This part of my (Eadon's) correspondence with
MadPole is purely for geeks. Today's
exam question: Do incompetent IT projects (run
by incompetent managers) create or destroy jobs?
MadPole quote:
"I am seriously questioning the economical
sensibility of having "Disaster Recovery" sites
and also, with the latest Wunder Bra Spaghetti
technologies such as WebSphere or ejbs."
Eadon quote:
"
As computers double in power, they
will generate four times as many jobs as they
destroy. This law is independent of whether
projects fuck up."
This debate ignited when Madpole discovered
that I had introduced a bug into the my Guestbook
PHP code on this very site.
eadon:
weird bug that, caused by combination of conversion
to XHTML, then forgetting to upload a certain
changed file. Converting to XHTML has taken
ages, but I am in a happy state of XHTML meditation
now, it is HTML for buddhists! I now have infinite
patience! XHTML has broken me, changed me and
made me. Good bug! I owe you! Hopefully everything
works ok now.
MadPole:
HAR HAR HAR! Nice meditative trip...wow...hehehe...
it is NEARLY ALWAYS a combination of factors
hehehe... that's why I am seriously questioning
the economical sensibility of having "Disaster
Recovery" sites and also, with the latest Wunder
Bra Spaghetti technologies such as WebSphere
or ejbs... the whole point of having UAT site
diminished quickly too: with new technologies
the problems are always due to various combinations
of factors which cannot be reproduced on another
machine hehehe...anyway... what the hell am
I talking about...it is time to go to bed hehehe...
Sweet Dreams blah!
eadon:
The project I am working on right now has "Integration
Testing" and UAT on an environment that is definitely
NOT the same as Live. For example the new environment
uses component simulators and is unsuitable
for realistic performance testing. Also some
of the machines are different, meaning we have
fewer Unix domains to run on than Live, hence
effectively there will be a different architecture
we will be testing. Instead of having two instances
of our software working in parallel we will
only have one. This causes me a bit of trepidation
obviously. Why different have different architectures
for Integration testing and Live? To "save"
money of course! No wonder software projects
are consistently late and over budget. The savings
on hardware would be wiped out easily by delays
caused by bugs not trapped at Integration/UAT.
MadPole:
Yes...exactly...what can I say to add something
"new" to the topic in hand hehehe...anyway...more
of this crap later hehehe... but I guess the
positive aspect is "jobs for us" hehehehe...
Economics eh? The hardware these days is cheaper
than people so I guess we should be glad that
managers don't see it that way yet hehehe (just
a second, just a second aren't You manager yourself
hehehe)...yes...it is easy to calculate... the
dodgy, leaky box with not enough power or memory
or disk space...let's see... it costs in System
and Database.. oh stuff it... You know the score...Such
box generates ( i.e. costs ) easily 50K of worth
of salaries...now... 50K is quite enough to
buy powerful box with bits and bobs these days...if
the management did that.. one person would have
to loose the job ( computers were supposed to
replace humans damn it hehehe) ... but that
way... the box is old, the human being has to
take 50K each year (instead of one off purchase
hehehe).. that means that the budget is even
smaller... that means that there is even less
chance of buying a new kit... oh boy... blah
blah blah blah...
eadon:
It sorrows me but I totally disagree with you.
You are forgetting the capitalist force here.
Firstly we definitely agree that the mistake
in not buying expensive enough computer kit
is a common mistake by managers, and in trying
to save a few quid they end up paying through
the schnozzle when the system falls flat on
its face. This paying through the nose translates
into paying for engineers to sort out the mess.
Here is where we differ. You argue that this
creates a job for the engineer. OK, this is
my philosophy. Computers have not killed off
jobs. In fact each computer creates more work
than it solves. The long predicted demise of
the workforce by computers has failed to materialise.
Eadon's law (which I doubt is original) is that
as computers double in power, they will generate
four times as many jobs as they destroy. This
law is independent of whether projects fuck
up. If a project fucks up, then the money will
go to an engineer (or no doubt several) to put
it right (or, as often happens, the project
is cancelled). Therefore there is a job for
the engineer (unless the project is cancelled).
BUT, if the project succeeds, then the managers
will still not be happy. They will want a better
system. So they will pour more money at a better
system. Which will, as always, require humans.
This is true because if they do not design a
better system then they will lose money. Usually
better systems can increase efficiency and hence
save money. Better systems also allow you to
shaft the competition, who are also racing against
you to increase their own efficiency. My point
is that it is not projects fucking up that create
jobs, although there is no doubt that this is
a side effect. But rather all projects will
create jobs. If they succeed then technology
advances. If they fail then technology advances
but at a slower rate. And Eadon's law states
that jobs will be created but at a slower rate.
MadPole:
Ah...technology and economics and wonders of
life and subjective view points...yes...of course...You
are right...Mao (103) would love to hear that,
he loves such discussions about economics...the
problem with economics, unlike life itself of
course, is that no matter what topic - there
is always alternative, opposite view point which
is perfectly valid...that's why I don't bother
with economics... it sounds like a science for
loopy people who like their brains loop...In
economics there concept of gain and loss is
very fluid and doesn't really exist...and frankly
speaking...I am not sure what DOES EXIST as
far as economics are concerned hehehe... I was
going to say "the overall current situation"
is the only thing that matters but even that
is not true - the "well doing" company can be
declared bankrupt and "badly doing" company
can be viewed as profitable...money don't matter
in economics, people don't matter, the amount
of dosh stashed in the bank don't matter...
the only think which perhaps matters is the
overall value of the enterprise, but even that
is not solid or accurate and based mainly on
perceptions rather then reflection of reality...oh
yes...it seems like economics is quite accurate
model of life in this respect hehehe... and
all this trying to analyse the "cause and effect"...which
never leads anywhere because the relationships
are just complex...it is practically whole body,
not a collection of some highway junctions...trying
to follow the path of cause and effect in "real
life" or economics is like trying to follow
the path of cause and effect in the tub full
of water...I mean..all water is connected hehehe...
the connections are everywhere...water is just
connections, nothing else... anyway... so there...
of course...hehehehe...the thing about economics
is that NOBODY really knows what is going on,
the whole economics is just pattern guessing
and trying at least to isolate the ones which
repeat themselves most often... this is exactly
the purpose of religions in "real life"... religions,
my friend, like everything else in this World,
were invented for a reason (because that is
what human brain is - one giant Reason) and
in this respect they don't differ one bit from
maths or swimming lessons - they are all disciplines,
introduced by human beings, because certain
patterns happen too common, as far as human
brain is concerned anyway, to be ignored. I
can bet million pounds that if You were brought
up on your own, without contact with any aspect
of human world, You would invent your own religion
and sciences yourself! What do You say? hehehehe
So there! You were right after all hehehehe!
Sadly it does not prove me wrong... :( HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
I also find lately Economics were buddist...very
contemporary "live the moment", "there is only
now"...the problem with economics of any organization,
be it small company or government, is that there
is no "ultimate goal", no "finishing line",
no "final stage"...and that makes matters very
confusing...I could say that by being absolute
cheap-skates my company is actually making money
because that will make good impression in the
market place and raise the share prices and
You will say "yadadadada..yeah yeah...yo yo...
but in the long term You will start to loose
out" but the truth is that a lot of things can
happen in the future and maybe investing in
hardware won't be valid any longer because company
will move to some more lucrative line of business
and board of directors will congratulate themselves
how wise they were not to invest in hardware
in the first place because now they will suffer
greater losses if they did and blah blah blah...You
know it ...there is infinitive number of scenarios
and what is really important is what shareholders
think about You today...so it is wide range
of "buddhist emotions": seeing how perceptions
matter and CREATE REALITY, seeing how one's
own judgement is usually the main obstacle,
giving oneself fully and working for the crowd
of some followers (shareholders) one doesn't
even know, making hard and more importantly
mad and idiotic decisions by learning how to
detach oneself from them entirely blah blah
blah seeing company as a "whole", as a living
organism, and learning to do things one knows
are plainly "wrong" or "destructive" on the
basis of much deeper understanding that what
seems to be not appropriate locally might be
beneficial on the much larger scale, "going
with the flow" and understanding that causing
blockages is self-productive, that ensuring
that the "energy" in the "organism" flows as
freely as possible is the main task...blah blah
blah.. it is getting late hehehe...
eadon:
I was in a meeting today and the guys were debating
that they should buy a network with a smaller
bandwidth for an enterprise computer system.
They will have to upgrade it one day and the
upgrade to what they have specced now will be
much more expensive than putting in a fat pipe
now because the installation costs will be far
higher than the costs of the network itself.
Think of the additional planning, costing, analysis,
testing that an upgrade will require. Why not
put in the fat pipe now and have done with it?
You hit on the answer. The answer is that by
installing a smaller pipe they will get a pat
on the back for "saving" money. Some other punk
will then get a pat on the back for upgrading
the system. Unless it goes to ratshit. Which
it might. That's customer service for you. The
economics I was talking about is not bullshit
economics and practiced by economists. It is
simply a law of nature, that companies will
throw money at better systems because the more
they do then the more money they will make (assuming
the systems work, a big if) and so they will
chase technology pie. If you think this is irrational,
remember the cold war where the ruskies &
the yanks had enough nukes to blow up the earth
a zillion times and still they kept justifying
more missiles? The same goes for computer systems.
Only with companies the computer systems can
never be good enough. Occasionally they stop
investing. But this is due to cashflow problems
rather than a lust for a better system. A better
system will make them a fortune. Sadly people
think a better system has more features. Thus
they build complex monsters that never work
properly, blow up in their face and *splat*.
If they are lucky they will survive. But it
is a race, and if you do not invest, the competitors
will and they will either blow themselves up,
or they will eat you. It is probably better
to wait for them to blow you up, but by having
some kind of system, then you can make yourself
bigger and a more difficult prey. Hence the
system gets ordered, feature creep happens,
and *wham* a complex system is eating away the
companies flesh and drinking its blood like
there is no tomorrow.
Got any rants on any subject you wish? Please
send
them to me, Eadon.
Thanks.
The dialogue on this page took place circa November
2002.
Add your comment to this page
 | | | | |
| From: |
MadPole | Subject: | 2002-12-06 15:45:03 |
| | | | |
| From: |
MadPole | Subject: | 2004-04-15 15:29:10 |
| | | | |
| From: |
MadPole | Subject: | 2004-04-15 15:56:40 |
| | | | |
| From: |
MadPole | Subject: | 2004-04-15 17:20:44 |
| | | | |
help: how to add your comment Page hits: 765
