 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible <voi### [at] dev null> wrote:
....
> Suppose the local government wants to build a bridge across a large
> go with the last one?? WTF?! No! Nobody *ever* does this!
....
> So if it doesn't happen in structural engineering, why the hell does it
> constantly happen in software engineering?
cases where software companies are ready, willing and eager to charge many, many
times the amount that actually needs to be spent in order to achieve what the
and sell them to anyone who will buy them. If we manage to sell one to someone
technically unskilled buyers for suspecting that one or more software vendors
are trying to bamboozle them into spending large multiples of the actual
necessary amount. IT HAPPENS ALL THE TIME.
And for those who would reply:
individuals who only want to be paid a fair price for the products they work
hard to produce. There are just a few bad apples out there unjustly tarnishing
I would very much appreciate it if you would supply me with the name and
coordinates (preferably GCS) of the planet on which you are living.
The REAL problem, as I see it, is the pig-headed unwillingness of so many
corporate executives to employ people who actually KNOW whether $4,000.00
software or $4,000,000.00 software is needed and allow them to make the purchase
decisions.
I do know even more about how to solve this problem permanently, but I would
detailing this solution could be YOURS in only six months for a mere
$285,000.00.*
Best Regards,
Mike C.
Chief Supervising Consultant
Elder Pontification Group
(D.B.A. Atlantian Snake Oil Distributors)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 19/08/2011 02:21 PM, Mike the Elder wrote:
> Invisible<voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> ....
>> Suppose the local government wants to build a bridge across a large
>> go with the last one?? WTF?! No! Nobody *ever* does this!
>
> cases where software companies are ready, willing and eager to charge many, many
> times the amount that actually needs to be spent in order to achieve what the
> customer really needs.
Yeah, there is that.
(I still remember going into a suit shop. They have multiple racks of
identical black suits. I pick up one that looks roughly my size. "Ah
yes, an excellent choice, sir" the man says. I wonder, is there a suit I
could have picked up that was /not/ an excellent choice?)
plate was plain white with a yellow circle in the centre. It was in a
Royal Doulton shop. ASDA can probably sell you a nearly identical one
> The REAL problem, as I see it, is the pig-headed unwillingness of so many
> corporate executives to employ people who actually KNOW whether $4,000.00
> software or $4,000,000.00 software is needed and allow them to make the purchase
> decisions.
...and again we're back to "people who think they are experts but aren't"...
> I do know even more about how to solve this problem permanently, but I would
> detailing this solution could be YOURS in only six months for a mere
> $285,000.00.*
>
> Best Regards,
> Mike C.
> Chief Supervising Consultant
> Elder Pontification Group
> (D.B.A. Atlantian Snake Oil Distributors)
>
Tempting, but...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>
It all depends on what you expect of the car/watch/whatever.
If you expect the car to take you from B to B with reasonable comfort and speed,
afford, that's purely for the showoffs ;o)
It will do so with a lot more comfort, speed and other amenities.
Ask yourself why you bought your car and not something for half the price,
assuming equal reliability and running cost. It's most likely comforts like
electric windows, radio, power steering, air conditioning.
>
>
quartz. Change the battery every few years and you're good to go.
probably still run perfectly in 100 or 200 years. It's also a question of
presentation. You wouldn't expect the CEO of a multi billion dollar enterprise
to go to a buissness meeting wearing a cheap plastic watch.
Why? Comfort again.
It's one with solar and DCF and date and weekday display and timezones and so
on.
So I'll never have to worry if it's showing the correct time or runs out of
battery.
I push a button and it'll tell me if it synced with the atomic clock last night.
Traveling outside my timezone? No problem. Change the timezone and the watch
automatically sets the right time and DCF Transmitter.
What it all comes down to:
How much are you willing to spend for some comfort, quality and uniqueness.
Regards
Aydan
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 19.08.2011 15:21, schrieb Mike the Elder:
> Invisible<voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> ....
>> Suppose the local government wants to build a bridge across a large
>> go with the last one?? WTF?! No! Nobody *ever* does this!
> ....
>> So if it doesn't happen in structural engineering, why the hell does it
>> constantly happen in software engineering?
>
> cases where software companies are ready, willing and eager to charge many, many
> times the amount that actually needs to be spent in order to achieve what the
> and sell them to anyone who will buy them. If we manage to sell one to someone
> technically unskilled buyers for suspecting that one or more software vendors
> are trying to bamboozle them into spending large multiples of the actual
> necessary amount. IT HAPPENS ALL THE TIME.
Another problem is that big companies understand why their
custom-tailored software must necessarily eat more IT funds than a copy
of MS Office, but small companies are often surprised when they find it
costs a lot more to introduce some off-the-shelf business software into
their business processes.
> And for those who would reply:
> individuals who only want to be paid a fair price for the products they work
> hard to produce. There are just a few bad apples out there unjustly tarnishing
> I would very much appreciate it if you would supply me with the name and
> coordinates (preferably GCS) of the planet on which you are living.
Software industry managers are managers after all, so what do people
expect :-)
> The REAL problem, as I see it, is the pig-headed unwillingness of so many
> corporate executives to employ people who actually KNOW whether $4,000.00
> software or $4,000,000.00 software is needed and allow them to make the purchase
> decisions.
>
> I do know even more about how to solve this problem permanently, but I would
> detailing this solution could be YOURS in only six months for a mere
> $285,000.00.*
Worse yet, IT consulting companies typically try to not only sell
consultancy, but also the resulting project; so they might for instance
recommend a solution based on project ABC rather than XYZ just because
they recently had some ABC project exploding in their face and now try
to get half a dozen idle ABC experts billable again.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 19/08/2011 03:32 PM, Aydan wrote:
> Invisible<voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>>
>
> It all depends on what you expect of the car/watch/whatever.
Perhaps.
In same cases, a more expensive item actually does something more. In
other cases, it's more expensive simply to be more expensive.
more expensive than gold chain. There is absolutely no reason to ever
That's just preying on customer stupidity.
of a lot longer.
> Ask yourself why you bought your car and not something for half the price,
> assuming equal reliability and running cost.
That would be "because of reliability and running costs". :-P
I have a very cheap car. Anything cheaper would be likely to break even
more frequently than what I actually bought.
Now, see, I've heard that some of the most expensive cars on the market
are actually pathologically unreliable. And also have really, *really*
bad customer service. Which isn't what you'd expect...
>>
> quartz. Change the battery every few years and you're good to go.
kept breaking. Constantly.
> It's also a question of
> presentation. You wouldn't expect the CEO of a multi billion dollar enterprise
> to go to a buissness meeting wearing a cheap plastic watch.
the brand name.
I'm the sort of person who doesn't mind paying more money for something
IF IT'S ACTUALLY BETTER. I violently object to paying more money for the
same thing.
> What it all comes down to:
> How much are you willing to spend for some comfort, quality and uniqueness.
Agreed.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 8/19/2011 1:34, Invisible wrote:
> From time to time, somebody builds something that's truly ground-breaking.
> The world's tallest building, perhaps. Or the longest bridge. Or whatever.
Even the world's tallest building is essentially the same story, using the
same structural characteristics, repeated 200 times.
> And while no two pieces of software are /exactly/ alike, lots of them are
> extremely damned similar.
Sadly so. But it's an ongoing task to factor that similarity out.
> How many compilers are there?
Sure. But how many now all compile down to CIL or JVM, eliminating half of
the work of implementing the compiler by clever reuse of code?
> How many relational database engines?
Again, eliminating the duplication of that effort in the file I/O of lots of
programs.
Programmers don't always succeed in not reusing code. But they strive to do so.
Also, you're looking at it wrong again. How many times does the Microsoft C#
compiler get reused? How many times does the plumbing from the 23rd floor of
the Empire state building get reused?
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
How come I never get only one kudo?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 19.08.2011 16:02, schrieb Invisible:
>
>
Well, I expect it is, generally speaking.
Question is actually, does the added quality also give /me/ enough added
value to warrant the price?
For some people the mere expensiveness might be worth it. ("Look, he's
got a maddeningly expensive watch; he must be good with money, so let's
heed his financial advice.") I don't think that's me though.
> (I still remember going into a suit shop. They have multiple racks of
> identical black suits. I pick up one that looks roughly my size. "Ah
> yes, an excellent choice, sir" the man says. I wonder, is there a suit I
> could have picked up that was /not/ an excellent choice?)
"No, sir. All our suits are expensive enough that we make money with any
one; as long as you choose to buy, that's an excellent choice."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 8/19/2011 7:02, Invisible wrote:
> Then again, there are people who want to sell you a watch for £8,0
00.
That's not a watch. That's jewelry that happens to have a clock built in.
And yes, the people selling it tell you this. "The average kitchen has ei
ght
clocks in it. We sell jewelry and home decor."
> I wonder, is there a suit I could have
> picked up that was /not/ an excellent choice?)
Probably not in a suit store. In wal-mart? Most certainly.
>> The REAL problem, as I see it, is the pig-headed unwillingness of so m
any
>> corporate executives to employ people who actually KNOW whether $4,000
.00
>> software or $4,000,000.00 software is needed and allow them to make th
e
>> purchase
>> decisions.
Yes. Amazing how many body shops are out there for web stuff compared to
(say) automobile design. I guess if your business isn't primarily done ov
er
the web, you hire a web designer, just like you'd hire a plumber to fix t
he
pipes in your building. But if your business is internet-based, it's sill
y
not to have that expertise working in your own best interest.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
How come I never get only one kudo?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 19.08.2011 17:19, schrieb Darren New:
> On 8/19/2011 1:34, Invisible wrote:
>> From time to time, somebody builds something that's truly
>> ground-breaking.
>> The world's tallest building, perhaps. Or the longest bridge. Or
>> whatever.
>
> Even the world's tallest building is essentially the same story, using
> the same structural characteristics, repeated 200 times.
Most bloody likely not.
The lower floors need to be as strong as possible so they can carry the
weight of the whole tower. The upper floors need to be as light as
possible so they can all be carried by the lower floors.
But yes, it might be the same basic design with some parameters varying.
Plus a few special floors in between (for instance a shopping mall
halfway up the tower).
Then again, modifying the design for a different number of floors takes
more effort than just adding more floors at the bottom of the stack.
Wind speed, resonances and other dynamic stuff has to be taken into
account on a whole-building basis.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 19/08/2011 04:19 PM, Darren New wrote:
> On 8/19/2011 1:34, Invisible wrote:
>> From time to time, somebody builds something that's truly
>> ground-breaking.
>> The world's tallest building, perhaps. Or the longest bridge. Or
>> whatever.
>
> Even the world's tallest building is essentially the same story, using
> the same structural characteristics, repeated 200 times.
I think you underestimate the challenges. It's not like you can take a
200 story building and just add 200 more stories. It would collapse. You
have to come up with clever solutions for weight distribution,
withstanding high winds, earthquakes, sunamis, make sure that water and
power distribution works right, etc.
The first buildings with complex curves were a major feat of
engineering. Even today, people design buildings which appear to defy
gravity (but obviously don't).
>> And while no two pieces of software are /exactly/ alike, lots of them are
>> extremely damned similar.
>
> Sadly so. But it's an ongoing task to factor that similarity out.
Ongoing and remarkably unsuccessful, oddly enough.
>> How many compilers are there?
>
> Sure. But how many now all compile down to CIL or JVM, eliminating half
> of the work of implementing the compiler by clever reuse of code?
Yes, because tokenising and parsing the input doesn't count as "writing
a program", does it...
> Programmers don't always succeed in not reusing code. But they strive to
> do so.
LOL.
> Also, you're looking at it wrong again. How many times does the
> Microsoft C# compiler get reused? How many times does the plumbing from
> the 23rd floor of the Empire state building get reused?
A better analogy might be "How many times does the Microsoft C# compiler
get used? How many times does a JCB digger get used?"
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
