According to this classic, you just need to make estimates, and measure results, and then you can normalize the values and make good predictions of actual time.
When I was a consultant, I always set the estimates of the time it would require. That was part of the bid. There is no client time requirement, the client requires an estimate as part of the bid and they will select a bid. In waterfall, the bid is likely to include multiple planning steps and be a full-price realistic bid, and it may even quote a total project cost. In Agile, the price is per week, and there are simply no promises or "quotes" allowed to be made about an overall project. Planning is also by the week. One baby step at a time. One step per week. However many weeks it takes to get somewhere. So, it is very very different. The only situation where the "product owner" sets a schedule is when they hire employees. And they don't need to listen to estimates, they need to measure and predict based on those measurements.
The part that I find funny is that people without a good plan manage to hire consultants without having agreed to a plan. If the plan sucks, that should be addressed in the bid; they almost certainly passed up bids from people explaining what their problems were, and giving a bid on fixing those problems and building a quality product. Instead they choose the bid that says, "anything you want, for however long you want, pay us by the week." It could be 10 years later with no product and they would never have actually failed at anything specific.
If a client wants a bid on a magic pony, and I want to submit a bid, it is going to be for a game or an animated short, I'm not going to bid on, "magic pony by the week, however long it takes."
All in the name of "quality" that the client will never appreciate (or indeed know about)
This is the difference between having a client, and being a professional. It is easy for consultants to become sleazy, because the incentives are often misaligned due to the pricing structure.
This is why it is better to have employees writing software. They won't save money by writing something that sucks, they'll just have to fix it. They'll plan to throw the first idea away, and they'll talk about it as a prototype from the start. It will be part of the original plan do testing and additional planning before writing the actual software. Consultants can do the same thing, they're just gone by the time it matters and so they don't "have" to care.
Waterfall is a special case where the iteration count is one.
That isn't actually true, it is just an assertion by the anti-waterfall people that usually goes unchallenged.
Even the canonical waterfall project, engineering a structural bridge, contains multiple planning iterations before getting to the implementation. The iteration of the whole project is one, but that is true for agile too; if you ever accidentally implement all the requirements, you've finished. The only "iteration count" that is "one" is one in both situations; there is one overall project that somebody somewhere probably actually wants to be finished eventually.
The only difference on iteration count is that in Agile, even after you've been through the planning and started to build the things you planned, you go back and change the requirements which means you have to throw away a bunch of what was already implemented. That is good, because... weekly billing cycles. There is no real argument made that changing your mind about the details at that stage is good; the claim is that Agile is good at billing when that's what the decision makers want.;)
YOU HAVE NO PRODUCT VISION OR PLAN. YOU DON'T JUST RUN A BUSINESS SUCCESSFULLY BY THROWING SHIT AT THE WALL AND SEEING WHAT STICKS.
You miss the point of Agile. The point is, the developer is a contractor. The client companies are all run by Pointy-Haired Bosses. They have no product vision or plan. Agile is a system for the contractor to prevent that from getting in the way of the contracting. They can throw whatever at the wall they want, they're paying for it.
As a longtime software developer, this is why I am not a contractor anymore. Real products that are part of a vision... need the same "modified waterfall" that was being used successfully by companies with products all along. But indeed, it does a poor job when providing consulting services to PHBs.
Nonsense, the default stance of beings is that they have not asked any questions about religion and have not attempted any sort of answer.
The reason why Buddhism is a philosophy not a religion is that Siddhartha, the person whose philosophy it is, specifically rejected questions about things outside of the current life. So while he had metaphysical/religious beliefs, he didn't consider them to be important, and he believed that it is asking the flawed question that is the root of suffering, not merely having the wrong answer. According to Buddhism, attempting to answer a low quality, hurtful question with a negative is not expected to reduce the suffering it causes. And "what happens to me after I die" is a bad question, that brings suffering to the person who tries hard to answer it.
Theists and Atheists are both trying to answer the same question, and there is no "default" reason to even be worrying about it. I have no reason to believe that a bird or squirrel is trying to answer these questions, or suffering over the answers.
"“Atheism is indeed the most daring of all dogmas . . . for it is the assertion of a universal negative.” -- G. K. Chesterton
Even people that don't collect stamps don't deny the existence of stamps.
And if they tried to, people would instantly understand them to be a disgruntled stamp collector. "Wow, somebody must have licked his whole collection the way he pretends there are no stamps."
Well, they choose different sides but I'm not convinced it is actually a different interpretation.
But then again, I read Job and have Faith that it really does mean what the words say. Some consider it to be a "challenging" story, I consider it to be very informative about the beliefs of the author. I don't think a Christian and a Satanist would interpret the story differently, they just have different judgments over who the most evil character in the story is.
But that type of Satanist is very, very rare. The modern Satanist Church doesn't "believe" in that Satan. They agree that in that story, Satan is the good guy, the one trying to help man. But they don't believe in that religion, in that God, or any God. They've only borrowed the God that the least other people wanted, to use his iconography and shock value.
Nobody knows why gravity is, but people have Faith that it will work in a certain way. Sounds right to me.
Why does it having a similarity to religion trigger you? Is it supposed to go out of its way to be dissimilar to things you don't like? I knew a horrible person I didn't like once. He had hair. I'll bet you have hair too. How dare you! I also once saw a priest with hair. How dare religion be like other things! How dare they have hair!
Belief and disbelief are the same thing. If you don't believe, you're not a disbeliever; disbelief is by definition the belief of something phrased in the negative.
If you can't wrap your head around the sound of silence, I guess you're just stuck with wall of sound. If you can understand that the amount of a thing matters as to the meaning of the thing, then you can understand that the absence of something is an amount of it, and can have meaning.
However, the absence of Theistic beliefs is agnosticism, not Atheism. That's why Atheism is nothing like a TV that is off. Atheism is defined not by being without a thing, (theism) but by rejecting it. A theist who stops believing becomes agnostic, just like a person who never believed. A person who is against Christianity because God hates them, that is who becomes an Atheist.
Atheist behave just like any other religious extremists.
As a non-Theist I have to point out that Atheists are disgruntled Theists, and should be expected to continue the same behavior patterns and group structures that they grew up with.
People who were never Theists don't become Atheists, they just stay agnostic. A bad question that has no answer isn't improved by insisting that the answer is "no." The only solution is to not ask the question because is based on faulty premises.
Imagine writing highly secure software only to find out the fucking compiler is placing a telemetry backend into the binary.
Many people are in a hard position here, because they have decades of bad-mouthing FLOSS and they're too embarrassed to want to say, yeah, this implies that people have to have access to the source to know if trust is reasoned.
And by "depend on" he just means, "are required to be installed as a package prerequisite but don't have to be used" and that the only reason for the requirement is the lack of a use case or volunteer interest in maintaining separate packages.
Doesn't lying about petty shit get boring eventually? Oh, right, I forgot, [pejorative] and [ad-hominem] and [unrelated-successful-software-was-written-by-the-same-guy-so-the-sky-is-falling]
That's funny, the movie editing software we have was originally developed as a proprietary in-house tool for... a movie company.
There is no software without an OSS alternative. I assume your lie is hidden in equivocation and no-true-scotsman about the exact meaning of "equivalent." No, your favorite user interface might not be replicated in the professional tools I use. No, that does not stop me from getting work done, thanks for asking.
That's recycled nonsense of yesteryear. Documents can be opened in other applications, and that has been expected for over a decade. There no guarantee that you're going to "need" those applications unless your own product or service is within the niche of said application; so if I'm a consultant writing custom photoshop plugins, of course I'll need photoshop. But if I'm offering custom photo editing services, and writing my plugins for internal use in providing the service, then I won't need anything commercial.
It may be that a corporate process insists on accessing a database with a commercial DRM or something; it is quite possible that if you do generic contract work for corporations you'll need at least one box with each OS so that you can run those types of things to receive information from the client, and to report on progress or deliver data. But that would only be a data interface; there is no reason that any of the actual core work would require some Advanced Proprietary Tool That Sounds Very Important To The Internet.
That you might eventually have install some crap Adobe whatthewhat to access a checkbox or data download is "the exception that proves the rule" because even when the exception happens, there is no reason for the actual work to require anything proprietary.
Remember though, there are lots of people using open source and getting real work done.
Handwaving and presuming that we must not be doing anything important is not a realistic basis for convincing us that we're not actually getting stuff done.;) Or is that too anecdotal?
I've been saying for awhile, post-anti-trust MS has finally realized that they can't leverage a monopoly and so don't gain from having lots of users/followers/fans who won't subscribe. They're in an intensive process right now to drive away the people who don't want to be part of their subscription-based future. Those people are just a dead weight to them, an expense, a liability. They're not the only option, they can't leverage being the default, and there is not significant financial value in being the default anymore. They can't use it to coerce additional payments or higher rates from wholesalers, so there isn't value in it.
This is probably intentionally designed to drive away people who like to use their compiler, but consider subscription-style information flows to microsoft to be "spyware." Those people will never ever pay for the type of services that MS is building their future around. They are just past lovers who are guaranteed to become disgruntled and angry at some point, because MS has grown in a different direction than them, chosen a new and different lifestyle. It is time for these people to move on, find a new compiler, find a new OS, etc.
No, you're just lying about what the FOSS position ever was.
Nobody ever said, "having a lot of users means their eyeballs are looking for unknown bugs."
The position was always that when you have a known bug, more eyeballs makes the bug shallower. It is easier to solve known problems when the information is available, and lots of people (who are presumably affected by the problem) can look at it. Some of them will have more insight into the causes than others, because of different backgrounds and use cases.
When you have to lie about what people say just to argue against it, that pretty much refutes not just your claims, but your claim to have even considered the issue. I reject that your analysis was even well-considered. You are just trolling, in addition to be wrong on the merits.
If you find yourself thinking Oracle is as right as a stopped clock, (twice a day) just remember to check the fine print. It probably really means you pay double.
not only do they lose the money involved, after its likely been spent
This part I have no sympathy for. "Don't count your chickens before they hatch." When you get a payment from a stranger, be it check or money order or electronic transfer, don't rush out and spend an equal amount before it has irreversibly cleared. In addition to this particular scam, there are lots of other scams that involve the reversal of payments. All you have to do to avoid being bitten is: never return over-payment in the same billing cycle, never count your chickens before they've finished clearing the bank, and always cash checks at the issuing bank, never deposit them..
No, here you use the word "exact" but you left out the equivocation. Here, you're completely wrong. Above, you were wrong because you were using a non-standard value of the word "correct." Here, with the bare unaltered word, you're just being a tool.
Now you're wrong about what "exact" means and what "correct" means.
If you type exactly the same thing 2 times, they're the same. If you change a "system mode" that determines the value of the keys pressed, and then press the same keys, then you typed something different. And indeed, you even press a key to change that system mode, so it isn't even the same keys pressed.
You try to play semantic games with the words, but you have to choose words within your vocabulary for that to work.
Slashdot Mirror
According to this classic, you just need to make estimates, and measure results, and then you can normalize the values and make good predictions of actual time.
http://www.joelonsoftware.com/...
When I was a consultant, I always set the estimates of the time it would require. That was part of the bid. There is no client time requirement, the client requires an estimate as part of the bid and they will select a bid. In waterfall, the bid is likely to include multiple planning steps and be a full-price realistic bid, and it may even quote a total project cost. In Agile, the price is per week, and there are simply no promises or "quotes" allowed to be made about an overall project. Planning is also by the week. One baby step at a time. One step per week. However many weeks it takes to get somewhere. So, it is very very different. The only situation where the "product owner" sets a schedule is when they hire employees. And they don't need to listen to estimates, they need to measure and predict based on those measurements.
The part that I find funny is that people without a good plan manage to hire consultants without having agreed to a plan. If the plan sucks, that should be addressed in the bid; they almost certainly passed up bids from people explaining what their problems were, and giving a bid on fixing those problems and building a quality product. Instead they choose the bid that says, "anything you want, for however long you want, pay us by the week." It could be 10 years later with no product and they would never have actually failed at anything specific.
If a client wants a bid on a magic pony, and I want to submit a bid, it is going to be for a game or an animated short, I'm not going to bid on, "magic pony by the week, however long it takes."
All in the name of "quality" that the client will never appreciate (or indeed know about)
This is the difference between having a client, and being a professional. It is easy for consultants to become sleazy, because the incentives are often misaligned due to the pricing structure.
This is why it is better to have employees writing software. They won't save money by writing something that sucks, they'll just have to fix it. They'll plan to throw the first idea away, and they'll talk about it as a prototype from the start. It will be part of the original plan do testing and additional planning before writing the actual software. Consultants can do the same thing, they're just gone by the time it matters and so they don't "have" to care.
That's what always saves Agile. If you have problems, it means you're not doing True Agile.
It can easily leave onlookers thinking that Agile isn't very agile. Maybe it is just too hard to be practicable?
Waterfall is a special case where the iteration count is one.
That isn't actually true, it is just an assertion by the anti-waterfall people that usually goes unchallenged.
Even the canonical waterfall project, engineering a structural bridge, contains multiple planning iterations before getting to the implementation. The iteration of the whole project is one, but that is true for agile too; if you ever accidentally implement all the requirements, you've finished. The only "iteration count" that is "one" is one in both situations; there is one overall project that somebody somewhere probably actually wants to be finished eventually.
The only difference on iteration count is that in Agile, even after you've been through the planning and started to build the things you planned, you go back and change the requirements which means you have to throw away a bunch of what was already implemented. That is good, because... weekly billing cycles. There is no real argument made that changing your mind about the details at that stage is good; the claim is that Agile is good at billing when that's what the decision makers want. ;)
YOU HAVE NO PRODUCT VISION OR PLAN. YOU DON'T JUST RUN A BUSINESS SUCCESSFULLY BY THROWING SHIT AT THE WALL AND SEEING WHAT STICKS.
You miss the point of Agile. The point is, the developer is a contractor. The client companies are all run by Pointy-Haired Bosses. They have no product vision or plan . Agile is a system for the contractor to prevent that from getting in the way of the contracting. They can throw whatever at the wall they want, they're paying for it.
As a longtime software developer, this is why I am not a contractor anymore. Real products that are part of a vision... need the same "modified waterfall" that was being used successfully by companies with products all along. But indeed, it does a poor job when providing consulting services to PHBs.
Fertilizer is indeed a controlled substance, but you thought you were being very clever indeed.
Nonsense, the default stance of beings is that they have not asked any questions about religion and have not attempted any sort of answer.
The reason why Buddhism is a philosophy not a religion is that Siddhartha, the person whose philosophy it is, specifically rejected questions about things outside of the current life. So while he had metaphysical/religious beliefs, he didn't consider them to be important, and he believed that it is asking the flawed question that is the root of suffering, not merely having the wrong answer. According to Buddhism, attempting to answer a low quality, hurtful question with a negative is not expected to reduce the suffering it causes. And "what happens to me after I die" is a bad question, that brings suffering to the person who tries hard to answer it.
Theists and Atheists are both trying to answer the same question, and there is no "default" reason to even be worrying about it. I have no reason to believe that a bird or squirrel is trying to answer these questions, or suffering over the answers.
"“Atheism is indeed the most daring of all dogmas . . . for it is the assertion of a universal negative.” -- G. K. Chesterton
Even people that don't collect stamps don't deny the existence of stamps.
And if they tried to, people would instantly understand them to be a disgruntled stamp collector. "Wow, somebody must have licked his whole collection the way he pretends there are no stamps."
Well, they choose different sides but I'm not convinced it is actually a different interpretation.
But then again, I read Job and have Faith that it really does mean what the words say. Some consider it to be a "challenging" story, I consider it to be very informative about the beliefs of the author. I don't think a Christian and a Satanist would interpret the story differently, they just have different judgments over who the most evil character in the story is.
But that type of Satanist is very, very rare. The modern Satanist Church doesn't "believe" in that Satan. They agree that in that story, Satan is the good guy, the one trying to help man. But they don't believe in that religion, in that God, or any God. They've only borrowed the God that the least other people wanted, to use his iconography and shock value.
Nobody knows why gravity is, but people have Faith that it will work in a certain way. Sounds right to me.
Why does it having a similarity to religion trigger you? Is it supposed to go out of its way to be dissimilar to things you don't like? I knew a horrible person I didn't like once. He had hair. I'll bet you have hair too. How dare you! I also once saw a priest with hair. How dare religion be like other things! How dare they have hair!
Belief and disbelief are the same thing. If you don't believe, you're not a disbeliever; disbelief is by definition the belief of something phrased in the negative.
If you can't wrap your head around the sound of silence, I guess you're just stuck with wall of sound. If you can understand that the amount of a thing matters as to the meaning of the thing, then you can understand that the absence of something is an amount of it, and can have meaning.
However, the absence of Theistic beliefs is agnosticism, not Atheism. That's why Atheism is nothing like a TV that is off. Atheism is defined not by being without a thing, (theism) but by rejecting it. A theist who stops believing becomes agnostic, just like a person who never believed. A person who is against Christianity because God hates them, that is who becomes an Atheist.
Atheist behave just like any other religious extremists.
As a non-Theist I have to point out that Atheists are disgruntled Theists, and should be expected to continue the same behavior patterns and group structures that they grew up with.
People who were never Theists don't become Atheists, they just stay agnostic. A bad question that has no answer isn't improved by insisting that the answer is "no." The only solution is to not ask the question because is based on faulty premises.
Imagine writing highly secure software only to find out the fucking compiler is placing a telemetry backend into the binary.
Many people are in a hard position here, because they have decades of bad-mouthing FLOSS and they're too embarrassed to want to say, yeah, this implies that people have to have access to the source to know if trust is reasoned.
It is just a way to gather perf statistic...
What happens when you figure out that that is exactly what the complaint is? And that many consider it "shady?" ;)
And by "depend on" he just means, "are required to be installed as a package prerequisite but don't have to be used" and that the only reason for the requirement is the lack of a use case or volunteer interest in maintaining separate packages.
Doesn't lying about petty shit get boring eventually? Oh, right, I forgot, [pejorative] and [ad-hominem] and [unrelated-successful-software-was-written-by-the-same-guy-so-the-sky-is-falling]
Your lack of choice is a lie.
That's funny, the movie editing software we have was originally developed as a proprietary in-house tool for... a movie company.
There is no software without an OSS alternative. I assume your lie is hidden in equivocation and no-true-scotsman about the exact meaning of "equivalent." No, your favorite user interface might not be replicated in the professional tools I use. No, that does not stop me from getting work done, thanks for asking.
That's recycled nonsense of yesteryear. Documents can be opened in other applications, and that has been expected for over a decade. There no guarantee that you're going to "need" those applications unless your own product or service is within the niche of said application; so if I'm a consultant writing custom photoshop plugins, of course I'll need photoshop. But if I'm offering custom photo editing services, and writing my plugins for internal use in providing the service, then I won't need anything commercial.
It may be that a corporate process insists on accessing a database with a commercial DRM or something; it is quite possible that if you do generic contract work for corporations you'll need at least one box with each OS so that you can run those types of things to receive information from the client, and to report on progress or deliver data. But that would only be a data interface; there is no reason that any of the actual core work would require some Advanced Proprietary Tool That Sounds Very Important To The Internet.
That you might eventually have install some crap Adobe whatthewhat to access a checkbox or data download is "the exception that proves the rule" because even when the exception happens, there is no reason for the actual work to require anything proprietary.
Remember though, there are lots of people using open source and getting real work done.
Handwaving and presuming that we must not be doing anything important is not a realistic basis for convincing us that we're not actually getting stuff done. ;) Or is that too anecdotal?
I've been saying for awhile, post-anti-trust MS has finally realized that they can't leverage a monopoly and so don't gain from having lots of users/followers/fans who won't subscribe. They're in an intensive process right now to drive away the people who don't want to be part of their subscription-based future. Those people are just a dead weight to them, an expense, a liability. They're not the only option, they can't leverage being the default, and there is not significant financial value in being the default anymore. They can't use it to coerce additional payments or higher rates from wholesalers, so there isn't value in it.
This is probably intentionally designed to drive away people who like to use their compiler, but consider subscription-style information flows to microsoft to be "spyware." Those people will never ever pay for the type of services that MS is building their future around. They are just past lovers who are guaranteed to become disgruntled and angry at some point, because MS has grown in a different direction than them, chosen a new and different lifestyle. It is time for these people to move on, find a new compiler, find a new OS, etc.
No, you're just lying about what the FOSS position ever was.
Nobody ever said, "having a lot of users means their eyeballs are looking for unknown bugs."
The position was always that when you have a known bug, more eyeballs makes the bug shallower. It is easier to solve known problems when the information is available, and lots of people (who are presumably affected by the problem) can look at it. Some of them will have more insight into the causes than others, because of different backgrounds and use cases.
When you have to lie about what people say just to argue against it, that pretty much refutes not just your claims, but your claim to have even considered the issue. I reject that your analysis was even well-considered. You are just trolling, in addition to be wrong on the merits.
If you find yourself thinking Oracle is as right as a stopped clock, (twice a day) just remember to check the fine print. It probably really means you pay double.
not only do they lose the money involved, after its likely been spent
This part I have no sympathy for. "Don't count your chickens before they hatch." When you get a payment from a stranger, be it check or money order or electronic transfer, don't rush out and spend an equal amount before it has irreversibly cleared. In addition to this particular scam, there are lots of other scams that involve the reversal of payments. All you have to do to avoid being bitten is: never return over-payment in the same billing cycle, never count your chickens before they've finished clearing the bank, and always cash checks at the issuing bank, never deposit them..
No, here you use the word "exact" but you left out the equivocation. Here, you're completely wrong. Above, you were wrong because you were using a non-standard value of the word "correct." Here, with the bare unaltered word, you're just being a tool.
Now you're wrong about what "exact" means and what "correct" means.
If you type exactly the same thing 2 times, they're the same. If you change a "system mode" that determines the value of the keys pressed, and then press the same keys, then you typed something different. And indeed, you even press a key to change that system mode, so it isn't even the same keys pressed.
You try to play semantic games with the words, but you have to choose words within your vocabulary for that to work.