One question that was recently asked of U.S. Representative Rick Boucher (see story) that I think is important here is 'Just who is answering these questions?'
Are you an independent thinker? or do you have to run everthing by Bill before you get back to us?
I like the intent that these couple of bills are trying to address. I hope it works.
I would also like to see something related to unauthorized installs / ambigous authorization install of applications (e.g. gohip, mycomet, etc). Those apps suck and even if they were cool, I would want to authorize install on my PC.
...shy and noncombatant, usually hiding underground for most of the lives. Scientists have been trying to link Neutrinos to early man, but have not been able to see one alive for more than 100 years. Said Phil Smeginsmorff of AMANDA-hug-and-kiss, "We like the little buggers, but they are so damn fast!"
I agree with your analogy for criminal activity, but, I don't think it applies here in this case.
Let's face it, we don't have all of the facts. NASA knew that costs would be high from the start, so that means that they had to budget accordingly (remember formula: you pay taxes to Fed, Congress approves spending, agencies spend). NASA had to have gotten approval for this high profile project. Granted, costs ballooned and schedule slipped, but will we ever know why? Not likely.
Maybe LM found problems with design...maybe customer changed requirements here and there. Both can cause problems in cost and schedule. Congress ultimately pulls the plug because of resulting overruns without a product to show for.
There are plenty of other programs out there that have gotten the pink slip due to this scenario. One project that I was on recently got yanked due to similar reasons. We were developing a system for agency X, X changed requirements a lot (couldn't make up mind), we changed system to meet X's new requirements and met every customer milestone. This adds cost. Cycle a couple of times and pretty soon Congress is breathing down your neck because you have spent $400M and still don't have a system to demo when they visit agency X's site. Sorry guys...if your customer doesn't know what it wants, but you deliver what they ask, you should not be held accountable.
The flipside is that LM didn't know what they were doing. IMHO, I don't think that the project would have gotten this far if that were the case. LM has a strong history with this customer despite small setbacks.
I would love to hear what the grunts have to say about why it was canned. Personally, I think LM had some minor problems, NASA had some minor problems, but the biggie was the $1.6T tax cut by W. Who's going to run the essential gov services if we cut revenue (you know...taxes)? He had to cut funding all around in order to cover his booty.
Sure it was an ambitious project. They should have thought about the risks a little more. They underestimated the possibility of a tax cut.
Who was trying to do too much? Lockheed or NASA? Remember...contractors get requirements from the customer. IMHO, one should not blame the contractor for doing what the customer wants and one should not blame the customer for being ambitious. If this were the cold war, you would still have an X-33 program...maybe even two.
I'm not implying that Alpha and Beta releases to users are a bad thing. I am saying that an independent test entity, which is involved in the overall development life cycle, is a very important piece to the puzzle of robust software. IMHO, going from Unit Test straight to Alpha is risky because of users and their expectations about releases. You wouldn't release a new motherboard with only testing the individual chips mounted on it, would you? There is an inherent complexity to these applications. Developers may glue those applications together, but Test determines the strength of the integration effort. You can't have robust systems without Test.
I think we should be teaching kids how to be better independent testers as well as better programmers...it will cost everyone less time and money in the long run if there is a good plan for independent integration test, requirement verification test and system test. Just think of all the X.Y.Z releases we could avoid by having robust testing during the entire sdlc...Unit test is fine, but you can't think of everything yourself.
Consider the quote from Vanders (found in Pt 1 of Making Software Suck Less)
"...why is it that so little OSS software goes through any sort of structured testing phase?
Most testing of OSS seems to be:
Developer can compile & run code. Unit testing
Developer releases code as an "Alpha". Component testing
Fixes bugs, releases "Beta". System testing
Fixes bugs, releases final build. Testing over!
Sorry, that isn't a proper structured testing scheme. Beta & Alpha releases are no good other than for limited releases. If you don't know what uses your users are putting to software too, some features may never get tested until it is too late.
Developers seem to view testing as a neccesary evil, but are happy to release fix, after fix, after fix for eternity, rather than writing & following a test plan. Honestly people, it saves time in the long run! "
I agree. Another problem is the fact that some customers just don't trust their contractors. I've worked on several government jobs where the only help interface to the customer is the phone. By design, customers like to have control of their systems. I don't mind either...sure, it may take a little longer to walk someone thru the diagnosis, but, in the long run, you find and fix the problem the right way using an agreed upon process (CM). Again, customers like control.
Slashdot Mirror
That was funny. Thanks for making my day.
harharhar
Why doesn't Microsoft port over SQL Server to Linux?
OMG. You can't be serious!
One question that was recently asked of U.S. Representative Rick Boucher (see story) that I think is important here is 'Just who is answering these questions?'
Are you an independent thinker? or do you have to run everthing by Bill before you get back to us?
Here's the real link for CVS backups. Enjoy!
I only use CVS as a backup if my local Rx is closed.
I like the intent that these couple of bills are trying to address. I hope it works.
I would also like to see something related to unauthorized installs / ambigous authorization install of applications (e.g. gohip, mycomet, etc). Those apps suck and even if they were cool, I would want to authorize install on my PC.
...shy and noncombatant, usually hiding underground for most of the lives. Scientists have been trying to link Neutrinos to early man, but have not been able to see one alive for more than 100 years. Said Phil Smeginsmorff of AMANDA-hug-and-kiss, "We like the little buggers, but they are so damn fast!"
That was funny. Mod it up!
Wouldn't that infringe on my 1st Ammend rights?
They may take away my downloaded MP3's, but they will never take away my right to write an application to share them!
(hehe)
Why not? It has something like 2 million "followers"! :)
I agree with your analogy for criminal activity, but, I don't think it applies here in this case.
Let's face it, we don't have all of the facts. NASA knew that costs would be high from the start, so that means that they had to budget accordingly (remember formula: you pay taxes to Fed, Congress approves spending, agencies spend). NASA had to have gotten approval for this high profile project. Granted, costs ballooned and schedule slipped, but will we ever know why? Not likely.
Maybe LM found problems with design...maybe customer changed requirements here and there. Both can cause problems in cost and schedule. Congress ultimately pulls the plug because of resulting overruns without a product to show for.
There are plenty of other programs out there that have gotten the pink slip due to this scenario. One project that I was on recently got yanked due to similar reasons. We were developing a system for agency X, X changed requirements a lot (couldn't make up mind), we changed system to meet X's new requirements and met every customer milestone. This adds cost. Cycle a couple of times and pretty soon Congress is breathing down your neck because you have spent $400M and still don't have a system to demo when they visit agency X's site. Sorry guys...if your customer doesn't know what it wants, but you deliver what they ask, you should not be held accountable.
The flipside is that LM didn't know what they were doing. IMHO, I don't think that the project would have gotten this far if that were the case. LM has a strong history with this customer despite small setbacks.
I would love to hear what the grunts have to say about why it was canned. Personally, I think LM had some minor problems, NASA had some minor problems, but the biggie was the $1.6T tax cut by W. Who's going to run the essential gov services if we cut revenue (you know...taxes)? He had to cut funding all around in order to cover his booty.
Sure it was an ambitious project. They should have thought about the risks a little more. They underestimated the possibility of a tax cut.
As you should know...every snowflake counts.
Who was trying to do too much? Lockheed or NASA? Remember...contractors get requirements from the customer. IMHO, one should not blame the contractor for doing what the customer wants and one should not blame the customer for being ambitious. If this were the cold war, you would still have an X-33 program...maybe even two.
-dynoman7
I'm not implying that Alpha and Beta releases to users are a bad thing. I am saying that an independent test entity, which is involved in the overall development life cycle, is a very important piece to the puzzle of robust software. IMHO, going from Unit Test straight to Alpha is risky because of users and their expectations about releases. You wouldn't release a new motherboard with only testing the individual chips mounted on it, would you? There is an inherent complexity to these applications. Developers may glue those applications together, but Test determines the strength of the integration effort. You can't have robust systems without Test.
-Dynoman7
Thanks. At least someone was paying attention...
-Dynoman7
I think we should be teaching kids how to be better independent testers as well as better programmers...it will cost everyone less time and money in the long run if there is a good plan for independent integration test, requirement verification test and system test. Just think of all the X.Y.Z releases we could avoid by having robust testing during the entire sdlc...Unit test is fine, but you can't think of everything yourself.
Consider the quote from Vanders (found in Pt 1 of Making Software Suck Less)
"...why is it that so little OSS software goes through any sort of structured testing phase?
Most testing of OSS seems to be:
Developer can compile & run code. Unit testing
Developer releases code as an "Alpha". Component testing
Fixes bugs, releases "Beta". System testing
Fixes bugs, releases final build. Testing over!
Sorry, that isn't a proper structured testing scheme. Beta & Alpha releases are no good other than for limited releases. If you don't know what uses your users are putting to software too, some features may never get tested until it is too late.
Developers seem to view testing as a neccesary evil, but are happy to release fix, after fix, after fix for eternity, rather than writing & following a test plan. Honestly people, it saves time in the long run! "
-Dynoman7
...railguns!
I plan on killing Mir at ...
2001-03-19 10:11:01
-dynoman7
I'll give you one guess how you can two birds with one stone...Can you say "SPAM"? Think about it!!! ;-)
I agree. Another problem is the fact that some customers just don't trust their contractors. I've worked on several government jobs where the only help interface to the customer is the phone. By design, customers like to have control of their systems. I don't mind either...sure, it may take a little longer to walk someone thru the diagnosis, but, in the long run, you find and fix the problem the right way using an agreed upon process (CM). Again, customers like control.
-dynoman7
heh-heh...
...you said windows and opensource...
heh-heh...
Bryce?
What are the chances that Corel will open up there doors to us?!? Then we could port it to Linux...
Dman7
Yeah. Welcome to the "You have now been targeted by NORAD" club.
[PLINK!] India almost dodged U.S.A's rocket.
I agree. Lockheed Martin does not want any more competition in the rocket arena.