Puzzled...
-
You know the type, Microsoft release a new product, let's say .NET 1.0 and people will say: "ho it's unproven technology, I will wait for the next version to consider it" Later on Microsoft release .NET 2.0 which is (admitedly :-D) an improvement. And then the same people say: ho, ok, it's proven now, let's start to use.... 1.0!?!?!? But, admitedly, 1.0 was not good enough (clearly compared to 2.0) so why a new version give people confidence to use the previous (and inferior) version? When it's really the latest they should use... I ask that because I met a few people lately (having job interview) which basically wait for version 'x+2' of the framework to be confident to use version 'x+1'. While, basically, 'x+2' is a fix over 'x' and 'x+1' so it doesn't make much sense to use it as a clue to use 'x+1'. Do you see what I mean? How do you explain this behavior?!? (OK, maybe I made it up a bit, after all they have other reason such as: our customer base don't support this version of the framework, hence the question is more targeted to sys admin than to developers....)
Super Lloyd wrote:
How do you explain this behavior?!?
My 2c: They're fools. They're fools to even consider any technology unless there's a clear reason as to how it improves their customer base, gives them a competitive edge, reduces development costs (yeah, right), etc. The customer doesn't give a hoot what technology is behind their software. But programmers, managers, CEO's, they all fall for the drivel that comes out of the web-rags and blogs about how great some new technology is. They forget that a technology does not in itself solve anything. It's what YOU do with the technology that is important. And if you stop thinking that a specific technology is a solution to problem but look instead at the real techniques that you feel is of value, you'll discover often enough that those techniques can be implemented in a wide variety of existing technologies. People need to stop thinking of technology and version x as the panacea to solve their problems and start thinking about how concepts, independent of any technology, can be of use. Marc
-
Super Lloyd wrote:
How do you explain this behavior?!?
My 2c: They're fools. They're fools to even consider any technology unless there's a clear reason as to how it improves their customer base, gives them a competitive edge, reduces development costs (yeah, right), etc. The customer doesn't give a hoot what technology is behind their software. But programmers, managers, CEO's, they all fall for the drivel that comes out of the web-rags and blogs about how great some new technology is. They forget that a technology does not in itself solve anything. It's what YOU do with the technology that is important. And if you stop thinking that a specific technology is a solution to problem but look instead at the real techniques that you feel is of value, you'll discover often enough that those techniques can be implemented in a wide variety of existing technologies. People need to stop thinking of technology and version x as the panacea to solve their problems and start thinking about how concepts, independent of any technology, can be of use. Marc
Marc Clifton wrote:
stop thinking of technology and version x as the panacea to solve their problems
Well, product XX (Dos Equis) is and does. :cool:
-
Marc Clifton wrote:
stop thinking of technology and version x as the panacea to solve their problems
Well, product XX (Dos Equis) is and does. :cool:
PIEBALDconsult wrote:
Well, product XX (Dos Equis) is and does
and excedrin solves the problem of too much of that problem ;)
_________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
-
This sounds like a good chance to regard an interview as being over. And, if you're the one being interviewed, to use words like 'moron'. I can see some people decidng to move with care, but the whole point then would be to start on 2.0, not to go back to the framework they have been rejecting so far along.
Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++ "I am working on a project that will convert a FORTRAN code to corresponding C++ code.I am not aware of FORTRAN syntax" ( spotted in the C++/CLI forum )
Christian Graus wrote:
This sounds like a good chance to regard an interview as being over. And, if you're the one being interviewed, to use words like 'moron'.
Quite funny hey! :-D Mmhh.. good point though.
-
Super Lloyd wrote:
How do you explain this behavior?!?
My 2c: They're fools. They're fools to even consider any technology unless there's a clear reason as to how it improves their customer base, gives them a competitive edge, reduces development costs (yeah, right), etc. The customer doesn't give a hoot what technology is behind their software. But programmers, managers, CEO's, they all fall for the drivel that comes out of the web-rags and blogs about how great some new technology is. They forget that a technology does not in itself solve anything. It's what YOU do with the technology that is important. And if you stop thinking that a specific technology is a solution to problem but look instead at the real techniques that you feel is of value, you'll discover often enough that those techniques can be implemented in a wide variety of existing technologies. People need to stop thinking of technology and version x as the panacea to solve their problems and start thinking about how concepts, independent of any technology, can be of use. Marc
Speaking of that I DO think that XAML / WPF is sooo much better than WinForm. (As in more productive, give better results faster, etc... except lately I'm running in nasty focus issue and.. sigh.. I start to be quite unhappy with WPF) Now that I made the switch the lazy part of myself loath going back to WinForm... (except for this nasty focus issue....)
-
Super Lloyd wrote:
How do you explain this behavior?!?
My 2c: They're fools. They're fools to even consider any technology unless there's a clear reason as to how it improves their customer base, gives them a competitive edge, reduces development costs (yeah, right), etc. The customer doesn't give a hoot what technology is behind their software. But programmers, managers, CEO's, they all fall for the drivel that comes out of the web-rags and blogs about how great some new technology is. They forget that a technology does not in itself solve anything. It's what YOU do with the technology that is important. And if you stop thinking that a specific technology is a solution to problem but look instead at the real techniques that you feel is of value, you'll discover often enough that those techniques can be implemented in a wide variety of existing technologies. People need to stop thinking of technology and version x as the panacea to solve their problems and start thinking about how concepts, independent of any technology, can be of use. Marc
Marc Clifton wrote:
And if you stop thinking
Whoa! Hold on. I didn't think that thinking was allowed. We're just supposed to take what Microsoft gives us and apply it (blindly) to all the problems that we have. They've told us that it will solve everything. Yeah, that's the ticket. It'll solve everything! ;P Mike
-
This sounds like a good chance to regard an interview as being over. And, if you're the one being interviewed, to use words like 'moron'. I can see some people decidng to move with care, but the whole point then would be to start on 2.0, not to go back to the framework they have been rejecting so far along.
Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++ "I am working on a project that will convert a FORTRAN code to corresponding C++ code.I am not aware of FORTRAN syntax" ( spotted in the C++/CLI forum )
Christian Graus wrote:
use words like 'moron'
:laugh: Okay, that is a winner in an interview :-D
"Try asking what you want to know, rather than asking a question whose answer you know." - Christian Graus
-
Super Lloyd wrote:
How do you explain this behavior?!?
My 2c: They're fools. They're fools to even consider any technology unless there's a clear reason as to how it improves their customer base, gives them a competitive edge, reduces development costs (yeah, right), etc. The customer doesn't give a hoot what technology is behind their software. But programmers, managers, CEO's, they all fall for the drivel that comes out of the web-rags and blogs about how great some new technology is. They forget that a technology does not in itself solve anything. It's what YOU do with the technology that is important. And if you stop thinking that a specific technology is a solution to problem but look instead at the real techniques that you feel is of value, you'll discover often enough that those techniques can be implemented in a wide variety of existing technologies. People need to stop thinking of technology and version x as the panacea to solve their problems and start thinking about how concepts, independent of any technology, can be of use. Marc
Marc Clifton wrote:
People need to stop thinking of technology and version x as the panacea to solve their problems and start thinking about how concepts, independent of any technology, can be of use.
I don't think this is an accurate statement. Now hold on, let me finish. The reason that frameworks, revisions and versions have exploded in industry wide acceptance and even technolust is because the "Realistic Time For Development" has become something the customer has too much control over. When the customer has control over how much money will be spent and when something will be ready it creates an imbalance in the power scheme. Unfortunately this puts a developer (you for example) in a very awkward situation when you tell a client, "No, I cannot have it ready in 90 days. That's just not possible given what you want. If you're not willing to pay more money for me to bring on more developers then it's going to be 120 days minimum." That client thinks, "Hmm, wonder if someone else can do it in the time I need it in?" So they let their fingers do the talking (UGH!) and the phone books provides some guy who works with 3 other goons who crank out site after site using DNN built on the .Net Framework. Talk about a framework on a framework on a version number! What you are saying is true to a degree. The bigger problem is that the globalization of our industry has created a new paradigm shift that's lead the customer to think, "Gosh I *really* can have it whenever I want." I think we peaked on this phenom about 6 months to a year ago. I think that this movement is going to die off completely in the next 2 to 3 years but for now timelines determine what products developers use and that's because the customer controls the budget and the delivery date because they can. With 10,000 off shore companies begging for work any company can get anything they want when they want it. Not that it will be high quality but Microsoft has proven that time and money not quality rule the hearts of the fickle customers we court.
-
Speaking of that I DO think that XAML / WPF is sooo much better than WinForm. (As in more productive, give better results faster, etc... except lately I'm running in nasty focus issue and.. sigh.. I start to be quite unhappy with WPF) Now that I made the switch the lazy part of myself loath going back to WinForm... (except for this nasty focus issue....)
This is typical of any move in technology. Over the last couple of decades (scary, it has really been that long going on three decades) I have seen it time and time again when you move to a new technology there might be an issue that makes you wonder why you did, but usually, it only takes a little while back in the old technology (such as a legacy project needs repair or extention) to make you cry to use the new technology again :)
Rocky <>< Blog Post: Windows Live Authentication - Easy Stuff! Tech Blog Post: Finally, Free Legal Music Downloads! Tech Sites: SilverlightCity.com ~ TheSilverlightDirectory.com ~ TheWPFDirectory.com
-
Marc Clifton wrote:
People need to stop thinking of technology and version x as the panacea to solve their problems and start thinking about how concepts, independent of any technology, can be of use.
I don't think this is an accurate statement. Now hold on, let me finish. The reason that frameworks, revisions and versions have exploded in industry wide acceptance and even technolust is because the "Realistic Time For Development" has become something the customer has too much control over. When the customer has control over how much money will be spent and when something will be ready it creates an imbalance in the power scheme. Unfortunately this puts a developer (you for example) in a very awkward situation when you tell a client, "No, I cannot have it ready in 90 days. That's just not possible given what you want. If you're not willing to pay more money for me to bring on more developers then it's going to be 120 days minimum." That client thinks, "Hmm, wonder if someone else can do it in the time I need it in?" So they let their fingers do the talking (UGH!) and the phone books provides some guy who works with 3 other goons who crank out site after site using DNN built on the .Net Framework. Talk about a framework on a framework on a version number! What you are saying is true to a degree. The bigger problem is that the globalization of our industry has created a new paradigm shift that's lead the customer to think, "Gosh I *really* can have it whenever I want." I think we peaked on this phenom about 6 months to a year ago. I think that this movement is going to die off completely in the next 2 to 3 years but for now timelines determine what products developers use and that's because the customer controls the budget and the delivery date because they can. With 10,000 off shore companies begging for work any company can get anything they want when they want it. Not that it will be high quality but Microsoft has proven that time and money not quality rule the hearts of the fickle customers we court.
you know i was thinking about this and open source and such today and i wanted to post something but didnt have time ... now i thik i will so i was thinking about open source vs (for example) windows ... i love my debian / kde setup where i can just apt-get install whatever packages i need and not even think about cost as such ... then when i was working in my vista boot i thought "sheesh everything i want to install costs money ... that sucks!!" ... then i thought a bit more and realised that i am one of those people who will have no living to make come the day all software is free ... now i dont mean "whoa it affects me so i care all of a sudden" ... i mean we as developers take time to learn our craft and what does and doesnt work and what will carry on working on into the future ... we design and implement and test product because we care what we do ... if we cant make any money anymore why bother with the quality? for the love of it sure but i have to pay my rent so it made me realise that whilst i would rather not pay for that little utility i want to use it actually makes sense to because the person who wrote it made it work and deserves some reward for the effort ... as do we all as for open source ... i love it and i contribute to it whenever i can and i use it most of the time ... but saying all software should be free is wrong imo sooooooooooo... bringing it back to the thread... when the customers have this idea that "free" software exists it devalues what we do in their minds ... its an extension of "well i can buy ms office for $300 so why is this going to cost me $5000?" ... except now its free ms and others are adding to the problems we face in trying to deliver quality software by making the barrier to entry for developers very low ... almost any twit with visual studio can get a program to run ... it probably wont be very well written or anything but does the customer know or care? i think people have lost sight of quality software and what discipline it takes to create it ... and that that costs time and money ... but as you say we are in a bad position right now competing against the off-shore "solutions" and "free" *sigh* anyways thats me done waffling now ;)
"mostly watching the human race is like watching dogs watch tv ... they see the pictures move but the meaning escapes them"
-
Marc Clifton wrote:
People need to stop thinking of technology and version x as the panacea to solve their problems and start thinking about how concepts, independent of any technology, can be of use.
I don't think this is an accurate statement. Now hold on, let me finish. The reason that frameworks, revisions and versions have exploded in industry wide acceptance and even technolust is because the "Realistic Time For Development" has become something the customer has too much control over. When the customer has control over how much money will be spent and when something will be ready it creates an imbalance in the power scheme. Unfortunately this puts a developer (you for example) in a very awkward situation when you tell a client, "No, I cannot have it ready in 90 days. That's just not possible given what you want. If you're not willing to pay more money for me to bring on more developers then it's going to be 120 days minimum." That client thinks, "Hmm, wonder if someone else can do it in the time I need it in?" So they let their fingers do the talking (UGH!) and the phone books provides some guy who works with 3 other goons who crank out site after site using DNN built on the .Net Framework. Talk about a framework on a framework on a version number! What you are saying is true to a degree. The bigger problem is that the globalization of our industry has created a new paradigm shift that's lead the customer to think, "Gosh I *really* can have it whenever I want." I think we peaked on this phenom about 6 months to a year ago. I think that this movement is going to die off completely in the next 2 to 3 years but for now timelines determine what products developers use and that's because the customer controls the budget and the delivery date because they can. With 10,000 off shore companies begging for work any company can get anything they want when they want it. Not that it will be high quality but Microsoft has proven that time and money not quality rule the hearts of the fickle customers we court.
Marc Clifton wrote:
People need to stop thinking of technology and version x as the panacea to solve their problems and start thinking about how concepts, independent of any technology, can be of use.
aye. well put. problems are conceptual and need to be solved conceptually, by people
code-frog wrote:
crank out site after site using DNN built on the .Net Framework
but yes, some frameworks do solve problems quicker than others. heck, it's why we even build "mini" frameworks ourselves internally.. when we recognise we're onto a good thing and don't want to repeat the laborious stuff :) so i see the framework-version-cure-all as more of a problem when it's an ingrained attitude that affects your strategical approach. it's amazing how different the world looks when you approach the problem from the perspective of: "how can we solve Foo?" as opposed to "how is insert_framework_version_here gonna solve Foo?" of course, the first question you can't even begin to consider when the only thing you know is _framework_version_. unless of course, that's all you care about; solving problems that are solvable with _framework_version_ - and as long as you recognise that scope and don't pretend otherwise ;) so it's an attitude which can seriously blur your vision and before you realise it, you might even end up buying into your own hype, in which case, everybody else will just need to "deal" with you.
code-frog wrote:
time and money not quality rule the hearts
:( true. until they wanna sue your derriere for "bad quality" (security loopholes, leaky data, loss of business due to downtime... )
<>< :: have the courage to use your own reason
-
you know i was thinking about this and open source and such today and i wanted to post something but didnt have time ... now i thik i will so i was thinking about open source vs (for example) windows ... i love my debian / kde setup where i can just apt-get install whatever packages i need and not even think about cost as such ... then when i was working in my vista boot i thought "sheesh everything i want to install costs money ... that sucks!!" ... then i thought a bit more and realised that i am one of those people who will have no living to make come the day all software is free ... now i dont mean "whoa it affects me so i care all of a sudden" ... i mean we as developers take time to learn our craft and what does and doesnt work and what will carry on working on into the future ... we design and implement and test product because we care what we do ... if we cant make any money anymore why bother with the quality? for the love of it sure but i have to pay my rent so it made me realise that whilst i would rather not pay for that little utility i want to use it actually makes sense to because the person who wrote it made it work and deserves some reward for the effort ... as do we all as for open source ... i love it and i contribute to it whenever i can and i use it most of the time ... but saying all software should be free is wrong imo sooooooooooo... bringing it back to the thread... when the customers have this idea that "free" software exists it devalues what we do in their minds ... its an extension of "well i can buy ms office for $300 so why is this going to cost me $5000?" ... except now its free ms and others are adding to the problems we face in trying to deliver quality software by making the barrier to entry for developers very low ... almost any twit with visual studio can get a program to run ... it probably wont be very well written or anything but does the customer know or care? i think people have lost sight of quality software and what discipline it takes to create it ... and that that costs time and money ... but as you say we are in a bad position right now competing against the off-shore "solutions" and "free" *sigh* anyways thats me done waffling now ;)
"mostly watching the human race is like watching dogs watch tv ... they see the pictures move but the meaning escapes them"
Well I feel the need to add my 2 cents to this, although I'm sliding even more OT. It might be the case that things like the DNN framework have changed people's minds about how long something should take to deliver, but for too long the software industry has talked about re-use only as a lofty principle. The truth of the matter is that the industry has changed permanently with both open source software, outsourced labour and a worldwide audience. There is no use in complaining about it or fighting with it. That's the way it is, and there never will be a large amount of respect for software developers craft - unlike a finely made piece of furniture, the workmanship will never be obvious. Just over 100 years ago all cars were handmade, unique and virtually one-off. They were often beautifully made and allowed owners to indulge their requirements down to the last custom tobacco pouch. Henry Ford came along, perfected production line techniques and changed that industry permanently. Software has finally reached it's production-line moment and probably will never be the same. To stay relevant in this brave new world many developers will have to find themselves a new niche and a new way of making money from software. It's not fun, can be frustrating and definitely makes you wish for a simpler time when you had 6 months to system test and get every last bug, and you could afford to wait for 4 years before implementing a new platform. There will always be cashed-up companies who will order completely customised software, just as Bugatti can find customers for it's $1m+ Veyron - but most companies can make do with a Ford pickup and a few modifications. But, like early automotive pioneers, most companies are left scratching their head after another $500,000 and 2 years development left them with another failed project. Meanwhile their competitor is using an cheap open-source derived system that seems reliable, fast and does the job. They start to feel just like the owner of an expensive but broken-down car must have felt when one of those inferior, cheap and nasty Model T's went sputtering past them with a cheery toot and a wave.
Bruce Chapman iFinity.com.au - Websites and Software Development
My latest project: Auctions in Australia Plithy remark available in Beta 2 -
You know the type, Microsoft release a new product, let's say .NET 1.0 and people will say: "ho it's unproven technology, I will wait for the next version to consider it" Later on Microsoft release .NET 2.0 which is (admitedly :-D) an improvement. And then the same people say: ho, ok, it's proven now, let's start to use.... 1.0!?!?!? But, admitedly, 1.0 was not good enough (clearly compared to 2.0) so why a new version give people confidence to use the previous (and inferior) version? When it's really the latest they should use... I ask that because I met a few people lately (having job interview) which basically wait for version 'x+2' of the framework to be confident to use version 'x+1'. While, basically, 'x+2' is a fix over 'x' and 'x+1' so it doesn't make much sense to use it as a clue to use 'x+1'. Do you see what I mean? How do you explain this behavior?!? (OK, maybe I made it up a bit, after all they have other reason such as: our customer base don't support this version of the framework, hence the question is more targeted to sys admin than to developers....)
Same reason US invaded Iraq.. The world is filled with idiots. matadorqk
-
Well I feel the need to add my 2 cents to this, although I'm sliding even more OT. It might be the case that things like the DNN framework have changed people's minds about how long something should take to deliver, but for too long the software industry has talked about re-use only as a lofty principle. The truth of the matter is that the industry has changed permanently with both open source software, outsourced labour and a worldwide audience. There is no use in complaining about it or fighting with it. That's the way it is, and there never will be a large amount of respect for software developers craft - unlike a finely made piece of furniture, the workmanship will never be obvious. Just over 100 years ago all cars were handmade, unique and virtually one-off. They were often beautifully made and allowed owners to indulge their requirements down to the last custom tobacco pouch. Henry Ford came along, perfected production line techniques and changed that industry permanently. Software has finally reached it's production-line moment and probably will never be the same. To stay relevant in this brave new world many developers will have to find themselves a new niche and a new way of making money from software. It's not fun, can be frustrating and definitely makes you wish for a simpler time when you had 6 months to system test and get every last bug, and you could afford to wait for 4 years before implementing a new platform. There will always be cashed-up companies who will order completely customised software, just as Bugatti can find customers for it's $1m+ Veyron - but most companies can make do with a Ford pickup and a few modifications. But, like early automotive pioneers, most companies are left scratching their head after another $500,000 and 2 years development left them with another failed project. Meanwhile their competitor is using an cheap open-source derived system that seems reliable, fast and does the job. They start to feel just like the owner of an expensive but broken-down car must have felt when one of those inferior, cheap and nasty Model T's went sputtering past them with a cheery toot and a wave.
Bruce Chapman iFinity.com.au - Websites and Software Development
My latest project: Auctions in Australia Plithy remark available in Beta 2You are exactly right. But... Customers aren't stupid. There's this really amazing line in economics where supply meets demand. It's a fascinating line because there's 1000 subtle nuances that influence that magical line. Quality is one of them and so is durability. I'm driving a 1997 Toyota 4Runner which has quality and durability. Admittedly I could sell it and get a brand new Hyundai for cash and it would run well for maybe 5 years and then it's durability would dip. Meanwhile it's quality would have begun to fade years prior. My 1997 4Runner costs me nothing, the quality (though not premium) is obvious. The durability... gosh that's legendary. I knew it when I bought it and I knew I was paying about $3000 more than I'd pay for a knock-off equivalent. I bought high. Our customers are the same way. Consumers are starting to complain, "This buggy thing won't run right 7 times out 20. What a piece of crap." That feedback gets to the developer and the developer doesn't lash back and bitch (not if he's smart anyway). The developer gets out of his $39 chair and walks/drives over the customer and the developer explains the supply/demand curve. The developer says, "I can write you a product now that will cost you 3 times as much up front but you'll be able to use 6 times longer. Or we can keep going with this rapshod thing you nickle and dime me into writing because you won't spend a fair price up front to get a product that has quality and durability." Customers aren't stupid. Even if this doesn't work the first time it will work in the long run. What are industry seriously lacks is patient developers serving (in the 1st person) a fickle customer. More direct interaction between the developer and the customer is going to be what fixes the FUBAR. Get PM's out of the way. In fact fire them or demote them back to developers or remote them to writing documentation. Either way PM's kill our industry. So that's my take. There's a load of smart customers that want quality and durability. Someone just needs to take the time to explain how all that works to them. Once that's done all our lives get a bit easier. Of course we have to get Microsoft to stop releasing products and updates every 6 months but ... pigs will fly first so ... go spit in the wind on that one. :-D
-
Marc Clifton wrote:
People need to stop thinking of technology and version x as the panacea to solve their problems and start thinking about how concepts, independent of any technology, can be of use.
aye. well put. problems are conceptual and need to be solved conceptually, by people
code-frog wrote:
crank out site after site using DNN built on the .Net Framework
but yes, some frameworks do solve problems quicker than others. heck, it's why we even build "mini" frameworks ourselves internally.. when we recognise we're onto a good thing and don't want to repeat the laborious stuff :) so i see the framework-version-cure-all as more of a problem when it's an ingrained attitude that affects your strategical approach. it's amazing how different the world looks when you approach the problem from the perspective of: "how can we solve Foo?" as opposed to "how is insert_framework_version_here gonna solve Foo?" of course, the first question you can't even begin to consider when the only thing you know is _framework_version_. unless of course, that's all you care about; solving problems that are solvable with _framework_version_ - and as long as you recognise that scope and don't pretend otherwise ;) so it's an attitude which can seriously blur your vision and before you realise it, you might even end up buying into your own hype, in which case, everybody else will just need to "deal" with you.
code-frog wrote:
time and money not quality rule the hearts
:( true. until they wanna sue your derriere for "bad quality" (security loopholes, leaky data, loss of business due to downtime... )
<>< :: have the courage to use your own reason
Love your sig! Subtle... not in your face at all... just right!:rose:
-
you know i was thinking about this and open source and such today and i wanted to post something but didnt have time ... now i thik i will so i was thinking about open source vs (for example) windows ... i love my debian / kde setup where i can just apt-get install whatever packages i need and not even think about cost as such ... then when i was working in my vista boot i thought "sheesh everything i want to install costs money ... that sucks!!" ... then i thought a bit more and realised that i am one of those people who will have no living to make come the day all software is free ... now i dont mean "whoa it affects me so i care all of a sudden" ... i mean we as developers take time to learn our craft and what does and doesnt work and what will carry on working on into the future ... we design and implement and test product because we care what we do ... if we cant make any money anymore why bother with the quality? for the love of it sure but i have to pay my rent so it made me realise that whilst i would rather not pay for that little utility i want to use it actually makes sense to because the person who wrote it made it work and deserves some reward for the effort ... as do we all as for open source ... i love it and i contribute to it whenever i can and i use it most of the time ... but saying all software should be free is wrong imo sooooooooooo... bringing it back to the thread... when the customers have this idea that "free" software exists it devalues what we do in their minds ... its an extension of "well i can buy ms office for $300 so why is this going to cost me $5000?" ... except now its free ms and others are adding to the problems we face in trying to deliver quality software by making the barrier to entry for developers very low ... almost any twit with visual studio can get a program to run ... it probably wont be very well written or anything but does the customer know or care? i think people have lost sight of quality software and what discipline it takes to create it ... and that that costs time and money ... but as you say we are in a bad position right now competing against the off-shore "solutions" and "free" *sigh* anyways thats me done waffling now ;)
"mostly watching the human race is like watching dogs watch tv ... they see the pictures move but the meaning escapes them"
That's a pretty cool reply. Given that it's from you it actually carries more weight and is more valid. You're not one of those people to give unwarranted credit where credit is due and yes we DUE have to make a living. Open Source software does something beautiful. It provides competition that is not restricted by the ability to cash finance your marketing plan. It provides competition by releasing tools and features to the general public at no cost and honestly the little 'catch' that the GPL throws in there is wonderful. It pulls open source back just a tad and keeps it from being a ravenous dog that knows no limits. Open source does something else. It inspires. I like open source because it inspires creativity, competition and it makes sure that the little guy can get a fair price but not a gouging price. It also forces companies that are huge like Microsoft to start supporting platforms like Linux and we all win when that happens. Our industry would really suck if we didn't have open source to be the convenient 'whistle blower' from time to time.
-
Love your sig! Subtle... not in your face at all... just right!:rose:
ha. thanks .. it actually comes from kant's writings (not that i'm a philosopher or anything) it was one of those coffee shop book browse days, picked up a random book, flipped it open and there it was: Sapere aude (and not that i speak latin either) which is more literally "dare to know" or so i'm told and so it was kinda declared the motto of enlightenment back in the day (18th Century) i liked it- it seems as apt today as it was probably back then.. and it stuck i'll update the sig... it was Kant's inspiration afterall :) speaking of which... does this ever remain true to this day, and applicable... Laziness and cowardice are the reasons why so great a portion of mankind, after nature has long since discharged them from external direction (naturaliter maiorennes), nevertheless remains under lifelong tutelage, and why it is so easy for others to set themselves up as their guardians. It is so easy not to be of age. If I have a book which understands for me, a pastor who has a conscience for me, a physician who decides my diet, and so forth, I need not trouble myself. I need not think, if I can only pay - others will easily undertake the irksome work for me. insert: If i have a framework_version which solves my problem, i need not think...
<>< :: have the courage to use your own reason -Kant
-
Marc Clifton wrote:
People need to stop thinking of technology and version x as the panacea to solve their problems and start thinking about how concepts, independent of any technology, can be of use.
I don't think this is an accurate statement. Now hold on, let me finish. The reason that frameworks, revisions and versions have exploded in industry wide acceptance and even technolust is because the "Realistic Time For Development" has become something the customer has too much control over. When the customer has control over how much money will be spent and when something will be ready it creates an imbalance in the power scheme. Unfortunately this puts a developer (you for example) in a very awkward situation when you tell a client, "No, I cannot have it ready in 90 days. That's just not possible given what you want. If you're not willing to pay more money for me to bring on more developers then it's going to be 120 days minimum." That client thinks, "Hmm, wonder if someone else can do it in the time I need it in?" So they let their fingers do the talking (UGH!) and the phone books provides some guy who works with 3 other goons who crank out site after site using DNN built on the .Net Framework. Talk about a framework on a framework on a version number! What you are saying is true to a degree. The bigger problem is that the globalization of our industry has created a new paradigm shift that's lead the customer to think, "Gosh I *really* can have it whenever I want." I think we peaked on this phenom about 6 months to a year ago. I think that this movement is going to die off completely in the next 2 to 3 years but for now timelines determine what products developers use and that's because the customer controls the budget and the delivery date because they can. With 10,000 off shore companies begging for work any company can get anything they want when they want it. Not that it will be high quality but Microsoft has proven that time and money not quality rule the hearts of the fickle customers we court.
Is there an industry where the customer doesn't let their fingers do the talking? In the last 3 months I've shopped around for drafting services and mechanics, because I need them to do some work for me and I don't want to get ripped off. Why should I expect my customers to behave any different just because I'm a software developer rather than a draftsman or mechanic?
-
Is there an industry where the customer doesn't let their fingers do the talking? In the last 3 months I've shopped around for drafting services and mechanics, because I need them to do some work for me and I don't want to get ripped off. Why should I expect my customers to behave any different just because I'm a software developer rather than a draftsman or mechanic?
-
You know the type, Microsoft release a new product, let's say .NET 1.0 and people will say: "ho it's unproven technology, I will wait for the next version to consider it" Later on Microsoft release .NET 2.0 which is (admitedly :-D) an improvement. And then the same people say: ho, ok, it's proven now, let's start to use.... 1.0!?!?!? But, admitedly, 1.0 was not good enough (clearly compared to 2.0) so why a new version give people confidence to use the previous (and inferior) version? When it's really the latest they should use... I ask that because I met a few people lately (having job interview) which basically wait for version 'x+2' of the framework to be confident to use version 'x+1'. While, basically, 'x+2' is a fix over 'x' and 'x+1' so it doesn't make much sense to use it as a clue to use 'x+1'. Do you see what I mean? How do you explain this behavior?!? (OK, maybe I made it up a bit, after all they have other reason such as: our customer base don't support this version of the framework, hence the question is more targeted to sys admin than to developers....)
Super Lloyd wrote:
Do you see what I mean? How do you explain this behavior?!?
OK I'll try. 2.0 is an improvement over 1.0, but it is still new. Remember the reason they didn't want to use 1.0 was NOT because it was inferior, but because it was unproven. By that same logic 2.0 is also unproven. The solution, obviously, is not to use any version of any software. But logically speaking, one justification for this kind of thinking is that 1.0 may be inferior but it has been out there for longer time, and its flaws are known. It might be better to deal with known issues than to worry about unknown ones I guess (for some people).