management (Re: [ProgSoc] Headers and footers in NT Server)

[Telford Tendys <telford@nospam.progsoc.uts.edu.au>]

> 
> 'cause we all know computer engineer just shit all over computer scientists
> :)

Engineering of all sorts is on the slow drift towards computers
and have largely taken control of the field (to the point where a
random person that you ask will actually know what a computer engineer is).
So much so that just about everyone who wants to sound important now
calls themselves an engineer of some sort whether or not they have
any degree with `engineering' written on it (but that's been happening
for a long while and probably is not such a bad thing).

This hasn't been a problem to the computer scientists since they
it would seem that they actually have not been interested in computers
for some time. Most of them prefer accounting, creative arts come
advertising schmoltz (i.e. web page design) and various management
roles to having the slightest idea of what goes on inside a computer.

> it's fine to question what is given, but there will be a point where
> numerous factors will limit what can actually be changed (for better or
> worse). These include existing infrastructure, management etc etc

Ah, I can't resist piping up here and saying that management is one
of the easiest things of all to change, all you have to do is be very
good at something and learn to say, `goodbye'. Having suffered in bad
work situations already I figure that it really isn't worth putting
myself through further pain for someone else's amusement. You may take
my advice on this or you may ignore it but by the time you get to the
end of your life, what was the point bothering if you didn't get to do
the things that you wanted to do?

> You must develop the best solution within those restrictions. Not whinge
> about how you don't like NT and that something else would be better.
> 
> What if the restriction was, say, the speed of the processor? Unix guys are
> all against just pumping up the grunt to run the software (as MS/Intel
> supposedly conspire to force us to do) right? So would you say "this
> processor is shit, and we should get another"?

Some quick calculations on the back of an envelope will tell you how
many operations you need to do and how long it will take a given processor
to do it. Smart people do these calculations as early as possible in
a project, especially if there is a real-time constraint. If your target
system can't cut it then it can't cut it and there's no point in spending
a lot of time and money trying to dongle around until it works.

Now you might find that your quick calculations say that the idea is
feasible but you are working close to the limit, that's where clever
coding is going to help. Generally all the optimisations in the world
aren't going to beat an order of magnitude though. So, yes there
are some situations where I'd be saying straight out, this box won't do
the job, either relax the real-time constraint or get bigger hardware.

> The best solution possible should be developed with that processor.

Not if it doesn't do the job.

> I admit
> that this analogy has it's limits, i mean a 386 would be replaced pretty
> quickly for anything more than a dumb terminal. But the point still stands:
> 
> You often have to make the best of what you've got, be it NT or whatever.

You also have to be realistic about the limitations of what you have got.

> The whole world is not EVER going to be Unix....so I guess you'll just have
> to spit the dummy when ever you have develop a system for anything else.

That still leaves plenty of systems for me to develop so I'm not
feeling particularly bad about it. Mind you, I do write code for
MSDOS and Win95, I just wouldn't use it for anything really time
critical or where stability was a main concern, like hmmm a web server.

I still remember a time when the IBM PC was a bit new and strange
and people didn't think it meant much but it did at least have an
IBM badge on it... unix was already around then, and it's basic
form has only changed slightly since then. At a system level (ignoring
the GUI) NT is probably Microsoft's operating system that is
closest in structure to unix and that's the system that MS is pushing
to become its future flagship. Who knows, someone might even get
the NT Posix library working.

> }This is why it is discouraged by organisations such as Microsoft, the
> }Nazis, and all variety of religions.
> 
> hmmmmm.....and you're not biased? :)
> 
> i agree about the religions bit though...

Actually I think he was being a bit hard on the religions because he
said `all', there are a few decent relegions out there. Zen Buddhists
are far happier with questions than with answers
(great effort, great faith, great doubt).

i agree about the Nazis and Microsoft though.

	- Tel
--
You are subscribed to the progsoc mailing list. To unsubscribe, send a
message containing "unsubscribe" to progsoc-request@nospam.progsoc.uts.edu.au.
If you are having trouble, ask owner-progsoc@nospam.progsoc.uts.edu.au for help.

This list is archived at <http://www.progsoc.uts.edu.au/lists/progsoc/>