Games take years to make, and it's important that when we launch, it can't just be a great launch catalog and then a desert for a really long time. To be honest, for a lot of developers, they'd rather not be competing at launch with all this other software.
In software systems it is often the early bird that makes the worm.
Oracle is my second job ever that did not involve waitressing. But I still have my waitress apron just in case this does not work out. It's just that I fell in love with software when I was programming in college. When I was an investment banker, there were mostly mainframe companies and very few software ones.
We can't ever forget that the Internet now is just a staid utility. The exciting platforms are software applications that are very, very simple.
One of our first jobs was at Saba Software. We were helping them build their products for the cloud. We wanted to build our own product and move away from consulting. We were looking for a change. The CEO of Saba introduced me to Marc Benioff.
With bundled machines you can throw away the hardware and keep the software, and it's still a good buy.
As a rule, software systems do not work well until they have been used, and have failed repeatedly, in real applications.
If you use a proprietary program or somebody else's web server, you're defenceless. You're putty in the hands of whoever developed that software.
Apple's advantage is that it designs and builds software together, so if the software isn't excellent, it does the superlative hardware a disservice.
There is no neat distinction between operating system software and the software that runs on top of it.
The software industry has to become better in componentization. That's a clear focus for most of the software companies. How components look, how they are maintained, the ability to maintain them separately.
Any good software engineer will tell you that a compiler and an interpreter are interchangeable.
The i730 combines the familiarity of Windows Mobile software with the innovative design of Samsung that will be a popular choice for mobile professionals.
I'm not saying we purposely introduced bugs or anything, but this is kind of a natural result of any complexities of software... that you can't fully test it.
Is it possible that software is not like anything else, that it is meant to be discarded: that the whole point is to always see it as a soap bubble?
Software development is technical activity conducted by human beings.
Cable boxes are, almost without exception, awful. They're under-powered computers running very badly designed software. Their channel guides are slow, poorly laid out, and usually riddled with ads.
Software is like entropy. It is difficult to grasp, weighs nothing, and obeys the second law of thermodynamics; i.e. it always increases.
I got bitten by the free software bug in February of 1998 around the time of the Mozilla announcement.
The common thread for everything I do is this idea of a Web-services architecture. What does that mean? It means taking components of software and systems and having them be self-describing, so that you can aim them, ask them what their capabilities are, and communicate with them using a standard protocol.
So many commercial orgs have software where you can come and modify it, but they still control everything. And what's controlled is very clearly what's good for their business, or if they're more progressive, their view of what's good for the Internet.
The hazards posed by Near-Earth Asteroids are assessed by Sentry, a computer system developed by the Near-Earth Objects Group at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif. The software factors together a cosmic rock's coordinates, distance, velocity, and gravitational influences to calculate its trajectory.
All the reasons that have made software so successful are beginning to happen with hardware. So much can be done so quickly, prototyped so rapidly, and the costs are so low.
Paul Allen with Microsoft revolutionized the software industry.
When it comes to software, I much prefer free software, because I have very seldom seen a program that has worked well enough for my needs, and having sources available can be a life-saver.
A lot of people assume that creating software is purely a solitary activity where you sit in an office with the door closed all day and write lots of code.
Over the next 10 years, I expect many more industries to be disrupted by software, with new world-beating Silicon Valley companies doing the disruption in more cases than not.
Software is like sex: it's better when it's free.
Writing software that's safe even in the presence of bugs makes the challenge even more interesting.
I have this hope that there is a better way. Higher-level tools that actually let you see the structure of the software more clearly will be of tremendous value.
It's hardware that makes a machine fast. It's software that makes a fast machine slow.
'Authoring tools' are terrible; there is almost no software that can create closed captions for media players. And of course there is no training. TV captioning is bad enough, and this stuff is generally worse.
If Unix could present the same face, the same capabilities, on machines of many different types, it could serve as a common software environment for all of them.
I get so many requests for interviews. If I talk to everyone, we can't do our job with our customers and work on our software. It would be hard to stay focused.
People who are really serious about software should make their own hardware.
Even more amazing than modern technology is our opportunity to access information directly from Heaven, without hardware, software, or monthly service fees.