3 ms·

Like-minded people appreciate and respect each other (e.g. hackers praised other hackers, developers praised other developers). But that doesn't mean they're th

Like-minded people appreciate and respect each other (e.g. hackers praised other hackers, developers praised other developers). But that doesn't mean they're the answer to all software development issues. Case and point: Software development process at Google vs Microsoft. The former is more like code-n-shoot (not all, but some), the latter is more disciplined due to years of experience. The former is close to the definition of "hackers" while the latter is more of "developers" type.

pg 18y ago
Results of the two approaches: http://finance.google.com/finance?chdnp=1&chdd=1&chds=1&chdv=1&chvs=maximized&chdeh=0&chdet=1215904750477&chddm=381616&cmpto=NASDAQ:MSFT&q=NASDAQ:GOOG&#38 http://finance.google.com/finance?chdnp=1&chdd=1&chd...;
- hello_moto 18y ago
  Yahoo! went down from $300 at its peak to what now? Wasn't Google went up to 700 and went down to 450 ish. I see they rebound now, what about tomorrow and in the future? On another topic: http://valleywag.com/5018349/googles-either-in-a-hiring-freeze-or-this-guy-didnt-get-a-phone-interview http://valleywag.com/5018349/googles-either-in-a-hiring-free... http://valleywag.com/5024181/google-cutting-costs-hiring-slowdown-noticeable-says-employee http://valleywag.com/5024181/google-cutting-costs-hiring-slo... Someone who works inside Google confirmed me as well. By the way, their main money making machine is written in a non-hacker platform.
  - pg 18y ago
    Yahoo never had a lot of great hackers. That's the main cause of their trouble, in fact. They regarded hackers as a commodity.
    - hello_moto 18y ago
      How can you say this? Yahoo! is a big company. Blaming their trouble on one thing seems to be absurd. One thing that comes to my mind is that when your company grows, you need business savvy and a good management team. These two are something not "hacker"-ish trait. Google seems to do quite well [Note: For A While] because they made good decisions. It has nothing to do at all with Sergey or Larry coding skill [Reference to your earlier statement that they seem to be a good founder because they're "hacker"]. Remember they almost sold their hit-single to Yahoo! for just about One Million Dollar. It has everything to do with time, luck, and their decisions.
- ardit33 18y ago
  not a fair comparison. You are comparing a 5 years old company (publicly) that had huge growth, to a mature one. If you compare current google with msft of the 80s, you will see that msft actually performed better. http://finance.google.com/finance?q=NASDAQ%3AMSFT&hl=en http://finance.google.com/finance?q=NASDAQ%3AMSFT&hl=en (expand the chart to the max timeline, to see the huge ramp growth MSFT had on its earlier years). If you put a dollar in msft in 86, that would have turned into $6.02 in 1990 and $11.09 in 96. If you bought a dollar is shares of goog in 2004, you would have about $3.93 now. So the MSFT of the 80s and early 90s hugely outperfomed the current google. But Microsoft was probably a very different company at the time. As it gets bigger, it would be much hard to sustain the same path of growth. And all those people that say "google is different", and wont make the same mistakes as MSFT, probably are wrong, as at some point, the sheer size of the company will make it harder to grow, and it will slowly turn just like any other larg corp.
  - jrockway 18y ago
    The business models are different anyway. Microsoft makes money because they convince people that there is no other choice. Nobody actually likes Windows. It's just the only option. I think people generally like Google's products; they build value by actually building software. Microsoft builds value with marketing. So you can't really compare the development styles and making money. If you compare software quality, I think Microsoft loses big time. Ever use Vista?
    - ardit33 18y ago
      "Nobody actually likes Windows." -- Really? Maybe Vista yes, but between 95-2002 Windows was probably one of the best choices for average Joe. Mac Os, before OS X was not that great (and expensive), plus it was available to only limited hardware, which was way behind wintel peformance wise. And there was of course Linux, and Unix versions, but really would execpt average Joe to have to manually configure drivers, and go back to the 80s and start using command line just to get their computer the net. Sure, now both Mac OS X and Linux are much better choices than Vista, but at the time Win 95/90 then 2000/XP were the best choice for general productivity.
helveticaman 18y ago
Counter-example: skunkworks. Awesome because of the lack of bureaucracy, here described as "discipline."

pg 18y ago

Results of the two approaches: http://finance.google.com/finance?chdnp=1&chdd=1&chds=1&chdv=1&chvs=maximized&chdeh=0&chdet=1215904750477&chddm=381616&cmpto=NASDAQ:MSFT&q=NASDAQ:GOOG&#38 http://finance.google.com/finance?chdnp=1&chdd=1&chd...;

hello_moto 18y ago
Yahoo! went down from $300 at its peak to what now? Wasn't Google went up to 700 and went down to 450 ish. I see they rebound now, what about tomorrow and in the future? On another topic: http://valleywag.com/5018349/googles-either-in-a-hiring-freeze-or-this-guy-didnt-get-a-phone-interview http://valleywag.com/5018349/googles-either-in-a-hiring-free... http://valleywag.com/5024181/google-cutting-costs-hiring-slowdown-noticeable-says-employee http://valleywag.com/5024181/google-cutting-costs-hiring-slo... Someone who works inside Google confirmed me as well. By the way, their main money making machine is written in a non-hacker platform.
- pg 18y ago
  Yahoo never had a lot of great hackers. That's the main cause of their trouble, in fact. They regarded hackers as a commodity.
  - hello_moto 18y ago
    How can you say this? Yahoo! is a big company. Blaming their trouble on one thing seems to be absurd. One thing that comes to my mind is that when your company grows, you need business savvy and a good management team. These two are something not "hacker"-ish trait. Google seems to do quite well [Note: For A While] because they made good decisions. It has nothing to do at all with Sergey or Larry coding skill [Reference to your earlier statement that they seem to be a good founder because they're "hacker"]. Remember they almost sold their hit-single to Yahoo! for just about One Million Dollar. It has everything to do with time, luck, and their decisions.
ardit33 18y ago
not a fair comparison. You are comparing a 5 years old company (publicly) that had huge growth, to a mature one. If you compare current google with msft of the 80s, you will see that msft actually performed better. http://finance.google.com/finance?q=NASDAQ%3AMSFT&hl=en http://finance.google.com/finance?q=NASDAQ%3AMSFT&hl=en (expand the chart to the max timeline, to see the huge ramp growth MSFT had on its earlier years). If you put a dollar in msft in 86, that would have turned into $6.02 in 1990 and $11.09 in 96. If you bought a dollar is shares of goog in 2004, you would have about $3.93 now. So the MSFT of the 80s and early 90s hugely outperfomed the current google. But Microsoft was probably a very different company at the time. As it gets bigger, it would be much hard to sustain the same path of growth. And all those people that say "google is different", and wont make the same mistakes as MSFT, probably are wrong, as at some point, the sheer size of the company will make it harder to grow, and it will slowly turn just like any other larg corp.
- jrockway 18y ago
  The business models are different anyway. Microsoft makes money because they convince people that there is no other choice. Nobody actually likes Windows. It's just the only option. I think people generally like Google's products; they build value by actually building software. Microsoft builds value with marketing. So you can't really compare the development styles and making money. If you compare software quality, I think Microsoft loses big time. Ever use Vista?
  - ardit33 18y ago
    "Nobody actually likes Windows." -- Really? Maybe Vista yes, but between 95-2002 Windows was probably one of the best choices for average Joe. Mac Os, before OS X was not that great (and expensive), plus it was available to only limited hardware, which was way behind wintel peformance wise. And there was of course Linux, and Unix versions, but really would execpt average Joe to have to manually configure drivers, and go back to the 80s and start using command line just to get their computer the net. Sure, now both Mac OS X and Linux are much better choices than Vista, but at the time Win 95/90 then 2000/XP were the best choice for general productivity.

helveticaman 18y ago

Counter-example: skunkworks. Awesome because of the lack of bureaucracy, here described as "discipline."