__/ [ cc ] on Thursday 15 March 2007 23:34 \__
> On Mar 15, 7:26 pm, Kier <val...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 15:51:43 +0000, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>> > __/ [ Kier ] on Thursday 15 March 2007 12:13 \__
>>
>> >> On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 11:43:24 +0000, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>
>> >>> Documentation is a different matter, but at least contact is possible.
>> >>> Have you ever seen names of developers or addresses for feedback (let
>> >>> alone something like Bugzilla) for Microsoft software. If you develop
>> >>> software for Microsoft, you are a (wo)man without a name, nor a face.
>> >>> You do it for the cheque only.
>>
>> >> Most ordinary people work mainly for the cheque at the eend of the
>> >> month. That doesn't preclude them from enjoying what they do, or doing
>> >> it properly.
>>
>> >> The problem with Windows, IMO, is more a case of 'too many cooks spoil
>> >> the broth'.
>>
>> >> Does it still surprise anyone that software they produce is so
>> >>> bug-ridden? The closed nature of it makes it akin to lego pieces with
>> >>> plaster in arbitrary places (making patches, testing and maintenance
>> >>> impossible... think DST). Honest developers don't fear or feel shy
>> >>> about making their code visible...
>>
>> >> Are you trying to say closed source developers are inherently
>> >> dishonest? That seems to be a rather foolish and sweeping
>> >> generalisation.
>>
>> > No, but your misinterpretation is a fair one, so I'll clarify. What I am
>> > suggesting is that as a programmer you'll have a better chance of
>> > 'getting away' with something if your distribution is in binary form
>> > only. When I made Othello Master GPL, for example, I was not embarrassed
>> > about typos in the comments, admission of bugs/mistakes/poor coding. I
>> > did, however, have a reason to clean up. When people open-source a
>> > proprietary app you will often hear them saying that they 'prepare it
>> > for publishing' so to speak. It means that without visibility, the code
>> > is not polished. What if you could not lift the car's bonnet? Would the
>> > engineer or builder be tempted to shove in some poor and broken parts?
>> > What about their shape (presenatation)? Okay, poor car analogy, but I
>> > type as quickly as I think/speak...
>>
>> Yeah, car analogies suck like electrolux ;-)
>>
>> However, I do take your point. I imagine it is some incentive to keep
>> things up to scratch when you know you're going to have people looking at
>> what you do. Still, CSS coders may still have pride enough in their own
>> work that they don't skimp.
>
> Not only that, but also to impress co-workers, bosses, customers, etc.
> It will depend on where you work naturally. In an environment where
> rewards are based on something other than the quality of the work then
> of course people would have a tendancy to skimp. But that's any
> profession. You guys are assuming that because it's closed source, no
> one sees it. But that's not true at all. The people you work with,
> for, and the depending on the job, the customers will all see the
> code. So there is an incentive not to look like a dumbass. Who looks
> at open source code? Other developers, not your average joe. Same with
> closed source, although it's possibly a smaller number of people. The
> incentive is there nontheless.
>
> What's the environment like at Microsoft? Who knows. Mark and Roy
> already tried to make something up though, that's for sure. Peter
> Kohlmann does Windows development, ask him if he skimps.
For security reasons (IP), Microsoft is very compartmentalised. One devision
is not allowed to see the code of another. And they don't exactly use open
standards to collaborate. I will happily back this with articles I've read,
but it could take a while to find.
--
~~ Best wishes
Roy S. Schestowitz | "Have you compiled your kernel today?"
http://Schestowitz.com | GNU/Linux ¦ PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
Mem: 514480k total, 482964k used, 31516k free, 16044k buffers
http://iuron.com - next generation of search paradigms
|
|
