may the force be with you

"What has six limbs, a prehensile tail, its brain in its chest, and reproductive organs in its mouth? The alternate human designed by biologist PZ Myers in Remaking Humanity, a story in Forbes.com's package on Reinvention. It may sound fantastic, but researchers are already working to re-build DNA, proteins and cells in a new field called synthetic biology, and we may have to meet these bug-eyed freaks sometime in our lifetime."

source:http://science.slashdot.org/science/06/04/20/1524229.shtml

Former Finance Chief's Return, Board Activism May Signal End Of Chairman's Tenure as CEO

Scott McNealy, chairman and chief executive of Sun Microsystems Inc., has often had a testy relationship with Wall Street -- and that has weighed on the company's stagnant stock price. But the situation could be changing.

The first sign is the return of Michael Lehman, who retired in 2002 as Sun's chief financial officer but assumed the post again in February. The appointment helped boost Sun's stock by more than 20%, analysts say, on the theory that Mr. Lehman would help push through large-scale head-count reductions that Wall Street has long sought and Mr. McNealy resisted.

And now, some former Sun executives and others are buzzing about the possibility that Mr. McNealy may give up the CEO title, most likely to Jonathan Schwartz, the company's president and chief operating officer. The timing of any change isn't clear, though some speculate that a change could be disclosed as early as the company's earnings announcement, slated for Monday, or some months later.

Asked if he is planning to step down, Mr. McNealy characterized the possibility as merely a rumor, without directly answering the question. "That rumor is about 22 years old and still chuggin," he wrote in an email.

Certainly, there have been many wrong guesses in the past about Mr. McNealy, who has come under fire for the Silicon Valley company's erratic profits and failure to boost revenue. Sun's board has appeared solidly behind Mr. McNealy, who repeatedly has said he has no plans to leave the computer maker.

Several factors are renewing questions about the company's plans. For one thing, analysts say, Sun's board has been more active lately in pressing for improved performance.

Meanwhile, Mr. Lehman has become Sun's new front man with the financial community, meeting with investors in public and private, says Toni Sacconaghi, an analyst at Sanford Bernstein. Analysts expect Mr. Lehman to deliver a detailed financial plan for the fiscal year beginning in July. He also is expected to resume the practice of giving quarterly financial guidance, addressing another irritant for analysts.

Mark Stahlman, an analyst with investment bank Caris & Co., argues that one more step is required -- to clarify the responsibilities of Mr. McNealy and other top managers by the start of the next fiscal year. "I think Scott has to step aside so there is no confusion," he says.

Mr. Stahlman wrote a research note about the possibility of a management change in early March. He argued that Mr. McNealy has fixed Sun's most serious problems and could leave while claiming victory of a sort.

That prediction, Mr. Stahlman says, was largely based on conversations more than a year earlier with people close to Sun. Since he wrote the note, he adds, other knowledgeable people have come forward to say a succession plan is in the works, with Mr. McNealy remaining chairman. Mr. Stahlman has a "buy" rating on Sun. Neither he nor Caris hold any Sun shares.

One person interviewed for the top finance job at Sun says he came away convinced that Mr. Schwartz was the clear favorite to succeed Mr. McNealy. After speaking with both men, he says, "I walked away thinking, 'This [CEO] job is taken.' "

Mr. Sacconaghi remains unconvinced about any impending change, noting that Mr. McNealy stated his commitment to remain at the helm as recently as the company's analyst meeting in February. "I'm happy to hear that the board appears to be demanding a plan for growth and profit," Mr. Sacconaghi says. "I think it's long overdue. But I don't think we know any more than that."

Mr. Sacconaghi, who holds no Sun shares, has an "underperform" rating on the stock. Bernstein and its affiliates hold more than 1% of Sun's shares. It does no investment-banking business with the company.

Sun has gone through big transitions before. The Santa Clara, Calif., company, founded in 1982 to make desktop workstations, successfully shifted its emphasis to server systems and enjoyed explosive growth during the Internet boom of the late 1990s. But Sun's sales went into a tailspin when telecommunications companies and financial-service firms stopped buying its hardware. Analysts expect the company to post a loss for the fiscal year ending in June and the following 12 months.

The one constant has been Mr. McNealy, who has been at the helm since 1984. Rebuffing calls to reduce research-and-development spending, Sun has improved the servers based on its internally designed Sparc chips, added machines that use sophisticated chips from Advanced Micro Devices Inc., and adapted its highly regarded operating system to run on that hardware. Sun also settled a long legal battle with Microsoft Corp., reaping nearly $2 billion.

But Sun's revenue remains 40% below its peak during the Internet bubble. Its stock price -- a far cry from its 2000 high of $64 a share -- has bounced for three years between about $3.25 and $5.80. In 4 p.m. composite trading on the Nasdaq Stock Market Sun shares closed yesterday at $4.95, down three cents, giving the company a market value of about $18 billion.

A particular bone of contention with Wall Street has been Sun's cost structure. Harry Blount, who follows Sun for Lehman Brothers, estimates that Sun's operating expenses -- including R&D as well as spending for sales and administration -- are about 47.8% of revenue. The comparable measure at EMC Corp., a storage-system company with operations that he regards as comparable, is 35.8%, he estimates.

International Business Machines Corp. and Hewlett-Packard Co. expenses, respectively, are 26.4% and 15.7% of revenue, he says. Mr. Blount has a "hold" rating on Sun shares. Neither he nor Lehman own Sun shares, but Lehman provides securities-related services to Sun.

While Sun has no price-to-earnings multiple now, Mr. Sacconaghi of Bernstein Research notes that Sun shares trade at 1.3 times its revenue, compared with about 1 times sales for rival H-P, 1.1 for Dell Inc. and 1.4 for IBM.

Caris's Mr. Stahlman predicts Sun's stock would rise if Mr. McNealy gave up the CEO title. The market's potential reaction regarding Mr. Schwartz -- a 40-year-old known more for pronouncements about technology directions than operational skill -- is less clear.

Sebastian Thomas, head of U.S. technology research for Sun shareholder RCM Capital Management LLC., which manages about $120 billion globally, predicts that investors would react "pretty favorably" to a management change if the company's revenues remained stable or grew.

But Charles Lemonides, chief investment officer for ValueWorks LLC, an investment firm in New York that holds Sun stock and manages $225 million, argued that improved operating results are the most important factor for the stock. "It would be better for the shares to see that under existing management," he says.

source:http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB114550160277730845.html

News Analysis: The software maker admits to withholding details on security vulnerabilities to protect customers from bad guys, but critics say that policy increases the risk for everyone.

Microsoft has 'fessed up to hiding details on software vulnerabilities that are discovered internally, insisting that full disclosure of every security-related product change only serves to aid attackers.

The company's admission follows criticisms from a security researcher that its policy of silently fixing software flaws is "misleading" and not in the spirit of Microsoft's push for transparency.

In an interview with eWEEK, Mike Reavey, operations manager of the MSRC (Microsoft Security Response Center), said the company's policy is to document the existence of internally discovered flaws as well as the area of functionality where the change occurred, but that full details on the fixes are withheld for a very good reason.

"We want to make sure we don't give attackers any [additional] information that could be used against our customers. There is a balance between providing information to assess risk and giving out information that aids attackers," Reavey said.

When Microsoft receives a report of a security flaw from external researchers, Reavey said, the MSRC conducts an extensive investigation to look at all the surrounding code to make sure a comprehensive fix is pushed out the door. If a related bug is found internally, it will be fixed in the eventual patch, he said, but the details will be kept under wraps.

Read more here about Microsoft's patch-creation process at the MSRC.

However, critics argue that silent fixes have a way of backfiring and hurting businesses that depend on information from the vendor to determine deployment time frames and the actual severity of the patched vulnerability.

According to eEye Digital Security, which sells host-based IPS (intrusion prevention system) technology, silent fixes from Microsoft are commonplace.

"It is the skeleton in Microsoft's closet. We routinely find them," said Steve Manzuik, product manager of eEye's security research team, in Aliso Viejo, Calif.

In an interview with eWEEK, Manzuik said Microsoft has been silently fixing bugs as far back as 2004. He referred to the company's MS04-007 bulletin as a classic example of Microsoft announcing a fix for a single vulnerability when in fact a total of seven flaws were quietly fixed.

Read details here about Microsoft's decision to use external patch testers.

Manzuik's team presented a research paper on its findings at the Black Hat Briefings in Europe earlier in 2006 to highlight the problems with withholding details on fixes from customers.

"Microsoft's customers depend on that information to figure out how to respond to Patch Tuesday. The reality is, system administrators will delay deploying a patch based on the details of the bulletin. When details aren't included, he won't install that patch. That is a big problem," Manzuik said.

He said IT departments do not have the skill or resources to reverse-engineer every patch.

"They are simply left in the dark and may ignore a patch that is super-critical to their environment. Meanwhile, the bad guy has spent the time to find out what was silently fixed," Manzuik said, arguing that Microsoft has a responsibility to make sure businesses are fully informed about software changes.

"I don't buy the argument that they are aiding attackers. The attackers are already reverse-engineering the patches. They have the time and resources to find out where the flaw lies. The guy that feels the pain is the system administrator who is in the dark and who can't do his own reverse-engineering," Manzuik said.

Matthew Murphy, the independent researcher who flagged the issue after finding silent fixes in the April batch of patches, said third-party vendors that incorporate code from Microsoft are also hurt by the lack of full disclosure.

Murphy outlined a recent case where anti-virus vendor Trend Micro got burned by a silent fix pushed out by Microsoft. That issue revolved around a bug in Visual Studio that was reported to Microsoft in 2002 but remained unfixed for several years.

Microsoft eventually fixed the bug but information was withheld, causing Trend Micro to unwittingly use the vulnerable code in its products, putting its customers at risk of a heap overflow vulnerability that could be used in code execution attacks.

Manzuik also pointed out that businesses rely heavily on host-based IPS technology to secure valuable assets while patches are being tested for deployment.

"Some of these IPS products need information from the software vendor to create signatures. How can you create a signature for a flaw if you don't know the location of the flaw? We have proven that signature-based technology can be bypassed to exploit these silently fixed flaws," he said.

Reavey said businesses should use Microsoft's severity rating system to help with patch deployment timetables. "It's important to remember that the best way to be safe and secure is to apply all the updates. We are providing patches for everything. We still recommend a defense-in-depth strategy that includes IPS and IDS [intrusion detection system] technology, but customers should use our severity ratings system and apply the patches," he said.

source:http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1951186,00.asp

A tiny chemical reactor that can convert vegetable oil directly into biodiesel could help farmers turn some of their crops into homegrown fuel to operate agricultural equipment instead of relying on costly imported oil.

"This is all about producing energy in such a way that it liberates people," said Goran Jovanovic, a chemical engineering professor at Oregon State University who developed the microreactor.

The device - about the size of a credit card - pumps vegetable oil and alcohol through tiny parallel channels, each smaller than a human hair, to convert the oil into biodiesel almost instantly.

By comparison, it takes more than a day to produce biodiesel with current technology.

Conventional production involves dissolving a catalyst, such as sodium hydroxide, in alcohol, then stirring it into vegetable oil in large vats for about two hours. The mixture then has to sit for 12 to 24 hours while a slow chemical reaction forms biodiesel along with glycerin, a byproduct.

The glycerin is separated and can be used to make other products, such as soaps, but it still contains the chemical catalyst, which must be neutralized and removed using hydrochloric acid, a long and costly process.

The microreactor under development by the university and the Oregon Nanoscience and Microtechnologies Institute eliminates the mixing, the standing time and maybe even the need for a catalyst.

"If we're successful with this, nobody will ever make biodiesel any other way," Jovanovic said.

The device is small, but it can be stacked in banks to increase production levels to the volume required for commercial use, he said.

Biodiesel production on the farm also could reduce distribution costs by eliminating the need for tanker truck fuel delivery, part of the growing effort to meet fuel demand locally - instead of relying on distant refineries and tanker transport.

"Distributed energy production means you can use local resources - farmers can produce all the energy they need from what they grow on their own farms," Jovanovic said.



source:http://www.forbes.com/work/feeds/ap/2006/04/19/ap2681244.html

Raw code for 'unbreakable' quantum encryption has been generated at record speed over optical fiber at NIST. The work is a step toward using conventional high-speed networks such as broadband Internet and local-area networks to transmit ultra-secure video for applications such as surveillance.

The NIST quantum key distribution (QKD) system uses single photons, the smallest particles of light, in different orientations to produce a continuous binary code, or "key," for encrypting information. The rules of quantum mechanics ensure that anyone intercepting the key is detected, thus providing highly secure key exchange.

The laboratory system produced this "raw" key at a rate of more than 4 million bits per second over 1km of optical fiber, twice the speed of NIST's previous record, reported just last month. The system also worked successfully, although more slowly, over 4 km of fiber.

After raw key is generated and processed, the secret key is used to encrypt and decrypt video signals transmitted over the Internet between two computers in the same laboratory. The high speed of the system enables use of the most secure cipher known for ensuring the privacy of a communications channel, in which one secret key bit, known only to the communicating parties, is used only once to encrypt one video bit. Compressed video has been encrypted, transmitted and decrypted at a rate of 30 frames per second, sufficient for smooth streaming images, in Web-quality resolution, 320 by 240 pixels per frame.

Applications for high-speed QKD might include distribution of sensitive remote video, such as satellite imagery, or commercially valuable material such as intellectual property, or confidential healthcare and financial data. In addition, high-volume secure communications are needed for military operations to service large numbers of users simultaneously and provide multimedia capabilities as well as database access.

source:http://www.it-observer.com/news/6127/code_unbreakable_quantum_encryption/

The movement continues to defy doubters and draw big investments. The latest includes $25 million for a piece of Facebook

Just a few months ago, many experts and investors were inclined to dismiss social networking sites as a mere fad. Regardless of how many members sites such as MySpace (NWS) and Facebook racked up, critics warned that supposedly fickle young Internet users were likely to rush away as soon as the next hot startup came along. And some advertisers were skeptical about the effectiveness of the medium, which features user-created content of a sometimes questionable nature.

Those fears could still turn out to be valid. The sky hasn't fallen yet, though. So with each passing month, investors, big media companies, and advertisers are being forced to seriously consider whether social networking sites can have a viable long-term business model. Whether or not there's a future for social networking, players that are high on the sector's prospects, or simply don't want to miss out on its potential, are pouring in serious money (see BW, 4/10/06, "Socializing for Dollars").

HOT PROPERTIES. These days, new deals are made almost daily. Facebook, a site for college and high-school students, plans to announce Apr. 19 that it has raised $25 million in its latest round of funding from venture-capital firms. That same day, Rupert Murdoch's News Corp. (NWS), is expected to announce that it is taking a minority stake in SimplyHired, a job-hunting site with a strong social-networking component.(Murdoch jumped into the sector last year with the acquisition of MySpace, the leading social-networking site with a large number of teenage and young adult users.) Meanwhile, on Apr. 17, social-networking site Visible Path said it raised $17 million in venture capital (see BW Online, 04/18/06, "MySpace For the Office").

Social-networking executives say the deals show that investors have increasing confidence in their business plans. "We think we have something really special here, and I think this investment confirms that belief," says Melanie Deitch, director of strategy for Facebook, which is based in Palo Alto, Calif. The company was started just two years ago by three Harvard students, who were sophomores at the time. It now has 7 million registered users, up from 1 million at the beginning of 2005. It ranks as the seventh-busiest site on the Web.

The company plans to use the $25 million in additional funds to add more features to its site. Deitch wouldn't disclose what the Facebook's management team has in mind, although she did note that just last week it launched a new feature that allows members to access the site from mobile phones. The investors include marquee venture-capital investors Greylock, Meritech Capital, Accel, and Peter Thiel. Accel and Thiel have invested in earlier rounds.

Facebook also offered no hint of how investors valued it. Just a few weeks ago, a media executive told BusinessWeek that the owners wanted up to $2 billion in an acquisition; the company didn't disclose how large a stake it had sold for $25 million. And Deitch said the company hadn't hired bankers or looked to sell itself. She did confirm that it had turned down multiple offers from companies that wanted to buy Facebook, though. "Our focus is to build the business for the long term," she said. Facebook already has attracted major advertisers such as Jeep (DCX) and Microsoft (MSFT). They can purchase traditional display ads or sponsor affinity groups. Local advertisers such as sororities also can purchase "flyers" to promote local events. "We think Facebook has a unique opportunity to reach a crucial demographic at a key point in their lives. And when a site has this much scale and brand recognition, advertisers will come," said David Sze, a general partner at Greylock.

REFERRAL FEES. The SimplyHired deal shows how social networking is being used as a lever for other kinds of Web sites. News Corp. is going in on a $13.5 million investment with Silicon Valley venture firm Foundation Capital. The deal marks the second round of venture money for SimplyHired, which is competing with established job services like Monster.com (MNST), CareerBuilder and Yahoo!'s (YHOO) Hotjobs.

However, instead of selling advertising directly to firms looking for workers, SimplyHired searches the Internet for job listings at every place from competing job boards like Monster to the help-wanted section of hiring firms' own Web sites and aggregates them on its site. It gets its revenue from selling paid-search ads, both through Google and other ad networks and through its own sales force. Plus, SimplyHired gets referral fees for finding qualified candidates, including payments from larger job boards that need to deliver value to employers who pay them directly.

"We can deliver job seekers for destinations that have employer relationships, so in that sense it's complementary," CEO Gautam Godhwani says. News Corp put in $3.5 million, while Foundation Capital put in $10 million. Godhwani says there are active talks to make SimplyHired the beginning of a classified strategy for MySpace.

WHO YOU KNOW. Simply Hired's edge among other jobs sites is clever in its use of social networking, says Greg Sterling, founding principal of Sterling Market Intelligence, a consulting and research firm in Oakland Calif. Through a deal with LinkedIn, users can press a button marked "WhoDo I Know?" that is placed with each job listing. LinkedIn searches the user's network to tell them who they know at the hiring company, or who they know who knows someone at the hiring company.

Says Sterling: "That's really the value-added they deliver that sets them apart." Investors hope it's enough value-added to deliver a big return on their optimism.

source:http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/apr2006/tc20060419_514268.htm

It seems like there's a lot of public interest in what it's like to work at Microsoft. Here's my personal persepctive on the good (), the bad (), and the in-between ().

Background

As a long-time Apple and UNIX user/programmer, I never aspired to work at Microsoft. (And I'm still a little surprised to be here.) I've never despised Microsoft like so many people seem to do — it's just that Microsoft products weren't a part of my world.

Then my wife got a job at Microsoft, so I needed to leave Caltech/JPL to work in Seattle. I didn't actually apply to Microsoft — a friend of ours who worked there circulated my résumé and Microsoft responded rapidly and set up a last-minute interview. Although I had five other offers, Microsoft made the best impression.

And so, here I am. I've been working at Microsoft since October, 1999 as a full-time Software Design Engineer. In that time, I've worked for three teams in two divisions, and had six or seven different managers. Four products I've worked on have shipped, two more are in beta, and I've also "consulted" for many other teams across the company, thereby influencing directly and indirectly a large number of Microsoft's products.

Between my experience and my wife's, I think I've gotten a pretty solid feel for what it's like to work in a product group at Microsoft.

Focus

As much as I enjoyed working at Caltech/JPL, it wasn't until I got to Microsoft that I realized that there's an enormous difference between working for a software company and a company where software is just a step towards some other goal (space science, finance, medicine, retail, etc.).

Everyone at Microsoft "gets" software — the managers, the administrative assistants, the vice presidents... Even many of the "blue collar" workers (cooks, janitors, bus drivers) know something about software — it's not normal! At NASA, most managers and even some scientists had no real understanding of software or software development. Elevating the common denominator in this way makes Microsoft a wonderful workplace for people who love making software (even if it's far removed from the reality of "the real world", which can cause other problems, like overinflating the importance of software).

Unreality

As a parent, I've come to understand that there's a wide gray area between overprotecting your children and creating a nuturing environment in which they can develop.

I think Microsoft struggles with a similar problem with its employees. Microsoft provides its employees with a nuturing environment in which they can be most productive. But like children, these employees also need to be grounded in reality and exposed to ideas that can be disruptive or even disturbing. Otherwise a sheltered monoculture can develop that's unhealthy for everyone involved.

It's hard for people who don't work at Microsoft's main campus to understand just how unreal the experience of working there can become. Some employees forget that most of the world doesn't have broadband wireless networking, high-end consumer electronics, luxury vehicles, and enough money that they don't need to live on a budget. Some employees spend so much time using Microsoft products, that they forget about the competition and/or lose touch with typical customers' needs.

Personal Freedom

One thing that's worth losing touch with is the strict work environment.

Microsoft gives software developers a lot of personal freedom over both the work and the work environment. I order my own supplies, customize my office as I see fit, schedule my own trips and meetings, and select my own training courses. I choose when I show up for work and when I leave, and what to wear while I'm there. I can eat on campus or off, reheat something from home in the kitchen or scavenge leftovers from meetings. I can even work remotely from home (within reason).

For the most part, I determine what I work on and when I will get it done. There are exceptions — tasks others ask you to do for them, external deadlines or dependencies — but these goals are set cooperatively with your management and coworkers, taking into account your interests and abilities.

I have total control over my choice of development tools. Of course, there are advantages to matching the "official" build environment, and in a team environment there are also advantages to sharing tools and processes across the team. But ultimately the choice is mine: I can code with vi on a Macintosh, Visual Studio on a Windows machine, ink on a Tablet PC, or whatever I desire.

Except for semi-annual reviews, there's almost no paperwork for a software developer at Microsoft. There are no timecards to fill out, no requisition forms, no authorizations or permission slips.

Having so much individual freedom can lead to problems. It's well-publicized that Microsoft has historically exercised too little review over purchasing decisions. Also, the freedoms I've described can vary from one work group to the next; for example, one friend's manager gave him a very hard time over the unusual hours he worked (even trying to fire him for it). But thieves and jerks exist everywhere; they're just taking unfair advantage of the great personal freedoms the rest of us cherish.

I think Microsoft provides a great example to other corporations of what a productive work environment can be like.

Company Leadership

Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer get most of the press, but it's an open secret that all of the division heads (and their staff, and their staff) are top-notch. I'm (happily) oblivious to how that circle operates, so I can only judge them on their results.

Given that Microsoft's been convicted of monopolistic practices, it may shock you when I say that Microsoft's upper management strikes me as very ethical. They talk about ethical behavior all the time, and as far as I've seen, lead by example. Maybe I'm being naive, but I find Microsoft's upper management to be very trustworthy. They're also thinking very far ahead, and doing a good job getting the information they need to make solid decisions.

Microsoft's leaders are also very generous, and frequently encourage the rest of us to make charitable donations (both money and time) a priority. Giving is a large part of Microsoft's corporate culture.

It's refreshing to work at a company where you can trust that the upper echelon is smart, hardworking, and making right decisions. I don't have to worry that my general manager or vice-president will drive our division (or company) into the ground through incompetence or greed. Microsoft's no Enron or WorldCom.

Managers

In contrast, most of the middle management should be tossed.

Did I mention I've had six or seven managers in five years? I've only changed jobs twice — the others were "churn" caused by reorganizations or managers otherwise being reassigned. In fact, in the month between when I was hired and when I started, the person who was going to be my manager (we'd already had several phone/email conversations) changed! It's seven if you count that, six if you don't.

None of these managers were as good as my best manager at NASA. Of the six-seven managers I've had, I'd relish working for (or with) only two of them again. Two were so awful that if they were hired into my current organization (even on another team), I'd quit on the spot. The other two-three were "nngh" -- no significant impact on my life one way or another. I'd love to think this is some kind of fluke, that I've just been unlucky, but many other Microsoft employees have shared similar experiences with me.

I think part of the problem is that Microsoft doesn't generally hire software developers for their people- or leadership-skills, but all dev leads were developers first. Part of the problem is also that (unlike some companies that promote incompetence) good leads are usually promoted into higher positions quickly, so the companies best managers rise to the top. Consequently, the lower ranks are filled with managers who either have no interest in advancing up the management chain (which is fine) or else are below-average in their management skills (which is not).

But it's more complex than this. At Microsoft, many managers still contribute as individuals (e.g., writing code) and are then judged on that performance (which is mostly objective) as much or more than they're judged on their leadership performance (which is mostly subjective). Because individual developers have so much freedom and responsibility, it's easy and typical to give individuals all the credit or blame for their performance, without regard to the manager's impact. Conversely, managers' performance often does not translate into tangible effects for their teams (other than the joy or misery of working for them). For example, I can still get a great review score even if my manager is terrible. I think these factors contribute to management skills being undervalued.

Microsoft also suffers from a phenomenon that I've seen at other companies. I describe this as the "personality cult," wherein one mid-level manager accumulates a handful of loyal "fans" and moves with them from project to project. Typically the manager gets hired into a new group, and (once established) starts bringing in the rest of his/her fanclub. Once one of these "cults" is entrenched, everyone else can either give up from frustration and transfer to another team, or else wait for the cult to eventually leave (and hope the team survives and isn't immediately invaded by another cult). I've seen as many as three cults operating simultaneously side-by-side within a single product group. Rarely, a sizeable revolt happens and the team kicks the cult out. Sometimes, the cult disintegrates (usually taking the team with it). Usually, the cult just moves on to the Next Big Thing, losing or gaining a few members at each transfer.

I think these "cults" are a direct result of Microsoft's review system, in which a mid-level manager has significant control over all the review scores within a 100+ person group (so it's in your best interest to get on his/her good side), and conversely needs only a fraction of that group's total support to succeed as a manager (so it's in his/her best interest to cultivate a loyal fanclub to provide that support). The cult gives the manager the appearance of broad support, and makes the few people who speak out against him/her look like sour grapes unrepresentative of a larger majority. After a string of successes, the manager is nearly invincible.

Fortunately, these managers are unlikely to move further up the ranks, due to the inherent deficiences in their characters (which are usually visible to upper management and enough to prevent their advancement, but not so severe as to warrant firing them).

These "personality cults" always negatively impact the group eventually (while they're there and/or when they leave), but counterintuitively sometimes these personality cults have a large positive initial effect. Many successful Microsoft products have come into existence only through the actions of such personality cults. Some of these products even survived after the personality cult left for the Next Big Thing.

Source Code

I love source code. I love reading it, writing it, thinking about it.

At Microsoft, I've had access to the source code for Halo 1 & 2, Internet Explorer, MDAC, MSXML, the .NET Frameworks and CLR, SQL Server, SQLXML, Virtual PC, Visual Studio, Windows, the Xbox and Xbox Live, and probably several other projects that I've forgotten about. Does it get better than this?

Benefits/Compensation

On the one hand, I'm making more money now than at any other point in my life, and I have all I need — so perhaps I should be satisfied and leave it at that. Overall, I think Microsoft's compensation and benefits package are still above average for the industry, and well above average for the typical American worker.

On the other hand, I and my coworkers have watched many benefits erode or disappear during the past five years. It's public knowledge that raises and annual bonuses have diminished, option grants have been replaced with stock awards, employee stock purchase plan benefits have decreased, and cafeteria and company store prices have increased. For new employees, vacation time has been cut from three weeks to two, and new parents have to take their parental leave within 6 months instead of 12. It's not a positive trend.

Free Soft Drinks

I sometimes joke that the day Microsoft stops providing free soft drinks, I'll quit. At least, everyone else thinks I'm joking.

"Work/Life Balance"

Like most communities, Microsoft has its own language. One oft-used phrase is "work/life balance," which has many nuanced meanings. Taken literally, work/life balance is about finding a healthy balance between the time you spend at work and the time you spend away from it. It's about family relationships (for employees who are married or have children), and the problems that work and work stress cause. It's about the explicit demands that managers, teams, and Microsoft in general place on employees. It's about the implicit demands created when all your co-workers are themselves workaholics.

Microsoft starts off at a disadvantage here, because the people Microsoft hires tend to be driven and a little socially dysfunctional. So employees already tend to screw up their relationships with others and focus on work to the exclusion of everything else, without any encouragement from Microsoft. Also, the Seattle area is known for being somewhat isolating — lots of young, ambitious professionals with no time for making friends.

Microsoft adds jobs that are very mentally challenging, sometimes aggressive product schedules, a campus that's a bit isolated (and isolating) from the outside world, and voilá — you've got all the ingredients for poor work/life balance.

It's not all bad, however — some teams within Microsoft provide extremely supportive work environments. I personally know several large teams in which almost all the employees have families, or in which the team is unusually diverse (for a software company — e.g., >50% women). Naturally, the employees on these teams tend to experience significantly better work/life balance.

Microsoft's Not Evil

I'm probably the last person to end up defending Microsoft. I'm writing this on an Apple Powerbook. I've publically argued for more diversity in computing environments. But there's one thing people do that really drives me nuts: anthropomorphization.

I joined Microsoft at the beginning of the antitrust litigation against the company. My NASA coworkers made all sorts of derogatory comments about my choice. I remember one began a conversation with "So you've decided to go work for The Great Satan, huh?" A lot of people who ought to know better are convinced Microsoft is evil. Apologies if you're one of them — because these people are idiots.

Companies (countries, races, etc.) are not "evil" or "good", and they do not have "intentions." Star Trek is science fiction — there is no Borg mind. Companies, countries, races, and other groups are made up of individuals like you and me, who make individual decisions that determine the group's direction. People who speak of companies (or countries, or races, or other groups) as being good or evil are at best ignorant, and at worst bigots.

The reality is that Microsoft is made up of mostly honest, earnest, hardworking people. People with families. People with hardships. People with ordinary and extraordinary lives. People who make wise and foolish decisions. Some employees are bad apples, and some leaders make poor decisions (which their employees may or may not support). Both usually meet with failure. All the Microsoft employees I know are internally driven to "succeed," where success sometimes means outselling the competition but always means doing your personal best and improving people's lives with your work.

Although groups don't have intentions, it's true that group policies reward some kinds of behavior over others. So perhaps "Microsoft is evil" is shorthand for "Microsoft's policies are evil."

The thing is, I haven't seen any evidence of that on the inside — and I'm usually very critical of these things. For as long as I've worked at Microsoft, ethics have been a real part of employee performance reviews. It's not just talk, but the way work goes each day. Most product designs revolve around addressing specific customer needs. No one ever says "Hey, let's go ruin company P" or other things that could be construed as "evil." Instead, it's "customers Q and R are having trouble with this, and I have an idea how we could fix it..." and other positive, constructive statements.

If anything, Microsoft seems to have the opposite problem, in which employees sometimes design or cut a feature or product without fully appreciating the huge impact their decision can have outside the company. When the media goes wild with knee-jerk reactions for or against something Microsoft did, often the employees responsible for the decision are caught off-guard by the disproportionate public attention.

Influence

Which brings me to: influence. Very few projects at Microsoft have "small" impact. Everywhere you turn, the projects people are working on are likely to be used by thousands or millions of people. You have the opportunity to earn, save, or cost the company millions of dollars through your work. It's an awesome responsibility, but an awesome chance to create widely influential software.

When you've worked in the software industry for awhile, you eventually come to understand that the vast majority of all software is narrowly focused on solving relatively trivial problems. You could go your whole career never working on anything of significance.

Microsoft is so different, and I love that. Your feature might sell 30% more units. Or it might have 8 books written about it. It might be something that millions of people use every single day, that even your non-technical friends and family understand. Or it might be so esoteric that it's impossible to explain even to your friends who work in the industry, and yet so influential that it changes the way software is written. I've personally had most of these experiences at Microsoft, and let me tell you: It feels great!

Microsoft has certainly had its share of useless products and project failures, but by and large it continues to focus on software that matters.

source:http://www.qbrundage.com/michaelb/pubs/essays/working_at_microsoft.html