Why Windows 10 is bad

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
9 messages Options
Xen
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Why Windows 10 is bad

Xen
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 only problem for us here is that Linux basically also follows this
model ;-).

The "release early, release often" model.

Source: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10936565

("Why you should not develop apps for Windows 10")

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
[hidden email]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
Xen
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Why Windows 10 is bad

Xen
Here is a good laugh from 2012.

https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/visualstudio/2012/06/05/a-design-with-all-caps/

Microsoft decided to put all menus in ALL CAPS for Visual Studio.

Pretty much no one liked it so you had all these developers SCREAMING IN
THE COMMENTS to make their point.

Okay I'll stop posting.

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
[hidden email]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Why Windows 10 is bad

rapt
In reply to this post by Xen
maybe that the problem is this economical system?

We must sell... we must sell...


Il 03/12/2017 19:43, Xen ha scritto:
>
>
> The only problem for us here is that Linux basically also follows this
> model ;-).
>
>


--
ubuntu-users mailing list
[hidden email]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Why Windows 10 is bad

compdoc
In reply to this post by Xen
On 12/03/2017 11:43 AM, Xen wrote:

> MS has some very talented programmers.

I think that parts true, but I don't buy the rest of it. Windows 10 has
proven to be stable not only in my day to day use, but also for several
of my customers who use it in their businesses. Linux servers are great,
but I still use Windows Server just for the ease of use of their dns and
dhcp services, just because of their GUI.

Sure there are bugs and i read about them, but I let all our Windows
machines update themselves and I never see the bugs. I update and reboot
all the linux boxes manually, so they're actually more work.

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
[hidden email]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Why Windows 10 is bad

Robert Heller
In reply to this post by Xen
At Sun, 03 Dec 2017 19:43:20 +0100 "Ubuntu user technical support,  not for general discussions" <[hidden email]> 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
[hidden email]       -- Webhosting Services
                                                                                                                             

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
[hidden email]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Why Windows 10 is bad

Adam McClure-2
In reply to this post by Xen
On 03/12/2017 13:43, Xen 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 only problem for us here is that Linux basically also follows this
> model ;-).
>
> The "release early, release often" model.
>
> Source: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10936565
>
> ("Why you should not develop apps for Windows 10")
>
Is there a reason that you're using the Ubuntu Users mailing list to
complain about Windows 10?


--
ubuntu-users mailing list
[hidden email]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users

signature.asc (817 bytes) Download Attachment
Xen
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Why Windows 10 is bad

Xen
In reply to this post by compdoc
compdoc schreef op 03-12-2017 20:13:

> On 12/03/2017 11:43 AM, Xen wrote:
>
>> MS has some very talented programmers.
>
> I think that parts true, but I don't buy the rest of it. Windows 10
> has proven to be stable not only in my day to day use, but also for
> several of my customers who use it in their businesses. Linux servers
> are great, but I still use Windows Server just for the ease of use of
> their dns and dhcp services, just because of their GUI.
>
> Sure there are bugs and i read about them, but I let all our Windows
> machines update themselves and I never see the bugs. I update and
> reboot all the linux boxes manually, so they're actually more work.

There was a persistent bug where user accounts would get corrupted and
the start menu didn't open anymore. For me, it disappeared with the
Anniversary Edition (like one year ago) but others apparently still
suffer from it.

I will let the rest of it rest.

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
[hidden email]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
Xen
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Why Windows 10 is bad

Xen
In reply to this post by Robert Heller
Robert Heller schreef op 03-12-2017 20:16:

> The problem with the "Factory Model" of "selling" software as a commody
> is
> that the actual "production costs" of the software <...> is close to
> zero
> and the R&D costs are huge, but are all in the past.
> Also software does not get "used up" <...> or "wear out"
> <...>, so there is no reason to "replace" the software with
> a new "copy" <...>.  So how do you pay your R&D staff <...>,
> once you ship the software <...>?

This not only applies to companies, also to parents.

Try to explain to people who cannot see, understand or value your work,
what you are doing with all your time ;-).

Software is an investment. Writing a book is also.

You can call it a problem, but that is the nature of things.

Right.

> 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.

Or come up with a subscription model for updates.
The idea that a customer should be entitled to all updates is based on
the presence
of release-time bugs.

The better the software, the less this entitlement.

Where do you place the burden, your development team, or your support
department?

Then, if bugfixes aren't required (as much) you introduce a subscription
model for feature improvements.

This does not entitle people to a new version, but you coalesce the
feature improvements into a new version _for new customers_.

For existing customers, it basically ends when the new version is
released.

They have received all of the new features and you cancel their
subscriptions.

So the subscriptions pay for the development of the new version.

After a period of time, you upgrade their installations to the new
version (in fact).

As a reward for their loyalty. So they have purchased through their
subscriptions, the new version.

You ensure that this sum is in fact equivalent to the new version minus
a bit.

You give them a headstart on the new features for the next version if
they subscribe again
which gives them say 6 months of feature updates for free.

So you get a rolling upgrade cycle for existing customers.

Etc. etc.

> *Except* that part of that is "release the source too".

For some reason it trickles into binary releases as well.

> 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.

Yet if you look at it from a meta view, it has the same dynamics as the
current Microsoft thing.

The promise is that the bugs will be fixed later on, but in reality once
you have released something, you are less willing to still work on it.

After release, attention shifts to customer relations, this is natural.
So now you have split your attention (in open source this would be user
support).

And because there are now many bugs, or the documentation is not so
great, suddenly you have to spend a large part of your time on managing
these issues.

The result is that your resources are drained, and that you don't get to
the actual work you thought you were going to do.

The time you could have spent on improving usability is now spent on
dealing with users who can't use it.

But this time is much less cost-effective (or efficient).

Because the nature of software is that it multiplies, but the nature of
customer support is that it doesn't multiply so very well.

Anyway, this is my opinion I guess.

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
[hidden email]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Why Windows 10 is bad

Peter Flynn
In reply to this post by Robert Heller
On 12/04/2017 01:28 AM, Adam McClure wrote:
[snip]
 > Is there a reason that you're using the Ubuntu Users mailing list to
 > complain about Windows 10?

I think as a warning. There are parallels.

CAUTION: LONG. Don't read this if you're short of time.

On 12/03/2017 07:16 PM, Robert Heller wrote:
[snip]
> [...] 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.

The key here — and the key to the difference between the Linux model and
the Microsoft/Sun/Oracle/IBM/DEC/etc model — is the presence or absence
of a Marketing Department.

Marketing Departments in big corporations claim infallibly to know what
the users want, and they use that "knowledge" as a lever to push the
software in a particular direction, regardless of whether or not the
users do actually want the features. They conduct "research" to find all
this out (aka confirming what they dreamed up last week). I spent a good
part of the early years of my career processing these surveys, which
consist largely in asking the subject to strike out the most stupid
answers in order to leave the least stupid ones. On these results they
base billions of dollars of investment. Sometimes it works, sometimes it
doesn't, but that's called "business". It's actually mostly guesswork.

They are also motivated by a desire to have something the competition
doesn't have, so they will — as you describe — constantly invent newer
and more useless "features" as Unique Selling Propositions. Occasionally
they come up with something genuinely useful; more often the come up
with something everyone else has under a different name or form.

However, they do also perform a valuable function: they are responsible
for the presentation. They direct the polishing of the interface as well
as the slickness of the few remaining boxes of DVDs of physical product.
Sometimes they can actually dictate the retention or omission of a key
interface feature.

The Marketing Departments of the Linux vendors are marketing their
distribution, not Linux itself. There is no Linux Inc, Linux Ltd, Linux
GmbH, or Linux SA (AFAIK; maybe the name has been registered somewhere),
so there is no-one to call BS on some aspects of the interface[s].
Instead, specialist technical teams, now including people with hardcore
usability skills, offer advice on how interfaces should present
features. But a development team (or in some cases, an individual
programmer or author) can ignore this and drive on with an interface
that is misleading, inaccurate, poorly labelled, or just plain wrong.

Fortunately, wiser heads do usually prevail — eventually. But the user
surface of Linux is still littered with the decaying corpses of earlier
versions of some now well-known and well-respected applications, as a
testament to the stubbornness of some developers. This is now much less
prevalent that it used to be, which (I hope) is a sign of maturity.

There are still some classic bugs that will seemingly never be
addressed, because — it is claimed — they strike at the independence of
the developer or author, which is regarded as sacrosanct (and in most
cases rightly so); or because despite a clear benefit to users, a Mac or
Windows feature never makes it to Open Source equivalents because it's
not a feature that the devs themselves would ever use, so they are blind
to its value.

A good example of the former is the inability of ANY distribution of
Linux to set cursor/pointer size and style ONCE GLOBALLY for an
individual's environment, and have it honoured by ALL applications; an
example of the latter is the absence in Open/Libre Office Writer of any
equivalent of Word's Styles Pane, which shows the style names beside
each object.

(I once raised the first one with some devs and got flamed royally for
even *thinking* of trespassing on the devs' independence :-)

So Linux has (IMNSHO) a better development and release *process* (early
and often, in source, with access to the named individuals responsible).
But Microsoft (and now Apple) have billions of dollars of marketing
money, so in terms of persuading the population of the planet that their
way is the One True Way, Linux is a non-starter.

The only way for Linux to win this is for Linux to produce a
DEMONSTRABLY better product. It already has dozens, if not hundreds, of
products that are better than their Microsoft or Apple equivalents, with
stable and well-developed code bases, but not yet DEMONSTRABLY so. It's
getting very close, I'm happy to say, but there are still areas where
you can't really show the app or feature to a Windows or Mac user
without an embarrassed explanation of why the Linux version is missing
the key feature, or has such a crap interface, or simply doesn't work.

Without central control (which is abhorred on small-p political grounds)
we can't fix this quickly, so we're fixing it slowly. Eventually we'll
get there.

///Peter


--
ubuntu-users mailing list
[hidden email]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users