BLU Discuss list archive
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Discuss] licensing: who freakin cares?
- Subject: [Discuss] licensing: who freakin cares?
- From: richard.pieri at gmail.com (Rich Pieri)
- Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2016 14:08:01 -0400
- In-reply-to: <570a8b4d.aa71b60a.caae0.ffff9a3aSMTPIN_ADDED_BROKEN@mx.google.com>
- References: <1E33A4DC-8FF0-4688-87B6-9C61D8AC45CA@icloud.com> <570a8b4d.aa71b60a.caae0.ffff9a3aSMTPIN_ADDED_BROKEN@mx.google.com>
On 4/10/2016 5:19 PM, jc at trillian.mit.edu wrote: > Hmmm ... My personal experience is of being pushed in exactly that > direction by "management", while the developers were pushing for > more/better testing, standards compliance, etc. But the primary > motive of most managers I've known is to get the product out the door > and producing comapany income. We can fix the problems when users > report them. In other words, the push for quality usually comes from > the developers, while management normally wants the least quality > that they think they can sell. This also is an unfortunate state of affairs. Please don't take my condemnation of RMS's goals as approval of the bad stuff we currently have. It's not. Rather, what RMS wants is *at least as bad* as the bad stuff we have now. > The open-source work I've been involved in has rarely acted this way. > Part of the reason is that if the leaders try it, people just quietly > drop off the team and start working on something else. Or they fork > the project and do the needed work themselves (leading to the usual > hassles if they try to merge it back into the main package). This is the promise of free and open source software. When it works it works really well, but when it fails it fails worse than any by the dollars MBA. The GCC cadre is my go-to example of such failure. Lack of innovation (GCC falling behind commercial and open source compilers' performance), failure to keep up with standards (GCC's C and C++ compilers are way behind current standards for these languages), rejection of contributions from outside sources (the rejection of Clang integration), and low general code quality (everything Linus Torvalds ranted about GCC 4.9). And as a second example, one that I was briefly involved with: Claws Mail. One of their core developers stated that losing mail is an acceptable tradeoff for performance and the others did not dissent. To say that I was horrified by this is an understatement. Losing mail is unacceptable. Period. You generally don't see this kind of management behavior in aerospace and heavy industry. The stakes are far too high. After all, you can't fix it in production when your product is in an Airbus A350 cruising at Mach 0.85 at 40,000 feet above the Atlantic Ocean. And "we'll fix it in production" turned out not to work for Facebook, either. Their old "move fast, break things" philosophy did not sit will with their customers. Paying advertisers and developers didn't like it when their ads and games weren't being served to users because chunks of the infrastructure were broken. So, when push came to shove, Facebook changed their philosophy. It's now "move fast, stable infra" because they don't get paid when production breaks. -- Rich P.
- Follow-Ups:
- [Discuss] licensing: who freakin cares?
- From: rlk at alum.mit.edu (Robert Krawitz)
- [Discuss] licensing: who freakin cares?
- References:
- [Discuss] licensing: who freakin cares?
- From: eric.chadbourne at icloud.com (Eric Chadbourne)
- [Discuss] licensing: who freakin cares?
- Prev by Date: [Discuss] licensing: who freakin cares?
- Next by Date: [Discuss] Simplest HTML hosting for a 9-year-old engineer?
- Previous by thread: [Discuss] licensing: who freakin cares?
- Next by thread: [Discuss] licensing: who freakin cares?
- Index(es):