5 ms·

ps -- MSFT has no clue how to ship software. At Scribd, we often shipped software ten times a week. That's slow compared to lots of web startups that deploy c

by earl 16y ago

ps -- MSFT has no clue how to ship software. At Scribd, we often shipped software ten times a week. That's slow compared to lots of web startups that deploy continuously -- see the advocates at IMVU for example. Nonetheless, most web startups deploy more than daily to production. I've worked on classic desktop software with a 6 month release cycle and it's very different. pps -- deployment process? hah. rake specs rake deploy production

jacquesm 16y ago
> MSFT has no clue how to ship software. Come again ? Microsoft has shipped more software than any other company on the planet. > At Scribd, we often shipped software ten times a week. I'm not even aware of a single piece of scribd software that has been released, aren't you confusing server side deployment with shipping software ?
- gphil 16y ago
  > Microsoft has shipped more software than any other company on the planet. Do you know this as a fact or are you just speculating? (I don't care if it was speculation, I would just like to know if this is true and how it was measured if you know.) I would imagine it would have to be either Microsoft or IBM who have shipped the most software in history but I'm not sure the best way to measure the "most" software (does one count titles, licenses, revenue, etc.)?
  - jacquesm 16y ago
    Microsofts cumulative revenues since their start is roughly 390 billion dollars, the vast majority of that was software. http://www.thocp.net/companies/microsoft/microsoft_company.htm http://www.thocp.net/companies/microsoft/microsoft_company.h... (crappy, but convenient page and the numbers seem to be ok, it only goes to 2005, so I've added another 150 billion) IBM has a much larger total revenue but the vast majority of that was hardware leases during the mainframe years (and it probably still is), as well as consultancy. Software was a huge component compared to other manufacturers but I doubt it comes close to what microsoft has made. I can't find a good breakdown of IBM revenues that splits it out by category though, if someone else has access to that it would be nice to know.
    - jwegan 16y ago
      Also IBM mostly does enterprise software. Microsoft has been successful in many different types of products: video games, operating systems, software development (IDEs, programming languages, etc), search engines, office applications (word, excel, etc), just to name a few. I think regardless of how much IBM has made from software compared to Microsoft, it is safe to say Microsoft has been much more successful at delivering products in a whole gamut of industries.
- aquateen 16y ago
  Just because it's not plastic wrapped in a box doesn't mean it's not software.
  - jacquesm 16y ago
    There is a big difference between shipping software and deploying software on your own servers. Of course it is software, but it is not shipped to anybody in a sense that I understand the term 'to ship product'. Whether by download for installation on end-users computers, cd, dvd or papertape is not the issue, the issue is whether or not the software remains installed on the users machine when they are not using it. Key difference between a web application (even one with a bunch of client side scripting such as scribd) and a product that actually ships is that you can't modify it as easily (even with auto-update) as you can with server side deployments. If you mess up with a web app, no big deal, fixes are minutes away, hours at worst. When you've shipped product to a few hundred million installations all over the globe and you find a problem, you have a problem. If you're lucky it isn't going to end up as a 0 day exploit, and it won't nuke your customers machines. So Q&A in that situation is a lot more involved than it is for most webapps, and the penalties are significantly larger. For the OP to compare scribd with microsoft in this way and to claim that 'microsoft has no clue how to ship software' is downright silly.
    - earl 16y ago
      "There is a big difference between shipping software and deploying software on your own servers." No there isn't. Features. Users' hands.
      - jacquesm 16y ago
        Earl, a word of advice: stop posting in this thread. You are not helping yourself and I think that by dragging scribd in to it you are also not helping them. You are not making a coherent argument by any stretch of the imagination and people mights start to think that your attitude is representative of scribds. I take it that is not the case, but you really should have left them out of it. So please, take my advice and let it go.
- earl 16y ago
  Please -- the company that bought is vista and can't even get critical patches for 0days out in less than a month? shipping software -- the time interval between "git push" and features live in users' hands is less than 30 minutes. Lots of companies do it. MSFT doesn't come close.
  - jacquesm 16y ago
    http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1373849 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1373849
- losethos 16y ago
  Ba ha -- I upload LoseThos on my web site pretty-much continuously. Mostly, I'm doing things which are low risk and offer immediate benefit. Why not? I confess I do risky stuff too. I like instant gratification. It's the only thing I get out of LoseThos. I should be so lucky as to have an unhappy customer. ROFLAO. It would be a nightmare having to support so many versions... if I had to do support. I've worked at professional companies, but I kinda choose not to be professional. I am not a role model :-)
hello_moto 16y ago
Don't be too cocky earl. Be humble. Are you aware that you are representing Scribd when you say this? Just... not cool.
- nostrademons 16y ago
  Most people can separate between an organization and people who work(ed?) for that organization, even without an explicit disclaimer. Those that can't are the reason why we get overly paranoid corporate communications departments, which is why it's virtually impossible to talk to an actual human being at many big companies.
  - earl 16y ago
    worked in this case, but yes. But if it makes whiners happy, I could add something like this: The opinions expressed herein are my own personal opinions and do not represent my employers'; past, present, or future; views in any way. Etc etc. I could go on in that vein at length or, you know, people could be adults.
  - AmberShah 16y ago
    We can distinguish them, of course, and I don't care about it from a legal standpoint. It just makes Scribd look stupid that they've hired a moron.
    - nostrademons 16y ago
      Most people can also realize that someone can be really good at one thing (say, writing software) and really bad at another (say, understanding what Microsoft does when they've never worked there). No, what made Scribd look stupid was that they decided to replace one flawed Adobe technology (PDF) with an even more flawed Adobe technology (Flash). At least they rectified that eventually.
- earl 16y ago
  clutches pearls and faints
- 16y ago

by earl 16y ago

jacquesm 16y ago

> MSFT has no clue how to ship software. Come again ? Microsoft has shipped more software than any other company on the planet. > At Scribd, we often shipped software ten times a week. I'm not even aware of a single piece of scribd software that has been released, aren't you confusing server side deployment with shipping software ?

gphil 16y ago
> Microsoft has shipped more software than any other company on the planet. Do you know this as a fact or are you just speculating? (I don't care if it was speculation, I would just like to know if this is true and how it was measured if you know.) I would imagine it would have to be either Microsoft or IBM who have shipped the most software in history but I'm not sure the best way to measure the "most" software (does one count titles, licenses, revenue, etc.)?
- jacquesm 16y ago
  Microsofts cumulative revenues since their start is roughly 390 billion dollars, the vast majority of that was software. http://www.thocp.net/companies/microsoft/microsoft_company.htm http://www.thocp.net/companies/microsoft/microsoft_company.h... (crappy, but convenient page and the numbers seem to be ok, it only goes to 2005, so I've added another 150 billion) IBM has a much larger total revenue but the vast majority of that was hardware leases during the mainframe years (and it probably still is), as well as consultancy. Software was a huge component compared to other manufacturers but I doubt it comes close to what microsoft has made. I can't find a good breakdown of IBM revenues that splits it out by category though, if someone else has access to that it would be nice to know.
  - jwegan 16y ago
    Also IBM mostly does enterprise software. Microsoft has been successful in many different types of products: video games, operating systems, software development (IDEs, programming languages, etc), search engines, office applications (word, excel, etc), just to name a few. I think regardless of how much IBM has made from software compared to Microsoft, it is safe to say Microsoft has been much more successful at delivering products in a whole gamut of industries.
aquateen 16y ago
Just because it's not plastic wrapped in a box doesn't mean it's not software.
- jacquesm 16y ago
  There is a big difference between shipping software and deploying software on your own servers. Of course it is software, but it is not shipped to anybody in a sense that I understand the term 'to ship product'. Whether by download for installation on end-users computers, cd, dvd or papertape is not the issue, the issue is whether or not the software remains installed on the users machine when they are not using it. Key difference between a web application (even one with a bunch of client side scripting such as scribd) and a product that actually ships is that you can't modify it as easily (even with auto-update) as you can with server side deployments. If you mess up with a web app, no big deal, fixes are minutes away, hours at worst. When you've shipped product to a few hundred million installations all over the globe and you find a problem, you have a problem. If you're lucky it isn't going to end up as a 0 day exploit, and it won't nuke your customers machines. So Q&A in that situation is a lot more involved than it is for most webapps, and the penalties are significantly larger. For the OP to compare scribd with microsoft in this way and to claim that 'microsoft has no clue how to ship software' is downright silly.
  - earl 16y ago
    "There is a big difference between shipping software and deploying software on your own servers." No there isn't. Features. Users' hands.
    - jacquesm 16y ago
      Earl, a word of advice: stop posting in this thread. You are not helping yourself and I think that by dragging scribd in to it you are also not helping them. You are not making a coherent argument by any stretch of the imagination and people mights start to think that your attitude is representative of scribds. I take it that is not the case, but you really should have left them out of it. So please, take my advice and let it go.
earl 16y ago
Please -- the company that bought is vista and can't even get critical patches for 0days out in less than a month? shipping software -- the time interval between "git push" and features live in users' hands is less than 30 minutes. Lots of companies do it. MSFT doesn't come close.
- jacquesm 16y ago
  http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1373849 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1373849
losethos 16y ago
Ba ha -- I upload LoseThos on my web site pretty-much continuously. Mostly, I'm doing things which are low risk and offer immediate benefit. Why not? I confess I do risky stuff too. I like instant gratification. It's the only thing I get out of LoseThos. I should be so lucky as to have an unhappy customer. ROFLAO. It would be a nightmare having to support so many versions... if I had to do support. I've worked at professional companies, but I kinda choose not to be professional. I am not a role model :-)

hello_moto 16y ago

Don't be too cocky earl. Be humble. Are you aware that you are representing Scribd when you say this? Just... not cool.

nostrademons 16y ago
Most people can separate between an organization and people who work(ed?) for that organization, even without an explicit disclaimer. Those that can't are the reason why we get overly paranoid corporate communications departments, which is why it's virtually impossible to talk to an actual human being at many big companies.
- earl 16y ago
  worked in this case, but yes. But if it makes whiners happy, I could add something like this: The opinions expressed herein are my own personal opinions and do not represent my employers'; past, present, or future; views in any way. Etc etc. I could go on in that vein at length or, you know, people could be adults.
- AmberShah 16y ago
  We can distinguish them, of course, and I don't care about it from a legal standpoint. It just makes Scribd look stupid that they've hired a moron.
  - nostrademons 16y ago
    Most people can also realize that someone can be really good at one thing (say, writing software) and really bad at another (say, understanding what Microsoft does when they've never worked there). No, what made Scribd look stupid was that they decided to replace one flawed Adobe technology (PDF) with an even more flawed Adobe technology (Flash). At least they rectified that eventually.
earl 16y ago
clutches pearls and faints
16y ago