In light of the discussion here about a month ago regarding the failure rate of large software project, I'd be interested in knowing how many of these, if any, were being run by ISO900x-certified entities. I'm curious as to whether or not people thing that ISO900x certification is really a good thing, or if the overall result is really just another layer of bureaucratic red tape that just slows things down.
Quality is unquestionably an important factor in software engineering. But this certification question brings to light some interesting thoughts. Does ISO900x certification eliminate bug-ridden or sloppy code? And will software undergoing a check for compliance be certified only for a given platform, with a given set of components?
This would all seem to have some very interesting implications.
I agree that there was a definite improvement in the registration process...but did you ever think that a company could so totally and utterly screw up something so simple in the first place?
I sent Deneba a tactful e-mail expressing my concern. They responded by nearly blowing me off. I was told that my concern would be forwarded to management, but there was no alternative method proposed to get me a demo version of the software. This is fine by me...my objective is to KEEP as much of my money as I can....it's up to the Deneba's of the world to convince me that I should exchange some of it for what it is they're offering. Deneba came up way short.
It is my opinion that consumers, though presented with the *means* of exercising greater control, will utterly and miserably fail to do so, and the reason is simple: As long as there is a carrot on a stick, many net users/consumers will *relinquish* control.
I've visited two sites with demo software, for example (one was Deneba's site, since I was interested in looking at the most recent upgrade to Canvas.) But much as I would have liked to look at a demo, the problem was their insistence that I submit to a third degree before being allowed to download the software. I will *not* trade my personal information in order to consider buying a product. Deneba has it completely wrong - it is THEY who should be offering INCENTIVES for people to consider and purchase their products, NOT the other way around.
While I recognize that there are quite a few net users who feel this way, there aren't ENOUGH of them. Companies like Deneba need to know that requiring someone to tell you who they are (and scads of other information) BEFORE they even decide to buy the product, is unacceptable. People will only have control so long as they're willing to TAKE control - but as long as spineless net users are willing to trade their personal information for any perceived benefit, the ONLY ones who will have control are the ones collecting (and using) the information.
If every web site were composed of a few static images and plain text, using HTML "properly" wouldn't be an issue. From a design perspective, HTML has some glaring weaknesses, and "misusing" it is the only way around them.
The rest of us, will start purchasing SMDI collections because our time is worth more than a dollar or two.
A dollar or two? This seems to suggest that the RIAA is willing to consider a possible reduction in revenue - they made the same promise of lower prices with the advent of CD's. It didn't happen, but the consumers kept buying them anyway. Make no mistake about it - the RIAA will do everything it can to milk as much money from consumers as it can. Acquiring an SDMI "custom" compilation may not expensive during the first few years of market penetration, but once SDMI is the de facto standard, the RIAA can do anything it wants.
Arguably, hearing music infers a lot with respect to what one can and cannot do with it.
After thinking about this, I agree with your point - to the extent that the inference is based on the legal foundation of copyright. That is, after hearing a song, you cannot, whether or not you have an explicit agreement with its creator, copy it, distribute it, take credit for it, or reap any kind of material gain from it.
You are correct in asserting that the song has been "assimilated" by you, once you have heard it. But I wholly disagree with the notion that this process of assimilation infers any right to copy what you have heard. Let me also state, though, that a song can unquestionably serve as an influence for some other musical creation. It's not uncommon to hear one song that bears some similarity to another, but this is a different matter entirely.
Such a relationship is at least ownership. Either I own my mind and body, or I have a stronger relationship with my mind and body. Any law that denies this natural fact is as bogus as a repeal of gravity.
I don't think I'd argue that you have ownership of your own experiences (i.e. hearing a song). I would argue, however, that you should have complete freedom to use these experiences as justification to re-package or distribute the creative work of someone else.
However, that isn't the same thing as a copyright; under that system, if I legally hear a piece of music that I have not specifically agreed not to "copy", I can do whatever I like with it.
I think there's a bit of confusion between hearing something, and using it. "Hearing" something (created by someone else) infers nothing with respect to what one can and can't do with it. How can you "do whatever you like" with something to which you have no claim of ownership?
I read an interesting article some time back about this very thing - moving programmers into management positions. True, the way that the corporate structure works, you can only advance so far as a programmer, but even if you're the BEST programmer, you may not be good at MANAGEMENT (or even like the idea). The article followed a programmer's trials and tribulations as he confronted what it meant to leave his buddies behind and become their boss. He decided after a short while that he'd rather stay a programmer, requested that he be allowed to resume his old position.
It's interesting to think about this...not too long ago, there was an article about the failure rate of large software projects, suggesting that certification was necessary for anyone calling himself a software engineer. I wonder how many of these failures were caused by inept management, rather than technical incompetence?
I like the technical work MUCH more than I like playing politics. It's not the people I'd manage, it's dealing with all the hidden agendas, the quests for personal gain at the expense of company objectives, etc. All this nonsense typically comes from peers or people higher on the ladder.
ook at heart machines, air traffic control, the bank networks, even your microwave oven - how often does it crash?
This is plain silly. Heart machines in NO WAY compare to a large, complex software project. They are designed with a specific purpose in mind, have only one function, and are used in a very limited environment. Our air traffic control system is WAY obsolete. It's not foolproof by any means, and the very fact that much of it needs replacing suggests that it cannot meet our current needs - in terms of both reliability and functionality. As for the bank networks...come on...are you suggesting that there has never been a bank-related software development project that hasn't failed?
Reliable software is a good thing, and I'm not attempting to suggest otherwise. But it's a little off the mark to imply that reliability, especially in large, complex systems, is tantamount to that (allegedly) seen in something so mundane as a heart machine. Perhaps a little study in purturbation theory would be in order.
A Computer Science degree isn't supposed to teach you to program - that is an implementation detail. It concentrates on high-level things like design, which is what the article suggests could be up for certification. They cite Y2K as a design failure.
This is why this article is so PATENTLY absurd. Do you honestly believe that no one (especially later on) questioned the wisdom of using a two-digit year in a date? When the practice first started, wasn't the two-digit year an attempt to address several issues, two of the most salient being cost and storage? At the time, it was a GREAT compromise.
Here's one question I have...how many people who are members of the ACM are or were involved in the practice of using two-digit years in the representation of a date? And, how actively did the ACM, SINCE this practice began, actively campaign against it?
The point is this, and it's not one that hasn't been made already: Systems designers, in looking at all the issues at the time, decided that a two-digit year would be a good compromise based on the availability of scarce resources. This was NOT a display of ineptitude - it was a collective decision, made and accepted by an INDUSTRY. The failure isn't in the decision itself, it's in the blatant refusal of tight-fisted CEO's and managers, more concerned about short-term profitability, to recognize the problem and make the necessary changes over time. Maybe it's the CEOs and managers that ought to be certified!
The Java Prorgammer Exam does an OK job at testing programming competance. The developer exam is also an OK measure.
This exam may very well test the "technical aptitude" of a Java programmer, but the issues involved in the failure of large projects go FAR beyond mere coding. Management, company politics, market conditions, and unforeseen technical issues are but of a few of the issues that will affect the success of a project. What good is a crack Java programmer if he (or she) is made to do things sloppily, or in a manner that make the results of the overall project ineffective?
It's not the same, for several reasons. First and foremost, I seriously doubt that Rob is prostituting everyone's personal information (what little he has) for his own personal gain. Second, there doesn't exist any tie to the information someone posts on Slashdot, and any concrete form of identification. If Rob starts requiring people to submit their credit card or social security numbers, then I'll start to be concerned.
Why is nobody up in arms with UPS/USPS/FedEx? They can also track your packages. They know your address. They know what you have sent and where it is going.
There is a WORLD of difference between what FedEx does with packages, and what commercial entities do with personal information. First and foremost, it's a recognized BENEFIT to YOU, the CUSTOMER, to be able to know where your package is. This is FAR different than companies who COLLECT information based on what you do, whether you know it or not, and then use it to THEIR advantage.
They're everywhere. You pay good money for top seats to a sporting event, and what do you see. Banners. You decide to forego the cost of tickets and watch the game on TV...banners. You drive along the highway...same thing...billboards with huge banners. Attempting to find respite in a nice, quiet session of web surfing is futile...more banners.
If software vendors are seriously considering this, I'd prefer a *choice* between paying a reasonable price for a version with NO advertising, or torturing myself with a free, banner-supported version.
For those who would consider using "free" software under this arrangement, they'll probably be faced with some kind of registration process, after which their information they provide will be prostituted to any Tom, Dick, or Harry willing to pay for it.
What is it that separates the two, then? We are governed by laws, and in most cases, morality implies that these laws are obeyed. There are legitimate reasons for looking beyond the law, but I hardly think that the "convenience" associated with pirating copyrighted material qualifies.
However, a legal justification alone is NOT sufficient grounds to equate copying with stealing.
Based on WHAT? You made a rediculous comparison to the laws governing the treatment of blacks. Guess what...these laws were reprehensible, and they were CHANGED. If you don't like the copyright laws, work to get them changed.
I vaguely remember a class I took in college that discussed Maslow's seven stages of moral development. You can't convince me for a minute that stealing copyrighted material puts you at level seven. I think it's much more likely a case of moral relativism.
Hunting license? Hunter's safety class. It's simple: Require a license. And require training. Which would include more than just "point here;" we need psychological evaluations, too.
But this brings us back to the very same problem. We can legislate the hell out of owning a gun, but this only works for those interested in abiding by the law in the first place. Laws can be passed ad nauseam, but they won't do anything to stop those who are intent on breaking them. And that's exactly what happened in Littleton. It's pure folly to think that either of these two kids would have reflected on the "legality" of their actions had there been even MORE laws in place. They wanted to kill, and they did. It's that simple.
You're right. It's their company, their equipment, and their service. They can do whatever they want. And I, as a consumer, have every right to respond to their actions by refusing to utilize the service. That's what a free market economy is all about.
I was responding more to the article's suggestion that people may not be aware that their "upgraded" boxes are making it possible for the cable companies to collect information that was, at one time, entirely private (except for families participating in the Nielson ratings).
I must apologize for such a quick and ill-mannered response. It's apparent that this poster and I have different ideas of success, and I just did a poor job pointing this out.
somebody who snorts coke, or drops E does not cause second-hand effects to others, and does not risk the obvious catastrophes associated with drinking and driving.
You have GOT to be kidding. Cocaine DESTROYS lives. I destroys careers. It destroys families. It may not be anywhere near as immediate as an alcohol-induced car wreck, but there's no question about what it does to people.
Slashdot Mirror
In light of the discussion here about a month ago regarding the failure rate of large software project, I'd be interested in knowing how many of these, if any, were being run by ISO900x-certified entities. I'm curious as to whether or not people thing that ISO900x certification is really a good thing, or if the overall result is really just another layer of bureaucratic red tape that just slows things down.
Quality is unquestionably an important factor in software engineering. But this certification question brings to light some interesting thoughts. Does ISO900x certification eliminate bug-ridden or sloppy code? And will software undergoing a check for compliance be certified only for a given platform, with a given set of components?
This would all seem to have some very interesting implications.
I agree that there was a definite improvement in the registration process...but did you ever think that a company could so totally and utterly screw up something so simple in the first place?
Good question.
I sent Deneba a tactful e-mail expressing my concern. They responded by nearly blowing me off. I was told that my concern would be forwarded to management, but there was no alternative method proposed to get me a demo version of the software. This is fine by me...my objective is to KEEP as much of my money as I can....it's up to the Deneba's of the world to convince me that I should exchange some of it for what it is they're offering. Deneba came up way short.
It is my opinion that consumers, though presented with the *means* of exercising greater control, will utterly and miserably fail to do so, and the reason is simple: As long as there is a carrot on a stick, many net users/consumers will *relinquish* control.
I've visited two sites with demo software, for example (one was Deneba's site, since I was interested in looking at the most recent upgrade to Canvas.) But much as I would have liked to look at a demo, the problem was their insistence that I submit to a third degree before being allowed to download the software. I will *not* trade my personal information in order to consider buying a product. Deneba has it completely wrong - it is THEY who should be offering INCENTIVES for people to consider and purchase their products, NOT the other way around.
While I recognize that there are quite a few net users who feel this way, there aren't ENOUGH of them. Companies like Deneba need to know that requiring someone to tell you who they are (and scads of other information) BEFORE they even decide to buy the product, is unacceptable. People will only have control so long as they're willing to TAKE control - but as long as spineless net users are willing to trade their personal information for any perceived benefit, the ONLY ones who will have control are the ones collecting (and using) the information.
If every web site were composed of a few static images and plain text, using HTML "properly" wouldn't be an issue. From a design perspective, HTML has some glaring weaknesses, and "misusing" it is the only way around them.
The rest of us, will start purchasing SMDI collections because our time is worth more than a dollar or two.
A dollar or two? This seems to suggest that the RIAA is willing to consider a possible reduction in revenue - they made the same promise of lower prices with the advent of CD's. It didn't happen, but the consumers kept buying them anyway. Make no mistake about it - the RIAA will do everything it can to milk as much money from consumers as it can. Acquiring an SDMI "custom" compilation may not expensive during the first few years of market penetration, but once SDMI is the de facto standard, the RIAA can do anything it wants.
Back to square one.
Arguably, hearing music infers a lot with respect to what one can and cannot do with it.
After thinking about this, I agree with your point - to the extent that the inference is based on the legal foundation of copyright. That is, after hearing a song, you cannot, whether or not you have an explicit agreement with its creator, copy it, distribute it, take credit for it, or reap any kind of material gain from it.
You are correct in asserting that the song has been "assimilated" by you, once you have heard it. But I wholly disagree with the notion that this process of assimilation infers any right to copy what you have heard. Let me also state, though, that a song can unquestionably serve as an influence for some other musical creation. It's not uncommon to hear one song that bears some similarity to another, but this is a different matter entirely.
Such a relationship is at least ownership. Either I own my mind and body, or I have a stronger relationship with my mind and body. Any law that denies this natural fact is as bogus as a repeal of gravity.
I don't think I'd argue that you have ownership of your own experiences (i.e. hearing a song). I would argue, however, that you should have complete freedom to use these experiences as justification to re-package or distribute the creative work of someone else.
However, that isn't the same thing as a copyright; under that system, if I legally hear a piece of music that I have not specifically agreed not to "copy", I can do whatever I like with it.
I think there's a bit of confusion between hearing something, and using it. "Hearing" something (created by someone else) infers nothing with respect to what one can and can't do with it. How can you "do whatever you like" with something to which you have no claim of ownership?
I read an interesting article some time back about this very thing - moving programmers into management positions. True, the way that the corporate structure works, you can only advance so far as a programmer, but even if you're the BEST programmer, you may not be good at MANAGEMENT (or even like the idea). The article followed a programmer's trials and tribulations as he confronted what it meant to leave his buddies behind and become their boss. He decided after a short while that he'd rather stay a programmer, requested that he be allowed to resume his old position.
It's interesting to think about this...not too long ago, there was an article about the failure rate of large software projects, suggesting that certification was necessary for anyone calling himself a software engineer. I wonder how many of these failures were caused by inept management, rather than technical incompetence?
I like the technical work MUCH more than I like playing politics. It's not the people I'd manage, it's dealing with all the hidden agendas, the quests for personal gain at the expense of company objectives, etc. All this nonsense typically comes from peers or people higher on the ladder.
ook at heart machines, air traffic control, the bank networks, even your microwave oven - how often does it crash?
This is plain silly. Heart machines in NO WAY compare to a large, complex software project. They are designed with a specific purpose in mind, have only one function, and are used in a very limited environment. Our air traffic control system is WAY obsolete. It's not foolproof by any means, and the very fact that much of it needs replacing suggests that it cannot meet our current needs - in terms of both reliability and functionality. As for the bank networks...come on...are you suggesting that there has never been a bank-related software development project that hasn't failed?
Reliable software is a good thing, and I'm not attempting to suggest otherwise. But it's a little off the mark to imply that reliability, especially in large, complex systems, is tantamount to that (allegedly) seen in something so mundane as a heart machine. Perhaps a little study in purturbation theory would be in order.
A Computer Science degree isn't supposed to teach you to program - that is an implementation detail. It concentrates on high-level things like design, which is what the article suggests could be up for certification. They cite Y2K as a design failure.
This is why this article is so PATENTLY absurd. Do you honestly believe that no one (especially later on) questioned the wisdom of using a two-digit year in a date? When the practice first started, wasn't the two-digit year an attempt to address several issues, two of the most salient being cost and storage? At the time, it was a GREAT compromise.
Here's one question I have...how many people who are members of the ACM are or were involved in the practice of using two-digit years in the representation of a date? And, how actively did the ACM, SINCE this practice began, actively campaign against it?
The point is this, and it's not one that hasn't been made already: Systems designers, in looking at all the issues at the time, decided that a two-digit year would be a good compromise based on the availability of scarce resources. This was NOT a display of ineptitude - it was a collective decision, made and accepted by an INDUSTRY. The failure isn't in the decision itself, it's in the blatant refusal of tight-fisted CEO's and managers, more concerned about short-term profitability, to recognize the problem and make the necessary changes over time. Maybe it's the CEOs and managers that ought to be certified!
And the funniest part about it, is that there's STILL no guarantee it will work, as our defense contractors have aptly demonstrated.
The Java Prorgammer Exam does an OK job at testing programming competance. The developer exam is also an OK measure.
This exam may very well test the "technical aptitude" of a Java programmer, but the issues involved in the failure of large projects go FAR beyond mere coding. Management, company politics, market conditions, and unforeseen technical issues are but of a few of the issues that will affect the success of a project. What good is a crack Java programmer if he (or she) is made to do things sloppily, or in a manner that make the results of the overall project ineffective?
It's not the same, for several reasons. First and foremost, I seriously doubt that Rob is prostituting everyone's personal information (what little he has) for his own personal gain. Second, there doesn't exist any tie to the information someone posts on Slashdot, and any concrete form of identification. If Rob starts requiring people to submit their credit card or social security numbers, then I'll start to be concerned.
Count me out on this one. I will not use a service that tracks what I do, no matter how "neat" the technology. Let the sheep use it.
Why is nobody up in arms with UPS/USPS/FedEx? They can also track your packages. They know your address. They know what you have sent and where it is going.
There is a WORLD of difference between what FedEx does with packages, and what commercial entities do with personal information. First and foremost, it's a recognized BENEFIT to YOU, the CUSTOMER, to be able to know where your package is. This is FAR different than companies who COLLECT information based on what you do, whether you know it or not, and then use it to THEIR advantage.
They're everywhere. You pay good money for top seats to a sporting event, and what do you see. Banners. You decide to forego the cost of tickets and watch the game on TV...banners. You drive along the highway...same thing...billboards with huge banners. Attempting to find respite in a nice, quiet session of web surfing is futile...more banners.
If software vendors are seriously considering this, I'd prefer a *choice* between paying a reasonable price for a version with NO advertising, or torturing myself with a free, banner-supported version.
For those who would consider using "free" software under this arrangement, they'll probably be faced with some kind of registration process, after which their information they provide will be prostituted to any Tom, Dick, or Harry willing to pay for it.
What is it that separates the two, then? We are governed by laws, and in most cases, morality implies that these laws are obeyed. There are legitimate reasons for looking beyond the law, but I hardly think that the "convenience" associated with pirating copyrighted material qualifies.
However, a legal justification alone is NOT sufficient grounds to equate copying with stealing.
Based on WHAT? You made a rediculous comparison to the laws governing the treatment of blacks. Guess what...these laws were reprehensible, and they were CHANGED. If you don't like the copyright laws, work to get them changed.
I vaguely remember a class I took in college that discussed Maslow's seven stages of moral development. You can't convince me for a minute that stealing copyrighted material puts you at level seven. I think it's much more likely a case of moral relativism.
To me, it IS ok.
Breaking the law is OK to you, so long as it serves your own selfish interests? This IS what you're trying to say, isn't it?
Hunting license? Hunter's safety class. It's simple: Require a license. And require training. Which would include more than just "point here;" we need psychological evaluations, too.
But this brings us back to the very same problem. We can legislate the hell out of owning a gun, but this only works for those interested in abiding by the law in the first place. Laws can be passed ad nauseam, but they won't do anything to stop those who are intent on breaking them. And that's exactly what happened in Littleton. It's pure folly to think that either of these two kids would have reflected on the "legality" of their actions had there been even MORE laws in place. They wanted to kill, and they did. It's that simple.
You're right. It's their company, their equipment, and their service. They can do whatever they want. And I, as a consumer, have every right to respond to their actions by refusing to utilize the service. That's what a free market economy is all about.
I was responding more to the article's suggestion that people may not be aware that their "upgraded" boxes are making it possible for the cable companies to collect information that was, at one time, entirely private (except for families participating in the Nielson ratings).
I must apologize for such a quick and ill-mannered response. It's apparent that this poster and I have different ideas of success, and I just did a poor job pointing this out.
And clue time: there isn't any law that says that you have a right to express yourself "any way you want".
With few exceptions, the First Amendment has been held to protect exactly that right.
somebody who snorts coke, or drops E does not cause second-hand effects to others, and does not risk the obvious catastrophes associated with drinking and driving.
You have GOT to be kidding. Cocaine DESTROYS lives. I destroys careers. It destroys families. It may not be anywhere near as immediate as an alcohol-induced car wreck, but there's no question about what it does to people.