There's no mistake. Hiring a programmer is a composite image of many things good and bad. For 37signals, it's definitely a disadvantage to still be a Windows user. I wouldn't say that it's impossible, just considerably harder, to convince us that it didn't matter too much.
You need to do some research on psychology. You really need to be looking at the person and their ability, not at the fact they strongly dislike Bovril and have a passion for Sushi.
On the other hand, if you want to work with open source technologies like the Rails stack of Apache/lighttpd, MySQL/PostgreSQL, Ruby/Rails, etc, I find a strong disconnect with doing so from Windows.
There may be many reasons a company is using Windows, reasons which are not made public. The Ruby/Rails/MySQL/otherOSS tools may be chosen because they are still perceived as the most suitable/best (delete as appropriate) whilst on windows (*). The fact that someone is using a Proprietary OS/hardware has no bearing on their tool choice (except if they are prevented from choosing the tool). They may also want to use other software that is not available on your free OS of choice. Thus they have to use Windows. Quite apart from they just like Windows. I've tried Macs loads of times. I really do not like how they work. Why? I don't know. Same with Bovril. Same with Independent skateboard trucks, but Trackers are great.
On my last consulting gig at a Windows software house there were plenty of tools you'd expect to find in Unixland in use - mainly Perl and Python. Why? Because some of the guys writing Windows code wanted some flexible tools for other jobs and chose those tools. Management didn't mind, so the OSS tools get in the software house. An active move against Windows would stop such a thing, as the OSS tools wouldn't be available at all. In 1990 a company I worked for choose gcc to use as the compiler for VMS and 6 different Unix OSes rather than use the native compiler for each. They chose gcc as it was seen as the best tool (**).
Rails will be bigger and better with a strong Windows community. As will any other OSS. Given you claim there is a political stance in your choice, your choice is actively working against the widest possible adoption of OSS.
other instinctive matters. The choice is a conscious one and open for debate.
The answer boils down to "because I couldn't afford a Mac", or "because its easier, I prefer this", or "I don't like that". For me, all 3 exclude Macs as a possible choice. I wouldn't choose my software platform out of OSS/freedom/political considerations. I choose it because I think it is the best/most appropriate for my needs (***). If that meant I had to save for a Mac I would. Luckily for me, it doesn't. Probably also explains why I don't have the lastest Warp-Factor 5, Hyper-This-That-TheOther-Intelium 2000 box.
Note (*) (**) (***) are the same thing. People choose what is for them, the best, most appropriate tool. For some, most appropriate may include a quasi-political stance, which seems to be your case. Don't make the mistake that everyone makes software decisions on those lines.
If you cannot get your head around the fact that other people do not think the same way as you, you are going to have a hard time getting people to adopt Rails when you actively antagonise them. People will choose the best unless the people providing the best antagonise them.
See http://www.insearchofstupidity.com/Book_Excerpts/Chapter_Five/chapter_fiv
e.html
I recommend reading the whole book. Its a hoot.
Final comment. Why didn't you write something intelligible like the posting you made here rather than the stuff on the blog that caused this bother?
Stephen
···
In message <6c87a002d5858216dd00a4abe83e032d@loudthinking.com>, David Heinemeier Hansson <david@loudthinking.com> writes
--
Stephen Kellett
Object Media Limited http://www.objmedia.demon.co.uk
RSI Information: http://www.objmedia.demon.co.uk/rsi.html