 |
privacy |
||
|
Hangout for experimental confirmation and demonstration of software, computing, and networking. The exercises don't always work out. The professor is a bumbler and the laboratory assistant is a skanky dufus.
Blog Feed Recent Items 
The nfoCentrale Blog Conclave nfoCentrale Associated Sites |
2006-09-03Claiming this blog in TechnoratiTechnorati Profile is the link I need to successfully claim this blog as mine. This is an odd business because I have the situation where the blog is on a site that is a subweb of another site that "anchors" it. And, unfortunately, the site can show up in some statistics via its http://orcmid.com/BlunderDome/clueless URL and in other statistics via its http://nfoCentrale.net/orcmid/BlunderDome/clueless URL, despite the fact that both are URLs for the same place. That irritates me, but not enough to give orcmid.com its own web site rather than forwarding to an omnibus site.{tags: orcmid Professor von Clueless}
Ted Dziuba: The Core Incompetencies of Open-Source Production
Epsilon-Delta » MythTV: A Comedy of Errors. I favor open-source licensing for community-developed and community-shared software. I prefer open-source development for cultivation of novices and beginners, for sharpening the prowess of enthusiasts, and for long-tail undertakings that cannot survive business-plan scrutiny for return after the high costs of shrink-wrap industrial-grade software production. But the failure of the open-source community (and no small number of commercial-software aspirants) to attend to the customer delivery process (or even recognize that there are customers to attend to) has always bemused me. {tags: Ted Dziuba orcmid open-source development software engineering software lifecycle core incompetencies} Ted Dziuba had an iconoclastic moment that exposed ground truth underneath the accepted scripture that open-source is the natural law to goodness for personal computing and computer-based appliances:
Ted’s commenters predictably turn to geek problem-solving, offering alternatives and speculating ways that might have worked better than Ted’s excruciating experience. Sixth commenter “oneofmany” points to the key disparity and the simple reason that non-developers will prefer packaged commercial systems running Apple OS X or Microsoft Windows with this quotation: “ 'Don’t buy a puzzle when it’s just a picture that you want.' ” One of the blind spots of developers is their failing to recognize and respect the world of the adopter. In particular, there is blindness to how commercial solutions can be economically-optimal choice and not against the best interests of the adopter at all. The adopter’s value trade-off does not have to be the same as the open-source adherent’s, and there’s not a thing wrong with that. Our developer-centric, self-satisfying inpersonation of our customers as like ourselves, with our values, is an incompetent approach. It is also a great lesson of my own experience, that (self-indulgent?) ignorance of adopter realities is a widespread failing of developers. Yet in open-source development and its support in academic circles, this vice is dressed-up as virtuous. That will be disheartening to those who actually want to see their work taken up and valued by users, users who don’t have to have been able to write and trouble-shoot it themselves in order to enjoy its operation and utility. Just yesterday I saw how the same problems can arise when professional developers (perhaps relatively junior ones) step out of the confines of their industrial-strength development-and-delivery enterprise and start lofting open-source contributions into the cyberverse. I take this anecdotal indicator as evidence that software quality, especially suitability for purpose, is an institutionally- (that is, socially-) maintained competency. The achievement of dependable software quality is spotty everywhere, and it is clear that it invariably takes the restraints of institutionalized behavior to pull it off at any scale and level of consistency. It comes down to this: the obsessive attention to detail, thoroughness, and honoring of the adopter’s world is against our nature. We do not take this on naturally nor willingly. We are not automatically equipped for it and it doesn’t scale (the same way warriors don’t scale without a military) unless there’s an institutional structure to keep restoring the commitment and having us succeed despite our contrary tendencies. We also pursue tools, nostrums, and other magical elixirs to save us from the tedium and the frustrated demands of adopters. I accept that we do need the aid of all computational tools we can find for dealing with the parts of our work that are computational and formal in nature (and that fit into an institutionally-sustainable paradigm, not our self-absorbed predilections). In the end, that won’t be enough, because the world of the adopter is not what our computational formulations address. How we bridge that gap and become responsible for our products as instruments (not ends) in the world of opportunity that adopters live in remains to be dealt with. I predict that it will demand teamwork and institutional structures of some form having a trustworthy relationship with adopters at the heart of it.
from:
|
||
|
You are navigating Orcmid's Lair. |
template
created 2004-06-17-20:01 -0700 (pdt)
by orcmid |