Campaign to save Visual Basic 6 gathers support (Rapid obsolescence...of workforce?)

InfoWorld ^ | March 10, 2005 | Paul Krill

[baseball_fan]

An online petition gathering signatures to save Microsoft’s Visual Basic 6 programming language will not change the company’s intention to cut free support on March 31, a Microsoft representative said on Thursday afternoon.

Microsoft’s plan to stop support has been discussed for almost three years and the deadline already has been extended once, said the press representative, who requested anonymity. Visual Basic 6 has been supported longer than any other Microsoft product, according to the representative. “Extended” support, which is fee-based, will continue through 2008.

The vendor has spent the past few years encouraging Visual Basic 6 programmers to migrate to the new Visual Basic .Net platform, which has had its share of complications. The Microsoft representative acknowledged that the company “dramatically altered the Visual Basic language-syntax in Visual Basic .Net.”

As of Thursday afternoon, 1,009 signatures had been added to the petition, at http://classicvb.org/Petition/. One signatory interviewed stressed the difficulties in moving to Visual Basic .Net.

“It’s a different language,” said Visual Basic programmer Don Bradner, who has been part of Microsoft’s Most Valuable Programmer community. “It’s like me telling you that you have to write InfoWorld in French.” …

The petition asks that Microsoft further develop Visual Basic 6 and Visual Basic for Applications, continue supporting the language, and allow customers to decide when to migrate code to Visual Basic .Net. An updated version of Visual Basic 6 is requested by the petitioners…

“Microsoft should demonstrate a commitment to the core Visual Basic language. This core should be enhanced and extended, and changes should follow a documented deprecation process,” the petition states.

But all future versions of Visual Basic will be based on Visual Basic .Net…The company has provided “a wide range of resources to help Visual Basic developers make the transition…

[Nick Danger]

I think that businesses owners / management are starting to get quite tired of the bills they pay for IT spending, especially for things that bring no ROI.

Yeah, I can't think of another area of corporate endeavor where the maintence costs — just to stay in place, functionality-wise — are as high as they are in IT.

IT managers especially hate this kind of stuff, because it makes them look stupid. Bean counters have little sympathy for IT guys who bet on a development platform that gets orphaned by the vendor. They're supposed to be the "experts" who don't make those kinds of mistakes.

[Bush2000]

A simple license agreement would stop Wine from having Win9x, if MicroSoft wanted to bar Linux rather than coopt it like the Borg.

It isn't the Windows code that's valuable to Wine developers (they insist it's crap, anyway) -- it's the information contained inside: the specific behaviors, kludges, and data structures that Windows uses to make Windows apps function properly. Wine devs would rewrite any code that they got their hands on, and insist that it was clean-room-developed -- and it would strengthen their platform, while giving nothing back to MS. You don't have to believe me, but that is precisely what would happen. It wouldn't resurrect Win9x and get developers to suddenly start writing old-school Win9x apps. No way.

[13foxtrot]

The benefits of .NET are awesome, especially for websites... Nothing like populating a datagrid with a few lines of code..

Meanwhile...Inside MS .Net has lost its shine as well. I expect .Net to go the way of OLE, COM, asp, COM++, etc. and morph into something new in a couple of years.

Thankfully, a few years ago I graduated to perl which pretty much hasn't changed on me once. (I wasn't perlling during perl 4 days)

[Bush2000]

Meanwhile...Inside MS .Net has lost its shine as well. I expect .Net to go the way of OLE, COM, asp, COM++, etc. and morph into something new in a couple of years.

Not according to friends of mine that work at MS; in fact, much of the OS infrastructure will be rewritten in managed code over time.

Thankfully, a few years ago I graduated to perl which pretty much hasn't changed on me once. (I wasn't perlling during perl 4 days)

Perl has its uses, but it's not what you would call an application development language.

[Bush2000]

IT managers especially hate this kind of stuff, because it makes them look stupid. Bean counters have little sympathy for IT guys who bet on a development platform that gets orphaned by the vendor. They're supposed to be the "experts" who don't make those kinds of mistakes.

Phew, then they'd better not go with RedHat, because they'll get orphaned within a couple years ...

[WHBates]

LOL, a user of crappy code. Do you see much of that?

[Nick Danger]

Oh look, a Microsoft shill spreading fear, uncertainty, and doubt about Red Hat.

[Southack]

"Wine devs would rewrite any code that they got their hands on, and insist that it was clean-room-developed -- and it would strengthen their platform, while giving nothing back to MS."

Such a move would enable MicroSoft to sell MS Word to all current Linux owners; in effect, Linux would become coopted by Windows if they added that code. Every Windows developer would be able to market their software to every Linux user, all without having to spend a dime on porting old code over to a different platform.

It's the Borg strategy; Linux would become assimilated. MicroSoft and MS developers would all gain a larger market to market new sales.

At that point, no one would *care* about Linux. It would no longer be unique. It would just be another way to run Windows applications...a "free" way, as opposed to the most recent way. Yet even with a "free" OS, users would still have to pay to buy those MS applications.

...And the more advanced users would hardly want old Linux platforms rather than cool new Longhorn platforms, so it wouldn't even kill off MicroSoft's existing OS sales.

Trust me, ten years from now what I'm saying will be labeled as "obvious" to everyone.

[sevry]

you think I'm upset???

Didn't I suggest that you sounded - bitter?

Get over yourself

And you sound angry, too.

I simply don't give a flip

But you spend all this time following up in various messages? Which is it?

Again, don't be mad, don't be angry, don't be bitter about the free market, the genuinely competitive market. Yes, I know Microsoft has a history of attempting to fix the market, to rig the market, to flee screaming from the idea of genuine competition. AAAHH! They're like that. But if .NET is incapable, or 'busted', or unreliable compared even to existing development platforms, then those customers with genuine needs and requirements will, I think, prefer to stay with existing platforms, or seek something else entirely, in this genuinely competitive free market. That's if .NET is such an offense to customers, that is.

[Bush2000]

Oh look, a Microsoft shill spreading fear, uncertainty, and doubt about Red Hat.

Now, now, Bob. Check your RH agreement. Your support will probably expire within 2 years.

[Bush2000]

Such a move would enable MicroSoft to sell MS Word to all current Linux owners; in effect, Linux would become coopted by Windows if they added that code. Every Windows developer would be able to market their software to every Linux user, all without having to spend a dime on porting old code over to a different platform.

Yes, precisely.

It's the Borg strategy; Linux would become assimilated. MicroSoft and MS developers would all gain a larger market to market new sales.

No, it would be a net loss for MS. Read below.

At that point, no one would *care* about Linux. It would no longer be unique. It would just be another way to run Windows applications...a "free" way, as opposed to the most recent way. Yet even with a "free" OS, users would still have to pay to buy those MS applications.

Well, if Linux can run Windows applications transparently, what happens to Microsoft's Windows business? Remember, we're talking about a business that generates revenues of $20B a year. There would be no incentive for anyone to use Windows, if Linux can perform the same function. What you're basically saying is that MS should cannibalize its own operating system market in order to promote its application market. That's insane. If anything, MS's applications are struggling year-to-year to maintain their footing. It's much easier for MS to sell copies of its OS because, unlike the apps (Excel, Word, etc), every new machine needs an OS and, for now, the desktop OS of choice is Windows. You would have MS turn that paradigm upside down, incurring significant risk.

...And the more advanced users would hardly want old Linux platforms rather than cool new Longhorn platforms, so it wouldn't even kill off MicroSoft's existing OS sales.

It depends on how you define "advanced users". If you're talking about gamers, then, yeah. Probably so. Linux is still light-years behind when it comes to building a substitute for DirectX/3D. OpenGL, whether anyone wants to argue this case, is just not up to the task.

Trust me, ten years from now what I'm saying will be labeled as "obvious" to everyone.

As I said earlier, there's no upside for MS under your scenario. They only lose business -- and they incur significant risk in the process. A better way for MS to boost its application business would be to go after the Linux market now. As it stands, they are at near 95% market saturation with Office in the Windows desktop market. Of course, any growth in the Linux app market could be offset by a loss of Windows OS revenues. So, it's a gamble, either way. But at least, with my proposal, MS gets to decide who its customers will be. Under yours, they are largely at the mercy of forces beyond their control.

[ThinkDifferent]

I have to agree with Bush2000 on this one. (And that says something).

It would just be another way to run Windows applications...a "free" way, as opposed to the most recent way. Yet even with a "free" OS, users would still have to pay to buy those MS applications.

But why would they? If they were willing to do that, they'd be running Windows in the first place. They're running Linux either because it's free or because they think it's better. In neither case will they want to pay for direct ports of Windows apps, especially not Microsoft ones.

[Southack]

"But why would they? If they were willing to do that, they'd be running Windows in the first place. They're running Linux either because it's free or because they think it's better. In neither case will they want to pay for direct ports of Windows apps, especially not Microsoft ones."

Why would they?! LEt me give you an example: TiVo.

TiVo runs on Linux. Linux has no games worthy of note.

But if either of two things happened: 1. that Windows functionality was incorporated into Linux, or 2. That Windows was installed onto TiVo boxes, then TiVo users would be able to download and play X-Box games, for a fee...without buying an X-Box or a game (just renting a game now and again).

In contrast, right now the developers of proprietary stand-alone hardware devices have very little choice about which free OS to load onto their boxes...which screws everyone because they can't sell MicroSoft downloads to the current crop of free OS's. That's why TiVo has stalled...no games. No MS Word. No MS Excel. No Outlook. No LiveOffice Meetings.

All of that changes, however, if there is a "free" Windows OS out there. Suddenly TiVo can do more, and charge more, and be a better bargain (you don't need a separate home PC or X-Box or PlayStation or DVR or VCR or even a stereo receiver for your music).

All of those home DVR's, all of those Treo email phones, all of those standalone hardware devices could offer more and charge more and be more popular if they could let their users choose to download MS games and applications.

You're talking about a vast new OS marketplace that hasn't yet been tapped by the gaming and application industries.

Linux is free, but has no games and few worthy applications. Windows is pricey, but has all of the best games and applications. Thus, the current situation forces hardware vendors into making bad choices that keep the marketshare of *both* Linux and Windows down.

[Golden Eagle]

Give it up. You're coming off as one of these desperate freeware guys, begging for handouts.

[Southack]

"There would be no incentive for anyone to use Windows, if Linux can perform the same function."

That's like claiming that no one using XP will upgrade to Longhorn because they run the same software. It's silly. There will always be a large crowd that is willing to pay to use the very best, fastest, most professional OS.

Then again, there are those who are still using Windows NT, or even Windows 95, while others use Linux. Those are the groups that a "free" Windows would appeal to, the very people who wouldn't be buying Longhorn anyway.

[Bush2000]

That's like claiming that no one using XP will upgrade to Longhorn because they run the same software. It's silly. There will always be a large crowd that is willing to pay to use the very best, fastest, most professional OS.

No, that's not the way it works. People don't buy OSes. They buy packaged computers. If the OEMs discover that a-newly-upgraded version of Linux can run all of the Windows software that the OEMs used to put on the Windows boxes -- AND that OS can be installed by the OEM for zero cost -- you can damn well bet that they're going to go for Linux. Multiply the number of licenses that they previously bought from Microsoft per year times the OEM cost of Windows, and you have a BIG cost savings that goes right to the OEM's bottom line. Now, granted, the OEMs would have to incur the dreadful costs associated with supporting consumers with desktop Linux; however, I suspect that those costs would eventually make it worth OEMs' while.

[Southack]

"Give it up. You're coming off as one of these desperate freeware guys, begging for handouts."

No, I'm simply calculating how to maximize my market. As a Windows shop with only a single Linux product, do I want Windows, Linux, SonyOS, or OSX to dominate the handheld Treo and home TiVo DVR OS world?

There are ways to expand my firm's market reach. There are ways to kill or coopt Linux. There are ways to lock PlayStation out of the home DVR market.

All of which is clearly beyond your acumen.

[Southack]

"If the OEMs discover that a-newly-upgraded version of Linux can run all of the Windows software that the OEMs used to put on the Windows boxes -- AND that OS can be installed by the OEM for zero cost -- you can damn well bet that they're going to go for Linux."

There will *always* be a crowd that buys only 3 year old vehicles after they come off of someone else's car lease. There will always be people who drive ten, twenty, and thirty year old beaters, and there will always be people who want the latest modern features such as anti-lock brakes, traction control, side air bags, and DVD players in the back.

Right now, MicroSoft only reaches the new crowd. The old crowd doesn't generate much in the way of revenues for MSFT. The new games are too slow on the old OS's (or on the machines that have too little RAM), for instance, so MS doesn't get to sell much to the old crowd...and MS obviously isn't making money on those old OS's themselves.

Worse, the Linux crowd, which is *growing* in marketshare on the desktop, server, and home appliance markets (e.g. TiVo DVR's) is locked out of buying *any* new MicroSoft games and applications today.

That's what you're advocating; keeping MSFT locked out of that growing marketshare.

In contrast, I say coopt Linux. Give Linux Win95 capability, along with the properly tailored user license, and then sell MSFT games to TiVo users, MSFT server apps to the server crowd, and MS Office applications to the Linux desktop crowd. Handheld Treo's and Blackberry's should be running Windows, and MS developers should (and will) be writing code for those devices.

In no time flat Linux will be an afterthought. It will simply be viewed as the cheap way to run the cool new Microsoft applications that you buy, so long as you are willing to run a little slower than your peers.

If you want cheap and are willing to put up with slow, then you'll go the Linux/Win95 route.

If you want hyper-speed and the latest features and support, then you'll pay a little bit to run on Longhorn with a decent new machine.

[Golden Eagle]

do I want Windows, Linux, SonyOS, or OSX to dominate the handheld Treo and home TiVo DVR OS world?

Treo runs on Palm O/S, FYI.

All of which is clearly beyond your acumen.

Hilarious, considering I'm not the one crying my eyes out about several supplanted technologies.

Have a good one.

[Southack]

"Treo runs on Palm O/S, FYI."

I'd rather see it run on Windows CE, or Windows/Linux, or Lin95, or something compatible with my shop's existing MSFT apps. I'd rather have some of my guys coding for Treo in a Windows-compatible OS, than to be spread out over different competing systems.

In contrast, you want to ignore those markets and let non-Microsoft competitors dominate them.