Comments on: Why microsoft docs and systems suck so very, very much http://www.rhonabwy.com/wp/2009/02/15/why-microsoft-docs-and-systems-suck-so-very-very-much/ Mac, iOS, DevOps, and daily life in Seattle Fri, 25 Nov 2011 06:40:42 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3 By: Keith Lang http://www.rhonabwy.com/wp/2009/02/15/why-microsoft-docs-and-systems-suck-so-very-very-much/comment-page-1/#comment-85069 Keith Lang Mon, 16 Feb 2009 03:38:00 +0000 http://www.rhonabwy.com/wp/?p=802#comment-85069 I don't know anything about working with SQL, but your post lights up one of my rant buttons as well — on spreadsheets. It seems to be a similar problem, having some data and finding a way to generate what you need to know from it. Excel makes you think about the problem like it was on a piece of paper, rather than the dynamic system that is *software*. I'd love to some software focus on speed, experimentation, and building of systems which you can push, pull munge together to find the data you need. I don’t know anything about working with SQL, but your post lights up one of my rant buttons as well — on spreadsheets. It seems to be a similar problem, having some data and finding a way to generate what you need to know from it. Excel makes you think about the problem like it was on a piece of paper, rather than the dynamic system that is *software*. I’d love to some software focus on speed, experimentation, and building of systems which you can push, pull munge together to find the data you need.

]]> By: John DeRosa http://www.rhonabwy.com/wp/2009/02/15/why-microsoft-docs-and-systems-suck-so-very-very-much/comment-page-1/#comment-85057 John DeRosa Sun, 15 Feb 2009 23:33:42 +0000 http://www.rhonabwy.com/wp/?p=802#comment-85057 Interesting. Microsoft never officially states it as such, but they have their own philosophical approach to software, services, and documentation. I haven't thought this through all the way, but: It's something like: Their stuff is designed to make the *intended* use easy, and often bulletproof. But, as you move outside their design parameters, the required effort goes up *way* faster than it ought to. I don't know if it's really asymptotic, but it can seem that way. I've sometimes had the same reaaction you did: It just CAN'T be this hard to do what I want to do, can it? I do think their software universe has some ancillary issues that do not help. Microsoft products' data files are usually (always?) binary, and are usually one single large file rather than many small files. This makes it hard (sometimes nigh impossible) to find, and then get at, your data. (Exhibit A: The Outlook .pst file.) Then there's the lack of documentation for their file formats and interfaces, because they're all proprietary. Their (admittedly excellent) support of legacy software and hardware is great for some end-users, but it complicates everything. And their "we eat ONLY our own dogfood" approach to software development means they won't document about how to hook up something to, e.g., MySQL because, gee, there's no point to doing that when you can run SQL Server. I feel your pain. Interesting. Microsoft never officially states it as such, but they have their own philosophical approach to software, services, and documentation. I haven’t thought this through all the way, but: It’s something like: Their stuff is designed to make the *intended* use easy, and often bulletproof. But, as you move outside their design parameters, the required effort goes up *way* faster than it ought to. I don’t know if it’s really asymptotic, but it can seem that way. I’ve sometimes had the same reaaction you did: It just CAN’T be this hard to do what I want to do, can it?

I do think their software universe has some ancillary issues that do not help. Microsoft products’ data files are usually (always?) binary, and are usually one single large file rather than many small files. This makes it hard (sometimes nigh impossible) to find, and then get at, your data. (Exhibit A: The Outlook .pst file.) Then there’s the lack of documentation for their file formats and interfaces, because they’re all proprietary. Their (admittedly excellent) support of legacy software and hardware is great for some end-users, but it complicates everything. And their “we eat ONLY our own dogfood” approach to software development means they won’t document about how to hook up something to, e.g., MySQL because, gee, there’s no point to doing that when you can run SQL Server.

I feel your pain.

]]>