Let me clarify. Not 40% of *total dev time*, 40% of code writing time. This is just an average number I've read, and it matches my experience quite well also. YMMV. And the number is also (of course) application dependent.
.. so they are likely to work out as these projects always do. Get the tax yen (not a problem in China), and then come back with a report describing why they have not yet succeded, and why they need a larger pile of other people's money.
The most stupid thing to do is to let people who will not suffer from their bad decisions, make the decisions.
If I recall correctly, about 40% of code writing time is spent on mapping your object's member variables to tables (and back again, and fixing the SQL-part of updates and deletes..). You'll get numbers like above in most web apps that have more than a couple of objects that need persistence.
would be very nice to have as a developer. I hate writing code that converts objects to sql, it is boring and error prone. But there has been lots of talk about OO-databases for at least ten years, so I won't hold my breath. If they do deliver, I'll be happy, and considering the time they would save they could make some real money...
Define "most productive years"? Do you mean 20 to 25? If so, you underestimate the value of experience. You will eventually learn it's value.
Only the ignorant says that knowledge is irrelevant or obsolete. That was never true, even though ignorants has said it for centuries. Knowledge is not a burden to carry, and there are always domains where it is applicable. Without the knowledge, you will of course not see the applications, hence you should not judge its usefulness without it.
The next step is to fear knowledge.
With fear for knowledge comes a society where people burn books in public.
On the site there is a definition of "open hardware":
Sufficient documentation on the device must be available for a competent systems programmer to write a device driver. The documentation must cover all of the features of the device-driver interface that any user would be expected to employ./.../
Which is, in my opinion, a good definition. Open specifications of hardware is needed for fair competition in the OS-market, as well as for higher quality software. Drivers based on reverse engineered specifications is obviously harder to write than if you had the specifications from the start.
Because you reduced this very complex question of human rights, laws of "war" (where war is arbitrary defined) and more into a baseball game. You are comparing the POWs and the government, like they were two equal teams, with equal equipment, with a well known set of rules that applies equally to the teams, and that is something that you watch for entertainment.
Neither is true, the analogy is stupid.
(Oh, please keep in mind that I have not given my opinion in this matter. I have not said whether I agree or disagree with you. I have *only* stated that the analogy is stupid. If you reply, please stick to that subject.)
His arguments on this count are like proclaiming that baseball is an unfair sport in the middle of the first inning because only one team ever gets to bat.
This, dear, was the most stupid analogy I have ever read.
I find it interesting that there is a lot of confusion between working hard and working good. I never understood why companies pay for time spent and not what was actually produced during the time.
Code review is easily the best way of debugging. Study after study find that Code reviews find more bugs per unit of time than any other technique
If I recall correctly, you get back on average 20x the invested time in quality assurance using code review. (As compared to not having code review but using the same testing procedure, checkins etc and fixing the bugs as you find them during testing).
Can't find that book on software quality where I read this, would love to give a reference to research on this subject.
More relevent is the cost to develop the software, the cost to reproduce the software, and finally the number of users whom those costs are divided amoung
Bzzzzt. Wrong. You _should_ be right, methinks. In a nice world. But, we're not in such a world.
Here's the algorithm I beleive Microsoft, Oracle and many more are using:
Always set the price as high as the customer *perceives* that it is worth. If you set higher, customers won't buy or you invite competitors. If you set lower, you're losing money.
Now, calculate backwards to see if your costs are covered. If not, increase perceived value. (Marketing, add features).
It works in some places the software is tied to some other source of revenue, such as hardware, but in general, it stinks as a business model. It's fantastic if your goal is to have a lot of free software out there, but it starts to fall apart when building that free software costs more than you can extract from it in revenue.
I think this is a very accurate description of the problems related to business goals with the GPL. GPL is not, and will never be, the ultimate solution for the software industry. It is the ultimate solution if your goal is to have a lot of free software out there, as he says.
I would like you to consider if you would work as a street musician. Playing your songs for free in the streets, and hoping that the people listening will give you their spare change. Perhaps you'll make good money, but would you quit your ordinary job to try if it works?
Now consider what Mandrake is doing. They are giving away the product for free, counting on the members in the MandrakeClub (or whatever they call it) to pay a couple of dollars a year. Why?
I don't know about you, but I wouldn't call that a sustainable business model. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see Mandrake succeed, and they are producing a high quality product that deserves to succeed. But I wouldn't bet on it.
So, in my opinion, the reason that Mandrake has to rely on their clubmembers kindness is that Mandrake belongs to the free software movement. They belong to that because they have chosen to build their product based on GPL:d software. And the goal of the free software movement is to have lots of free software out there. Therefore, Mandrake has not only been using the software of the free software movement, they also inherited their goals, whether they wanted that or not. And I am not sure that it is compliant with a sustainable business model.
Mandrake is competing in a market economy. The main difference between Mandrake and its competitors (e.g. Microsoft, Sun) is that the competitors have goals that are extremely well suited for competing and making money. Mandrake's goal, or the free software movement's goal, is extremely well suited to compete. But not to make money. I think this is an explanation of the huge amount of users of free software, with still a very low turnover for software producing companies like Mandrake.
Unfortunately for Mandrake, being able to make money is what constitutes the difference between a sustainable business model from a non-sustainable in a market economy.
I do not think that this is a bad thing per se, but I think it is a mistake to try to compete under the same conditions as Microsoft or Sun. They have different goals, well suited for a market economy, and that is a prerequisite for success in a market. Free software will compete outside the market, where making money is not important.
I think this is exactly the point where the conflict between the open-source and the free software movements starts. RMS's goal is to have a lot of free software. The open-source movement are more biased towards sustainable business models. The misunderstanding arises because open-source also wants free software out there, but that is not their only, not even primary goal.
I keep my fingers crossed for Mandrake and would love to be proven wrong.
According to this paper (pdf) entitled "Scaling of Electronics" from 2001, the following conclusions are drawn: * Moore's law will hold for 20 more years. * There is a potential performance increase of 10000x with current CMOS-technology * The minimum gate: needs 12(!) electrons to switch.
We'll see. I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for CMOS to hit the roof though.
Slashdot Mirror
Let me clarify. Not 40% of *total dev time*, 40% of code writing time. This is just an average number I've read, and it matches my experience quite well also. YMMV. And the number is also (of course) application dependent.
Your last question, I do not know, sorry.
This looks interesting, thanks for the info!
.. so they are likely to work out as these projects always do. Get the tax yen (not a problem in China), and then come back with a report describing why they have not yet succeded, and why they need a larger pile of other people's money.
The most stupid thing to do is to let people who will not suffer from their bad decisions, make the decisions.
Not considering the time saved, code like
myObj.fixAllDatabaseThingsIUsedToDoMyself(thanks );
would be very nice to have as a developer. I hate writing code that converts objects to sql, it is boring and error prone. But there has been lots of talk about OO-databases for at least ten years, so I won't hold my breath. If they do deliver, I'll be happy, and considering the time they would save they could make some real money...
> Wouldn't it be neat if MS put out a fully
> reliable, configurable, cheap O/S?
Yeah, they could call it MS/Linux.
I wonder if posting the link on slashdot is in violation of this paragraph..
Remembers me of the people at the airport Charles De Gaulle, just outside Paris, France:
"de plain is lejt, bacoz de plain is lejt"
(The plane is late, because the plane is late.. D'oh!)
Only the ignorant says that knowledge is irrelevant or obsolete. That was never true, even though ignorants has said it for centuries. Knowledge is not a burden to carry, and there are always domains where it is applicable. Without the knowledge, you will of course not see the applications, hence you should not judge its usefulness without it.
The next step is to fear knowledge.
With fear for knowledge comes a society where people burn books in public.
Reality bites, go take a history class.
Tabbed browsing? What's wrong with emacs + w3? ;)
Yep, the bad thing with Moore's law: Fabs cost double every 18 month. :-)
Which is, in my opinion, a good definition. Open specifications of hardware is needed for fair competition in the OS-market, as well as for higher quality software. Drivers based on reverse engineered specifications is obviously harder to write than if you had the specifications from the start.
Judging from the recent poll, you could add "and washing their hands after [and the part about the arse here]". ;)
And why is that exactly?
Because you reduced this very complex question of human rights, laws of "war" (where war is arbitrary defined) and more into a baseball game. You are comparing the POWs and the government, like they were two equal teams, with equal equipment, with a well known set of rules that applies equally to the teams, and that is something that you watch for entertainment.
Neither is true, the analogy is stupid.
(Oh, please keep in mind that I have not given my opinion in this matter. I have not said whether I agree or disagree with you. I have *only* stated that the analogy is stupid. If you reply, please stick to that subject.)
This, dear, was the most stupid analogy I have ever read.
Correct, no monopoly. But I think you have it patented though.
Stupid billmakers.
/someone else's/ phone. :)
They should of course make it illegal to change that number on
*LOL* :)
I find it interesting that there is a lot of confusion between working hard and working good. I never understood why companies pay for time spent and not what was actually produced during the time.
Interesting story.
Can't find that book on software quality where I read this, would love to give a reference to research on this subject.
What problem would this solve?
To me, this is yet another solution looking for a problem. Could someone enlighten me?
Oh. '$1 Companies Saying No to $2 Sharing'
News at 11.
More relevent is the cost to develop the software, the cost to reproduce the software, and finally the number of users whom those costs are divided amoung
Bzzzzt. Wrong. You _should_ be right, methinks. In a nice world. But, we're not in such a world.
Here's the algorithm I beleive Microsoft, Oracle and many more are using: Always set the price as high as the customer *perceives* that it is worth. If you set higher, customers won't buy or you invite competitors. If you set lower, you're losing money.
Now, calculate backwards to see if your costs are covered. If not, increase perceived value. (Marketing, add features).
I think this is a very accurate description of the problems related to business goals with the GPL. GPL is not, and will never be, the ultimate solution for the software industry. It is the ultimate solution if your goal is to have a lot of free software out there, as he says.
I would like you to consider if you would work as a street musician. Playing your songs for free in the streets, and hoping that the people listening will give you their spare change. Perhaps you'll make good money, but would you quit your ordinary job to try if it works?
Now consider what Mandrake is doing. They are giving away the product for free, counting on the members in the MandrakeClub (or whatever they call it) to pay a couple of dollars a year. Why?
I don't know about you, but I wouldn't call that a sustainable business model. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see Mandrake succeed, and they are producing a high quality product that deserves to succeed. But I wouldn't bet on it.
So, in my opinion, the reason that Mandrake has to rely on their clubmembers kindness is that Mandrake belongs to the free software movement. They belong to that because they have chosen to build their product based on GPL:d software. And the goal of the free software movement is to have lots of free software out there. Therefore, Mandrake has not only been using the software of the free software movement, they also inherited their goals, whether they wanted that or not. And I am not sure that it is compliant with a sustainable business model.
Mandrake is competing in a market economy. The main difference between Mandrake and its competitors (e.g. Microsoft, Sun) is that the competitors have goals that are extremely well suited for competing and making money. Mandrake's goal, or the free software movement's goal, is extremely well suited to compete. But not to make money. I think this is an explanation of the huge amount of users of free software, with still a very low turnover for software producing companies like Mandrake.
Unfortunately for Mandrake, being able to make money is what constitutes the difference between a sustainable business model from a non-sustainable in a market economy.
I do not think that this is a bad thing per se, but I think it is a mistake to try to compete under the same conditions as Microsoft or Sun. They have different goals, well suited for a market economy, and that is a prerequisite for success in a market. Free software will compete outside the market, where making money is not important.
I think this is exactly the point where the conflict between the open-source and the free software movements starts. RMS's goal is to have a lot of free software. The open-source movement are more biased towards sustainable business models. The misunderstanding arises because open-source also wants free software out there, but that is not their only, not even primary goal.
I keep my fingers crossed for Mandrake and would love to be proven wrong.
You ask for quite much. I'd say all you guys need is someone strong and a cluestick. :)
According to this paper (pdf) entitled "Scaling of Electronics" from 2001, the following conclusions are drawn:
* Moore's law will hold for 20 more years.
* There is a potential performance increase of 10000x with current CMOS-technology
* The minimum gate: needs 12(!) electrons to switch.
We'll see. I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for CMOS to hit the roof though.