Re: Software glitches leave Navy Smart Ship dead in the water

[Steve Cohen <stevecoh@mcs.com>]

Mitch Stone wrote:

> --- From a message sent by Steve Cohen on 7/22/98 5:11 AM ---
>
> >  I tried to answer this question before and had Mitch come down hard on me,
> >but I still think it's relevant.  The managerial elite would rather not
> >think about technical issues and has probably resented for years the
> >technical employees it has had to hire who know more than they do and have
> >unjustifiable (in the minds of the managerial elite) powers over them.  They
> >would rather deal with One Big Geek who will give them a point and click
> >system that lets them do most of what they want then follow the advice of
> >the little geeks they've hired.  Going with Microsoft at this point is a way
> >to get revenge on the geeks you've hired - you can ignore their advice or
> >maybe even fire them.  Reliability is a secondary concern.
>
> I'll leave it to others to argue whether "point and click" had anything
> to do with the Navy's decision to sink or float with NT, though it seems
> to me that the urge to "standardize" is the strongest force at work here.
> That, together with the command structure inflexibility and the inability
> to admit mistakes detailed by Tom Kaighin seem like the requisite deadly
> combination. And we can mean that literally now that lives are at stake.
>
> One other observation: the Navy is entirely capable of creating its own
> market for software and hardware, but for reasons peculiar chose instead,
> for mission-critical tasks, an off-the-shelf product with dubious
> credentials. Remember, this is the same branch of government that buys
> some of the most expensive hammers on earth.
>
> This is precisely the sort of scandalous outcome that ought to be on the
> front pages of newspapers all across the country. A Congressional
> investigation is on order. But I didn't find the story in mine, and I
> doubt the Congress will ask any tough questions.
>
>    Mitch Stone
>    Editor, Boycott Microsoft
>    http://www.vcnet.com/bms
>  +---
>    We are not in the communications business in any way.
>                                 --- Bill Gates

And here's an example of the kind of thinking I'm talking about, gleaned from one
of the chat boards around the July 23
hearings:http://www.zdnet.com/talkback/22_8301_38944.html

And I quote:
"

                 The real fear of Microsoft is not that it will "take over the
internet" with its
                 browser, MSN, web sites, but that Microsoft will do what it
excels at:
                 produce software for the low-priced competition and upset the
business
                 status quo, like it has the Unix server world. If Microsoft's
vision materializes
                 (about which the computer press is asleep at the wheel), of the
                 componentized or interchangeable softpart part, coupled with the
web page
                 of true app functionality that Netscape's old mainframe/terminal
version of a
                 browser has hindered, i.e. to bring low level programming via
web page
                 authoring to the masses--then the old guard and ISPs will really
squeal as
                 has-beens! Java, in this regard, is just a second rate vision of
true
                 interoperability, a "dumbed down," programmer-centric vision in
a
                 user-centric world, the Luddite trying to save the world of
"custom-built"
                 software in a coming industrialized software world. Hatch, of
course, spouts
                 all the cocktail cliches and its sad that it takes a court case
to allow
                 innovation. But the winner will be the middleware that empowers
the
                 knowledge worker, and the small companies they work for, by
underpining
                 this new revolution in "programming," after the first
revolution--the creation of
                 the modern application with Visical.
                 John
                 Components Online
                 www.components-online.com
"

The Microsoft "componentized or interchangeable software part" is a fraud and a
deception.
Any software company that depends on "interchangeable software" from Microsoft or
its partners opens itself to being broken anytime Microsoft wants to change its
interfaces.  You put a working product on the market, then Microsoft changes the
rules and all of a sudden you've got a Tech Support nightmare up the wazoo.  As
Glazer put it yesterday, your valuable engineering time is going down a rathole
that never should have been opened in the first place.

I've been there.  Y'all may remember my post from last week which nobody
responded to.
Exactly the same thing that bit Glazer.  You use a commercial component in
software, they change it in violation of every "rule" they talk about in their
propaganda.  To sell a product in this
environment, either you must choose between having your product break others not
using the latest version of the widget or be broken by them when you don't.

But notice the glee with which John talks about empowering the "knowledge-worker"
at the expense of the programmer.