From owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Jul 22 22:22:09 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B61F137B401 for ; Tue, 22 Jul 2003 22:22:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from stork.mail.pas.earthlink.net (stork.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.188]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0692643FA3 for ; Tue, 22 Jul 2003 22:22:09 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from tlambert2@mindspring.com) Received: from user-2ivfkao.dialup.mindspring.com ([165.247.209.88] helo=mindspring.com) by stork.mail.pas.earthlink.net with asmtp (SSLv3:RC4-MD5:128) (Exim 3.33 #1) id 19fC4h-0003sx-00; Tue, 22 Jul 2003 22:22:04 -0700 Message-ID: <3F1E1B3A.7EABD098@mindspring.com> Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2003 22:20:58 -0700 From: Terry Lambert X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Paul Robinson References: <3F1D1D56.5060107@iconoplex.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-ELNK-Trace: b1a02af9316fbb217a47c185c03b154d40683398e744b8a4fa57cb9236b3420e48d842d6b0725af1a2d4e88014a4647c350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c cc: Jerry Hicks cc: FreeBSD Chat Subject: Re: What does "enterpise" mean? X-BeenThere: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Non technical items related to the community List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2003 05:22:10 -0000 Paul Robinson wrote: > Jerry Hicks wrote: > > In the case of one major Linux vendor's enterprise products they are > > even pitching 'longer release cycles' as a product feature. > > > > "We're repackaging stale open source software and charging you extra > > for it." > > > > Oddly enough, all the pointy hairs I know think that is a good thing. > > There is a reason for this. PHBs within enterprises understand "risk" in > terms of product development and the impact short release cycles can > have. A longer release cycle implies to them that the company is taking > longer over it due to testing and therefore the risk on deployment is > lessened. > > In my opinion, this attitude should be applauded, rather than the "let's > rush it out of the door right now and see what happens" appraoch. But > then, my degree is software engineering, so I'm bound to say that... There are many facets to longer release cycles: o You wait longer for fixes ("Fixed in the next release") o There's more time for doing testing o There's more time for cramming new features in, instead of doing testing o The vendor gets to save money on marketing, collateral material, etc.. o The vendor gets to lose money on a longer amortization schedule for an income stream that now has to last a lot longer o There are less people actually working on the product o The developers/designers/architects could "get it wrong", and you could end up with a Blivit (ten pounds of manure in a five pound sack) Etc.. The PHB's aren't always right, and they aren't always wrong. It's probably more correct, overall, to keep your developers in suspense, so that they can't try to look too far ahead; three months of some amount of uncertainty, where the developer's favorite feature may or may not get in if they let implementing it drag out too long is probably a good balance. It gives you a good three months in which the only code that's going to get done is the code that needs to get done to clear bugs, rather than cram in new features. My first boss out of college taught me something that I've never forgotten, and it's always stood me in good stead: "Eventually, a software company has to ship software". I may have left that company behind a long time ago (after helping take it from just 2 employees to 18 employees), but that lesson has really stuck with me and shaped my idea of acceptable practice. -- Terry