Micro$oft Biz'droid Lusers (was: OT email response format)

From: Sean 'Captain Napalm' Conner <spc_at_conman.org>
Date: Mon Apr 22 21:10:54 2002

It was thus said that the Great Richard Erlacher once stated:
>
> It's true that there are lots of books on how to use various software
> applications. Having lots of them is good because people will want to use the
> software in different ways and not always in the same way. Programmers should
> read these books so they know how programs are used. They should also read
> them to find out how useful a helpful error or diagnostic message can help.
> As for the quality of documentation, I've found statements in Linux documents
> that were so outdated as to be patently false, having omitted critical terms
> such as "NOT."

  Linux, unfortunately, is a fast moving target and by the time books do
come out for the the kernel side of things, Linux has already moved on. I
suppose it's one of the prices ones pays for ever evolving code.

 [ Dilbertesque situations deleted ]

> No, I don't wonder. This situation can't be blamed on the mangers either,
> though, because the programmers shouldn't tolerate this.

  I haven't met *any* other programmers that would even think of not
tolerating this. One friend of mine, where he worked, was asked what
hardware should be used for a new private phone switch (used to manage the
phone system at a mid sized company). They didn't listen to him and picked
PC hardware. They then asked him what OS to use. They didn't listen to him
(he wanted either FreeBSD or Linux) and they picked Windows NT.

  For a phone switch.

  He stayed. He bitched, a lot, but he stayed. And got it working (to a
degree). Me, personally, I would have refused to work with such crap under
those conditions but most of my programmer friends (okay, all of them)
would. And did. It came across as a challenge to them.

  I consider them insane, but hey, they're still working and I'm not. So
there you have it (I've quit a job because I didn't agree with the coding
standards but that was several years ago. My current unemployment is due to
working for a completely insane boss who's goal in life seems to be to die
at work (``I had pnemonia for six weeks and did *I* take time off from
work?'' And he was back to work two days after having some heart work done)
and I took a few weeks off when I had bronchitus).

> There'll always be disgreement on what's wanted, until it's written down and
> signed. If you can, get your boss to write you a "statement of work" which
> includes your precise requirements including test criteria and schedule.
> Usually schedule and workload can be adjusted early in the project, so if it
> doesn't suit you, or, if, early in the progress of the work, you discover a
> serious obstacle, that can be dealt with rationally. If you just quietly go
> away, letting him plan his schedule on your acceptance of his schedule and
> task loading, it's on you. If he doesn't allow you any input, it's on him,
> and you should emphasize those issues in a memo. It won't help either of you
> to pretend the problem doesn't exist.

  Again, getting back to my friend who worked on a phone switch based on
NT---his team hired a programmer who swore up and down that he could program
under C++ and understood networking, yet three weeks later he still couldn't
compile a simple C++ hello world style program, and had no clue what sockets
are and you can bet my friend screamed up and down.

  It did no good. They couldn't get rid of the programmer, and no amount of
memo writing or walking up the management chain would fix that.

> > -spc (Oh, forgot to tell you ... I won't tell you the specs at all, but
> > that shouldn't affect the time schedule any ... )
> >
> Perhaps the programmers should simply refuse to work that way, rather than
> abjectly refusing to adhere to formal specifications, established policies,
> etc. Either way, they're likely to be fired when all is said and done.
        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

  Bingo!

  -spc (The Emperor may have no clothes, but he can still behead you ... )
Received on Mon Apr 22 2002 - 21:10:54 BST