3 ms·

We have technical debt in software. Investing in holistically proprietary and locked down ecosystems in enterprise, where you are talking millions in software a

by zanny 10y ago

We have technical debt in software. Investing in holistically proprietary and locked down ecosystems in enterprise, where you are talking millions in software and more in labor training, you are incurring your own form of technical debt. The enterprise does not want to hear this. To learn in hindsight their early decisions to take easy paths with well advertised and pressured products would end up stabbing them in the back over the long term can quickly bring your decisions into question and make you emotionally defensive. But the solution is to acknowledge mistakes and work towards fixing them, rather than just kicking the can down the road and ignoring the problem. Every year the sectors that consistently say they cannot switch to Linux continue to pay for the Windows-only closed ecosystems they depend on directly sabotage their future potential success by funding their own antagonists. But they are not technically minded, or maybe just not informed enough, to know that the solution is not that complicated. Keep self-sabotaging on proprietary ecosystems that rob your freedoms, but also dedicate funds to correct your accrued technical debt by funding (if not using) the FOSS competition in that domain - and if none exists, start funding it yourself. > We could not care less what OS is under the hood. The whole point of this discussion - from the OP on - is that people, on Windows, do care when Microsoft behaves against their interests and forces those decisions upon them. They have no say because that is what they signed up for, but this is exactly the ignorance to the technical debt of business I speak of.

rebootthesystem 10y ago
> We have technical debt in software. Investing in holistically proprietary and locked down ecosystems in enterprise, where you are talking millions in software and more in labor training, you are incurring your own form of technical debt. I understand, yet the challenge is exactly the same every time. Say, for example, you launch a brand new electric car company and need a bunch of integrated software and automation tools to help you do everything, from running the business to designing the cars, manufacturing, supply chain management, document processing, etc. You have two choices: You can be an operating system, FOSS, free beer, free speech, pink unicorns for everyone zealot. Or you can go buy shit that works and get on with the business of getting shit done. The difference is this: A business should only be concerned with delivering it's products and services and doing so on a timely manner while staying ahead of the competition. A business should not waste one microsecond on "technology jihad". That is not their job. It is up to entrepreneurs who are "believers" to identify opportunities --if and where they exist-- and work hard to create solutions that appeal to the businesses who need them. It's a tall task, because success might require replacement solutions across a wide range of disciplines. This guarantees that multiple solution providers would have to engage in this "holy war" (sorry, sticking to a bad analogy at this point) in order for the car manufacturer to be able to even consider making a switch. And then there's the other factor: Even if you could switch to an alternative universe and make it seamless within your organization it could still be a terrible business decisions. Why? Because if the vendors and suppliers you have to work with depend on communicating across company demarcation lines by using files produced by specific types of software you are almost assured a great deal of friction if you don't use the same tools. Don't believe me, call-up 100 machine shops and ask them if they accept Siemens NX or SolidWorks files and see what you learn. And both of those platforms run on Windows. > people, on Windows, do care when Microsoft behaves against their interests and forces those decisions upon them. Any professional is very careful about OS and software version transitions. Microsoft has had glitches here and there but they have always been nothing but rock-solid-reliable in their support of the needs of their business customers. We might be looking at another glitch, I don't know, but I don't really care, they'll do the right thing. Not saying this because I love MS. It's just a matter of historical fact. Thinking back over 36 years, I can't remember the last time MS boned anyone. I can remember multiple times where both Apple and various Linux issues did.

by zanny 10y ago

rebootthesystem 10y ago

> We have technical debt in software. Investing in holistically proprietary and locked down ecosystems in enterprise, where you are talking millions in software and more in labor training, you are incurring your own form of technical debt. I understand, yet the challenge is exactly the same every time. Say, for example, you launch a brand new electric car company and need a bunch of integrated software and automation tools to help you do everything, from running the business to designing the cars, manufacturing, supply chain management, document processing, etc. You have two choices: You can be an operating system, FOSS, free beer, free speech, pink unicorns for everyone zealot. Or you can go buy shit that works and get on with the business of getting shit done. The difference is this: A business should only be concerned with delivering it's products and services and doing so on a timely manner while staying ahead of the competition. A business should not waste one microsecond on "technology jihad". That is not their job. It is up to entrepreneurs who are "believers" to identify opportunities --if and where they exist-- and work hard to create solutions that appeal to the businesses who need them. It's a tall task, because success might require replacement solutions across a wide range of disciplines. This guarantees that multiple solution providers would have to engage in this "holy war" (sorry, sticking to a bad analogy at this point) in order for the car manufacturer to be able to even consider making a switch. And then there's the other factor: Even if you could switch to an alternative universe and make it seamless within your organization it could still be a terrible business decisions. Why? Because if the vendors and suppliers you have to work with depend on communicating across company demarcation lines by using files produced by specific types of software you are almost assured a great deal of friction if you don't use the same tools. Don't believe me, call-up 100 machine shops and ask them if they accept Siemens NX or SolidWorks files and see what you learn. And both of those platforms run on Windows. > people, on Windows, do care when Microsoft behaves against their interests and forces those decisions upon them. Any professional is very careful about OS and software version transitions. Microsoft has had glitches here and there but they have always been nothing but rock-solid-reliable in their support of the needs of their business customers. We might be looking at another glitch, I don't know, but I don't really care, they'll do the right thing. Not saying this because I love MS. It's just a matter of historical fact. Thinking back over 36 years, I can't remember the last time MS boned anyone. I can remember multiple times where both Apple and various Linux issues did.