Quotes About Software

My dad grew up as a computer programmer, so he always had random computer software, and I started opening up editing software at age 12 and figuring out how to build websites.

Before Mint.com, I was a long-time user of 'Microsoft Money' and Intuit's 'Quicken.' Both were powerful tools, loaded with features and functionality around taxes, investment, budgeting - too feature-laden, in fact. They took hours to set up, forever to learn, and an hour a week to maintain.

None of our competitors have ever made two systems that run the same software.

Technology has moved away from sharing and toward ownership. This suits software and hardware companies just fine: They create new, bloated programs that require more disk space and processing power. We buy bigger, faster computers, which then require more complex operating systems, and so on.

For systems in which you already have a lot of hardware and software, change is difficult. That's why apps are so popular.

We're systems software people ourselves. We wanted a language to make our lives better.

In any software work, you have IT consultancy competence required to build the systems.

What we're looking at is a future where cars will be comfortable and safe and offer the luxuries of both home and office. That means lots of sensors and software, as well as the critical safety systems to protect the car's information from hackers.

Paper is no longer a big part of my day. I get 90% of my news online, and when I go to a meeting and want to jot things down, I bring my Tablet PC. It's fully synchronized with my office machine, so I have all the files I need. It also has a note-taking piece of software called OneNote, so all my notes are in digital form.

When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not price.

With software there are only two possibilites: either the users control the programme or the programme controls the users. If the programme controls the users, and the developer controls the programme, then the programme is an instrument of unjust power.

Although well meant, many things that are designed just to be general purpose often end up satisfying no purpose. Software components should, first and foremost, be designed for use and to fulfill that use well. Effective generality comes from understanding, and understanding leads to simplification.

One thing most software architects fail to realize is that a software architect is also a leader.

Software architects have to take responsibility for their decisions as they have much more influential power in software projects than most people in organizations.

As you work in requirements meetings to design software, pretend that your customer is not your customer. It turns out that this is a very easy thing to do, because it is true. Your customer is not your customer. Your customer's customer is your customer. If your customer's customer wins, your customer wins. Which means you win.

Many software projects get software architects involved only in the design phase, then they move to other projects or the consultation contract ends. How can they ensure that their deliberate architectural decisions have been implemented correctly? Their decisions will be at best good intentions unless they follow-through with them.

Software architects have to take responsibility for their decisions as they have much more influential power in software projects than most people in organizations. Studies of software projects show over two-thirds of them either are outright failures or deliver unsuccessfully (deadline slip, budget overruns, or low customer satisfaction). Many of the root causes point to improper decisions software architects made, or failures of follow-through on the right architectural decisions.

We cannot easily add lanes to roads, but we've learned how to easily add features to software. This isn't a defect of our software processes, but a virtue of the medium in which we work.

It is the architect's job to not only create functional, quality software for users, but also to do so while balancing the other departmental priorities, with the cost containment interests of the business's CEO, with the ease-of-administration interests of the operations staff, with the easeof-learning and ease-of-maintenance interests of future programming staff, and with best practices of the software architect's profession

Software development is fundamentally a design activity, in that it involves an ongoing process of decision making until the developed system goes into production.

The long-term interests of the software development team are best served when business drives.

The problem with traditional approaches to abstraction and encapsulation is that they aim at complete information hiding. This characteristic anticipates being able to eliminate programming from parts of the software development process, those parts contained within module boundaries. As we've seen, though, the need to program is never eliminated because customization, modification, and maintenance are always required-that is, piecemeal growth.

Programming languages, like pizzas, come in only two sizes: too big and too small.

In the free/libre software movement, we develop software that respects users' freedom, so we and you can escape from software that doesn't.