Well terrorism it isn't. Come on! the horror of watching those poor suffering folks falling from the sky or saying good by to loved ones while waiting for the building to collapse? There is no comparison. MS should be ashamed.
However, I would entertain some other name punishable by what ever the MS money can buy in congress. How about a contest where we decide: What do we call it? And, what is the punishment?
Mediocritism and the punishment is daily virus dat file updates....
Maybe you could apply it to a well known computer system and give it the look and feel of another system. If this works call your filter a gate. You could bill for your gates...
So what did Bill do when everyone else had a better communications stack? He put one for "free" in his system, then there was the browser threat and "free" internet explorer was born. He has systematically bundled free things with his operating system to kill the competition. Now here is a for real free operating system and a long line of free things to ride on top of it. If anyone can see the pattern it is Bill.
One way to achieve quality rather than spend endless time debating its more obscure qualities is to produce a definition that folks can support then work toward a common goal.
One way to achieve a common goal (particularly when lagre numbers of people are involved) is a process...
It seems to me that the real problem is that groups of people have to be brought to a finishing point where all agree that the requirements were satisfied and all are delighted with the results. I think that belief and method are closely related to this struggle.
How about this point of view: Process should be a tool that 1) Gives Management information they can use to make decisions (like identifying problems people shortages-failures, resource, etc.) Is the project getting done on time with the kind of quality required.
2) Gives the workers definite goals (like exactly what they are expected to do when.
3) Provides a known structure for getting work done that can be communicated to new folk.
With that said, an awful lot of process engineering goes on without seeing if the previous process was actually used. My experience is that the process often is blamed for a failed project when the process never really got used. Somtimes people play with the tools without every really using them. E.g. Scheduling tools are used to enter dates without actually planning the project or working with the programmers that must design and prodcue the code.
Single departments of people who know each other well often do everyting required of a good process without having much of their process documented. The world is filled with single departments and small shops failing when they have to scale to large shops and deal with diverged goals and points of view. They also fail when some really competent human goes away and takes coordination (that should have been part of the process) with them.
I think that process is a good thing; but, that it is dependent upon people. All of the users of the process should be held accountable for the results.
A good process can be a real tool to promote two way trust and foster communication. As far as I know all really successful software development uses a process. If it gets repeated time and time again the process is written or the company has an uncharacteristically high retention rate...
Slashdot Mirror
Well terrorism it isn't. Come on! the horror of watching those poor suffering folks falling from the sky or saying good by to loved ones while waiting for the building to collapse? There is no comparison. MS should be ashamed.
However, I would entertain some other name punishable by what ever the MS money can buy in congress. How about a contest where we decide: What do we call it? And, what is the punishment?
Mediocritism and the punishment is daily virus dat file updates....
Maybe you could apply it to a well known computer system and give it the look and feel of another system. If this works call your filter a gate. You could bill for your gates...
So what did Bill do when everyone else had a better communications stack? He put one for "free" in his system, then there was the browser threat and "free" internet explorer was born. He has systematically bundled free things with his operating system to kill the competition. Now here is a for real free operating system and a long line of free things to ride on top of it. If anyone can see the pattern it is Bill.
One way to achieve quality rather than spend endless time debating its more obscure qualities is to produce a definition that folks can support then work toward a common goal. One way to achieve a common goal (particularly when lagre numbers of people are involved) is a process... It seems to me that the real problem is that groups of people have to be brought to a finishing point where all agree that the requirements were satisfied and all are delighted with the results. I think that belief and method are closely related to this struggle.
How about this point of view: Process should be a tool that 1) Gives Management information they can use to make decisions (like identifying problems people shortages-failures, resource, etc.) Is the project getting done on time with the kind of quality required. 2) Gives the workers definite goals (like exactly what they are expected to do when. 3) Provides a known structure for getting work done that can be communicated to new folk. With that said, an awful lot of process engineering goes on without seeing if the previous process was actually used. My experience is that the process often is blamed for a failed project when the process never really got used. Somtimes people play with the tools without every really using them. E.g. Scheduling tools are used to enter dates without actually planning the project or working with the programmers that must design and prodcue the code. Single departments of people who know each other well often do everyting required of a good process without having much of their process documented. The world is filled with single departments and small shops failing when they have to scale to large shops and deal with diverged goals and points of view. They also fail when some really competent human goes away and takes coordination (that should have been part of the process) with them. I think that process is a good thing; but, that it is dependent upon people. All of the users of the process should be held accountable for the results. A good process can be a real tool to promote two way trust and foster communication. As far as I know all really successful software development uses a process. If it gets repeated time and time again the process is written or the company has an uncharacteristically high retention rate...
You might as well patent Fortran Common areas...early example of a template potentially shared by other processes.