Excellent points. You've pretty much summed up every software company I've worked for.
I think one way to measure whether a group is headed for disaster is to actually listen to people who are on the outside. It's simply not always possible to get an honest perspective when you're on the inside, living among the group day in and day out, immersed in its ideas and ideals. One might think he or she has a better perspective being on the inside, but that's often not realistic.
Case in point -- recently Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols wrote a column called "Five ways the Linux desktop shoots itself in the foot" explaining what exactly is going wrong with Linux. And the responses are very telling -- total, complete denial from the people within the community -- and yet, the responses demonstrated exactly the points made in the article.
I use Windows almost 100%. Sure, I hate it as much as the next guy. But so far I've seen no compelling reason to switch to Linux. I don't see Linux as so much better that it will absolutely change my world. The Linux community has convinced me Linux can do everything Windows can. That I believe. And they might even have convinced me it's a little bit better than Windows. But so far it doesn't appear that it's so much better than Windows that it will change my computing world and make me a happier and more productive computer user. I see it as something comparable to Windows, and nothing more. It's sort of like trying to convince a Honda driver to switch to Toyota. Sure, it'd be easy to convince a Yugo driver to ditch the old beat up thing and switch to Toyota. But not so easy convincing the Honda driver.
And so the Open Source community needs to listen to the people on the outside and maybe just maybe start to understand its own problems so they can be resolved. And maybe then they really will create something that will change the world. Will they tell me I'm an idiot for not using Linux, or will they prove to me that Linux really is that much better than Windows -- not just a little bit, but far, far better than Windows, thus making the time spent converting all my documents and data worth while? Until then, I'll keep swearing at my Windows machine, convinced that if I switch to Linux I'll be swearing just as much.
by Jeff (not verified) on 10/21/09 at 1:14 pm |reply
A few simple reasons to
A few simple reasons to switch to open source:
You can start taking ownership of your computer and everything on it. You can start to prioritize problems and seek help or suggest ways it can be improved or improve them and make a name for yourself.
You gain peace of mind when it comes to security and privacy. To me, there is something wrong with not having third parties (the public at large) being able to audit the system. And, at least short-term if not forever, you will find it safer to browse online and carry out business online when you use an open source system like Linux.
Control. You decide what gets turned on or turned off and when. I don't like Microsoft or anyone else determining this for me, and especially not behind my back.
There are many business opportunities customizing open source (including demo distros).
Free free free applications galore, for life.
If you like tinkering or want to learn to program (from sophisticated programs down to simple forms of automation), you want an open source system at your fingertips.
Control your upgrade path and always ensure you have access to every bit of data you produce and not have to worry about losing material here or formating there or indexing or anything else. If I take the time to do something, I expect to own it and have control of it for life, if at all possible.
As more people move to open source and start participating, Linux will surpass Windows and everything else and by a healthy margin. More to the point, Windows dies once Microsoft stops making a profit on it for a prolonged period of time.
Microsoft is a company. Any given group of people get tired and lose focus. Open source is *everyone*. Not *everyone* will all at once fail the way described in this article.
Honestly, I think most people staying with Windows simply haven't had a good solid taste of freedom and don't know what they are missing.
Plus, who says you can't do both Windows AND Linux?
by Jose_X (not verified) on 10/21/09 at 3:51 pm |reply
To clarify the earlier
To clarify the earlier comment, I do agree that Linux can't just be about the same as Windows in order for it to be adopted readily. And despite what I wrote a few moments ago, I also agree that one generally doesn't see what Linux offers without investing some time into it, and this is unlikely to happen spontaneously for most people.
Thus, the point of the earlier comment is to reinforce the idea that Linux has a lot going for it right now (especially if software patents die their rightful death).
The point of this comment, otoh, is to say that these advantages won't be clear to many people.
I think monopolies like the ones over key software components hurt all of us in a number of ways and are always just a few years or law changes away from becoming *serious* threats. This is why I really want the norm to change from Windows into open source (like Linux). I'm not a madman or a mere "fanboy". I'm honestly concerned about abuses that will impact me and others negatively. I also get upset to see potential go untapped. More people should have genuine access to open source. Open source is potentially a significant life-changer on an individual level and, on a broader/aggregate level, a significant asset to society.
To the article, a stubborn person can sink a ship or can save a ship. Too much in life is gray and objective. The future cannot be foretold. Fortunately, open source means everyone has access, so many can fail without sinking everyone else. Alternatively, just about anyone's gain can be shared by many others. This makes taking risks by individuals very healthy to the whole (ie, to the community, to society).
by Jose_X (not verified) on 10/21/09 at 4:15 pm |reply
re: To clarify the earlier
Simple reply to both statements. To start the OS cults are in all three of the major Operating Systems and are actually quite irriatating for true professionals who deal with one or the other if not two of the three on a daily basis. The "fanboys" of Linux and Apple tend to drive most professionals up the wall since most have no clue as to what it takes to be inside a real IT shop and their only claim is that Linux and or Apple OS's are more secure and the so called free software. As I'm not going into the whole security issue lets just say less users mean less attacks therefore a basic non-issue for Linux and Apple.
Fortunately, open source means everyone has access, so many can fail without sinking everyone else.
This is only true to a point. One major failure in any organization can create issues for the entire organization. Although the open source community as a hole can and will survive long into the future, major set backs caused by either the mistakes of beint cultish in opinions in the world of software or having a group with in the community that have very little knowledge in the language of various programming languages writing code that is full of holes that have to be patch by the experts in a programming language.
In the end nothing is right or wrong in the world of software development. Wheather it is Microsoft and Apple or the Open Source community they all have some good ideas on how to proceed.
The article itself however was not on this issue, it was on the very issue that sets people at the throats of each other. The cultish tendencies of a group (aka fanboys) to say we are right and everyone else is wrong. Something that me and others IT professionals find rather distastefule to say the least. Since I have training in Microsoft and Linux and my degree is in Computer Science I think I can say this. Both have good ideas that would help the other if the they would do more talking instead of posing.
There is some useful thought here, but one thing worries me. Maybe this isn't intended, but as written the article seems to suggest that the moment you consider principles important, or especially worth fighting for, you are doomed.
Is having principle so deadly? Are all organizations founded on anything like an ideal already cults before they begin?
by Rufus Polson (not verified) on 10/21/09 at 11:11 pm |reply
Oh, my. No, I didn't intend to communicate that at all.
In fact, I would go so far as to say that an organization that lacks principles or "something worth fighting for" is doomed before it begins. Or it won't ever become more than a handful of people with a good idea.
Rather, in my experience, the problem in the path-towards-doom isn't that there are no principles but there are battling principles. E.g. "the right way to respond to this PR problem is XYZ -- no it's ABC!" and the internal fight causes the organization to lose sight of the user, membership, or those they need to "sell" to.
Or, alternately, the principles are lost in the name of serving them (we're going to save the planet but mistreating our staff is just "a necessary compromise").
Or, when it's the case of a leader losing touch entirely, he imagines that his principles represent a worldview that doesn't match others' reality. (Best example I could think of for this is Nehemiah Scudder in Heinlein's If This Goes On—, especially if you've read enough of Heinlein's Future History to grasp the arc he envisioned for Scudder.)
It's never a lack of principles. It's when you use them as a weapon with which to bludgeon others, not as the headlights that point the way.
I recently installed Ubuntu 8.10 on my daughter's PC as I couldn't find the XP disk anywhere and she had mysteriously managed to trash it. She is almost 18.
I spent time configuring sound, video codecs and players, setting up Rythymbox, instant messaging, torrent software and all the stuff her generation regards as their god-given right. The result was a very functional (and good-looking) PC. I then demonstrated all this to my daughter including the virtues of OpenOffice for her schoolwork.
She tried it and seemed initially reasonably happy.
However a few weeks later the PC is now sitting completely unused. She uses an old windows 2000 machine instead. Why?
It will sync her mobile 'phone using the manufacturers software, her Ipod too. She doesn't get part functionality nor have to read help files or trawl the net for solutions to make it work. She can run itunes liek her friends, not rythymbox and crucially can play the games that are cool with her peer group, not 'lame' games. And thats just the inadequacies of desktop Linux as she sees it that she bothered to explain.
Freedom of choice isn't important to her. She never stops to think about Microsoft or what software costs. Computers are simply another consumer product to her and she finds that windows is familiar, easy and reliable.
Linux is a great product which I use everyday out of choice.
But it isn't there yet on the desktop for her generation and there is no sign that it will be any time soon.
by Posix (not verified) on 10/24/09 at 11:28 am |reply
Everyone can see it but no one speaks ...
I had sudden flashbacks to all the insolvent companies I've ever worked for.
I had the good fortune to work for two companies that went insolvent when I was there (uni student, not my fault!) and another large company that went from awesome market leader to being sold off and wrapped up into competitor.
These weren't software companies either - the rules are universal.
My downfall of a company goes like this:
1) They can't control things outside the company so they attempt to control things inside the company. So let's bring in ... internet usage monitoring.
2) Still not working. Let's bring in identification badges that must be kept on person at all times. Suddenly people who have worked at a place for three years are hassled because they dared to walk from their desk to the coffee machine without a pass in their pocket.
3) Still not working. It must be the email signatures. New rules there.
4) Still not working. Focus on a single employee and grind on them until they quit. Did that work? No. Okay, do it again.
I think the only thing you left out was the change in communication methodology. This is when meetings that used to include a lot of people suddenly exclude certain people. This is when the frequency of emails changes abruptly. This is when people start being forced to document everything via email because blame is being pinned and the only thing that will save your job is email proof that you did a task.
The secret meetings are a huge one. If an organisation has never had them before and now suddenly there is a meeting going on that no one knows about ... start looking to go somewhere else because the ship is sinking.
In all the cases of changing behaviour - like introducing identity cards - the solution exacerbates the problems rather than solving them. That five-year sales guy that some HR peon decided to give a talking to because he didn't have his pass in his pocket - he finds another job. People start thinking about the future and they know it is better to quit than be fired when the company sinks. So they leave - hastening the sink.
And yes, the good humour is the first thing to go. When it is verboten to laugh because you'll be told off, it is well and truly over.
by Mathew Ferguson (not verified) on 10/25/09 at 7:16 pm |reply
Sidekick: The Good News & the Bad News Either way you look at it Microsoft Data Center management did not follow standards or best practices in this failure. In which case it makes me wonder more about the outsourcing of corporate data much less personal data.
- mburton325
Surviving Windows is easier than you think… MKS offers the power of an integrated all-in-one environment and provides you with the Power of UNIX on Windows Learn More
Brought to you by:
contests & free stuff
We have 5 copies of these two new books to give to some lucky readers. The deadline for entries is November 30, 2009.
AISO founders envisioned a Web hosting company that was environmentally friendly. While the company employed energy-efficient innovations like solar panels, its infrastructure produced unacceptable power and cooling requirements. Find out how AISO leveraged AMD technology to overcome their challenge in this case study white paper.
In this whitepaper, Scalar explores the opportunity to change the landscape with respect to mission critical databases
built around Oracle. Leveraging technologies such as Linux, high-end commodity processing power and Oracle RAC
technology to architect, design, build and maintain database infrastructure that delivers maximum availability, reliability
and performance at a fraction of traditional cost.
On a typical day, weather.com, the Web site for The Weather Channel in Atlanta, serves up between 15 million and 20 million page views. But in September 2004, when back-to-back hurricanes ransacked Florida, the peak traffic on one day more than tripled: over 70 million page views by more than 7 million unique visitors. Read the full success story now.
Esther Schindler
claird
pasmith
Sandra Henry-Stocker
jfruh
mikelgan
Quick, practical advice for IT pros. Made fresh daily.
Excellent
Excellent points. You've pretty much summed up every software company I've worked for.I think one way to measure whether a group is headed for disaster is to actually listen to people who are on the outside. It's simply not always possible to get an honest perspective when you're on the inside, living among the group day in and day out, immersed in its ideas and ideals. One might think he or she has a better perspective being on the inside, but that's often not realistic.
Case in point -- recently Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols wrote a column called "Five ways the Linux desktop shoots itself in the foot" explaining what exactly is going wrong with Linux. And the responses are very telling -- total, complete denial from the people within the community -- and yet, the responses demonstrated exactly the points made in the article.
I use Windows almost 100%. Sure, I hate it as much as the next guy. But so far I've seen no compelling reason to switch to Linux. I don't see Linux as so much better that it will absolutely change my world. The Linux community has convinced me Linux can do everything Windows can. That I believe. And they might even have convinced me it's a little bit better than Windows. But so far it doesn't appear that it's so much better than Windows that it will change my computing world and make me a happier and more productive computer user. I see it as something comparable to Windows, and nothing more. It's sort of like trying to convince a Honda driver to switch to Toyota. Sure, it'd be easy to convince a Yugo driver to ditch the old beat up thing and switch to Toyota. But not so easy convincing the Honda driver.
And so the Open Source community needs to listen to the people on the outside and maybe just maybe start to understand its own problems so they can be resolved. And maybe then they really will create something that will change the world. Will they tell me I'm an idiot for not using Linux, or will they prove to me that Linux really is that much better than Windows -- not just a little bit, but far, far better than Windows, thus making the time spent converting all my documents and data worth while? Until then, I'll keep swearing at my Windows machine, convinced that if I switch to Linux I'll be swearing just as much.
A few simple reasons to
A few simple reasons to switch to open source:You can start taking ownership of your computer and everything on it. You can start to prioritize problems and seek help or suggest ways it can be improved or improve them and make a name for yourself.
You gain peace of mind when it comes to security and privacy. To me, there is something wrong with not having third parties (the public at large) being able to audit the system. And, at least short-term if not forever, you will find it safer to browse online and carry out business online when you use an open source system like Linux.
Control. You decide what gets turned on or turned off and when. I don't like Microsoft or anyone else determining this for me, and especially not behind my back.
There are many business opportunities customizing open source (including demo distros).
Free free free applications galore, for life.
If you like tinkering or want to learn to program (from sophisticated programs down to simple forms of automation), you want an open source system at your fingertips.
Control your upgrade path and always ensure you have access to every bit of data you produce and not have to worry about losing material here or formating there or indexing or anything else. If I take the time to do something, I expect to own it and have control of it for life, if at all possible.
As more people move to open source and start participating, Linux will surpass Windows and everything else and by a healthy margin. More to the point, Windows dies once Microsoft stops making a profit on it for a prolonged period of time.
Microsoft is a company. Any given group of people get tired and lose focus. Open source is *everyone*. Not *everyone* will all at once fail the way described in this article.
Honestly, I think most people staying with Windows simply haven't had a good solid taste of freedom and don't know what they are missing.
Plus, who says you can't do both Windows AND Linux?
To clarify the earlier
To clarify the earlier comment, I do agree that Linux can't just be about the same as Windows in order for it to be adopted readily. And despite what I wrote a few moments ago, I also agree that one generally doesn't see what Linux offers without investing some time into it, and this is unlikely to happen spontaneously for most people.Thus, the point of the earlier comment is to reinforce the idea that Linux has a lot going for it right now (especially if software patents die their rightful death).
The point of this comment, otoh, is to say that these advantages won't be clear to many people.
I think monopolies like the ones over key software components hurt all of us in a number of ways and are always just a few years or law changes away from becoming *serious* threats. This is why I really want the norm to change from Windows into open source (like Linux). I'm not a madman or a mere "fanboy". I'm honestly concerned about abuses that will impact me and others negatively. I also get upset to see potential go untapped. More people should have genuine access to open source. Open source is potentially a significant life-changer on an individual level and, on a broader/aggregate level, a significant asset to society.
To the article, a stubborn person can sink a ship or can save a ship. Too much in life is gray and objective. The future cannot be foretold. Fortunately, open source means everyone has access, so many can fail without sinking everyone else. Alternatively, just about anyone's gain can be shared by many others. This makes taking risks by individuals very healthy to the whole (ie, to the community, to society).
re: To clarify the earlier
Simple reply to both statements. To start the OS cults are in all three of the major Operating Systems and are actually quite irriatating for true professionals who deal with one or the other if not two of the three on a daily basis. The "fanboys" of Linux and Apple tend to drive most professionals up the wall since most have no clue as to what it takes to be inside a real IT shop and their only claim is that Linux and or Apple OS's are more secure and the so called free software. As I'm not going into the whole security issue lets just say less users mean less attacks therefore a basic non-issue for Linux and Apple.Fortunately, open source means everyone has access, so many can fail without sinking everyone else.
This is only true to a point. One major failure in any organization can create issues for the entire organization. Although the open source community as a hole can and will survive long into the future, major set backs caused by either the mistakes of beint cultish in opinions in the world of software or having a group with in the community that have very little knowledge in the language of various programming languages writing code that is full of holes that have to be patch by the experts in a programming language.
In the end nothing is right or wrong in the world of software development. Wheather it is Microsoft and Apple or the Open Source community they all have some good ideas on how to proceed.
The article itself however was not on this issue, it was on the very issue that sets people at the throats of each other. The cultish tendencies of a group (aka fanboys) to say we are right and everyone else is wrong. Something that me and others IT professionals find rather distastefule to say the least. Since I have training in Microsoft and Linux and my degree is in Computer Science I think I can say this. Both have good ideas that would help the other if the they would do more talking instead of posing.
Room for principle?
There is some useful thought here, but one thing worries me. Maybe this isn't intended, but as written the article seems to suggest that the moment you consider principles important, or especially worth fighting for, you are doomed.Is having principle so deadly? Are all organizations founded on anything like an ideal already cults before they begin?
Oh, my. No, I didn't intend to communicate that at all.
In fact, I would go so far as to say that an organization that lacks principles or "something worth fighting for" is doomed before it begins. Or it won't ever become more than a handful of people with a good idea.Rather, in my experience, the problem in the path-towards-doom isn't that there are no principles but there are battling principles. E.g. "the right way to respond to this PR problem is XYZ -- no it's ABC!" and the internal fight causes the organization to lose sight of the user, membership, or those they need to "sell" to.
Or, alternately, the principles are lost in the name of serving them (we're going to save the planet but mistreating our staff is just "a necessary compromise").
Or, when it's the case of a leader losing touch entirely, he imagines that his principles represent a worldview that doesn't match others' reality. (Best example I could think of for this is Nehemiah Scudder in Heinlein's If This Goes On—, especially if you've read enough of Heinlein's Future History to grasp the arc he envisioned for Scudder.)
It's never a lack of principles. It's when you use them as a weapon with which to bludgeon others, not as the headlights that point the way.
Comparing OS projects to Scientology?
That's a first.Nevertheless, some good points were made. Nice article.
I love watching people make guesses.
But the point is that it could be any number of organizations.Why my kids won't use Linux
I recently installed Ubuntu 8.10 on my daughter's PC as I couldn't find the XP disk anywhere and she had mysteriously managed to trash it. She is almost 18.I spent time configuring sound, video codecs and players, setting up Rythymbox, instant messaging, torrent software and all the stuff her generation regards as their god-given right. The result was a very functional (and good-looking) PC. I then demonstrated all this to my daughter including the virtues of OpenOffice for her schoolwork.
She tried it and seemed initially reasonably happy.
However a few weeks later the PC is now sitting completely unused. She uses an old windows 2000 machine instead. Why?
It will sync her mobile 'phone using the manufacturers software, her Ipod too. She doesn't get part functionality nor have to read help files or trawl the net for solutions to make it work. She can run itunes liek her friends, not rythymbox and crucially can play the games that are cool with her peer group, not 'lame' games. And thats just the inadequacies of desktop Linux as she sees it that she bothered to explain.
Freedom of choice isn't important to her. She never stops to think about Microsoft or what software costs. Computers are simply another consumer product to her and she finds that windows is familiar, easy and reliable.
Linux is a great product which I use everyday out of choice.
But it isn't there yet on the desktop for her generation and there is no sign that it will be any time soon.
Everyone can see it but no one speaks ...
I had sudden flashbacks to all the insolvent companies I've ever worked for.I had the good fortune to work for two companies that went insolvent when I was there (uni student, not my fault!) and another large company that went from awesome market leader to being sold off and wrapped up into competitor.
These weren't software companies either - the rules are universal.
My downfall of a company goes like this:
1) They can't control things outside the company so they attempt to control things inside the company. So let's bring in ... internet usage monitoring.
2) Still not working. Let's bring in identification badges that must be kept on person at all times. Suddenly people who have worked at a place for three years are hassled because they dared to walk from their desk to the coffee machine without a pass in their pocket.
3) Still not working. It must be the email signatures. New rules there.
4) Still not working. Focus on a single employee and grind on them until they quit. Did that work? No. Okay, do it again.
I think the only thing you left out was the change in communication methodology. This is when meetings that used to include a lot of people suddenly exclude certain people. This is when the frequency of emails changes abruptly. This is when people start being forced to document everything via email because blame is being pinned and the only thing that will save your job is email proof that you did a task.
The secret meetings are a huge one. If an organisation has never had them before and now suddenly there is a meeting going on that no one knows about ... start looking to go somewhere else because the ship is sinking.
In all the cases of changing behaviour - like introducing identity cards - the solution exacerbates the problems rather than solving them. That five-year sales guy that some HR peon decided to give a talking to because he didn't have his pass in his pocket - he finds another job. People start thinking about the future and they know it is better to quit than be fired when the company sinks. So they leave - hastening the sink.
And yes, the good humour is the first thing to go. When it is verboten to laugh because you'll be told off, it is well and truly over.
Totally agree
You gave excellent examples!