Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.quux.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid>
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Joy of this, Joy of that
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2024 11:58:35 +0000
Organization: A little, after lunch
Lines: 81
Message-ID: <vi71hb$3vogk$10@dont-email.me>
References: <vhigot$1uakf$1@dont-email.me> <vhsdhp$1m6qu$2@dont-email.me>
 <X4KcnQQzFNko49_6nZ2dnZfqnPWdnZ2d@earthlink.com>
 <vhvdmo$2900d$3@dont-email.me> <vhvdqu$28p7r$7@dont-email.me>
 <vhvm34$2aerk$2@dont-email.me>
 <1b166410-ecc1-f9e5-7218-cde9618f4686@example.net>
 <lqi4odFdu06U3@mid.individual.net>
 <77840736-c143-e896-5da0-d0afae4915ed@example.net>
 <vi1p3r$2oh05$7@dont-email.me>
 <2118139f-4451-560b-5094-a3d61c05f0d3@example.net>
 <lqkh38Fpp09U2@mid.individual.net> <vi47lr$3cj2g$1@dont-email.me>
 <vi4hok$3f6em$1@dont-email.me> <lqmk0jF5lsrU1@mid.individual.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2024 12:58:35 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="d3a623bf95e4349e30bbb37a7e6182dd";
	logging-data="4186644"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19sRjwWTFh0QgWKQMMoExrd+qtWbEpDLC0="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:ol7XBxmRBgFtOgPZZnnHEDZh5Ro=
In-Reply-To: <lqmk0jF5lsrU1@mid.individual.net>
Content-Language: en-GB
Bytes: 4952

On 26/11/2024 18:57, rbowman wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Nov 2024 13:17:08 -0000 (UTC), Rich wrote:
> 
>> Yep, exactly.  If they can be given instructions that match their "lego
>> brick set" they can snap something together.  Ask them to do anything
>> that requires creativity or research and understanding, and you get back
>> a turd that has had hours of polishing applied.
> 
> The holy grail for management is a design methodology that gets adequate
> results from a workforce of varying aptitudes. Particularly for larger
> corporations you'll get a normal distribution, a few very good, a few
> completely useless, and a lot of mediocrity. That's what you have to work
> with.
> 

I've encountered that in my time in mil spec aerospace.
A very few people analysed the project and broke it down in to circuit 
board specs.

(Even down to a board the sized of a paperback with gold plated edge 
connector containing 6 resistors two capacitors and an 8 pin IC)

Then a selection of random monkeys who could solder fucked around with 
random components *until it met the specification*.

And the whole thing was a closed feedback loop. You went round and round 
until the whole bloody thing either met the spec, or ran out of 
government budget,

> What I've seen over the years is a company will luck out, get a better
> than average distribution, and achieve success. Whatever they're doing is
> taken as an example of the right way and copied mechanically. Top down
> structured programming, agile, devops, and so forth have their day.
> 

Indeed. At top management level, one does not care how they did it, only 
that they did.


> TI lucked out in the '70s and used something they called 'matrix
> management' that became the new Wunderkind. The '80s brought 'In Search of
> Excellence'.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_Search_of_Excellence
> 
> Good money was made from book sales and training sessions from independent
> snake oil salesmen preaching the gospel. The company I worked for had one
> of the sessions. Not too many of the 'excellent' corporations are around
> today.
> 
I was surprised to discover that what I did naturally - coming in in the 
morning and looking around to see who looked miserable and asking them 
what was wrong, and then trying to sort it out, was actually known as 
'management by walking about'


> About 10 years ago the company I now work for had a 'pair programming'
> session. That was hilarious. The 'experts' were only familiar with Apple
> machines and other than the one they brought there wasn't an Apple in the
> building. Having been through required attendance things before my team
> carefully stayed to the back of the room where we could slink away and get
> back to business.
> 
> I'm sure the next methodology will wrap itself around AI, spin off
> training companies, and mostly fail to deliver on the promises.
> 
Nothing is worse than a CompSci graduate trying to introduce a whole new 
language based on its elegance, expect a MBA (Mostly bloody arseholes) 
trying to implement the latest fashionable management theory with no 
idea as to why it is fashionable, where it might fit, or what good it 
might do if any.



-- 
"What do you think about Gay Marriage?"
"I don't."
"Don't what?"
"Think about Gay Marriage."