Spolsky Stands Firm on Linux on the Desktop

erlando writes: "SoftwareMarketSolution is running an interview with Joel Spolsky (from JoelOnSoftware) in which he responds to this earlier thread here on Slashdot. In short: He defends his position and makes some interesting remarks on Linux and the desktop."

Comments

Justifying his earlier statement

[Mattygfunk]

SMS:...you stated that code doesn't rust, i.e., that once a piece of a program has been debugged and various workarounds added, it represents a repository of stored knowledge and should be left alone.

JOEL:It may be true for the software that Eick evaluated. It's not true for the software that I've written, because I tend to refactor and clean things up regularly.

His argument is that code doesn't rust however he argues it by saying that he "refactors and cleans things up regularly". Perhaps he needs to think about that one a little more.

Re:Justifying his earlier statement

[SuiteSisterMary]

Refactoring means that when you find a more efficient carburator, you install it in your car and go. Ground up rewriting means that when you find a more efficient carburator, you throw your old car in the trash, go buy a new one, and install your new carburator in it.

Re:Justifying his earlier statement

[hey!]

Although there is the matter of the initial way you look at the problem.

There's two stances you can take: (1) This is is a bloody mess, let's rewrite. (2) This thing is a bloody mess, let's see if we can't fix it.

If you look for ways to fix things, then you will find them more often than if you don't look for a way to fix them. The problem is what happens when consistently find your fixes don't fix, or break new things? I don't think there should be a general rule that thou shalt never rewrite, but that you should look sincerely and hard at fixing before you rewrite.

He know us...

[juliao]

From the article:

slashdotters are not exactly famous for reading the things they are commenting on

Oh well...

WINE-Win95

[uebernewby]

I doubt that it will be enough for WINE developers to catch up with Win95. No one uses the out-of-the-box version of Win95 anymore, do they? There's all sorts of updates you need to get your software running and, yes, those updates include additions/changes to the API.

Show us the Code

[Greyfox]

Joel says he's been programming for 20 years. Is any of his code available for public review? I looked at his web page briefly but nothing jumped out at me.

The Tao of Programming

[juliao]

From The Tao of Programming:

A well-used door needs no oil on its hinges.
A swift-flowing stream does not grow stagnant.
Neither sound nor thoughts can travel through a vacuum.
Software rots if not used.

These are great mysteries.

doesn't like "ground-up rewrites," but -

[47PHA60]

Joel seems to admire himself for doing just that, as when he talks about why his own code doesn't decay (he keeps freshening it up, you see. In other words, rewriting it over time).

This is easier to do when it's just his code, versus a large set that more than one person maintaining it over a decade (like the evaluated software that was foudn to 'decay').

Also, Joel stated that the problems with Outlook were with "1%" of the code, but that is not the point. The slashdot comment was not commenting on the quality of Outlook's code, but on the flaws inherent in the design of the application (such as executing untrusted software and not following mime type information when passing data to the OS). I think that the post was talking about a redesign, which would mean a rewrite, and Joel dodged that one (or just didn't understand it). Fixing bugs in good features is different from tossing bad features.

Linux causes marriage break-ups?

[dipfan]

Once every open-sourcer has seen their marriage break up by installing Linux on their non-technical spouse's computer, they'll finally understand that, no, most people don't prefer command lines.

Non-technical Spouse: "No, honey, the reason I had an affair with the baby-sitter was because you installed Slackware."

Narrow viewpoint

[costas]

Joel Spolsky makes good points and his articles are usually excellent reading, regardless if you agree with him or not --I usually do. However, I think he over-generalizes his conclusions based on his own experience --selling consumer-oriented, "shrink-wrap" software. He leaves the entire enterprise software world out of his viewpoint and some of his conclusions don't make sense in that sphere.

For example, I tend to agree that "software doesn't rust". But that holds if your customer is Joe Q Public; it doesn't (usually) hold for enterprises. E.g. his Net Present Value calculation in the article doesn't take into account opportunity cost, i.e. the competitive advantage a company would gain if it upgraded their old F77 program into a faster one, with more mindshare (easier to lure/train IT staff) and more features that would increase productivity and lower costs.

Again, I do usually agree with Joel and read his essays religiously, but I wish he opened his worldview to the rest of the software industry.

bloatware

[tswinzig]

Or, here's an argument that even the youngest slashdotters will understand. The WWW is bloatware. Finding things is impossible because there's so much stuff out there. Think how much hard drive space is wasted on all kinds of web pages that only .00000000001% of the world ever reads. Since the vast majority of people only go to Yahoo, Ebay, and MSN, wouldn't the WWW be better if it only had Yahoo, Ebay, and MSN? It would be much more "optimized."

One difference is I don't run the entire WWW on my computer.

They Stole A Slashdot Interview!

[GeekLife.com]

Hmm...There's nothing preventing any company out there using slashdot comments as interview material for the entire content of their site, right?

It feels weird unknowingly providing content for a for-profit site I don't (often) visit or care about, but I suppose my comments are public-domain once I've posted them here?

I know it doesn't fit in with the copyleft thing, but shouldn't they at least have to ask before using slashdot content for their own means?

Re:They Stole A Slashdot Interview!

[Geek In Training]

...shouldn't they at least have to ask before using slashdot content for their own means?

Legally, they don't have to do any such thing. What would be nice, however, is an oft-forgotten concept known as Professional Courtesy.

It went out of style sometime between when the entire corporate work-force was made up of white male WWII verterans who wore white shirts and black ties to work (at leats on TV); and the high-ranking executives of companies like LTV Steel in Cleveland taking 17 million dollars in bonuses three weeks before the company filed for bankruptcy, putting three thousand blue-collar steel guys in line for unemployment benefits with no pension of health coverage.

Sorry to be offtopic... yes, it would have been nice for them to ask, but now that professional courtesy is dead, I'd be more surprised if someone DID ask permisson than if they just did whatever the hell they wanted for an almight buck to make sure the CEO gets to buy the "big yacht" this summer.

(And FYI, "Flamebait" does not mean "I disagree with this person." Point down your modpoints for a minute and take the time to write a thoughtful argument. Also, I work for a corporation, and I am critical of corporations. It's not hypocracy, it's called "taking a stand for change from within.")

WINE will save Linux for the desktop?

[hyacinthus]

Spolsky asserts that Linux won't be a player in the desktop market until it can run Windows applications. I find this a very puzzling assertion--one I've seen elsewhere. Certainly the case of OS/2 clearly refutes this notion: OS/2 could run Windows applications, could even run them better than Windows itself, but then, why run OS/2 when you could just run Windows, and (more importantly) why _develop_ for OS/2 when by developing for Windows you could cover both bases.

I spot a flaw in my analogy, which is that OS/2 was a commercial competitor, while Linux is "free" and therefore more attractive.

hyacinthus.

Re:Well...

[ergo98]

You're preaching just as much as Joel ever does, so I don't really understand why you're accusing him of a superiority complex. If you are bothered that Joel has a platform, realize that it is the result of many brilliantly insightful articles that he has written (that's my opinion, anyways. Especially concering UI matters where it is eye opening and humbling).

However, I think everyone here is taking what Joel is saying GROSSLY out of proportion : There are two poles in software rewriting -> Those who approach every issue with a "we have to rewrite this piece of crap" (these programmers are common and have cost companies billions in cost overruns. "Hey Jim I noticed on that report that it's cutting off the interest rate at 5 characters : Do you think you could increase that to 6?". Then, six days later Jim replies "Oh man, I looked at that code and it's horrible! I'm going to develop a mega new reporting engine in C# that'll use an XML subsystem". Three years later the six character interest rate still isn't there. Again this is common because many programmers do not have checks and balances, and it's much more heroic and personal to rewrite the whole thing and lay a grand claim to fame than to just do a quick fix isn't it? On the other end of the pole are those who treat all code as sacrosanct : From what I've read Joel is not one of these people. Exactly as he stated (which many people jumped on as hypocrisy where there is none): He is an advocate of refactoring, which as a philosophy is entirely unlike rewriting.

Let me put it another way: Every now and then I watch one of those HGTV shows where they remodel a home, and sometime I am stunned because in the end they've replaced virtually the entire house, so naturally my question is "Well why didn't they just bulldoze the original house and start from scratch?", but obviously there were benefits to going on the existing infrastructure. This fundamental holds significantly more true in software engineering (hehe, I use that term just to bother the PEs out there) because as a discipline it is far more "artistic" and far less defined than home construction. Why, then, are so many people so willing to rebuild from scratch with no proof of improvement? I can't make comments on your specific project, but in the grand tradition of program rewrites, you'll complete it and find that now you can handle 210,000 connections, so you'll just have to rewrite it again...

Typical "elite" programmer hypocrisy

[Salamander]

Joel thinks that rewriting things is a bad idea because it loses information embedded in the old code (original anti-rewrite essay, search for "Nancy" to find a good example) and then says in the interview:

Half the time when I go into a function to fix a little bug, I figure out a cleaner way to rewrite the whole function

This is the same guy who wrote Yet Another Bug Tracking System while observing that such things were a dime a dozen, and then went on to write Yet Another Content Management System without defining its target market, even as he criticized others for such undirected development. Apparently, Joel's quite comfortable stating commandments for others while living by different rules himself. His articles are unfailingly interesting, but should by no means be accepted as authoritative (as is true for anyone who spends more time on the pundit circuit than actually programming)

Thank you, Joel

[jquiroga]

I could rant a bit about how wrong (or right) Joel is about lots of topics, but that would be a little redundant.

Instead, I would like to say thank you. Thanks, Joel, for writing about your opinions and experiences, the lessons you learned, what you did wrong. Thanks for taking the time to tell us. It doesn't matter if we agree with you or not. Thanks for trying to help, you centainly help me a lot.

Not a moving target?

[drew_kime]

But due to chicken-and-egg problems, running Windows apps is probably nonnegotiable for most people, so WINE is going to have to get a lot better before Linux is a threat to the desktop. I sort of expected with all the effort Corel put into it, it should be there by now, but they seem to be as far as ever from seamlessly running Win apps. (By the way, a lot of people think that the Windows API is too much of a moving target for WINE to catch up. As a Windows developer, let me say, this is rubbish. Almost every Windows app out there is tested on Win 95 to make sure it runs decently on the entire 32 bit Windows product line. If WINE could ever catch up to Win 95, they would be almost completely done. The target hasn't moved anywhere since August, 1995.)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but when I install, say, Office 2000 on my Win95 machine, doesn't it update many dll's that were part of the original OS installation? That being the case, is it really true to say that new software runs on Win95, or is it more accurate to say that each new app provides an incremental OS upgrade?

Victor Stone comments on Joel Spolsky

[AdamBa]

A former Microsoft architect (Stone) commenting on a former Microsoft program manager (Spolsky)...put 'em together and you still don't have a single line of code!

The Baggage Factor.

- former Microsoft programmer

Excellent point

[GCP]

Office now requires RichEdit 3.0, version 3 of the *system control* RichEdit. Since Win95 only has RichEdit 1.0 by default, an Office installation has to upgrade the OS -- and it does.

Interestingly, Microsoft does NOT allow ISVs to distribute RichEdit 3, nor do they make it available as a simple download from MS.

This creates two classes of application vendor. First class vendors are those named "Microsoft", and they are allowed to target the entire installed base for maximum revenue, upgrading any OS version to *make* it meet minimum requirements.

Second class vendors are all others, and if they need the same thing Office needs, RichEdit 3 for example, they are advised to get their customers to go buy an OS upgrade from MS.

Whether this is "fair" or not isn't my point. MS owns the whole platform. You can have any scraps that they don't want.

If you clone the Win98 API, apps from second-class vendors, everyone other than MS, will probably run fine. The apps from the first-class vendor, Microsoft, probably won't.

I say "Win98" instead of "Win95" because of the large number of vendors who have ceased to support Win95. If they can't upgrade the OS themselves, they either have to give up older OSes or give up some functionality that people are used to having in MS's own apps. Most have chosen to compromise, giving up some market, the Win95 platform for now, as well as the most recent nifty(Win2K+) features. In a couple of years, these vendors will be giving up Win98, too, so WINE *does* have to keep moving.

That's the nature of the platform. There are two "installed bases", a big one for MS and a smaller one for everyone else.

MS has made "3rd party horizontal app" an oxymoron on their platform. If WINE wants to run the most popular (a.k.a. "horizontal") apps, it has to keep up with the latest OS versions. Lotsa luck.