Search Results

Search found 23753 results on 951 pages for 'mark dvm software'.

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

Page 36/951 | < Previous Page | 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43  | Next Page >

  • how to design and produce enterprise software in Java Technology EE ? more importantly does it have

    - by fwfwfw
    I want to be able to design and produce enterprise software/applications. Java EE comes to mind. but are there alternatives ? Does it have to be J2EE, to make enterprisey software ? More importantly, how common is it for developers to use Java Technology in order to build enterprise software ? I mean how much "meat" do you need to pack before you can charge a $100,000 sticker price ? is bloatware common in this industry ? what is the best way I can learn the entire Java Enterprise and be able to design and produce enterprise software ? Or perhaps an alternative to Java ? I am starting software engineering in University, but I have personal coding experience....i just would love to be able to design enterprise software using Java Technology....i can pick up books and start practicing.....i just dont know where to begin or what to expect. My goal is to get as much experience in enterprise software field, and specialize into niches start my own company. so far i know enterprise software sale process usually take at least a couple of months but for a good reason..

    Read the article

  • How does Software/Code actually communicate with Harware?

    - by AbyJames
    My question is: When I press the "Shut down" button in Windows/Linux,the computer shutdowns.How did the command "Shut down" actually make the computer Physically shutdown? To make my point clear: When we kick a ball,there is physical contact between the ball and our leg,for the ball to move.So how is the physical connection achieved between softwares and hardwares?How does plain text of codes make the computer do what it does? (Noob question,I know but it has been irritating me for quite sometime now) -Aby

    Read the article

  • Official definition of CSCI (Computer Software Configuration Item)

    - by Andreas_D
    I'm looking for the most official definition of CSCI / Configuration Item - not just what it is but what we have to deliver / can expect when a contract defines subsystems which shall be developed as configuration items. I spend some time with my famous search tool and found a lot of explanations for CSCI (wikipedia, acronym directories, ...) but I haven't found a standard or a pointer to a standard (like ISO-xxx) yet which tells (1) what it is and (2) what has to be done from a QM/CM point of view. I just ask, because a contractors QM representative stated during an acceptance test, that CI only requires to not forget the CI in the configuration plan and to assign a serial number ... I expected to see some SRS, SDD, ICD, SVD, SIP, ... documents and acceptance test documentation for those subsystems...

    Read the article

  • Secrets of delivering .NET size large products?

    - by Joan Venge
    In software companies I have seen it's really hard to work on very large products where everything depends on everything else. For instance Microsoft works on C#, F#, .NET, WPF, Visual Studio where these things are interconnected. I don't know how many people are involved, but if it's in 100s, how do they keep in sync with everything, so they design and implement features without conflicting with other dependencies and future plans of other products? I am wondering that if MS is able to do this, they must have a very good system. Any guidelines or secrets for MS or non-MS very large software product delivering?

    Read the article

  • Showing only mark at nodes in flex chart

    - by Roshan
    I am generating an areachart and i need to mark the nodes where values exists at corresponding x and y , but the data tip should not appear. Only presence of mark to indicate the value exists at that particular point is enough, how can it be done?

    Read the article

  • How to view status of software RAID 1 resynching?

    - by tputkonen
    I have two 500 GB disks and yesterday I mirrored first drive to the second one using software RAID 1. PC has now been on for 30 hours. Both disks say "Resynching", but there is no progress indicator. In addition, there is a small yellow exclamation mark on both disks. My questions are: How long could the synch take for 500 GB drive with about 150 GB of data? PC has 4 GBs of RAM and AMD dual core 4000+ Is there a way to monitor status of the synching? How can I check what the exclamation mark means?

    Read the article

  • An Alphabet of Eponymous Aphorisms, Programming Paradigms, Software Sayings, Annoying Alliteration

    - by Brian Schroer
    Malcolm Anderson blogged about “Einstein’s Razor” yesterday, which reminded me of my favorite software development “law”, the name of which I can never remember. It took much Wikipedia-ing to find it (Hofstadter’s Law – see below), but along the way I compiled the following list: Amara’s Law: We tend to overestimate the effect of a technology in the short run and underestimate the effect in the long run. Brook’s Law: Adding manpower to a late software project makes it later. Clarke’s Third Law: Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. Law of Demeter: Each unit should only talk to its friends; don't talk to strangers. Einstein’s Razor: “Make things as simple as possible, but not simpler” is the popular paraphrase, but what he actually said was “It can scarcely be denied that the supreme goal of all theory is to make the irreducible basic elements as simple and as few as possible without having to surrender the adequate representation of a single datum of experience”, an overly complicated quote which is an obvious violation of Einstein’s Razor. (You can tell by looking at a picture of Einstein that the dude was hardly an expert on razors or other grooming apparati.) Finagle's Law of Dynamic Negatives: Anything that can go wrong, will—at the worst possible moment. - O'Toole's Corollary: The perversity of the Universe tends towards a maximum. Greenspun's Tenth Rule: Any sufficiently complicated C or Fortran program contains an ad hoc, informally-specified, bug-ridden, slow implementation of half of Common Lisp. (Morris’s Corollary: “…including Common Lisp”) Hofstadter's Law: It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's Law. Issawi’s Omelet Analogy: One cannot make an omelet without breaking eggs - but it is amazing how many eggs one can break without making a decent omelet. Jackson’s Rules of Optimization: Rule 1: Don't do it. Rule 2 (for experts only): Don't do it yet. Kaner’s Caveat: A program which perfectly meets a lousy specification is a lousy program. Liskov Substitution Principle (paraphrased): Functions that use pointers or references to base classes must be able to use objects of derived classes without knowing it Mason’s Maxim: Since human beings themselves are not fully debugged yet, there will be bugs in your code no matter what you do. Nils-Peter Nelson’s Nil I/O Rule: The fastest I/O is no I/O.    Occam's Razor: The simplest explanation is usually the correct one. Parkinson’s Law: Work expands so as to fill the time available for its completion. Quentin Tarantino’s Pie Principle: “…you want to go home have a drink and go and eat pie and talk about it.” (OK, he was talking about movies, not software, but I couldn’t find a “Q” quote about software. And wouldn’t it be cool to write a program so great that the users want to eat pie and talk about it?) Raymond’s Rule: Computer science education cannot make anybody an expert programmer any more than studying brushes and pigment can make somebody an expert painter.  Sowa's Law of Standards: Whenever a major organization develops a new system as an official standard for X, the primary result is the widespread adoption of some simpler system as a de facto standard for X. Turing’s Tenet: We shall do a much better programming job, provided we approach the task with a full appreciation of its tremendous difficulty, provided that we respect the intrinsic limitations of the human mind and approach the task as very humble programmers.  Udi Dahan’s Race Condition Rule: If you think you have a race condition, you don’t understand the domain well enough. These rules didn’t exist in the age of paper, there is no reason for them to exist in the age of computers. When you have race conditions, go back to the business and find out actual rules. Van Vleck’s Kvetching: We know about as much about software quality problems as they knew about the Black Plague in the 1600s. We've seen the victims' agonies and helped burn the corpses. We don't know what causes it; we don't really know if there is only one disease. We just suffer -- and keep pouring our sewage into our water supply. Wheeler’s Law: All problems in computer science can be solved by another level of indirection... Except for the problem of too many layers of indirection. Wheeler also said “Compatibility means deliberately repeating other people's mistakes.”. The Wrong Road Rule of Mr. X (anonymous): No matter how far down the wrong road you've gone, turn back. Yourdon’s Rule of Two Feet: If you think your management doesn't know what it's doing or that your organisation turns out low-quality software crap that embarrasses you, then leave. Zawinski's Law of Software Envelopment: Every program attempts to expand until it can read mail. Zawinski is also responsible for “Some people, when confronted with a problem, think 'I know, I'll use regular expressions.' Now they have two problems.” He once commented about X Windows widget toolkits: “Using these toolkits is like trying to make a bookshelf out of mashed potatoes.”

    Read the article

  • Is software support an option for your career?

    - by Maria Sandu
    Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 If you have a technical background, why should you choose a career in support? We have invited Serban to answer these questions and to give us an overview of one of the biggest technical teams in Oracle Romania. He’s been with Oracle for 7 years leading the local PeopleSoft Financials & Supply Chain Support team. Back in 2013 Serban started building a new support team in Romania – Fusion HCM. His current focus is building a strong support team for Fusion HCM, latest solution for Business HR Professionals from Oracle. The solution is offered both on Premise (customer site installation) but more important as a Cloud offering – SaaS.  So, why should a technical person choose Software Support over other technical areas?  “I think it is mainly because of the high level of technical skills required to provide the best technical solutions to our customers. Oracle Software Support covers complex solutions going from Database or Middleware to a vast area of business applications (basically covering any needs that a large enterprise may have). Working with such software requires very strong skills both technical and functional for the different areas, going from Finance, Supply Chain Management, Manufacturing, Sales to other very specific business processes. Our customers are large enterprises that already have a support layer inside their organization and therefore the Oracle Technical Support Engineers are working with highly specialized staff (DBA’s, System/Application Admins, Implementation Consultants). This is a very important aspect for our engineers because they need to be highly skilled to match our customer’s specialist’s expectations”.  What’s the career path in your team? “Technical Analysts joining our teams have a clear growth path. The main focus is to become a master of the product they will support. I think one need 1 or 2 years to reach a good level of understanding the product and delivering optimal solutions because of the complexity of our products. At a later stage, engineers can choose their professional development areas based on the business needs and preferences and then further grow towards as technical expert or a management role. We have analysts that have more than 15 years of technical expertise and they still learn and grow in technical area. Important fact is, due to the expansion of the Romanian Software support center, there are various management opportunities. So, if you want to leverage your experience and if you want to have people management responsibilities Oracle Software Support is the place to be!”  Our last question to Serban was about the benefits of being part of Oracle Software Support. Here is what he said: “We believe that Oracle delivers “State of the art” Support level to our customers. This is not possible without high investment in our staff. We commit from the start to support any technical analyst that joins us (being junior or very senior) with any training needs they have for their job. We have various technical trainings as well as soft-skills trainings required for a customer facing professional to be successful in his role. Last but not least, we’re aiming to make Oracle Romania SW Support a global center of excellence which means we’re investing a lot in our employees.”  If you’re looking for a job where you can combine your strong technical skills with customer interaction Oracle Software Support is the place to be! Send us your CV at [email protected]. /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin-top:0in; mso-para-margin-right:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt; mso-para-margin-left:0in; line-height:115%; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;}

    Read the article

  • What software license should I release my code under?

    - by Citizen
    We're about to finish some free software and we're not sure what license we should release it under. Here's the details: The software is funded by several sponsors The software is open source (edit: see comments) The software will be free to download by the end-user The software will be free to use and modify for personal and commercial use by the end-user We want to retain ownership of the code We don't want anyone else to distribute our product What software license should we use? Edit: this is a free php social arcade script. Something like a Kongregate.com clone.

    Read the article

  • GNU General Public License (v2): can a company use the licensed software for free?

    - by EOL
    When a library is released under the GPL v2, can a company use it internally for free? If they develop software based on it, do they have to release it under the GPL, even if they don't distribute it? Can they make money by using (not distributing) internally developed software that links to the GPL'ed library, without any compensation for the author? I am looking for a software license that only allows non-commercial uses (copy, modify, link to); the resulting derived programs must also be free for non-commercial uses. Is there any software license that does this for non-commercial uses, and prevents any commercial use (including using the software in order to make money)? It looks like the Creative Commons licenses are flexible enough to do something close to that, but I've read against using them for software. What do you think?

    Read the article

  • The theory of evolution applied to software

    - by Michel Grootjans
    I recently realized the many parallels you can draw between the theory of evolution and evolving software. Evolution is not the proverbial million monkeys typing on a million typewriters, where one of them comes up with the complete works of Shakespeare. We would have noticed by now, since the proverbial monkeys are now blogging on the Internet ;-) One of the main ideas of the theory of evolution is the balance between random mutations and natural selection. Random mutations happen all the time: millions of mutations over millions of years. Most of them are totally useless. Some of them are beneficial to the evolved species. Natural selection favors the beneficially mutated species. Less beneficial mutations die off. The mutated rabbit doesn't have to be faster than the fox. It just has to be faster than the other rabbits.   Theory of evolution Evolving software Random mutations happen all the time. Most of these mutations are so bad, the new species dies off, or cannot reproduce. Developers write new code all the time. New ideas come up during the act of writing software. The really bad ones don't get past the stage of idea. The bad ones don't get committed to source control. Natural selection favors the beneficial mutated species Good ideas and new code gets discussed in group during informal peer review. Less than good code gets refactored. Enhanced code makes it more readable, maintainable... A good set of traits makes the species superior to others. It becomes widespread A good design tends to make it easier to add new features, easier to understand the current implementations, easier to optimize for performance...thus superior. The best designs get carried over from project to project. They appear in blogs, articles and books about principles, patterns and practices.   Of course the act of writing software is deliberate. This can hardly be called random mutations. Though it sometimes might seem that code evolves through a will of its own ;-) Does this mean that evolving software (evolution) is better than a big design up front (creationism)? Not necessarily. It's a false idea to think that a project starts from scratch and everything evolves from there. Everyone carries his experience of what works and what doesn't. Up front design is necessary, but is best kept simple and minimal, just enough to get you started. Let the good experiences and ideas help to drive the process, whether they come from you or from others, from past experience or from the most junior developer on your team. Once again, balance is the keyword. Balance design up front with evolution on a daily basis. How do you know what balance is right? Through your own experience of what worked and what didn't (here's evolution again). Notes: The evolution of software can quickly degenerate without discipline. TDD is a discipline that leaves little to chance on that part. Write your test to describe the new behavior. Write just enough code to make it behave as specified. Refactor to evolve the code to a higher standard. The responsibility of good design rests continuously on each developers' shoulders. Promiscuous pair programming helps quickly spreading the design to the whole team.

    Read the article

  • Mac OS X Server 10.6 - Apple's software mirrored RAID worth it?

    - by Arko
    Hi, I am installing an Intel Xserve (Quad core Xeon) with Snow Leopard Server (10.6) on two 80Gb 7200rpm SATA HDs. I created a mirrored RAID set using Disk Utility with those two drives, all went fine. I was then asking myself if this is really a good idea. I know that an hardware RAID system would be better, but what about this software RAID? Have you any feedback on this? Will it work fine if one HD breaks down? Does this affect performance? [UPDATE] In short: Hardware RAID is better than software RAID which is better than none. Thank you all for the answers, they were very helpful. Especially Gordon's script to monitor failures. As Apple's software RAID is pretty silent about a drive failure.

    Read the article

  • Any screen capture software that captures webcam, microphone inputs too ?

    - by mohanr
    I am going to conduct a user study. Apart from capturing the screen while the user is interacting with the system, I also want to capture the video/audio of the user. Is there any software that in addition to capturing the screen also overlays it with the webcam/microphone inputs. The goal is to capture the complete experience of the user: key/mouse interactions with the system along with their facial/vocal responses. I know that I can maybe run a screen-capture software and also run a software for capturing webcam audio/video alongside and try to sync/overlay both these streams with timestamps. But I am going to be dealing with probably several hundred hours of data. So I am looking for a tool that can streamline the process for me amap and help me keep my sanity at end of the process. Thanks,

    Read the article

  • Linux Software RAID: How to fsck on hard drive?

    - by Rick-Rainer Ludwig
    We have a Linux server running with Software RAID1. We see some issues in /var/log/messages like: unreadable sector. I want to perform a complete fsck on the drive to get some more information, but a fsck /dev/md0 brings a clean due to the Software RAID layer in between. How can I check the real hard drive? Do I need to disassemble the whole RAID? How do I deal with the inconsistency in the partition due to the additional Software RAID header? Does anyone have a good idea for this?

    Read the article

  • Is there any automatic Windows software to check status of website..

    - by user59280
    Is there any automatic Windows software application to check status of website and alert me through mail or message or trigger am alarm.. Example: Consider I am waiting to buy a new latest movie ticket online (through) and the ticket booking has not been informed properly (online booking is opening at a random time). In this situation I will be forced to slave for my PC to get the tickets. To avoid such situation, can you suggest me a software? So I need a software which will alert me when the online booking is open.. Can anyone please help me?

    Read the article

  • The Incremental Architect&acute;s Napkin &ndash; #3 &ndash; Make Evolvability inevitable

    - by Ralf Westphal
    Originally posted on: http://geekswithblogs.net/theArchitectsNapkin/archive/2014/06/04/the-incremental-architectacutes-napkin-ndash-3-ndash-make-evolvability-inevitable.aspxThe easier something to measure the more likely it will be produced. Deviations between what is and what should be can be readily detected. That´s what automated acceptance tests are for. That´s what sprint reviews in Scrum are for. It´s no small wonder our software looks like it looks. It has all the traits whose conformance with requirements can easily be measured. And it´s lacking traits which cannot easily be measured. Evolvability (or Changeability) is such a trait. If an operation is correct, if an operation if fast enough, that can be checked very easily. But whether Evolvability is high or low, that cannot be checked by taking a measure or two. Evolvability might correlate with certain traits, e.g. number of lines of code (LOC) per function or Cyclomatic Complexity or test coverage. But there is no threshold value signalling “evolvability too low”; also Evolvability is hardly tangible for the customer. Nevertheless Evolvability is of great importance - at least in the long run. You can get away without much of it for a short time. Eventually, though, it´s needed like any other requirement. Or even more. Because without Evolvability no other requirement can be implemented. Evolvability is the foundation on which all else is build. Such fundamental importance is in stark contrast with its immeasurability. To compensate this, Evolvability must be put at the very center of software development. It must become the hub around everything else revolves. Since we cannot measure Evolvability, though, we cannot start watching it more. Instead we need to establish practices to keep it high (enough) at all times. Chefs have known that for long. That´s why everybody in a restaurant kitchen is constantly seeing after cleanliness. Hygiene is important as is to have clean tools at standardized locations. Only then the health of the patrons can be guaranteed and production efficiency is constantly high. Still a kitchen´s level of cleanliness is easier to measure than software Evolvability. That´s why important practices like reviews, pair programming, or TDD are not enough, I guess. What we need to keep Evolvability in focus and high is… to continually evolve. Change must not be something to avoid but too embrace. To me that means the whole change cycle from requirement analysis to delivery needs to be gone through more often. Scrum´s sprints of 4, 2 even 1 week are too long. Kanban´s flow of user stories across is too unreliable; it takes as long as it takes. Instead we should fix the cycle time at 2 days max. I call that Spinning. No increment must take longer than from this morning until tomorrow evening to finish. Then it should be acceptance checked by the customer (or his/her representative, e.g. a Product Owner). For me there are several resasons for such a fixed and short cycle time for each increment: Clear expectations Absolute estimates (“This will take X days to complete.”) are near impossible in software development as explained previously. Too much unplanned research and engineering work lurk in every feature. And then pervasive interruptions of work by peers and management. However, the smaller the scope the better our absolute estimates become. That´s because we understand better what really are the requirements and what the solution should look like. But maybe more importantly the shorter the timespan the more we can control how we use our time. So much can happen over the course of a week and longer timespans. But if push comes to shove I can block out all distractions and interruptions for a day or possibly two. That´s why I believe we can give rough absolute estimates on 3 levels: Noon Tonight Tomorrow Think of a meeting with a Product Owner at 8:30 in the morning. If she asks you, how long it will take you to implement a user story or bug fix, you can say, “It´ll be fixed by noon.”, or you can say, “I can manage to implement it until tonight before I leave.”, or you can say, “You´ll get it by tomorrow night at latest.” Yes, I believe all else would be naive. If you´re not confident to get something done by tomorrow night (some 34h from now) you just cannot reliably commit to any timeframe. That means you should not promise anything, you should not even start working on the issue. So when estimating use these four categories: Noon, Tonight, Tomorrow, NoClue - with NoClue meaning the requirement needs to be broken down further so each aspect can be assigned to one of the first three categories. If you like absolute estimates, here you go. But don´t do deep estimates. Don´t estimate dozens of issues; don´t think ahead (“Issue A is a Tonight, then B will be a Tomorrow, after that it´s C as a Noon, finally D is a Tonight - that´s what I´ll do this week.”). Just estimate so Work-in-Progress (WIP) is 1 for everybody - plus a small number of buffer issues. To be blunt: Yes, this makes promises impossible as to what a team will deliver in terms of scope at a certain date in the future. But it will give a Product Owner a clear picture of what to pull for acceptance feedback tonight and tomorrow. Trust through reliability Our trade is lacking trust. Customers don´t trust software companies/departments much. Managers don´t trust developers much. I find that perfectly understandable in the light of what we´re trying to accomplish: delivering software in the face of uncertainty by means of material good production. Customers as well as managers still expect software development to be close to production of houses or cars. But that´s a fundamental misunderstanding. Software development ist development. It´s basically research. As software developers we´re constantly executing experiments to find out what really provides value to users. We don´t know what they need, we just have mediated hypothesises. That´s why we cannot reliably deliver on preposterous demands. So trust is out of the window in no time. If we switch to delivering in short cycles, though, we can regain trust. Because estimates - explicit or implicit - up to 32 hours at most can be satisfied. I´d say: reliability over scope. It´s more important to reliably deliver what was promised then to cover a lot of requirement area. So when in doubt promise less - but deliver without delay. Deliver on scope (Functionality and Quality); but also deliver on Evolvability, i.e. on inner quality according to accepted principles. Always. Trust will be the reward. Less complexity of communication will follow. More goodwill buffer will follow. So don´t wait for some Kanban board to show you, that flow can be improved by scheduling smaller stories. You don´t need to learn that the hard way. Just start with small batch sizes of three different sizes. Fast feedback What has been finished can be checked for acceptance. Why wait for a sprint of several weeks to end? Why let the mental model of the issue and its solution dissipate? If you get final feedback after one or two weeks, you hardly remember what you did and why you did it. Resoning becomes hard. But more importantly youo probably are not in the mood anymore to go back to something you deemed done a long time ago. It´s boring, it´s frustrating to open up that mental box again. Learning is harder the longer it takes from event to feedback. Effort can be wasted between event (finishing an issue) and feedback, because other work might go in the wrong direction based on false premises. Checking finished issues for acceptance is the most important task of a Product Owner. It´s even more important than planning new issues. Because as long as work started is not released (accepted) it´s potential waste. So before starting new work better make sure work already done has value. By putting the emphasis on acceptance rather than planning true pull is established. As long as planning and starting work is more important, it´s a push process. Accept a Noon issue on the same day before leaving. Accept a Tonight issue before leaving today or first thing tomorrow morning. Accept a Tomorrow issue tomorrow night before leaving or early the day after tomorrow. After acceptance the developer(s) can start working on the next issue. Flexibility As if reliability/trust and fast feedback for less waste weren´t enough economic incentive, there is flexibility. After each issue the Product Owner can change course. If on Monday morning feature slices A, B, C, D, E were important and A, B, C were scheduled for acceptance by Monday evening and Tuesday evening, the Product Owner can change her mind at any time. Maybe after A got accepted she asks for continuation with D. But maybe, just maybe, she has gotten a completely different idea by then. Maybe she wants work to continue on F. And after B it´s neither D nor E, but G. And after G it´s D. With Spinning every 32 hours at latest priorities can be changed. And nothing is lost. Because what got accepted is of value. It provides an incremental value to the customer/user. Or it provides internal value to the Product Owner as increased knowledge/decreased uncertainty. I find such reactivity over commitment economically very benefical. Why commit a team to some workload for several weeks? It´s unnecessary at beast, and inflexible and wasteful at worst. If we cannot promise delivery of a certain scope on a certain date - which is what customers/management usually want -, we can at least provide them with unpredecented flexibility in the face of high uncertainty. Where the path is not clear, cannot be clear, make small steps so you´re able to change your course at any time. Premature completion Customers/management are used to premeditating budgets. They want to know exactly how much to pay for a certain amount of requirements. That´s understandable. But it does not match with the nature of software development. We should know that by now. Maybe there´s somewhere in the world some team who can consistently deliver on scope, quality, and time, and budget. Great! Congratulations! I, however, haven´t seen such a team yet. Which does not mean it´s impossible, but I think it´s nothing I can recommend to strive for. Rather I´d say: Don´t try this at home. It might hurt you one way or the other. However, what we can do, is allow customers/management stop work on features at any moment. With spinning every 32 hours a feature can be declared as finished - even though it might not be completed according to initial definition. I think, progress over completion is an important offer software development can make. Why think in terms of completion beyond a promise for the next 32 hours? Isn´t it more important to constantly move forward? Step by step. We´re not running sprints, we´re not running marathons, not even ultra-marathons. We´re in the sport of running forever. That makes it futile to stare at the finishing line. The very concept of a burn-down chart is misleading (in most cases). Whoever can only think in terms of completed requirements shuts out the chance for saving money. The requirements for a features mostly are uncertain. So how does a Product Owner know in the first place, how much is needed. Maybe more than specified is needed - which gets uncovered step by step with each finished increment. Maybe less than specified is needed. After each 4–32 hour increment the Product Owner can do an experient (or invite users to an experiment) if a particular trait of the software system is already good enough. And if so, she can switch the attention to a different aspect. In the end, requirements A, B, C then could be finished just 70%, 80%, and 50%. What the heck? It´s good enough - for now. 33% money saved. Wouldn´t that be splendid? Isn´t that a stunning argument for any budget-sensitive customer? You can save money and still get what you need? Pull on practices So far, in addition to more trust, more flexibility, less money spent, Spinning led to “doing less” which also means less code which of course means higher Evolvability per se. Last but not least, though, I think Spinning´s short acceptance cycles have one more effect. They excert pull-power on all sorts of practices known for increasing Evolvability. If, for example, you believe high automated test coverage helps Evolvability by lowering the fear of inadverted damage to a code base, why isn´t 90% of the developer community practicing automated tests consistently? I think, the answer is simple: Because they can do without. Somehow they manage to do enough manual checks before their rare releases/acceptance checks to ensure good enough correctness - at least in the short term. The same goes for other practices like component orientation, continuous build/integration, code reviews etc. None of that is compelling, urgent, imperative. Something else always seems more important. So Evolvability principles and practices fall through the cracks most of the time - until a project hits a wall. Then everybody becomes desperate; but by then (re)gaining Evolvability has become as very, very difficult and tedious undertaking. Sometimes up to the point where the existence of a project/company is in danger. With Spinning that´s different. If you´re practicing Spinning you cannot avoid all those practices. With Spinning you very quickly realize you cannot deliver reliably even on your 32 hour promises. Spinning thus is pulling on developers to adopt principles and practices for Evolvability. They will start actively looking for ways to keep their delivery rate high. And if not, management will soon tell them to do that. Because first the Product Owner then management will notice an increasing difficulty to deliver value within 32 hours. There, finally there emerges a way to measure Evolvability: The more frequent developers tell the Product Owner there is no way to deliver anything worth of feedback until tomorrow night, the poorer Evolvability is. Don´t count the “WTF!”, count the “No way!” utterances. In closing For sustainable software development we need to put Evolvability first. Functionality and Quality must not rule software development but be implemented within a framework ensuring (enough) Evolvability. Since Evolvability cannot be measured easily, I think we need to put software development “under pressure”. Software needs to be changed more often, in smaller increments. Each increment being relevant to the customer/user in some way. That does not mean each increment is worthy of shipment. It´s sufficient to gain further insight from it. Increments primarily serve the reduction of uncertainty, not sales. Sales even needs to be decoupled from this incremental progress. No more promises to sales. No more delivery au point. Rather sales should look at a stream of accepted increments (or incremental releases) and scoup from that whatever they find valuable. Sales and marketing need to realize they should work on what´s there, not what might be possible in the future. But I digress… In my view a Spinning cycle - which is not easy to reach, which requires practice - is the core practice to compensate the immeasurability of Evolvability. From start to finish of each issue in 32 hours max - that´s the challenge we need to accept if we´re serious increasing Evolvability. Fortunately higher Evolvability is not the only outcome of Spinning. Customer/management will like the increased flexibility and “getting more bang for the buck”.

    Read the article

  • What is 'System Usage Specification' ?

    - by rohit k.
    My software is a video-audio converter and video cutter. I have used Qt(compiled from source) and ffmpeg (compiled from source). I have to prepare System Usage Specification outline and Specify Usage patterns of the system and indicate it using Run charts / Histograms. I am told to use Winrunner for this purpose. I don't know exactly what to do. Please help.

    Read the article

  • The Windows Azure Software Development Kit (SDK) and the Windows Azure Training Kit (WATK)

    - by BuckWoody
    Windows Azure is a platform that allows you to write software, run software, or use software that we've already written. We provide lots of resources to help you do that - many can be found right here in this blog series. There are two primary resources you can use, and it's important to understand what they are and what they do. The Windows Azure Software Development Kit (SDK) Actually, this isn't one resource. We have SDK's for multiple development environments, such as Visual Studio and also Eclipse, along with SDK's for iOS, Android and other environments. Windows Azure is a "back end", so almost any technology or front end system can use it to solve a problem. The SDK's are primarily for development. In the case of Visual Studio, you'll get a runtime environment for Windows Azure which allows you to develop, test and even run code all locally - you do not have to be connected to Windows Azure at all, until you're ready to deploy. You'll also get a few samples and codeblocks, along with all of the libraries you need to code with Windows Azure in .NET, PHP, Ruby, Java and more. The SDK is updated frequently, so check this location to find the latest for your environment and language - just click the bar that corresponds to what you want: http://www.windowsazure.com/en-us/develop/downloads/ The Windows Azure Training Kit (WATK) Whether you're writing code, using Windows Azure Virtual Machines (VM's) or working with Hadoop, you can use the WATK to get examples, code, PowerShell scripts, PowerPoint decks, training videos and much more. This should be your second download after the SDK. This is all of the training you need to get started, and even beyond. The WATK is updated frequently - and you can find the latest one here: http://www.windowsazure.com/en-us/develop/net/other-resources/training-kit/     There are many other resources - again, check the http://windowsazure.com site, the community newsletter (which introduces the latest features), and my blog for more.

    Read the article

  • Blog/CMS software with editing style like Stack Exchange

    - by Merlyn Morgan-Graham
    I have been updating a Wordpress blog lately and found the turnaround time for content creation and editing is much worse than for Stack Overflow posts. Part of this has to do with being original compositions rather than riffing off a question. But part of it is the software. I am looking for CMS/blog software that has an overall editing experience similar to Stack Overflow. The most important features I'm looking for: Inline editing (mostly) Real-time preview on the same page are all important features for speeding up data entry. Markdown support (with inline and block-level code support) Syntax hilighting The features I must maintain from my self-hosted Wordpress: Somewhat popular/supported software, with extensibility support Self hostable Will work with MySql Wordpress has plugins for all these, but they don't necessarily work together. For example I've found a few markdown-on-save plugins, but I doubt those have a chance of ever supporting inline editing or real time previews. Also the most popular syntax hilighting plugins don't support inline code blocks, and I doubt previews would work with other syntax hilighting methods. If I get a wiki/web page content creation system along with it, or somehow integrate this into GitHub (with all the features I requested) I'll accept those as side benefits :) Formed as a question: Are there any pieces of content creation software for making a blog that support an editing style like Stack Exchange and Stack Overflow? Or magic combinations of Wordpress plugins that offer the same?

    Read the article

  • How do developers verify that software requirement changes in one system do not violate a requirement of downstream software systems?

    - by Peter Smith
    In my work, I do requirements gathering, analysis and design of business solutions in addition to coding. There are multiple software systems and packages, and developers are expected to work on any of them, instead of being assigned to make changes to only 1 system or just a few systems. How developers ensure they have captured all of the necessary requirements and resolved any conflicting requirements? An example of this type of scenario: Bob the developer is asked to modify the problem ticket system for a hypothetical utility repair business. They contract with a local utility company to provide this service. The old system provides a mechanism for an external customer to create a ticket indicating a problem with utility service at a particular address. There is a scheduling system and an invoicing system that is dependent on this data. Bob's new project is to modify the ticket placement system to allow for multiple addresses to entered by a landlord or other end customer with multiple properties. The invoicing system bills per ticket, but should be modified to bill per address. What practices would help Bob discover that the invoicing system needs to be changed as well? How might Bob discover what other systems in his company might need to be changed in order to support the new changes\business model? Let's say there is a documented specification for each system involved, but there are many systems and Bob is not familiar with all of them. End of example. We're often in this scenario, and we do have design reviews but management places ultimate responsibility for any defects (business process or software process) on the developer who is doing the design and the work. Some organizations seem to be better at this than others. How do they manage to detect and solve conflicting or incomplete requirements across software systems? We currently have a lot of tribal knowledge and just a few developers who understand the entire business and software chain. This seems highly ineffective and leads to problems at the requirements level.

    Read the article

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

< Previous Page | 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43  | Next Page >