The degree of entitlement among new grads in the software development industry is incredible. I know because I've been there. Now I see it from the other side as an employer, and when I think of the way I acted after I graduated, I want to go back and kick myself. In retrospect, this was a sign of immaturity and self-aggrandizing.
I genuinely believed at the time that Emacs and Linux and Common Lisp somehow made me special, when in reality I just wanted to convince myself that I was a better developer than my peers. I wasn't. I was a good coder, but I was immature, wasted a ton of people's time, and refused to listen to people who wrote code that solved real problems while I was on my "let's switch to Linux and Lisp" crusade.
I can point out a ton of examples where Windows is significantly better than Linux and vice versa. Same goes for most programming languages, development environments, and software methodologies. Saying "I like UNIX more and prefer to develop in it" is one thing. Saying that a choice of the OS tells me something about an organization and that their particular system of choice is somehow based on worse philosophical principles than my alternative is naive and condescending beyond belief.
The rule of thumb is to understand before you decide you've understood. If we used this principle more often, the industry overall would be a much more nourishing environment to work in.
The rule of thumb is to understand before you decide you've understood.
Yeah, no.
The rule of thumb ought to be find your own path, go with what works for you and forget everyone else's establishments. Clearly this guy saw a job with a culture and environment that he got a good vibe from, he liked their approach, he liked their people, he chose them.
On the flip side, I personally don't know where this attitude comes from that the younger generations should have to toil and sweat and bleed before they get that opportunity engage in something that clicks with them. Life is short, but JUST long enough to get those experiences in whatever way they come along in our lives.
Personally, I'm just as sick of old curmudgeons coming along dictating to young people how they should run a career just because said old fogie had to go in a different direction just to get his in the world as you are with recent grad students and their "entitlement".
The article does not rip on Windows. It implies that OS / language choice says something about an organization's developer culture. I share this belief, and it would be an important job criteria for me as well.
Consider three choices: (1) Big company X on Windows + .Net, (2) Big Company Y on Linux + C++, or (3) co-founding a new startup using whatever I prefer. I wouldn't fault anyone for having pre-conceived notions about the cultures prominent at these companies, would you?
What's great about the programming industry is that demand for good programmers is higher than the supply of good programmers, so if you're a good programmer people have no choice but to make you feel special for liking Emacs and Common Lisp. If you don't want to work for a Windows shop simply because you hate the default desktop background, that's their problem and not yours. You have a job, they don't have a developer. You win, they lose.
That's what's great about being a person instead of a computer program. You don't have to be rational!
On the other hand, for a while it seemed that more often than not an idealistic stand against Windows was the only viable type, and I daresay we're all better off for those who took it.
I think it is unwise to send a letter with this tone to someone you've turned down. I say this as someone who used to do exactly the same thing. You think you're being honest, but to be on the receiving side of this it comes off badly.
Especially as a new grad, it's not really your place to lecture someone about how Unix embodies the essence of good software engineering when they have probably been doing this a lot longer than you and have their own ideas about what good software design is.
You could have given the same feedback in a way that is much less likely to come off badly by simply saying "I've really a UNIX kind of guy and a Windows shop probably isn't the best fit for me."
I don't know that I agree: you're essentially advocating dishonesty, in my opinion. If he legitimately feels that a Unix shop by nature will espouse certain qualities, why should he hold back?
They solicited his feedback. Unless he wants to hold them in his pocket as a fall-back, I can't see why he should sugarcoat his response. Yes, you could call his opinion essentially hubris if you disagree and wanted to be antagonistic, but it's at least honest, straightforward, and not unduly confrontational.
I say this as someone who's been off-and-on involved with interviewing and sent out this kind of question to people who turned us down - the only two times I got a response, they were devoid of any information and just platitudes to butter us up. Literally not a single negative point about us or our process, which needless to say was not helpful and personally annoyed me far more than a letter like this would have done.
I don't see why it's unwise at all, unless employers start using past interviewers as references. It's not like he insulted the guy's mom, he gave his honest and straightforward opinion. And as a non-"new grad" who's been a developer for over 10 years, I agree with pretty much all of his points.
You could have given the same feedback in a way that is much
less likely to come off badly by simply saying "I've really
a UNIX kind of guy and a Windows shop probably isn't the
best fit for me."
This makes a ton of sense. I admit that I saw a chance to soapbox, though I thought constructively, and leapt at it.
> You could have given the same feedback in a way that is much less likely to come off badly by simply saying "I've really a UNIX kind of guy and a Windows shop probably isn't the best fit for me."
This also has a good chance of being interpreted badly. Depending on who reads it, picking Windows for your development environment could make sense. Lots of Java development is done on Windows and Windows laptops are a very common sight on Java-related conferences.
As an employer I usually ask and like to hear this kind of feedback... So it really depends on the person on the receiving hand and what kind of vibe you have from him...
I fully agree. Technology and platform choice is often the most thought-over decisions that a company's engineering staff has to make. I personally would shy away from saying anything that indicates the slightest criticism on that particular decision. However, I'm sure the review of company X's interview strategy will be very helpful.
I agree, but I suppose those are the lessons best learned first hand. I'm sure he's very sharp, but once he's gotten his ass handed to him a couple times, he'll come around. There are some great opportunities for new grads now, it almost seems like a waste to give that to people before they've learned what to do with it :-)
It may seem arbitrary, but the platform an organization uses is indicative to me of a whole lot.
Was anyone else a bit annoyed by this statement? It's a good, wholesome, and healthy thing to say "You guys use Windows and I like using Unix", but it's wrong to say "You guys use Windows, and that says something about your organization."
Why do techies have such a tendency to phrase "I don't like x" as "It is wrong to use x".
When my company is hiring, and we lose a candidate like this, I often send emails that are similar, "Sorry to hear you're not accepting our offer. Can I ask why you didn't choose us?" This is actually the potential hire's chance to pay me a compliment, give a small amount of feedback, and keep the door open for the future in case their other "better" option falls through.
I think this blog shows a terribly self absorbed reply. My response to receiving this would be to forward the reply to my team and say, "Glad that didn't work out for us... Blessing in disguise. See below."
Know your audience. Remember, the person you're emailing works there, so you're essentially telling them that their job and work environment sucks when you write something like this.
It's not a matter of "it's wrong to use X". It's a matter of "I don't want to spend my time working in Windows and dealing with all of the headaches and banging my head against a wall with the differing OS paradigms."
True story. At my previous company, it wasn't made clear during the interview that Windows was the ONLY thing allowed on the network. Despite the fact that all of the servers were running Linux (this was a major financial institution), we were forced to use Windows XPSP3 and we couldn't even use VMware (that changed a month or so after I got there luckily).
Neglecting to mention that was a CONSCIOUS decision by the people doing the hiring because it cost them employees. Not only did it cost them employees who turned down the job based on that fact, they had people LEAVE once they found out about it (developers and operations folks alike).
Talented and skilled people can get a job anywhere. They don't have to put up with stupid bullshit illogicals like "You have to use Windows even though we trust the financial records of customers of EVERY MAJOR CREDIT CARD COMPANY to live on and be processed by Linux servers".
The majority of skilled developers prefer Macs or Linux. I've been at large conferences and not seen a single Windows machine. Some developers like Windows, that's fine, but just as many hate it. It's not wrong for a developer to use Windows, but it is wrong for a company to impose it, or even to have it as the default option.
For a company to say "at our company, we use Windows" is to say "We don't give a shit about developers". The issue isn't Windows, the issue is a workplace culture that places the preferences of management over the preferences of developers. Life is too short to work for people who don't respect you, especially when you've got one of the most valuable skills in the world.
Right or wrong, there is a sense that some people have that any place that mandates Windows usage to developers is the equivalent of "Initech" from the movie Office Space. At least, that's the feeling I get from similar discussions with my undergrad friends.
You're kind of robbing that phrase of its context by omitting the 'deploy to linux' part. I have nothing against windows devs developing on windows - in fact, I can't offhand recall having met anyone developing desktop Windows software in anything other than Visual Studio - but when you're deploying to Linux, it makes an awful lot of sense to be developing on the same platform. Otherwise you're just begging for issues with dependency management, platform-dependent tests failing (you ARE running a test suite before committing, right?), even simple things like \n vs \r\n.
It's useless trying to figure out why they're developing on Windows without having talked to them, but I for one can't come up with a good reason that doesn't warrant at least mild condemnation.
I never said using Windows is wrong or implied anything negative about its use; I said that I don't prefer to develop on Windows and that I like the principles behind Unix.
Well he did say that they develop in Windows and deploy to Linux, which in my opinion is just weird even if you are working on things like virtual machines and such why are you using windows for that?
I can't see an advantage that favors Windows for linux deployment but I can definitely see an advantage over Windows by using something that behaves more like a linux system (in this case OSX).
You may vote me down but this reminds me a great deal of how things started to feel right before the last dot.com crash circa 2001. I imagine most of you are too young to recall it, but before we hit the end programmers were worth more than gold. You'd get kids who didn't even finish this CS degree looking for stock options, aeron chairs and other perks (...and do you have a sushi chef on site?). And small companies gladly did this because even getting a warm body was better than not.
And then it hit. First one company and then the next. Each week you'd read about another 100 people being laid off. You knew that even if 1 in 10 razorfish employees were decent that 90 amazing people were now hitting the streets. Our guilty pleasured was reading f*ckedcompany -- a website that just covered the daily implosions.
I hope that history won't repeat itself on that scale, but that said this point in time feels like that point in time. I see other signs too: For example a German car company just opened up a VC fund. I know that Facebook could be the next Google, yet I was recently shocked to see a content farm go public. With any luck the rest of the economy will recover to buffer an industry stumble, but you never know.
I picked my first career essentially on the basis of interviewers.
My undergrad (at U.Cincinnati) required all engineering students to take a co-operative education job for 6 months a year. You pick your first job after the freshman year. At that stage in the game, I had no idea what I would find most rewarding (I was in an electrical and computer science program, which left a lot of room to choose).
Most companies sent engineers to the campus recruiting center. They tended to ask dry questions about classes and training. The guy from RCA Semiconductor was personable, warm, and knew how to sell his company. He also "got" that frosh aren't really at the stage where grilling them on technical knowledge makes much sense when deciding who to take a chance on, so he steered the conversation more toward life experiences, interests, and working style.
I went with RCA, with no reservations. Happily for me, it turned out that Tom reflected the company culture in the factory that sent him. Was it the "best" decision? I can't say, but I do know that a truly professional interviewer had a profound impact on the path I followed for many years of my professional career.
I'd be interested to know if the author finds this article embarrassing in 10 years.
When I started in professional software development 10 years ago (about), I probably would have made many similar points.
I see a lot of the same attitudes in CS students today. They are just absolutely CERTAIN that the entire world can be easily categorized into their predefined concepts.
As you get older and more experienced, you'll realize that a lot of your early opinions were naive at best. I have a feeling the article's author will feel similarly in the future.
I've been a developer for just over 10 years now, and I would say the opposite for myself. 10 years ago, I would never have written a response like this. Now, I would in a heartbeat.
I do think that he will find it embarrassing in 10 years, but for different reasons (like in 10 years, Windows is a super awesome development platform, or running on Amazon Web Services is like running on IIS, or jQuery is the new VBScript, or something like that).
I don't get the impression that many of the commenters here are spending a lot of time trying to hire good people right now. I am, and I'd be grateful to receive an email like this.
I wouldn't like it, but honest, personal feedback on an interview process is hard to find.
I see many comments pointing out that it may be a good technical decision to develop on Windows. This is a good point; many skilled engineers target Windows and .NET with great success. In that case, having a Windows development environment makes sense.
However, it sounds like the organization in question was not deploying to Windows - from the article:
...it seemed to me that most of your development happens on Windows (though it’s almost needless to say that you deploy to Linux)
I won't judge you for using Windows over Unix (even though I prefer Unix), but I will judge the choice of using Windows for development when you are targeting Unix. I have had this experience, and it was a Management decision - not an Engineering decision, and it resulted in significantly less productive work environment. Given two opportunities that are otherwise equal, I would definitely choose the company that develops on the same platform that they deploy on (assuming we're talking about Unix or Windows - there are obvious exceptions in the embedded world).
One caveat: It is common for an organization to use both Windows and Linux for different tasks. In that case, the choice of development environment is more complicated.
Either way, I'd say that the candidate should have asked up front during the interview, "Why are you using Windows for development, and could I use Mac/Linux instead?", instead of judging them based on what seems like a lack of information. They may have a good reason. If they don't, your decision is that much easier.
It would be nice to know what type of shop they were, after all in some places your OS just provides a text editor or IDE where you work on files remotely and run in a browser off of a *NIX server. If that was the case it doesn't matter what OS they're developing in, as anyone should be able to develop in the OS and text editor of their choice so long as it can hook up to SSH.
A lot of good points that would definitely influence me in picking a company. Especially developing on windows, I would personally list that heavily in the cons column.
It would be for me as well, but there are many people who swear by Visual Studio, and Microsoft is generally very developer-friendly. I'm sure there's reasons beyond corporate dictate that many companies choose to develop in Windows.
I honestly don't see what the problem is with what chap wrote - it's more than 20 years since I graduated and I felt pretty much as he does about Unix, and to a certain extent I still do (even though I don't have any problem using Windows).
I've hired a lot of people over the years, for my own company and for others, and if someone wrote this to me I'd thank them for their feedback and wish them the best luck with their career.
I believe that things can only be improved with honesty and transparency. I would rather work with someone who gave real feedback than give a mealy-mouthed reply.
The OP is very straightforward and - to me - non-insulting. It might be a bit of a bitter pill to swallow, but when one asks for feedback, one should be grateful when it is given...
Interesting. It has been quite a while since i have done an interview for an office job, but I will start doing so soon. I worked in the restaurant industry as my last non-entrepreneurial career.
Seeing the developing on Windows and deploying on Linux as a big flag sounds analogous to noticing a dirty walk-in fridge, burnt-out light in the dining area, or a deer in the headlights look and lack of smiles in a busy line-cook.
Is it common for the interviewee to ask as many questions about the employer as the employer asks of the interviewee? In most business dealings or past job interviews, I have taken it as a red flag if this was not the case.
Were you able to ask why they used Windows or was it expected that you were to just answer their questions?
What a little snot. He likes Unix because that's what he knows and he's not comfortable developing in Windows.
I know a lot of middling developers (I include myself in that group) that are like this. The really good devs I know don't care much about the OS. They're more interested in the problems to be solved.
What I hear when reading this is "I feel a greater sense of belonging with Compant Y". Everything else could be just rationalisation after the fact, people are amazingly good at rationalising why they believe the same thing as their friends.
Great points. As someone hiring for a "company Y", I firmly believe in the design process and culture and try hard to make candidates feel that they would play meaningful technical and cultural roles in the company.
I agree with the sentiment of your letter, I feel that it might not have been the most diplomatic thing to say, but there is a pretty good chance you won't have to worry about it. Keep improving your skills so you can voice opinions with out worry that it will kill your career.
My experience has me at the point where I won't go into detail explaining why I don't take s position. I tried when I turned down a government contractor for a position maintaining a couple servers for a position where I would be responsible for a few hundred for a lot less. They just pushed the money and got offended not understanding I needed the challenge and learning experiences. I left the situation feeling a little guilty and then just figured out you need to do what's right for you and not get into explaining it to people who won't even remember you in a few months.
Considering how strongly the author feels about developing exclusively on *nix, I found it surprising that it took as much as an interview for him to learn that "company X" uses Windows. Almost all software job reqs. offer reasonable insight as to what key technologies they use.
Other than that, I found his response reeking of condescension and inexperience.
I got in a similar situation, I interviewed for company X & company Y. I fulfill all the requirements of company X's jobs page. But when it came to the interview, they threw 4 well known questions after a short introduction which sounded more like a pointless formality unlike a real conversation I get when I meet devs at confs.
That night I was interviewed by an employee of Y, and he did spend first 20 minutes asking me questions on two of my side projects, grilling down to details, catching up on new trends. And then there were questions to test my cs skills, and an invite to face-to-face.
Overall I loved the way interviewer from Y dealt with me. I definitely could connect more to the person from Y than from X.
[+] [-] coffeemug|15 years ago|reply
I genuinely believed at the time that Emacs and Linux and Common Lisp somehow made me special, when in reality I just wanted to convince myself that I was a better developer than my peers. I wasn't. I was a good coder, but I was immature, wasted a ton of people's time, and refused to listen to people who wrote code that solved real problems while I was on my "let's switch to Linux and Lisp" crusade.
I can point out a ton of examples where Windows is significantly better than Linux and vice versa. Same goes for most programming languages, development environments, and software methodologies. Saying "I like UNIX more and prefer to develop in it" is one thing. Saying that a choice of the OS tells me something about an organization and that their particular system of choice is somehow based on worse philosophical principles than my alternative is naive and condescending beyond belief.
The rule of thumb is to understand before you decide you've understood. If we used this principle more often, the industry overall would be a much more nourishing environment to work in.
[+] [-] iamdave|15 years ago|reply
Yeah, no.
The rule of thumb ought to be find your own path, go with what works for you and forget everyone else's establishments. Clearly this guy saw a job with a culture and environment that he got a good vibe from, he liked their approach, he liked their people, he chose them.
On the flip side, I personally don't know where this attitude comes from that the younger generations should have to toil and sweat and bleed before they get that opportunity engage in something that clicks with them. Life is short, but JUST long enough to get those experiences in whatever way they come along in our lives.
Personally, I'm just as sick of old curmudgeons coming along dictating to young people how they should run a career just because said old fogie had to go in a different direction just to get his in the world as you are with recent grad students and their "entitlement".
[+] [-] beambot|15 years ago|reply
Consider three choices: (1) Big company X on Windows + .Net, (2) Big Company Y on Linux + C++, or (3) co-founding a new startup using whatever I prefer. I wouldn't fault anyone for having pre-conceived notions about the cultures prominent at these companies, would you?
[+] [-] jrockway|15 years ago|reply
That's what's great about being a person instead of a computer program. You don't have to be rational!
[+] [-] dasil003|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jobeirne|15 years ago|reply
You must get angry a lot.
[+] [-] hernan7|15 years ago|reply
Or maybe it's your current self-aggrandizing now that you were given a smidgen of power.
[+] [-] haberman|15 years ago|reply
Especially as a new grad, it's not really your place to lecture someone about how Unix embodies the essence of good software engineering when they have probably been doing this a lot longer than you and have their own ideas about what good software design is.
You could have given the same feedback in a way that is much less likely to come off badly by simply saying "I've really a UNIX kind of guy and a Windows shop probably isn't the best fit for me."
[+] [-] Pahalial|15 years ago|reply
They solicited his feedback. Unless he wants to hold them in his pocket as a fall-back, I can't see why he should sugarcoat his response. Yes, you could call his opinion essentially hubris if you disagree and wanted to be antagonistic, but it's at least honest, straightforward, and not unduly confrontational.
I say this as someone who's been off-and-on involved with interviewing and sent out this kind of question to people who turned us down - the only two times I got a response, they were devoid of any information and just platitudes to butter us up. Literally not a single negative point about us or our process, which needless to say was not helpful and personally annoyed me far more than a letter like this would have done.
[+] [-] jarin|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jobeirne|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rbanffy|15 years ago|reply
This also has a good chance of being interpreted badly. Depending on who reads it, picking Windows for your development environment could make sense. Lots of Java development is done on Windows and Windows laptops are a very common sight on Java-related conferences.
[+] [-] gommm|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jclaassen|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dave_sullivan|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] j_baker|15 years ago|reply
Was anyone else a bit annoyed by this statement? It's a good, wholesome, and healthy thing to say "You guys use Windows and I like using Unix", but it's wrong to say "You guys use Windows, and that says something about your organization."
Why do techies have such a tendency to phrase "I don't like x" as "It is wrong to use x".
[+] [-] dangero|15 years ago|reply
When my company is hiring, and we lose a candidate like this, I often send emails that are similar, "Sorry to hear you're not accepting our offer. Can I ask why you didn't choose us?" This is actually the potential hire's chance to pay me a compliment, give a small amount of feedback, and keep the door open for the future in case their other "better" option falls through.
I think this blog shows a terribly self absorbed reply. My response to receiving this would be to forward the reply to my team and say, "Glad that didn't work out for us... Blessing in disguise. See below."
Know your audience. Remember, the person you're emailing works there, so you're essentially telling them that their job and work environment sucks when you write something like this.
[+] [-] lusis|15 years ago|reply
True story. At my previous company, it wasn't made clear during the interview that Windows was the ONLY thing allowed on the network. Despite the fact that all of the servers were running Linux (this was a major financial institution), we were forced to use Windows XPSP3 and we couldn't even use VMware (that changed a month or so after I got there luckily).
Neglecting to mention that was a CONSCIOUS decision by the people doing the hiring because it cost them employees. Not only did it cost them employees who turned down the job based on that fact, they had people LEAVE once they found out about it (developers and operations folks alike).
Talented and skilled people can get a job anywhere. They don't have to put up with stupid bullshit illogicals like "You have to use Windows even though we trust the financial records of customers of EVERY MAJOR CREDIT CARD COMPANY to live on and be processed by Linux servers".
[+] [-] jdietrich|15 years ago|reply
For a company to say "at our company, we use Windows" is to say "We don't give a shit about developers". The issue isn't Windows, the issue is a workplace culture that places the preferences of management over the preferences of developers. Life is too short to work for people who don't respect you, especially when you've got one of the most valuable skills in the world.
[+] [-] tialys|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Pahalial|15 years ago|reply
It's useless trying to figure out why they're developing on Windows without having talked to them, but I for one can't come up with a good reason that doesn't warrant at least mild condemnation.
[+] [-] mikeklaas|15 years ago|reply
He didn't say that using windows was wrong, but that it is indicative about the philosophy of the company (which, I agree, it can be).
[+] [-] jobeirne|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wewyor|15 years ago|reply
I can't see an advantage that favors Windows for linux deployment but I can definitely see an advantage over Windows by using something that behaves more like a linux system (in this case OSX).
[+] [-] bkudria|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] michaelpinto|15 years ago|reply
And then it hit. First one company and then the next. Each week you'd read about another 100 people being laid off. You knew that even if 1 in 10 razorfish employees were decent that 90 amazing people were now hitting the streets. Our guilty pleasured was reading f*ckedcompany -- a website that just covered the daily implosions.
I hope that history won't repeat itself on that scale, but that said this point in time feels like that point in time. I see other signs too: For example a German car company just opened up a VC fund. I know that Facebook could be the next Google, yet I was recently shocked to see a content farm go public. With any luck the rest of the economy will recover to buffer an industry stumble, but you never know.
[+] [-] dmlorenzetti|15 years ago|reply
My undergrad (at U.Cincinnati) required all engineering students to take a co-operative education job for 6 months a year. You pick your first job after the freshman year. At that stage in the game, I had no idea what I would find most rewarding (I was in an electrical and computer science program, which left a lot of room to choose).
Most companies sent engineers to the campus recruiting center. They tended to ask dry questions about classes and training. The guy from RCA Semiconductor was personable, warm, and knew how to sell his company. He also "got" that frosh aren't really at the stage where grilling them on technical knowledge makes much sense when deciding who to take a chance on, so he steered the conversation more toward life experiences, interests, and working style.
I went with RCA, with no reservations. Happily for me, it turned out that Tom reflected the company culture in the factory that sent him. Was it the "best" decision? I can't say, but I do know that a truly professional interviewer had a profound impact on the path I followed for many years of my professional career.
[+] [-] elbelcho|15 years ago|reply
When I started in professional software development 10 years ago (about), I probably would have made many similar points.
I see a lot of the same attitudes in CS students today. They are just absolutely CERTAIN that the entire world can be easily categorized into their predefined concepts.
As you get older and more experienced, you'll realize that a lot of your early opinions were naive at best. I have a feeling the article's author will feel similarly in the future.
[+] [-] jarin|15 years ago|reply
I do think that he will find it embarrassing in 10 years, but for different reasons (like in 10 years, Windows is a super awesome development platform, or running on Amazon Web Services is like running on IIS, or jQuery is the new VBScript, or something like that).
[+] [-] jbarnette|15 years ago|reply
I wouldn't like it, but honest, personal feedback on an interview process is hard to find.
[+] [-] biotech|15 years ago|reply
However, it sounds like the organization in question was not deploying to Windows - from the article:
...it seemed to me that most of your development happens on Windows (though it’s almost needless to say that you deploy to Linux)
I won't judge you for using Windows over Unix (even though I prefer Unix), but I will judge the choice of using Windows for development when you are targeting Unix. I have had this experience, and it was a Management decision - not an Engineering decision, and it resulted in significantly less productive work environment. Given two opportunities that are otherwise equal, I would definitely choose the company that develops on the same platform that they deploy on (assuming we're talking about Unix or Windows - there are obvious exceptions in the embedded world).
One caveat: It is common for an organization to use both Windows and Linux for different tasks. In that case, the choice of development environment is more complicated.
Either way, I'd say that the candidate should have asked up front during the interview, "Why are you using Windows for development, and could I use Mac/Linux instead?", instead of judging them based on what seems like a lack of information. They may have a good reason. If they don't, your decision is that much easier.
[+] [-] asnyder|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pdenya|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] redthrowaway|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] arethuza|15 years ago|reply
I've hired a lot of people over the years, for my own company and for others, and if someone wrote this to me I'd thank them for their feedback and wish them the best luck with their career.
[+] [-] pnathan|15 years ago|reply
The OP is very straightforward and - to me - non-insulting. It might be a bit of a bitter pill to swallow, but when one asks for feedback, one should be grateful when it is given...
my 2c.
[+] [-] Lost_BiomedE|15 years ago|reply
Seeing the developing on Windows and deploying on Linux as a big flag sounds analogous to noticing a dirty walk-in fridge, burnt-out light in the dining area, or a deer in the headlights look and lack of smiles in a busy line-cook.
Is it common for the interviewee to ask as many questions about the employer as the employer asks of the interviewee? In most business dealings or past job interviews, I have taken it as a red flag if this was not the case.
Were you able to ask why they used Windows or was it expected that you were to just answer their questions?
[+] [-] mruniverse|15 years ago|reply
I know a lot of middling developers (I include myself in that group) that are like this. The really good devs I know don't care much about the OS. They're more interested in the problems to be solved.
[+] [-] d4nt|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gyepi|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] zafka|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jrussbowman|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] grammr|15 years ago|reply
Other than that, I found his response reeking of condescension and inexperience.
[+] [-] dhume|15 years ago|reply
I didn't catch anything in the post saying he didn't find that out until the interview.
[+] [-] ideamonk|15 years ago|reply
That night I was interviewed by an employee of Y, and he did spend first 20 minutes asking me questions on two of my side projects, grilling down to details, catching up on new trends. And then there were questions to test my cs skills, and an invite to face-to-face.
Overall I loved the way interviewer from Y dealt with me. I definitely could connect more to the person from Y than from X.
[+] [-] pz|15 years ago|reply