Slashdot Mirror
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."
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.
slashdotters are not exactly famous for reading the things they are commenting on
Oh well...
free the mallocs!
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.
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.
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.
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.
...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.")
SlashSigTheorem: Humorous, Political, Critical, Constructive- If you have a
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.
"Those who have never entered upon scientific pursuits know not a tithe of the poetry by which they are surrounded."