21 year old veteran of the software business!
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| richo123 Jul 04, 2006 5:19 AM EDT |
Makes me feels old. There are some interesting insights into the weakness of the open source model here which I partially agree with: "The flip side of that is that proprietary companies so far have been traditionally much better at being able to actually get out of the echo chamber and listen to real users. A lot of open-source projects, because they're started by developers for developers -- people scratching their own itch -- tend to end up with very geeky products." The first part here is most important IMHO. Feedback from real users should receive a lot more attention than it does. I think it is an interesting intellectual challenge for the open source community. |
| dinotrac Jul 04, 2006 5:28 AM EDT |
richo - I think the second part is a partial explanation for the first. Developers are really good at, well, developing software. They will range from really good to really awful at other things that affect the usefulness of the software they develop: graphics, ergonomics, testing, documentation, etc. And...how often do you see remarks like, "How dare you complain about something people are doing for free?" or "If you want that, you should write it yourself" One advantage proprietary companies have is that they can provide motivation in the form of money to do things that might not otherwise be done. |
| richo123 Jul 04, 2006 6:07 AM EDT |
Dino, You are right theoretically about the discipline of the marketplace meaning proprietary software listens to users, although as Blake points out earlier in his interview, if the market breaks down due to monopoly problems then again the developer does not listen to the user. I am a scientist by profession so am used to the "open-source" model because that is how science moves forward: Essentially through open exchange of ideas via journals and conferences. The thing about science however that stops the echo chamber effect is that there is always a rigorous and competitive "peer review" process. People read your work hypercritically and they try to repeat your experiments. That's what I was alluding to above: How do you implement something similar in open source software development? |
| dinotrac Jul 04, 2006 7:31 AM EDT |
richo - >That's what I was alluding to above: How do you implement something similar in open source software development? I think something akin to peer review takes place when people submit patches, but it's only something akin -- not nearly the real thing. I'm not entirely sure that scientific peer review -- as done today -- is an altogether good thing. It seems to reinforce a tendency toward herd instincts and political correctness, discouraging those whose ideas lie outside the current mainstream of popular scientific thought. Fortunately, science itself is a powerful corrective force -- eventually, any discipline observing things as they are must confront the truth. I'm not altogether sure that's true in software (or politics!). I wonder how many software projects, full of promise and potential, are held back by someone who's thinking , "Fools!! They don't see my brilliance" |
| tuxchick2 Jul 04, 2006 8:13 AM EDT |
"Fools!! They don't see my brilliance" It helps to have some. |
| richo123 Jul 04, 2006 8:29 AM EDT |
Dino, >I'm not entirely sure that scientific peer review -- as done today -- is an altogether good thing. It seems to reinforce a tendency toward herd instincts and political correctness, discouraging those whose ideas lie outside the current mainstream of popular scientific thought. It is a conservatising influence for sure but the problem really is that there is so much bs out there that a heavy (and inefficient) filter is really needed. The problem with cranks is that 0.05% of them are really geniuses. On the otherhand truely brilliant (and unorthodox) ideas do make it through the filter. The theory of relativity is in that category. Interestingly Einstein never got the Nobel prize for this because of the conservative mentality. As far as software goes I wonder sometimes whether a bit more careful thought about the bug reporting interface might help. As an example when I was helping with Ubuntu debugging I was often frustrated with how long it took to run through all my favorite apps to make sure they were working OK. Surely some thought about making this process easier and less time consuming would help. Another problem is kernel freezes. It is incredibly hard as an ordinary user to deal with these. On the linux kernel site I saw how the kernel developers handle this- through a serial port connection to another server and with certain kernel options enabled. This is way too technical for most users. Surely Linus can come up with a better and friendlier logging system that can deal with the all too common hard lockups. Some rambling thoughts..... |
| dinotrac Jul 04, 2006 9:29 AM EDT |
>It is a conservatising influence for sure but the problem really is that there is so much bs out there that a heavy (and inefficient) filter is really needed. True enough. Too bad there is so much "publish or perish", with all those peer reviewers having a real effect on scientific careers. With issues such as global warming (or, more importantly, what can and should we do about it, if anything), use of fetal tissues, cloning, nuclear energy/nuclear waste, renewable resources, genetically modified foods, etc, it would really be nice to have robust and public scientific discussions freed of career politics. |
| richo123 Jul 04, 2006 9:45 AM EDT |
Dino, I think the debates you are talking about belong in the public/political domain not in the scientific domain although admittedly sometimes there is blurring there. Actually it is interesting to see the backscatter of political debates into science sometimes. As an example, the global warming area: This issue is incredibly politicized at present and true scientific debate gets lost as a result. The nature of scientific investigation is to entertain reasonable doubt however the nature of political discourse (in this country at present at least) is to avoid any perception of uncertainty in one's position and to loudly proclaim certainty over what intelligent people know are complex issues. Thus is my opinion that there is a strong balance of probabilities that global warming will be a really serious problem for the world in 20-50 years. But that is not how it is portrayed in the media. Either it is dead certain or else the Michael Crichton's of this world say that it is a scientific fraud (which it isn't). Anyway I am well O/T now... |
| tuxchick2 Jul 04, 2006 9:55 AM EDT |
Scientists are human, with egos and blind stubborness just like any other people. My favorite example is geologist Harlan Bretz, who came up with the catastrophic flood theory for the Pacific Northwest. In a nutshell, during the last Ice Age a giant lake formed behind an ice dam in Montana, called Lake Missoula, until it burst the dam and spewed forth over Eastern Washington clear to the Pacific Ocean. This happened dozens of times. The Willamette Valley is made up of soil that used to be in Eastern Washington. It's now the accepted theory, but back in his day he was severely criticized and mocked by the leading peers in his field. Most interesting to me was how many of them never bothered to leave their books and come out to the field and look at the evidence. Even today you can still see a lot of what Harlan Bretz saw- ancient shorelines, giant water ripples, old water channels, and such. In fact you can see it better from an airplane, which Prof. Bretz did not have, which makes his discoveries more impressive. Soooo... peer review, schmeer review, people believe what they want to believe, and I'm not sure scientists are any better than the average person in this regard. |
| richo123 Jul 04, 2006 10:01 AM EDT |
>Soooo... peer review, schmeer review, people believe what they want to believe, and I'm not sure scientists are any better than the average person in this regard. Tuxchick, You are talking about the 0.05% of geniuses. Take it from me there is an awful lot of crap that rightfully never sees the light of day. Scientists miss somethings as you point out and they can be prejudiced also but they are very well trained usually and are much better than the ordinary person at spotting bs. It would be a complete disaster for science in my view if peer review was abandoned. The journals would start looking like CNN and Fox News. |
| dinotrac Jul 04, 2006 10:19 AM EDT |
>but they are very well trained usually and are much better than the ordinary person at spotting bs. Which may be the most dangerous attitude any scientist can possess. I'm a great believer in the powerful bs-detecting ability of ordinary people. It varies widely, of course, but it's there. What scientists possess is training that most of us do not have. We can be fooled by technical impossibilities that a scientist would laugh at. At the same time, it's hardly unheard of for highly-trained and intelligent scientists, confident in their ability to detect b.s., to be taken in. Piltdown, anybody? Cloning & kimchee? |
| richo123 Jul 04, 2006 10:30 AM EDT |
Dino, I didn't say they can't be fooled just that their training means they are fooled less often on technically complex issues. Care to have an ordinary citzen review a cancer study for the Lancet rather than a medical researcher? Not me. |
| jimf Jul 04, 2006 10:50 AM EDT |
> As an example, the global warming area: This issue is incredibly politicized at present and true scientific debate gets lost as a result. They've certainly lost view of the forest for the trees... World population was a little over 2 billion when I was born. Now it's about 6.5 billion. By the time 2050 rolls around it will be approaching 10 billion. In the US, the figures go from slightly over 1 million to a current 3 million, and, by 2050 is projected to top 4 million. It doesn't take a scientist or a genius to see that human related impact on the environment (like global warming) is going to become more severe no matter what we do. Looking at the scenario when any animal population when it exceeds it's resources is a scary proposition, and, while we may be more inventive than most lemmings, I doubt that we are clever enough to do anything more than prolong the agony. The solution is obviously to 'drastically' reduce the population (Say by 3/4). Of course all the civilized people say "Oh no, we can't do that!"... But, don't worry, while everyone is debating, nature will handle it for you. |
| tuxchick2 Jul 04, 2006 11:05 AM EDT |
hee, jimf, you certainly cut through the mealy-mouthing and doubletalk. Ever notice how "reducing pollution" usually means "reducing the rate of increase"? |
| jimf Jul 04, 2006 11:37 AM EDT |
Sorry tuxchick, I'm just po'd at the world today.... Politicians, scientists, average Joe citizen... the whole 9 yards. I sometimes think that the reason that many of us are into Linux and the GPL is because it's one of the few places left where we can have a really positive impact. |
| dinotrac Jul 04, 2006 12:02 PM EDT |
Gosh, Jimf... Maybe I've been mis-reading all those Europeans and peace-niks who call Pres. Bush a war-mongering cowboy. Maybe it's really high praise -- recognition that, if nothing else, some serious war-mongering has the potential to reduce the population enough to control global warming!!! Hmmmm..... Doesn't seem like I'm coming from any better a place than you are today. Must be an after-effect of fighting through all those "Taste of Chicago" and lakefront fireworks crowds last night. |
| jimf Jul 04, 2006 12:38 PM EDT |
> Maybe it's really high praise -- recognition that, if nothing else, some serious war-mongering has the potential to reduce the population enough to control global warming!!! Gee dino, I hope you don't have the Presidents ear ;-). Considering the heat (not to mention the radiation) release necessary, I think that might be an 'unwise' trade off... One that would certainly top any of those Bush has already made. |
| dinotrac Jul 04, 2006 1:08 PM EDT |
jimf - Well, the radiation certainly is a problem, but I think the heat would pale compared to all the body heat, auto exhausts, livestock, industry, farming, home heating, etc of that extra 4-5 billion people. So...Bush could be the ultimate Green. Glowing Green, but Green nonetheless. Gee -- too bad I don't have the President's ear. Dennis Hastert is my Congressman. Wonder if I can leverage that? |
| helios Jul 04, 2006 3:53 PM EDT |
***Gee -- too bad I don't have the President's ear.
Dennis Hastert is my Congressman. Wonder if I can leverage that?...." Any self-doubt I possessed about being a cynic evaporated like so many chem-trails last week. More to come as soon as I pull my notes together, but I've recently returned from Washington DC on a fact-finding/arm-twisting whirlwind tour of the Rayburn building and the Halls of Congress. Several things learned/gleaned. 1. The level of a Congressional or Senatorial staffer's haughtiness is directly proportional to how many other staffers he stabbed in the back to get there....or...The distance in miles that seperate the staffer from the Boss. Snotty attitudes dissipate quickly when the red light comes on. (gps devices worn by legislators and turns colors on the offfice wall board, green yellow and red indicating proximity of wearer.) 2. Cleaning staff know the whereabouts of Congressman and Senators better than their own offices. Janitors are treated well by all. They see who comes in and out for "after-hours" meetings in the offices. Will not mention names, but one "maintenance engineer" who has worked Capitol Hill for years is retiring soon. His retirement check qualifies him for food stamps. The advance on the already signed book deal qualifies him to live next door to Ted Kennedy. Actually getting in to see a Congressman is difficult and success or failure depends in part on some of the following criteria/circumstance. a. Your signature appeared one inch down and slightly to the right of a number followed by many zeros during the last campaign. b. You are a House Ethics Committee Member with that signature and all those zeros in your hand as you walk through the door. c. The conversation begins with: "I know you are busy Senator, but Monica said that you would be glad to give me just a few minutes of your time." d. Jack Abramoff just entered the Justice Departent. |
| dcparris Jul 04, 2006 5:36 PM EDT |
> The first part here is most important IMHO. Feedback from real users should receive a lot more attention than it does. Gee, a lot of water has passed under this bridge. Still... I have had great success with providing feedback to some FOSS projects. In one case, I discovered that money talks - and sends political/technical rants packing. :-) |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!