February 2013

You are browsing the site archives by month.

Posts like this show everything that is wrong with modern developers

So this is a clip from an article on ARSTECHNICA

The entire article can be found here!

 

dev

 

 

 

The short answer to this persons question is no, it is not okay to develop in production.

The reason I got out of the SDLC world was this kind of thinking. People claim they are Agile/RAD shops but have never implemented a methodology. Agile is a framework, SCRUM is a methodology within the framework. You do not implement a framework without implementing a methodology to accompany it. There are other agile methodologies besides SCRUM. Here is a short list

  • Agile Modeling
  • Agile Unified Process (AUP)
  • Crystal Clear
  • Crystal Methods
  • Dynamic Systems Development Method (DSDM)
  • Extreme Programming (XP)
  • Feature Driven Development (FDD)
  • GSD
  • Kanban (development)
  • Lean software development
  • Velocity tracking

 

I do not care what methodology you use, or even what framework (waterfall/agile).  You never touch production. I can’t tell you how many times in my career I have been asked to debug a production software issue. Only to find some rouge instance from a dev running on the box with a memory leak,  sql blocking/locking, thread locking/collisions, or some other issue that dorks up the server. In the world of virtual machines it is very tempting to develop on prod box, because we can revert to a snapshot. But very few times have a seen a plan outlining a method for recovery. This is generally cowboy coding mentality. No matter what you choose for methodology, you should dev locally, and push to a duplicate box for your QA team to test before pushing to production. While we are at it, lets look at some steps you should be following no matter what framework/methodology you are using.

 

  1. Dev Locally
  2. Unit Test (NUnit/Xunit is unit testing, not functional testing)
  3. Commit to CVS
  4. Push to testing ( No, we do not test in production either)
  5. Properly Functionally Test Application (I would suggest using something like HP’s UFT (Unified Functional Test, or if your broke, Selinium)
  6. Track testing in repository like HP ALM/QC, or Rational Clearquest
  7. Performance Test Application (LoadRunner/Performance Center or NeoLoad)
  8. Security Test Application (Web Inspect or AppScan)
  9. Repeat steps 2-8 till application is production ready
  10. Push to production

If you are not properly testing your application. Then all you are doing is making your clients your testers. This never ends well.

 

If you would like to read a great series of blogs on agile testing, go here

i-dont-always-test-my-code-but-when-i-do-i-do-it-in-production

 

Thought for this morning

“When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice; But when a wicked man rules, the people groan.”
(Proverbs 29:2)

One more 80″s song from one of the greatest Christian bands

From 1980

 

Just went to an 80’s dance with my 8 year old daughter

I listened  to a lot of Christian music as well as your standard 80’s fare.

One of my favorite groups was the altar boys

So here is a trip down memory lane

ATI Omni Polymer Lower Build

So my first polymer lower is complete. Here are some snags you will run into if you purchase one of these. The front and rear detent holes for the retaining pins are too tight. You will need to take a 3/32 drill and drill it out gently so the pin will slide the way it should in the hole. I also ran  an into an issue where the buffer retainer was too tight as well. I took a 1/4 drill bit, and a pair of pliers and gently drilled it by hand. I used a doublestar LPK in this one, as I am having a hard time finding CMMG kits. Anyway, just wanted to let you know of some snags if you buy one of the ATI Omni lowers.

 

IMG_1246_1

Winterizing the Hammock for the Common Man

I am a big of Dave and the Pathfinder School. I thought this was a great video. Personally, I like the Military casualty blanket for placing in the bottom of my hammock , reflective side up. Plus you have an extra sheltering item as it has grommets for tie offs. So you can pitch it if you have a need. It is also really good for creating a reflective break for a fire.  You can get one here

 

Obama’s Sequester, and why do we keep going through this.

So in 2011 Obama gave this little speech. It basically consists of Blah, Blah, Blah. Tax the Rich, Blah Blah Blah Republicans fault. Yet at roughly 3:29 into the video he made it clear that any legislation trying to undo the sequester that HE SIGNED INTO LAW, WOULD BE VETOED!

Now fast forward to today, he got the tax increases on the rich he wanted. Yet nothing has been done to reduce spending. The sequester was his idea, he signed it, and he gets to operate within the framework of the legislation to say what actually gets cut. If you have 400.00 in income and a 100.00 electric bill, a 100.00 water bill, yet want to buy 400.00 worth of clothes. Then whose fault is it, if you go shopping and the water and power get turned off. Every time Obama gets up and talks about cutting services or furloughs. He is making the decision to make cuts in those areas, rather than areas with less impact. He can only blame himself for this.  The real question though, is why every 3 or 4 months do we have this “the sky is falling” firedrill? It is either the debt limit, taxing the rich, sequester, or something all the dang time. One of the reasons is that since the democrats took over 2/3 of the government, they have not produced a budget.  Without a budget you have no idea how to manage spending. We can’t keep spending, cuts are going to have to be made! It is time the democrats man up and get to cutting.

Watch a Chinese hacker in real time!

 

 

 

Image provided by http://www.flickr.com/photos/brianklug/

Think you have great regex chops. Then give this a whirl

This is from the MIT 2013 mystery hunt

The puzzle is here

Hints are here

Interactive hint grid is here

James Madison On Firearms

From Federalist #46

The reasonings contained in these papers must have been employed to little purpose indeed, if it could be necessary now to disprove the reality of this danger. That the people and the States should, for a sufficient period of time, elect an uninterupted succession of men ready to betray both; that the traitors should, throughout this period, uniformly and systematically pursue some fixed plan for the extension of the military establishment; that the governments and the people of the States should silently and patiently behold the gathering storm, and continue to supply the materials, until it should be prepared to burst on their own heads, must appear to every one more like the incoherent dreams of a delirious jealousy, or the misjudged exaggerations of a counterfeit zeal, than like the sober apprehensions of genuine patriotism. Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it. Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion, that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession, than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors. Let us rather no longer insult them with the supposition that they can ever reduce themselves to the necessity of making the experiment, by a blind and tame submission to the long train of insidious measures which must precede and produce it.

The argument under the present head may be put into a very concise form, which appears altogether conclusive. Either the mode in which the federal government is to be constructed will render it sufficiently dependent on the people, or it will not. On the first supposition, it will be restrained by that dependence from forming schemes obnoxious to their constituents. On the other supposition, it will not possess the confidence of the people, and its schemes of usurpation will be easily defeated by the State governments, who will be supported by the people.

On summing up the considerations stated in this and the last paper, they seem to amount to the most convincing evidence, that the powers proposed to be lodged in the federal government are as little formidable to those reserved to the individual States, as they are indispensably necessary to accomplish the purposes of the Union; and that all those alarms which have been sounded, of a meditated and consequential annihilation of the State governments, must, on the most favorable interpretation, be ascribed to the chimerical fears of the authors of them.