Not Another DLL!

« Return to Article
  • Sam 2006-09-20 14:12
    <p>IMHO: VP/CTO/Salesman = bad place to work.<br /></p>
  • AgentConundrum 2006-09-20 14:14
    This gives a whole new meaning to &quot;DLL Hell&quot;<br />
  • Brian 2006-09-20 14:15
    <p>[quote user=&quot;Alex Papadimoulis&quot;]It&#39;s also his job to do what the client wants, even when it goes against his advice, and then gracefully apologize without a single &quot;told ya&#39; so&quot; when the client&#39;s plan goes terribly wrong.[/quote]</p><p>As a contractor, yeah. As a consultant, no. I&#39;m not in the business of working on obviously-doomed-to-fail projects.&nbsp;</p>
  • Volmarias 2006-09-20 14:21
    [quote user=&quot;Alex Papadimoulis&quot;]That, for the most part, ended their working relationship. Josh agreed to maintain the code he developed for the old FoxPro application and silently watch the VP/CTO/Salesman lead the redevelopment effort. It was quite a show.[/quote]<br /><br />Sorry, for me that would end the working relationship in a &quot;Get bent, asshole&quot; manor, in which I would refuse to maintain any of their code.<br />
  • Otter 2006-09-20 14:21
    [quote user=&quot;Alex Papadimoulis&quot;]<p>(a single 68k DLL) </p><p>[/quote]</p><p>For a few moments there, I was wondering how they were getting this to run on an old Mac, or an Amiga.<br />&nbsp;</p>
  • Christophe 2006-09-20 14:22
    <p>To paraphrase one of my college profs:</p><p>Engineering is the art of doing for $99 what any idiot can do for $30,000.</p><p>I&#39;m sorry, did I just drastically underestimate that last dollar amount?</p>
  • anonymouse 2006-09-20 14:23
    [quote user=&quot;Alex Papadimoulis&quot;]<blockquote><p><em>I&#39;ve been talking with another developer. He says that with C#, we don&#39;t need DLLs and that, unlike your precious FoxPro, .NET does not have a runtime!</em> </p></blockquote><p>[/quote]</p><p>My previous boss was a notch below. He could only think terms of EXEs.&nbsp;</p>&quot;I want to see your program run.......hmmm... there is no exe.....how is it running ?........... you are not interested in your work.....&quot;<br />
  • Anonymous 2006-09-20 14:24
    <p>They should&#39;ve gone with XML.</p>
  • ammoQ 2006-09-20 14:28
    <p>[quote user=&quot;Alex Papadimoulis&quot;]How could anyone turn him down?
    [/quote]</p><p>Instinct of self preservation, maybe?<br /><br /></p>
  • JL 2006-09-20 14:34
    [quote user=&quot;Alex Papadimoulis&quot;]<blockquote><p><em>.NET doesn&#39;t have a runtime; it has a &quot;Framework&quot;. </em></p></blockquote><p>[/quote]</p><p>Ouch.&nbsp; Potato, potato.&nbsp; Tomato, tomato... Hmm, this doesn&#39;t work as well in text.</p><p>Interesting note: The Microsoft download page for .NET 1.1 contains the
    word &quot;framework&quot; but not the word &quot;runtime&quot;.&nbsp; The 2.0 page, on the
    other hand, contains both words.&nbsp; So I guess 2.0 got a &quot;runtime&quot;.&nbsp;
    Either way you slice it, both are chock-a-block with dlls.&nbsp; Maybe they&#39;ll all be OS dlls eventually, but most of his existing customers will have to download them. </p>
  • Hit 2006-09-20 14:35
    I can&#39;t count how many times I&#39;ve dealt with a variation of this.<br /><br />There time old question of &quot;Buy vs. Build&quot;. &nbsp;Too many managers out there seems to always be on a &quot;build build BUILD!&quot; mentality. &nbsp;For whatever reason, developers&nbsp;&nbsp;are apparently &quot;free&quot;. &nbsp;No way I&#39;m purchasing that $50 component when I can have a developer make my own...for FREE!<br /><br />Great, someone might say. &nbsp;More work for you, the developer. &nbsp;Well, if you&#39;re a GOOD developer, then this <em>will</em> bother you, since you know you&#39;re essentially wasting a ton of time writing an inferior&nbsp;version&nbsp;of something that someone else has already done. &nbsp;<br />
  • Rob Sirloin 2006-09-20 14:38
    <p>hahaha.</p><p>I&#39;m really enjoying all of these story wtfs. But is his last name really &quot;<strong>Assing</strong>&quot;, or is that made up to protect the innocent?<br /></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Captcha: photogenic - I certainly am:)&nbsp;</p>
  • R.Flowers 2006-09-20 14:39
    [quote user=&quot;Anonymous&quot;][quote user=&quot;Alex Papadimoulis&quot;]<p>(a single 68k DLL) </p><p>[/quote]</p><p>For a few moments there, I was wondering how they were getting this to run on an old Mac, or an Amiga.<br />&nbsp;</p><p>[/quote]</p><p>When are you going to join us in the 21st century?! Sounds like your just too much in love with your old Macs and Amigas!&nbsp;</p>
  • Willbo 2006-09-20 14:41
    [quote user=&quot;Anonymous&quot;]<p>hahaha.</p><p>I&#39;m really enjoying all of these story wtfs. But is his last name really &quot;<strong>Assing</strong>&quot;, or is that made up to protect the innocent?<br /></p><p>&nbsp;Captcha: photogenic - I certainly am:)&nbsp;</p>[/quote]<br /><br />I had a first post commenting on that fact... I read the first sentence like &quot;<strong>Ass</strong> a consultant, Josh <strong>Ass</strong>ing&#39;s role is to <strong>assass</strong> problems&quot;<br /><br />I guess it wasn&#39;t popular. /cry<br /><br />-- W<br />
  • jimlangrunner 2006-09-20 14:43
    [quote user=&quot;Anonymous&quot;]<p>Maybe they&#39;ll all be OS dlls eventually, but most of his existing customers will have to download them. </p><p>[/quote]</p><p><br /><br />Fortunately, there won&#39;t be that many.&nbsp; He&#39;s already <em>lost</em> most of his customers. &nbsp; Well, <em>a significant amount of business</em>.&nbsp; Doesn&#39;t surprise, but does sadden.<br /></p>
  • flavius 2006-09-20 14:45
    <p>This reminds me of my last project. In order to avoid the cost of buying a $10K tool, our CTO decided to build our own. Now, I&#39;m all for a good dev project, mind you. However, it took six of us 8 months to get it done. Let&#39;s see, that&#39;s 4 man years, and we collectively make substantially more than $2500/year, not to mention the opportunity cost.</p><p>*sighs*</p>
  • grud 2006-09-20 14:47
    best in show! helluva article boys.<br />
  • RNH 2006-09-20 14:49
    [quote user=&quot;Anonymous&quot;]I can&#39;t count how many times I&#39;ve dealt with a variation of this.<br /><br />There time old question of &quot;Buy vs. Build&quot;. &nbsp;Too many managers out there seems to always be on a &quot;build build BUILD!&quot; mentality. &nbsp;For whatever reason, developers&nbsp;&nbsp;are apparently &quot;free&quot;. &nbsp;No way I&#39;m purchasing that $50 component when I can have a developer make my own...for FREE!<br /><br />Great, someone might say. &nbsp;More work for you, the developer. &nbsp;Well, if you&#39;re a GOOD developer, then this <em>will</em> bother you, since you know you&#39;re essentially wasting a ton of time writing an inferior&nbsp;version&nbsp;of something that someone else has already done.&nbsp;<div>[/quote]&nbsp;
    </div><div><br class="khtml-block-placeholder" /></div><div>You&#39;re not thinking like a manager. Developers are free because they&#39;ve already been budgeted for.&nbsp; A $50 component is outside the current budget and thus requires justification to the higher-ups.</div>
  • merreborn 2006-09-20 14:50
    [quote user=&quot;Anonymous&quot;]<p>IMHO: VP/CTO/Salesman = bad place to work.<br /></p><p>[/quote]</p><p>Actually, I work for one of those guys.&nbsp; Except, unlike today&#39;s WTF, he&#39;s not completely fucking insane.&nbsp; It&#39;s great, because I have no degree, and little professional experience (but tons of off-the-job and internship experience) --&nbsp; I started here at age 21 -- and yet am able to take on lots of responsibility, and lead projects.</p><p>&nbsp;<br />At any larger company, I&#39;d never have been able to acrue so much experience in so little time.</p><p>With out a doubt, working in such a small company is definitely a risk -- *most* of the time, you&#39;re probably going to end up with a nutjob for a boss, but if you get lucky, you&#39;re golden.<br />&nbsp;</p>
  • GoatCheez 2006-09-20 14:53
    [quote user=&quot;Alex Papadimoulis&quot;]<blockquote><p><em>.NET doesn&#39;t have a runtime; it has a &quot;Framework&quot;. Maybe you should join us in the 21st Century and get your head out of the FoxPro sand. You&#39;d probably learn something.</em></p></blockquote><p>[/quote]</p><p>&nbsp;That&#39;s when I say:</p><p>&quot;Well, maybe you should join us in reality instead of making technical decisions for things you don&#39;t know anything about!&quot;<br />&nbsp;</p><p>Was this guy&#39;s attitude really that bad? I hope I never have to work for someone like that VP/CTO/Salesman.<br /></p>
  • flavius 2006-09-20 14:56
    [quote user=&quot;R.Flowers&quot;][quote user=&quot;Anonymous&quot;][quote user=&quot;Alex Papadimoulis&quot;] <p>(a single 68k DLL) </p><p>[/quote]</p><p>For a few moments there, I was wondering how they were getting this to run on an old Mac, or an Amiga.</p><p>[/quote]</p><p>When are you going to join us in the 21st century?! Sounds like your just too much in love with your old Macs and Amigas!&nbsp;</p><p>[/quote]</p><p>Don&#39;t be so quick to trash those old boxes...</p><p>I recently had the opportunity to chat with one of the senior people at my savings bank. He knew I am in &quot;computers&quot; via a mutual friend, so he thought I might be able to help him with a (personal) computing problem. It was pouring cats-n-dogs and I had nothing better to do that day, so I figured what the heck.</p><p>As we go into the guy&#39;s office, something catches my eye. It was an original IBM PC off to the side, with dual full-height 160K floppies and the green-screen monitor, and it was actually running a DOS 1.1 application. I *had* to go investigate. Apparently, the thing simply worked, and never needed upgrading, so they just turn it on every morning, autoexec fires up the .com, and it runs until someone shuts the power.&nbsp;It turned out to be a Turbo-Pascal 3.01 25K program. It doesn&#39;t use dates in any way, so they just set the date waaaay back in time (I&#39;m thinking Y2K might have done in the BIOS), and it keeps on working.</p><p>Of course, they&#39;ve got modern systems too, but I found it fascinating that they still used this thing.</p><p>Apparently, if it works, it stays.</p>
  • VGR 2006-09-20 15:03
    <p>While this is clearly a big fat WTF, it&#39;s worth noting that far too
    often, the opposite happens:&nbsp; people choose to bundle dozens of
    their favorite pet third-party offerings when (A) it would have taken
    less than one day to write it in-house, and (B) the third-party
    offering has a terrible, even inscrutable API.&nbsp; As with pretty
    much everything, a wise programmer learns to strike a balance.<br />
    <br />
    A major component of that wisdom is understanding the high cost of
    dependencies.&nbsp; Code with few or no outside dependencies is
    dramatically more portable and reusable.&nbsp; It&#39;s something I always
    bear in mind when I decide whether to use a third-party offering.&nbsp;
    I wish more programmers considered it.<br />
    </p>
  • Dazed 2006-09-20 15:07
    Alex Papadimoulis:
    The VP/CTO/Salesman blew up: </p><blockquote><p><em>You&#39;re joking, right? Another DLL!?! There&#39;s absolutely no reason for that. I&#39;m sick of all of these add-ons! </em></p><p>... [snip 5 minutes of ranting] ... </p><p><em>I&#39;ve been talking with another developer. He says that with C#, we don&#39;t need DLLs and that, unlike your precious FoxPro, .NET does not have a runtime!</em> </p></blockquote><p>Josh tried to explain to him that .NET does, in fact, use DLLs. He agreed that .NET is an excellent choice, but that redeveloping would be significantly more expensive than the $99 component fee. He also added that .NET would, in fact, have a rather large runtime of twenty-five megabytes compared with FoxPro&rsquo;s three megabytes. Naturally, the VP/CTO/Salesman disagreed.


    When you get into this sort of discussion with someone who is madly barking up the wrong tree - in fact in completely the wrong forest - about all you can do is back out gracefully ("I'll go and research it a bit further') and go look for something that he can't so easily dismiss as just your opinion. Like a printed directory listing of the .NET DLLs.

    I don't claim to be an expert at it, but I have on a couple of such occasions been subsequently assured by the manager in question "oh, I wasn't really disagreeing with you ..."
  • anonymous 2006-09-20 15:07
    [quote user=&quot;Alex Papadimoulis&quot;]<blockquote><p><em>.NET doesn&#39;t have a runtime; it has a &quot;Framework&quot;. Maybe you should join us in the 21st Century and get your head out of the FoxPro sand. You&#39;d probably learn something.</em></p></blockquote><p>[/quote]</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>CLR: Common Lenguaje fRamework.</p>
  • stevekj 2006-09-20 15:11
    <p>[quote user=&quot;Hit&quot;]<br /><br />There time old question of &quot;Buy vs. Build&quot;. &nbsp;Too many managers out there seems to always be on a &quot;build build BUILD!&quot; mentality. &nbsp;For whatever reason, developers&nbsp;&nbsp;are apparently &quot;free&quot;. &nbsp;No way I&#39;m purchasing that $50 component when I can have a developer make my own...for FREE!<br />[/quote]</p><p>&nbsp;Now don&#39;t be too hasty to say &quot;It&#39;s always better to buy than to build your own.&quot;&nbsp; Sometimes, not always, the only components available for purchase are just downright terrible.&nbsp; In this case, and assuming (!) you have some good developers working for you, it just might make sense to build your own.&nbsp; It&#39;s a dramatic oversimplification to compare $99 for an off-the-shelf component with $300,000 spent developing it in-house.<br /> </p><p>http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000026.html</p><p>http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000007.html</p><p> The quote at the end of this second article is one of my favourites: paraphrasing slightly: &quot;The only exception to this rule [of doing all of your core business functions in-house] is if your own developers are so bad that whenever you try to build something yourself, it&#39;s botched up.&quot;&nbsp; This, of course, sounds suspiciously like Josh&#39;s case...&nbsp;</p>
  • Alexis de Torquemada 2006-09-20 15:17
    <p>The real WTF is that Josh gave in and agreed to play everyone&#39;s doormat. I just hope he at least charged them big time for this screaming farce.<br /><br /></p>
  • biziclop 2006-09-20 15:17
    [quote user=&quot;VGR&quot;]<p>While this is clearly a big fat WTF, it&#39;s worth noting that far too
    often, the opposite happens:&nbsp; people choose to bundle dozens of
    their favorite pet third-party offerings when (A) it would have taken
    less than one day to write it in-house, and (B) the third-party
    offering has a terrible, even inscrutable API.&nbsp; As with pretty
    much everything, a wise programmer learns to strike a balance.<br />
    <br />
    A major component of that wisdom is understanding the high cost of
    dependencies.&nbsp; Code with few or no outside dependencies is
    dramatically more portable and reusable.&nbsp; It&#39;s something I always
    bear in mind when I decide whether to use a third-party offering.&nbsp;
    I wish more programmers considered it.<br />
    </p><p>[/quote]</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>That reminds me of a consultant who insisted we should use Spring MVC framework for...dynamic classloading.</p><p>Eventually we managed to convince him that it takes about a dozen lines of code to write it as opposed to the 18 megs (37 with dependencies) of Spring. It took half a day for the three of us, showing him the code that had been running in one of our systems for over a year without any problems. He then admitted that he knew nothing of Java. Apparently he simply grepped the product specs of third-party libraries stored in his head for the string &quot;dynamic classloading&quot;<br />&nbsp;</p>
  • Ghost Ware Wizard 2006-09-20 15:19
    Once again a real world scenario.&nbsp; A manager with no experience and a jaded view of a developer.&nbsp; A budget driving the manager to ask for constraints that defy logic and the need to be in charge. sound familiar? it&#39;s also known as FUBAR.
  • Alexis de Torquemada 2006-09-20 15:21
    [quote user=&quot;Anonymous&quot;]<p>Engineering is the art of doing for $99 what any idiot can do for $30,000.</p><p>[/quote]</p><p>In accordance with the last paragraph of the story, that should be:</p><p>Engineering is the art of doing for $99 what any idiot <strong>can&#39;t</strong> do for $30,000.</p>
  • SomeCoder 2006-09-20 15:23
    [quote user=&quot;VGR&quot;] <p>While this is clearly a big fat WTF, it&#39;s worth noting that far too often, the opposite happens:&nbsp; people choose to bundle dozens of their favorite pet third-party offerings when (A) it would have taken less than one day to write it in-house, and (B) the third-party offering has a terrible, even inscrutable API.&nbsp; As with pretty much everything, a wise programmer learns to strike a balance.<br /><br />A major component of that wisdom is understanding the high cost of dependencies.&nbsp; Code with few or no outside dependencies is dramatically more portable and reusable.&nbsp; It&#39;s something I always bear in mind when I decide whether to use a third-party offering.&nbsp; I wish more programmers considered it.<br /></p><p>[/quote]</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>This is so true.&nbsp; Where I work there is a fellow developer who constantly litters his projects with 3rd party crap.&nbsp; All of it is free, but God help you if you have to build one of his projects.&nbsp; It&#39;s so cluttered up that it ONLY builds on his machine and usually takes an entire day of searching for, and installing all the 3rd party tools just to build the application.</p><p>This developer is really a pretty good guy and codes reasonably well but this facination with 3rd party tools can be really irritating.</p><p>As for the subject of large projects buy vs build... well my company just bought a project that we really should have just built from the ground up.&nbsp; It&#39;s a huge WTF in itself...</p>
  • Builder 2006-09-20 15:24
    <p>[quote user=&quot;Anonymous&quot;]I can&#39;t count how many times I&#39;ve dealt with a variation of this.<br /><br />There time old question of &quot;Buy vs. Build&quot;. &nbsp;Too many managers out there seems to always be on a &quot;build build BUILD!&quot; mentality. &nbsp;For whatever reason, developers&nbsp;&nbsp;are apparently &quot;free&quot;. &nbsp;No way I&#39;m purchasing that $50 component when I can have a developer make my own...for FREE!<br /><br />Great, someone might say. &nbsp;More work for you, the developer. &nbsp;Well, if you&#39;re a GOOD developer, then this <em>will</em> bother you, since you know you&#39;re essentially wasting a ton of time writing an inferior&nbsp;version&nbsp;of something that someone else has already done. &nbsp;<br />[/quote]</p><p>I like the people who buy stuff out of the box and then hack it all to hell to make it work with their unique situation. Most of the time they give up flexibility in their process to adapt to that boxed solution, and then complain about how they were able to do something in the past that they can no longer do now. Unless that box came with source and documentation, it&#39;s only saving you an initial investment and gaining you more long term maintenance.</p><p>Why build over buy? Because if you can build it right the first time you can shape it exactly how you want it to work, and you don&#39;t have to make any compromises. Of course there&#39;s always exceptions, like buying a program to make a graphic change colors... but chances are if it only cost 10 or 100 bucks to begin with.. it&#39;s not that unique or complicated to code, or there&#39;s already an open version of it running around.&nbsp;</p>
  • biziclop 2006-09-20 15:27
    [quote user=&quot;Anonymous&quot;]<p>I like the people who buy stuff out of the box and then hack it all to hell to make it work with their unique situation.</p><p>[/quote]</p><p>They just try to think out of the box. The box their brains were delivered in, that is.<br />&nbsp;</p>
  • Alexis de Torquemada 2006-09-20 15:31
    [quote user=&quot;biziclop&quot;]<p>They just try to think out of the box. The box their brains were delivered in, that is.<br />[/quote]</p><p>The ones with the Burger King logo?<br /><br /></p>
  • KattMan 2006-09-20 15:32
    <p>Buy versus build?&nbsp; It really is an easy question.</p><p>Never buy something you can&#39;t try a demo of first.&nbsp; If the demo does what you need without compromising functionality it&#39;s a vote for buy.&nbsp; If the component comes with decent documentation it&#39;s a vote for buy.&nbsp; If a component comes with very strict liscecing terms (x amount per machine per processor) this cost can skyrocket fast on a distributed system depending on where it is used in that system.</p><p>Basically, if the component can do what you want it to cheaply, then buy, otherwise build.</p>
  • fmobus 2006-09-20 15:34
    <blockquote>[At] first, the VP/CTO/Salesman decided to go with a <strong>Java</strong>-desktop application. The <strong>.NET programmers</strong> he hired to do this built</blockquote>This is the WTF.<br />
  • my name is missing 2006-09-20 15:34
    I once briefly worked on a project that had custom online store written all over it, maybe 6 months at the most work for 3 people. However some ibm sales guy convinced the head guy (not tech saavy) that their web catalog product was customizable. So after 40 developers and 8 months later (including a dozen ibm folks) from 3 countries flown in every week to Mexico they finally tossed everyone out and then spent 2 more years with local staff trying to completely customize a package whose only customizable feature was ... colors and fonts and such. How to turn $300,00 into $3,000,000 and go out of business in the process.<br />
  • Jimbo 2006-09-20 15:42
    Wow. This story has way more than one WTF. This is a Composite WTF design pattern. Someone should write a book. Instead of the GOF, the GOWTF. Normally I laugh at the dailty WTF. Today I actually felt bad for the guy. Sheez.<br /><br />
  • mastmaker 2006-09-20 15:58
    Hope &quot;join us in 21st century&quot; becomes a new legend as much as &quot;brillant&quot;, for example. We can certainly do with a few more of those.
  • SarekOfVulcan 2006-09-20 16:03
    <blockquote><p>&quot;I&#39;m really enjoying all of these story wtfs. But is his last name really &quot;<strong>Assing</strong>&quot;, or is that made up to protect the innocent? &quot;<br /></p></blockquote><p>Does <a href="http://jassing.com/" target="_blank">http://jassing.com/</a> answer your question? :-)<br /></p>
  • CDarklock 2006-09-20 16:09
    <p>[quote user=&quot;Anonymous&quot;] A $50 component is outside the current budget and thus requires justification to the higher-ups.[/quote]</p><p>I have often found it&#39;s easiest to buy the component yourself and file an expense report. While the higher-ups will complain when you request $50 to buy a component, they don&#39;t bat an eye when you spend your money on it and then ask them to reimburse you. I&#39;ve even been promoted this way.</p><p>&nbsp;</p>
  • Dazed 2006-09-20 16:20
    [quote user="CDarklock"]<p>[quote user=&quot;Anonymous&quot;] A $50 component is outside the current budget and thus requires justification to the higher-ups.[/quote]</p><p>I have often found it&#39;s easiest to buy the component yourself and file an expense report. While the higher-ups will complain when you request $50 to buy a component, they don&#39;t bat an eye when you spend your money on it and then ask them to reimburse you. I&#39;ve even been promoted this way.</p>[/quote]

    Indeed - I've been asked to do just that by a fairly senior manager at a large oil company beginning with S. Reason: he could then approve it, whereas otherwise someone else would have to be convinced to approve it. A major management anti-pattern.
  • triso 2006-09-20 16:22
    <p>[quote user=&quot;GoatCheez&quot;]...</p><p>That&#39;s when I say:</p><p>&quot;Well, maybe you should join us in reality instead of making technical decisions for things you don&#39;t know anything about!&quot;</p><p>[/quote]<span style="font-weight: bold">S</span>ince most people like this have an enormous ego, you&#39;ll probably have to add, &quot;You can&#39;t fire me.&nbsp; I quit!&quot;<br /></p><p>&nbsp;</p>
  • Anonymous 2006-09-20 16:36
    [quote user=&quot;Anonymous&quot;]<p>Why build over buy? Because if you can build it right the first time ....<br /></p><p>[/quote]</p><p>keyword: if&nbsp;</p>
  • Anonymous 2006-09-20 16:38
    <p>[quote user=&quot;Ghost Ware Wizard&quot;]Once again a real world scenario.&nbsp; A manager with no experience and a jaded view of a developer.&nbsp; A budget driving the manager to ask for constraints that defy logic and the need to be in charge. sound familiar? it&#39;s also known as FUBAR.[/quote]</p><p>All Hail BOHICA!&nbsp;</p>
  • Flipside 2006-09-20 16:45
    Actually, I do that same thing myself when I&#39;m the person approving the transaction - it is far easier for me to sign an expense report than to put together a purchase requisition and have it go through the purchasing department. The item in question always gets acquired much more quickly that way as well. It may sound ridiculous or lazy, but I&#39;m sure most people in a position to approve expenditures would agree with this.
  • triso 2006-09-20 16:47
    [quote user=&quot;CDarklock&quot;]<p>I have often found it&#39;s easiest to buy the component yourself and file an expense report. While the higher-ups will complain when you request $50 to buy a component, they don&#39;t bat an eye when you spend your money on it and then ask them to reimburse you. I&#39;ve even been promoted this way.[/quote]</p><p><strong>W</strong>hat!&nbsp; You paid for your own raise and then submitted an expense report?<br /></p><br />
  • GeekMessage 2006-09-20 16:49
    [quote user=&quot;Anonymous&quot;][quote user=&quot;Alex Papadimoulis&quot;]<em>.NET doesn&#39;t have a runtime; it has a &quot;Framework&quot;. Maybe you should join us in the 21st Century and get your head out of the FoxPro sand. You&#39;d probably learn something.</em>[/quote]CLR: Common Lenguaje fRamework.[/quote] <p>They really should have called it CR/LF:&nbsp; Common Runtime / Language Framework.</p>
  • mjo 2006-09-20 18:42
    <p>[quote user=&quot;GeekMessage&quot;]</p><p>They really should have called it CR/LF:&nbsp; Common Runtime / Language Framework.</p><p>[/quote]</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Deciding to use CR/LF when everyone else in the world already uses just LF: Priceless.&nbsp;</p>
  • Rodyland 2006-09-20 19:02
    [quote user=&quot;triso&quot;]<p><strong>W</strong>hat!&nbsp; You paid for your own raise and then submitted an expense report?<br /></p><p><br />[/quote]</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Now why didn&#39;t I think of that at my last salary review?!&nbsp;</p>
  • Rodyland 2006-09-20 19:06
    [quote user=&quot;Anonymous&quot;]<p>[quote user=&quot;Alex Papadimoulis&quot;]It&#39;s also
    his job to do what the client wants, even when it goes against his
    advice, and then gracefully apologize without a single &quot;told ya&#39; so&quot;
    when the client&#39;s plan goes terribly wrong.[/quote]</p><p>As a contractor, yeah. As a consultant, no. I&#39;m not in the business of working on obviously-doomed-to-fail projects.&nbsp;</p><p>[/quote]</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Don&#39;t
    know where/what/how you&#39;ve done consulting before, but I used to work
    in management consulting.&nbsp; I think Alex pretty much defined
    Management Consulting in that quote there.&nbsp; Maybe consulting in IT
    works differently - actually I&#39;m sure it does, given that you&#39;re
    actually expected (presumably) to deliver something, be it software or
    whatever. &nbsp;</p><p>IMNSHO when a boss hires a management consultant
    they are often after two things: 1) confirmation that their
    opinion/course of action is correct, and/or 2) someone to blame when it
    goes pear shaped.&nbsp; And they pay hansomly for the priviledge (not
    that any single consultant will ever see any of that booty).<br />
    </p>
  • lomaxx 2006-09-20 19:35
    <p>I can read just about anything in a WTF that&#39;s posted these days and not bat an eyelid, as there is very little that surprises me any more... however this one cut me deep... I could feel his Josh&#39;s pain.</p><p>&nbsp;I worked for a particularly large company that was actually the number one website in australia&nbsp;at the time i was working for it that needed a .net Zip application.</p><p>&nbsp;I told them about this great fee redistibutable DLL called sharpziplib that they could use and it would do everything that they wanted.</p><p>The project lead was very excited, so he told me to send him a site so he could check it out. I got an email the next day asking if we could have a chat about this DLL that I sent him.</p><p>He said we couldn&#39;t use it because&nbsp;I didn&#39;t tell him it was opensource. I was confused, I thought that was THE reason we could use it.</p><p>I was wrong, because what I didn&#39;t know, but soon found out, was that open source code was full of bugs, was often poorly written and largely underdeveloped because they had no development budget. It was also written in c#, which I had failed to mention, so it wouldn&#39;t work in our VB only applications. I tried to reason with him, so he said we&#39;d reach a comprimise, I would redevelope the sharpziplib, in VB.net, and then I would optimise it. He asked me how long it would take to do and I told him a week.</p><p>He looked puzzled, he asked, you can actually write a whole ziplibrary in a week? He said he didn&#39;t think I could, so he gave me 2 weeks.</p><p>Monday morning I download the source for shaprziplib and went to lunch</p><p>Tuesday morning I used a converter to convert it to VB.net and compiled it. Then went to lunch</p><p>Wednesday I tested that it worked and went to lunch again.</p><p>Thursday I wrapped it all up in some nice Company namespaces and went back to lunch</p><p>Friday I just went straight to lunch till the following friday when I was due to present my redevelopment.</p><p>When I showed the project manager what I had done, and how&nbsp;I was actually glad I had 2 weeks instead of 1, because it took longer than I thought, he gave a wry smile that suggested that &quot;he&#39;d tole me so&quot;.</p><p>I&#39;ve since left the company, over a continual stream of similar incidents.</p>
  • maths?? 2006-09-20 20:06
    <p>lomaxx, if the license of that lib is gpl, you probably violated it</p><p>very very few people realise the if you use and adjust open source products COMMERCIALLY, you are breaking the license.<br />&nbsp;</p><p>some can be _used_ commercially, and just not changed, (i.e. as an API or something), but if you do as you did, and copy the entire thing, then violation has occured.&nbsp;</p>
  • Olddog 2006-09-20 20:29
    <p><strong>Any worthy (project) manager always has a viable (proven) &quot;Plan-B&quot; in their back pocket.</strong> When &quot;Plan-A&quot; doesn&#39;t pan out - they implement Plan B. </p><p>Plan B actually needs to be tested and proven *before* Plan-A gets underway. In this case, Plan-B was the cheap $99.00 DLL that could have been easily tested and put in the &quot;back pocket&quot;. Plan-A was the irresitable ( shinny penny ) re-development effort that, had it worked, would have proven it&#39;s worth. However, at any point in the deployment of Plan-A, if it failed, the manager could revert back to Plan-B, while safely fixing Plan-A off-line...if he had only thought to do that.</p><p><strong>What a stupid, arrogant, stupid, stupid manager</strong>. If I only had a shinny penny for every time a manager got sold &quot;a bill of goods&quot; without a backup Plan-B. </p><p><strong>Heck, even an egg farmer knows not to BET-THE-FARM on a single rooster</strong>.</p>
  • pinguis 2006-09-20 20:33
    [quote user=&quot;Anonymous&quot;]<p>lomaxx, if the license of that lib is gpl, you probably violated it</p><p>very very few people realise the if you use and adjust open source products COMMERCIALLY, you are breaking the license.<br />&nbsp;</p><p>some can be _used_ commercially, and just not changed, (i.e. as an API or something), but if you do as you did, and copy the entire thing, then violation has occured.&nbsp;</p><p>[/quote]

    </p><p>From the the site:<strong></strong></p><p><strong>Bottom line</strong> In plain English this means you can use this library in commercial closed-source applications.</p><p>&nbsp;However, this is usualy not the case and so extreme care must be taken. This is one of the reasons, i tend to prefer BSD sytle licenses at the moment.<br />&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p>
  • ammoQ 2006-09-20 21:55
    [quote user=&quot;Anonymous&quot;]<p>lomaxx, if the license of that lib is gpl, you probably violated it</p><p>very very few people realise the if you use and adjust open source products COMMERCIALLY, you are breaking the license.<br />&nbsp;</p><p>some can be _used_ commercially, and just not changed, (i.e. as an API or something), but if you do as you did, and copy the entire thing, then violation has occured.&nbsp;</p><p>[/quote]</p><p>IANAL, but IMO it&#39;s no problem. <br />&nbsp;</p><p>#ziplib (SharpZipLib, formerly NZipLib) is a <strong>Zip, GZip, Tar and BZip2 library</strong>
    written entirely in C# for the .NET platform. It is implemented as an
    assembly (installable in the GAC), and thus can easily be incorporated
    into other projects (in any .NET language).
    The creator of #ziplib put it this way: &quot;I&#39;ve ported the zip library
    over to C# because I needed
    gzip/zip compression and I didn&#39;t want to use libzip.dll or something
    like this. I want all in pure C#.&quot;
    </p>

    <h3>License</h3>
    <p>
    The library is released under the GPL with the following exception:
    </p>
    <p>
    <em>
    Linking this library statically or dynamically with other modules is
    making a combined work based on this library. Thus, the terms and
    conditions of the GNU General Public License cover the whole
    combination.<br /><br />

    As a special exception, the copyright holders of this library give you
    permission to link this library with independent modules to produce an
    executable, regardless of the license terms of these independent
    modules, and to copy and distribute the resulting executable under
    terms of your choice, provided that you also meet, for each linked
    independent module, the terms and conditions of the license of that
    module. An independent module is a module which is not derived from
    or based on this library. If you modify this library, you may extend
    this exception to your version of the library, but you are not
    obligated to do so. If you do not wish to do so, delete this
    exception statement from your version.
    </em>
    </p>
  • Dale 2006-09-20 21:56
    [quote user="Anonymous"][quote user="CDarklock"]<p>[quote user=&quot;Anonymous&quot;] A $50 component is outside the current budget and thus requires justification to the higher-ups.[/quote]</p><p>I have often found it&#39;s easiest to buy the component yourself and file an expense report. While the higher-ups will complain when you request $50 to buy a component, they don&#39;t bat an eye when you spend your money on it and then ask them to reimburse you. I&#39;ve even been promoted this way.</p>[/quote]

    Indeed - I've been asked to do just that by a fairly senior manager at a large oil company beginning with S. Reason: he could then approve it, whereas otherwise someone else would have to be convinced to approve it. A major management anti-pattern.[/quote]

    The thing I learned fast in the Army: It's ALWAYS easier to get forgiveness than permission.
  • ammoQ 2006-09-20 22:09
    [quote user=&quot;pinguis&quot;][quote user=&quot;Anonymous&quot;]<p>lomaxx, if the license of that lib is gpl, you probably violated it</p><p>very very few people realise the if you use and adjust open source products COMMERCIALLY, you are breaking the license.<br />&nbsp;</p><p>some can be _used_ commercially, and just not changed, (i.e. as an API or something), but if you do as you did, and copy the entire thing, then violation has occured.&nbsp;</p><p>[/quote]

    </p><p>However, this is usualy not the case and so extreme care must be taken. This is one of the reasons, i tend to prefer BSD sytle licenses at the moment. &nbsp;</p><p>[/quote]</p><p>Many open-source libraries have a license that allows linking to proprietary software. Just look at all the stuff from the Apache Foundation. But of course one should always check the license before including a third-party module to one&#39;s software. Proprietary licenses can be full of surprises, too.<br />&nbsp;</p>
  • Olddog 2006-09-20 23:12
    <p>[quote user=&quot;Dale&quot;]<strong>The thing I learned fast in the Army: It&#39;s ALWAYS easier to get forgiveness than permission</strong>.[/quote]</p><p>LOL. Funny how budgets works. If the printer runs outta toner before it should... a new cartridge requires a budget over-run authorization. If the printer seems broken, a test cartridge is easily expensed.</p>
  • gsadamb 2006-09-20 23:34
    [quote user=&quot;Anonymous&quot;][quote user=&quot;Anonymous&quot;]I can&#39;t count how many times I&#39;ve dealt with a variation of this.<br /><br />There time old question of &quot;Buy vs. Build&quot;. &nbsp;Too many managers out there seems to always be on a &quot;build build BUILD!&quot; mentality. &nbsp;For whatever reason, developers&nbsp;&nbsp;are apparently &quot;free&quot;. &nbsp;No way I&#39;m purchasing that $50 component when I can have a developer make my own...for FREE!<br /><br />Great, someone might say. &nbsp;More work for you, the developer. &nbsp;Well, if you&#39;re a GOOD developer, then this <em>will</em> bother you, since you know you&#39;re essentially wasting a ton of time writing an inferior&nbsp;version&nbsp;of something that someone else has already done.&nbsp;<div>[/quote]&nbsp;
    </div><div><br class="khtml-block-placeholder" /></div><div>You&#39;re not thinking like a manager. Developers are free because they&#39;ve already been budgeted for.&nbsp; A $50 component is outside the current budget and thus requires justification to the higher-ups.</div><p>[/quote]</p><p>&nbsp;Several times I&#39;ve ended up saving hours and hours of my own time as a developer by buying the licensed version of a little application for $19.99 or something.&nbsp; My own money, sure, but saving huge amounts of time is typically worth it.<br />&nbsp;</p>
  • velbe 2006-09-21 01:32
    ....have you tried JavaScript?<br />
  • JustAnotherComputerGeek 2006-09-21 02:14
    I&#39;ve read sooooo many of these, I just wish y&#39;all would publish the real names of the WTF &quot;legends/guru/top-dog&quot; (read: idiots) and their respective companies. That way, recruiters can make sure those people will never get hired again because I certainly don&#39;t want to work with them&nbsp;to give them the opportunity to screw up my work.&nbsp;If nothing else, I think it would just be fun to point and laugh at their stupidity... Alas, you&#39;d worry about lawsuits and stuff, so I guess it will all be just wishful thinking...
  • torajirou 2006-09-21 02:28
    &#39;Cause there are LOTS of people here in the business field using Macs... or Amigas... :s<br />
  • torajirou 2006-09-21 02:31
    <p>[quote user=&quot;Anonymous&quot;]&#39;Cause there are LOTS of people here in the business field using Macs... or Amigas... :s<br />[/quote]</p><p>&nbsp;WTF ? I was supposed to be quoting the guy who talked about the Mac &amp; Amiga thing...</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;<br />anyway...<br /><br />&nbsp;(I have to type &quot;pizza&quot; to be able to post this and I&#39;m actually eating a pizza... (won&#39;t tell you what I was doing when I had to type &#39;batman&#39; though...)<br /></p>
  • torajirou 2006-09-21 02:35
    [quote user=&quot;ammoQ&quot;][quote user=&quot;Anonymous&quot;]<p>lomaxx, if the license of that lib is gpl, you probably violated it</p><p>very very few people realise the if you use and adjust open source products COMMERCIALLY, you are breaking the license.<br />&nbsp;</p><p>some can be _used_ commercially, and just not changed, (i.e. as an API or something), but if you do as you did, and copy the entire thing, then violation has occured.&nbsp;</p><p>[/quote]</p><p>IANAL, but IMO it&#39;s no problem. <br /></p><p>[/quote]</p><p>&nbsp;UANAL, but no problem either</p><p>&nbsp;feel free to contact me for further exchange :)&nbsp;</p>
  • Ralf 2006-09-21 04:07
    <p>
    Deciding to use CR/LF when everyone else in the world already uses just LF: Priceless.
    </p><p>Deciding to use CR when everyone else in the world already uses LF or CR/LF: Think Differently.&nbsp;</p>
  • Anonymouse 2006-09-21 04:17
    [quote user=&quot;Anonymous&quot;]<p>To paraphrase one of my college profs:</p><p>Engineering is the art of doing for $99 what any idiot can do for $30,000.</p><p>I&#39;m sorry, did I just drastically underestimate that last dollar amount?</p><p>[/quote]</p><p>&nbsp;And Consulting is the art of doing for $30,000 what any idiot can do for $99...<br />&nbsp;</p>
  • Paul Brown 2006-09-21 04:32
    <p>Taller Programmer: &quot;I say, I say, I say. What&#39;s the difference between a runtime and a framework?&quot;</p><p>Shorter Programmer: &quot;About 20 megs!&quot; (Waggles cigar, spins bowtie)</p><p>- Orchestra sting - </p>
  • b 2006-09-21 04:32
    <div>You got the point! Custom, thin code is more likely to be easy manageable...but still there are controls &#39;id not like to write.</div><div>BTW: everyone knows IBM sells shit (except HWs which is good, but it&#39;s&nbsp;also too expensive).</div>
  • Paul 2006-09-21 04:45
    <p>I&#39;m not sure which is the bigger WTF here. </p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Letting the Salesman direct technical development issues when he is not technical.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Letting a breakdown in communications reach a point where the VP does not trust your professional knowledge</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Or not knowing that consultancy is that part of being a consultant is if they don&#39;t take your advice you tell them formally that the path they want to follow is not your advice and then at a later stage when they screw up you say &quot;that&#39;s a pity. Why don&#39;t we do it the way I recommended now instead?&quot; which is a not too subtle way of saying &quot;Your an idiot. I told you this would happen but you overruled me on a technical issue I knew more about than you did. Lets let it drop and fix things.&quot;<br />&nbsp;</p>
  • Paul 2006-09-21 04:58
    [quote user=&quot;Rodyland&quot;]<p>IMNSHO when a boss hires a management consultant
    they are often after two things: 1) confirmation that their
    opinion/course of action is correct, and/or 2) someone to blame when it
    goes pear shaped.&nbsp; And they pay hansomly for the priviledge (not
    that any single consultant will ever see any of that booty).<br />
    </p><p>[/quote]</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>An IT Consultant has to concern themselves with two things here. </p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>1. They have to produce something that works.</p><p>2. Their professional reputation is based on what comes out the other end.</p><p>3. Their professional reputation is one of the things that helps generate money for them. If they do a great job for a company, other companies hear about it and so generates business.&nbsp;</p><p>If the product is garbage but they formally noted that the company was going against their opinion, the company cannot legally say that they produced a garbage product as, since they didn&#39;t ( and of course the consultant recorded the emails / letters on this ), if they say that he did, he can have them in court so fast they wouldn&#39;t even know what hit them. He&#39;d have all the evidence and the court / tribunal would hit the company with a large fine (be warned managers, this is the danger with consultants).<br /> </p><p>This protects the consultant, after all who wants to hire a consultant who is involved repeatedly in garbage products that are his fault since he didn&#39;t say not to do it that way or&nbsp; &quot;Your doing it wrong. If you do that you&#39;ll cost yourselves more money and time&quot;. It is also a source of further business as &quot;Now you&#39;ve done it wrong, would you like to go back and do it my way which is right?&quot;<br /></p>
  • phs3 2006-09-21 05:13
    <p>[quote user=&quot;Anonymous&quot;]<br /><br />There time old question of &quot;Buy vs. Build&quot;. &nbsp;Too many managers out there seems to always be on a &quot;build build BUILD!&quot; mentality. &nbsp;For whatever reason, developers&nbsp;&nbsp;are apparently &quot;free&quot;. &nbsp;No way I&#39;m purchasing that $50 component when I can have a developer make my own...for FREE!<br /><br />[/quote]</p><p>While of course the VP/CTO/Salesman was an idiot in this case, let&#39;s not forget that &quot;buy&quot; has its downsides too: you&#39;re then at the mercy of that vendor.&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;ObAnecdote: I worked at a vendor whose product was written in a flavor of 8086 Assembler (this was &gt; 10 years ago) from a vendor who no longer existed. This meant that:</p><ol><li>Each new developer got an unlicensed copy of the Assembler; we would have been happy to pay for a license, but there was nobody to pay</li><li>If the Assembler had decided to stop working on, say, Windows 95, we would have been trapped on an old platform for development.</li></ol><p>Fortunately the BSA didn&#39;t show up, and it DID work on Windows 95, and then another vendor bought them (after I left) and put them out of their misery...</p><p>...phsiii</p><p>Captcha: genius *again*...is it trying to tell me something?<br />&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p>
  • EmmanuelD 2006-09-21 06:30
    [quote user=&quot;Anonymous&quot;]<p>lomaxx, if the license of that lib is gpl, you probably violated it</p><p>very very few people realise the if you use and adjust open source products COMMERCIALLY, you are breaking the license.<br /></p><p>some can be _used_ commercially, and just not changed, (i.e. as an API or something), but if you do as you did, and copy the entire thing, then violation has occured.&nbsp;</p><p>[/quote]
    </p><p>Not true: GPL force you to redistribute the source code if you distribute your application. It is safe to use/modify GPL code in any application, be it commercial or not (but most in-house apps are considered commercial apps), even if its source code is closed, as far as it is not distributed in any way. </p><p>Captcha: null. Thanks a lot. Really. I&#39;m pleased. <br /></p>
  • anonymous 2006-09-21 07:53
    [quote user=&quot;Anonymous&quot;] <p>lomaxx, if the license of that lib is gpl, you probably violated it</p><p>very very few people realise the if you use and adjust open source products COMMERCIALLY, you are breaking the license.<br />&nbsp;</p><p>some can be _used_ commercially, and just not changed, (i.e. as an API or something), but if you do as you did, and copy the entire thing, then violation has occured.&nbsp;</p><p>[/quote]</p><p>&nbsp;Where does the GPL distinguish between &quot;commercial&#39; and &quot;non-commercial&quot; use?&nbsp; Isn&#39;t that one of the things licenses like QT or mySQL try to address?</p><p>(The answer is, it doesn&#39;t.&nbsp; Maybe that&#39;s why &quot;very very few people realise the if you use and adjust open source products COMMERCIALLY, you are breaking the license.&quot;&nbsp;) </p><p>Furthermore, very few run time libraries are GPL&#39;d (in fact, I can&#39;t think of any)- almost all are released under the&nbsp;LGPL (or some other open source license), which allows linkage to&nbsp;proprietary code.&nbsp;</p>
  • anonymous 2006-09-21 07:57
    [quote user=&quot;Anonymous&quot;]<p>[QUOTE]Deciding to use CR/LF when everyone else in the world already uses just LF: Priceless. [/QUOTE]</p><p>Deciding to use CR when everyone else in the world already uses LF or CR/LF: Think Differently.&nbsp;</p><p>[/quote]</p><p>$ mkdir o</p><p>$ touch o/help </p><p>$ ls&nbsp; \o/ \o/help \o/ I am trapped in a cli!<br />
    </p><p>o/help<br />
    <br />
    o/:<br />
    help<br />
    <br />
    o/:<br />
    help</p>
  • Chris 2006-09-21 08:00
    <p>&quot;decided to go with a Java-desktop application. The .NET programmers he hired to do this&quot;</p><p>Thats a pretty bad WTF in itself. Like hiring German speakers to do the french translation.</p><p>Another one you captcha test says null !&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p>
  • TeeSee 2006-09-21 08:32
    [quote user=&quot;Anonymous&quot;]<p>[quote user=&quot;GeekMessage&quot;]</p><p>They really should have called it CR/LF:&nbsp; Common Runtime / Language Framework.</p><p>[/quote]</p><p>Deciding to use CR/LF when everyone else in the world already uses just LF: Priceless.&nbsp;</p><p>[/quote]</p><p>Actually, the more sensible char to use is CR. When you accept raw characters from a tty, you get CR (and the key is &quot;Carriage return&quot;, like on a typewriter). Calling it &quot;enter&quot; is a WTF, but that&#39;s another story.</p><p>Macs have been using CR for as long as I can remember. Recently, there&#39;s been a switch to using LF instead. Mostly I&#39;m annoyed that grep/etc don&#39;t have options to treat CR as a newline.</p><p>The really sad bit is that SMTP/HTTP/FTP/IRC/etc all use CRLF. Supposedly the reason is so it can work with telnet (which is a bit of a WTF protocol in itself).</p><p>Using CRLF in text is a real WTF though. Where do you place the cursor at position 1?</p>
  • Alexis de Torquemada 2006-09-21 08:33
    [quote user=&quot;lomaxx&quot;]
    I was wrong, because what I didn&#39;t know, but soon found out, was that open source code was full of bugs, was often poorly written and largely underdeveloped because they had no development budget. It was also written in c#, which I had failed to mention, so it wouldn&#39;t work in our VB only applications. I tried to reason with him, so he said we&#39;d reach a comprimise, I would redevelope the sharpziplib, in VB.net, and then I would optimise it. He asked me how long it would take to do and I told him a week.
    [/quote]

    <p>Prejudices against open source software are common... but &quot;Let&#39;s rewrite it in VB.NET because we don&#39;t use C#.&quot;? WTF??? Didn&#39;t one of these tools ever notice that you can call C# code from VB.NET just fine (or VB.NET code from C++/CLI or <a href="http://elswanko.vm.bytemark.co.uk/~fraggle/stuffage/bf.net/">Brainfuck#</a> code from F# or...)? After all, that&#39;s a major selling point for .NET - many programming languages, one runtime to bind them all. Some people are <strong>so</strong> clueless.</p>

    [quote user=&quot;Anonymous&quot;]
    lomaxx, if the license of that lib is gpl, you probably violated it

    very very few people realise the if you use and adjust open source products COMMERCIALLY, you are breaking the license.
    [/quote]

    <p>What a load of bullcrap! If the GPL disallows commercial use, why didn&#39;t Linus Torvalds, Richard Stallman and thousands of others sue the crap out of Red Hat? Mandriva? Novell? IBM? Lots of other companies that are making money off of GNU/Linux?</p>

    <p>And if the same even holds for other open source licenses, why does Apple dare to include much of FreeBSD in their commercial, partially closed source, operating system Mac OS X?</p>

    <p>In fact, the GPL only mentions the word &quot;commercial&quot; once, in an <a href="http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html">insubstantial sentence</a> (3c). What this means is that commercial distributions are required to include full machine readable source code or a written offer to the source code (valid for at least three years) for a charge no more than distribution expenses, whereas noncommercial distributions can also opt for merely including a notice where to get the source code from the same source the distributor got it from (i.e. a third party).</p>

    <p>Now what would often be a huge problem with a GPL&#39;ed library is that you have to include the source code for your own application that just uses the library. But in this case it&#39;s GPL with the so-called library exception, which means you only have to distribute (or include a written offer, see above) the source code for the library itself. Not a big deal if you ask me.</p>

    [quote user=&quot;Anonymous&quot;]
    Furthermore, very few run time libraries are GPL&#39;d (in fact, I can&#39;t think of any
    [/quote]

    <p>Off the top of my head: GNU readline, the MySQL client libraries and QT. The latter are available for free under GPL. If you want to use them under other terms (i.e. in closed source apps), you have to purchase a license from MySQL (the company) rsp. Trolltech. In the case of MySQL, one more reason to use Postgres. ;o)</p>

    [quote user=&quot;Anonymous&quot;]
    $ ls \o/ \o/help \o/ I am trapped in a cli!
    [/quote]

    <p>I often have a different sentiment, like &quot;Help! I am trapped in a GUI when a Bash one-liner would do!&quot; :-p</p>
  • anonymous 2006-09-21 08:40
    <p>[quote user=&quot;Alexis de Torquemada&quot;]Now what would often be a huge problem with a GPL&#39;ed library is that you have to include the source code for your own application that just uses the library. But in this case it&#39;s GPL with the so-called library exception, which means you only have to distribute (or include a written offer, see above) the source code for the library itself. Not a big deal if you ask me.</p><p>[quote user=&quot;Anonymous&quot;] Furthermore, very few run time libraries are GPL&#39;d (in fact, I can&#39;t think of any [/quote] </p><p>Off the top of my head: GNU readline, the MySQL client libraries and QT. The latter are available for free under GPL. If you want to use them under other terms (i.e. in closed source apps), you have to purchase a license from MySQL (the company) rsp. Trolltech. In the case of MySQL, one more reason to use Postgres. ;o)</p><p>[/quote]</p><p>&nbsp;Those libraries are LGPL&#39;d, not GPL&#39;d.&nbsp; (The LGPL is what you refer to above as &quot;GPL with the so-called library exception&quot;.)</p>
  • TeeSee 2006-09-21 08:45
    [quote user=&quot;Anonymous&quot;]<p>[QUOTE]Deciding to use CR/LF when everyone else in the world already uses just LF: Priceless. [/QUOTE]</p><p>Deciding to use CR when everyone else in the world already uses LF or CR/LF: Think Differently.&nbsp;</p><p>[/quote]</p><p>I suspect the original Apples used CR, in 1980 (I could be wrong). DOS came later, though CRLF could be from CP/M.</p><p>Who knows?<br /><br />&nbsp;</p>
  • Nerf 2006-09-21 08:48
    No, readline and Qt are GPLed. Read the sites.
  • Alexis de Torquemada 2006-09-21 08:50
    [quote user=&quot;Anonymous&quot;]
    Deciding to use CR/LF when everyone else in the world already uses just LF: Priceless.
    [/quote]

    <p>I don&#39;t have any Steve Ballmer posters in my bedroom, but I have to defend Microsoft, just this once!</p>

    <p>At the time MS-DOS opted for CR/LF, it was a logical decision. Because then the DOS terminal would behave like a typical typewriter (typewriters were still in common use back then, mind you). The terms Carriage Return and Line Feed are typewriter jargon, after all. CR would return the cursor to the start of the line, and LF would advance the cursor to the next line, in exact analogy to typewriters.</p>

    <p>Also, it is not true that everyone else used LF. Commodore used CR (as Apple would do a few years later). CP/M (DOS was pretty much a CP/M clone, after all) used CR/LF. OS/2 would also use CR/LF, so at least that was no reason for Windows to alter the DOS decision.</p>

    <p>And I doubt it was Microsoft&#39;s decision, anyway. Probably QDOS already used CR/LF way before Microsoft bought the source code. Arguably, now that typewriters and Commodore are dead, and Apple has finally given in to the Unix side of the force, it would be nice of Microsoft to follow suit. I don&#39;t think this is going to happen, however. Programs that I write typically accept LF line endings and silently ignore a preceding CR if there is any. Doesn&#39;t make development that much more complicated for me.</p>

    <p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newline">Nice article about newline characters</a></p>
  • ammoQ 2006-09-21 09:01
    [quote user=&quot;Anonymous&quot;][quote]<p>Off the top of my head: GNU readline, the MySQL client libraries and QT. The latter are available for free under GPL. If you want to use them under other terms (i.e. in closed source apps), you have to purchase a license from MySQL (the company) rsp. Trolltech. In the case of MySQL, one more reason to use Postgres. ;o)</p><p>[/quote]</p><p>&nbsp;Those libraries are LGPL&#39;d, not GPL&#39;d.&nbsp; (The LGPL is what you refer to above as &quot;GPL with the so-called library exception&quot;.)</p><p>[/quote]</p><p>I don&#39;t think so.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>
    Readline is free software, distributed under the terms of the
    <a href="http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html">GNU General Public License, version 2</a>.
    This means that if you want to use Readline in a program that you
    release or distribute to anyone, the program must be
    <a href="http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html">free software</a>
    and have a
    <a href="http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html">GPL-compatible
    license</a>.
    If you would like advice on making your license GPL-compatible,
    contact <a href="mailto:licensing@gnu.org">licensing@gnu.org</a>.

    </p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>
    <strong>
    The Qt Open Source Edition is offered to the Open Source community under </strong><a href="http://www.trolltech.com/products/qt/licenses/licensing/resolveuid/1990819d8e8c70306cecaeeeda699c9c" title="Business Model" target="_self">Trolltech&#39;s Dual Licensing Model</a><strong>.
    The Open Source Edition is freely available for the development of Open Source software governed by the
    GNU General Public License (GPL). The </strong><a href="http://www.trolltech.com/products/qt/licenses/licensing/resolveuid/2b4d32bf59608d92ba0239f5021c8342" title="Qt Commercial Licensing" target="_self">Qt Commercial Editions</a><strong> must be used for proprietary, commercial development.
    </strong>
    </p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>MySQL AB provides its software (database server, connectors, tools)
    under a number of flexible licenses, designed to meet the usage and
    distribution requirements of different types of users:</p>

    <strong>For Open Source Projects:</strong>
    <ul><li>If you are developing and distributing open source applications
    under the GPL License, then you are free to use MySQL under the GPL
    License. <a class="moreinfo" href="http://www.fsf.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html">More Info &raquo;</a> </li><li>If you are developing and distributing open source applications
    under an OSI-Approved License, but not the GPL, MySQL provides the GPL
    License with a FLOSS Exception. <a class="moreinfo" href="http://www.mysql.com/company/legal/licensing/foss-exception.html">More Info &raquo;</a>
    </li></ul><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><h3><a href="http://tiswww.tis.case.edu/%7Echet/readline/rltop.html#TOCCurrentStatus" name="CurrentStatus" title="CurrentStatus"></a></h3>
  • anonymous 2006-09-21 09:16
    [quote user=&quot;ammoQ&quot;][quote user=&quot;Anonymous&quot;][quote] <p>Off the top of my head: GNU readline, the MySQL client libraries and QT. The latter are available for free under GPL. If you want to use them under other terms (i.e. in closed source apps), you have to purchase a license from MySQL (the company) rsp. Trolltech. In the case of MySQL, one more reason to use Postgres. ;o)</p><p>[/quote]</p><p>&nbsp;Those libraries are LGPL&#39;d, not GPL&#39;d.&nbsp; (The LGPL is what you refer to above as &quot;GPL with the so-called library exception&quot;.)</p><p>[/quote]</p><p>I don&#39;t think so.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Readline is free software, distributed under the terms of the <a href="http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html">GNU General Public License, version 2</a>. This means that if you want to use Readline in a program that you release or distribute to anyone, the program must be <a href="http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html">free software</a> and have a <a href="http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html">GPL-compatible license</a>. If you would like advice on making your license GPL-compatible, contact <a href="mailto:licensing@gnu.org">licensing@gnu.org</a>. </p><p>&nbsp;</p><p><strong>The Qt Open Source Edition is offered to the Open Source community under </strong><a href="http://www.trolltech.com/products/qt/licenses/licensing/resolveuid/1990819d8e8c70306cecaeeeda699c9c" title="Business Model" target="_self">Trolltech&#39;s Dual Licensing Model</a><strong>. The Open Source Edition is freely available for the development of Open Source software governed by the GNU General Public License (GPL). The </strong><a href="http://www.trolltech.com/products/qt/licenses/licensing/resolveuid/2b4d32bf59608d92ba0239f5021c8342" title="Qt Commercial Licensing" target="_self">Qt Commercial Editions</a><strong> must be used for proprietary, commercial development. </strong></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>MySQL AB provides its software (database server, connectors, tools) under a number of flexible licenses, designed to meet the usage and distribution requirements of different types of users:</p><strong>For Open Source Projects:</strong> <ul><li>If you are developing and distributing open source applications under the GPL License, then you are free to use MySQL under the GPL License. <a class="moreinfo" href="http://www.fsf.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html">More Info &raquo;</a> </li><li>If you are developing and distributing open source applications under an OSI-Approved License, but not the GPL, MySQL provides the GPL License with a FLOSS Exception. <a class="moreinfo" href="http://www.mysql.com/company/legal/licensing/foss-exception.html">More Info &raquo;</a> </li></ul><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><h3><a href="http://tiswww.tis.case.edu/%7Echet/readline/rltop.html#TOCCurrentStatus" name="CurrentStatus" title="CurrentStatus"></a></h3><p>[/quote]</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>I stand corrected</p>
  • Paul Rivers 2006-09-21 09:36
    [quote user=&quot;fmobus&quot;]<blockquote>[At] first, the VP/CTO/Salesman decided to go with a <strong>Java</strong>-desktop application. The <strong>.NET programmers</strong> he hired to do this built</blockquote><p>This is the WTF.<br />[/quote]</p><p><br />haha No kidding!</p><p>...in other news, I don&#39;t understand why the electricians I hired did such a terrible job installing my toilet! :-)<br />&nbsp;</p>
  • cavemanf16 2006-09-21 09:44
    <p>[quote user=&quot;Anonymous&quot;]I can&#39;t count how many times I&#39;ve dealt with a variation of this.<br /><br />There time old question of &quot;Buy vs. Build&quot;. &nbsp;Too many managers out there seems to always be on a &quot;build build BUILD!&quot; mentality. &nbsp;For whatever reason, developers&nbsp;&nbsp;are apparently &quot;free&quot;. &nbsp;No way I&#39;m purchasing that $50 component when I can have a developer make my own...for FREE!<br /><br />Great, someone might say. &nbsp;More work for you, the developer. &nbsp;Well, if you&#39;re a GOOD developer, then this <em>will</em> bother you, since you know you&#39;re essentially wasting a ton of time writing an inferior&nbsp;version&nbsp;of something that someone else has already done. &nbsp;<br />[/quote]</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>In my experience, this is a result of people in managerial roles who are not very good (yet - maybe ever) at their job as a manager. It is far easier to blame IT when something that is developed doesn&#39;t work (due to extremely poor management, requirements, stupid dictation of how to develop it, - the list goes on and on), then it is to blame a 3rd party with an already developed product because 1) the money outlay for the 3rd party is more tangible, and 2) the 3rd party as an organization cannot be controlled/manipulated as easily as an internal IT organization can via cry-baby upper-level management that isn&#39;t good at their job.<br /></p>
  • Josh Assing 2006-09-21 09:47
    <div>[quote user=&quot;Anonymous&quot;] I&#39;m really enjoying all of these story wtfs. But is his last name really &quot;<strong>Assing</strong>&quot;, or is that made up to protect the innocent[/quote]</div><div></div><div>Yes; it&#39;s really assing.&nbsp; It&#39;s an americanized version of a german last name -- done by my grandfather escaping nazi occupation.</div><div></div><div>As the story goes, my biological father wanted to name me Jack -- he thought that would have been &quot;funny&quot;.</div>
  • Thuktun 2006-09-21 10:41
    <p>[quote user=&quot;Anonymous&quot;]You&#39;re not thinking like a manager. Developers are free because they&#39;ve already been budgeted for.&nbsp; A $50 component is outside the current budget and thus requires justification to the higher-ups.[/quote]Justification for something that small shouldn&#39;t be needed.&nbsp; A manager should have discretionary funds in the budget for small, unforseen things like this.&nbsp; (IMHO, anyway.)<br />&nbsp;</p>
  • osp70 2006-09-21 11:16
    Funny, worked for a company back in the dot matrix printer days and the printer jammed up constantly.&nbsp; Manager wouldn&#39;t authorize a tech to come in because it wasn&#39;t broken, even though reams of paper were wasted trying to re-feed it.&nbsp; I could see it was just filled with crap.&nbsp; After a frustrating morning I took out a pair of scissors and cut the belt that drove the printer head, thereby &#39;breaking it&#39;.&nbsp; The manager then called a tech to fix it.&nbsp; the tech cleaned the printer up and it didn&#39;t jam up anymore.&nbsp;
  • Who wants to know 2006-09-21 11:58
    <p>Wrong on all counts! cr/lf is an ANSI STANDARD, and PREDATES CP/M!</p><p>&nbsp;The Apple, TRS/80, etc....&nbsp; Used CR/LF!&nbsp; VMS used LF/CR!&nbsp; As I recall, other DEC&nbsp;systems had CR/LF.&nbsp; I have EVEN been on systems that used only CR!&nbsp; UNIX, to the best of my knowledge, is the ONLY one that uses LF!&nbsp; HECK, even TYPEWRITERS used CR/LF(which is how they got their name.&nbsp; The bar &quot;returned the carriage&quot;, and pulled a paul that &quot;fed the line&quot;!</p><p>&nbsp;Steve</p>
  • Bellinghman 2006-09-21 12:42
    [quote user=&quot;Anonymous&quot;]Wrong on all counts! cr/lf is an ANSI STANDARD, and PREDATES CP/M![/quote]<br /><br />Which ANSI standard, by the way?<br />
  • punissuer 2006-09-21 13:16
    [quote user=&quot;Anonymous&quot;]<p>Where I work there is a fellow developer who constantly litters his projects with 3rd party crap.&nbsp; All of it is free, but God help you if you have to build one of his projects.&nbsp; It&#39;s so cluttered up that it ONLY builds on his machine and usually takes an entire day of searching for, and installing all the 3rd party tools just to build the application.</p><p>[/quote]<br /><br />This is why you should put your software&#39;s 3rd-party dependencies into your version control system.&nbsp; Version control doesn&#39;t just give you a fallback when you screw up.&nbsp; It should be the primary way that code is distributed among the members of your coding team.&nbsp; Then they won&#39;t have to go to a 3rd party site to get a dependency (and maybe get an incompatible version of it).&nbsp; They just check your application out of the VCS, and the dependencies just come along with it automagically.&nbsp; The same thing goes for your build files, of course.<br /></p>
  • Alexis de Torquemada 2006-09-21 13:52

    <p>[quote user=&quot;TeeSee&quot;]I suspect the original Apples used CR, in 1980 (I could be wrong). DOS came later, though CRLF could be from CP/M[/quote]</p>
    <p>According to Wikipedia, the first <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MacIntosh">MacIntosh</a> was introduced in &#39;84, whereas <s>MS-DOS</s><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MS-DOS">PC-DOS</a> 1.0 was released in &#39;81. DOS was very rudimentary back then (subdirectories, for example, were introduced in 2.0), but I assume they already had newlines. :-)</p>
    <p>[quote user=&quot;Anonymous&quot;]<br />
    I stand corrected.[/quote]<br />
    <br />
    ammoQ was faster... Let me correct you on another account then. :-)</p>
    <p>The LGPL is not the <a href="http://www.gnu.org/software/classpath/license.html">GPL with a linking exception</a>, it is an entirely <a href="http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html">different license</a> (though with similar implications). Both are used, the GPL with exception for example is used by the above-mentioned sharpziplib and GNU classpath. The LGPL is used by <a href="http://directory.fsf.org/libs/">many other libraries</a>.<br />
    </p>
  • Alexis de Torquemada 2006-09-21 13:55
    <p>The MS-DOS preceding PC-DOS was supposed to be striked through in my previous post, but the forum software swallowed that.</p>
  • lomaxx 2006-09-21 19:02
    [quote user=&quot;Alexis de Torquemada&quot;] <p>Prejudices against open source software are common... but &quot;Let&#39;s rewrite it in VB.NET because we don&#39;t use C#.&quot;? WTF??? Didn&#39;t one of these tools ever notice that you can call C# code from VB.NET just fine (or VB.NET code from C++/CLI or <a href="http://elswanko.vm.bytemark.co.uk/~fraggle/stuffage/bf.net/">Brainfuck#</a> code from F# or...)? After all, that&#39;s a major selling point for .NET - many programming languages, one runtime to bind them all. Some people are <strong>so</strong> clueless.</p><p>[/quote]</p><p>&nbsp;If I told you what the actual company was, this would make you laugh even more... lets just say they are a joint venture that is half owned by MS.</p><p>When i applied for the job, I was told by the recruiter I&#39;d be working with some of the top developers in the country... </p><p>&nbsp;For all the people that were worrying about the licensing, I made sure I checked that I wasn&#39;t violating it, and from what I could tell, it didn&#39;t, however before it went into production, it would have been given a thorough working over from the legal team as we have to submit all external code sources.</p>
  • John Hensley 2006-09-22 14:50
    [quote user=&quot;Anonymous&quot;]<p>lomaxx, if the license of that lib is gpl, you probably violated it</p><p>very very few people realise the if you use and adjust open source products COMMERCIALLY, you are breaking the license.<br /></p><p>[/quote]</p><p>Very very few people realize it because it isn&#39;t true.</p><p>&nbsp;</p>
  • Worf 2006-09-22 16:14
    [quote user=&quot;Anonymous&quot;]<p>lomaxx, if the license of that lib is gpl, you probably violated it</p><p>very very few people realise the if you use and adjust open source products COMMERCIALLY, you are breaking the license.<br /></p><p>[/quote]</p>&nbsp;Quick! Someone better ask Google for their source code! They&#39;re using GPL&#39;d products without distributing the source!<p>&nbsp;<br />Actually, one of the &quot;loopholes&quot; in the GPLv2 is that if you&#39;re not distributing the program, you don&#39;t have to distribute the source. So if you use GPL&#39;d code for a web service (like what lomaxx did), well, you&#39;re not distributing code, so you don&#39;t have to give source for your modifications. Note that this has been closed in GPLv3.&nbsp;</p><p>captcha: enterprisey<br />&nbsp;</p>
  • John Hensley 2006-09-22 20:10
    <p>I have trouble believing this WTF just because I can&#39;t imagine someone staying around at a company (even if married with kids) after being spoken to this way.</p><p>&nbsp;</p>
  • hank miller 2006-09-23 02:26
    Alexis de Torquemada:
    And if the same even holds for other open source licenses, why does Apple dare to include much of FreeBSD in their commercial, partially closed source, operating system Mac OS X?


    I hate to break it to you, but FreeBSD is NOT GPL, and NOT in any way shape or form related to the Free Software Foundation or any of their licenses.

    FreeBSD is licensed under the 2 clause BSD license, which means that you can legally include any part of their source code in your program, at no cost, and you don't even need to tell anyone. (Apple tells you they use freeBSD in places, and they contribute code to FreeBSD, but that is because they want to, they do not have to) That is one reason many of us prefer the BSD license.
  • Omnifarious 2006-09-24 14:31
    [quote user=&quot;Anonymous(Otter)&quot;][quote user=&quot;Alex Papadimoulis&quot;]
    <p>(a single 68k DLL) </p>[/quote]
    <p>For a few moments there, I was wondering how they were getting this to run on an old Mac, or an Amiga.</p>
    [/quote]
    <p>Or an old Atari ST. :-)</p>
  • ammoQ 2006-09-24 14:47
    [quote user=&quot;Omnifarious&quot;][quote user=&quot;Anonymous(Otter)&quot;][quote user=&quot;Alex Papadimoulis&quot;]
    <p>(a single 68k DLL) </p>[/quote]
    <p>For a few moments there, I was wondering how they were getting this to run on an old Mac, or an Amiga.</p>
    [/quote]
    <p>Or an old Atari ST. :-)</p><p>[/quote]</p><p>Or a Sinclair QL ;-)&nbsp;</p>
  • bod 2006-09-25 08:23
    <p>Indeed, beware code generation tools as a subset of 3rd party tools. &nbsp;</p><p>Seemingly they&nbsp;provide you with &quot;80% of e.g. your data access and business logic layers&quot;. Leaves you tied into a vendor for the project duration, resynching all of the code after schema changes, suites of unused code left lying around. Looks greate from a manager viewpoint (youre getting all those LOC for free!) but very inflexible. Diminishing returns after the first schema change. </p>
  • Anonymouse 2006-09-26 15:59
    Wow, can I ever relate to this story.....<br />
  • Pasa 2006-09-28 17:39
    <p>[quote user=&quot;Anonymous&quot;]Wow. This story has way more than one WTF. This is a Composite WTF design pattern. Someone should write a book. Instead of the GOF, the GOWTF. Normally I laugh at the dailty WTF. Today I actually felt bad for the guy. Sheez.<br /><br />[/quote]</p><p>&nbsp;The book &#39;Antipatterns&#39; is out there for a long time and well worth reading.</p>
  • Pasa 2006-09-28 17:39
    <p>[quote user=&quot;Anonymous&quot;]Wow. This story has way more than one WTF. This is a Composite WTF design pattern. Someone should write a book. Instead of the GOF, the GOWTF. Normally I laugh at the dailty WTF. Today I actually felt bad for the guy. Sheez.<br /><br />[/quote]</p><p>&nbsp;The book &#39;Antipatterns&#39; is out there for a long time and well worth reading.</p>
  • Kim 2006-09-30 08:56
    [quote user=&quot;Anonymous&quot;] <p>CR/LF when everyone else in the world already uses just LF: Priceless.&nbsp;</p><p>[/quote]</p><p>&nbsp;That&#39;s just not true. There were other computers that used CR/LF too. Not every computer followed the Unix-line...</p>
  • webdev101 2006-10-16 14:47
    <p>And I was thinking my boss was the only one created by god as an example of d*m*a*s.</p><p>&nbsp;Well him (President/CEO/EVP Marketing) and the EVP Sales (originally from used car agency) to run the software company. I had to leave the job to save myself from killing myself...</p>
  • sir_flexalot 2006-10-26 07:00
    <p>Josh Assing, you know, his wife works down in HR, miss Dixie Normous?</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>It never fails to amaze me how people will sink thousands into an application development project just to save a one-time license fee, or just to have &quot;control of the source&quot;... meanwhile, if there is some Windows or OS change, they&#39;re still screwed, so it&#39;s completely pointless to redevelop the wheel.<br /></p>
  • François Lamontagne 2006-11-09 19:23
    Worst. website. ever.<br />
  • François Lamontagne 2006-11-09 19:25
    [quote user=&quot;SarekOfVulcan&quot;]<blockquote><p>&quot;I&#39;m really enjoying all of these story wtfs. But is his last name really &quot;<strong>Assing</strong>&quot;, or is that made up to protect the innocent? &quot;<br /></p></blockquote><p>Does <a href="http://jassing.com/" target="_blank">http://jassing.com/</a> answer your question? :-)<br /></p><p>[/quote]</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Sorry, forgot to quote... now that&#39;s better, let&#39;s do it again</p><p>Worst. website. ever<br /><br />&nbsp;</p>
  • Andy 2006-11-13 17:06
    <p>[quote user=&quot;Anonymous&quot;]I can&#39;t count how many times I&#39;ve dealt with a variation of this.<br /><br />There time old question of &quot;Buy vs. Build&quot;. &nbsp;Too many managers out there seems to always be on a &quot;build build BUILD!&quot; mentality. &nbsp;For whatever reason, developers&nbsp;&nbsp;are apparently &quot;free&quot;. &nbsp;No way I&#39;m purchasing that $50 component when I can have a developer make my own...for FREE!<br /><br />Great, someone might say. &nbsp;More work for you, the developer. &nbsp;Well, if you&#39;re a GOOD developer, then this <em>will</em> bother you, since you know you&#39;re essentially wasting a ton of time writing an inferior&nbsp;version&nbsp;of something that someone else has already done. &nbsp;<br />[/quote]</p><p>I have noticed the opposite. Our managers insist that we can&#39;t build anything if there is something out there&nbsp;that&nbsp;seems to do&nbsp;something sorta similar to what we could settle for more or less.</p><p>&nbsp;</p>
  • Gilhad 2007-12-14 19:08
    I once did buy 3rd party library of database routines. After incorporating it into my program, it sometimes failed. I bug-reported, just to be told, that it is because I use some incompatible drivers and similar mumbo-jumbo. My drivers was ok, system was clean, but when debugging on disassembler, I found the reason - the library just did pointer arithmetics in incorret style (when offset was too high for register, it got truncated, but segment was not adjusted). It took me a couple of days (testing, bugreporting, re-testing, debugging...) and the 3rd party did not want to fix it "just for me, when others use it without problems". So I forced them to give me my money back and I did write my library in one week. It was faster, more stable and easier to use....

    Sometimes buying save you money and time, sometimes not ...

    (the 3rd party was larger company, documentation was detailed, everything looked well on the first look ...)
  • Peter Wolff 2011-06-10 05:25
    Cars are loud, stinky, and bad for the environment. So let's abandon cars and switch to trucks.