Agile methods have proven time and again to produce better software quicker. Extreme programming, iterative development, and release early release often provide the designers and developers with more and better feedback from customers.
I recently helped develop a custom software package, and I learned very quickly into the project that knowing upfront what the product needed to do was near impossible. Incrementally adding functions as they we discovered they were needed turned out to be fairly quick and easy, since we kept the architecture simple adding only what we knew was necessary, and removing what we found to not work, or not be necessary.
Not only are these approaches better for the end result, but they are certainly more motivating for the developers themselves. At each stage of the process there is a prototype that compiles and runs, whether or not all the functionality is there. This helps avoid propagating early mistakes. Also, they can focus on one aspect of the product at a time, and receive verification from testing, and validation from the customer. In my limited experience the program ends up more efficient and maintainable in this process.
In the now dead waterfall approach to programming, where specifications are known upfront and the entire development is done together, and then all testing is done at the end, growing software one piece at a time deals with the fundamental issue that usually specs won’t be correct or complete at the beginning. The waterfall model also leaves testing for the end, so the code where bugs are found have long since left the developers memory. Finding bugs, usually the hardest part, is greatly simplified when only one module was added since the last successful prototype.
Though strictly speaking programs are deterministic and lifeless, I often see a personality (inadvertently instilled by the programmers) in software. When software is grown piece by piece rather than built from bottom to top, the software behaves better.
The battle for control over mass-reproducible media is still far from over. The record companies are still not ready to embrace the way music can be distributed in our connected world. Now though, most people are tired of the debate. Back in 2003, Orson Scott Card wrote an interesting article about the competitors in the fight, and I found some points worth talking about.
1.) The difficulty of technologically enforcing copyright
Using encrypted DVDss as one case, it is extremely easy to install DeCSS or similar libraries to circumvent the encryption. It is very annoying that I can’t legally play DVDs at all in Linux. (Unless I get a particular distro OEM.) Aggravating customers is a bad business move.
2.) The money makers are producers, not artists
Most musicians make their big bucks on live concerts. Easily distributed mp3s have only made musicians more popular, and the crowds at their concerts bigger. Changing the copyright law will only hurt the big companies which are necessarily made obsolete. We don’t keep carriages around for fear of putting the drivers out of a job. Big record companies are an artifact.
3.) The technology is getting faster
The technology that initially incited the debate is only going to improve over time. It will not stop because some want to still make money the way they used to. It should be their loss, not everyone else’s.
Final thoughts
I only use software, music, and movies that I got legally. Like myself, most people are willing to pay a reasonable amount for things they like, and make donations to developers and artists who improve our quality of life. When laws outlive their purpose, it’s time for a change.
As people have slowly discovered the Internet, many have found they are spending more time online than they have available. Along with the overwhelming wealth of knowledge on the Internet, is the ability to connect with other people. This connection, in my opinion, is what hooks us. If you look in gaming, it is the MMORPGs, and other games that allow interaction with other players that keep loyal players for extended periods of time. If you see other successful Internet applications like email, IM, social networks, and blogs, these all appeal to our social nature. The paradox is that often when we are spending too much time being social online, we neglect our face-to-face relationships.
A few months ago, my wife and I began listening to the Internet Safety Podcast put on by Charles Knutson and Joe Brockbank. What we found were simple ideas to protect our family from the trash on the Internet, without throwing the baby out with the bath water. I recommend to any parents out there to listen to podcast. It’s interesting and fun, but still educates on how we can keep up with our tech-savvy kids.
Also on their web site is the Internet Safety Wiki. This is a fledgling site dedicated to same principles as the Internet Safety Podcast. What they need, though, are more contributers. To the tech-savvy out there, this is a chance to make a positive difference helping parents learn about the technologies of today. Contribute your knowledge and skills to the Internet Safety Wiki.
Before installing the first service pack for Vista on my parent’s computer, it less-than-politely told me that it was dumping physical memory. The famed blue screen of death lives in on Microsoft’s newest operating system. What was surprising though, was to see a few days prior to that my friend’s Mac inform him that he needed to restart his computer. The kernel had panicked. I have not yet seen this sort of display on Ubuntu, though it has gone kaput a few times. I am sure that every type of system has had the hiccups before.
So then, what makes the Windows’ Blue Screen of Death so notorious?
It’s bizarre, and here’s why:
- Windows has a larger user base with a lower average technical aptitude, so when the the screen suddenly changes color and you lose control of the system, it startles people.
- There is nothing you can do about it.
Mac OS X avoids some the frustrations of #2, due to a much more polite delivery, and the seemly lower frequency of the kernel panicking. Linux though, at least in my experience, averages more hiccups than Windows. It manages the problems by giving the users a way to help fix the issue. Linux users go into the experience with the knowledge that their software does have bugs, but they will be fixed quickly once they are found. Most Windows and more especially Mac users don’t anticipate that their expensive computers could ever fail. They believe the lie that all bugs can be found, and were found before you bought the product.
These days, though, the situation is improving because most people have experienced enough problems to give up the fantasy of a perfect system. In addition, the bazaar mentality in Linux development has opened our eyes to the power that the end-users can have in minimizing and repairing the bizarre problems that are inevitable in software use.
Further Reading:
Our world is ever changing. Decades ago, only countries needed to compete globally to ensure their economic health. Years ago, businesses acquired the need to globalize. Now, in our ever shrinking world, individuals are finding that they must compete with others worldwide to thrive.
Thomas Friedman, in his book The World is Flat, gives us some insight into how and why this globalization is happening. In short, the new Web platform, combined with ever decreasing cost to connect, gives individuals a new power to communicate globally. This translates into smarter clients, who know where to find the best deal, and smarter businesses, that can give more to their customers.
For a long time, I was under the impression that specialization was key. In order to get a letter in high school, or get a scholarship in college, you need to excel in one field. Friedman on the other hand suggests that a liberal arts education, where you are comfortable with a wide variety of skills, will be more valuable to companies. You will be better prepared to adapt to the constantly changing world, and when your job is outsourced, there will still be work you can do.
So, as the world moves from the vertical to horizontal, individuals must be prepared to move horizontally. If you are prepared, this small world will bring excitement rather than fear.
Today is Online Free Expression Day. Reporters Without Borders (RSF) is promoting public “virtual” protests against governments that censor Internet content, calling them Internet enemies. My question is, how much should the government intervene? Harassment, indecent exposure, and sedition are all punishable off of the web, so should the government block this content on the web? The problem is that there is no clear line as to where content becomes unreasonably objectionable. I assert that the government should have a say about what information stumbles into the hands of the people they are sworn to protect, but the line should be determined by the voters. The people should know what is being blocked.
Additional Reading:
I am oft irked when politicians use the the term “equality”. All too often I get a sick feeling in my gut that what they are really advocating is homogeneity. Allow me to use Title IX as an example. In strict letter, Title IX insists on equality. No one should be favored or disfavored because of sex. However, the suggestion too often is that because there are less women in Math and Engineering, they should receive more grants, scholarships and “encouragement” to participate. Offering a disproportionate amount of support for women, in my mind, is against the equality and fairness explicit in Title IX, but rather pushes for homogeneity.
I’ve realized over the years that as a white male I am excluded from many opportunities. I try not to complain, as my opportunities are still great, but I cringe at the idea that in order to give the appearance of equality, schools and businesses must fill a quota of minority positions. With the ideal of equality, the best applicants should be hired, even if all of them are Hispanic, Buddhist, female, or (heaven forbid) white men. If 1 out of 100 applicants is a woman, her chances should be 1 : 100.
I insist that men and women are different. People from different cultures value different things. I’m not saying that women shouldn’t be in the hard sciences. I am saying let people compete in their desired field on level ground, even if it makes the demographics less diverse. We need to stop imposing a quota on how many people in a workplace or university department must come from a particular background. The numbers never will balance out perfectly, but perhaps we can finally achieve our goal of equality.
It looks like Format War II is over. Sony, Apple, and Pioneer cheer while Toshiba, NEC, and others shuffle to join the Blu-ray market. RCA, Microsoft, Onkyo, and Intel are counting their losses as supporters of the soon to be obsolete HD DVD.
Though the next generation media has been decided (for now), I doubt that everyone will rush off to buy a Blu-ray player (at least $250) while DVD players can be found for as little as $15. For most, the quality improvement in Blu-ray is insufficient to overcome the hit to the wallet. Plus for those like my parents, who own nearly 600 VHS tapes, there is little motivation to embrace a new media that will obsolete their vast collection.
As a side note, it will be interesting to see if HD DVD lingers behind the scenes as long as the Betamax, which continued to be produced, though invisible to the world, until 2002.
The world is at our fingertips. Opportunities to reach vast audiences abound. In yesteryears it took great foresight and planning to assemble the masses, while today whatever stumbles from my lips could end up on YouTube. Ordinary people are speaking, and everyone is listening.
Take Cliff Stoll for example. He never considered himself a computer wizard, but his patience and persistence caught an international spy. Robert Morris launched the first worm that froze two thousand computers, even though it was “not very well written”.
Technology is bringing such a number of people into our reach, that it’s hard not to step on toes. Especially as a programmer, if I make one small mistake – wham! I could give away private information about couples’ relationships. Hundreds of people could be affected.
Communities & friendships, like the Internet & networks, are built on trust, but if no one is wearing shoes, then one person in cleats can do a lot of damage. So, let’s keep our shoes on, but leave the clogs at home.
