more fuel for the outsourcing debate
-
George wrote: Software is evolving into the fire-fight model. It works in typical situation and if any unexpected conditions happen it fails flat and the "rescue team" is called in to fix the problem, often by rebooting the system so it "works" again until the next crash. Hmm I thought it was only me that used that term. I once spent a whole year doing nothing but fire fighting for a company in which no sooner had I fixed the bugs in one part of some crappy piece of software another piece of software would crash and burn. It wasn't exactly my most inspiring year in software development. Still I wonder where that term came from? Is it something we've read or a collective experience thing that has just ended up being called the same thing? pseudonym67 Neural Dot Net Articles 1-11 Start Here[^]
pseudonym67 wrote: It wasn't exactly my most inspiring year in software development. Been there, done that. pseudonym67 wrote: Still I wonder where that term came from? Is it something we've read or a collective experience thing that has just ended up being called the same thing? Well, the only other term I've heard that would be used in a similar context is "I'm up to my arse in alligators". Firefighting seems to be a suitable analogy, so it's stuck and become the standard. -- Ian Darling If I was any more loopy, I'd be infinite.
-
George wrote: The software is not better or more reliable - it's just more complex and bigger, but I can still crash the latest OS with couple lines of code containing printf statement and few "\b" characters in it. You mean this:
#include <stdio.h> int main() { for( ; ; ) { printf("Hung up\t\b\b\b\b\b\b"); } return 0; }Doesn't crash my box (XP), just sits in a nice infinite loop . I do remember that flaw in 2K though (and I believe has been patched). I'll try it on my 2K3 box later, and I bet you a pint that won't fall over either. Incidentally, my 2K3 box is running IIS6 in it's default config, and that hasn't been hacked after over a month (not for the lack of trying). IIS4 would have been rooted within a day in it's default config. George wrote: I appreciate your optimism, but it's not the way it works I'm afraid Software is evolving into the fire-fight model. It works in typical situation and if any unexpected conditions happen it fails flat and the "rescue team" is called in to fix the problem, often by rebooting the system so it "works" again until the next crash. I'll respectfully disagree - I've worked for a company in the past that used that model, and almost everyone who worked there left within a year or two of joining for more professional companies. Most of the software companies I have dealt with don't operate like that, and the one I work for doesn't either. If the industry as a whole went the fire-fighting way, I'd go do something else (possibly a gigolo? :-D), and screw the lot of y'all. Well, at least we've got some ideas for the next poll: Is software becoming more or less reliable? Is software development turning into fire-fighting? How about it Chris? -- Ian Darling If I was any more loopy, I'd be infinite.Ian Darling wrote: You mean this: I think you can tinker the code to crash XP as well. I used to have a crash-them-all version somewhere at home, I may look it up for you. There was no loop there, and it was possible to make hung the DOS window or blue-screen or just reboot depending on the actual code. Ian Darling wrote: I'll respectfully disagree Thanks. Ian Darling wrote: Well, at least we've got some ideas for the next poll: It IS a good idea for the poll! ;)
/* I C++, therefore I am... */
-
George wrote: Software is evolving into the fire-fight model. It works in typical situation and if any unexpected conditions happen it fails flat and the "rescue team" is called in to fix the problem, often by rebooting the system so it "works" again until the next crash. Hmm I thought it was only me that used that term. I once spent a whole year doing nothing but fire fighting for a company in which no sooner had I fixed the bugs in one part of some crappy piece of software another piece of software would crash and burn. It wasn't exactly my most inspiring year in software development. Still I wonder where that term came from? Is it something we've read or a collective experience thing that has just ended up being called the same thing? pseudonym67 Neural Dot Net Articles 1-11 Start Here[^]
-
http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/internet/07/30/jobs.oversees.reut/index.html[^] "Suddenly we have a profession -- computer programming -- that has to wake up and consider what value it really has to offer," pseudonym67 Neural Dot Net Articles 1-11 Start Here[^]
pseudonym67 wrote: Suddenly we have a profession BS. I've been doing this for twenty five years. The industry has existed for twice that. This is just the usual fear mongering as changes occurs within an industry. Chris Meech "what makes CP different is the people and sense of community, things people will only discover if they join up and join in." Christian Graus Nov 14, 2002. Oh and for those that ask programming questions in the lounge. Seek the truth here[^].
-
George wrote: In fact quite the opposite. We are starting to see more cheap, shitty software all around. There is a huge reduction on business analisys and quality assurance spending as well as workforce involved in development, it will not increase reliability but it will reduce the cost, at least in the short term. Right, so that's why companies like Microsoft (who are now more or less a mature organisation) are releasing increasingly better and more reliable software? I made no claims about the current state of software, just what it will eventually turn into. The industry is currently at a crossing point - those organisations that are maturing will produce better software, and those trying to purely cut costs without managing the changes those cuts make correctly will release crap, and eventually go out of business, leaving a mature set of IT companies who know what they are doing. Almost no business will put up with software that doesn't work properly any more, and that will result in forcing the industry to get it's act together. -- Ian Darling If I was any more loopy, I'd be infinite.
Ian Darling wrote: companies like Microsoft Don't get me started mate. Microsoft is unique, and that's more than enough for all the damages they are doing. Taking advantage of InternetExplorer to steal user's name and password. Taking advantage of InternetExplorer to steal user's clipboard.
-
George wrote: Software is evolving into the fire-fight model. It works in typical situation and if any unexpected conditions happen it fails flat and the "rescue team" is called in to fix the problem, often by rebooting the system so it "works" again until the next crash. Hmm I thought it was only me that used that term. I once spent a whole year doing nothing but fire fighting for a company in which no sooner had I fixed the bugs in one part of some crappy piece of software another piece of software would crash and burn. It wasn't exactly my most inspiring year in software development. Still I wonder where that term came from? Is it something we've read or a collective experience thing that has just ended up being called the same thing? pseudonym67 Neural Dot Net Articles 1-11 Start Here[^]
I've heard the term "fire fighting" used in other industries too. It's just a common way to refer to a reactionary work environment where every problem ends out being urgent. I think "plug up another hole" used to be used referring to a sinking ship. Aside: I don't really believe any of it will change for a long time. It's a mentallity issue, not a methodology issue. most people do only the amount required to "get by". An occassional "pep rally" might boost pro-activity for a bit, but essentially the labor force is a group of directionless, unmotivated blobs. Myself included sometimes(as can be seen by me posting during work hours). BW "In a world full of people, only some want to fly,Isn't that crazy?" - Seal
-
Ian Darling wrote: Right, so that's why companies like Microsoft (who are now more or less a mature organisation) are releasing increasingly better and more reliable software? The software is not better or more reliable - it's just more complex and bigger, but I can still crash the latest OS with couple lines of code containing printf statement and few "\b" characters in it. I appreciate your optimism, but it's not the way it works I'm afraid :( Software is evolving into the fire-fight model. It works in typical situation and if any unexpected conditions happen it fails flat and the "rescue team" is called in to fix the problem, often by rebooting the system so it "works" again until the next crash.
/* I C++, therefore I am... */
George wrote: but I can still crash the latest OS with couple lines of code containing printf statement and few "\b" characters in it. so what? Part of selling a product is the preception that something has changed, and for the better. Obscure bugs like this generally don't surface for 99.9% of useres, and so little time is spent on repairing them. It's a matter of getting the most result for your time and money, and not writing flawless technically perfect code (whatever that is). Although, the fire-fighting things does bother the hell out of me. And its not just software, its business as usual in my opinion. BW "In a world full of people, only some want to fly,Isn't that crazy?" - Seal
-
Ian Darling wrote: Right, so that's why companies like Microsoft (who are now more or less a mature organisation) are releasing increasingly better and more reliable software? The software is not better or more reliable - it's just more complex and bigger, but I can still crash the latest OS with couple lines of code containing printf statement and few "\b" characters in it. I appreciate your optimism, but it's not the way it works I'm afraid :( Software is evolving into the fire-fight model. It works in typical situation and if any unexpected conditions happen it fails flat and the "rescue team" is called in to fix the problem, often by rebooting the system so it "works" again until the next crash.
/* I C++, therefore I am... */
George wrote: Software is evolving into the fire-fight model. It works in typical situation and if any unexpected conditions happen it fails flat and the "rescue team" is called in to fix the problem, often by rebooting the system so it "works" again until the next crash. Unfortunately, there's truth in this statement.
-
George wrote: In fact quite the opposite. We are starting to see more cheap, shitty software all around. There is a huge reduction on business analisys and quality assurance spending as well as workforce involved in development, it will not increase reliability but it will reduce the cost, at least in the short term. Right, so that's why companies like Microsoft (who are now more or less a mature organisation) are releasing increasingly better and more reliable software? I made no claims about the current state of software, just what it will eventually turn into. The industry is currently at a crossing point - those organisations that are maturing will produce better software, and those trying to purely cut costs without managing the changes those cuts make correctly will release crap, and eventually go out of business, leaving a mature set of IT companies who know what they are doing. Almost no business will put up with software that doesn't work properly any more, and that will result in forcing the industry to get it's act together. -- Ian Darling If I was any more loopy, I'd be infinite.
Companies like microsoft who are layering more and more crap on top of increasing obsolete code so that sending a simple text based email probably consumes enough electricty and cpu cycles to calculate the horoscopes of everyone on the planet and deorbit a shuttle mission, whilst providing intel and the enrons of the world a nice little earner. Software will eventually become a significant portion of mankind's intellectual capital, increasingly more complex and deep. spanning all knowledge. less buggy or crappy than the human mind I very much doubt it.
-
George wrote: but I can still crash the latest OS with couple lines of code containing printf statement and few "\b" characters in it. so what? Part of selling a product is the preception that something has changed, and for the better. Obscure bugs like this generally don't surface for 99.9% of useres, and so little time is spent on repairing them. It's a matter of getting the most result for your time and money, and not writing flawless technically perfect code (whatever that is). Although, the fire-fighting things does bother the hell out of me. And its not just software, its business as usual in my opinion. BW "In a world full of people, only some want to fly,Isn't that crazy?" - Seal
brianwelsch wrote: so what? OS should NEVER crash running an ordinary piece of software. But since MS got people used to bugs most users just says "so what". But we are here professionals and one has to see the difference between the "perception" and the reality. The reality is that software is not getting any more stable or reliable and doesn't even work much faster inspite of growing computing power due to increasing pile of crap being produced. MS for example is wasting resource developing increasingly ugly and counter-intuitive types of menus, buttons and other GUI parts that worked perfectly before while obscure, and well-known bugs are left in the product for ages.
/* I C++, therefore I am... */
-
brianwelsch wrote: so what? OS should NEVER crash running an ordinary piece of software. But since MS got people used to bugs most users just says "so what". But we are here professionals and one has to see the difference between the "perception" and the reality. The reality is that software is not getting any more stable or reliable and doesn't even work much faster inspite of growing computing power due to increasing pile of crap being produced. MS for example is wasting resource developing increasingly ugly and counter-intuitive types of menus, buttons and other GUI parts that worked perfectly before while obscure, and well-known bugs are left in the product for ages.
/* I C++, therefore I am... */
My XP box at home, and 2000 at work, remain up for weeks at a time. Actually, the only reason I've rebooted in recent history is because of power failure, or some change on the network. Compared to 95. well there really is no comparison. It's head and shoulders. regarding MS software, I'd be much much happier if I could use Office rather than the crap known as Lotus Notes, I like IE better than any other browser I've tried, MS Money does a fine job handling my finances, AOK is a hell of a game, VS seems to work fine for me, I'm functionally an idiot regarding networks, but set one up using XP Pro within an hour or two. For what I do, I've never sat around complaining about response time either. What are you looking for? or what applications have gaping flaws? If you want a top of the line suit, that fits perfectly, never frays, and looks sharp, you're going to pay a few grand for it. The problem is noone wants to pay for top of the line software, they'd rather have something cheap that gets 95%+ of the job done. The connoisseur will always spend an inordinate amount of time discussing pros and cons of the old and new. Which is OK, it just doesn't matter to most people, and so less time is spent on it. Just my thoughts. :) BW "In a world full of people, only some want to fly,Isn't that crazy?" - Seal