| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| « May | Jul » | |||||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | ||||
| 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 |
| 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 |
| 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 |
| 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | |




In this blog posting on MSDN:What’s in Store : WinFS Update, there is an “update” on the status of the WinFS file system, intended for the new Windows Vista operating system made by Microsoft. The post itself and the discussion attached to it are interesting. There appears to be an argument about whether the product has been killed or not.
I have no opinion on the specific issue of WinFS, but this discussion seems to highlight the double edge sword that blogging is. Blogging has been used by companies like Microsoft and Boeing to be transparent and invite their customers in to all of the hard work they are doing. What happens when when the transparency appears to be opaque in a down time? Take a look at some of the comments, like this one.
On the one hand, a lot of negativity can be invited in by the appearance of vagueness. On the other hand, allowing it all in the open (the vagueness and the negativity) allows people to learn what the best way is to communicate. Let’s say that WinFS has been killed by the company - why not say that it has not met expectations and the opportunity presents itself to save the customers some money by doing something else?