Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Software Editorial

Six Laws of the New Software 313

Posted by CowboyNeal from the listen-to-the-law dept.
LordFoom writes "Still suffering from post-dotcom stress disorder, I keep my eye out for gentle balm to sooth my ravaged psyche. The manifestos at ChangeThis are not it. The most popular manifestos range from irritating to enlightening, with none of them particularly comforting. In particular the recent Six Laws of the New Software have done my dreams of writing lucrative code no good - although it has changed my idea of what money-making code is."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Six Laws of the New Software More

Six Laws of the New Software

Comments Filter:

  • In a nutshell (Score:5, Informative)

    by winkydink ( 650484 ) * <sv.dude@gmail.com> on Thursday February 03, 2005 @09:45PM (#11568757) Homepage Journal
    Keep it simple
    Keep it small
    You're not gonna be the next Microsoft
    Do many releases
    Comply with relevant standards

    • Re:In a nutshell (Score:5, Funny)

      by cyber_rigger ( 527103 ) on Thursday February 03, 2005 @09:52PM (#11568812) Homepage Journal
      7. Don't post a link on /. to your development machine.

    • Re:In a nutshell (Score:5, Funny)

      by jsprat ( 442568 ) on Thursday February 03, 2005 @10:04PM (#11568891)

      2. Keep it simple
      3. Keep it small
      4. You're not gonna be the next Microsoft
      5. Do many releases
      6. Comply with relevant standards

      That's 5 laws... What's the sixth?

      Profit?
    • That's only five.
    • You'll never be the next Microsoft thinking that way. Think big, have great unstoppable vision. Play to win, or give it up now.

      • Re:In a nutshell (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Doomdark ( 136619 ) on Friday February 04, 2005 @01:21AM (#11569704) Homepage Journal
        Or maybe there just will never be another Microsoft; as in no company will duplicate the (early) life-span of Microsoft. That's entirely possible -- perhaps time for mega-corporations based on standard expensive shrink-wrapped applications is over?

        This is not to say there couldn't be other mega-corps in software, just that they would probably become such using different kinds of products, strategies and so on.

        What I don't understand, however, is the last part ("play to win, or give it up now"): are you implying there is no other way to succeed than the Microsoft way? I'd think that's bit short-sighted. Besides, Microsoft didn't exactly get started on great unstoppable visions, but with rather simple ideas of building basic interpreters (etc) to sell for hobbyists. The vision part only came when they grew big, and made founder(s) think they need to have visions; bit like how George Lucas keeps on reinventing the history of Star Wars.

        • I'm saying that successful people, people that are doing what they want, making a good living at it, have the things that make them happy, generally have a vision and are aggressive about pursuing it. They play to win. Look, I'm not the best with words, you know what I mean.
      • I agree, this manifesto is too closed-minded. Saying "you are not going to be the next microsoft/SAP because you are too late" is completely wrong. Let's see how google goes in another 5 years.

        No-one says it is going to be easy, but with a bit of imagination anything can happen. Who the hell would have thought five years ago that google could beat yahoo et al? (Of course the day they write an OS that is better than XP, I'll eat my hat (luckily I don't have any))

      • Re:In a nutshell (Score:3, Informative)

        by robertjw ( 728654 )
        Microsoft should read this article. Sure they have unstoppable vision and play to win, but they lose way more than they win.

        They have 3 or 4 areas where their products are dominant (operating system, word processor, spreadsheet, etc..) and those areas are impressive, but what about all the areas where they have commited tremendous amounts of resources just to get minimal market share or fall flat on their face. For every product they have been successful at there are dozens that have less than optimal
    • "You're not gonna be the next Microsoft"

      Fuck him.

      Somebody has to be - why not me?

      Remember, Microsoft didn't exist thirty years ago - and will likely not exist thirty years from now...

      This is just the usual bullshit from people who can't deal with change.

      Total crap.

      Nothing to see here. Move along.

      • The point is: there will be no next Microsoft. So, it won't be you. Got it?

      • Re:In a nutshell (Score:3, Informative)

        by orasio ( 188021 )
        Somebody has to be

        Or not.
        Maybe there's no way people will pay $200 tax to use their computer, in the next 30 years.
        Of course, if you addressed a new tech, like nanotech-for-the-regular-guy or stuff like that, there's room for some hobbist-turned billionaire, but regular software doesn't look like a field that could support another Bill Gates.

    • The article makes a few good points, but they're hardly insightful stuff. Come on... most of us could have come up with these things. The article defines what a good product should be, but as we all know, a good product does not a succesful product make. And conversely, a bad product may still become market leader. Ever seen the user interface to SAP, Cognos, Agresso/Unit4? These are all popular packages around here... despite their many shortcomings.

      If you want a truly insightful essay, not on what

  • In the end of last century... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by melted ( 227442 ) on Thursday February 03, 2005 @09:46PM (#11568763) Homepage
    There was a widespread belief among physicists that there's nothing more to discover in physics. They were wrong. This guy is also wrong.

  • Here's another law to add (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Dancin_Santa ( 265275 ) <DancinSanta@gmail.com> on Thursday February 03, 2005 @09:47PM (#11568773) Journal
    When developing a web browser, if a plug-in needs to be launched, don't let the plug-in's loading cause all other instances of the browser to lock up.

    I'm looking at you, Firefox.

    What's the deal with the PDF-format anyway? The document is 17 pages of Powerpoint-like slides. I'm sure some nice, simple HTML could have displayed that much more quickly. And not locked up Firefox for a minute.

    • Re:Here's another law to add (Score:5, Insightful)

      by cmowire ( 254489 ) on Thursday February 03, 2005 @09:53PM (#11568821) Homepage
      Disable the acrobat plugin.

      Not only does this prevent Firefox from freezing up obnoxiously, but it also means that you don't see the file until it's actually done loading. Progressive PDF's suck.
      • Disable the acrobat plugin.

        Easier said than done. If you try and hide the plugin, mozilla and firefox often go looking for it. Eventually I had to just delete the shared library on linux. On windows, I had to edit the preferences file to look for a version of acrobat that didn't exist yet.


        The plugin is so annoying because its toolbars take up a lot of space along with firefox's.

      • Disable the acrobat plugin.

        Yes, disable it, and use a quick and functional third-party PDF viewer like this one. [foxitsoftware.com] Acrobat in an ponderous, bloated abomination, kind of like Mothra in larval form.

      • An even better option: PDF SpeedUp [acropdf.com]. A coworker clued me in to this great little utility. It basically disables all the extra junk in Acrobat Reader, cutting the load time down to 1-2 sec tops.
      • This isn't Firefox's fault. It is because of Adobe products.
        Just now I searched for a free PDF viewer. I found Foxit PDF reader [foxitsoftware.com], which is a free lightweight PDF reader.
        It opened the same document very fast.

      • Progressive PDF's suck.

        No. ALL PDF's suck.

        Don't get me wrong, I wholly support a platform-neutral document format. What I don't support is a document reader that takes longer to load than my operating system. Nor do I support a document reader that insists on nagging me to install OTHER software for the benefit of a bloated software empire (the other one).

    • Re:Here's another law to add (Score:4, Informative)

      by sglider ( 648795 ) on Thursday February 03, 2005 @10:26PM (#11568994) Homepage Journal
      This link from the Firfox FAQ [mozilla.org] answers why that happens. It isn't Firefox's fault, but it is adobe's fault. If you follow that link, you'll see adobe pages load (on a broadband connection) in mere seconds.
    • You can use a program to remove the plugins that are not used frequently. Speeds it up a lot.

      http://sewatch.com/searchday/article.php/3456481

    • Or how about presenting a purported plugin installation dialog that, after clicking through all the Next>> buttons, just sits there and spins and never ever closes.

    • What's the deal with the PDF-format anyway? The document is 17 pages of Powerpoint-like slides. I'm sure some nice, simple HTML could have displayed that much more quickly.

      Boy, that's for sure. And you're not the only one who thinks so; see Jeff Jarvis' [buzzmachine.com] and Doc Searls' [weblogs.com] rants on the subject, which prompted a response [typepad.com] from ChangeThis' founder, Seth Godin:

      I hear you. But I think the comparison is not apt. The right comparison is to compare our PDFs to books.

      Books are not searchable. They cost money t

    • Why does a web browser need to be able to read pdf files??

      I never bothered installing the adobe software, and have firefox set up to open all pdf files in xpdf automatically... it works great!
      The document is opened a second or two after i click the link, and i never have to worry about my browser crashing..

    • Don't use a plug in. Use XPDF instead.

      Firefox will launch it for you but not auto-magically. I don't believe in auto-magic applications anymore. They bloat, they crash, they generally aren't free.

      First law of software, if it isn't free it's crap. There's nothing out there that I can't get for free and do what I NEED to do today. Nothing.

      As far as the next Microsoft. It's dead. Not because of ingenuity, but because the business model is dead. No one will ever pay as much for software again.

  • The first law of new software... (Score:4, Funny)

    by neuro.slug ( 628600 ) <neuro__ AT hotmail DOT com> on Thursday February 03, 2005 @09:48PM (#11568783)
    The first law of new software is you do NOT talk about new software.

    The second law of new software is...

    C'mon, somebody had to say it.

  • Direct link (Score:4, Informative)

    by Dancin_Santa ( 265275 ) <DancinSanta@gmail.com> on Thursday February 03, 2005 @09:49PM (#11568797) Journal
    Link to article [changethis.com]

    Be careful, it locks up Firefox until it loads.

    • Hint: How to avoid PDF lock-up in Firefox (Score:5, Informative)

      by QuestionsNotAnswers ( 723120 ) on Thursday February 03, 2005 @10:13PM (#11568928)
      Tools | Options | Downloads | Plugins

      Untick PDF.

      Now whenever you click on a PDF link you are prompted if you want to view it in Adobe PDF viewer.

      Works for me!

    • it locks up Firefox until it loads.

      No it doesn't. I have it loading right now as I am writing this. I disable the Adobe Plugin and have Firefox open PDF files directly in Adobe itself. I hate having a PDF open in my web browser, be it IE or Firefox. (Go to Tools -> Options -> Downloads then click the Plug-Ins button and uncheck any Adobe item) I personally hate having most content open in a browser other than embedded movies like you see on Apple Trailers [apple.com].

      I always hated how IE would open up M

    • I use Mozplugger to invoke Acrobat. I can do whatever I like while Acrobat starts and then loads the PDF.

  • Hope I'm not trolling too hard... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 03, 2005 @09:53PM (#11568819)
    But seriously, I thought the dot com bust was actually a *good* thing for real programmers. It weeded out all those retards with a geology degree who were in it just for the cash. Granted, those who were actually good at coding made a lot more back in those days. But if you're actually talented then there is no reason you can't make what you want to make. Doesn't matter what the profession is.

    Anyways, what's the deal with the .pdf download? First off it's /.ed, second... isn't that what the webpage is there for in the first place?

    • Actually, it didn't. A lot of those retards hung on to their jobs while good people got canned.

      The biggest thing that changed and has not changed back is that before the boom, people went into IT because they liked it, the money was secondary. Now, there are many people in IT for the money and to them it's just a job, not a passion.

    • The geology, etc., majors I knew were awesome programmers. The morons I knew were computer science majors who were just in it for the money. I remember them in class. Most of my CS classes seemed to be full of them (1990-1994 - before the boom). I was shocked by this since I became a CS major out of a pure love of programming. the liberal arts and science people that I knew who were programmers had the true hacker ethic.
      • He was talking about the "Geology majors" who were in it for the cash, not the Geology majors who just plain loved programming. Given a choice between non-CS moneygrubbers and CS moneygrubbers, I'd rather have at least the formally trained moneygrubber.

        You could get hired without a degree, so a bunch of people ditched lower paying jobs to start programming by demonstrating basic skills. Compared to them, even the people who got a formal CS degree _for the money_ were better programmers than these other go
      • The point isn't as much the degree. I think college didn't teach me too much that I didn't already knew, for example.

        The problems are (A) if you love programming, and (B) if you have the mental skills for it. At all. Yes, I've been through the "bah, programming is easy, everyone could do it if they wanted to" phase myself. Then you start to realize that things that are trivial and obvious to you, just aren't so for 90% of the rest of the people.

        For example, I've actually sat and watched someone painfully

  • Respect your users (Score:3, Insightful)

    by MarkSwanson ( 648947 ) on Thursday February 03, 2005 @09:54PM (#11568830) Homepage
    By and large there is no need to demand your users trust you with full write access to their home directory, their ethernet device, and more. Consider writing your software in the Java Web Start sandbox.
    • Also, your chair is too comfortable. Consider trading it in for a nice, hard piece of plywood supported by two cinderblocks.

      And it's too warm in your office. Consider turning off the heat.

      And it's too easy to type with all ten fingers intact. Consider breaking three. Any three. Doesn't matter.

      I bet there are a lot of other really good suggestions for people who are into massive amounts of pain.

      Of course, anybody who writes end-user applications in Java is also into inflicting massive amounts of pain. Bu

  • Law 7 (Score:5, Insightful)

    by DrKyle ( 818035 ) on Thursday February 03, 2005 @09:56PM (#11568837)
    All the good stuff has already been thought of, but not everyone knows they exist. Try to find really good ideas by looking back at least 10 years for a piece of software that never took off and has been abandoned and remarket it as the next big thing. Remember: Marketing people could sell blood to a turnip.
    • Yes, but why didn't it take off? A programmer's "really good idea" is sometimes an end-user's "cool but I don't need it."

      What if no one cared about it then and for the same reasons won't care about it now?

      I'm sure someone, *somewhere* has done a 3D spreadsheet that sold about 50 copies then went bust.

      Reviving the concept doesn't mean it would sell any more now though, even if marketed better.

      Still, you could be right - there could be really good ideas that just didn't make it because the GUI was bad or

  • Writing vs Coding (Score:4, Insightful)

    by kiwidefunkt ( 855968 ) on Thursday February 03, 2005 @10:02PM (#11568872) Homepage
    It seems like some of these people spend more time writing about software than actually writing software...

  • pdftotext (Score:5, Informative)

    by flossie ( 135232 ) on Thursday February 03, 2005 @10:03PM (#11568878) Homepage
    The SIX LAWS of the NEW SOFTWARE
    GO AHEAD AND PRINT THIS. This manifesto

    continued

    is toner-friendly: the backgrounds wont print on paper and are only visible on-screen to aid readability. We recommend printing a test page as some older printers do not support this Acrobat feature.

    by Dror Eyal
    NEXT

    Not using Adobe Acrobat? Please go to http://changethis.com/content/reader

    The first wave of software is over, it is doubtful that any one company will capture the market like Microsoft or SAP did. Not because the software they write isn't better or has less functionality, they've simply arrived too late. Most home consumers have all the software they will ever need, and most companies out there already have all the basic technologies they need to successfully compete right now.
    I can hear their objections all the way down here, and I agree, your software is better designed, faster, has more features, is more user-friendly and can indeed make seven flavours of coffee. We have something similar, it isnt well designed, it doesnt have half of the features that yours has and no, it doesnt run on Service Orientated Architecture. We did however pay a small fortune for the per-seat licences, we have learnt to use it quite comfortably over the last five years and this is the system that our business runs on. This view isnt limited to us -- Northwestern University economist Robert Gordon, in a 2000 article published in the Journal of Economic Perspectives, argued that "the most important GO AHEAD AND PRINT uses of THIS. This manifesto computers were developed more than a decade into the past, not currently."

    is toner-friendly: the Its a fairly bleak view to be sure, but one that isnt unique to Mr Gordon. Many business backgrounds wont executives print on paper and are are turning away from purchasing new technologies and looking for new ways to use their only visible on-screen existing technologies effectively. Not because the new software entering the market to aid readability. We recommend printing a test page as some older printers do not support this Acrobat feature.

    isnt better, but because the functionality that they need already exists in software that was bought years ago. Budgets for software expenditure are dropping and the accountants are starting to question why the software that was essential last year needs an upgrade this year. What this means to the average software developer is that the window of opportunity for selling into the corporate market and to some the degree the home market is getting smaller than ever before. So does this mean that this is the end for the software industry? Obviously not, we will continue to develop better products, occasionally new technology will get developed and or a new idea will start a trend and software will get developed around it. Software that meets a new need will always be welcome. Who knew that we needed file sharing software before Napster turned the music industry on its ear? Or that social software and bloging tools were essential if your company was to be seen to be on the cutting edge? No, it isnt the end, but for every tool that revolutionizes the industry and strikes a path into a new territory there are several hundred software companies out there trying to build a better CRM or CMS -- the software industry equivalent of the mousetrap. Obviously it would be better if we all developed software that met a new need and created new markets, but just as obviously we cant all develop revolutionary new software. Most of the software being developed right now in studios around the world is trying to find a niche in existing and saturated markets. So how do you build software that stands out and can compete in this new environGO AHEAD AND PRINT ment? You build a tool based on new generation software laws. THIS. This manifesto
    is toner-friendly: the backgrounds wont print on paper and are only visible on-screen to aid readability. We recommend printing a test page as some older printers do not support this Acrob

  • The REAL 6 laws of code writing.... (Score:3, Funny)

    by Hobadee ( 787558 ) on Thursday February 03, 2005 @10:12PM (#11568925) Homepage Journal
    1. Make sure it's impossible to use.
    2. Make sure it's buggy.
    3. Make sure it's unsecure.
    4. Market the hell out of it. (Making sure to state how great and secure it is.)
    5. ???
    6. Profit!

  • The "Collaborate" Suggestion and Unix (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Zergwyn ( 514693 ) on Thursday February 03, 2005 @10:14PM (#11568936)
    Most of these suggestions are common sense to anyone who has a couple of serious software projects under their belt, which isn't to say that they aren't worthwhile to look through. However, one in particular made me think of an old question of mine, having to do with the way unix works vs the modern GUI. On page 6, the pdf discusses the "Collaborate Law". It says:

    "Forget enterprise systems that do everything possible within your field. They're too large, clumsy and require too much development time. Instead, create small discrete software that can collaborate seamlessly with the technology that the end users are currently using."

    This, in a nutshell, seems to be the core philosophy behind much of the original Unix. Most Unix apps (and in particular, all the 'commands' which are small applications) have the concept of standard in (stdin), standard out (stdout), and standard error (stderr). Because most commands can operate to accept stdin, do its purpose, and then send to stdout, it is both possible, intuitive, and very practical to chain together many small commands to accomplish a single task very easily. I suspect there is some terminology for this process, but as I don't know what it is I generally think of it as being a "stream centered" approach. You have many discrete components operating on a stream of information. However, I know of no similar functionality in most modern GUIs, which are all basically application-centered approaches (though Windows tends to present itself as being document-centered). Each application is a single thing that you open up, and has its own self contained operations, usage, etc. I would like to see this more object-oriented stream approach exist in more GUIs today, because it is really a very useful paradigm for many tasks. It allows developers to concentrate on doing a single task extremely well, and then allows users to chain that task in as many ways as they can imagine, which is always more then what the original developer could think of. In Mac OS X 10.4, the Automator [apple.com] feature sounds like it might very well be close to what I have in mind, though a lot will depend on how easily and powerfully developers can make new 'Actions' (Apple's terminology for single task apps/commands). However, these days I really think that is an old concept that is time tested and very useful and just waiting for the right re-implementation to become critical for a new generation.
    • That's a good point. The "Automator" could become the "|" pipe for a GUI system.

      Instead of a CLI approach like:

      funkyimageprocessor *.tif | morefunkyeffects > ~/processedimages/

      It becomes a drag & drop thing for real GUI apps... Interesting stuff. I'm going to have to find out more about the Automator.
      • Not so much "could become" as "is." Automator is based on the idea of creating ad-hoc workflow pipelines, just like the UNIX command line. Except you're not limited to textual input and output, and the workflows can be saved for later execution.

        Think of it as the natural evolution of the pipeline aspects of the command line.
    • if you go back in time a bit, there was Apple's OpenDoc. I've forgotten why it failed, but i think it had something to do with the fact that people want to buy apps, not app parts. Also, AppleScript has always been able to tie apps together, even back in the OS 8 days. (Which automated ad placement for many newspapers, drawing info from databases.) ....but people rarely use them because they're lazy.
      • I think it had to do with developers not adopting it for several good reasons.

        Apple had just come out with several new technology initiatives that required or would have required significant new investment by third party developers which ultimately were dropped by Apple. I point to things like Dylan, Publish and Subscribe, Quickdraw GX, Power Talk, AOCE, and a host of other things.

        So, having been burned several times, Apple comes out with this OpenDoc thing and wants people to develop "parts" of an applic
    • to chain together many small commands to accomplish a single task very easily. I suspect there is some terminology for this process, but as I don't know what it is

      You're on to something here. The essential design principle is composability. Take Lego for example. You can make complex artifacts by assembling many existing elements together.

      A similar, but distinct, principle is extensibility. To continue with the Lego example, it allows you to invent a completely new element that extends the behavior

    • The modern GUI equivalent is component systems. To name a few:

      OLE/ActiveX/COM
      Java Beans
      Bonobo
      DCOP
      CORBA

      Now a lot of people are going to respond about how these aren't as simple as unix pipes. That's because the data comming from GUIs isn't as simple as the data comming from simple unix text apps. All of the unix apps you could stream into/out of expected one directional constant flow data. In fact any time you have a unix console app that's at all interactive you can't do anything with its output (thin

  • As per instructions on the error page... (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Dear webmaster@localdomain:
    Your server gave me this error:

    Internal Server Error
    The server encountered an internal error or misconfiguration and was unable to complete your request.
    Please contact the server administrator, webmaster@localdomain and inform them of the time the error occurred, and anything you might have done that may have caused the error.
    More information about this error may be available in the server error log.
    Apache/1.3.26 Server at www.changethis.com Port 80

    It just happene

  • People are dumb (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 03, 2005 @11:02PM (#11569170)
    One good rule when writing software would be to assume people are profoundly retarded, thus maximising the possible market share of your software by making it really easy to use.
    • That way lies making a bad interface nevertheless.

      See for example ESR's relatively recent rant (it was on the Slashdot front page too) about his frustrating efforts to configure CUPS on a simple home network. I dunno if you'd consider ESR a retard, but I'd say he's not quite clueless about Unix. Or at least way above the level of an average home user. Yet it took him... what? Several hours?

      That was the perfect example of the kind of GUI made not to actually help the user, but simply based on "gah, we must

  • manifesto? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by convolvatron ( 176505 ) on Thursday February 03, 2005 @11:10PM (#11569202)
    do the machinists create manifestos about their work? get over it, programming is mildly creative, but whole notion of paradigm-changing products is grossly overinflated. try doing something that has some obvious utility and dont try to ream people for it.
    • Well, maybe they do create manifestos. I don't know any, so I don't really know, but programmers aren't the only people who have long, deep discussions about their subject that sound like arcane magic to everybody else.

      Musicians discuss who and how makes instruments, and I'm sure machinists get into their own technical arguments comparable to the ones that happen here. So why wouldn't they also create manifestos?

      You make it sound as if programmers were the only people discussing this stuff, and the rest o

  • Six Laws of Perpetual Software Contracts (Score:5, Funny)

    by saddino ( 183491 ) on Thursday February 03, 2005 @11:12PM (#11569218)
    /* todo: add six laws here */
  • 7. Never release software until you've rewritten it at least three times. (i.e. version 3.0 is the minimum one that's any good).

    Time and again this one seems to prove itself true!
    • You can save yourself the effort of rewriting it thrice by just changing the storage format, making minor UI changes, and incrementing the release number. Make sure to get marketting to create a new advertising campaign for the new release, including white care-free young couples smiling in front of the splash screen for your application. Do not take the video or photograph footage for your advertisments at any multiple of 45 degrees on any plane with respect to the orientation of the computer screen (whic

    • Re:Not original but... (Score:2, Informative)

      by bessel ( 824697 )
      Anyone who isn't successful at writing software the first two times around failed at the requirements and design phase.

      You V3.0 people tend to dive right into writing the code before you have a clear understanding of what's needed and how to properly architect/design it. Then, say with pride "V3 is completely redesigned from the ground up". Translated: "We failed so badly the first time around, that we rewrote the same software again".

      Rules of thumb:

      1. Don't start anything until you clearly understand yo

  • Sorry, but... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Anybody who uses "leverage" as a verb is not qualified to comment on the state of computer programming.
  • 1) Make it complex 2) Cram in every buzzword, expensive license, and strategic partnership you can. 3) You're gonna be the next Microsoft. 4) Do no releases. Software thats released gives too much away. Your ideas are too lofty to be nailed down like that! 5) Comply with irrelevant standards For example: "SuperZyzergy.com enabling a new way of doing business on the web! Oracle, Solaris, W3C compliant business solutions, enhancing the synergy of your XML framework!" Company had 40 employees, g

  • 6 laws of computing, eh. (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Why are none of the 6 "laws of computing," "The software must not, through action or through inaction, allow a human to come to harm?" People we gotta get started early if we want these to be in everything.

  • Breaks his own laws (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Captain Kirk ( 148843 ) on Friday February 04, 2005 @02:54AM (#11570028) Homepage Journal
    He says, correctly, that HTML is the standard for documents on the Web.

    He says stick to these standards.

    His own article is in a crappy PDF - possibly the lamest format possible for web articles.

    A case of "do as I say not as I do"
    • I rather liked the part about "our PDFs don't suck".
      Following which they demanded an email address from me in order that I could download a broken PDF where the "this PDF is toner friendly" notice regularly obscures chunks of the page.

      Whatever else it does, it does not inspire me to trust their judgement on other areas of software.

  • Hovno! (Score:2, Insightful)

    by ZurichPrague ( 629877 )
    This was also said 15 years ago: go for vertical markets, nothing else is left. And it's good advice, unless you're ambitious. It's b*llsh*t to say all companies needs have been met. Look around you. It's called the "software crisis" for a reason. There is something huge waiting, lurking around the corner. Be there for it.

  • From TFA:

    HTML is a standard for the web. All software vendors who develop software that either views, displays or edits HTML comply with the standard, which means that content developed on Dreamweaver will not only be viewable on Internet Explorer but can also be reopened and reedited by Frontpage. Macromedia, who developed Dreamweaver, doesn't need to have ever tested on Microsoft's product, they both comply.

    The author is obviously lives in some parallel universe. I wish I could live there too. Not tes

  • Why does everybody think software is different? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by lux55 ( 532736 ) on Friday February 04, 2005 @05:45AM (#11570472) Homepage Journal
    The business models employed in the software industry are no different than in other industries, yet software makers continually try to convince themselves that they are the only area of business where the only way to make it is with entirely new ideas. Perhaps those who make it do so because of things like good timing, and more knowledge about how business actually works (ie. what plans work in what circumstances, how to see the patterns into which said plans would fit, as they're emerging). The second biggest problem in software is people who continually try to publicly pat themselves on the back and call themselves "original thinkers". The biggest problem in software are the people who believe them.

Slashdot Top Deals

He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion

Close