3 ms·

Nice rant, but too bad that OP probably hasn't heard some of the more reasonable counter-arguments and understood their logic. Just a few "enterprise axioms":

by edw519 16y ago

Nice rant, but too bad that OP probably hasn't heard some of the more reasonable counter-arguments and understood their logic. Just a few "enterprise axioms": - Stuff must work consistently, regardless of who works there. - All data and programs must satisfy corporate audit requirements. - All data and programs must be backed up and restorable. - All technology must be supported, no matter what. I've seen all kinds of creative solutions to enterprise problems that didn't satisfy these axioms. And you know what happens? Something goes wrong and no one knows what to do. That server under Joe's desk with those cool spreadsheets just crashed and no one ever backed it up. The nifty little Ruby app that Sue put together; she's gone and no one else knows Ruby. The open source web server just crashed and no one is to blame because there is no vendor to blame. The nine new kinds of smart phones that different sales guys like but no one knows how to support. It goes on and on. Creative people get creative. Cool solutions help. Until they don't help anymore. Because the costs suddenly outweigh the benefits. And one more dirty little enterprise secret than many creative people overlook: you can solve most problems with many different tools. Sure the old tools may not be as fun, but they can still get the job done at a lower cost. In an ideal world, we'd get to work will cool stuff AND help the enterprise at the same time. But if the trade-off is our intellectual gratification vs. the enterprise's profits, the enterprise will win every time; count on it.

vog 16y ago
> The open source web server just crashed and no one is to blame because there is no vendor to blame. With all due respect, this is FUD. It is one of the typical "arguments" used by Microsoft to discredit Free Software. Of course you need (paid) support for all software you can't maintain on your own. If you fail to ensure support for Free Software, you are as doomed as if you fail to ensure support for the proprietary software. (However, with Free Software you have some chance to find another company that provides support for it. This is - by design - impossible with proprietary software.)
gacba 16y ago
If you are a passionate programmer that wants to work with new tools, sexy frameworks, and other passionate developers... ...you should NOT be working in the Enterprise. Unfortunately, the nature of the Enterprise will kill much of that because of the 4 reasons laid out above.
- lkrubner 16y ago
  Still, I wonder how much these limitations could be overcome by good management? Yes, I agree, most enterprises are sluggish and bureaucratic and, yes, there are too many meetings and everything gets decided in a committee and innovative ideas usually get killed by those who are protecting their territory - but isn't all that just a sign of bad management? Isn't it a sign of great management when large organizations mangage to operate as if they are smaller and more nimble than they really are? When it comes to technology, for sure, innovation often gets killed by those whose job it is to support the infrastructure. But wouldn't good management find ways to lessen the stifling effects of legacy systems?
  - vog 16y ago
    > ... but isn't all that just a sign of bad management? Using the words of Tom DeMarco, it is first of all a problem with the company's culture and atmosphere. Of course manager can setup structures that encourage or discourage bad behavior, but it's usually impossible for a single manager to change a whole company's culture. However, a good manager can (and should) try to make the best of the situation, that is, establish good communication with other managers and trying in establish a good atmosphere in her/his own division. So maybe it's all in the hands of the founders and the first managers to establish a company structure that can both grow and stay healthy. It remains to be proven whether this is possible or not. Currently, the only method known to be working it to just keep your company at medium size. Except for very few kinds of business, there's absolutely no need to grow beyond a certain size.
igrekel 16y ago
You forgot Not every programmer is passionate about the same thing.

by edw519 16y ago

vog 16y ago

> The open source web server just crashed and no one is to blame because there is no vendor to blame. With all due respect, this is FUD. It is one of the typical "arguments" used by Microsoft to discredit Free Software. Of course you need (paid) support for all software you can't maintain on your own. If you fail to ensure support for Free Software, you are as doomed as if you fail to ensure support for the proprietary software. (However, with Free Software you have some chance to find another company that provides support for it. This is - by design - impossible with proprietary software.)

gacba 16y ago

If you are a passionate programmer that wants to work with new tools, sexy frameworks, and other passionate developers... ...you should NOT be working in the Enterprise. Unfortunately, the nature of the Enterprise will kill much of that because of the 4 reasons laid out above.

lkrubner 16y ago
Still, I wonder how much these limitations could be overcome by good management? Yes, I agree, most enterprises are sluggish and bureaucratic and, yes, there are too many meetings and everything gets decided in a committee and innovative ideas usually get killed by those who are protecting their territory - but isn't all that just a sign of bad management? Isn't it a sign of great management when large organizations mangage to operate as if they are smaller and more nimble than they really are? When it comes to technology, for sure, innovation often gets killed by those whose job it is to support the infrastructure. But wouldn't good management find ways to lessen the stifling effects of legacy systems?
- vog 16y ago
  > ... but isn't all that just a sign of bad management? Using the words of Tom DeMarco, it is first of all a problem with the company's culture and atmosphere. Of course manager can setup structures that encourage or discourage bad behavior, but it's usually impossible for a single manager to change a whole company's culture. However, a good manager can (and should) try to make the best of the situation, that is, establish good communication with other managers and trying in establish a good atmosphere in her/his own division. So maybe it's all in the hands of the founders and the first managers to establish a company structure that can both grow and stay healthy. It remains to be proven whether this is possible or not. Currently, the only method known to be working it to just keep your company at medium size. Except for very few kinds of business, there's absolutely no need to grow beyond a certain size.

igrekel 16y ago

You forgot Not every programmer is passionate about the same thing.