Thanks Drew for voicing my thoughts. I read this last night and had thoughht the same things - I cannot belive how clueless and misinfomed this guy is and should be fired on the spot. And this is the famous Steve Gilmour? This is supposed to be the best [sic] that Silicon Valley offers? Maybe instead of muck-raking and scraping together some blog postings, he might actually do work and be informed. Nah...

Link to my post

I think Dare Obasanjo has a more open-minded perspective on what I wrote.
http://www.25hoursaday.com/weblog/PermaLink.aspx?guid=d9510fb8-f1d9-4ecc-afb4-769e668c7e41
Then again, that's one of the reasons I quoted him. As for Robert Scoble, he is certainly capable of standing behind his own views when he wants to. I certainly stand behind mine. And if Microsoft is committed to Longhorn feedback as Robert and others have stated, they would do well to examine the concerns expressed without dismissing them as clueless or misinformed, especially without any information to contradict the column's thesis. Developers will not respond to FUD or innuendo in the end, only to sincere and pragmatic answers to questions about how and where they invest their time.

Steve, the bottom line is that your artice is based on factual errors upon which you heap innuendo. It is just plain bad journalism (and by implication, bad editing). Your not doing your job.

That said, the sentiment that Microsoft should take your comments and address them is a good point. The problem is this. The issues you have are based on your own misunderstanding. The way to respond to this is to tell you that your article is full of errors (called, using quaint industry terminology, FUD).

As for your statement, "Developers will not respond to FUD or innuendo in the end", I think it the height of hypocrisy that you should invoke these words.

PS: Transaction Authority?

The more I read Dare's posts, the more I respect this guy. Definitely a smart cookie.

Steve,

It's easy to understand why you like Dare's perspective and, FWIW, I totally agree with that perspective. People *are* going to pushback. People *are* going to pick the technologies apart. That's just the way it goes with technolgy [r]evolutions. As for quoting him, that's about the only portion of your WinFS Schema vs. XSD coverage that you got right. Yet, right after quoting him, somehow you still couldn't understand the differences between the two as you go on to say the following in the very next paragraph:

"Microsoft is asking developers to invest in XSD for now—only to have to unlearn and migrate when Longhorn appears in 2006."

FUD. Couldn't be further from the truth. You've mixed so much misinformation into the article that it makes it impossible to accept your perspective. I mean, c'mon... you refer to Longhorn's XAML as "Transaction Authority Markup Language" when in fact had you actually spent even *five* minutes investigating the subject you would know that, while it shares the same acronym, it's a completely different technology.

It's clear that you didn't spend any time researching the subject matter and I sincerely hope that you are not claiming otherwise. Somebody in your position owes it to his/her readers to provide factual details about the topics you are covering. It's obviously your call, but I would honestly consider trying to save face by posting a follow up article that admits and clears up your misunderstandings.

What Drew said. I don't have to rehast it, it's all there Steve if you want to learn and make it right. It's up to you.

Sam - I have great respect for your previous posts, which I have followed for some time. In fact, I am subscribed to your weblog for many months. That said, I find it amusing to see you think you've presented any sort of case for debunking my column. I pointed at Dare because he has proven over many months the capacity for maintaining perspective even while engaged in highly politicizedc threads on RSS/Atom etc.
I also pointed at Don Box's comments, and of course saw his response to my column in his blog. At least he does the due diligence of presenting some information to buttress his perspective. Nonetheless, he does not attack me or my credibility, but rather reinforces his public statements on the issue with some interesting detail about the W3C. Regardless, I stand by my assessment of the situation from a developer perspective. While there may be very good reasons to go in the direction Microsoft apparently is set on, they do not mitigate the costs for making that decision without providing a strategy for Office developers who are being asked to make short term investments. Dare's post recognizes that this is a question that needs to be answered.
If Drew or you or anyone of the brilliant and talented Longhorn team has specific quarrel with any of the actual content of my column, I'd welcome that information in any forum. Otherwise, you do yourself, Office, and Longhorn developers no service with your florid advocacy.

Drew,
Thanks for the specifics about XAML. You are perfectly correct there - an error introduced by the copy desk that I did not notice until you pointed it out. FYI, I used the description "codenamed" in the original doc, after Chris Anderson's brief history. I'll have that corrected tomorrow.
Thanks, and keep some details coming, if possible.

Steve,

I appreciate your very kind words on my blog and in retrospect the way I said things was a bit too harsh so I have removed that section of the post. I still think that you got things wrong in your article as Drew has pointed out (confusion over XSD going away, XAML, etc) but I do appreciate you joining the dialogue here and wanting feedback. That to me is a big positive step and worthy of respect.