Date: Fri, 21 Apr 95 21:12:56 MDT From: terry@cs.weber.edu (Terry Lambert) To: phk@ref.tfs.com (Poul-Henning Kamp) Cc: hackers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Minutes of the Thursday, April 13th core team meeting in Berkeley. Message-ID: <9504220312.AA06440@cs.weber.edu> In-Reply-To: <199504220106.SAA20941@ref.tfs.com> from "Poul-Henning Kamp" at Apr 21, 95 06:06:58 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > I cheated. By definition, a company that has fallen victim to S^3 > > will not be successful. If it is, then it hasn't been a victim. > > We're clearly inside the 20% zone where Terry is completely and utterly > off the mark. > > IBM "not successful" ???? Are you claiming that they would have been equally or less successful for having recognized and elimited S^3 by using competent release engineering practices? Or are you claiming "any profitability over 0%" as "successful enough"? Companies that _allow_ themselves to fall victim to S^3 are "*lucky* if they survive", not "*successful* if they survive". The difference (in software) between not being hit by S^3 and being clobbered over the head by it is the difference between committed, competent release engineering that has been empowered to do their jobs vs. a failure in commitment, competence, or empowerment that should have been there but wasn't. Products that fall victim to S^3 deserve to die. IBM (or any company) surviving an S^3 crisis is either over-capitolized (and therefore not hitting their full profit potential) or otherwise independent of the failing product for their income (survival). Man, I feel like the only person outside of Japan who has read Demming. 8^). Terry Lambert terry@cs.weber.edu --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?9504220312.AA06440>