"Half the time when I go into a function to fix a little bug, I figure out a cleaner way to rewrite the whole function, so over time it gets better and better."
Finding a cleaner way to rewrite the whole function is no different than rewriting the complete application except on a smaller scale. If you rewrite all the functions you have effectively rewritten the application.
You have some valid points. In theory you make a lot of sense. Why trash code that has been optimized for 5 years but lets live in reality. I'd bet 95% of all code never gets looked at again after it is written unless a bug is uncovered and when it does get looked at again to fix that bug it is usually by someone different than the person that wrote it in the first place. Even if it was the same person it is quite likely that they don't remember much about the code. The result is some sort of hack gets implemented to fix the bug and not a 'refactor'. Most software development houses put their junior developers on bug fix projects so it is quite possible that the bug fix degrades the code originally written by the 15 year veteren. If somehow you can manage to convice your 15 year veterens to perform maintenance tasks and somehow you can convince management that it makes sense to have your 15 year veteren making big bucks to do maintenance then your arguement will be more valid.
Isn't refactoring the same as rewriting except you do it piece by piece over a long period of time instead of all at once?
If you spend, on average, a day a week refactoring for 5 years are you really any better off than not doing any refactoring for 4 years and then spending a year doing a complete rewrite?
True but rewarding loyal customers with discounted 'bulk' purchases is a good thing. Maybe offer a $5 per month subscription for unlimited page views, or offer the ability to purchase 5000 page views at a lower per page rate. Or, maybe reward those who post (quality) comments. There are lots of things you can do to reward loyalty (customer loyalty is an important ingrediant for successful businesses).
Simple, clean, easy to read websites are the best. Too many web sites over design and fill their pages with flashy icons, images, links, etc. and poor color combinations. The result is the main content gets lost in a mess of stuff. Simple designs with links down one side (or sometimes both) and the main content taking up the majority of the screen. Slashdot is an example of a well designed website. When the page loads you are immediately drawn to the main content. This is good. An example of a bad web site is Excite.com. It is way too cluttered and when it loads you have no idea what you are supposed to be looking at.
Good to see someone taking the initiative because the 'all talk no action' federal government isn't despite all the promises. I remember the promises of $4 billion to wire rural communities and bring internet access to every Canadian household.
Well, there is a huge difference between 10-15 years ago and now. 10-15 years ago people knew computers were difficult, expected far less out of them, and in the very early days paid highly skilled people to maintain them and work with them to ensure components and software work together. Users have a very different outlook on computers now. Plus, Microsoft used anti-competitive methods to help them become dominant. Linux can't do that because no one in the Linux world has the power to push Dell or IMB around.
Your 'double standard' arguement is not valid here because the situations are dramatically different.
Well, being familiar with Windows you might start by right clicking the desktop. "Configure Desktop" seems like the most likely option so you select that. "Desktop", "Appearance", "Number of Desktops", "Borders". Hmmm, no way to change screen resolution here.
Ok, lets try the KDE start menu. Hmmm, Control Center might have something. Lets take a look. Hmmm. "Look and Feel" maybe? Background colors, Themes, Icons, etc. but no screen resolution. Maybe I'll have better luck with the "System" menu. Boot Manage, Date and Time, Login Manager...nothing there. Hmmm, KDE System Control maybe. There is a device manager and it lists my video card but no way to change its settings. Hmmm, it must be somewhere else.
Hmmm, maybe the KDE Control Panel from the System menu on the Start menu might have it. Ok, I can play around with my isdn-config, set the date and time, change mouse settings, and even change my time zone. Hey, it looks like I can change my audio settings too, but unfortunately there is no way to change my screen resolution from here.
The answer to your question is, I don't know if you can change screen resolution from KDE.
It is also not on many 'geeks' desktops. I am a unix/linux developer. I have written device drivers and applications for linux and other unix variants. I have two systems on my desk now that are running Linux. When I go home though, I use Windows. Why? Because it is easier to use, has better applications and supports almost any piece of hardware that I care to add to it. I don't need my home system to run for 168 straight days and I don't want to deal with hardware and software incompatibilities. When I buy a digital camera I want to know it works right away with no hassles and no searching, downloading, compiling, and manually installing the drivers. When I want to play a game I want to be able to go to the local store and choose from a selection of 100 games. I don't want to have to order online from a selection of a dozen or so games (many 2+ years old) and then have to wait a week for it to be delivered.
I don't use Windows because I can't use Linux but rather I use Windows because it best serves my needs. Linux doesn't and honestly isn't even close. You can argue all you want that Linux can be used as a desktop OS but that is a far different statement than it will be used as a desktop os.
Succeeding on the desktop is more than just KDE or even nice applications. It requires substantial hardware support. People don't want to be severly limited in the type of printers, scanners, video cards, sound cards, etc. they use and they will expect them to work exactly the same as under their current system. The cost saving of using Linux is wiped out if you have to spend more to get a supported printer or if you have to spend an extra half hour figuring out how to change the resolution of your screen. Linux is still a little ways from that point so widespread desktop use is unlikely to happen any time soon.
I agree here and one of the main problems I see with managers is the failure to communicate the bigger picture to the engineers. People in general, and engineers and software developers in particular, have egos and a strong sense of pride. Simply knowing how their work fits into the larger plan and knowing that their work is critical to the success of the company can boost moral, enthusiasm, employee satisfaction and productivity. I'd hazard a guess that most people who are dissatisfied with their work it is because they feel that management doesn't appreciate them and the work they do and as a result they feel they are viewed simply as joe develper rather than a unique person who can positively contribute to the success of the company.
I couldn't agree more. Direct communication between members of different groups (and within the same group) helps immensely.
Good: Engineers talk to Marketing people directly and vice versa
Bad: Engineers talk to engineering manager who talks to marketing manager who talks to marketing staff.
The second option doesn't work very well for obvious reasons. Developers will do a substantially better job if they have a clear understanding of what they are doing and why. Having direct access to the marketing team to answer questions is far better than having to go through managers. The problem is managers often believe that you only need to know what (needs to be done) and when (it needs to be done) and not why (it needs to be done), how (it will be used) and who (will use it). What managers often don't understand is that knowing how the end product is going to be used is important to keep the developer focused, on track, and more importantly motivated to help someone solve a problem. Without that information the developers can't see the importance of their work, get frustrated, lose interest and become dissatisfied with their job.
Well, I think it should be bi-directional. To get the most out of developers you have to make them believe in what they are doing. Good developers don't want to be code monkeys where management tells them what to to. Management has to make the final decision but they should do so upon consultation from the technical experts. Good managers will gather as much useful information as possible before making a decision. It is only common sense. Furthermore, if developers know that they were part of the decision and planning then they feel more responsible for the outcome of the project and as a result produce a better product.
Make your employeed feel part of the company, not just a hired gun to crank out code. Make them feel they are an integral part of the project, from beginning to end. Listen to their comments and integrate their suggestions into your project design. Make them feel the work they do is viewed more than just a bunch of code but rather an a product that they should take pride in. If management thinks they are just a bunch of code monkeys without brains or any kind of business sense then they won't respect management, they won't feel the same pride in the work they do, they will be less loyal to the company and they will most likely produce lower quality work.
Also, keep the developers informed as to what is happening on the business side of things. You may not think it matters but the developers will work much better if they have a clear idea of where and how the software they are using will be used. Keep your developers in the loop at all stages of the product development cycle. It makes them feel more important, they will be happier and will produce better software.
So, to summarize:
1. Listen to your developers and pro-actively ask their opinions, thoughts, suggestions, ideas.
2. Communicate to your developers how their work fits into the business plan especially if/when a business plan might change.
Well, copyright and ideas have nothing to do with each other.
Idea: I am going to write a book on the social aspects of the Slashdot community.
So, I write the book. The book, which is a series of words, is copyrighted so no one can reproduce those exact words without my permission. When it becomes a best seller others might try to duplicate its success. They can't copy it but they can create something similar.
The idea of writing a book about the Slashdot community is not protected by copyright nor are any of the ideas, thoughts or information discussed in the book. Anyone else can go out and write a book on the exact same subject. If they choose they can even use my book as a reference and use all the thoughts and ideas I wrote about in my book. They just cannot use the word sequences I used in my book. Copyright does not protect ideas, information or intellectual propery in any way.
"This is one of the reasons behind copyright having a limited term. "
Copyright does not protect ideas. It deals with ownership rights of a work of art. It protects sequences of words such as this message, not the idea of writing the message or even the ideas that might be expressed within this message.
Without an idea you can't have a product. Ideas are the basis of products. You can hire all the best developers in the world but without a good idea you won't make any money. So, you are correct in saying that the idea is a small part of the project but it is an immensly important part of the project as well.
Correct. The NDA is not quite what is required. What is really required is a beta agreement where ownership of ideas and IP suggested by the testers is determined. If there is no beta agreement ideas and IP coming from the tester are still owned by the tester.
I suspect unless we are talking about large amounts and useful IP (independent of the product) it would be difficult to successfully win a court case but you are better covering your tracks with a beta agreement. I remember being involved in one project where the other company wanted to claim ownership of everything you think about while using/testing the product. This is a bit excessive but stresses the importance of such agreements.
I don't have a problem this if certain conditions are met. The first being that there is a size limit on the spam e-mail. The second, and most important, there must be a way for us to easily identify spam from regular e-mail. This way I can quickly and automatically sort me e-mail (spam goes into the spam folder). When I get junk mail it is easily sorted from the regular mail because the regular mail is in envelopes and a different size and shape. Some junk mail is useful (some people to clip coupons and browse flyers for what is on sale this week), just as some spam mail might be useful. As long as it isn't too intrusive and is easily sortable from my regular e-mail I am not too much against it.
"Linux (even the RedHat distro) has the GPL protecting it."
Any code that Redhat has written is owned by Redhat and could be made closed (not stuff already release under GPL but future changes). This would included much of the embedded technologies that Redhat has done. I suspect this is much of what AOL/TW is interested in for use in digital cable boxes and media terminals and other embedded devices. They would also be interested in the knowledge and expertise they would gain.
The point is, Microsoft didn't 'Inovate' the spreadsheet or the word processor or the web browser. Microsoft inovated things like Microsoft Bob and Clippy.
Yeah, and Microsoft is touting how cool the Xbox is so much they decided they better leave out the less than cool Microsoft name. It's just the Xbox, not the Microsoft XBox.
I agree. Apple's position is to be innovative and very consumer oriented.
Microsoft is generally not very innovative. Their successes have generally been copies of someone else's product.
Windows from Mac OS
Internet Explorer from Netscape
Excel from Lotus Notes
Word from Word Perfect
Even the XBox is very close to a PC. Microsoft's key to success has been their ability to develop and maintain important partnerships. Their partnerships with PC manufacturers to bundle their software and partnerships with developers to develop software for Windows. The Microsoft development tools are second to none and Microsoft development documentation is superb as well. Yes, there have been some questionable tactics but their ability to develop and maintain partnerships has been key.
Getting back to Apple, their key is innovation and it works for them. They won't dominate the world but they can be successful and well respected just like BMW. The corporate world functionality over asthetics. The home user wants a combination of functionality, asthetics, and value. Apple is trying to deliver this to them. Remember, Apple got into the most trouble when they got away from being innovative and allowing others to develop Mac 'clones'.
I think that design gives apple a competitive advantage and offers the 'middle class' consumer something that Microsoft and the PC manufacturers can't or at least haven't. In people's home, where are most computers? Children's bedroom? Den? Rec room? Right, not in the 'main' part of the house. They aren't in the kitchen or living room and most aren't even in the family room. The computer has yet to find acceptance in most people core living spaces like TV's or stereo's have. Why? Because they are big, bulky and ugly. How many people have a radio in the kitchen? How many people have a TV in the kitchen? With the new iMac being small and generally a asthetically pleasing it is something that could sit in the kitchen.
The original iMac was a success because it was 'cool' among young families. This new iMac will be successful because it won't be an eye-sore sitting in your living room or kitchen.
BTW, take away the large corporate market which Apple doesn't really go after and Apple's market share is substantially larger than 4.5%.
Slashdot Mirror
I guess I misinterpreted what he meant by:
"Half the time when I go into a function to fix a little bug, I figure out a cleaner way to rewrite the whole function, so over time it gets better and better."
Finding a cleaner way to rewrite the whole function is no different than rewriting the complete application except on a smaller scale. If you rewrite all the functions you have effectively rewritten the application.
You have some valid points. In theory you make a lot of sense. Why trash code that has been optimized for 5 years but lets live in reality. I'd bet 95% of all code never gets looked at again after it is written unless a bug is uncovered and when it does get looked at again to fix that bug it is usually by someone different than the person that wrote it in the first place. Even if it was the same person it is quite likely that they don't remember much about the code. The result is some sort of hack gets implemented to fix the bug and not a 'refactor'. Most software development houses put their junior developers on bug fix projects so it is quite possible that the bug fix degrades the code originally written by the 15 year veteren. If somehow you can manage to convice your 15 year veterens to perform maintenance tasks and somehow you can convince management that it makes sense to have your 15 year veteren making big bucks to do maintenance then your arguement will be more valid.
Isn't refactoring the same as rewriting except you do it piece by piece over a long period of time instead of all at once?
If you spend, on average, a day a week refactoring for 5 years are you really any better off than not doing any refactoring for 4 years and then spending a year doing a complete rewrite?
If you write a book, do they tax that or just when the book gets manufactured.
True but rewarding loyal customers with discounted 'bulk' purchases is a good thing. Maybe offer a $5 per month subscription for unlimited page views, or offer the ability to purchase 5000 page views at a lower per page rate. Or, maybe reward those who post (quality) comments. There are lots of things you can do to reward loyalty (customer loyalty is an important ingrediant for successful businesses).
"(As an aside, it's also worth noting that more than half of all comment posters fall into this 3%)"
Yeah, that is good business practice. Screw you most loyal customers most.
Simple, clean, easy to read websites are the best. Too many web sites over design and fill their pages with flashy icons, images, links, etc. and poor color combinations. The result is the main content gets lost in a mess of stuff. Simple designs with links down one side (or sometimes both) and the main content taking up the majority of the screen. Slashdot is an example of a well designed website. When the page loads you are immediately drawn to the main content. This is good. An example of a bad web site is Excite.com. It is way too cluttered and when it loads you have no idea what you are supposed to be looking at.
Simplicity is a good thing.
Good to see someone taking the initiative because the 'all talk no action' federal government isn't despite all the promises. I remember the promises of $4 billion to wire rural communities and bring internet access to every Canadian household.
Well, there is a huge difference between 10-15 years ago and now. 10-15 years ago people knew computers were difficult, expected far less out of them, and in the very early days paid highly skilled people to maintain them and work with them to ensure components and software work together. Users have a very different outlook on computers now. Plus, Microsoft used anti-competitive methods to help them become dominant. Linux can't do that because no one in the Linux world has the power to push Dell or IMB around.
Your 'double standard' arguement is not valid here because the situations are dramatically different.
Well, being familiar with Windows you might start by right clicking the desktop. "Configure Desktop" seems like the most likely option so you select that. "Desktop", "Appearance", "Number of Desktops", "Borders". Hmmm, no way to change screen resolution here.
Ok, lets try the KDE start menu. Hmmm, Control Center might have something. Lets take a look. Hmmm. "Look and Feel" maybe? Background colors, Themes, Icons, etc. but no screen resolution. Maybe I'll have better luck with the "System" menu. Boot Manage, Date and Time, Login Manager...nothing there. Hmmm, KDE System Control maybe. There is a device manager and it lists my video card but no way to change its settings. Hmmm, it must be somewhere else.
Hmmm, maybe the KDE Control Panel from the System menu on the Start menu might have it. Ok, I can play around with my isdn-config, set the date and time, change mouse settings, and even change my time zone. Hey, it looks like I can change my audio settings too, but unfortunately there is no way to change my screen resolution from here.
The answer to your question is, I don't know if you can change screen resolution from KDE.
It is also not on many 'geeks' desktops. I am a unix/linux developer. I have written device drivers and applications for linux and other unix variants. I have two systems on my desk now that are running Linux. When I go home though, I use Windows. Why? Because it is easier to use, has better applications and supports almost any piece of hardware that I care to add to it. I don't need my home system to run for 168 straight days and I don't want to deal with hardware and software incompatibilities. When I buy a digital camera I want to know it works right away with no hassles and no searching, downloading, compiling, and manually installing the drivers. When I want to play a game I want to be able to go to the local store and choose from a selection of 100 games. I don't want to have to order online from a selection of a dozen or so games (many 2+ years old) and then have to wait a week for it to be delivered.
I don't use Windows because I can't use Linux but rather I use Windows because it best serves my needs. Linux doesn't and honestly isn't even close. You can argue all you want that Linux can be used as a desktop OS but that is a far different statement than it will be used as a desktop os.
Succeeding on the desktop is more than just KDE or even nice applications. It requires substantial hardware support. People don't want to be severly limited in the type of printers, scanners, video cards, sound cards, etc. they use and they will expect them to work exactly the same as under their current system. The cost saving of using Linux is wiped out if you have to spend more to get a supported printer or if you have to spend an extra half hour figuring out how to change the resolution of your screen. Linux is still a little ways from that point so widespread desktop use is unlikely to happen any time soon.
I agree here and one of the main problems I see with managers is the failure to communicate the bigger picture to the engineers. People in general, and engineers and software developers in particular, have egos and a strong sense of pride. Simply knowing how their work fits into the larger plan and knowing that their work is critical to the success of the company can boost moral, enthusiasm, employee satisfaction and productivity. I'd hazard a guess that most people who are dissatisfied with their work it is because they feel that management doesn't appreciate them and the work they do and as a result they feel they are viewed simply as joe develper rather than a unique person who can positively contribute to the success of the company.
I couldn't agree more. Direct communication between members of different groups (and within the same group) helps immensely.
Good: Engineers talk to Marketing people directly and vice versa
Bad: Engineers talk to engineering manager who talks to marketing manager who talks to marketing staff.
The second option doesn't work very well for obvious reasons. Developers will do a substantially better job if they have a clear understanding of what they are doing and why. Having direct access to the marketing team to answer questions is far better than having to go through managers. The problem is managers often believe that you only need to know what (needs to be done) and when (it needs to be done) and not why (it needs to be done), how (it will be used) and who (will use it). What managers often don't understand is that knowing how the end product is going to be used is important to keep the developer focused, on track, and more importantly motivated to help someone solve a problem. Without that information the developers can't see the importance of their work, get frustrated, lose interest and become dissatisfied with their job.
Well, I think it should be bi-directional. To get the most out of developers you have to make them believe in what they are doing. Good developers don't want to be code monkeys where management tells them what to to. Management has to make the final decision but they should do so upon consultation from the technical experts. Good managers will gather as much useful information as possible before making a decision. It is only common sense. Furthermore, if developers know that they were part of the decision and planning then they feel more responsible for the outcome of the project and as a result produce a better product.
Make your employeed feel part of the company, not just a hired gun to crank out code. Make them feel they are an integral part of the project, from beginning to end. Listen to their comments and integrate their suggestions into your project design. Make them feel the work they do is viewed more than just a bunch of code but rather an a product that they should take pride in. If management thinks they are just a bunch of code monkeys without brains or any kind of business sense then they won't respect management, they won't feel the same pride in the work they do, they will be less loyal to the company and they will most likely produce lower quality work.
Also, keep the developers informed as to what is happening on the business side of things. You may not think it matters but the developers will work much better if they have a clear idea of where and how the software they are using will be used. Keep your developers in the loop at all stages of the product development cycle. It makes them feel more important, they will be happier and will produce better software.
So, to summarize:
1. Listen to your developers and pro-actively ask their opinions, thoughts, suggestions, ideas.
2. Communicate to your developers how their work fits into the business plan especially if/when a business plan might change.
Well, copyright and ideas have nothing to do with each other.
Idea: I am going to write a book on the social aspects of the Slashdot community.
So, I write the book. The book, which is a series of words, is copyrighted so no one can reproduce those exact words without my permission. When it becomes a best seller others might try to duplicate its success. They can't copy it but they can create something similar.
The idea of writing a book about the Slashdot community is not protected by copyright nor are any of the ideas, thoughts or information discussed in the book. Anyone else can go out and write a book on the exact same subject. If they choose they can even use my book as a reference and use all the thoughts and ideas I wrote about in my book. They just cannot use the word sequences I used in my book. Copyright does not protect ideas, information or intellectual propery in any way.
"This is one of the reasons behind copyright having a limited term. "
Copyright does not protect ideas. It deals with ownership rights of a work of art. It protects sequences of words such as this message, not the idea of writing the message or even the ideas that might be expressed within this message.
Without an idea you can't have a product. Ideas are the basis of products. You can hire all the best developers in the world but without a good idea you won't make any money. So, you are correct in saying that the idea is a small part of the project but it is an immensly important part of the project as well.
Correct. The NDA is not quite what is required. What is really required is a beta agreement where ownership of ideas and IP suggested by the testers is determined. If there is no beta agreement ideas and IP coming from the tester are still owned by the tester.
I suspect unless we are talking about large amounts and useful IP (independent of the product) it would be difficult to successfully win a court case but you are better covering your tracks with a beta agreement. I remember being involved in one project where the other company wanted to claim ownership of everything you think about while using/testing the product. This is a bit excessive but stresses the importance of such agreements.
I don't have a problem this if certain conditions are met. The first being that there is a size limit on the spam e-mail. The second, and most important, there must be a way for us to easily identify spam from regular e-mail. This way I can quickly and automatically sort me e-mail (spam goes into the spam folder). When I get junk mail it is easily sorted from the regular mail because the regular mail is in envelopes and a different size and shape. Some junk mail is useful (some people to clip coupons and browse flyers for what is on sale this week), just as some spam mail might be useful. As long as it isn't too intrusive and is easily sortable from my regular e-mail I am not too much against it.
"Linux (even the RedHat distro) has the GPL protecting it."
Any code that Redhat has written is owned by Redhat and could be made closed (not stuff already release under GPL but future changes). This would included much of the embedded technologies that Redhat has done. I suspect this is much of what AOL/TW is interested in for use in digital cable boxes and media terminals and other embedded devices. They would also be interested in the knowledge and expertise they would gain.
The point is, Microsoft didn't 'Inovate' the spreadsheet or the word processor or the web browser. Microsoft inovated things like Microsoft Bob and Clippy.
Yeah, and Microsoft is touting how cool the Xbox is so much they decided they better leave out the less than cool Microsoft name. It's just the Xbox, not the Microsoft XBox.
I agree. Apple's position is to be innovative and very consumer oriented.
Microsoft is generally not very innovative. Their successes have generally been copies of someone else's product.
Windows from Mac OS
Internet Explorer from Netscape
Excel from Lotus Notes
Word from Word Perfect
Even the XBox is very close to a PC. Microsoft's key to success has been their ability to develop and maintain important partnerships. Their partnerships with PC manufacturers to bundle their software and partnerships with developers to develop software for Windows. The Microsoft development tools are second to none and Microsoft development documentation is superb as well. Yes, there have been some questionable tactics but their ability to develop and maintain partnerships has been key.
Getting back to Apple, their key is innovation and it works for them. They won't dominate the world but they can be successful and well respected just like BMW. The corporate world functionality over asthetics. The home user wants a combination of functionality, asthetics, and value. Apple is trying to deliver this to them. Remember, Apple got into the most trouble when they got away from being innovative and allowing others to develop Mac 'clones'.
I think that design gives apple a competitive advantage and offers the 'middle class' consumer something that Microsoft and the PC manufacturers can't or at least haven't. In people's home, where are most computers? Children's bedroom? Den? Rec room? Right, not in the 'main' part of the house. They aren't in the kitchen or living room and most aren't even in the family room. The computer has yet to find acceptance in most people core living spaces like TV's or stereo's have. Why? Because they are big, bulky and ugly. How many people have a radio in the kitchen? How many people have a TV in the kitchen? With the new iMac being small and generally a asthetically pleasing it is something that could sit in the kitchen.
The original iMac was a success because it was 'cool' among young families. This new iMac will be successful because it won't be an eye-sore sitting in your living room or kitchen.
BTW, take away the large corporate market which Apple doesn't really go after and Apple's market share is substantially larger than 4.5%.