Motivation of software professionals
in [JavaScript]
|
Prev: When writing html table to div, the data from table is unformatted
Next: multi file download with one click
From: Seebs on 13 Feb 2010 12:02 On 2010-02-13, Arved Sandstrom <dcest61(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > The whole point of the discussion was, I thought, to see if we can't do > better than this. I don't have all the answers, and I don't purport to > have all the answers. I am simply describing what I see to be a > desirable goal, that of an elevated level of professionalism in our > field. I don't think we'll get there by just hoping that individuals do > a better job. Perhaps, but I think it's important to understand that there are sound reasons for which free software is in many cases much more "professional" than commercial software, and there are sound reasons for which it would be completely crippling to our industry to make it harder, rather than easier, to make and distribute free software. -s -- Copyright 2010, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach / usenet-nospam(a)seebs.net http://www.seebs.net/log/ <-- lawsuits, religion, and funny pictures http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology) <-- get educated!
From: spinoza1111 on 13 Feb 2010 12:52 On Feb 5, 7:19 pm, Stefan Kiryazov <stefan.kirya...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Hi all, > > I am doing a research about motivation in software development, the > most efficient practices to motivate software engineers, their > popularity, etc. > > As a part of the research, I am doing an online survey for software > engineers and managers in software development. It takes just several > minutes and filling it is a good opportunity to share your opinion > about the motivation practices being used in the software industry > today:http://ask.wizefish.com/en/MotivationSurvey.aspx > > Anyone who does the survey and leaves any contacts will be sent the > results. > > Also, if someone is running a web site or blog dedicated to any aspect > of software development we can do some link exchange. > > Regards, > Stefan Kiryazov (Sigh) To understand software professionals you have to understand software. Why do psychologists and MBAs not understand that to really do an adequate job at "studying" a fully huamn endeavor both from the standpoint of decency-towards-others and mere truth, they have to do what (some) anthropologists call "thick description" and also "participant observer"? Anthropologist Diane Vaughan successfully studied a technical phenomenon: the crash of the Challenger Space Shuttle. She did so as a participant observer and using thick description, not questionnaires with all sorts of hidden bias, including the basic bias of a questionnaire: the people who respond to it are the sort of people who actually like answering questionnaires.
From: Arved Sandstrom on 13 Feb 2010 12:56 Seebs wrote: > On 2010-02-13, Arved Sandstrom <dcest61(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> The whole point of the discussion was, I thought, to see if we can't do >> better than this. I don't have all the answers, and I don't purport to >> have all the answers. I am simply describing what I see to be a >> desirable goal, that of an elevated level of professionalism in our >> field. I don't think we'll get there by just hoping that individuals do >> a better job. > > Perhaps, but I think it's important to understand that there are sound reasons > for which free software is in many cases much more "professional" than > commercial software, and there are sound reasons for which it would be > completely crippling to our industry to make it harder, rather than easier, > to make and distribute free software. > > -s Let's take it as a given that free software has a decent model. I've been, and still am, a participant in the process of creating free software, and I wouldn't do that if it wasn't a good model. However, the main problem with it is that it engages only a small fraction of all software developers, and accounts for only a very small fraction of all software that is written. I can also think of many cases where free software, even when absorbing the attention of many enthusiastic and competent developers, does not compare favourably to commercial equivalents. Free software is not a superior model except insofar as where a particular problem attracts enough above-average developers with time on their hands, they have good synergy, and they stay the course. As you say, and what I agree with, the successful free software seems to have settled into the areas of infrastructure and also common programs (like office suites and image editing, as a few examples). That latter category is also infrastructure in a way. But the real problem, which is not addressed by free software, and which comprises the huge majority of all software, is custom stuff. And it is this category that suffers, and suffers badly, from the lack of professionalism in our field. It is this category where clients would benefit from having proven, guaranteed quantities when it comes to employees/contractors and products. AHS
From: Seebs on 13 Feb 2010 13:00 On 2010-02-13, Arved Sandstrom <dcest61(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > Let's take it as a given that free software has a decent model. I've > been, and still am, a participant in the process of creating free > software, and I wouldn't do that if it wasn't a good model. However, the > main problem with it is that it engages only a small fraction of all > software developers, and accounts for only a very small fraction of all > software that is written. Agreed. But it's crucial infrastructure, and any policy discouraging it would deal immense damage to fundamental infrastructure. People *MUST* be free to give code away without any kind of liability. > I can also think of many cases where free software, even when absorbing > the attention of many enthusiastic and competent developers, does not > compare favourably to commercial equivalents. Free software is not a > superior model except insofar as where a particular problem attracts > enough above-average developers with time on their hands, they have good > synergy, and they stay the course. Sure. But... The set of things that can be done well as free software has consistently increased over time. It was not that long ago that people would grant that emacs was a good editor, but insist that you couldn't do a decent free compiler. Then it was possible to do a decent free compiler, but not a decent free operating system. Then it was word processors. > But the real problem, which is not addressed by free software, and which > comprises the huge majority of all software, is custom stuff. And it is > this category that suffers, and suffers badly, from the lack of > professionalism in our field. It is this category where clients would > benefit from having proven, guaranteed quantities when it comes to > employees/contractors and products. And if it were possible to measure the things we really care about, that might be very useful. But it appears not to be. That said, I agree that it would make sense to increase the scope of prospective liability *for commercial software*. That is to say, if you are paying for software, it may make sense to create a relationship in which there could be liability. But if you add liability to software which is given away for free, it will destroy our infrastructure. People who create contractual relationships can put liability clauses in them, and often do. That works fine. It might be nice to set minimum liability or warranty on software which is paid for, though. For instance, I wouldn't see any big risk to our society if there were a minimum cap of the full purchase price of software for damage done by faults in that software. (As in, no matter what the contract says, if it does damage, you can recoup that damage, up to the full purchase price.) We'd need to address some of the craziness of licensing and so on... But fundamentally, the problem is a lot more with Microsoft and the EULA model than it is with free software, and any proposed "fix" which would cripple free software while Microsoft could continue to run roughshod over it is clearly not a good fix. I think that if we had a working liability model for commercial software, the market would probably be able to develop working models for how to determine whether developers were competent. Right now, the primary problem isn't that we can't determine whether developers are competent, it's that people don't particularly care. -s -- Copyright 2010, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach / usenet-nospam(a)seebs.net http://www.seebs.net/log/ <-- lawsuits, religion, and funny pictures http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology) <-- get educated!
From: LR on 13 Feb 2010 13:07
James Kanze wrote: > On Feb 11, 9:33 pm, Andy Champ <no....(a)nospam.invalid> wrote: >> Lew wrote: > >>> Andy Champ wrote: >>>> In 1982 the manager may well have been right to stop them >>>> wasting their time fixing a problem that wasn't going to be >>>> a problem for another 18 years or so. The software was >>>> probably out of use long before that. > >>> Sure, that's why so many programs had to be re-written in 1999. > >>> Where do you get your conclusions? > >> Pretty well everything I saw back in 1982 was out of use by >> 1999. How much software do you know that made the transition? > >> Let's see.. Operating systems. The PC world was... umm.. CP/M >> 80? Maybe MS-Dos 1.0? And by 1999 I was working on drivers >> for Windows 2000. That's at least two, maybe three depending >> how you count it, ground-up re-writes of the OS. > >> With that almost all the PC apps had gone from 8 bit versions >> in 64kb of RAM to 16-bit DOS to Windows 3.1 16-bit with >> non-preemptive multitasking and finally to a 32-bit app with >> multi-threading and pre-emptive multitasking running in >> hundreds of megs. > >> OK, so how about embedded stuff? That dot-matrix printer >> became a laserjet. The terminal concentrator lost its RS232 >> ports, gained a proprietary LAN, then lost that and got >> ethernet. And finally evaporated in a cloud of client-server >> computing smoke. > > The "standard" life of a railway locomotive is thirty or fourty > years. Some of the Paris suburbain trainsets go back to the > early 1970's, or earlier, and they're still running. Do you happen to know if they've undergone any engineering changes over those 40 years for safety or performance enhancements? With worn/damaged parts replacement how much of the original equipment remains? Wheel sets, motors, controls, seats, doors, couplers, windshields, etc. all get inspected and replaced on schedule. Not all locomotives last 40 years. Design flaws can contribute to a shorter life. For example the Erie Triplex. http://www.dself.dsl.pipex.com/MUSEUM/LOCOLOCO/triplex/triplex.htm Although design flaws played a part in the death of the Jawn Henry, I've heard that N&W's business was undergoing changes and undercut the companies desire to invest in coal fired power. http://www.dself.dsl.pipex.com/MUSEUM/LOCOLOCO/nwturbine/nflkturb.htm >> Where do you get your conclusions that there was much software >> out there that was worth re-writing eighteen years ahead of >> time? To continue with our locomotives, the replacement of coal fired steam by diesel and electric (No, no, not this one: http://www.dself.dsl.pipex.com/MUSEUM/LOCOLOCO/swisselec/swisselc.htm ;) ) power was largely driven by maintenance cost, the sort that replaces the lubricating oil, not the kind that replaces faulty brake systems, although this played a role too. It's nice to be able to buy parts OTS if you need them rather than have a huge work force ready to make parts. I think ultimately the RRs asked themselves if they were in the locomotive business or the transportation business. LR |