Linked by David Adams on Tue 5th Aug 2008 21:20 UTC, submitted by JCooper
Thread beginning with comment 325806
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: as a software engineer... i agree with MS
by lemur2 on Wed 6th Aug 2008 05:18
in reply to "RE[2]: as a software engineer... i agree with MS"
The trends in commercial software are moving more and more to user driven development, and not compromising on quality. Where I work we have a 1 month release cycle, where every month we ask our users (we call them product owners internally to try and keep from falling into holier then thou programmer attitudes) what the features they need the most are, and let that drive the features of the release. We have two testers to every developer, and these are trained people who give very good bug reports and methodically test the software, not just random people on the interweb. We aim for 3 lines of test code to every 1 line of production code, and most of the team practices test driven development. Every code check in needs to be reviewed by another programmer before it goes to the testers, and our build server automatically runs through integration tests on every check in to the source tree. And every iteration has time set aside for regression testing, deployment testing, and performance testing to be absolutely sure we ship quality.
All of this is required if you are about to sell a product in exchange for money.
Open source code isn't about that at all ... it is about exchanging code in an effort to evolve a better product.
If I am but a lowly "random person on the inetrweb", and I download a piece of open source software (say KDE 4.0, for example), and I read and understand that I am being offered the software at no cost to me but with no guarantees as to its performance, and I then try out the software, notice a problem with it and I submit a bug report ... have I not tested the software?
Even though I am just a lowly "random person" the bug I discovered is still a bug no matter who discovered it. It does not become a bug just because software QA noticed it.
Your prejudice is showing here.
RE[4]: as a software engineer... i agree with MS
by google_ninja on Wed 6th Aug 2008 05:54
in reply to "RE[3]: as a software engineer... i agree with MS"
If I am but a lowly "random person on the inetrweb", and I download a piece of open source software (say KDE 4.0, for example), and I read and understand that I am being offered the software at no cost to me but with no guarantees as to its performance, and I then try out the software, notice a problem with it and I submit a bug report ... have I not tested the software?
No, you have discovered a bug. Testing the software is boring as hell, because it is basically hammering at the interface in a methodical fashion to hit every combination of inputs possible. It is also very effective, because given enough users, chances are those combinations will get hit eventually.
You could argue that with enough users, software will be well tested, but that would be considered absolute lunacy in every single other industry in the world right now, except for some reason, programming. The whole point is to address these things before the lemur2's of the world get their hands on it.
The only people who even come close to being testers in the open source world are those who run trunk builds on a daily basis, are active on the mailing lists with feedback, and submit proper bug reports. Everyone else is just users of untested software
RE[3]: as a software engineer... i agree with MS
by Soulbender on Wed 6th Aug 2008 06:06
in reply to "RE[2]: as a software engineer... i agree with MS"
There is this massive misconception that open source is inherently better for the users, and it really isn't
I actually agree with this. Much OSS software is crap. Unfortunately for you, much commercial software is crap too. I dont even get me started on "Enterprise" software, the very worst software there ever was.
They are hip, revolutionary, and mean to the bone ;-)
Punk rock isn't hip and never was. Unless you're taking about that sad-ass excuse for "punk" you have over in the U.S these days.
Apple is more like those stylish 80's pop bands that everyone has forgotten about now.
And just so you know, this is coming from someone who has used Linux, Unix and Windows for about 18 years now doing tech support, software development (oss & commercial), system administration and IT management.
RE[4]: as a software engineer... i agree with MS
by Moulinneuf on Wed 6th Aug 2008 14:12
in reply to "RE[3]: as a software engineer... i agree with MS"
I disagree , much of OSS is spectacular and often miraculous in the fact that it exist and in its continued creation , that's why the proprietary software are mostly based of OSS , the problem with OSS is that it's not protected properly hence instead of getting people who contribute and profit from it , you got people who try to take what exist improve it , but ultimately close it inside something proprietary , hence trying to kill OSS to be the only one to make money ( different from profiting everyone ). It's mostly dead anyway.
what most of you call OSS is actually Free Software.






Member since:
2006-02-05
The trends in commercial software are moving more and more to user driven development, and not compromising on quality. Where I work we have a 1 month release cycle, where every month we ask our users (we call them product owners internally to try and keep from falling into holier then thou programmer attitudes) what the features they need the most are, and let that drive the features of the release. We have two testers to every developer, and these are trained people who give very good bug reports and methodically test the software, not just random people on the interweb. We aim for 3 lines of test code to every 1 line of production code, and most of the team practices test driven development. Every code check in needs to be reviewed by another programmer before it goes to the testers, and our build server automatically runs through integration tests on every check in to the source tree. And every iteration has time set aside for regression testing, deployment testing, and performance testing to be absolutely sure we ship quality.
Now, we are ahead of the curve on this, and Scrum is one of the more hardcore of the Agile processes, but this is direction the industry is moving in. The software industry has traditionally had an abysmal standard of quality, and has been driven by cowboy coders who dont give a crap about the people they are actually writing the code for. In anything even resembling what would be considered a modern process, we are now taking a more holistic approach, and learning how to stop wasting everybodies time and money building things that are un tested and features that are misunderstood, or just plain un needed.
By contrast, open source embraces that mentality. Unit testing is rarely, if ever used. The commercial software world is bringing the developer and the user closer together, while the open source world pushes them further apart. Users are something to be taken care of by downstream, and heaven forbid if any of them try to break that barrier and ask a developer directly for help, which they only do in desperation when a distro doesn't have a good working relationship with upstream. What I would consider good developers (i.e. people who care about the big picture) either do not stick around long (like con kolivas) or become completely disillusioned and just stop doing anything that effects the end user anymore (havoc, miguel)
Sorry for the huge rant, but that comment is exactly the reason that I post the things that I do in places like this. There is this massive misconception that open source is inherently better for the users, and it really isn't, except in a very abstract way that has little to no real value. You say that open source is like punk rock and commercial software is like top 40, fine. I say open source is like communism, fantastic ideas, very idealistic, inherently flawed in its inability to deliver meaningful innovation or an acceptable level of quality without doing so on the back of a more practical system.
And seriously dude, apple is punk rock. They are hip, revolutionary, and mean to the bone ;-)
And just so you know, this is coming from someone who has used linux for about 6 years now on and off (currently on, I am running hardy), has participated in a great deal of open source projects, and doesn't any more due to a serious disillusionment with the whole system.