X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com X-PolluStop: No license found, only first 5 messages were scanned Return-Path: Received: from rtp-iport-1.cisco.com ([64.102.122.148] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.1c.1) with ESMTP id 1206658 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Mon, 26 Jun 2006 12:09:16 -0400 Received-SPF: softfail receiver=logan.com; client-ip=64.102.122.148; envelope-from=echristley@nc.rr.com Received: from rtp-core-1.cisco.com ([64.102.124.12]) by rtp-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 26 Jun 2006 09:08:31 -0700 X-BrightmailFiltered: true X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== X-IronPort-AV: i="4.06,176,1149490800"; d="scan'208"; a="30488273:sNHT33595088" Received: from xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-211.cisco.com [64.102.31.102]) by rtp-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id k5QG8UYL004040 for ; Mon, 26 Jun 2006 12:08:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from xfe-rtp-202.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.21]) by xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Mon, 26 Jun 2006 12:08:30 -0400 Received: from [64.102.38.136] ([64.102.38.136]) by xfe-rtp-202.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Mon, 26 Jun 2006 12:08:30 -0400 Message-ID: <44A0067D.9080109@nc.rr.com> Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 12:08:29 -0400 From: Ernest Christley Reply-To: echristley@nc.rr.com User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7-1.4.1 (X11/20050929) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Rotary motors in aircraft Subject: [Fwd: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Software attitudes] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 26 Jun 2006 16:08:30.0408 (UTC) FILETIME=[C41DD480:01C6993A] Forwarded by popular demand (Ed'd popular and he demanded it 8*) {Several typos corrected} -------- Original Message -------- Applaud! Applaud! Great insight, Ernest. Should post this on the Rotary list just for our general info. Ed Ed Anderson Rv-6A N494BW Rotary Powered Matthews, NC eanderson@carolina.rr.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ernest Christley" To: Sent: Monday, June 26, 2006 10:44 AM Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 26 Msgs - 06/24/06 > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Ernest Christley > > > AeroElectric-List Digest Server wrote: > >>The AI NEVER stabilizes there is a slow tumble until I see either nothing >>but sky or ground. NEVER STABILIZING! >> >>Has anyone ever run across this problem and if so what was the cause and >>cure? >> >>It has been suggested that I perform two (2) operations: >>1 - Upgrade the Software from Ver 2.21 to Ver 2.64 >>2 - Hook up the keyboard and do a Warm System reboot from the keyboard >> >>What are your thoughts? Does this sound like a cure? Of course the >>software upgrade is required and will be done. >> >>Barry >>"Chop'd Liver" >> >> > I work in the software industry as a Quality Assurance Engineer, ie. I > test software. I've written a lot of software. I've met a lot of > software engineers. I've worked for several software companies. > There is a wide range of attitudes when it comes to software. > > At one end of the spectrum is the companies/engineers that treat software > and the requisite hardware as an appliance. The software is tied > intimately to the hardware, and a breakage in one signifies a breakage in > the other. A breakage in either signifies a breakage in the organization. > Code is meticulously maintained, and every last detail of the > software/hardware combination is tested as much as humanly possible before > shipping to the customer. The engineers tend to be very experienced and > 'slow moving'. The code is not expected to break when delivered to QA. > The best example I have personal experience with is IBM's mainframe > networking division. > The other end of the spectrum is what I like to call "The Microsoft > Generation". Code is whipped out using long tool chains built on top of > libraries written by someone else. I meet lots of these engineers > building database frontends to generate reports to management. The > criteria for these engineers is that they generate a disposable app > quickly and move on to the next project. They are conditioned to value a > new glitzy widget over solid engineering. Code unit test is an > afterthought at best, and if it does happen it consist of being able to > generate a report on a couple sets of data at most. These guys deliver > stuff to QA with the idea that the test team will tell them what is wrong > with the code. I call it the Microsoft Generation, because that company > has been the forerunner in preaching that hiring competent, seasoned > engineers is uneccessary with their software. Software is complex and > should be expected to break, they preach, but their tool set will enable a > cheap college grad that works around the clock for Coke and pizza to > spit out polished applications to run the enterprise. Widgets, "new > features" and just more eye-candy can be added ad nauseum, quickly and > easily. > > The Microsoft Generation is OK for generating reports to management. I'll > even abide letting them build a video game or two. But I want real > engineers writing any software that I will be letting my butt ride on. > > I talked to Blue Mountain and Dynon at Sun-n-Fun. The question I had in > mind was, "If I were an QA engineer at this company, what would the > development team deliver to me for testing?" The Dynon unit booted > quickly and showed a simple display. I got the "feel" that the software > was written for the hardware, and the hardware was designed for the > software. The BMA unit seemed to take forever to boot up, complete with > splash screen to keep the user occupied reading copyright information > while it did a digital dance behind the scenes. (BTW, a "splash screen" > is a red flag that someone from the Microsoft Generation is behind the > scenes. How is it helpful, except to show more eye-candy? And copyright? > What am I going to do, run the stuff on my PC?) I got the distinct > feeling that BMA engineers would expect me to tell them what was wrong > with it, while the Dynon folks would only expect me to verify that it > works as they designed it. > > My thoughts? The fact that the BMA is designed for "quick upgrades" is a > glaring red flag. The thing is a limited function device. It should work > out of the box. The in-field "quick upgrade" tells me that BMA is using > you as a beta tester. The fact that it doesn't work out of the box tells > me that either the hardware or software is broken. Being that this is the > real world, I can accept hardware being broken. Things break in > shipping...not every IC is tested off the assembly line..etc. But the > fact that a 'software fix' is available gives me the thought that the > development organization needs a fix. > > -- > ,|"|"|, Ernest Christley | > ----===<{{(oQo)}}>===---- Dyke Delta Builder | > o| d |o http://ernest.isa-geek.org | -- ,|"|"|, Ernest Christley | ----===<{{(oQo)}}>===---- Dyke Delta Builder | o| d |o http://ernest.isa-geek.org |