Random Thoughts
Random Thoughts
Clark Scott does not like open source software. He states the following in this post:
“Does open source help our industry? I don't believe it does.
In fact, I believe that it cheapens our value as software developers, makes shareware development and running ISV's even more difficult.
It also means that there are less ISV's and less independent software developers.
The logic of Open source is erroneous because it creates less competition and more software ownership by large companies.”
First, starting in reverse order, to say “Open source is erroneous because it creates less competition” is wrong. In reality, the opposite effect is occurring. Open source is forcing more competition not only between the Linux/Novell world (Novell’s recent purchase of SuSE Linux), but also between those worlds and Microsoft. Microsoft’s Longhorn is going to be an incredible OS. The pre-releases of the OS are impressive already. Competition has motivated them to produce a better product. When you’re the only kid on the block, you just compete with yourself. That is neither fun nor productive.
Visual Studio.NET and the .NET Framework is the best development environment I have ever worked in. Hands down, flat out, the absolute best. It has its quirks sometimes, but so does every software product. It became this incredible product not only because of the bright developers building the environment, but also because of Java and its portability between Windows, Linux, etc. Competition was one of the driving forces behind the .NET initiative. Build the best product, and build it better than the competition. Remember the Petstore benchmarks?
Microsoft SQL 2000 is a very good database. I prefer it to Oracle. It is easier to use, and more enjoyable too (opinions are subjective). But Microsoft is not stopping there. They have competition from Oracle, MySQL, and many other database products. Microsoft Yukon is going to be a very powerful database. Embedded CLR, Reporting Services, etc. Microsoft is building a better database, a more innovative product, because of the competition from other companies. Competition is an all around good thing regardless if it is Open Source or non-Open Source.
Second, Open Source does not cheapen the developer. Widespread use of Open Source software is as inevitable as sunrises, sunsets, taxes, and the dependability of a Chevy (also subjective). The quality of Open Source software will improve as well. Being able to bridge the divide in the future will make the developer stand out. Go-mono.org for example, is making .NET portable to Linux and other platforms via the CLI. Companies will and are running Linux/Open Source products along side Microsoft Windows.
It really all boils down to the quality of the product and the quality of the developer. If your product is lousy, it will not sell. Consumers will go elsewhere for their software needs. If you’re a bad developer with bad coding practices, you’re probably not going to be employed very long, and most certainly not with a reputable software development firm. Competition is the driving force behind innovative software development and quality products in general. If I were the only software developer on the planet and had no one to compete with, what would motive me? To be the best? If I’m the only one, I would be the best by default. Then having no need to build more innovative products because of competition, I would only innovate out of necessity and build only to the lowest standards.
Please do not make a generalization because of one bad experience. If I accidentally walk into a telephone pole and get hurt, I’m not going to stop walking. I will be more aware next time.
Additional comments that relate to this topic:
The comments in this post:
http://dotnetjunkies.com/weblog/markdigiovanni/posts/3487.aspx
and the references in this post, specifically the last paragraph:
http://dotnetjunkies.com/weblog/markdigiovanni/posts/3574.aspx
Paschal asks What about other .NET languages? I have my own thoughts on C# and VB.NET. But to extend his question, I would ask is having them a good thing in the first place?
Scenario:
Suppose a company, perhaps a government department or a government contractor has a staff of COBOL developers supporting the mainframe (I know of some that still do), but the *young* blood has a .NET initiative (they have seen the light) that needs to be manned with no funding available for outside consultants, new employees, etc.
By using COBOL.NET for a piece of the application, you can leverage the talents of the more *seasoned* developers and lessen the learning curve.
Yes there is still OOP to consider and you cannot just say “well I know COBOL so I should automatically be productive in COBOL.NET and therefore the .NET platform.” This is not the case when transitioning from VB to VB.NET, and it’s not the case when transitioning to .NET through other languages either.
Making the transition to the .NET platform via C# was easier for me than VB.NET. I had to change my approach to the way I write code. You cannot just map old language habits to .NET. This assumption is partly the cause for .NET getting a bad name. Low quality consultants are being marketed as .NET experts after only three months of experience; I saw this happening firsthand. When the application does not perform to expectations because of poorly written code, .NET gets the blame (a blog for another time).
There are a lot of *antique* developers out there that think .NET is just a new syntax for their favorite language. Switching to .NET is a paradigm shift. It’s a new way of developing. Some say Java has had this type of framework for years, and .NET cannot hold a candle to J2EE. I'll let the Petstore benchmark fight that fight.
The above company can now begin to focus on an organization wide framework to build upon. This framework can be utilized by all the departments, unifying the company infrastructure. This will allow the *antiques*, the *young* blood, and everyone in between to get on board with a unified development environment. This would increase code reuse between departments which is normally difficult to accomplish, and it would decrease development time of future initiatives regardless of the language used. Its all about the runtime.
So having these other languages under the .NET umbrella is a good thing.
This may be a maintenance nightmare later on, but for the above scenario, it is acceptable.
Quote taken from Microsoft, EU square off behind closed doors , Reuters.
Michael Hausfeld, who has brought U.S. class actions against Microsoft on behalf of consumers, said he will show a videotaped deposition of Microsoft Chief Executive Steve Ballmer to illustrate the company's culture.
"We asked him (Ballmer)--this is after Microsoft has undergone four investigations and one trial (on) two continents--if he has any understanding of the word monopoly," Hausfeld, who practices in Washington, D.C., told reporters as he entered the building.
"He actually laughed and said, 'Yes, I play it with my children'," Hausfeld said. "I don't think that's an indication of someone who takes his obligations seriously."
-----
Do you ever think the day will come when governments stop harassing Microsoft?
Comments?
This is interesting; in Crime gangs extort money with hacking threat , Chris Nuttall writes:
“Evidence of a new type of international extortion racket emerged on Tuesday with revelations that blackmailers have been exploiting computer hacking techniques to threaten the ability of companies to conduct business online.”
After reading and thinking about the questions posed in this article by Declan McCullagh, I offer the following thoughts:
It is inevitable that the government will find a way to tax the internet. Whether it is a tax on our connection, purchases, etc., the government will find a way. Collecting taxes on purchases made from a company that currently does business in the state where the purchase is being made is reasonable, considering you would pay taxes on the item if you walked into the store to make the purchase.
The internet is still in its youth, at least the internet as we know it today. It has revolutionized the way we do business, travel, educate, and entertain and has the potential to continue to do so. The list of benefits could go on and on. My bread and butter is web development and has been for the last five years.
Anything that will stifle innovation is a bad thing, such as a tax on the Internet right now. Here is an example. Recently I signed up for Verizon's DSL combo package. I get DSL service for $35 and unlimited local/long distance for $49.99 per month. My average bill is far higher than the expected $84.99 + disclosed taxes. There are hidden taxes and fees that were lumped together that totaled more than $23 dollars (I do not have the exact figure in front of me). When I called Verizon and asked them why this information was not disclosed, they could not give me an answer other than it was additional government imposed taxes and fees. Had I known about these additional taxes and fees, I would have rethought the combo package and might have stuck with the service I had.
Tacking another tax (probably will join the non-disclosed group) on to the above example could influence a consumers decision when selecting dial-up or high speed service. Web applications are continuously increasing connection requirements. What if consumers decide to stick with a slow internet connection to avoid the additional taxes? The bandwidth craving web applications would be slow and would ultimately affect the user’s web experience and possibly online purchases.
You might say that consumers should just suck it up and get a fast connection if they wish to enjoy the internet. I think technology will eventually force people in that direction, but taxes will surely slow things down.
What do you think? I'm sure I opened up a can of worms here...
I must say that the hardest part about leaving a company is leaving the people you enjoy working with. It is something that I have had to do over and over again especially while serving in the US Navy several years ago. When the company that employs you is downsizing and you know the local market for software development has almost dried up, then you know its time to move on.
Today marks the end of my first week working for Captech Ventures in Richmond, Virginia. I have not been this excited about going to work for a long time. Darrell Norton and I share an office and we have a door... something I have not had in years. I'm not going too excited about having a door and a quiet development environment. This assignment is only for two months and is more of the exception than the norm. Paul Laudeman is just down the hall (he doesn't have a door). It's good to be working with these guys again.
The future here looks bright and exciting. Captech is hosting "Tomorrow, Today”, a technology summit on November 5th, at the The Science Museum of Virginia.
The only thing left to do is to move closer to Richmond. I just have to decide how long I am willing to drive an hour each way to work. Between my wife's eagerness to move and the commute, I think we will be moving much sooner than later.