3 ms·
The issue is with the "fatalism" of the comments. For example, you refer to a "glaring failure" when this can be fixed with a simple "drawing mode" patch.
by hyperliner 12y ago
The issue is with the "fatalism" of the comments. For example, you refer to a "glaring failure" when this can be fixed with a simple "drawing mode" patch.
- gisenberg 12y agoNo such thing as a "simple" patch in the context of Windows: http://blogs.msdn.com/b/ericlippert/archive/2003/10/28/how-many-microsoft-employees-does-it-take-to-change-a-lightbulb.aspx http://blogs.msdn.com/b/ericlippert/archive/2003/10/28/how-m...
- hyperliner 12y agoCan we agree to get over anything that happened in computing more than 10 years ago?
- gisenberg 12y agoI'm not sure how a reasonable person can see that article and think Microsoft doesn't have to worry about justifying features, project management, testing, documentation, group policies, localization, security, or anything else that makes a "simple" feature for Windows complicated because the source saying so happens to be more than ten years old. The process and consideration outlined is certainly in-line with my own experiences at Microsoft.
- pyre 12y agoThe fact that the article is old doesn't meant we should ignore it, but on the other hand, you have to consider the possibility that things change over the course of a decade, and the article may be out-dated. You can't use 10-year-old evidence as 'proof' of anything currently happening at Microsoft, though you can use it as evidence to weigh probabilities.