I was going to post this as a separate post, but I see that you have already said it, but in a different way, so I'll just re: yours..
Microsoft must love articles like this...
While they a spending billions of dollars on market research, usability studies, solution architectures, and developing the features that will sell, their competitors are trusting in new age waffle which says that they just have to go down, without anybody doing anything risky, laborious or expensive. If I were Bill, I'd be thinking that the more people read this, and believe it, the richer I'll be.
The article is right that there are programs that great programmers can write, that good programmers will never write, and the critics here are also right, that most programms can be written by good programmers.
Simple.
I would add that great programs are not only those which do something new and exciting, but also those that do something well known, but complex (like an OS, or a Word Processor, or an Air Traffic Control system), and do it efficiently, and without fault.
The way to thrive in software is to get into the weapons ("defense") business.
I've been in it since 1990, and I've had steady employment, and rising wages. The working hours are sometimes bad, but mostly bearable.
Because of the large, long term contracts, the business is insulated from the highs and lows of the commercial world, and because of security requirements, it is insulated from off-shoring. During the dot-com bubble the job prospects were better in the commercial world, but apart from that, they've mostly been best in weapons.
Oh, as for technical interest, I would say that when I got into weapons in the 90's, the technology was more interesting than in the commercial world (because of the challenges of real-time systems). These days commercial technology (the web, databases, Linux, Windows) is probably more interesting. One factor in favor of this business is that program correctness is valued more than time-to-market - I would hate to have to churn out second-rate work to meet market deadlines.
The main downside is that once you're in it, it's very had to get out.
Mod this post up!
This is the best, and shortest, comment in the whole thread.
Microsoft spend millions on the user interface, to produce something that works well for most people, most of the time. I prefer a boring user interface, which lets me get on with my job, to an "innovative" one.
The article claims it took 22 minutes to load a text file.
A test on my system, with a formatted document
System: AMD 2800, 512 MB, Windows XP
Software: MS Word, 2003 File: 5.8 MB, with elementary formatting - a 3 level list with 3555 items. Action: After a system reboot - open it, by double-clicking the desktop item. Move to the end of the file, with ctrl-end, and start typing text. Total time: 7 seconds.
So, I opened word, and loaded a 5.8 mb formatted document, and started editing it, in 7 seconds.
Second test, with a text file: Save the document as a text file, close Word, open Word, load the text file, move to the end, and start typing.
Total time (to save and reopen): 44 seconds. Most of this was spent in the dialogs. Actually file operations were almost instanteneous.
M$ didn't get to have 90% of the desktop market, and 60% of the server market, through any technical merit, they got it because they are arrogant bullies, and people are too stupid to buy anything else. Pretty soon those stupid people are going to wise up, and dump M$ in droves.
Forget about your career with.Net, that's just another rubbish M$ marketing tool, and it's going down soon. Install Linux at home, and start learning system configuration with/etc, programming with makefiles, and how to browse the help system (all 17 varieties of it). That's the future!
It should be said, tho', that articles like this have been written about MSFT for a long time - and there's still billions in their war-chest.
Recently I've started a "OS Predictions" collection, where I keep articles predicting imminent victory of Linux, or collapse of Microsoft. This one is going there. Wish I'd started this 10 years ago, but I reckon there'll be enough wrong predictions over the next ten years to make collection worthwhile.
Agreed. For a start, I've tried Linux on my home computer several times since 1998, and each time I have just deleted it after several weeks (and many hours of fiddling), and gone back to using Windows because it works better.
In the workplace, my company's customers routinely specify that solutions must run on Windows. They don't tell us why they are sticking with Windows, but I would guess that they do it because it works well for them, at a reasonable cost. As long as they keep doing this (and there is no indication of them stopping), I'll have a job as a Windows programmer
When I compare my workstations, from now and ten years ago...
1. 2005. My Windows XP desktop, running MS Office 2003. Total cost, hardware and software, ~$2000.
2. 1995. IBM Unix workstation, running Interleaf and emacs. Total cost, > $10,000
There's no comparision. And, I am convinced, if it weren't for Bill, I'd most likely still be using a $10,000 IBM workstation, running Unix, Interleaf and Emacs.
Bill has done something right.
Slashdot Mirror
How troooooooooooooo!!
I was going to post this as a separate post, but I see that you have already said it, but in a different way, so I'll just re: yours..
Microsoft must love articles like this...
While they a spending billions of dollars on market research, usability studies, solution architectures, and developing the features that will sell, their competitors are trusting in new age waffle which says that they just have to go down, without anybody doing anything risky, laborious or expensive. If I were Bill, I'd be thinking that the more people read this, and believe it, the richer I'll be.
Let's see if I can beat your mod, and get a -1
The article is right that there are programs that great programmers can write, that good programmers will never write, and the critics here are also right, that most programms can be written by good programmers. Simple. I would add that great programs are not only those which do something new and exciting, but also those that do something well known, but complex (like an OS, or a Word Processor, or an Air Traffic Control system), and do it efficiently, and without fault.
The way to thrive in software is to get into the weapons ("defense") business.
I've been in it since 1990, and I've had steady employment, and rising wages. The working hours are sometimes bad, but mostly bearable.
Because of the large, long term contracts, the business is insulated from the highs and lows of the commercial world, and because of security requirements, it is insulated from off-shoring. During the dot-com bubble the job prospects were better in the commercial world, but apart from that, they've mostly been best in weapons.
Oh, as for technical interest, I would say that when I got into weapons in the 90's, the technology was more interesting than in the commercial world (because of the challenges of real-time systems). These days commercial technology (the web, databases, Linux, Windows) is probably more interesting. One factor in favor of this business is that program correctness is valued more than time-to-market - I would hate to have to churn out second-rate work to meet market deadlines.
The main downside is that once you're in it, it's very had to get out.
Before the internet, it was solitaire and minesweeper,
Before Windows 3.1, it was frobnicating with your computer configuration. oh, and there were command line games.. (even command line golf)
Before computers, it was...food, long coffee breaks, bitching about coworkers. Some people even worked like crazy, without actually doing anything
Mod this post up!
This is the best, and shortest, comment in the whole thread.
Microsoft spend millions on the user interface, to produce something that works well for most people, most of the time. I prefer a boring user interface, which lets me get on with my job, to an "innovative" one.
The article claims it took 22 minutes to load a text file.
A test on my system, with a formatted document
System: AMD 2800, 512 MB, Windows XP
Software: MS Word, 2003
File: 5.8 MB, with elementary formatting - a 3 level list with 3555 items.
Action: After a system reboot - open it, by double-clicking the desktop item. Move to the end of the file, with ctrl-end, and start typing text.
Total time: 7 seconds.
So, I opened word, and loaded a 5.8 mb formatted document, and started editing it, in 7 seconds.
Second test, with a text file: Save the document as a text file, close Word, open Word, load the text file, move to the end, and start typing.
Total time (to save and reopen): 44 seconds. Most of this was spent in the dialogs. Actually file operations were almost instanteneous.
M$ didn't get to have 90% of the desktop market, and 60% of the server market, through any technical merit, they got it because they are arrogant bullies, and people are too stupid to buy anything else. Pretty soon those stupid people are going to wise up, and dump M$ in droves. Forget about your career with .Net, that's just another rubbish M$ marketing tool, and it's going down soon. Install Linux at home, and start learning system configuration with /etc, programming with makefiles, and how to browse the help system (all 17 varieties of it). That's the future!
In the workplace, my company's customers routinely specify that solutions must run on Windows. They don't tell us why they are sticking with Windows, but I would guess that they do it because it works well for them, at a reasonable cost. As long as they keep doing this (and there is no indication of them stopping), I'll have a job as a Windows programmer
When I compare my workstations, from now and ten years ago...
1. 2005. My Windows XP desktop, running MS Office 2003. Total cost, hardware and software, ~$2000.
2. 1995. IBM Unix workstation, running Interleaf and emacs. Total cost, > $10,000
There's no comparision. And, I am convinced, if it weren't for Bill, I'd most likely still be using a $10,000 IBM workstation, running Unix, Interleaf and Emacs.
Bill has done something right.
Thanks Pete. I just had a look at Serverside, and found that they are offering a free pdf download of the book. I'll get into it.
Thankyou. Very funny (I hope the humour is intentional)
Everyone *must* get Vigor, to really improve their computing experience (see link in original post).