[lug] can't make this stuff up, folks...

[Nate Duehr]

LOL good point on the specifications.  Much of the problem in those
specs is the budget.  Businesspeople really still don't "get it" that
rolling software versions ten times to get features that could have been
put into version 1 with FAR less time invested, is the smarter way to
play...

As far as "no one is dying", yeah, kinda... but computers are running a
lot of stuff these days.  

Watching the vulnerability lists is pretty depressing if you're the
optimist I am (seriously!) that software will some day be built in such
a way that's worthy of handling things like bank accounts, insurance,
stock brokerages... 

Oh, wait...

:-)

The only thing it would really take is codification (laws) regarding
coding.  There's a million ways to put up a bridge too, and many of the
early ones DID fall down... the public said, "Government go get
involved", and Civil Engineering as we know it today including personal
liability for screw-ups...

But, the coding world doesn't want to behave like other Engineering
disciplines.  They just want the title without that level of effort.

I mean seriously -- when OS vendors (ostensibly the best and brightest
of the coders?  Pshaw... maybe not...) have weekly vulnerability lists
and patches to the point where every well-patched machine has to be
bounced weekly, something's very wrong in the way we approach
"professional" computing, don't you think?  Way down deep... serious
misconceptions about computers and how they work.

I keep wondering if we can ferret those out and get spotlights on them. 
Like, "Computers need to be upgraded every year"... not if you had
software that wasn't buggy on them to start with...

You know, stuff like that.  They don't swap out the flight management
computers in airliners every year... (well, at least they DIDN'T... that
may be changing too as this all-pervasive idea that software change is
good, when it's really just swapping old bugs for new bugs)... ya know?

--
  Nate Duehr
  nate at natetech.com

On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 17:05 -0600, "Carl Wagner"
<carl.wagner at verbalworld.com> wrote:
> Nate,
> 
> I would love to see a bridge built with the same sort of requirements 
> that software engineers get:
>    1)  It must look pretty.
>    2)  It needs to be done in two weeks.
>    3)  Your budget is $10K.
> 
> Sort of like asking to move a building 4 inches south.  In civil 
> engineering they would laugh at you.  In software they give you 2 days 
> to get it done.
> 
> The problem with software is it is too flexible.  What is the load 
> capacity of a 36"x12"x60' prestressed concrete beam using 8000Lb cement 
> with 8 #8's.  You look it up in a table.  What is the equivalent load 
> table for software?
> For that matter, what is the software equivalent of: wood, steel, 
> concrete, glass, stone.
> 
> With software the is as many ways of doing something as there are 
> people.  We traditional engineering (in this case Cival), you get to 
> bend the rules a little bit, but you are still dealing with wood, 
> concrete, steel, glass and stone, and you must live within the 
> limitations of the materials being used.
> 
> No one is dieing, so there is no driver (lawsuits) to develop best 
> practices and component-tize software.
> And how long have people been building bridges, as apposed to the 
> general population using software?
> 
> But I eagerly await your solution to the problem.  ;-)   And let me know 
> when I can order a 'bunk' of software routines from the Home Depot!
> 
> Carl.
> 
> 
> 
> Nate Duehr wrote:
> > Real RHEL bug report.  Numerous friends have hit it under the CentOS
> > copy-cat release.
> >
> > http://kbase.redhat.com/faq/docs/DOC-19191
> >
> > Yup. You read that right.  All PS/2 keyboard support... busted... in
> > RHEL 4.8.  
> >
> > Still continually shaking my head at the title of "Software Engineer"...
> > if you engineer a bridge this way, it'd fall down.
> >
> > Who needs a keyboard? :-)
> >
> > Just thought I'd share. Keep a USB keyboard handy.  Obviously the RH
> > folks don't have any more PS/2 keyboards in their test lab anymore. 
> > Well, I'm generously assuming that they actually test anything, I
> > suppose... LOL!
> >
> > The keyboard quits working.  Really?  Really.
> >
> > --
> >   Nate Duehr, WY0X
> >   nate at natetech.com
> > _______________________________________________
> > Web Page:  http://lug.boulder.co.us
> > Mailing List: http://lists.lug.boulder.co.us/mailman/listinfo/lug
> > Join us on IRC: lug.boulder.co.us port=6667 channel=#hackingsociety
> >
> >   
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Web Page:  http://lug.boulder.co.us
> Mailing List: http://lists.lug.boulder.co.us/mailman/listinfo/lug
> Join us on IRC: lug.boulder.co.us port=6667 channel=#hackingsociety