Nothing gets developers as excited as having hour long meetings to learn "the correct way" to log a ticket ! O joy the workplace is set for innovation now ! FML
Why Enterprise Software Sucks
91–100 of 570 posts
Re: Why Enterprise Software Sucks
#92I think this gets it wrong. The real reason enterprise software sucks is that enterprises have complex and unique workflows and would prefer to buy software that they can fit to their workflow rather than change the workflows of their profitable business with tens of thousands of staff who will need retraining. If you look at all of the most successful software of all time they are the complete antithesis of the Unix…
> The real reason enterprise software sucks is that enterprises have complex and unique workflows and would prefer to buy software that they can fit to their workflow rather than change the workflows of their profitable business with tens of thousands of staff who will need retraining. Bingo—the dysfunction of the software reflects the dysfunction of the organization.
I have my doubts that "complex unique organizational workflows" automatically means "dysfunctional organization."
Re: Why Enterprise Software Sucks
#93Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nobody hates Photoshop. In fact it's one of the most loved software out there. I'm a developer and a Photoshop user and love it. The Unix philosophy would be a disaster for a image editing software (ImageMagick much?) Once a developer who spent all day in VIM & co was honestly arguing with me that Photoshop should be a command line app. I filled that under "shit developers say" and "delusional".
Not so much in Venezuela right now. And, FBOW Linux has the Gimp, which I prefer to Photoshop, though that's largely on account of familiarity. ImageMagick itself is invaluable when what you need to do is programmatically change large numbers of images. I've seen it used on large (multi-million user) image-heavy sites as the standard image handling flow (thumbnails and default previews of standard sizes).
That was exactly my point.
ImageMagick and Photoshop serve completely different needs. You can't replace one with the other.
Re: Why Enterprise Software Sucks
#94Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nobody hates Photoshop. In fact it's one of the most loved software out there. I'm a developer and a Photoshop user and love it. The Unix philosophy would be a disaster for a image editing software (ImageMagick much?) Once a developer who spent all day in VIM & co was honestly arguing with me that Photoshop should be a command line app. I filled that under "shit developers say" and "delusional".
Not so much in Venezuela right now. And, FBOW Linux has the Gimp, which I prefer to Photoshop, though that's largely on account of familiarity. ImageMagick itself is invaluable when what you need to do is programmatically change large numbers of images. I've seen it used on large (multi-million user) image-heavy sites as the standard image handling flow (thumbnails and default previews of standard sizes).
> Not so much in Venezuela right now.
Yeah but that's not because of the software itself.
Re: Why Enterprise Software Sucks
#95I think this gets it wrong. The real reason enterprise software sucks is that enterprises have complex and unique workflows and would prefer to buy software that they can fit to their workflow rather than change the workflows of their profitable business with tens of thousands of staff who will need retraining. If you look at all of the most successful software of all time they are the complete antithesis of the Unix…
It's not just organizational complexity either; sometimes it's just scaling concerns. And sometimes it's not your original target market.
One company I worked for had Google as a customer when it was very small, and of course, as Google grew like a rocketship, used the product at a scale well past where it was used by anyone else. And then comes subtle little features to help them manage it at their scale. At one point, I think there were around a hundred "secret" undocumented options and another hundred "super secret" options.
Needless to say, complexity is just something that has to be managed, and there are always rational "business justifications" for practically everything. The complexity often isn't designed; it's just brought in one step at a time from a variety of places. And _that_ usually ends up in a pile of crap.
Re: Why Enterprise Software Sucks
#96Earlier quoted context omitted.
I was a workshop at the google office in Toronto a while back, and people asked when Google sheets would be able to perform big data analysis. The presenter looked confused, and then the group asking the question clarified that their big data workflow involves loading millions and millions of records into excel and they would have trouble migrating to google cloud until google sheets could match excel in performance.…
> big data workflow involves loading millions and millions of records Dude, if it fits on your laptop disk, it's not big data. Here you're talking about “big data” that fits in RAM on my cellphone . Somebody needs to get over himself.
But if Google Sheets can't fit the data they are using, it is by definition "big data", even if it's not Big Data. I think this over-protectiveness of the definition doesn't really serve anyone.
Re: Why Enterprise Software Sucks
#97Earlier quoted context omitted.
Try to use the French version of Excel, and you'll understand. They renamed function names. Everyting. Not a single word makes sense anymore.
Wait, really? As in '=somme(A1:A10)' to add a column?
Yes, same in Italian, and I guess in every other language.
It's dreadful but probably once you memorized all your favourite functions is quick to use. It's definitely not a tool for developers.
Re: Why Enterprise Software Sucks
#98I think this gets it wrong. The real reason enterprise software sucks is that enterprises have complex and unique workflows and would prefer to buy software that they can fit to their workflow rather than change the workflows of their profitable business with tens of thousands of staff who will need retraining. If you look at all of the most successful software of all time they are the complete antithesis of the Unix…
Nobody hates Photoshop. In fact it's one of the most loved software out there. I'm a developer and a Photoshop user and love it. The Unix philosophy would be a disaster for a image editing software (ImageMagick much?) Once a developer who spent all day in VIM & co was honestly arguing with me that Photoshop should be a command line app. I filled that under "shit developers say" and "delusional".
It's strange that someone who spends all day in Vim (which is not an acronym, by the way), an editor driven by keystrokes rather than the command line like ex or edlin, would prefer a command-line Photoshop. I'm not saying you're lying but maybe they misspoke or you misremembered.
A keystroke-driven Photoshop might be something like Blender.
I think netpbm is more Unixy than ImageMagick. I've had good experiences with it, especially for images bigger than my RAM, but a paint program it is not.
Re: Why Enterprise Software Sucks
#99The real reason is that different businesses have different needs. No one company knows all these needs in the beginning, so they build and keep tacking on to their existing solution. They can't easily refactor and break UI changes for their existing clients, so it's end up a big ol mess of everything.
Given everything most enterprise companies know, they can design cleaner simpler software, but the reality is there's no time to stop when you have a business to run for the big ol design. When that is done most of their customers are pretty unhappy, something as simple as changing UI change can be very expensive for your clients, they might have to retrain thousands or tens of thousands of their users. Something as simple as an upgrade, if not a zero time upgrade can affect tens of thousands of users. Enterprise is not as stupid as folks make it out to be. There's a reason they got to being enterprise and make a lot of money, they are a different kind of smart.
Re: Why Enterprise Software Sucks
#100Earlier quoted context omitted.
I was a workshop at the google office in Toronto a while back, and people asked when Google sheets would be able to perform big data analysis. The presenter looked confused, and then the group asking the question clarified that their big data workflow involves loading millions and millions of records into excel and they would have trouble migrating to google cloud until google sheets could match excel in performance.…
> big data workflow involves loading millions and millions of records Dude, if it fits on your laptop disk, it's not big data. Here you're talking about “big data” that fits in RAM on my cellphone . Somebody needs to get over himself.
Right, if it's only millions of records, why can't Google sheets accommodate it.