3 ms·

If you build good software that does what it's supposed to, there's no need for service. There may be need for additional software to solve a new problem and i

If you build good software that does what it's supposed to, there's no need for service. There may be need for additional software to solve a new problem and in that sense, you provide a service. But I certainly don't want software that I need to keep going back to the vendor for fixes for or new documentation or for training on how to use it. I think that's very much the wrong way to do software, despite your emphatic use of italics.

maratd 15y ago
You are a fine demagogue. You recognize exactly what I meant. > There may be need for additional software to solve a new problem and in that sense, you provide a service. And then assume I meant something else. > But I certainly don't want software that I need to keep going back to the vendor for fixes for or new documentation or for training on how to use it. Shame on you, sir. > I think that's very much the wrong way to do software, despite your emphatic use of italics. I think this is very much the wrong way to have a civilized discussion, despite your wit.
- nirvdrum 15y ago
  That's a shame - I was fond of the HTML pun. And I was legitimately unsure what you meant by your definition of service. Apologies if hedging my bet there irked you. I'm not a freelance/contractor/consultant and have no desire to be one, so the presumption that that's the only proper model for software development is one I don't take as a given. For what it's worth, I don't agree you should be downvoted. But you also have made it hard to have an actual discussion by casting everything as right/wrong type of situation and then clearly dictating what is right or wrong. That really makes it hard to have a civilized discussion because there's no seeking of understanding, just refutation.
kevinpacheco 15y ago
Maybe you don't, but others do. That's why Red Hat is a billion-dollar-a-year company.
- nirvdrum 15y ago
  Oh, absolutely. JBoss was long held up as the only viable model for being successful with open source and the inevitable model everyone would fall into. Give away the software, charge for support. The problem is support just isn't very scalable. There's room for both: different strokes for different folks. But I still think the ideal in software should be for a tool that just works and is intuitive enough to not require training. There are a lot of tricky problem domains where that's unlikely to ever happen. Such is often the case with ideals.

maratd 15y ago

You are a fine demagogue. You recognize exactly what I meant. > There may be need for additional software to solve a new problem and in that sense, you provide a service. And then assume I meant something else. > But I certainly don't want software that I need to keep going back to the vendor for fixes for or new documentation or for training on how to use it. Shame on you, sir. > I think that's very much the wrong way to do software, despite your emphatic use of italics. I think this is very much the wrong way to have a civilized discussion, despite your wit.

nirvdrum 15y ago
That's a shame - I was fond of the HTML pun. And I was legitimately unsure what you meant by your definition of service. Apologies if hedging my bet there irked you. I'm not a freelance/contractor/consultant and have no desire to be one, so the presumption that that's the only proper model for software development is one I don't take as a given. For what it's worth, I don't agree you should be downvoted. But you also have made it hard to have an actual discussion by casting everything as right/wrong type of situation and then clearly dictating what is right or wrong. That really makes it hard to have a civilized discussion because there's no seeking of understanding, just refutation.

kevinpacheco 15y ago

Maybe you don't, but others do. That's why Red Hat is a billion-dollar-a-year company.

nirvdrum 15y ago
Oh, absolutely. JBoss was long held up as the only viable model for being successful with open source and the inevitable model everyone would fall into. Give away the software, charge for support. The problem is support just isn't very scalable. There's room for both: different strokes for different folks. But I still think the ideal in software should be for a tool that just works and is intuitive enough to not require training. There are a lot of tricky problem domains where that's unlikely to ever happen. Such is often the case with ideals.