Is this common everywhere?
-
Well, this is one my first posts here in the Lounge... I just wanted to expose a situation I find very often. And rant a little. Oh well. First, a disclaimer: I am currently working as a software developer in a mostly-Linux shop. We develop and maintain mission-critical systems for telecommunications. Naturally, most of work is done in C++ using vi and emacs in remote terminals. So I have no problems working with either C++, Linux, Windows or C# (which is my personal favorite). For me it is just a question of working with different tools to get the job done. But the problem is: very often I find people who seems to be completely anti-Microsoft. They would refuse to use any Microsoft technology, and when questioned why, they would just reply: "Because it is from Microsoft". It would be OK if they said: "It didn't attend our needs", "It does not have feature X", or "we needed true platform independence" (which sometimes just isn't true, as platform independence is used only as a marketing feature). But the only reason I hear is that it was not even considered because "it was from Microsoft". How could that be? By the way, in one of the most prestigiated universities here, students are supposed to know Linux and only Linux. They aren't even allowed to be creative in their user interfaces, because most of the exercises are corrected by an automated system which simply pass things to the input of a student's program and waits for an expected output. It is like if Linux and open-source software were the only truth they would need in life. For me, this whole anti-Microsoft, pro-free software fanatism is just ridiculous. I use free and open-source software, but I also use commercial ones. I actually develop free and open-source software, but I also work on a commercial one. There are people out there who thinks anything that comes from a commercial corporation is evil and should be avoided at all costs, even if this implies using sub-optimal software just because it is "libre". I don't even dare anymore to explain why my preferred language is C# to those people. When they ask, they aren't really interested in the answer. They just get amused because, in their own closed mind, anything Microsoft must suck. So, does this happen in the rest of the world as well? How do you deal with it?
Interested in Machine Learning in .NET? Check the Accord.NET Framework. See also
César de Souza wrote:
So, does this happen in the rest of the world as well? How do you deal with it?
Yes, though I personally haven't met very many that don't at least grudgingly qualify their preference with something on the order of "for this particular task". If it's truly an unreasoned response, I laugh at them. Go ahead, be unprepared for a managerial/strategic shift. Better for me.
Currently reading: "A Desert Called Peace", by Tom Kratman
-
Well, this is one my first posts here in the Lounge... I just wanted to expose a situation I find very often. And rant a little. Oh well. First, a disclaimer: I am currently working as a software developer in a mostly-Linux shop. We develop and maintain mission-critical systems for telecommunications. Naturally, most of work is done in C++ using vi and emacs in remote terminals. So I have no problems working with either C++, Linux, Windows or C# (which is my personal favorite). For me it is just a question of working with different tools to get the job done. But the problem is: very often I find people who seems to be completely anti-Microsoft. They would refuse to use any Microsoft technology, and when questioned why, they would just reply: "Because it is from Microsoft". It would be OK if they said: "It didn't attend our needs", "It does not have feature X", or "we needed true platform independence" (which sometimes just isn't true, as platform independence is used only as a marketing feature). But the only reason I hear is that it was not even considered because "it was from Microsoft". How could that be? By the way, in one of the most prestigiated universities here, students are supposed to know Linux and only Linux. They aren't even allowed to be creative in their user interfaces, because most of the exercises are corrected by an automated system which simply pass things to the input of a student's program and waits for an expected output. It is like if Linux and open-source software were the only truth they would need in life. For me, this whole anti-Microsoft, pro-free software fanatism is just ridiculous. I use free and open-source software, but I also use commercial ones. I actually develop free and open-source software, but I also work on a commercial one. There are people out there who thinks anything that comes from a commercial corporation is evil and should be avoided at all costs, even if this implies using sub-optimal software just because it is "libre". I don't even dare anymore to explain why my preferred language is C# to those people. When they ask, they aren't really interested in the answer. They just get amused because, in their own closed mind, anything Microsoft must suck. So, does this happen in the rest of the world as well? How do you deal with it?
Interested in Machine Learning in .NET? Check the Accord.NET Framework. See also
It is common everywhere but it is human nature that it is Microsoft. I've been in this business for 28 years before there was a Microsoft and someone ALWAYS has an opinion about something whether it makes sense or not. Back in the day when most of us were programming in FORTRAN I had a friend who could not understand why we were not programming in PL/1 (his favorite language). Explanations as to why you were not using PL/1 fell on deaf ears. Anyway, I use Microsoft tools when the client is a Microsoft shop and whatever else I need to use for other clients. It is whatever gets the job done. Whenever the religious zealots espouse their opinions I give them a pitying look and move on.
-
Well, this is one my first posts here in the Lounge... I just wanted to expose a situation I find very often. And rant a little. Oh well. First, a disclaimer: I am currently working as a software developer in a mostly-Linux shop. We develop and maintain mission-critical systems for telecommunications. Naturally, most of work is done in C++ using vi and emacs in remote terminals. So I have no problems working with either C++, Linux, Windows or C# (which is my personal favorite). For me it is just a question of working with different tools to get the job done. But the problem is: very often I find people who seems to be completely anti-Microsoft. They would refuse to use any Microsoft technology, and when questioned why, they would just reply: "Because it is from Microsoft". It would be OK if they said: "It didn't attend our needs", "It does not have feature X", or "we needed true platform independence" (which sometimes just isn't true, as platform independence is used only as a marketing feature). But the only reason I hear is that it was not even considered because "it was from Microsoft". How could that be? By the way, in one of the most prestigiated universities here, students are supposed to know Linux and only Linux. They aren't even allowed to be creative in their user interfaces, because most of the exercises are corrected by an automated system which simply pass things to the input of a student's program and waits for an expected output. It is like if Linux and open-source software were the only truth they would need in life. For me, this whole anti-Microsoft, pro-free software fanatism is just ridiculous. I use free and open-source software, but I also use commercial ones. I actually develop free and open-source software, but I also work on a commercial one. There are people out there who thinks anything that comes from a commercial corporation is evil and should be avoided at all costs, even if this implies using sub-optimal software just because it is "libre". I don't even dare anymore to explain why my preferred language is C# to those people. When they ask, they aren't really interested in the answer. They just get amused because, in their own closed mind, anything Microsoft must suck. So, does this happen in the rest of the world as well? How do you deal with it?
Interested in Machine Learning in .NET? Check the Accord.NET Framework. See also
-
Well, this is one my first posts here in the Lounge... I just wanted to expose a situation I find very often. And rant a little. Oh well. First, a disclaimer: I am currently working as a software developer in a mostly-Linux shop. We develop and maintain mission-critical systems for telecommunications. Naturally, most of work is done in C++ using vi and emacs in remote terminals. So I have no problems working with either C++, Linux, Windows or C# (which is my personal favorite). For me it is just a question of working with different tools to get the job done. But the problem is: very often I find people who seems to be completely anti-Microsoft. They would refuse to use any Microsoft technology, and when questioned why, they would just reply: "Because it is from Microsoft". It would be OK if they said: "It didn't attend our needs", "It does not have feature X", or "we needed true platform independence" (which sometimes just isn't true, as platform independence is used only as a marketing feature). But the only reason I hear is that it was not even considered because "it was from Microsoft". How could that be? By the way, in one of the most prestigiated universities here, students are supposed to know Linux and only Linux. They aren't even allowed to be creative in their user interfaces, because most of the exercises are corrected by an automated system which simply pass things to the input of a student's program and waits for an expected output. It is like if Linux and open-source software were the only truth they would need in life. For me, this whole anti-Microsoft, pro-free software fanatism is just ridiculous. I use free and open-source software, but I also use commercial ones. I actually develop free and open-source software, but I also work on a commercial one. There are people out there who thinks anything that comes from a commercial corporation is evil and should be avoided at all costs, even if this implies using sub-optimal software just because it is "libre". I don't even dare anymore to explain why my preferred language is C# to those people. When they ask, they aren't really interested in the answer. They just get amused because, in their own closed mind, anything Microsoft must suck. So, does this happen in the rest of the world as well? How do you deal with it?
Interested in Machine Learning in .NET? Check the Accord.NET Framework. See also
It is a love and hate relationship with Microsoft. Its software is generally user friendly and easy to learn or to support. But they seem to have some fundamental issues that can't be resolved. Taking the Windows operating system as an example, it always takes too long to start and to shut down. This is the most important reason that many people in my corp switched to Mac. In terms of servers, I never see an IIS server running for a month without a reboot at least in my company.
TOMZ_KV
-
Well, this is one my first posts here in the Lounge... I just wanted to expose a situation I find very often. And rant a little. Oh well. First, a disclaimer: I am currently working as a software developer in a mostly-Linux shop. We develop and maintain mission-critical systems for telecommunications. Naturally, most of work is done in C++ using vi and emacs in remote terminals. So I have no problems working with either C++, Linux, Windows or C# (which is my personal favorite). For me it is just a question of working with different tools to get the job done. But the problem is: very often I find people who seems to be completely anti-Microsoft. They would refuse to use any Microsoft technology, and when questioned why, they would just reply: "Because it is from Microsoft". It would be OK if they said: "It didn't attend our needs", "It does not have feature X", or "we needed true platform independence" (which sometimes just isn't true, as platform independence is used only as a marketing feature). But the only reason I hear is that it was not even considered because "it was from Microsoft". How could that be? By the way, in one of the most prestigiated universities here, students are supposed to know Linux and only Linux. They aren't even allowed to be creative in their user interfaces, because most of the exercises are corrected by an automated system which simply pass things to the input of a student's program and waits for an expected output. It is like if Linux and open-source software were the only truth they would need in life. For me, this whole anti-Microsoft, pro-free software fanatism is just ridiculous. I use free and open-source software, but I also use commercial ones. I actually develop free and open-source software, but I also work on a commercial one. There are people out there who thinks anything that comes from a commercial corporation is evil and should be avoided at all costs, even if this implies using sub-optimal software just because it is "libre". I don't even dare anymore to explain why my preferred language is C# to those people. When they ask, they aren't really interested in the answer. They just get amused because, in their own closed mind, anything Microsoft must suck. So, does this happen in the rest of the world as well? How do you deal with it?
Interested in Machine Learning in .NET? Check the Accord.NET Framework. See also
Absolutely, I agree, you know I'm a Microsoft shop not because I can't learn other things or because I'm a MS fanatic (that in part I should but not too much, I can be a critic too), it is because it offers the enough support for developers than anyone out there (in my opinion) and because specializing I can offer added knowledge value and be ahead of competition. And yes I face anti-Microsoft practices everyday while looking for a project there are people who just don't know enough about technology and what you can do with it, there are people open minded who are willing to listen options but there are others that simply won't because you are saying Microsoft. The way I deal with it is presenting real world software that was made using MS technology, and when they see something they didn't see before they say wow I want that :)
-
Well, this is one my first posts here in the Lounge... I just wanted to expose a situation I find very often. And rant a little. Oh well. First, a disclaimer: I am currently working as a software developer in a mostly-Linux shop. We develop and maintain mission-critical systems for telecommunications. Naturally, most of work is done in C++ using vi and emacs in remote terminals. So I have no problems working with either C++, Linux, Windows or C# (which is my personal favorite). For me it is just a question of working with different tools to get the job done. But the problem is: very often I find people who seems to be completely anti-Microsoft. They would refuse to use any Microsoft technology, and when questioned why, they would just reply: "Because it is from Microsoft". It would be OK if they said: "It didn't attend our needs", "It does not have feature X", or "we needed true platform independence" (which sometimes just isn't true, as platform independence is used only as a marketing feature). But the only reason I hear is that it was not even considered because "it was from Microsoft". How could that be? By the way, in one of the most prestigiated universities here, students are supposed to know Linux and only Linux. They aren't even allowed to be creative in their user interfaces, because most of the exercises are corrected by an automated system which simply pass things to the input of a student's program and waits for an expected output. It is like if Linux and open-source software were the only truth they would need in life. For me, this whole anti-Microsoft, pro-free software fanatism is just ridiculous. I use free and open-source software, but I also use commercial ones. I actually develop free and open-source software, but I also work on a commercial one. There are people out there who thinks anything that comes from a commercial corporation is evil and should be avoided at all costs, even if this implies using sub-optimal software just because it is "libre". I don't even dare anymore to explain why my preferred language is C# to those people. When they ask, they aren't really interested in the answer. They just get amused because, in their own closed mind, anything Microsoft must suck. So, does this happen in the rest of the world as well? How do you deal with it?
Interested in Machine Learning in .NET? Check the Accord.NET Framework. See also
I am a Microsoft developer, and have been for 15 years because MS have always made it easy for me to do my job - develop great apps within a familiar environment, while enabling other developers to understand my work and get the support I need, when I need it. I have always found myself in extremely high demand especially in the larger corps such as banking in London. I, along with collegues like our systems running on MS solutions as they are the best all-in-one for what we need. .net offers a forced, high standard model of programming. How to deal with it: learn another programming language and earn less money and implement solutions that cost less or move on and earn more money, providing better solutions where you are appreciated as an MS developer. I believe the anti-MS thing is for those who can't afford MS, you pay for what you get in this world, they don't know what they are missing.
-
Well, this is one my first posts here in the Lounge... I just wanted to expose a situation I find very often. And rant a little. Oh well. First, a disclaimer: I am currently working as a software developer in a mostly-Linux shop. We develop and maintain mission-critical systems for telecommunications. Naturally, most of work is done in C++ using vi and emacs in remote terminals. So I have no problems working with either C++, Linux, Windows or C# (which is my personal favorite). For me it is just a question of working with different tools to get the job done. But the problem is: very often I find people who seems to be completely anti-Microsoft. They would refuse to use any Microsoft technology, and when questioned why, they would just reply: "Because it is from Microsoft". It would be OK if they said: "It didn't attend our needs", "It does not have feature X", or "we needed true platform independence" (which sometimes just isn't true, as platform independence is used only as a marketing feature). But the only reason I hear is that it was not even considered because "it was from Microsoft". How could that be? By the way, in one of the most prestigiated universities here, students are supposed to know Linux and only Linux. They aren't even allowed to be creative in their user interfaces, because most of the exercises are corrected by an automated system which simply pass things to the input of a student's program and waits for an expected output. It is like if Linux and open-source software were the only truth they would need in life. For me, this whole anti-Microsoft, pro-free software fanatism is just ridiculous. I use free and open-source software, but I also use commercial ones. I actually develop free and open-source software, but I also work on a commercial one. There are people out there who thinks anything that comes from a commercial corporation is evil and should be avoided at all costs, even if this implies using sub-optimal software just because it is "libre". I don't even dare anymore to explain why my preferred language is C# to those people. When they ask, they aren't really interested in the answer. They just get amused because, in their own closed mind, anything Microsoft must suck. So, does this happen in the rest of the world as well? How do you deal with it?
Interested in Machine Learning in .NET? Check the Accord.NET Framework. See also
Most people who are passionate about open-source environments tend to dislike Microsoft products. However, that doesn't make these products any better or worse than what open-source proponents use. I am a senior software engineer and I have been using Microsoft products since the early 1990s and I enjoy using them. However, I have an interest in using corresponding products on the Linux platform if I had the time; especially with the Mono Project. That being said, most open-source products are not all that good and very poorly documented. However, there are quite a few very mature and excellent open-source products that I would not hesitate to use if I had the chance. The people deeply involved in the open-source community are in many ways nothing more than ideologues with very narrow mind-sets. You find this in the Microsoft community as well. However, the difference is that with Microsoft, as a professional developer, you are there to earn a living and rarely have time to work for free. The open-source community was built by academics and young technicians who did\do not have the responsibilities that older professionals have so it is quite easy for them to disregard anything that they do not see as "pure" or built with their specific concerns in mind. As to the promotion of working at a more natural or detailed level than Microsoft products provide for, this is complete nonsense. As professional developers we are not in the business to waste time working with low-level details in order to satisfy our "inner selves". However, even with Microsoft developers you will find similar attitudes as with the proponents of the new ASP.NET MVC development model who only believe that building RESTful applications is the proper way to create web-based applications. Technologically they are correct. However, the real world is not interested in the correctness of a technology solution but that it get implemented. Microsoft professionals do what we do because we enjoy it and want to earn a living building applications and components not fiddle with how best to create a layout; most of which does little to increase the performance or smoothness of an application's processing. The attitudes of those in the open-source community that seem to scoff at such levels of work never had to build large-scale applications under tight-deadlines while under contract. If they had they would never promote such nonsense and would be looking for ways to make their jobs easier just as we Microsoft developers often do
-
Well, this is one my first posts here in the Lounge... I just wanted to expose a situation I find very often. And rant a little. Oh well. First, a disclaimer: I am currently working as a software developer in a mostly-Linux shop. We develop and maintain mission-critical systems for telecommunications. Naturally, most of work is done in C++ using vi and emacs in remote terminals. So I have no problems working with either C++, Linux, Windows or C# (which is my personal favorite). For me it is just a question of working with different tools to get the job done. But the problem is: very often I find people who seems to be completely anti-Microsoft. They would refuse to use any Microsoft technology, and when questioned why, they would just reply: "Because it is from Microsoft". It would be OK if they said: "It didn't attend our needs", "It does not have feature X", or "we needed true platform independence" (which sometimes just isn't true, as platform independence is used only as a marketing feature). But the only reason I hear is that it was not even considered because "it was from Microsoft". How could that be? By the way, in one of the most prestigiated universities here, students are supposed to know Linux and only Linux. They aren't even allowed to be creative in their user interfaces, because most of the exercises are corrected by an automated system which simply pass things to the input of a student's program and waits for an expected output. It is like if Linux and open-source software were the only truth they would need in life. For me, this whole anti-Microsoft, pro-free software fanatism is just ridiculous. I use free and open-source software, but I also use commercial ones. I actually develop free and open-source software, but I also work on a commercial one. There are people out there who thinks anything that comes from a commercial corporation is evil and should be avoided at all costs, even if this implies using sub-optimal software just because it is "libre". I don't even dare anymore to explain why my preferred language is C# to those people. When they ask, they aren't really interested in the answer. They just get amused because, in their own closed mind, anything Microsoft must suck. So, does this happen in the rest of the world as well? How do you deal with it?
Interested in Machine Learning in .NET? Check the Accord.NET Framework. See also
The hate for Micro$oft started that dark day when Gates accused all of us of being pirates (him selling of $4 of papertape for $400 was not piracy, but good business sense). It picked up speed when he branched out into OSes (that he bought from someone else for a song). Then it really became disgust as Windows running on top of DOS would check to see whose OS it was running on and in an incredible display of FUD would pop up the dialog box saying that running Windows on an OS other than MS-DOS could make it unstable. As though it was the fault of the OS that Windows was unstable... The years we had to suffer with the one line editor EDLIN did not end until Digital Research added a full screen editor to their DOS and finally forced Bill to spend some time and money upgrading their product. Followed by the days of WINTEL, when processes were made as inefficient as possible to force the sale of faster processors and more memory, which iterated until today. Standards? We don't need no stinkin' standards! We are the standard! And so began "Embrace, Expand, Extinguish" as the mindset for corporate dominance. I'll admit I like the dotNet environment, but it has taken them far too long to finally figure out how to write programs.
Psychosis at 10 Film at 11
-
Most people who are passionate about open-source environments tend to dislike Microsoft products. However, that doesn't make these products any better or worse than what open-source proponents use. I am a senior software engineer and I have been using Microsoft products since the early 1990s and I enjoy using them. However, I have an interest in using corresponding products on the Linux platform if I had the time; especially with the Mono Project. That being said, most open-source products are not all that good and very poorly documented. However, there are quite a few very mature and excellent open-source products that I would not hesitate to use if I had the chance. The people deeply involved in the open-source community are in many ways nothing more than ideologues with very narrow mind-sets. You find this in the Microsoft community as well. However, the difference is that with Microsoft, as a professional developer, you are there to earn a living and rarely have time to work for free. The open-source community was built by academics and young technicians who did\do not have the responsibilities that older professionals have so it is quite easy for them to disregard anything that they do not see as "pure" or built with their specific concerns in mind. As to the promotion of working at a more natural or detailed level than Microsoft products provide for, this is complete nonsense. As professional developers we are not in the business to waste time working with low-level details in order to satisfy our "inner selves". However, even with Microsoft developers you will find similar attitudes as with the proponents of the new ASP.NET MVC development model who only believe that building RESTful applications is the proper way to create web-based applications. Technologically they are correct. However, the real world is not interested in the correctness of a technology solution but that it get implemented. Microsoft professionals do what we do because we enjoy it and want to earn a living building applications and components not fiddle with how best to create a layout; most of which does little to increase the performance or smoothness of an application's processing. The attitudes of those in the open-source community that seem to scoff at such levels of work never had to build large-scale applications under tight-deadlines while under contract. If they had they would never promote such nonsense and would be looking for ways to make their jobs easier just as we Microsoft developers often do
Just another point, every time I try and use open source software to develop an app, I end up having to pay more than if I had developed it in MS platform to remove e.g. the open source logo or license it for my web-app. On multiple occasions open source has made my life difficult/more expensive in this respect. The open source software I use always seems to get bought out by a larger software company. MS seems to me to be the only platform that I can provide a business-class solution without any comebacks like this.
-
The hate for Micro$oft started that dark day when Gates accused all of us of being pirates (him selling of $4 of papertape for $400 was not piracy, but good business sense). It picked up speed when he branched out into OSes (that he bought from someone else for a song). Then it really became disgust as Windows running on top of DOS would check to see whose OS it was running on and in an incredible display of FUD would pop up the dialog box saying that running Windows on an OS other than MS-DOS could make it unstable. As though it was the fault of the OS that Windows was unstable... The years we had to suffer with the one line editor EDLIN did not end until Digital Research added a full screen editor to their DOS and finally forced Bill to spend some time and money upgrading their product. Followed by the days of WINTEL, when processes were made as inefficient as possible to force the sale of faster processors and more memory, which iterated until today. Standards? We don't need no stinkin' standards! We are the standard! And so began "Embrace, Expand, Extinguish" as the mindset for corporate dominance. I'll admit I like the dotNet environment, but it has taken them far too long to finally figure out how to write programs.
Psychosis at 10 Film at 11
He then donated a large-fortune to charity. Happy birthday Bill!
-
Well, this is one my first posts here in the Lounge... I just wanted to expose a situation I find very often. And rant a little. Oh well. First, a disclaimer: I am currently working as a software developer in a mostly-Linux shop. We develop and maintain mission-critical systems for telecommunications. Naturally, most of work is done in C++ using vi and emacs in remote terminals. So I have no problems working with either C++, Linux, Windows or C# (which is my personal favorite). For me it is just a question of working with different tools to get the job done. But the problem is: very often I find people who seems to be completely anti-Microsoft. They would refuse to use any Microsoft technology, and when questioned why, they would just reply: "Because it is from Microsoft". It would be OK if they said: "It didn't attend our needs", "It does not have feature X", or "we needed true platform independence" (which sometimes just isn't true, as platform independence is used only as a marketing feature). But the only reason I hear is that it was not even considered because "it was from Microsoft". How could that be? By the way, in one of the most prestigiated universities here, students are supposed to know Linux and only Linux. They aren't even allowed to be creative in their user interfaces, because most of the exercises are corrected by an automated system which simply pass things to the input of a student's program and waits for an expected output. It is like if Linux and open-source software were the only truth they would need in life. For me, this whole anti-Microsoft, pro-free software fanatism is just ridiculous. I use free and open-source software, but I also use commercial ones. I actually develop free and open-source software, but I also work on a commercial one. There are people out there who thinks anything that comes from a commercial corporation is evil and should be avoided at all costs, even if this implies using sub-optimal software just because it is "libre". I don't even dare anymore to explain why my preferred language is C# to those people. When they ask, they aren't really interested in the answer. They just get amused because, in their own closed mind, anything Microsoft must suck. So, does this happen in the rest of the world as well? How do you deal with it?
Interested in Machine Learning in .NET? Check the Accord.NET Framework. See also
Hi I've read your article and know exactly what you are talking about. I too was once like you and wondered what everyone had against Microsoft and then I found out and build some resentments myself. In my expierience they forced me to go over to Windows 7 from Ms Vista. One day my Vista was working fine the next it was buggered... and not how, though installing a automatic update which is suppose to fix known vista bugs not break it into complete oblivion. I payed for Windows 7 and feel that I should have gotton my money back for a excuse of a operating system called vista. Bottom line is that they have a way of manipulating/control/forcing you into spending a whole lot of money on buying their products. Having said all this I still use Microsoft products however wouldn't mind watching them go down. O to answer your question, here is South Africa its also common and rightfully so. Regard,
-
Well, this is one my first posts here in the Lounge... I just wanted to expose a situation I find very often. And rant a little. Oh well. First, a disclaimer: I am currently working as a software developer in a mostly-Linux shop. We develop and maintain mission-critical systems for telecommunications. Naturally, most of work is done in C++ using vi and emacs in remote terminals. So I have no problems working with either C++, Linux, Windows or C# (which is my personal favorite). For me it is just a question of working with different tools to get the job done. But the problem is: very often I find people who seems to be completely anti-Microsoft. They would refuse to use any Microsoft technology, and when questioned why, they would just reply: "Because it is from Microsoft". It would be OK if they said: "It didn't attend our needs", "It does not have feature X", or "we needed true platform independence" (which sometimes just isn't true, as platform independence is used only as a marketing feature). But the only reason I hear is that it was not even considered because "it was from Microsoft". How could that be? By the way, in one of the most prestigiated universities here, students are supposed to know Linux and only Linux. They aren't even allowed to be creative in their user interfaces, because most of the exercises are corrected by an automated system which simply pass things to the input of a student's program and waits for an expected output. It is like if Linux and open-source software were the only truth they would need in life. For me, this whole anti-Microsoft, pro-free software fanatism is just ridiculous. I use free and open-source software, but I also use commercial ones. I actually develop free and open-source software, but I also work on a commercial one. There are people out there who thinks anything that comes from a commercial corporation is evil and should be avoided at all costs, even if this implies using sub-optimal software just because it is "libre". I don't even dare anymore to explain why my preferred language is C# to those people. When they ask, they aren't really interested in the answer. They just get amused because, in their own closed mind, anything Microsoft must suck. So, does this happen in the rest of the world as well? How do you deal with it?
Interested in Machine Learning in .NET? Check the Accord.NET Framework. See also
Be careful. Be afraid. Eventually you will write one too many utilities in C++ (native) and will then be asked to supply the code to one of the other programmers and the word gets out: "old guy!, obsolete skillz". And then you might create something in C# and some company your firm is working with needs that code to port to Linux and the word gets out: "Dude's a Microshiz tool". I could go on all day. This is another form of religion. Be careful. You will be judged by your peers unmercifully. You could be replaced because of whoever gets whatever tech you applied! arrrgh!
Do we weigh less at high tide?
-
Well, this is one my first posts here in the Lounge... I just wanted to expose a situation I find very often. And rant a little. Oh well. First, a disclaimer: I am currently working as a software developer in a mostly-Linux shop. We develop and maintain mission-critical systems for telecommunications. Naturally, most of work is done in C++ using vi and emacs in remote terminals. So I have no problems working with either C++, Linux, Windows or C# (which is my personal favorite). For me it is just a question of working with different tools to get the job done. But the problem is: very often I find people who seems to be completely anti-Microsoft. They would refuse to use any Microsoft technology, and when questioned why, they would just reply: "Because it is from Microsoft". It would be OK if they said: "It didn't attend our needs", "It does not have feature X", or "we needed true platform independence" (which sometimes just isn't true, as platform independence is used only as a marketing feature). But the only reason I hear is that it was not even considered because "it was from Microsoft". How could that be? By the way, in one of the most prestigiated universities here, students are supposed to know Linux and only Linux. They aren't even allowed to be creative in their user interfaces, because most of the exercises are corrected by an automated system which simply pass things to the input of a student's program and waits for an expected output. It is like if Linux and open-source software were the only truth they would need in life. For me, this whole anti-Microsoft, pro-free software fanatism is just ridiculous. I use free and open-source software, but I also use commercial ones. I actually develop free and open-source software, but I also work on a commercial one. There are people out there who thinks anything that comes from a commercial corporation is evil and should be avoided at all costs, even if this implies using sub-optimal software just because it is "libre". I don't even dare anymore to explain why my preferred language is C# to those people. When they ask, they aren't really interested in the answer. They just get amused because, in their own closed mind, anything Microsoft must suck. So, does this happen in the rest of the world as well? How do you deal with it?
Interested in Machine Learning in .NET? Check the Accord.NET Framework. See also
Unfortunately it is common everywhere. It is especially hypocritical when it comes from a Mac user, when that is the most closed platform out there. If the Mac platform 'won', and became dominant, 90% of hardware companies would be out of business! But, Linus Torvalds (yes, THAT Linus Torvalds) does not agree with the haters...just Google "Microsoft Hatred is a Disease". (Or, Google it with Bing!) The biggest issue is that many of the most vehement MS-haters haven't even touched the platform in 10 years, so they really have no place to talk about it. Microsoft have changed a lot just over the past few years, opening up, listening to the community, even releasing a lot of open source code. They have been slowly giving the detractors some of what they want...but it still doesn't make them happy. Nothing ever will. They are so completely closed minded. Isn't that amazing that these 'open-source, free-software' people are more closed minded than the Microsoft users? I mean, I am more than happy to use Linux (all my computers are dual-boot) and Ruby on Rails, or whatever, and try out all sorts of things in addition to coding in .Net and the MS platform. But these supposedly 'open' people have no interest in expanding their experience, and keep to a singular path. .Net 4 rocks. The MVC framework is a thing of beauty (in my opinion). But I'm also coding in Ruby, Python, Java, trying to learn new things all the time. I don't understand closed-mindedness on either side of the equation.
We live in a world operated by science and technology. We have also arranged things so that almost no one understands science and technology. This is a prescription for disaster. We might get away with it for a while, but sooner or later this combustible mixture of ignorance and power is going to blow up in our faces. --Carl Sagan
-
Well, this is one my first posts here in the Lounge... I just wanted to expose a situation I find very often. And rant a little. Oh well. First, a disclaimer: I am currently working as a software developer in a mostly-Linux shop. We develop and maintain mission-critical systems for telecommunications. Naturally, most of work is done in C++ using vi and emacs in remote terminals. So I have no problems working with either C++, Linux, Windows or C# (which is my personal favorite). For me it is just a question of working with different tools to get the job done. But the problem is: very often I find people who seems to be completely anti-Microsoft. They would refuse to use any Microsoft technology, and when questioned why, they would just reply: "Because it is from Microsoft". It would be OK if they said: "It didn't attend our needs", "It does not have feature X", or "we needed true platform independence" (which sometimes just isn't true, as platform independence is used only as a marketing feature). But the only reason I hear is that it was not even considered because "it was from Microsoft". How could that be? By the way, in one of the most prestigiated universities here, students are supposed to know Linux and only Linux. They aren't even allowed to be creative in their user interfaces, because most of the exercises are corrected by an automated system which simply pass things to the input of a student's program and waits for an expected output. It is like if Linux and open-source software were the only truth they would need in life. For me, this whole anti-Microsoft, pro-free software fanatism is just ridiculous. I use free and open-source software, but I also use commercial ones. I actually develop free and open-source software, but I also work on a commercial one. There are people out there who thinks anything that comes from a commercial corporation is evil and should be avoided at all costs, even if this implies using sub-optimal software just because it is "libre". I don't even dare anymore to explain why my preferred language is C# to those people. When they ask, they aren't really interested in the answer. They just get amused because, in their own closed mind, anything Microsoft must suck. So, does this happen in the rest of the world as well? How do you deal with it?
Interested in Machine Learning in .NET? Check the Accord.NET Framework. See also
The only excuse you need for using whatever technology you are using is because you like it. Don't let those who make a technology choice a religion get to you. Those people are boring, vain, and almost never buy ya lunch. They argue and are pushy because they are afraid. Same holds true for politics and it applies equally well to the "less filling/tastes great" debate.
-
I am a Microsoft developer, and have been for 15 years because MS have always made it easy for me to do my job - develop great apps within a familiar environment, while enabling other developers to understand my work and get the support I need, when I need it. I have always found myself in extremely high demand especially in the larger corps such as banking in London. I, along with collegues like our systems running on MS solutions as they are the best all-in-one for what we need. .net offers a forced, high standard model of programming. How to deal with it: learn another programming language and earn less money and implement solutions that cost less or move on and earn more money, providing better solutions where you are appreciated as an MS developer. I believe the anti-MS thing is for those who can't afford MS, you pay for what you get in this world, they don't know what they are missing.
Westley Cooper-Thorn wrote:
I believe the anti-MS thing is for those who can't afford MS, you pay for what you get in this world, they don't know what they are missing.
Concur. I've been developing with MS technology since about 1981 when the original IBM PC came out. I've looked at some of the "open source" software development offerings. After using Visual Studio I just couldn't take that kind of step backwards. I don't lose any sleep over this issue. The code I write can run on at-least 90% of the machines out there. Why waste time with another platform? Yes, it costs money to "tool up" when working with Microsoft technology. So what? Try becoming a real professional in any major field and expect to find "free" tools. Yeah, right - I'm going to go to a doctor that uses "open source" (I.E. 'Free') tools. OK Linux fanbois ... start flaming! -Max :D
-
Well, this is one my first posts here in the Lounge... I just wanted to expose a situation I find very often. And rant a little. Oh well. First, a disclaimer: I am currently working as a software developer in a mostly-Linux shop. We develop and maintain mission-critical systems for telecommunications. Naturally, most of work is done in C++ using vi and emacs in remote terminals. So I have no problems working with either C++, Linux, Windows or C# (which is my personal favorite). For me it is just a question of working with different tools to get the job done. But the problem is: very often I find people who seems to be completely anti-Microsoft. They would refuse to use any Microsoft technology, and when questioned why, they would just reply: "Because it is from Microsoft". It would be OK if they said: "It didn't attend our needs", "It does not have feature X", or "we needed true platform independence" (which sometimes just isn't true, as platform independence is used only as a marketing feature). But the only reason I hear is that it was not even considered because "it was from Microsoft". How could that be? By the way, in one of the most prestigiated universities here, students are supposed to know Linux and only Linux. They aren't even allowed to be creative in their user interfaces, because most of the exercises are corrected by an automated system which simply pass things to the input of a student's program and waits for an expected output. It is like if Linux and open-source software were the only truth they would need in life. For me, this whole anti-Microsoft, pro-free software fanatism is just ridiculous. I use free and open-source software, but I also use commercial ones. I actually develop free and open-source software, but I also work on a commercial one. There are people out there who thinks anything that comes from a commercial corporation is evil and should be avoided at all costs, even if this implies using sub-optimal software just because it is "libre". I don't even dare anymore to explain why my preferred language is C# to those people. When they ask, they aren't really interested in the answer. They just get amused because, in their own closed mind, anything Microsoft must suck. So, does this happen in the rest of the world as well? How do you deal with it?
Interested in Machine Learning in .NET? Check the Accord.NET Framework. See also
Because there was a time, 10 years ago or so, when hating Microsoft was trendy and all the cool kids did it. These are the same ones that hate Microsoft now. They just don't realize it isn't cool anymore. Microsoft has some GREAT products, great tools. And if they don't use them because they are from "Microsoft", then it doesn't say much about them. I don't hate anything I haven't used, and used it enough to know it good enough. That's just blind hate, "just because". I wouldn't listen to any of their advice, their opinions would have no merit. They have nothing to back up their claims... That said, there are times when I choose Linux and other open source projects because they are the right TOOL for the job. It's like saying you don't like Craftsman because they are Sears, you'll only buy Mac or Snap-On (ok, bad analogy... Snap-On and Mac are superior). Same screwdriver, gets the same job done.
-
Unfortunately it is common everywhere. It is especially hypocritical when it comes from a Mac user, when that is the most closed platform out there. If the Mac platform 'won', and became dominant, 90% of hardware companies would be out of business! But, Linus Torvalds (yes, THAT Linus Torvalds) does not agree with the haters...just Google "Microsoft Hatred is a Disease". (Or, Google it with Bing!) The biggest issue is that many of the most vehement MS-haters haven't even touched the platform in 10 years, so they really have no place to talk about it. Microsoft have changed a lot just over the past few years, opening up, listening to the community, even releasing a lot of open source code. They have been slowly giving the detractors some of what they want...but it still doesn't make them happy. Nothing ever will. They are so completely closed minded. Isn't that amazing that these 'open-source, free-software' people are more closed minded than the Microsoft users? I mean, I am more than happy to use Linux (all my computers are dual-boot) and Ruby on Rails, or whatever, and try out all sorts of things in addition to coding in .Net and the MS platform. But these supposedly 'open' people have no interest in expanding their experience, and keep to a singular path. .Net 4 rocks. The MVC framework is a thing of beauty (in my opinion). But I'm also coding in Ruby, Python, Java, trying to learn new things all the time. I don't understand closed-mindedness on either side of the equation.
We live in a world operated by science and technology. We have also arranged things so that almost no one understands science and technology. This is a prescription for disaster. We might get away with it for a while, but sooner or later this combustible mixture of ignorance and power is going to blow up in our faces. --Carl Sagan
Alexander DiMauro wrote:
Isn't that amazing that these 'open-source, free-software' people are more closed minded than the Microsoft users? I mean, I am more than happy to use Linux (all my computers are dual-boot) and Ruby on Rails, or whatever, and try out all sorts of things in addition to coding in .Net and the MS platform. But these supposedly 'open' people have no interest in expanding their experience, and keep to a singular path.
Thanks. This is exactly what I meant.
Interested in Machine Learning in .NET? Check the Accord.NET Framework. See also Handwriting Recognition Revisited: Kernel Support Vector Machines
-
Your description of university is exactly how mine was here in the US. I once got a 0 on a major project because I accidentally and subconsciously corrected a spelling error in the expected primary output. Needless to say, I chose not to remain at that institution. I got an internship in the private sector doing .NET development and was woefully unprepared. It was awesome! Fortunately they were patient with me and I'm much better off now. :)
My question is this: why is there still such a disconnect between the academic world and the professional world? I work with C# and .NET all day long. That's not to say I love .NET all of the time, but it does get the job done quite often. It puts food on the table for my family. I've taken CS classes at two different universities. One university focused more on the practical and business side of programming. The other was very academic. I understand the importance of learning assembly and other such topics in academics, but the "software development" class I took was so mathematical and so far away from anything I ever do in the professional world. I say that because I was working full-time doing development while taking this class. Why haven't some CS departments put more focus on the professional aspect of development?
-
It is common everywhere but it is human nature that it is Microsoft. I've been in this business for 28 years before there was a Microsoft and someone ALWAYS has an opinion about something whether it makes sense or not. Back in the day when most of us were programming in FORTRAN I had a friend who could not understand why we were not programming in PL/1 (his favorite language). Explanations as to why you were not using PL/1 fell on deaf ears. Anyway, I use Microsoft tools when the client is a Microsoft shop and whatever else I need to use for other clients. It is whatever gets the job done. Whenever the religious zealots espouse their opinions I give them a pitying look and move on.
swmiller wrote:
Whenever the religious zealots espouse their opinions I give them a pitying look and move on.
You nailed it. Many people seem to "self-brainwash" and come to embrace a certain notion regardless of facts that contradict what they believe. Same with environmental fanatics, religious fanatics, political fanatics, so on and so forth.
Everybody SHUT UP until I finish my coffee...
-
And there is a good reason. Although, many of their tools and technologies are great most are designed with a technician and a 2 year life-cycle in mind. ADO.NET and data readers solved most business software problems related to database handling. Yet, since 2001, how many technologies have spewed forth and how many, "frameworks" have leapt off the page to make this trivial concept easier? Worse, how many are no longer supported or in favor? Students need to learn the fundamental concepts of how to develop, not which button to click. Systems need to be maintainable 10 years down the road. MS isn't stupid; they provide both but the anti-MS crowd, for good reason, see the technician half and frown.
Need custom software developed? I do custom programming based primarily on MS tools with an emphasis on C# development and consulting. I also do Android Programming as I find it a refreshing break from the MS. "And they, since they Were not the one dead, turned to their affairs" -- Robert Frost
yet, your own signature indicates that you do 'custom software development based primarily on MS Tools with an emphasis on C# Development and consulting'. as spock would say...fascinating...