Roy Schestowitz wrote:
> Can OSS guard against "do-overs" and "stupid decisions"?
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | In the interview, McDonald describes "Windows 2000" as the worst-run
> | project of all time. McDonald says that "stupid decisions" and "7-day
> | weeks for 30 weeks in a row" helped the Windows 2000 project earn that
> | title. Keep in mind that McDonald's statement is from a project
> | management standpoint, and we shouldn't equate it to "Windows 2000 was
> | the worst product of all time".
> |
> | [...]
> |
> | We've seen analysis of what the Linux kernel would have cost to develop
> | inside a Traditional software company. A view of the wasted time and
> | cost would be an interesting adjunct piece of data.
> |
> | Now, let's ask if "do-overs" and "stupid decisions" can be minimized
> | at an OSS vendor.
> `----
>
>
http://weblog.infoworld.com/openresource/archives/2007/07/can_oss_guard_a.html
>
Everyone who has worked in any sort of development knows that they has to be
preasure or you will fail.
Give a person 5 years to design a new dish cloth and he will be working on
it the last few days before the 5th year is up. Very little energy will be
put into it and you will end up with the worlds worst dish cloth.
You have to put them under preasure to get their brains working properly.
If I have what is estimated as a 6 week contract to dole out, I pass it on
as a 4 week contract. Put them under preasure to get the best out of them,
but knowing I had 2 weeks grace should I need it.
Seven day weeks for 30 weeks, was over the top though. You get the other
side of the effects of preasure, that the programmers just want to get the
function they are on finished so they can have a rest, bet your left sock
that many an item is static in functions that shouldn't be static at all.
If you want to write a function quickly with minimum test time, then you
self-contain as much as possible, write for minimum interaction with other
functions. Commonly known as bloat.
|
|
