Most of the tools I prefer using are free and open source. This makes it a bit easier to own the tools, as it replaces the cost of the product with the cost of learning to use it and refine it to your needs. Most of the time I don’t even really consider this cost, as it is fun. I wonder if I would make the same tool decisions if I had a billion dollars.

In the same way that a carpenter sharpens saws, a developer should sharpen his or her toolset. When I’m writing code and notice some duplication or things that I’d like to learn more about in my toolset, I make a note of this in a special file. Then, when I feel like I have some time and interest, I go through the list and batch tackle the things I am interested in improving.

Someone commented that having machines be out of sync tool-wise can be a demotivator. I agree, and that is why using simple, free tools well can be powerful. It’s easier to copy over your five configuration files than to set up most software how you want to use it.

I’ve recently been developing offsite and using my Ubuntu-powered laptop to do so. It’s nice when changes I make at work have an effect when I get home. It has been a chore at times to get everything working smoothly, but overall I’ve been pretty happy. It is probably a somewhat unmitigated risk that I’m using this machine. If it suddenly melted or got stolen, it might take awhile to get my environment set up again how I like it. I back up all of the files that I have created, but I wonder what would be lost.

As far as being hard for IT or a time sink for developers, I think that there are ways to go too far in both directions. The fact that corporate IT departments have been unwilling to accommodate new software leads to finding workarounds and loopholes. On the other hand, spending all of your time tweaking your environment doesn’t help. I’d say to look at the costs versus the benefits and see what the balance is. Make the changes that will pay off over the lifetime of the change. I lean toward making people more free and thus more responsible, but I suppose that is my nature.

I wonder if your thoughts here are that by purchasing tools you have a new appreciation, respect, or feeling about the tools. Maybe it’s kind of like purchasing music is different from simply downloading music. Regardless, I would probably argue that you can own your tools without “owning” your tools. That is, you can master your tools and how they interact (whether physical or virtual) regardless of whether you have actually purchased them. That, I think, is a more useful mindset. Bearing this in mind, owning the tools from a monetary perspective is not sufficient to own them mentally, although the opposite may apply. I think that is what you were driving at.

Here’s my algorithm for finding books. I stop when I have the content I need:
– free and electronic? download it
– someone I know has it? ask to borrow it
– mostly work-related? ask for the book from work
– purchase it myself

Hence the preference is for free and electronic. If I had a billion dollars, I wouldn’t spend time hunting free copies, would just buy them instead (or maybe sit on a beach, but that’s neither here nor there.) The same cost/benefit applies to books as it does to any other tool. In this case, is the time that I spend reading this going to pay off over the long run? I’ve found that it almost always does, especially if you read actively.

I can only think of a handful of technology books that I have read more than once, even the most theoretical ones. Most of the time tech books just become outdated or used for sparing references. For me, the value of having a book that I purchase for myself seems limited.

Thanks for the post, it was thought-provoking!

Another interesting point: because I can’t use my day-job equipment for side projects, neither my home box nor my 9-5 box are as well tuned as they could be. They both have little quirks that cost me time that aren’t worth the trouble to fix because I only use them for a fraction of my work.

It seems obvious, but I take a lot more ownership over the tools that I *own*. If Howitzer broke, my reaction was “yeah something’s wrong with that box you gave me, call IT”. With the box I own, I practically always know what’s going on when it breaks because I picked out every part and I know how they go together. Maybe this is a counterpoint, it might be more efficient for a company to keep me from being distracted by IT.

There is a kind of person who daily works to solve the problems they’re given, using the knowledge they already have. Their work fits in well with the existing system and their changes do not tend to be destabilizing. This approach is ok when stability is the major goal… but does not result in the wellspring of innovation a company needs to stay competitive. (It does not tend to lead to innovations in achieving the stability either!) Words that describe this kind of person: faithful, content.

There is another kind of person who tends not to be content staying within the current bounds of the system. This second kind of person is always saying things like, “If we could just get this thing callable from the command line, then we could script it into this new jerry-rigged automated builder”. If you don’t look carefully, the second kind of person often appears to be a crazed maniac. BUT, companies need the energy and creativity this type of person brings.

The desire to own your own tools is just one thing that can happen to you when you start to become one of the second kind of people.

The first kind of person can become the second kind, but I think once you’re the second kind it’s hard to go back!

I wanted to also say something about how the crazed maniacs/innovators do need accountability at some level — that is, they should expect to be asked to give reasons for the choices they make, and be able to answer with rational rather than emotional arguments — and on the flip side, they also thrive best when their company adopts a supportive rather than suspicious attitude… (the would-be innovator doesn’t have to be passive in this, either – see the book Fearless Change: Patterns for Introducing New Ideas)…

And in case it’s not clear I happily consider myself one of the second kind!

Thanks for pointing out the busted-ness of the blog… I’m gonna have to figure that out. I didn’t know it was broken.

First, I apologize for upsetting you.

Second, I just always enter bullshit into the Name & Email sections, out of habit and amusement. Oh well. Sometimes I enter NSFW websites, too.

Third, look – I’m not angry at you. You haven’t written anything inflammatory. I probably did not misunderstand your post. I definitely agree with your own characterization of your post. I definitely agree you’re not doing any of the things you just said you aren’t doing. I infer from your response that you might feel crapped on but I assert that’s just the interpretation. However…

Fourth, I am riding you a bit for having a busted blog, yes. I know you use the word “lame” in novel context. “LameTest”? “LessLameTest”? Dag, yo.

Alright, I’m done. I just wanted to apologize for what I think is a mix up here.