We don't believe for a minute that Microsoft really plans to rewrite 60 per cent of the code [if that were true, you could expect Vista to ship in about 2010, if then], but we're sure that David is genuinely convinced. Frankly, he needs an experienced editor to calm him down every now and then, but what with him owning the publication, that's unlikely to happen.

The thing is, though, while David's almost certainly been - how can we put this? - possibly unwilling to adequately to test his source, there is a genuine story in there somewhere. Microsoft has been working since July 2004 to improve its software engineering practices, ever since Jim Allchin realised that the company's traditional practices meant that Vista would ship late, and without key enhancements. But almost two years later, they haven't got there yet.

The Wall St Journal quotes a Microsoft memo citing as the reasons for last week's announcement of a restructure of its Windows division that it had to "improve clarity of decision making, drive greater accountability and reduce layers in the organisation so we can move faster". No executive is going to admit that some of the Vista code base is a mess, but ... some of the code clearly IS a mess, and the reason the ship date has been put back, yet again, is that somebody finally realised that the traditional death march under which Microsoft has got so many of its products out the door wasn't going to work this time.

It may be that the story David was trying to write is that as much as 60 per cent of the code might have to be re-written if Vista is to regain that new file system we're being denied. That sounds quite plausible to us. We doubt that his story, as published, is correct. But it's not without at least some credibility. The irony is that in calling "Riches" a less than credible jerk, Scoble has almost certainly increased his readership. We can point him in the direction of a calming tree or two.