1st place prize: Ubuntu 8.04 Long Term Slop - Linux

This is a discussion on 1st place prize: Ubuntu 8.04 Long Term Slop - Linux ; Ian Hilliard writes: > Hadron wrote: > >>> construct the project to be able to handle these things without having >>> any major effect. If you were a real project manager, you would realize >>> that. Clearly you don't. >> ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 97

Thread: 1st place prize: Ubuntu 8.04 Long Term Slop

  1. Re: 1st place prize: Ubuntu 8.04 Long Term Slop

    Ian Hilliard writes:

    > Hadron wrote:
    >
    >>> construct the project to be able to handle these things without having
    >>> any major effect. If you were a real project manager, you would realize
    >>> that. Clearly you don't.

    >>
    >> You're a blowhard.

    >
    > Just because I have tried to provide you with some good knowledge does not
    > make me a blowhard. On the other hand, only a fool rejects good advice.
    >
    >> The nature of things coming from the "left field"
    >> (you should be in Dilbert) means you can not possibly account for all
    >> things. e.g Lets say in the last acceptance phase it was suddenly
    >> realised that they forgot to ask for X. X totally effects the design of
    >> the rest. Whoops.

    >
    > A flexible design is able to cope with incremental changes in
    > requirements.


    Err, yes. No one said anything different. But you being a blowhard seem
    to think that "incremental" means only "little adjustments". This marks
    you out as a jobsworth team leader or a wannabe.

    > Unfortunately, a large percentage of the Windows only IT industry have
    > never learnt to do good flexible design which is is able to handle a
    > seachange.


    Garbage. Unless your only criteria is multi platform.

    >
    >>
    >> And I don't believe even the mighty you can design a project which can
    >> encompass all unknowns and have it come in under budgets and schedule
    >> UNLESS you're one of these morons that adds 50% to all task estimates
    >> and then quadruples the final estimate. It never ceases to amaze me how
    >> many people do just that.

    >
    > There is no need to add 50% to the estimates. You don't have to plan for all
    > the eventualities. You just have firm change control and keep the design
    > flexible with firm assignment of functionality to components.


    More long wind. The nature of changes is not being sure what they might be.

    >
    > I realize that I am wasting my time trying to explain the technique, because
    > you clearly don't want to learn. As such, I would say that this thread is
    > finished.


    I would say you're full of it. And having managed big projects I know
    for a fact that you're blowing a lot of hot air.

    >
    > Ian
    >


    --
    Are we going to make an emacs out of apt?
    APT - Debian in a program. It even does your laundry
    -- Seen on #Debian

  2. Re: 1st place prize: Ubuntu 8.04 Long Term Slop

    Gregory Shearman writes:

    > On 2008-05-18, Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:
    >> On Wed, 14 May 2008 21:54:20 +0000, Gregory Shearman wrote:
    >>
    >>> On 2008-05-14, The Ghost In The Machine
    >>> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>> Of course "platform" has more meaning when one realizes Linux code can
    >>>> be ported to almost two dozen totally different microprocessors, with
    >>>> some care (because of the endianity problem).
    >>>
    >>> I code using linux on the x86, mips and arm architectures and I've never
    >>> had a problem with endianity. As far as I'm aware, the CPU looks after
    >>> the stuffing of bytes between the registers and memory... and the use of
    >>> bit masks and the "<<" ">>" C language bit shift operators all work
    >>> transparently despite "endianity".

    >>
    >> Assuming one writes one's C code properly. There's a fair bit of bad C
    >> code out there.

    >
    > It means making your data portable, ie use either ascii representation
    > or network byte order to transmit integers floats etc across the
    > network...


    Actually it doesn't mean anything like that. It means coding the
    relevant drivers to understand the protocol in use. "ascii
    representation" means jack.

    --
    Are we going to make an emacs out of apt?
    APT - Debian in a program. It even does your laundry
    -- Seen on #Debian

  3. Re: 1st place prize: Ubuntu 8.04 Long Term Slop

    Hadron wrote:

    > I would say you're full of it. And having managed big projects I know
    > for a fact that you're blowing a lot of hot air.


    So when are you going to back up your claims, Mr. Big Project Manager,
    advocator of open source software, contributor to same, Commissar of the
    Central Linux Committee?

    The only real truth is you're a lying Wintroll who delights in stalking a
    newsgroup devoted to an OS you despise and have never used.
    --
    Regards,
    [tv]

    ....Sushi: known to the rest of the world as 'Bait'

    Owner/Proprietor, Cheesus Crust Pizza Company
    Good to the last supper

  4. Re: 1st place prize: Ubuntu 8.04 Long Term Slop

    * Gregory Shearman peremptorily fired off this memo:

    > On 2008-05-18, Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:
    >> On Wed, 14 May 2008 21:54:20 +0000, Gregory Shearman wrote:
    >>
    >>> On 2008-05-14, The Ghost In The Machine
    >>> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>> Of course "platform" has more meaning when one realizes Linux code can
    >>>> be ported to almost two dozen totally different microprocessors, with
    >>>> some care (because of the endianity problem).
    >>>
    >>> I code using linux on the x86, mips and arm architectures and I've never
    >>> had a problem with endianity. As far as I'm aware, the CPU looks after
    >>> the stuffing of bytes between the registers and memory... and the use of
    >>> bit masks and the "<<" ">>" C language bit shift operators all work
    >>> transparently despite "endianity".

    >>
    >> Assuming one writes one's C code properly. There's a fair bit of bad C
    >> code out there.

    >
    > It means making your data portable, ie use either ascii representation
    > or network byte order to transmit integers floats etc across the
    > network...


    You could always use SOAP:

    http://wanderingbarque.com/noninters...ds-for-simple/

    { 2006 11 15 }
    The S stands for Simple

    There has been a long running debate in the Application Platform
    Services Group here at Burton Group between the REST people on one side
    and the SOAP people on the other. For the most part it mirrors the
    external debate. In one recent exchange, while discussing the complexity
    of SOAP and the web services framework, the SOAP side said, "Before
    all of the WS-* stuff, SOAP was actually simple. That's what the
    'S' stood for."

    --
    If something's expensive to develop, and somebody's not going to get paid,
    it won't get developed. So you decide: Do you want software to be
    written, or not?
    -- Bill Gates

  5. Re: 1st place prize: Ubuntu 8.04 Long Term Slop

    Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:

    > I tend to add some wiggle room into the mix, for the simple reason that
    > every project I've worked on, it turns out there is some aspect which
    > ends up not having been sufficiently defined, or if sufficiently defined,
    > turns out not to accurately reflect what the customer actually wanted.
    > Don't quadruple, don't even add 50% except on the most trivial projects
    > (eg ones estimated to take a day to complete) but do include a bit of
    > breathing room; even the most flexible design still requires some time to
    > cope with the unforeseen.
    >


    What is necessary is a full risk analysis and then add the expected risk
    costs into the final estimate. There may also be changes made to the
    project, which can reduce the risk. There is however the need to have
    a "Standard Risk" entry, which amounts to 20% of the total estimate before
    adding any other risk values.

    The risk analysis also helps in defining the order of development with the
    technology to be rated "Black, Grey and White". Black is high risk, Grey is
    moderate and white is low risk. As there needs to be a module test
    framework in place before coding begins, it is relatively easy to develop
    the black modules first as they may end up taking longer than expected.
    This risk time should appear in the RIM table. It is also clear there needs
    to be enough slack time in the project to permit the black modules to be
    developed, even if there is considerable slipage. I find the easiest way of
    achieving this is to have the risk time added to each module in the Gantt
    chart.

    There are projects where some modules are so high risk that it is necessary
    to have a preproject. Only when the 'doability' has been proven does the
    actual project start.

    All these things just come under the heading of "Project Management". Then
    again, the projects that I work on have big budgets. As a result, small
    errors can end up being very expensive.

    Ian

  6. Re: 1st place prize: Ubuntu 8.04 Long Term Slop

    Ian Hilliard writes:

    > Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:
    >
    >> I tend to add some wiggle room into the mix, for the simple reason that
    >> every project I've worked on, it turns out there is some aspect which
    >> ends up not having been sufficiently defined, or if sufficiently
    >> defined,


    COLA advocates restate the bleeding obvious once more.

    >> turns out not to accurately reflect what the customer actually wanted.
    >> Don't quadruple, don't even add 50% except on the most trivial projects
    >> (eg ones estimated to take a day to complete) but do include a bit of
    >> breathing room; even the most flexible design still requires some time to
    >> cope with the unforeseen.
    >>

    >
    > What is necessary is a full risk analysis and then add the expected risk
    > costs into the final estimate. There may also be changes made to the
    > project, which can reduce the risk. There is however the need to have
    > a "Standard Risk" entry, which amounts to 20% of the total estimate before
    > adding any other risk values.


    Bah. Standard waffle. Nothing to see here.

    >
    > The risk analysis also helps in defining the order of development with the
    > technology to be rated "Black, Grey and White". Black is high risk, Grey is
    > moderate and white is low risk. As there needs to be a module test
    > framework in place before coding begins, it is relatively easy to develop
    > the black modules first as they may end up taking longer than
    > expected.


    Assuming they are correctly identified.

    > This risk time should appear in the RIM table. It is also clear there needs
    > to be enough slack time in the project to permit the black modules to be
    > developed, even if there is considerable slipage. I find the easiest way of
    > achieving this is to have the risk time added to each module in the Gantt
    > chart.
    >
    > There are projects where some modules are so high risk that it is necessary
    > to have a preproject. Only when the 'doability' has been proven does the
    > actual project start.
    >
    > All these things just come under the heading of "Project Management". Then
    > again, the projects that I work on have big budgets. As a result, small
    > errors can end up being very expensive.
    >
    > Ian


    How would you know? It seems you're so far up your self with arse
    covering methodologies your wonderful projects never ever arrive
    late. As I said - make an estimate and treble it.

  7. Re: 1st place prize: Ubuntu 8.04 Long Term Slop

    Hadron wrote:

    > How would you know? It seems you're so far up your self with arse
    > covering methodologies your wonderful projects never ever arrive
    > late. As I said - make an estimate and treble it.


    You're an idiot. Nothing to see here.

    Ian

  8. Re: 1st place prize: Ubuntu 8.04 Long Term Slop

    Ian Hilliard writes:

    > Hadron wrote:
    >
    >> How would you know? It seems you're so far up your self with arse
    >> covering methodologies your wonderful projects never ever arrive
    >> late. As I said - make an estimate and treble it.

    >
    > You're an idiot. Nothing to see here.
    >
    > Ian


    You still do not see that at the end of the day you have saidnothing
    more than the above? Except in long Dilbert'esque monologues.

    You claim to have some sort of failsafe system yet when one filters your
    monologues one sees:

    1) Flexible design (?!)
    2) Allow some room for error
    3) Try to isolate problematic areas for special approach
    4) Allow some more room for error

    Remember this all comes from your ridiculous claims that you choose the
    PLATFORM *AFTER* you have designed and implemented the system. And
    *anyone* with 2 minutes experience knows this to complete and utter
    garbage. Often the design and the approach taken on a system will be
    based on a certain platform in order to utilise the features of that
    platform. Not everything can be a "single entry point".

    Sorry, but you're full of hot air and blather. i dont disagree with
    everything you say, far from it, but you're pouring it on to make it
    sound like some sort of wonderful cure all approach that only ubner
    Managers like you can understand. There is no such thing as projects
    prove time and time again when things you could not possibly have seen
    come out from "left of stage".

  9. Re: 1st place prize: Ubuntu 8.04 Long Term Slop

    Hadron wrote:

    > Remember this all comes from your ridiculous claims that you choose the
    > PLATFORM AFTER you have designed and implemented the system. And
    > anyone with 2 minutes experience knows this to complete and utter
    > garbage. Often the design and the approach taken on a system will be
    > based on a certain platform in order to utilise the features of that
    > platform. Not everything can be a "single entry point".


    I stated that the code is developed to be generic and it is tested on a
    number of differnet platforms. This permits a platform change, should the
    preferred platform be unsuitable.

    It is quite easy to make a single point of access to all external
    interfaces. Making access to system API's over an an abstraction requires
    some extra work, once. Once that is done, it considerably reduces the
    amount of work. Added to that, there are different tools available for
    different platforms, which then show up different errors in the code.

    If you do not wish to learn, it is up to you. However, do not continue
    showing your stupidity by taking the point of view, "If I don't do it, it
    must be wrong."

    Ian

  10. Re: 1st place prize: Ubuntu 8.04 Long Term Slop

    On Mon, 19 May 2008 18:57:44 +0800, Ian Hilliard wrote:

    > Hadron wrote:
    >
    >> Remember this all comes from your ridiculous claims that you choose the
    >> PLATFORM AFTER you have designed and implemented the system. And anyone
    >> with 2 minutes experience knows this to complete and utter garbage.
    >> Often the design and the approach taken on a system will be based on a
    >> certain platform in order to utilise the features of that platform. Not
    >> everything can be a "single entry point".

    >
    > I stated that the code is developed to be generic and it is tested on a
    > number of differnet platforms. This permits a platform change, should the
    > preferred platform be unsuitable.
    >
    > It is quite easy to make a single point of access to all external
    > interfaces. Making access to system API's over an an abstraction requires
    > some extra work, once. Once that is done, it considerably reduces the
    > amount of work. Added to that, there are different tools available for
    > different platforms, which then show up different errors in the code.
    >
    > If you do not wish to learn, it is up to you. However, do not continue
    > showing your stupidity by taking the point of view, "If I don't do it, it
    > must be wrong."


    As you've no doubt discovered, "It's Hadrons' own little world of
    arrogance. His contributions are mostly telling you how stupid you are."
    Bill Baka
    Message-ID:
    Newsgroups: alt.os.linux.ubuntu
    Date: Sat, 08 Mar 2008

    As others have discovered about the troll:-


    He is a self-proclaimed authority on everything, yet seems to know
    nothing but how to insult people.

    Major asshole.

    From: Bill Baka
    Message-ID: <3bFBj.316$Rq1.146@nlpi068.nbdc.sbc.com>
    Newsgroups: alt.os.linux.ubuntu


    You know, I only see 2 arrogant posts in this thread by a self-proclaimed
    newsgroup king which happens to be your posts.

    From: Stephan Rose
    Message-ID:
    Newsgroups: alt.os.linux.ubuntu
    Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007


    $ sudo aptitude install ounce_of_credibility
    aptitude: ounce_of_credibility not found.

    From: Mark South
    Message-ID: <4766d025$1_3@news.bluewin.ch>
    Newsgroups: alt.os.linux.ubuntu
    Date: 17 Dec 2007

    --
    Mandriva 2008.1 64-bit.
    This message was sent from a
    computer which is guaranteed
    100% free of the M$ Windoze virus.

  11. Re: 1st place prize: Ubuntu 8.04 Long Term Slop

    Ian Hilliard writes:

    > Hadron wrote:
    >
    >> Remember this all comes from your ridiculous claims that you choose the
    >> PLATFORM AFTER you have designed and implemented the system. And
    >> anyone with 2 minutes experience knows this to complete and utter
    >> garbage. Often the design and the approach taken on a system will be
    >> based on a certain platform in order to utilise the features of that
    >> platform. Not everything can be a "single entry point".

    >
    > I stated that the code is developed to be generic and it is tested on a
    > number of differnet platforms. This permits a platform change, should the
    > preferred platform be unsuitable.


    The slink.

    >
    > It is quite easy to make a single point of access to all external
    > interfaces. Making access to system API's over an an abstraction requires
    > some extra work, once. Once that is done, it considerably reduces the


    Actually it requires a lot. Unless there is a system independent API
    already there which covers all requirements.

    > amount of work. Added to that, there are different tools available for
    > different platforms, which then show up different errors in the code.


    More waffle. So what? We all know what tools are there to help programmers.

    >
    > If you do not wish to learn, it is up to you. However, do not continue
    > showing your stupidity by taking the point of view, "If I don't do it, it
    > must be wrong."


    What are you talking about?

    You've been spouting nothing but hot air as if it was some kind of new
    paradigm you had invented.

    >
    > Ian


    --
    XP is a flop and when users are still asking for W98 it shows that they
    aren't all taken in with the MS hype.
    comp.os.linux.advocacy - where they put the lunacy in advocacy

  12. Re: 1st place prize: Ubuntu 8.04 Long Term Slop

    Hadron wrote:

    > Ian Hilliard writes:
    >
    >> Hadron wrote:
    >>
    >>> Remember this all comes from your ridiculous claims that you choose the
    >>> PLATFORM AFTER you have designed and implemented the system. And
    >>> anyone with 2 minutes experience knows this to complete and utter
    >>> garbage. Often the design and the approach taken on a system will be
    >>> based on a certain platform in order to utilise the features of that
    >>> platform. Not everything can be a "single entry point".

    >>
    >> I stated that the code is developed to be generic and it is tested on a
    >> number of differnet platforms. This permits a platform change, should the
    >> preferred platform be unsuitable.

    >
    > The slink.
    >
    >>
    >> It is quite easy to make a single point of access to all external
    >> interfaces. Making access to system API's over an an abstraction requires
    >> some extra work, once. Once that is done, it considerably reduces the

    >
    > Actually it requires a lot. Unless there is a system independent API
    > already there which covers all requirements.


    Maybe it is a lot of work for YOU. I have been doing it for a long time. I
    find that it is quite easy to add and extra abstraction class to three sets
    of libraries. Once it is there, then it can be used over and over and over.

    >
    >> amount of work. Added to that, there are different tools available for
    >> different platforms, which then show up different errors in the code.

    >
    > More waffle. So what? We all know what tools are there to help
    > programmers.


    ....and yet you still spread your stupidities. Programs like valgrind for
    Linux and dtrace for Solaris have found errors that Purify and
    Boundschecker have totally missed.

    >
    >>
    >> If you do not wish to learn, it is up to you. However, do not continue
    >> showing your stupidity by taking the point of view, "If I don't do it, it
    >> must be wrong."

    >
    > What are you talking about?
    >
    > You've been spouting nothing but hot air as if it was some kind of new
    > paradigm you had invented.


    You're amazing and not in a good way. You claim that you know it all, but
    quite clearly you don't have a clue. I was stupid enough to waste my time
    trying to explain it to you, but a wall is more receptive than you. You
    just spend your time in groups that cover areas that you don't seem to
    understand and then you claim to be an expert. Well, you're an expert in
    your own mind. Anyone who actually knows what is going on, sees that you
    are just one of the many drones that fill the IT industry and ensure the
    failure of project after project.

    But thanks, keep up the bad work. Your kind just make me look better.

    Ian


  13. Re: 1st place prize: Ubuntu 8.04 Long Term Slop

    On Wed, 21 May 2008 09:20:58 +0800, Ian Hilliard wrote:

    > Hadron wrote:
    >
    >> Ian Hilliard writes:
    >>
    >>> Hadron wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> Remember this all comes from your ridiculous claims that you choose
    >>>> the PLATFORM AFTER you have designed and implemented the system. And
    >>>> anyone with 2 minutes experience knows this to complete and utter
    >>>> garbage. Often the design and the approach taken on a system will be
    >>>> based on a certain platform in order to utilise the features of that
    >>>> platform. Not everything can be a "single entry point".
    >>>
    >>> I stated that the code is developed to be generic and it is tested on a
    >>> number of differnet platforms. This permits a platform change, should
    >>> the preferred platform be unsuitable.

    >>
    >> The slink.
    >>
    >>
    >>> It is quite easy to make a single point of access to all external
    >>> interfaces. Making access to system API's over an an abstraction
    >>> requires some extra work, once. Once that is done, it considerably
    >>> reduces the

    >>
    >> Actually it requires a lot. Unless there is a system independent API
    >> already there which covers all requirements.

    >
    > Maybe it is a lot of work for YOU. I have been doing it for a long time. I
    > find that it is quite easy to add and extra abstraction class to three
    > sets of libraries. Once it is there, then it can be used over and over and
    > over.
    >
    >
    >>> amount of work. Added to that, there are different tools available for
    >>> different platforms, which then show up different errors in the code.

    >>
    >> More waffle. So what? We all know what tools are there to help
    >> programmers.

    >
    > ...and yet you still spread your stupidities. Programs like valgrind for
    > Linux and dtrace for Solaris have found errors that Purify and
    > Boundschecker have totally missed.
    >
    >
    >>
    >>> If you do not wish to learn, it is up to you. However, do not continue
    >>> showing your stupidity by taking the point of view, "If I don't do it,
    >>> it must be wrong."

    >>
    >> What are you talking about?
    >>
    >> You've been spouting nothing but hot air as if it was some kind of new
    >> paradigm you had invented.

    >
    > You're amazing and not in a good way. You claim that you know it all, but
    > quite clearly you don't have a clue. I was stupid enough to waste my time
    > trying to explain it to you, but a wall is more receptive than you. You
    > just spend your time in groups that cover areas that you don't seem to
    > understand and then you claim to be an expert. Well, you're an expert in
    > your own mind. Anyone who actually knows what is going on, sees that you
    > are just one of the many drones that fill the IT industry and ensure the
    > failure of project after project.
    >
    > But thanks, keep up the bad work. Your kind just make me look better.


    Well you're not the first to find what "know-it-all" Quack is. In aolu,
    they soon found out what he was, & kf'd him.

    Just one example (there are *plenty* more):


    It's Hadrons' own little world of arrogance.
    His contributions are mostly telling you how stupid you are.

    Bill Baka
    Message-ID:
    Newsgroups: alt.os.linux.ubuntu
    Subject: Re: Dual Boot
    Date: Sat, 08 Mar 2008



    --
    Mandriva 2008.1 64-bit.
    This message was sent from a
    computer which is guaranteed
    100% free of the M$ Windoze virus.

  14. Re: 1st place prize: Ubuntu 8.04 Long Term Slop

    William Poaster writes:

    > On Wed, 21 May 2008 09:20:58 +0800, Ian Hilliard wrote:
    >
    >> Hadron wrote:
    >>
    >>> Ian Hilliard writes:
    >>>
    >>>> Hadron wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> Remember this all comes from your ridiculous claims that you choose
    >>>>> the PLATFORM AFTER you have designed and implemented the system. And
    >>>>> anyone with 2 minutes experience knows this to complete and utter
    >>>>> garbage. Often the design and the approach taken on a system will be
    >>>>> based on a certain platform in order to utilise the features of that
    >>>>> platform. Not everything can be a "single entry point".
    >>>>
    >>>> I stated that the code is developed to be generic and it is tested on a
    >>>> number of differnet platforms. This permits a platform change, should
    >>>> the preferred platform be unsuitable.
    >>>
    >>> The slink.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>> It is quite easy to make a single point of access to all external
    >>>> interfaces. Making access to system API's over an an abstraction
    >>>> requires some extra work, once. Once that is done, it considerably
    >>>> reduces the
    >>>
    >>> Actually it requires a lot. Unless there is a system independent API
    >>> already there which covers all requirements.

    >>
    >> Maybe it is a lot of work for YOU. I have been doing it for a long time. I
    >> find that it is quite easy to add and extra abstraction class to three
    >> sets of libraries. Once it is there, then it can be used over and over and
    >> over.
    >>
    >>
    >>>> amount of work. Added to that, there are different tools available for
    >>>> different platforms, which then show up different errors in the code.
    >>>
    >>> More waffle. So what? We all know what tools are there to help
    >>> programmers.

    >>
    >> ...and yet you still spread your stupidities. Programs like valgrind for
    >> Linux and dtrace for Solaris have found errors that Purify and
    >> Boundschecker have totally missed.
    >>
    >>
    >>>
    >>>> If you do not wish to learn, it is up to you. However, do not continue
    >>>> showing your stupidity by taking the point of view, "If I don't do it,
    >>>> it must be wrong."
    >>>
    >>> What are you talking about?
    >>>
    >>> You've been spouting nothing but hot air as if it was some kind of new
    >>> paradigm you had invented.

    >>
    >> You're amazing and not in a good way. You claim that you know it all,
    >> but


    Excuse me. Typical COLA retort. I am not claimging I know anything. I am
    claiming that YOUR CLAIMS are rubbish. You were waffling on talking
    nonsense which related to maby 1 % of projects. Almost no one EVER
    decideds on the target OS AFTER DESIGNING AND IMPLEMEBTING a SW
    solution. It is one of the biggest loads of rubbish I have ever
    heard. And YOU stated it.

    >> quite clearly you don't have a clue. I was stupid enough to waste my time
    >> trying to explain it to you, but a wall is more receptive than
    >> you. You


    You explained nothing. You did a pointy haired boss in Dilbert and
    started flapping around about processes.

    >> just spend your time in groups that cover areas that you don't seem to
    >> understand and then you claim to be an expert. Well, you're an expert
    >> in


    Err, YOU were making the claims.

    >> your own mind. Anyone who actually knows what is going on, sees that you
    >> are just one of the many drones that fill the IT industry and ensure the
    >> failure of project after project.


    I have managed, successfully, many projects. And in not ONE case did we
    (chuckle) select the target OS after design and implementation.

    >>
    >> But thanks, keep up the bad work. Your kind just make me look better.

    >
    > Well you're not the first to find what "know-it-all" Quack is. In aolu,
    > they soon found out what he was, & kf'd him.


    Actually no "they didnt". You and your alter ego Harold did. Most of
    the good posters left when you and your moronic COLA heroes turned up-

    >
    > Just one example (there are *plenty* more):
    >
    >
    > It's Hadrons' own little world of arrogance.
    > His contributions are mostly telling you how stupid you are.
    >
    > Bill Baka


    Bill Baka? The same guy who wouldn't know how to plug in a toaster? Dont
    make me laugh."Old Tech" seemed sensible in comparison.


    Poor, poor Willy. Tries so hard.

  15. Re: 1st place prize: Ubuntu 8.04 Long Term Slop


    "Ian Hilliard" wrote in message
    news:1210845290.588157@angel.amnet.net.au...
    > DFS wrote:
    >
    >
    > All the code that my teams produce is tested on a number of different
    > platforms, using a number of different tools, on a number of different
    > processors to detect any errors. The actual end platform is then selected
    > based on a series of tests.
    >
    > In some cases, the end platform is Windows, but in many cases it is not.
    > This is simply because the OS should be chosen to best meet the
    > requirements. Being too stupid to use learn a new OS is NOT a
    > requirement.


    I work on a multi, multi platform app. And what you just wrote is
    ridiculous. Basically what you wrote is: - "We write the code for a number
    of different platforms, then we test it on all of these platforms and
    decide the (one) actual end platform."

    This is complete nonsense. If the code is already written for a number of
    different platforms then why not support all of these platforms that the
    code already runs on? I'm sure that not every customer runs linux, Windows,
    Solaris or whatever platform you decide is the "end platform" that you
    select. If the code already runs on 4 different OS's then what exactly is
    the reason not to support of these OS's and why do you feel the need to
    select one "actual end platform." As someone who really does do this for a
    living what you wrote is utter gob****.

    And exactly what tests do you run to decide the one platform that's
    supported? Is this test exactly the scenarios that customers will be using?
    Unlikely.



    ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

  16. Re: 1st place prize: Ubuntu 8.04 Long Term Slop

    "Ezekiel" writes:

    > "Ian Hilliard" wrote in message
    > news:1210845290.588157@angel.amnet.net.au...
    >> DFS wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >> All the code that my teams produce is tested on a number of different
    >> platforms, using a number of different tools, on a number of different
    >> processors to detect any errors. The actual end platform is then selected
    >> based on a series of tests.
    >>
    >> In some cases, the end platform is Windows, but in many cases it is not.
    >> This is simply because the OS should be chosen to best meet the
    >> requirements. Being too stupid to use learn a new OS is NOT a
    >> requirement.

    >
    > I work on a multi, multi platform app. And what you just wrote is
    > ridiculous. Basically what you wrote is: - "We write the code for a number
    > of different platforms, then we test it on all of these platforms and
    > decide the (one) actual end platform."
    >
    > This is complete nonsense. If the code is already written for a number of
    > different platforms then why not support all of these platforms that the
    > code already runs on? I'm sure that not every customer runs linux, Windows,
    > Solaris or whatever platform you decide is the "end platform" that you
    > select. If the code already runs on 4 different OS's then what exactly is
    > the reason not to support of these OS's and why do you feel the need to
    > select one "actual end platform." As someone who really does do this for a
    > living what you wrote is utter gob****.
    >
    > And exactly what tests do you run to decide the one platform that's
    > supported? Is this test exactly the scenarios that customers will be using?
    > Unlikely.
    >
    >
    >
    > ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **


    The problem here is that he's right in some of what he says then totally
    wrong as he tried to big himself up and show off.

    Yes, you DO look at what can be encompassed as a set of APIs which are
    cross platform. You would be mad not to do so UNLESS there is NO
    intention of going cross platform since the customer has signed a
    contract for a specific target OS. In addition not everything can be the
    "same" when cross platform. People want common look and feel on their
    apps on OS "Y" - they are not interested in that app being "the same"
    using some cross platform widgets across all OSs. They want the app to
    be integrated with OTHER apps on that desktop.

    As for the "choose the OS after implementation" - well, I am amazed Mr
    Hilliard would put his name to such a ridiculous claim. It is absolute
    nonsense.


    --
    "For example, user interfaces are _usually_ better in commercial software.
    I'm not saying that this is always true, but in many cases the user
    interface to a program is the most important part for a commercial
    company..." Linus Torvalds

  17. Re: 1st place prize: Ubuntu 8.04 Long Term Slop


    "Hadron" wrote in message
    news:g113ou$68g$3@registered.motzarella.org...
    > "Ezekiel" writes:
    >
    >> "Ian Hilliard" wrote in message
    >> news:1210845290.588157@angel.amnet.net.au...
    >>> DFS wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> All the code that my teams produce is tested on a number of different
    >>> platforms, using a number of different tools, on a number of different
    >>> processors to detect any errors. The actual end platform is then
    >>> selected
    >>> based on a series of tests.
    >>>
    >>> In some cases, the end platform is Windows, but in many cases it is not.
    >>> This is simply because the OS should be chosen to best meet the
    >>> requirements. Being too stupid to use learn a new OS is NOT a
    >>> requirement.

    >>
    >> I work on a multi, multi platform app. And what you just wrote is
    >> ridiculous. Basically what you wrote is: - "We write the code for a
    >> number
    >> of different platforms, then we test it on all of these platforms and
    >> decide the (one) actual end platform."
    >>
    >> This is complete nonsense. If the code is already written for a number of
    >> different platforms then why not support all of these platforms that the
    >> code already runs on? I'm sure that not every customer runs linux,
    >> Windows,
    >> Solaris or whatever platform you decide is the "end platform" that you
    >> select. If the code already runs on 4 different OS's then what exactly is
    >> the reason not to support of these OS's and why do you feel the need to
    >> select one "actual end platform." As someone who really does do this for
    >> a
    >> living what you wrote is utter gob****.
    >>
    >> And exactly what tests do you run to decide the one platform that's
    >> supported? Is this test exactly the scenarios that customers will be
    >> using?
    >> Unlikely.
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

    >
    > The problem here is that he's right in some of what he says then totally
    > wrong as he tried to big himself up and show off.
    >
    > Yes, you DO look at what can be encompassed as a set of APIs which are
    > cross platform. You would be mad not to do so UNLESS there is NO
    > intention of going cross platform since the customer has signed a
    > contract for a specific target OS. In addition not everything can be the
    > "same" when cross platform. People want common look and feel on their
    > apps on OS "Y" - they are not interested in that app being "the same"
    > using some cross platform widgets across all OSs. They want the app to
    > be integrated with OTHER apps on that desktop.


    It should be pretty obvious to even a junior developer that if you want to
    write a cross-platform app then you either have to use, or write an
    abstraction layer that provides platform independent API's for things like
    mutexes/critical-sections, threads, sockets, processes, time functions, etc.
    Other than littering the code with a bunch of #ifdef's there's really no
    other way to do it.


    > As for the "choose the OS after implementation" - well, I am amazed Mr
    > Hilliard would put his name to such a ridiculous claim. It is absolute
    > nonsense.


    That's the part that's completely ridiculous. Unless the target customer for
    your product uses a specific OS it's better to support as many different
    OS's as possible. It increases your potential customer base because in the
    real world users/companies (depending whether it's individual or enterprise
    software) run different operating systems.

    I have *NEVER* heard of a development model where in advance, before the
    product is even written, they don't specifically identify the OS's that the
    product is going to run on. You don't just randomly develop across a bunch
    of different platforms, and when you're done pick the one that you like the
    best.

    There's this concept called "marketing" that examines what markets are going
    to buy your product and what operating systems are in use in those markets.
    You then write the software with those markets/OS's in mind. It's all
    figured out and known in advance and not some lucky crap-shoot where you
    develop for everything and then pick the one that comes out the best.



    > --
    > "For example, user interfaces are _usually_ better in commercial software.
    > I'm not saying that this is always true, but in many cases the user
    > interface to a program is the most important part for a commercial
    > company..." Linus Torvalds



    ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

  18. Re: 1st place prize: Ubuntu 8.04 Long Term Slop

    [snips]

    On Mon, 19 May 2008 10:35:37 +0800, Ian Hilliard wrote:

    > What is necessary is a full risk analysis and then add the expected risk
    > costs into the final estimate. There may also be changes made to the
    > project, which can reduce the risk. There is however the need to have a
    > "Standard Risk" entry, which amounts to 20% of the total estimate before
    > adding any other risk values.


    On large-scale projects, this is feasible. On smaller ones, it often
    isn't - some risk analysis, sure, but one can only go so far within a
    given budget.

    Still, any way you slice it, you're being a blowhard - by suggesting
    things be done properly.


  19. Re: 1st place prize: Ubuntu 8.04 Long Term Slop

    Hadron wrote:

    > William Poaster writes:
    >
    >> On Wed, 21 May 2008 09:20:58 +0800, Ian Hilliard wrote:
    >>
    >>> Hadron wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> Ian Hilliard writes:
    >>>>
    >>>>> Hadron wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> Remember this all comes from your ridiculous claims that you choose
    >>>>>> the PLATFORM AFTER you have designed and implemented the system. And
    >>>>>> anyone with 2 minutes experience knows this to complete and utter
    >>>>>> garbage. Often the design and the approach taken on a system will be
    >>>>>> based on a certain platform in order to utilise the features of that
    >>>>>> platform. Not everything can be a "single entry point".
    >>>>>
    >>>>> I stated that the code is developed to be generic and it is tested on
    >>>>> a number of differnet platforms. This permits a platform change,
    >>>>> should the preferred platform be unsuitable.
    >>>>
    >>>> The slink.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>> It is quite easy to make a single point of access to all external
    >>>>> interfaces. Making access to system API's over an an abstraction
    >>>>> requires some extra work, once. Once that is done, it considerably
    >>>>> reduces the
    >>>>
    >>>> Actually it requires a lot. Unless there is a system independent API
    >>>> already there which covers all requirements.
    >>>
    >>> Maybe it is a lot of work for YOU. I have been doing it for a long time.
    >>> I find that it is quite easy to add and extra abstraction class to three
    >>> sets of libraries. Once it is there, then it can be used over and over
    >>> and over.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>> amount of work. Added to that, there are different tools available for
    >>>>> different platforms, which then show up different errors in the code.
    >>>>
    >>>> More waffle. So what? We all know what tools are there to help
    >>>> programmers.
    >>>
    >>> ...and yet you still spread your stupidities. Programs like valgrind for
    >>> Linux and dtrace for Solaris have found errors that Purify and
    >>> Boundschecker have totally missed.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>
    >>>>> If you do not wish to learn, it is up to you. However, do not continue
    >>>>> showing your stupidity by taking the point of view, "If I don't do it,
    >>>>> it must be wrong."
    >>>>
    >>>> What are you talking about?
    >>>>
    >>>> You've been spouting nothing but hot air as if it was some kind of new
    >>>> paradigm you had invented.
    >>>
    >>> You're amazing and not in a good way. You claim that you know it all,
    >>> but

    >
    > Excuse me. Typical COLA retort. I am not claimging I know anything. I am
    > claiming that YOUR CLAIMS are rubbish. You were waffling on talking
    > nonsense which related to maby 1 % of projects. Almost no one EVER
    > decideds on the target OS AFTER DESIGNING AND IMPLEMEBTING a SW
    > solution. It is one of the biggest loads of rubbish I have ever
    > heard. And YOU stated it.
    >
    >>> quite clearly you don't have a clue. I was stupid enough to waste my
    >>> time trying to explain it to you, but a wall is more receptive than
    >>> you. You

    >
    > You explained nothing. You did a pointy haired boss in Dilbert and
    > started flapping around about processes.
    >


    Just because you are unable to understand it, doesn't mean it wasn't stated.

    >>> just spend your time in groups that cover areas that you don't seem to
    >>> understand and then you claim to be an expert. Well, you're an expert
    >>> in

    >
    > Err, YOU were making the claims.


    I simply reported critical parts of a methodology which works well and
    compared to every other methodologies that I have seen, it consistently
    produces the best results. You on the other hand, have dismissed this
    methodology out of hand, clearly without even understanding it. This makes
    you a very poor project manager, indeed.

    >
    >>> your own mind. Anyone who actually knows what is going on, sees that you
    >>> are just one of the many drones that fill the IT industry and ensure the
    >>> failure of project after project.

    >
    > I have managed, successfully, many projects. And in not ONE case did we
    > (chuckle) select the target OS after design and implementation.
    >


    Then you severely limited your options and thereby increased the risk in the
    project.

    Ian

  20. Re: 1st place prize: Ubuntu 8.04 Long Term Slop

    Kelsey Bjarnason writes:

    > [snips]
    >
    > On Mon, 19 May 2008 10:35:37 +0800, Ian Hilliard wrote:
    >
    >> What is necessary is a full risk analysis and then add the expected risk
    >> costs into the final estimate. There may also be changes made to the
    >> project, which can reduce the risk. There is however the need to have a
    >> "Standard Risk" entry, which amounts to 20% of the total estimate before
    >> adding any other risk values.

    >
    > On large-scale projects, this is feasible. On smaller ones, it often
    > isn't - some risk analysis, sure, but one can only go so far within a
    > given budget.
    >
    > Still, any way you slice it, you're being a blowhard - by suggesting
    > things be done properly.
    >


    Poor big head Kelsey still does not "get it". No one is suggesting
    things are not done "properly". people are however suggesting that Mr
    Hilliard is making it sound bigger and more difficult than it really
    it. We all know to schedule for "unknowns" to a degree but no one that I
    am aware of has ever managed to do that "efficiently" on any large
    project. You can add fudge factors, you can reschedule but SW is SW and
    things can go quicker or slower than planned. And the main crux of the
    matter is simply that NO ONE delivers a finished product and THEN
    decides on which platform it will run.

    --
    I can usually supress the feelings that tell me to crash
    tackle a girl into the bushes

+ Reply to Thread
Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 LastLast