Why I went with them and not you: feedback to an interviewer

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.<p>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.<p>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 <i>their</i> particular system of choice is somehow based on worse philosophical principles than my alternative is naive and condescending beyond belief.<p>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.

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.<p>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.<p>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>It may seem arbitrary, but the platform an organization uses is indicative to me of a whole lot.</i><p>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."<p>Why do techies have such a tendency to phrase "I don't like <i>x</i>" as "It is <i>wrong</i> to use x".

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.<p>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.<p>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.<p>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).<p>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.<p>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.<p>When I started in professional software development 10 years ago (about), I probably would have made many similar points.<p>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.<p>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 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.<p>I wouldn't <i>like</i> 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.<p>However, it sounds like the organization in question was not deploying to Windows - from the article:<p><i>...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><p>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 - <i>not</i> 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).<p>One caveat: It is common for an organization to use <i>both</i> Windows and Linux for different tasks. In that case, the choice of development environment is more complicated.<p>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.

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.

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).<p>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.<p>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...<p>my 2c.

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.<p>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.<p>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.<p>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.<p>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 <i>amazingly</i> 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.<p>Other than that, I found his response reeking of condescension and inexperience.

I got in a similar situation, I interviewed for company X &#38; 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.<p>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.<p>Overall I loved the way interviewer from Y dealt with me. I definitely could connect more to the person from Y than from X.

i'd be interested to see him revisit this letter after he's had the chance to sit on the other side of the table in an interview.

Of course tools and technology definitely matter, and do influence culture, which also matters, but if someone sent me a letter like this one I'd be genuinely relieved it didn't work out.

The asymmetry of the situation strikes me. Where a company which decides not to hire someone can only say "we're not following through with your application at this moment" out of fear of litigation, the candidate can freely comment on his decision to not take the job.<p>It would be nice when companies were able to do the same.

Bravo on scoring two jobs, but a little bit boastful all the same. What a show off :P