cause the real progress will be tracked by a secret internal system). In fact, maybe the bug will get no progress for 3 years, but you'll never know because no one will bother to update the public DB if some bug stalls or gets derailed by something else.

Of course if you involved users more closely, then you'd understand how much work (billable!) users put into the software they use. Then you'd have to be a LOT more humble about your role as a software developer, and then your *social* basis for charging insane bucks would disappear (and it's disappearing anyway, as the users become more and more aware of their own role as creators of value and not as mere passive consumers). Fact is, you should pay your users as much as you charge them, because while the users are priviledged to use your software, you are priviledged to get your software used. In other words, there is no solid basis to establish the flow of value -- we can't say who is unquestionably more priviledged. Value flows in every direction simultaneously. Open source development is a perfect match for that type of flow. Commercial software has this unilateral flow of value where users are seen as consumers of value and not as producers of value, and this used to be OK because people didn't know better. But now that many people are getting exposed to better ways of producing software, they really DO KNOW better and demand more, not just technically, but socially. Free software and open source really empowers the user (not just lip service, but a really deep change in the psyche of the user takes place over time). It's completely sincere. On the other hand, there is a tremendous incentive for closed source vendors to keep the users in the dark, because that model needs that kind of uneven social relationship to maintain the unilateral flow of value.

Secrets do not work very well in society. Secrets create splits and mistrust. Transparent software development helps human beings relate to each other in healthy ways. So there is a social reason for this and not merely technical. The relationship between closed source vendor and user is very much a disease.

It's OK to lay low and avoid advertising, but when asked, there really should not be many secrets, especially in software which is used by more than 1 person. A person deserves to know what it is they are using. Sure, many will not care to know and that's fine. But those who DO care, even if it's just 3 guys, they deserve to know. Maybe they will then write an expose article that 1 million guys who previously didn't care to know, will now want to hear about? Do you see? Even if 1 external guy reads your software, ALL USERS benefit from it.

Leo, when you want to communicate instead of rant, I'll be around.

The bug databases are linked and bugs entered by users wind up in front of developers like any other bug. They can't tell the difference without looking at some fields. The only difference is that comments back to the site have to be explicitly entered. They will no more be ignored than any bug will be ignored. Their work is all in one database. The only filtering that occurs, at all, is that my team weeds out obvious dupes or people writing "Microsoft SUX0R" over and over again or the like. This is to keep the product team from being randomized.

I've worked on IE for years. I worked on IE4 and IE5. The test org that I ran is the one that tested the popup blocker, the information bar, and a number of other areas in XP Service Pack 2. This is all being handled within IE's house.

- Al Billings [MSFT]

Al Billings,

I'm not ranting. I have a very specific idea that I want to get across to you. Users are not consumers. That's the gist. Users are participants, whether you like it or not. Your choice is to make the users legitimate above ground participants, or to drive them under ground and to deligitimize user creativity with words like "hacks, theft, uncapitalist, unamerican, pinko-commy, etc.". It's not a rant. It's an idea that has real power right now (in other words, it's actually happening right now, and not just my own wishful thinking).

When the comments from your devs are kept secret, that's a serious problem. Comments to the effect of "submitted to the right party" are nonsense! If I say it's nonsense, it's not a rant. These type of comments are not considered to be valid feedback. It's not more feedback than when a FAX machine sending you OK. It doesn't mean someone actually got the paper and read it. The only way to be sure someone read your FAX is to get intelligent, detailed, and nuanced reply that simply cannot be faked and therefore must be authentic. It's way too easy to just make a bot that replies "comment submitted to the dev team". It's not more a feedback than a person on a help line getting your call and telling you "your call is very important to us, please be assured we are communicating about your issue, please hold...." And no matter how many times you assure us on this and other forums, people like me will not trust you. Instead of denigrating us, start listening, maybe? But it's up to you. I don't care if you want to shoot yourself in the foot (oh, and is this verbiage a rant now? Cause I don't think so, but maybe you think it is, huh?). Microsoft has been historically very aggressive and very, very hostile to its users. I know first hand! I've worked with MSXML and seen how it blatantly violated XML standards first hand. Yes, the people on the MS side are polite and sound "nice" (I talked to your devs in person), but it's all superficial, because the bottom line behavior is very hostile to the community. So while individual devs might be decent people, the stance of the company as a whole is very hostile and very non-cooperative, very "me first and you never, me, me, me" type of attitude.

So, just admit it, you have trust issues and bad faith issues that you need to repair right now. You know that antitrust case? Well it's not just BAD BAD GOVERNMENT screwing over poor creative Microsoft! It's the people!! We really feel that way! Don't dismiss these feelings as just some idiot's rantings -- if you do, you do yourself a disservice.

Let us see dev comments, even if devs write "this code really sucks", let us see it. Stop protecting your image and let us see everything. Stop keeping secrets! It's not a rant. I am just asking you as a person. Stop keeping secrets from me. Please stop. Let me participate. In fact, why don't you put a BSD license on your code and open it up? No, seriously! What's wrong with that? NO, no one is going to compete with you. No one cares about making another closed source IE clone. If people make nice additions to it, they most likely will share and you will benefit. If "most likely" is not good enough for you, then use GPL.

You can denigrate and dismiss all you want. That's up to you.

wow Asa this blog can sometimes really degenerate into a "kick MS" session. why don't you focus on what you and Mozilla are doing instead of knocking IE anytime they try something different. Good on them for trying to open up a little more. Sure its no bugzilla but its a start... You don't see Al Billings knocking Firefox or Mozilla every step they take... geez some professionalism please......

Mick T,

You don't see Al Billings knocking Firefox or Mozilla every step they take... geez some professionalism please......

Actually that's not true. While they stopped making direct statements, they have said things to that effect in the past. While Microsoft representatives have recently towned down their rhetoric, they haven't really apologized and they haven't yet changed all that much.

Should we applaud a small positive step? Yes, we should. However, Asa correctly compared Microsoft's openess to Bugzilla's as a brick to a fish bowl. Then some Microsoft reps chimed in and tried to dispell that perception. But by explaining what they have done, they've only reinforced Asa's comparison and made it completely valid.

We all want to play with Microsoft! Yes, I too want to play with them. It's not us who won't play, it's Microsoft who keeps putting up artificial and completely unecessary barriers left and right (e.g.: secret file formats, non-open Xbox platform, efforts to further monopolize the market via things like Passport, wanton abuse of open standards, and so on).

I can't speak for Asa, but for me, I am tired of being thrown a bone. I want Microsoft to invite me in their house and to share their bread with me. I am not an enemy. I'm a friend and I want to be treated like one. I don't want to be treated like a criminal who steals software (I paid for all my software). I want Microsoft to stop being abuse to community. Stop pushing .NET as it is now. Or really open .NET 100% and then let us all play with it. If .NET platform was open 100%, I'd be supporting it with both hands. If Microsoft Office opened 100% (without any bullshit RAND licening) their file formats, they would get three cheers from me! I want to write tools that parse MS documents and do intelligent things with them. As it is, I cannot. Why not? Because of Microsoft hostility. This is just me telling the truth. It's not me kicking MS. It's not Asa kicking MS.

If some guy hit you on the head and you said, "Hey this hurts", that is not equivalent to kicking the guy who hit you. Microsoft is hitting us over the head and raping us from behind and all we do is tell them how it hurts and how we want it to stop. When Asa made that comparison, that's how I see it. It's Microsoft that's kicking ass all over the place, but that's OK, because they do it in a polite way (except when they throw chairs behind closed doors and talk all nasty in internal memos).

It's OK to have feelings and it's OK to share them. That doesn't mean we are beating anyone up. I want MS to start playing nice and to stop competing with everyone they see and to stop trying to maximize every cent. They are squeezing the life out of us by doing so.

Sorry, Leo, but we aren't an open source project and do not offer the transparency at all levels. There are many reasons for this but I'll cite the obvious ones of business reasons and legal reasons. Having 100% transparency is simply not an option on the table and I don't think that the IE team should be castigated for this being the way that it is. We cannot offer unfiltered access to the entire Windows bug database, which is what you are asking for Leo.

Perhaps you don't care for our goals for this particular project but they were and are to give our customers a means to report issues to us that they find in IE7 and in the future, to make product suggestions, to search on existing issues that other customers have entered and to see feedback as bugs are fixed or the reasoning why things may not be fixed or changed. The goal is not 100% transparency into every bug in Windows or IE. Asa may not like this but then Asa doesn't like a lot of things we do and I think we're mutually ok with that. Our priorities are in different spaces.

Leo, I really doubt if we are going to please you. We're giving people something that they've asked for during this last year and a half of blogging. I'm sorry that it doesn't meet your personal standards but I am happy to say that others are much more pleased with it. Since we have different priorities, I don't think that we'll see eye to eye.

As to our hostility ("MS Hostility") above, I would ask yourselves to really evaluate who is being hostile, when and why. I'm a professional. I get paid to do a job and this work is part of my job. I even volunteered to do it and did a lot of work to make it happen because I do care about this work. People like Chris Wilson, Scott Stearns, and Dean Hachamovitch were very happy to help and support these efforts. This is not an example of bad behavior on Microsoft's part, no matter your feeling about the actions of a group of people years ago or your opinions of Microsoft.

The IE team is making a good faith effort to be responsive to people, to work with our customers, and to offer solutions that work for people but which also fit into achievable goals for both Microsoft and Internet Explorer.

- Al Billings [MSFT]

Al,

Ok, let's be realistic. I'll be happy if you implement standards correctly and if you avoid introducing some kind of secret format or secret protocol somewhere. It does look like you are making good efforts within your team, and maybe that's all anyone could ask of you.

However, as a company (look at Steven Ballmer's rhetoric and actions, including even most recent), Microsoft is definitely a hostile entity whose posture is aggressive and non-cooperative. I am completely against the entire idea of perpetually growing stock price -- I think that's unrealistic and unhealthy. I am completely against the idea of trying to maximize every penny, no matter what the social cost of doing so is. I am completely against the idea of taking competition to such a level that it inhibits cooperation. We live in a connected world. Friendly competition is fun and good for everyone, but taken too far, competition balcanizes our society and puts up artificial and unnecessary barrier between people.

Maybe you're really a much nicer person than it seems. Maybe if you had no fear, you'd speak out against Ballmer. Who knows? I'll never know. Of course on this public forum you have to keep face, so you're not going to share your innermost feelings. But since I don't have as much pressure as you to keep face, I can be more frank.

You know, I used to be a really big Microsoft fan. I'm not joking. I was a poor student, and I paid 500$ back in the day, for full version of Visual Studio 6. I used to always favorably compare Microsoft to Borland (remember when Borland used to offer TC++?). I was totally in love with Microsoft MASM and thought it was the best software ever. So, no one can blame me that I am prejudiced. I started out with very, very favorable view of Microsoft. I am not anti-money or anti-profit. But I do see that there is a resonable limit to how much money you can make without hurting people. I think Microsoft is over that limit.

So, yes, maybe we can't see eye to eye. Or maybe we're more eye to eye than you think. Maybe I just have a problem with Ballmer? I don't know. With so much pressure in Microsoft, can I ever know? Does anyone really speak their own mind? If we don't see eye to eye, at least you should try to see my eye. I don't live to maximize monetary wealth. I live for beauty. But I find beauty in simple things and in free things too, like the sky. The sky is beautiful. I mean it. And I didn't pay a cent for it. Friendship is beautiful and I can't buy it with money either. That's what I live for. And I believe business world can really live the same standard. The way we exchange money and make deals with each other can *easily* live up to that standard of life! We just need to decide what's important.

Now, I've decided for myself and I am, as a regular person of no special repute, ask you to decide to live similar to me. If you already do, try to do something with that insane Ballmer. I mean, that guy is really off the hook. I'm sure he's not alone. He's probably got some support behind him. That needs to be dismantled and Ballmer needs to take his billions and go away already. He's rich enough to stop bothering us. Why is he still fighting us? We are not his enemies. We're not here to be conquered. We're not a toy for Ballmer to play with. Seriously. I am not. I am not "market share". I wish Ballmer would see me as a real person and not as a dollar figure, and maybe act that way too. Maybe throw fewer chairs and sweat less? Jeezz... guy has so much money and still he can't relax. I'd say he's a sick person who doesn't know when to retire.

So, Kudos to your team, but you can't be too surprised, because, like it or not, you represent a certain legal fiction -- a fictitious person of very foul character -- Microsoft. So for all I know, you're a saint, but the larger company is far from it. So if you agree with me (even if you can't say it) and if you make whatever small efforts to fix this internally, then I really thank you from the very bottom of my heart.

"Transparent software development helps human beings relate to each other in healthy ways" - Leo

Dude, that is a LOT of friggin kool-aid you are drinking

Mitchel,

Actually that's been my experience so far. I've dealt with both and I prefer to deal with open source software projects than to deal with closed source vendors. And plus, I love the fact that if I can't wait for the vendor to fix or tell me something, like if something is not documented well enough (and believe me, closed source documentation is horrible more often than not), I can jump in the code and figure it out for myself. And the people I support love that too. So far I've yet to get a single upsale call from an open source project. I've yet to be in a phone tag. And I love talking with down to earth people, usually straight up developers, and none of that outsourced hotline bullshit (no offense to Indians) where I can't even understand what they are saying, or otherwise some highly political help desk that absolutely must run me through the chart and that really doesn't understand what I am talking about, because if they did, they'd be developers.