Why Windows 10 is bad

Robert Heller heller at deepsoft.com
Sun Dec 3 19:16:42 UTC 2017


At Sun, 03 Dec 2017 19:43:20 +0100 "Ubuntu user technical support,  not for general discussions" <ubuntu-users at lists.ubuntu.com> wrote:

> 
> If you care,
> 
> these are words from a Microsoft programmer:
> 
> --------------------------
> MS has some very talented programmers. They're not very common, but they 
> exist. The problem is that the entire company is completely and totally 
> focused on developing an absurd number of new features and products, 
> giving them completely unrealistic deadlines, and then shipping software 
> on those deadlines no matter how half-assed or buggy it is.
> 
> The idea is that everything is serviceable over the internet now, so 
> they can just "fix it later", except they never do. This perpetuates a 
> duct-tape culture that refuses to actually fix problems and instead 
> rewards teams that find ways to work around them. The talented 
> programmers are stuck working on code that, at best, has to deal with 
> multiple badly designed frameworks from other teams, or at worst work on 
> code that is simply scrapped. New features are prioritized over all but 
> the most system-critical bugs, and teams are never given any time to 
> actually focus on improving their code. The only improvements that can 
> happen must be snuck in while implementing new features.
> As far as M$ is concerned, all code is shit, and the only thing that 
> matters is if it works well enough to be shown at a demo and shipped. 
> Needless to say, I don't work there anymore.
> --------------------------
> 
> I already knew this, but it is good to hear.

The problem with the "Factory Model" of "selling" software as a commody is 
that the actual "production costs" of the software (eg stamping out CD/DVDs, 
etc.) is close to zero and the R&D costs are huge, but are all in the past. 
Also software does not get "used up" (like a loaf of bread) or "wear out" 
(like a car or toaster), so there is no reason to "replace" the software with 
a new "copy" (and if you are careful about disk backups, you don't need to 
replace it if your disk crashes).  So how do you pay your R&D staff (99% of 
your workforce!), once you ship the software (the sales of which are paying 
off the "loan" you took out to pay them to develop the software)?  Why you 
have them develop the next version, which MUST have features to give the 
end-users a reason to buy the software *again*.  Even if the features are 
senseless "eye candy" or other cruft thought up by the Marketing Dept.

> 
> The only problem for us here is that Linux basically also follows this 
> model ;-).
> 
> The "release early, release often" model.

*Except* that part of that is "release the source too".  Which means the 
software is peer reviewed.  And is also subject to "many eyes" looking at the 
source: "With enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow."  And there generally 
isn't a dumbass "Marketing Dept." thinking up silly features to add in.  And 
more attention is spent on actually fixing bugs and not on adding features 
solely for the sake of adding features.

> 
> Source: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10936565
> 
> ("Why you should not develop apps for Windows 10")
> 

-- 
Robert Heller             -- 978-544-6933
Deepwoods Software        -- Custom Software Services
http://www.deepsoft.com/  -- Linux Administration Services
heller at deepsoft.com       -- Webhosting Services
                                                                                                                              



More information about the ubuntu-users mailing list