The building client who wanted to add an extra floor when the building was already half constructed can moan that the builders are not "giving them what they want" but I suspect they'll get little sympathy.
I really don't understand what this has to do with software. Does the building client get more sympathy if he asks for an extra floor when the blueprints are halfway complete?
Does your definition of success value meeting the initial budget and timeline estimates more than giving the customer what he wants?
(Please note that I have said absolutely nothing about meeting the initial time and money quotes despite requirements changes. I'd like to ignore that question for the moment, if that's alright, as I think the definition of success is a foundational belief.)
For my most recent book? One, but we've integrated suggestions from our editor and a couple of dozen reviewers. Even our outline has changed substantially from our proposal.
For my novel? None, but again, I've had detailed suggestions from one reviewer, input from several other readers, and specific comments from an editor. Also again, I didn't know where I'd end up when I started, and I'm very glad for that; the novel is much better for following the characters than a predetermined plan.
If you're writing a novel, you don't bring in a dozen co-authors...
Funny. I've written plenty of software and several books, including a novel. To publish a novel, you need at least one editor, a copyeditor, someone to do layout, someone to do the cover, plenty of people at the printing press, someone to handle distribution and sales, at least one reviewer and hopefully another proofreader, and several other people I've probably forgotten.
We've trained users to be fickle and change their minds by allowing them to do so.
What kind of software do you write that succeeds despite not giving users what they want so that your users continue to pay you?
In fifty-odd years of software development, has a single, non-trivial project ever had perfectly defined requirements such that the schedule was perfectly predictable and users were completely satisfied at the end of the project? To my knowledge, not even the Space Shuttle qualifies.
If that's the case, why do people still believe that completely nailing down requirements up front before beginning to code is possible, let alone useful?
Re:So let the flame wars begin!
on
The Birth of vi
·
· Score: 3, Funny
To me, it is perfectly fine for the company to ensure that the software running on that system is qualified by them, both to help ensure safety and also to limit their own liability.
To me, they're perfectly within their rights not to redistribute software under my copyright, if they're not willing to abide by my license.
The fact is, if KDE was any good, you wouldn't have to spend time customizing it.
I suppose it's a failure of automobile manufacturers that I let back the seat, tilt the steering wheel, and adjust the mirrors every time I rent a car.
... very few commercial apps are written in any kind of dynamic language...
Commercial in what sense? Shrink-wrapped software, perhaps, but I've written a fair few commercial applications (licensed or sold or for clients) in dynamic languages.
In the meantime I download all books in pdf from pirate sites or p2p, then buy the most useful ones....
Yeah, right.
I'm certain that if you download a book and learn something that saves you more than an hour of work, that you think that it's worth $35 to buy the book at full price.
It only works on x86; there's a reason not to install it on some of my Linux machines. It's not a bad solution, but it certainly doesn't help all Linux desktop users.
I'm just waiting for someone to post instructions on how to use a web browser and a search engine. (Now guidelines for the proper use of its and it's, their, there, and they're, and lose and loose would be useful.)
I received Elite Beat Agents as a gift, and it's surprisingly fun. I don't play many rhythm games, mostly because buying otherwise-superfluous accessories seems silly, but it really works on the DS. It's a little silly, a lot cheesy in places, but it's challenging and amusing enough to keep me involved.
I've seen your post thousands of times on Slashdot.
What Linux detractors need to do if they want to survive is to unite all of their disparate complaints into a single project, rather than pulling this idea from Windows and that idea from Mac OS X or Solaris. It's just too confusing that they can't have a single focus and tell everyone what Linux should really be. No one is going to listen to them until they can get it together!
Slashdot Mirror
I really don't understand what this has to do with software. Does the building client get more sympathy if he asks for an extra floor when the blueprints are halfway complete?
Does your definition of success value meeting the initial budget and timeline estimates more than giving the customer what he wants?
(Please note that I have said absolutely nothing about meeting the initial time and money quotes despite requirements changes. I'd like to ignore that question for the moment, if that's alright, as I think the definition of success is a foundational belief.)
I reject that premise: The Source Code is the Design.
For my most recent book? One, but we've integrated suggestions from our editor and a couple of dozen reviewers. Even our outline has changed substantially from our proposal.
For my novel? None, but again, I've had detailed suggestions from one reviewer, input from several other readers, and specific comments from an editor. Also again, I didn't know where I'd end up when I started, and I'm very glad for that; the novel is much better for following the characters than a predetermined plan.
Funny. I've written plenty of software and several books, including a novel. To publish a novel, you need at least one editor, a copyeditor, someone to do layout, someone to do the cover, plenty of people at the printing press, someone to handle distribution and sales, at least one reviewer and hopefully another proofreader, and several other people I've probably forgotten.
What kind of software do you write that succeeds despite not giving users what they want so that your users continue to pay you?
In fifty-odd years of software development, has a single, non-trivial project ever had perfectly defined requirements such that the schedule was perfectly predictable and users were completely satisfied at the end of the project? To my knowledge, not even the Space Shuttle qualifies.
If that's the case, why do people still believe that completely nailing down requirements up front before beginning to code is possible, let alone useful?
Why do Macs have keyboards then?
Bradley Kuhn left the FSF nearly two years ago. I question your other facts and interpretations.
To me, they're perfectly within their rights not to redistribute software under my copyright, if they're not willing to abide by my license.
Bender? Is that you?
I suppose it's a failure of automobile manufacturers that I let back the seat, tilt the steering wheel, and adjust the mirrors every time I rent a car.
Perhaps you should learn something about Africa then.
Commercial in what sense? Shrink-wrapped software, perhaps, but I've written a fair few commercial applications (licensed or sold or for clients) in dynamic languages.
When they finish the process, the Java portability problem will start to go away.
Yeah, right.
I'm certain that if you download a book and learn something that saves you more than an hour of work, that you think that it's worth $35 to buy the book at full price.
It only works on x86; there's a reason not to install it on some of my Linux machines. It's not a bad solution, but it certainly doesn't help all Linux desktop users.
Maybe I should have, but I timeshifted it due to spending a lot of time with friends and family this past week.
I'm just waiting for someone to post instructions on how to use a web browser and a search engine. (Now guidelines for the proper use of its and it's, their, there, and they're, and lose and loose would be useful.)
I didn't want to know that either, you insensitive clod!
I wouldn't say cried, but it is a surprisingly moving level, even playing it again.
I received Elite Beat Agents as a gift, and it's surprisingly fun. I don't play many rhythm games, mostly because buying otherwise-superfluous accessories seems silly, but it really works on the DS. It's a little silly, a lot cheesy in places, but it's challenging and amusing enough to keep me involved.
Yes, but it's a pretty spreadsheet, with multiplayer. What's not to love about that?
You could consult the guy who popularized the term: Web 2.0 Compact Definition.
A (relatively) safe place to run Windows?
What Linux detractors need to do if they want to survive is to unite all of their disparate complaints into a single project, rather than pulling this idea from Windows and that idea from Mac OS X or Solaris. It's just too confusing that they can't have a single focus and tell everyone what Linux should really be. No one is going to listen to them until they can get it together!
I don't know why you say that; they can do systems programming too. FFTs or real-time matrix manipulations or low-level bit-twiddling, less so.
There's also Pegasos.