Whenever the regular expression topic comes up, I unashamedly recommend the best tool on the market for parsing and building regular expressions -- RegexBuddy. But there's one tiny problem.
RegexBuddy costs money.
I've always encountered vague resistance when recommending commercial tools that I considered best of breed. The source of that resistance was spelled out for me by Henrik Sarvell in this comment he left on Rob Conery's blog:
Yes, I also have to brush up on the regex from time to time. We don't use software that costs money here, and last time I checked regexbuddy wasn't free.
People usually don't state their preferences this boldly. I, for one, applaud the honesty.
I've recommend Beyond Compare before; it's a fantastic file and directory comparison tool. It's not expensive, but it's not free, either. Which means many programmers I recommend it to will beg off and go install the free WinMerge comparison tool instead.
It's tempting to ascribe this to the "cult of no-pay", programmers and users who simply won't pay for software no matter how good it is, or how inexpensive it may be. These people used to be called pirates. Now they're open source enthusiasts.
(Update: This paragraph was intended to be tongue in cheek, but has been widely misinterpreted. Dan summarized my opinion in the comments: "in the past, if someone told you they used software and didn't pay for it, the only plausible interpretation was that they were a pirate, because all good PC software cost money. Now there's also good software available for free, so that assumption is no longer correct.")
But there's something else going on here, too: the free software alternatives keep getting better every year. Consider how immature Linux development tools were in 2000 compared to what's available today: Eclipse, Subversion, MySQL, Firefox. These tools either didn't exist, or have come astounding distances in closing the gap between their commercial counterparts in eight years.
PHP was dangerously close to a joke language in 2000, but you can barely go anywhere on the web today without running into something huge built on PHP. I could say the same thing about MySQL -- a toy database in 2000, but a totally credible free alternative to Oracle and SQL Server today for most uses. The competitive pressure of free products on commercial tools intensifies every year. It's relentless. And to be honest, I feel many of the commercial alternatives aren't evolving fast enough to stay ahead of their free competition.
The onus is on the commercial tool vendors to prove that they provide enough value to warrant spending money. In the case of Beyond Compare, the vendor has taken so long to ship version 3.x of their software that some of the free comparison tools have matched and even exceeded its feature set in the meantime -- as you can see in this amusingly titled comparison of file comparison tools. Resting on their laurels is a luxury they no longer have.
It's entirely possible for commercial development tools to survive alongside the strong, vibrant -- and now firmly established -- ecosystem of free tools. But it won't be easy, as Steven Frank points out in The First, The Free, and The Best:
A free program need not be glamorous or even completely bug-free. It can garner a respectable following simply by not costing anything.I've seen many times people struggle and struggle on with a clunky freeware app just because they're not willing to pay $20 for a significantly better alternative. There's nothing wrong with that particular brand of masochism. People prioritize differently, and money is more valuable than time to a whole lot of people. It's Capitalism in action.
The people who are most tenacious about exclusively using freeware whenever possible are usually incredulous that anyone would buy a commercial product when a free alternative is available. I've heard many times, "how can you guys make a living when free command line file transfer clients are included with the OS?"
Beyond Compare was the best compare tool by far in 2005 -- an easy justification for spending thirty bucks on a compare tool. But no longer. They have to claw their way back to the top and become the best again in the face of endless free competition.
If you're neither first nor free, there is still a way to carve out a niche for yourself: have a better application than everyone else.Quality is the third leg of the axis. A free app may not be worth what you paid if it doesn't work right, or works so clumsily that you have to re-read the help file every time you use it. The first app may be OK, but resting on its laurels of first-ness and not moving forward.
This phenomenon isn't limited to development software, although I think it's particularly vicious there due to the peculiarities of the audience: the type of people who would buy development tools are also exactly the same people who could potentially build them.
You may wonder how anything survives online in the face of free competition. Don MacAskill of SmugMug -- a pay photo sharing website -- offers this advice:
It turns out that people are happy to pay [for web photo sharing], and have been happy to pay for the last four years. The reason is that our pay service eliminates a lot of the baggage and a lot of headaches that at least some percentage of the population doesn't want. Quite of a few of the big brands have shut their free sites down. They shut them down without notice. It turns out that it's sort of like a death spiral. When you offer accounts for free, some garbage comes in with the good stuff. People will upload porn or whatever. So you end up hiring people to work at your company to filter out the bad stuff. I know Photobucket and Webshots and some of the other guys have an entire room full of people who, all they do all day is watch the photos that are coming in and say yes or no, this photo is OK or not.But inevitably, some of the junk slips through, and then the people who are using your service who don't have any junk see their photos side by side with the junk, and get up set and leave. Or even worse yet, some of your advertisers (because if you're free you're likely ad supported) see their ad right next to something disgusting or that damages their brand or something like that. So they bail. So eventually, your customers and your advertisers tend to run away screaming. Or you're left with a demographic which isn't a very important demographic for advertisers, or who wouldn't be likely to upgrade. So it gets kind of nasty.
I knew Don from his days in the gaming industry at Ritual Entertainment. I finally got to meet him at last year's MIX conference, and I thoroughly enjoy reading his blog. It's a case study in how you can beat 'free' by understanding the weaknesses of your free competition.
It won't be easy for commercial software or subscription websites. If past history is any indication, beating the free alternatives is going to get progressively more difficult every year. Kevin Kelly offers eight generative qualities that are better than free. I'm not sure it has to be that complicated. Free is indeed a competitive advantage. But free is also a weakness: it is cheap, mass-produced, and the same for everyone. Don and Steven make a compelling argument that some people are willing to pay for a premium experience.
So the salient question, then, is this: do you understand what it takes to build the premium experience that trumps your free competition? And can you deliver it?
mschaef: Upgrades sometimes change things and require changes in the stuff that uses them. That's just part of life. I don't know how you can seriously claim that because an update introduces incompatibilities it is effectively a completely new product and the old version (product) is now discontinued. That seems mad to me. VB6 and XP are not products, they are versions of products.
It's not like there are never updates to free/open source products which don't require changes. Especially if software was breaking the rules but getting away with it on the previous version of the product. (Which isn't always the reason for things breaking, but often is.)
What I don't get is why you chose VB6 and XP when there are plenty of better examples of commercial software that has been discontinued.
(PS: I wish that Visual Basic really had been discontinued!)
The right approach would be: just buy programs that you find it to be better than anything you can get for free or just buy programs that you really can't afford..
Jennifer
http://www.firenzedascoprire.com
"Can you give an example of an industry-standard Open Source product?"
Sure. The GNAT Ada Compiler.
But to get back to Jeff's remarks: as long as there are companies out there that are very reluctant to use *any* OpenSource product, there will also be commercial software.
Interestingly the same company which refuses to use OpenOffice.org just "because it's free", also uses Java as their choice of development platform, although both free products are even labeled by the same big corporation.
Let's face it: Neither of us actually wants to pay for software. But most of us would happily pay for support.
Personally, as a developer I'd rather use an open source product where I can file bug reports or even patches back to the development team, than being dependent on the slow process of writing a support email, getting back the response that this bug is entirely my fault and ten mails later after proving them that it isn't, getting the advice to wait for the next release which might have this issue fixed and - according to their roadmap - might be available in six months already, but only if all goes well and their lead programmer doesn't get hit by a bus until then. And of course, there's a price tag on the "update"...
ExamDiff Pro is way better than BeyondCompare.
Chris Nahr on April 12, 2008 1:37 PMOops, submitted too soon. Sorry for the plug, but this is only a tangential discussion so I don't know that it belongs here. I just posted a discussion on the use of tools in software development here:
http://rogthefrog.com/blog/?p=61
and I'd love to hear what folks have to say, either here or at that blog.
rogthefrog on April 13, 2008 2:00 AMThe thing about free software is that it is really just free advertising. And advertising is rather important in business.
So, for you for example giving away your blog for free brings to the business you are trying to make free advertising.
Terra on April 13, 2008 7:50 AMJeff brings up a good point, perhaps not intentionally--what are software development tools for? "Whatever makes your life easier" is too vague, IMO.
rogthefrog on April 13, 2008 1:57 PMWhat a complete waste of precious time this post was (again).
It's sad to see the quality of this blog go down from day to day...
That said, get your facts straight, please.
Open source has nothing to do with free an sich.
There are lots of high quality open source projects that you need to pay for, on the other hand there are also lots of high quality open source projects that you don't have to pay for.
Eg: the Apache web server, nothing comes close.
So calling Open Source enthousiasts pirates is a little low to the ground.
But, hey, feel free to write whatever microsoft pays you for.
Maybe you can apply for a job at ISO.
I'm confident you would blend in with the team nicely.
@Leo Davidson: "Upgrades sometimes change things and require changes in the stuff that uses them. That's just part of life."
Agreed, and it's even true of OSS. There have been a number of breaking changes in the OSS community, including Linux. The difference is that OSS gives you more control about when and if you pay the costs.
"I don't know how you can seriously claim that because an update introduces incompatibilities it is effectively a completely new product and the old version (product) is now discontinued. That seems mad to me. VB6 and XP are not products,"
VB6 and XP are different animals in this regard. Windows XP is a version of the Windows NT code base (v5.1, IIRC). VB6 is the end of life for that codebase. VB.Net is a totally new product that makes attempts to work similarly to VB6, but also makes some radically different choices. Just as a few more examples, VB6 is built around COM objects, .Net is built around the CLR. VB6 builds a native EXE, .Net builds to bytecode JITted by the CLR. VB.Net does implementation inheritance, VB6 does not.
mschaef on April 14, 2008 6:07 AM@Neil Young and gwenhwyfaer
I agree, it seems like a policy of liability would not be able to work. It was emailed out after I had turned in my two weeks notice, so for me it was the last in a series of draconian responses to issues. The liability issue struck me as odd, but to be fair it was not the only reason given. Others made some sense, such as limiting the support corporate IT had to do. For example, an employee would get a piece of OSS, find it very useful, and pass it on. More often than not, one or more employees would get a hold of it, have a problem, and call
IT support. Most of the time they would have no idea what the software did. So there was confusion and consternation. My idea of what follows is...
Management would be aghast at the cost in labor for this, the executive board would demand a total, 100% solution to the problem. Thus use of all but officially approved software was banned. The approved Vendor would then come in and plead that only software purchase through them was valid. And, therefore, no 'free' software is allowed. Explain it to the underpaid masses as a liability issue, and be done.
Like I said, it was the last of the policies I saw. One of the others that sticks out was a 'One size fits all' approach to hardware and software. All employees would have the same type of PC, with the same CPU, memory, HD, etc. One image would be needed to install, so setup and licensing would be easy. The spec for this was as I remember a 1Ghz CPU, 512Mb RAM, a single 19" monitor, Windows XP, Office, Internet Explorer, and Outlook. It would be cheap, require minimal staff to support, and save a ton of costs. It must have looked good on
paper. When HR informed the employees via email, I think they were shocked by the backlash. A good share of the data entry personnel needed an Oracle client, software development was done in C, C++, PowerBuilder, Java, .NET, and VB6. This required Visual Studio 6, PowerBuilder, Eclipse, Visual Studio 2003, terminal software, code analyzers, and on and on. The standard config would be unworkable for any of it. The email went out about 10 AM, and a retraction
was sent by noon stating the policy would be revisited.
Do I believe they thought the liability issue through? I doubt it. It was almost a government entity where no one in the company had a clue about all that the company did, but were asked to provide solutions to be implemented across it.
After reading Marc Andreesen's blog, which is as irrelevant as a blog can possibly be, I hope your blog remains relevant since you now have this audio-driven distraction called stackoverflow.com.
A podcast? A 46-min podcast? And questions to be submitted in audio format?
Writing good code (if that is the intent of stackoverflow.com) should start with a VB/VB.NET bonefire. Now that .NET world is finally embracing MVC as a standard framework, this is the time to celebrate.
Also, Joel Spolsky needs some new material. It is like listening to a standup comedian with the same material over and over again.
SamG on April 17, 2008 9:20 AMSince you are asking for topics and questions, here is one. Why not revisit the worlds of difference between focus required to produce great code with OO language vs. copy/paste AAD approach allowed by some other languages out there?
Another question. Is automatic garbage collection really progress? How difficult is it to clean up allocated memory if you know what was allocated and for what? (this should be routine with good code). Is it progress when sloppy coders can code for a living?
And yet another question. Who are the people behind memory leaks at Microsoft, years after Microsoft press and others have drummed the benefits of avoiding, erm, stack/buffer overflows?
Sorry, no audio submission but hope this will resonate (sic!) with the intent of stackoverflow.com
SamG on April 17, 2008 9:26 AMI just want to clarify a few details lest people get the wrong impression. What I meant with "over here" in that comment is my employer, personally I have no problems with buying a $30 software. What I do have a problem with though is using my own cash to buy something that my employer should buy, it's a matter of principle.
Henrik Sarvell on April 20, 2008 9:19 AMTo bDan/b:
Sorry, but you're inserting your own ideas into the statement. His exact quote was:
blockquoteThese people used to be called pirates. Now they're open source enthusiasts./blockquote
So he is uprecisely saying/u that today's open source enthusiasts were yesterday's pirates. He's explicitly equating people who today promote non-proprietary software were yesterday stealing proprietary software. He says nothing about other peoples views, but is instead making a emdirect comparison/em. And that comparison is both a sign of some degree of elistism on Jeff's part as well as being a false dichotomy ("either you pay for software or you're stealing").
Darryl L. Pierce on April 22, 2008 4:23 AMYour essay is confusing because it mashes together orthogonal concepts. If you're talking about free as in cost (gratis) you're not talking about "open source". The open source movement isn't anti-commercial (in fact this movement started in order to convince businesses to take advantage of the community developers willing to work for them).
There is plenty of proprietary software available gratis. This software is no more trustworthy than commercially available proprietary software. Programmers should understand the benefits of maintaining control over your data and your computer by maintaining control over the software you run. So when you say "These people used to be called pirates. Now they're open source enthusiasts." you're not only conflating physical harm (real piracy) with copyright infringement, commercial versus gratis, but also developing software according to a particular development methodology with entering a class-based system where users and developers are purposefully kept from being equals.
I am not a member of the open source movement, I find its ideals to be far too shallow leaning toward helping business better exploit programmers talents. But your comparison seems inaccurate to describe either piracy or open source enthusiasts.
J.B. Nicholson-Owens
mail@digitalcitizen.info
http://digitalcitizen.info/
Hard not to read this with cynical eyes, after yesterday's unfortunate post calling OSS enthusiasts ex-pirates.
Still, congratulations, 5000 is no small money. I wish more of the .NET developer supported (hell, at least understood) what the open source movement is about.
mehmet on April 25, 2008 1:19 PMYour naivety amuses me. I yet have to meet ANYONE who pays for his/her software.
Clever guy on June 6, 2008 3:33 AMI really don't understand the FOSS movement. How is anybody supposed to eat if all the software is f@#4^ing free. THERE REALLY ISN'T ANY SUCH THING AS A FREE LUNCH.
Ahh, now this is the crux of the issue, isn't it. See, people (especially software developers) seem to think that the only way to make money from software is by licensing the software. This is not true. Open source projects can make LOTS of money in various ways such as:
1) Offering paid support with a service level agreement (see mysql)
2) Offering paid-for modifications and enhancements
3) Offering consultancy and managed installs (there are many that do this)
4) Offering to completely host the software, in the case of server-based applications
5) Selling a hardware appliance (think firewalls and m0n0wall)
So yes, its easy to see that given a bit of thought, there is MONEY (lots of it) to be made in open source, and corporations will PAY for these extra services because they need the tech support!
The benefit of course is that the source remains free and if these extra carrots are no longer dangled in front of the donkey, the donkey will keep moving as for any popular piece of open source software, someone else will just pick up the mantle, if it is not already forked.
As the author of a popular piece of open source chat software i see many commercial sites migrating to our software every day simply because we offer 'enterprise' features such as LDAP and SQL authentication of users. All other programs offering these features charge money for them. Even without the prospect of paid support, BUSINESSES (not just home user hobbyists) take up this software and even more surprisingly, they contribute back! They send us donations, they send us patches, and some (for example star dock) have even taken a personal interest and submitted large amounts of code!
Still think there's no benefit at all to open source? Think again!
ircd on September 14, 2008 10:56 AMPlease donate your old boxes to a church-group or some needy student in these hard times! To comply with the law, and with Microsoft's leasing policy, you can now replace Microsoft OS with the free (download from the net) Ubuntu OS, which can be set to erase the hard drive of all traces of the illegal Microsoft system, before donation! Now, explain to your lucky recipient that all the manuals they will ever need are available for free on the internet! Just ask for them in Google! OpenOffice, which is installed already is plenty adequate for homework assignments and with a little exploring, everything else can work well too! Happy commuting!
I visited your web so many times and I do not know why I keep going back. I guess your drawing and writing are so good, they make me think about life and God. Your work is inspiring.
I am from Morocco and now teach English, give please true I wrote the following sentence: Official site for southwest airlines, with flight schedules and fares, online reservations, special offers, frequent flyer information, and a travel planner.
Regards :p Samirah.
Samirah on April 3, 2009 11:15 AMStill think there's no benefit at all to open source? Think again!
silkroad gold on April 18, 2009 2:45 AMStill think there's no benefit at all to open source? Think again
sro gold on April 18, 2009 2:46 AMWith "over here" in that comment is my employer, personally I have no problems with buying a $30 software. What I do have a problem with though is using my own cash to buy something that my employer should buy, it's a matter of principle.
club penguin on May 31, 2009 8:01 AMIf some stranger puts 10 hours of work into cracking a commercial app so you don't have to pay the $50, and some other stranger puts 100 hours of work into building a free alternative so you don't have to pay the $50 ... What's the moral difference? Who got ripped off?
Yes, I think the "used to be called pirates" analogy was a little weak but not outlandish.
Still think there's no benefit at all to open source? Think again!
online dating on July 27, 2009 9:36 AMTotal if you look at the stats for web sever software, you'll see that the free Apache is holding the market share.
SOURCE: http://news.netcraft.com/archives/web_server_survey.html
Arron Chapman on February 6, 2010 10:24 PM"No, seriously, PHP is still a joke language and MySQL still a toy database, these two are mostly the rise of mediocrity (and in PHP's case, the only good thing I ever found about it: it's completely and utterly trivial to deploy. Nothing else comes close).
Masklinn on April 10, 2008 04:49 AM"
PHP is a highly versitle, easy to understand/learn language that powers the internet.
A quick google for PHP returns 9,770,000,000 pages, same search for asp (and aspx) returns 4,520,000,000... Damn thats double.
It's not about the money. It's about the source. Without transparency into the source so that I can fix what the vendor won't, and transparency into the file formats and protocols so that I can make it work with other tools, it would have to be SO much better in other ways to overcome that it just doesn't happen. Add to that the fact that the software with transparency is also free of cost, and it becomes even harder to beat.
It gets to the point where the only way free doesn't win is if it won't do the job at all.
Grant Johnson on February 6, 2010 10:24 PMJeff, are you in cosmic mind alignment with Joel Spolsky? His latest article for Inc. was about listening to your customer and solving problems for which people will pay for a solution. Fire and move! Fire and move! Fire and move!
http://www.inc.com/magazine/20080401/how-hard-could-it-be-fire-and-motion.html?partner=fogcreek
John Ferguson on February 6, 2010 10:24 PMJust in response to Weeble. There is a lot of free software that is only free for personal use. If people at a corporation start installing it on their computers it can cause a huge licensing liability.
John Ferguson on February 6, 2010 10:24 PMI think you've missed the real point here. I don't object to *paying for stuff*; I object to *paying for crap*. And what the rise of good open source products has meant is that there is now pressure on vendors who produce crap that did not exist before.
Here's a real world example. I was an early adopter of the Trillian IM client for Windows. It was a fast, elegant way to have all my IM accounts in one program. I used it everywhere and evangelized it to all my friends. I paid for it, happily.
Then a few years back, in their last major release, they shipped with a big bug -- you couldn't use the program on more than one computer without it screwing up all your IM contacts. The license explicitly allowed you to buy one copy and use it on multiple PCs, so it wasn't that I was doing something wrong; it was just a bug in the code.
I did what Good Users are supposed to do and reported the bug to the developers. They told me to wait for the next big release, "Astra", which would contain the fix for the bug.
So I waited. And then, literally, *years* passed. Astra has been in development for something like 4 years now, and they are still refusing to fix this bug in the version of the software that they sell to end users. Once every six months or so I would ping them and ask if I was supposed to still keep waiting. The answer was always yes.
Finally, about six months ago I got tired of waiting and installed the open-source Pidgin IM client (which used to be known as GAIM). Do I like it as much as Trillian? Not really -- it's kinda fugly on Windows. But it works, and it doesn't have any bugs that screw up my IM accounts. And it's free. So today I use Pidgin, and I recommend it to my friends, and the Trillian developers have lost a paying customer.
So at least for me, the story isn't that I won't pay for software, it's that I won't pay for software that's not at least as good as the free alternatives. And since, as you note, the free alternatives have a habit of slowly getting better over time, the lesson for software vendors is that you just can't rest on your laurels anymore. You have to be keeping up or you will die.
Jason Lefkowitz on February 6, 2010 10:24 PMFunny that those who write code would eschew using code that costs money.
Don Kibbey on February 6, 2010 10:24 PMI've become more wary of paying for small programs over the years because it's not a sustainable model. Most small programs aren't that lucrative, and the small development teams don't stay with it past a few releases. At that time, I'm left with a paid license to an abandoned product.
Authors of free (especially open source, but not exclusively) software often don't have the false expectation of profitability, so my investment in their software isn't as dependent on them making enough money to stay interested. I tend to spend more of my software money on donations to open source teams (as you've recommended) rather than rolling the dice on micro-ware.
Of course, the hybrid model is interesting: free version of the product plus paid "pro" version. Done right, that can bring in the best of both markets.
Jon Galloway on February 6, 2010 10:24 PMIt is important to note that readers of this blog and the blog creator represent a very small segment of software users. These are people who like to tinker and get under the covers of things (Programmers). Therefore it is understandable if they use tools and software that is not made by a particular entity (open source) and free.
But for majority users, they need warm and fuzzy that comes with buying from a known brand. Its a trust factor. Average Joe's trust Microsoft. Can you trust Open Source software? Who can you call when there is a problem? Most people don't trust thier computers, so how are they going to install open source software from an unknown entity. Difficult proposition for most people. Plus, open software is some industries just will not cut it.
Now for readers of this blob, they know more than average Joe, so they have leeway on what goes on thier machine. Open source software hose machine, wipe it and start over. Average user isn't going to do that.
Nothing is ever free, even Open Source. People still spend time developing the software, if they don't want to get paid for it, then they either are doing it for experience, for recognition, or because they like to do it. I suspect most open source developers do it because they like to progam so they use it as an outlet.
Jon Raynor on February 6, 2010 10:24 PM"Free is indeed a competitive advantage. But free is also a weakness: it is cheap, mass-produced, and the same for everyone. Don and Steven make a compelling argument that some people are willing to pay for a premium experience."
Sorry about the double post. I hit an extra tab.
"Free is indeed a competitive advantage. But free is also a weakness: it is cheap, mass-produced, and the same for everyone. Don and Steven make a compelling argument that some people are willing to pay for a premium experience."
There's a big difference between software that you have to buy and subscription services. Spammers cannot insert messages into your software if it's free, but they can get into your service if it's free. The reason charging for photo sharing works is that it destroys the margins of spammers (it also keeps a lot of great photos out of your network, but that's the tradeoff).
I don't understand what is bad about software being cheap or mass-produced. It's $0, so I guess that's cheap. It's bytes, so it's infinitely producible. Nothing wrong with that. The internet is not a world where you get what you pay for, when what you pay for is trains from China with lead paint slathered all over.
I think you'd have to connect the dots between free software and quality. Show that "cheap" still means brittle, crappy, and prone to failure. You have to turn a blind eye to a lot of brilliant software to do that.
Free does not mean "the same for everyone." The vision is of everyone owning the same thirty Barbie dolls who live in the Barbie house and have Barbie adventures. What you seem to get instead with free is user extensibility on scales that are impossible with proprietary software. See Firefox, Emacs, Greasemonkey...
The vast majority of people are right: free is less about money and more about hassle. You may not think it's much of a hassle to read proprietary licenses all day and plunk down your hard-earned cash, and call the company when you get a new video card installed to unlock your software again, because you might someday want to use it to infringe some copyrights (or you might not, but they are staying on their safe side), and edit the registry because Zone Alarm couldn't keep its hands to itself, and buy a piece of software once per computer per operating system update.
Personally, I see the violence inherent in the system. Come and see the violence inherent in the system.
Ron on February 6, 2010 10:24 PM@KenW
So let me understand what you're saying about Microsoft: they are taking our money... And then giving it to charities on our behalf (because that's where you say they've done more for the community).
If that is your description of doing good for the community then Open Source has contributed far more, because I DON'T PAY THEM, so any money I give to charity can be said to go to that charity because I use Open Source and don't have to pay Microsoft to pay the charities for me.
LOL. Looks like a lot of OSS zealots never got past the "pirates == open source enthusiasts".
GROW UP PEOPLE! Read the rest of the article. Towards the end is great advice on emhow to make a great OSS software/em.
Jon Limjap on February 6, 2010 10:24 PMOops, I meant "OSS", scratch that "software". Redundant.
Another thing:
One more thing--real programmers don't need tools to work with regular expressions.
Yeah yeah. Neither do you need IDEs and nice flashy GUIs.
Unfortunately "real programmers" are Martians on a totally different plane of existence from "real people", for which usable GUIs are made. We are on the business of helping humans, not Martians, so you "real programmers" can go ahead and marry your console apps for all we care.
Jon Limjap on February 6, 2010 10:24 PMJeff,
Your post here, along with several of your previous ones along similar lines, inspired me to put together a proposal targeted at "mainstream" companies that employ software developers to provide a modest annual discretionary budget for their developers to purchase useful non-free software tools for themselves, as well at other "Developer Bill of Rights" (http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/000666.html) items such as an additional monitor.
(I say "mainstream" here because at the minority of "elite" software companies such as Vertigo, it would presumably be a non-issue for a developer to purchase a non-free development tool for their own use, and expense it to the company.)
The full details of the proposal are available here:
http://blog.jonschneider.com/2008/04/software-developers-discretionary.html
Developers: Present this to your boss, and see if you can't get a productivity-enhancing discretionary budget approved for the developers on your team!
Jon Schneider on February 6, 2010 10:24 PMThe comments to this entry are closed.
|
|
Traffic Stats |