Good rant... except for the little fact that you did forget about defining "cloud".
"Cloud" is marketroid speech and because of that, with a purporsely "nebulous" definition (pun intended): so others can say "but, ah! your cloud is not the real cloud, mine is".
I for one would say that if the customer is not location-aware and can self-service on-demand, it is cloud. And certainly you can have storage delivered that way.
"Does this release fix one of Apache's biggest problems, that the default Apache config file assumes that you've got 10 gigabytes of RAM in your server?"
Yes. I've been told now Apache comes with mod_emacs so you can edit the config file to your leisure... from within apache itself!
(of course, for this to work they had to disable the built-in web server and kitchen sink standard emacs comes with).
"if you have the technology to produce and safely store it, the most effective weapon would be a few grams of antimatter. Impossible to shield against"
It's either impossible to shield against or you have the technology to safely store it, it can't be both ways (yeah, if you are thinking about a theoretical confinement field, you could theoretically protect your ship with them too).
I myself prefer a good old unobtanium space-folding missile.
Astronauts have proven there *is* good enough concentrations of oxygen in space... within the spaceships, which is where those weapons will be ignited.
Where do you thing those "high explosive" rounds are meant to explode? In the middle of the space vacuum or... within another inhabitted spaceship aplenty of oxygen? On the other hand, it is not as if those "high explosive" rounds wouldn't be able to load both comburent and combustible within.
"3) Recoil."
Yes, that's a problem you should count with. But recoil is proportional to involved masses: that's why the bullet goes out at high speed while you just notice a bump in your elbow: big spaceship + little bullet = controllable effect.
"Railguns still have recoil, but not as much as traditional explosives."
Railguns have *exactly* the same recoil as a conventional gun with same masses and mouth speeds involved. It can't be any other way.
"5) bullets add to the debris in a firefight"
Breaking into parts your target *does* add to the debris... up to a point that the bullets themselves become a non-problem. But regarding bullets... "all that debris turns into projectiles that you can fly into" Just explain me how: by definition you and anything you can push away from your spaceship will have different trajectories *and* speed no matter if you are orbiting or not. Of course you can certainly be stupid enough to shoot into exactly your own orbit with enough speed to tailgate you prior for you to be able to abandon your current orbit but, you know, darwing prizes do exist for a reason.
But you are up to something there. No need of even bullets: kinetic energy is your damn friend: you just need to gain a higher orbit and let a part of your own spaceship to drop into your target. You can bet on this:
1) For the foreseeble future there will be no battles in space. 2) But when time reaches, first battles will use conventional machine guns (there have already been tests of this). 3) Second generation will be as slow as WWII submarine combats and awfully tactical to the point of making the combat itself moot, kind of chess: someone will gain a winning position and the other one will know to be done so will surrender. 4) It either won't be third generation space battles because of a MAD event here in Earth, or now yes, you are free to think in any kind of star trek-like scenario neither you nor me can imagine.
Certainly they don't have to. It's only that if you are a responsible parent you want them to be as expensive as you can afford because that's the way of properly padding their way into life.
"change nothing but your own attitude and approach to yr users' problems. They're not all idiots"
Certainly they are not. Just blissful ignorants. But the point is that they decided to be ignorants in a field that very much affect them.
"chances are that half of them are smarter than you are"
Hummm... no. If he has been sucessfully coding for 20 years, no, chances are that he is smart above average.
"The problem here isn't that they don't comprehend what your solution is; it's that you probably don't understand what their problem is "
The problem *might* be that. But it probably is that he is bored of telling once and again the same obvious things to the same kind of people that, after more than 20 years of "new" technologies popularization, would be expected to know better if only because of the way it affects their businesses. If anything, what I'm surprised about is that he is not telling the same about his junior colleagues: after about 30 years of programming popularization, one would expect them coming from schools a bit more aware about the basics of their trade too.
"Somalia is by no means experiencing any kind of credibly free market"
It's of course true that Somalia is not what Adam Smith had in mind when writting about "the wealth of nations". But I'd say that, as Newton was wrong because of his implicits (no, speed is not an absolute magnitude), so it was Smith with those of him (no, there's no need of "democracy and imperium of law ala occidental way" for the basics of capitalism to apply). Once one understands this, it's obvious that, quite in fact, Somalia is not only an example of "capitalism by the book", in that Mogadishu is a perfect example of "the market town", but the only natural outcome of what capitalism unavoidingly becomes if left alone on the hands of the capitalist actors themselves: the only difference between Mogadishu and Wall Street is that the latter still has a resemblance of government limiting the reach of capitalists.
Yes "the government", so hatred by all those "liberalists of caricature" that will jump "comunism" at the first mention of regulation "for the people, by the people", is the *only* practical deterrent that avoids Wall Street becoming Mogadishu.
"Moving it would probably cost in the millions and is very risky"
It could certainly cost millions but it is not risky. Done just semi-properly is one of the safest migration operations you can thing off: the service doesn't require real-time I/O so you just need to feed data in parallel to the old and new services and compare results: a zero risk operation.
"Capitalism doesn't work without strong property rights and an equal rule of law. Somalia has neither."
It's only the Somalia *does* have equal rule of law, in fact a single law, "the one on the right side of the AK-47 commands" and *does* have the strongest of property rights, just try to take off the AK-47 from the hands that hold it from the right side.
It's only ridiculous to claim that Somalia doesn't enjoys the benefits of capitalism in its purest form.
"Internalize your misfortunes, and externalize any good fortune you may come across."
What for?
Specifically, how's that any better than "be objective, for knowing clearly what happens and why is the master tool to get the best out of a situation"?
"Are you suggesting that we have a primitive inbuilt biological capability for time travel, and we've essentially linguistically trained it out of ourselves since primitive man left Africa?"
It wouldn't be the first to suggest such a thing. I can't get its name, but I remember a film, starred by Cristopher Reeves, I think, with basically that argument.
"for example, Spanish-speaking cultures view time as cyclical"
Well, I've been Spanish my whole life and, heck, it is the first time I heard such a thing. In fact, Spain's culture, being mostly Roman Catholic, it's strongly biased towards time (and its experience) being lineal.
"I really don't get the irrational hatred for lawyers on Slashdot."
Who said it's irrational? A lawyer?
"lawyers provide advice and speak on your behalf in defending your rights under the law."
If only so it were.
"They don't get to make law"
Please go and see which are the most common studies among those that do get to make law.
"and they'll face worse consequences than a layperson if they break it."
No. They face bad consequences *if* they get caugth. Which is exactly what they are best tooled not to happen.
"by attacking the lawyers you are essentially saying, "I believe the problem is not some particular law but that we even have the rule of law.""
I don't think anyone supports that. I myself, by attacking lawyers I'm essentially saying "I don't believe the problem is some particular law but that we even have the rule of *lawyers*."
"Your problem is with your legislature"
Which is basically built by lawyers and the current legal system is basically an always growing arms race built and sustained by lawyers themselves.
"Common law systems are really top of their class"
Whatever sentenced an unknown judge two centuries ago on a world that hardly resembles ours is to be considered "top of their class"?
Yes, this post was written with a substantial dosis of tongue-in-cheek.
"Why you are forcing this to be serialized, when it can be done in parallel?"
Because that way you are forcing the whole team to listen on what others have to say and making obvious in front of everybody else that all of them are aware of what's going on.
If we were machines, you are right, it's not the most effective way. But we are not machines, we lean on our preferences, avoid what dislikes us and tend to think too much about other's motivations.
"Sure, you could force them to reply to mails or fire them if they didn't know or whatever. Sometimes however mails arrive at moments people are doing other things."
Forcing an answer is quite different to forcing an answer *on the spot*.
"Some of the department heads at my last job were cliquey to the point they would ignore other departments unless a problem they ignored snowballed into their domain. A third needs to be told important matters at said meetings so there are witnesses. Otherwise people tend to "forget" to tell him things."
It is usually the case that tools are not the solution to social or organizational problems, but sometimes they are (or at least are of great help), and yours is one of those cases.
Do NOT use e-mail when you need a tracked procedure. e-mail is an untracked information channel, therefore it is not suitable for information paths that must be tracked.
A real world example: I was once appointed to put some order on a technical support department: customers were angry because there were delays or even complete abandon of their demands, employees and even the head of the department were in denial and usually told the customers were the asshole class, etc. There were, of course, organizational problems (all company problems are always organizational), the main one that middle management didn't give a damn about support (they were not bonused for that), but my authority was not strong enough to go that path, so I went for the second-most culprit: most support comunications were done by e-mail.
Sounds familiar? tracking problems because using a non-trackable communication path.
Solution? A web-based issue-tracking system (the key part is the "tracking" word) with SLA-bounded scalation capabilities.
As soon as the tool started spitting track reports the problems started to correct themselves: the support team could deny their laziness and unprofessionalism no more. The prick customers (yes, there were some of them) were pinpointed (some changed attitudes once the department's service quality changed for the better *first*, some didn't change but it was made obvious they were a liability not a benefit, so they were "allowed" to search for other providers) and even mid management were gently forced to align once the first monthly reports scalated to top management (they were still not bonused but at least they would do now the bare minimum to avoid being red-faced by the top, and now the bare minimum was raised because of the higher visibility provided by those executive -and automatic, reports).
"since when does BSD "get the original authors being credited" in a meaningful way?"
Humm... since its very beginning?
Extracted from the original BSD licence (around 1988):
"Redistribution and use in source and binary forms are permitted provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are duplicated in all such forms and that any documentation, advertising materials, and other materials related to such distribution and use acknowledge that the software was developed by the."
And then, clauses 2nd and 3rd of the standard BSD license:
"2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution. 3. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software must display the following acknowledgement: This product includes software developed by the."
In fact these two first BSD licences were considered by some people *SO* demanding about crediting authors (the scalating advertisement problem) that a "new" DSB license (usually known as "three clauses BSD" or "BSD modified") was devised in which the original authors STILL must be credited by retaining the original copyright note in the sources and reproducing it in the binary versions.
"must share all source code if you want to distribute code. Not required to otherwise."
Quite true. I gave it for granted as I expected such a short, resounding phrase as "GPL isn't designed to force others to share" was obviously to be taken with a grain of salt. My fault.
Yes, it is. You can ask Richard M. Stallman if you don't believe me.
"but to facilitate sharing while letting the original authors get credited"
Yes, it is three letters too, but they are not G-P-L. The three letters you are looking for are B-S-D. Seriously: you described the BSD license, not the GPL.
"you forgot the bit about how you actually make money from that"
I told you: by contracting on the development of new functionality (and engineering the solution, and deploying and supporting it). This is not an idea: this is already working.
"given that your "customers" are free to seek extensions from elsewhere"
Truly. That's as true as that you can go to Seven Eleven searching to hire quantum mechanic experts. Quite a different issue is if you'll find them there. We are talking here about a non trivial piece of software, and it happens that this company know it in and out and have the marketing and sales strengh to push for it. Not many other companies can say the same but, hey, the market is free both for the customer and the provider. If they find a better bargain, lucky them.
"after pillaging your freely available "main product" source code."
The Merriam-Webster define "pillage" as "the act of looting or plundering especially in war" or "something taken as booty". Given that this company wholeheartedly gives the source code to its customer under the GPLv2, I fail to see where the pillage exactly is.
"seems like a pretty risky business model"
In fact it isn't, given that most service companies use it in that they attract money as they work for it and money stops flowing the day they stop working... or it wouldn't be a risky business were it not for others that use their strengh not in making better products but in lobbying legislation for clearly anticapitalistic practices (like creating artificial scarcity by means of government-granted monopolies on IP).
"perhaps you've never tried it (since you don't seem to have much regard for it)"
Or perhaps my regards about extreme practices come from a deep study of what they mean and how they are implemented, who knows.
"i can tell..."
All well and good and absolutly orthogonal to the issue at hand. But, hey, it's you the one asking "what client talks about results in terms of maintainability or scalability?" and I was the one telling that agile practices were more about managing people's expectations than anything else.
Slashdot Mirror
"cloud is 3rd party"
Except when it is a private cloud. So no, cloud is not 3rd party.
Good rant... except for the little fact that you did forget about defining "cloud".
"Cloud" is marketroid speech and because of that, with a purporsely "nebulous" definition (pun intended): so others can say "but, ah! your cloud is not the real cloud, mine is".
I for one would say that if the customer is not location-aware and can self-service on-demand, it is cloud. And certainly you can have storage delivered that way.
"Does this release fix one of Apache's biggest problems, that the default Apache config file assumes that you've got 10 gigabytes of RAM in your server?"
Yes. I've been told now Apache comes with mod_emacs so you can edit the config file to your leisure... from within apache itself!
(of course, for this to work they had to disable the built-in web server and kitchen sink standard emacs comes with).
"if you have the technology to produce and safely store it, the most effective weapon would be a few grams of antimatter. Impossible to shield against"
It's either impossible to shield against or you have the technology to safely store it, it can't be both ways (yeah, if you are thinking about a theoretical confinement field, you could theoretically protect your ship with them too).
I myself prefer a good old unobtanium space-folding missile.
"Ok, let's throw just a few problems out there."
OK, I'll see your problems:
"1) No oxygen."
Astronauts have proven there *is* good enough concentrations of oxygen in space... within the spaceships, which is where those weapons will be ignited.
"2) Someone else mention "high explosive" rounds."
Where do you thing those "high explosive" rounds are meant to explode? In the middle of the space vacuum or... within another inhabitted spaceship aplenty of oxygen? On the other hand, it is not as if those "high explosive" rounds wouldn't be able to load both comburent and combustible within.
"3) Recoil."
Yes, that's a problem you should count with. But recoil is proportional to involved masses: that's why the bullet goes out at high speed while you just notice a bump in your elbow: big spaceship + little bullet = controllable effect.
"Railguns still have recoil, but not as much as traditional explosives."
Railguns have *exactly* the same recoil as a conventional gun with same masses and mouth speeds involved. It can't be any other way.
"5) bullets add to the debris in a firefight"
Breaking into parts your target *does* add to the debris... up to a point that the bullets themselves become a non-problem. But regarding bullets... "all that debris turns into projectiles that you can fly into" Just explain me how: by definition you and anything you can push away from your spaceship will have different trajectories *and* speed no matter if you are orbiting or not. Of course you can certainly be stupid enough to shoot into exactly your own orbit with enough speed to tailgate you prior for you to be able to abandon your current orbit but, you know, darwing prizes do exist for a reason.
But you are up to something there. No need of even bullets: kinetic energy is your damn friend: you just need to gain a higher orbit and let a part of your own spaceship to drop into your target. You can bet on this:
1) For the foreseeble future there will be no battles in space.
2) But when time reaches, first battles will use conventional machine guns (there have already been tests of this).
3) Second generation will be as slow as WWII submarine combats and awfully tactical to the point of making the combat itself moot, kind of chess: someone will gain a winning position and the other one will know to be done so will surrender.
4) It either won't be third generation space battles because of a MAD event here in Earth, or now yes, you are free to think in any kind of star trek-like scenario neither you nor me can imagine.
"Medicaid and public universities both work fine"
No, they don't.
"Kids don't have to be expensive."
Certainly they don't have to. It's only that if you are a responsible parent you want them to be as expensive as you can afford because that's the way of properly padding their way into life.
"change nothing but your own attitude and approach to yr users' problems. They're not all idiots"
Certainly they are not. Just blissful ignorants. But the point is that they decided to be ignorants in a field that very much affect them.
"chances are that half of them are smarter than you are"
Hummm... no. If he has been sucessfully coding for 20 years, no, chances are that he is smart above average.
"The problem here isn't that they don't comprehend what your solution is; it's that you probably don't understand what their problem is "
The problem *might* be that. But it probably is that he is bored of telling once and again the same obvious things to the same kind of people that, after more than 20 years of "new" technologies popularization, would be expected to know better if only because of the way it affects their businesses. If anything, what I'm surprised about is that he is not telling the same about his junior colleagues: after about 30 years of programming popularization, one would expect them coming from schools a bit more aware about the basics of their trade too.
"Somalia is by no means experiencing any kind of credibly free market"
It's of course true that Somalia is not what Adam Smith had in mind when writting about "the wealth of nations". But I'd say that, as Newton was wrong because of his implicits (no, speed is not an absolute magnitude), so it was Smith with those of him (no, there's no need of "democracy and imperium of law ala occidental way" for the basics of capitalism to apply). Once one understands this, it's obvious that, quite in fact, Somalia is not only an example of "capitalism by the book", in that Mogadishu is a perfect example of "the market town", but the only natural outcome of what capitalism unavoidingly becomes if left alone on the hands of the capitalist actors themselves: the only difference between Mogadishu and Wall Street is that the latter still has a resemblance of government limiting the reach of capitalists.
Yes "the government", so hatred by all those "liberalists of caricature" that will jump "comunism" at the first mention of regulation "for the people, by the people", is the *only* practical deterrent that avoids Wall Street becoming Mogadishu.
"Moving it would probably cost in the millions and is very risky"
It could certainly cost millions but it is not risky. Done just semi-properly is one of the safest migration operations you can thing off: the service doesn't require real-time I/O so you just need to feed data in parallel to the old and new services and compare results: a zero risk operation.
"Mainframes serve special niches"
Yes. And now it seems it's not rocket science after all.
"Capitalism doesn't work without strong property rights and an equal rule of law. Somalia has neither."
It's only the Somalia *does* have equal rule of law, in fact a single law, "the one on the right side of the AK-47 commands" and *does* have the strongest of property rights, just try to take off the AK-47 from the hands that hold it from the right side.
It's only ridiculous to claim that Somalia doesn't enjoys the benefits of capitalism in its purest form.
"Internalize your misfortunes, and externalize any good fortune you may come across."
What for?
Specifically, how's that any better than "be objective, for knowing clearly what happens and why is the master tool to get the best out of a situation"?
"an example of an internal locus of control would be: "I lost my job because I didn't do a good enough job.""
Or better, and more probably, "I lost my job because I failed to manage the jerk my boss was".
"Are you suggesting that we have a primitive inbuilt biological capability for time travel, and we've essentially linguistically trained it out of ourselves since primitive man left Africa?"
It wouldn't be the first to suggest such a thing. I can't get its name, but I remember a film, starred by Cristopher Reeves, I think, with basically that argument.
"for example, Spanish-speaking cultures view time as cyclical"
Well, I've been Spanish my whole life and, heck, it is the first time I heard such a thing. In fact, Spain's culture, being mostly Roman Catholic, it's strongly biased towards time (and its experience) being lineal.
"No, they're not. For example, less than 35% of the US House of Representatives are lawyers."
In other words: no less than 1/3 of the US House of Representatives are lawyers. Which is the most represented single profession.
"I really don't get the irrational hatred for lawyers on Slashdot."
Who said it's irrational? A lawyer?
"lawyers provide advice and speak on your behalf in defending your rights under the law."
If only so it were.
"They don't get to make law"
Please go and see which are the most common studies among those that do get to make law.
"and they'll face worse consequences than a layperson if they break it."
No. They face bad consequences *if* they get caugth. Which is exactly what they are best tooled not to happen.
"by attacking the lawyers you are essentially saying, "I believe the problem is not some particular law but that we even have the rule of law.""
I don't think anyone supports that. I myself, by attacking lawyers I'm essentially saying "I don't believe the problem is some particular law but that we even have the rule of *lawyers*."
"Your problem is with your legislature"
Which is basically built by lawyers and the current legal system is basically an always growing arms race built and sustained by lawyers themselves.
"Common law systems are really top of their class"
Whatever sentenced an unknown judge two centuries ago on a world that hardly resembles ours is to be considered "top of their class"?
Yes, this post was written with a substantial dosis of tongue-in-cheek.
"Why you are forcing this to be serialized, when it can be done in parallel?"
Because that way you are forcing the whole team to listen on what others have to say and making obvious in front of everybody else that all of them are aware of what's going on.
If we were machines, you are right, it's not the most effective way. But we are not machines, we lean on our preferences, avoid what dislikes us and tend to think too much about other's motivations.
"Sure, you could force them to reply to mails or fire them if they didn't know or whatever. Sometimes however mails arrive at moments people are doing other things."
Forcing an answer is quite different to forcing an answer *on the spot*.
"Some of the department heads at my last job were cliquey to the point they would ignore other departments unless a problem they ignored snowballed into their domain. A third needs to be told important matters at said meetings so there are witnesses. Otherwise people tend to "forget" to tell him things."
It is usually the case that tools are not the solution to social or organizational problems, but sometimes they are (or at least are of great help), and yours is one of those cases.
Do NOT use e-mail when you need a tracked procedure. e-mail is an untracked information channel, therefore it is not suitable for information paths that must be tracked.
A real world example: I was once appointed to put some order on a technical support department: customers were angry because there were delays or even complete abandon of their demands, employees and even the head of the department were in denial and usually told the customers were the asshole class, etc. There were, of course, organizational problems (all company problems are always organizational), the main one that middle management didn't give a damn about support (they were not bonused for that), but my authority was not strong enough to go that path, so I went for the second-most culprit: most support comunications were done by e-mail.
Sounds familiar? tracking problems because using a non-trackable communication path.
Solution? A web-based issue-tracking system (the key part is the "tracking" word) with SLA-bounded scalation capabilities.
As soon as the tool started spitting track reports the problems started to correct themselves: the support team could deny their laziness and unprofessionalism no more. The prick customers (yes, there were some of them) were pinpointed (some changed attitudes once the department's service quality changed for the better *first*, some didn't change but it was made obvious they were a liability not a benefit, so they were "allowed" to search for other providers) and even mid management were gently forced to align once the first monthly reports scalated to top management (they were still not bonused but at least they would do now the bare minimum to avoid being red-faced by the top, and now the bare minimum was raised because of the higher visibility provided by those executive -and automatic, reports).
"since when does BSD "get the original authors being credited" in a meaningful way?"
Humm... since its very beginning?
Extracted from the original BSD licence (around 1988):
"Redistribution and use in source and binary forms are permitted provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are duplicated in all such forms and that any documentation, advertising materials, and other materials related to such distribution and use acknowledge that the software was developed by the ."
And then, clauses 2nd and 3rd of the standard BSD license:
"2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution. ."
3. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software must display the following acknowledgement: This product includes software developed by the
In fact these two first BSD licences were considered by some people *SO* demanding about crediting authors (the scalating advertisement problem) that a "new" DSB license (usually known as "three clauses BSD" or "BSD modified") was devised in which the original authors STILL must be credited by retaining the original copyright note in the sources and reproducing it in the binary versions.
"must share all source code if you want to distribute code. Not required to otherwise."
Quite true. I gave it for granted as I expected such a short, resounding phrase as "GPL isn't designed to force others to share" was obviously to be taken with a grain of salt. My fault.
"Is that really considered a derivative work just because they can see the source?"
Surely it is, at least for this judge: http://news.slashdot.org/story/12/01/26/0237246/non-copied-photo-is-ruled-copyright-infringement
The right question nowadays it "but should it be?"
"GPL isn't designed to force others to share"
Yes, it is. You can ask Richard M. Stallman if you don't believe me.
"but to facilitate sharing while letting the original authors get credited"
Yes, it is three letters too, but they are not G-P-L. The three letters you are looking for are B-S-D. Seriously: you described the BSD license, not the GPL.
"you forgot the bit about how you actually make money from that"
I told you: by contracting on the development of new functionality (and engineering the solution, and deploying and supporting it). This is not an idea: this is already working.
"given that your "customers" are free to seek extensions from elsewhere"
Truly. That's as true as that you can go to Seven Eleven searching to hire quantum mechanic experts. Quite a different issue is if you'll find them there. We are talking here about a non trivial piece of software, and it happens that this company know it in and out and have the marketing and sales strengh to push for it. Not many other companies can say the same but, hey, the market is free both for the customer and the provider. If they find a better bargain, lucky them.
"after pillaging your freely available "main product" source code."
The Merriam-Webster define "pillage" as "the act of looting or plundering especially in war" or "something taken as booty". Given that this company wholeheartedly gives the source code to its customer under the GPLv2, I fail to see
where the pillage exactly is.
"seems like a pretty risky business model"
In fact it isn't, given that most service companies use it in that they attract money as they work for it and money stops flowing the day they stop working... or it wouldn't be a risky business were it not for others that use their strengh not in making better products but in lobbying legislation for clearly anticapitalistic practices (like creating artificial scarcity by means of government-granted monopolies on IP).
"perhaps you've never tried it (since you don't seem to have much regard for it)"
Or perhaps my regards about extreme practices come from a deep study of what they mean and how they are implemented, who knows.
"i can tell..."
All well and good and absolutly orthogonal to the issue at hand. But, hey, it's you the one asking "what client talks about results in terms of maintainability or scalability?" and I was the one telling that agile practices were more about managing people's expectations than anything else.