Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2023 15:38:24 +0100 From: Steve O'Hara-Smith <steve@sohara.org> To: Tim Daneliuk <tundra@tundraware.com> Cc: FreeBSD Mailing List <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Docker Message-ID: <20230417153824.3409e86dd8ad27ddc39878b8@sohara.org> In-Reply-To: <f686b771-615a-d63d-53b8-27e950ef539a@tundraware.com> References: <20230329053443.6ADA6B6AFED5@dhcp-8e64.meeting.ietf.org> <CA%2B1FSijL50mQ-HveBA4HZeNkSoaORv=aty-15nNLzn9amzY_nw@mail.gmail.com> <6002f636-310b-a9fd-b82f-346618976983@timpreston.net> <CA%2B1FSigV_pPwVW%2BDd8WZYGcNQVt7%2BYOcsnJFoRhS6jL5A636pg@mail.gmail.com> <20230412150350.12f97eb2c9dd566b8c8702d2@sohara.org> <CA%2B1FSihVPCQ6tp8u=aqnLyyOPpCMrnhYGcC8bCUgRbFHTdY5sA@mail.gmail.com> <1535315680.2770963.1681309684072@mail.yahoo.com> <20230412155252.5e38ea4728bd52dc798852fc@sohara.org> <1d0a7ed1-9330-49df-9b66-9ee4387de511@app.fastmail.com> <8f3a86806377c2c92039eaf2765f5b85862de178.camel@riseup.net> <CA%2B1FSij0N-CRhMRXVUK81BWPTn0vDVcbQSF2Q11Zz%2BgJdL_Ddw@mail.gmail.com> <858859542.4652196.1681696294734@mail.yahoo.com> <92f6a9df-fd1e-9411-6093-fc8a145add17@tundraware.com> <CAMPTd_DnL2Wt_b0SDvUrciHTmTA7NSxDJh%2Be8LhO-RgJZ6AuKg@mail.gmail.com> <CAFYkXjk%2B6tx3rs1E_uZJdFHrxvOrGoVyPaX7mP5yqtV3U7ed=A@mail.gmail.com> <f686b771-615a-d63d-53b8-27e950ef539a@tundraware.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 17 Apr 2023 08:58:25 -0500 Tim Daneliuk <tundra@tundraware.com> wrote: > On 4/16/23 23:57, Tomek CEDRO wrote: > > hat messed up the once beautiful logical and coherent IT world > > With over 40 years in the tech business, I can say with confidence > that this never actually existed. The closest we ever came > to this was the "logical and coherent" world of IBM mainframes. I recall one project where used of SSADM was mandated for the entire project. The "user acceptance" document was a stack of paper about three feet high, in order to read the thing it was necessary to spread the pages out five at a time. I was less than half an inch down the document when I gave up as I was drowning in inconsistencies (I wasn't expected to sign off on it) three days later we got a sign off on it. That was waterfall done badly wrong. On another connected project we were allowed to go our own way and do it right, while a team of 'analysts' reverse documented the project as though we had designed it using SSADM - they had difficulty with some parts as their tools were insufficiently expressive to describe the solution we built. That was hacking round the deficiencies of waterfall done badly wrong. There is a great deal to be said for the core principle of agile, iterative development with constant feedback can be *very* effective at avoiding many common pitfalls with large projects. Wrapping this simple and effective principle in a dogma of two week cycles, everybody in the team can do everything and so forth is less effective and if it is done without understanding of the core principles and how to use them effectively to achieve an understood result it becomes an ordered path to chaos. The quickest way to chaos is to use it to avoid understanding the problem. The quickest way to success is to use it when you understand enough of the problem to be useful but not enough to be perfect because nobody has sufficient imagination. You still have to get the core right! The common point where any methodology fails is when those using it fail to realise that it is a tool for achieving a result and not a goal in itself. If it gets in the way and doesn't help it's the wrong tool, this is not cured by getting increasingly doctrinal about it. -- Steve O'Hara-Smith <steve@sohara.org>
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20230417153824.3409e86dd8ad27ddc39878b8>