unethical blogger

Last week there was a post on Coding Horror about the "Dangers of programming alone". Jeff quotes this article which does a fairly good job of expressing the plight. Programming is not a full-time aspect of my work (at least not now) but when we need an application to do some piece of analysis or run some piece of equipment I am the sole developer. While I can relate to watching myself make those mistakes I don't share the same bleak opinion of being a lone programmer. Over the years I've been slowly figuring out how to make the sole-developer arrangement work.

It's been far too long since I've lobbed a shell in the direction of a good "discussion" on open source licensing, so thanks whurley. I haven't stood on my soapbox/posted here in a while either, what better opportunity to go off on why I don't think the GPLv3 does anything worthwhile and what I think is wrong with nearly every GPLv3 vs. GPLv2 discussion.

Came across an article through slashdot (I should almost template that intro) that presents the opinion that Microsoft wins over developers by not offering the wide variety of development tools for Windows that are available on Linux. I've got quite a bit of insight on this topic, and I'll get to that in the context of some quotes from the article, but let me start with one thing I think the author has absolutely right.

Every time I thought I was going to be stuck, there were a dozen articles explaining how to do exactly what I needed to do, with sample code that was up to date with the versions of the software I was using, and that actually related to the problem I was trying to solve.

There are always cases where you end up thinking "this example isn't what I want" on any platform, but by and large the material you can find on MSDN is second to only the OpenBSD man pages in documentation that I've found useful and usable. There is also a huge amount of additional information online for .NET programming (Code Project comes to mind). This is the only part of the article I can say I strongly agree with.

I recently recommended to a client that a project they were looking to have done in Visual Basic should be done in C#, but I found that it wasn't as easy as I thought it would be to articulate *why* I was recommending that. The easy answer was because I'm a C programmer at heart and C# is what I'm into these days, but given that the bulk of my professional experience in the last 4-years has been in Visual Basic, and that both C# and current versions of VB are fairly interchangeable for someone familiar with both, that reasoning seemed a bit weak.

I'm shocked that anything as simple as a music download site offering popular music (not major label stuff, but still some high profile artists) in unprotected mp3 files could be done so poorly. Seriously, how crappy must that system be if they have to force a .wma extension onto the mp3s? If they have a non-ActiveX download setup what's the deal with Mac downloads? How hard is it to have a properly descriptive error message for Mac users?

I can't even come up with words to describe how poorly they've done this. Has nobody involved with this mess ever actually thought of testing the site?

DRM made news thanks to Steve Jobs' open letter. I don't really have anything to say that hasn't been said already, but I found an article today that sums it up pretty nicely.

Of course I don't use iTunes much anyway, I'd much rather buy-and-rip CDs. I guess I'm doing just what Bill Gates says.