Why Software Sucks

Earlier this year I enjoyed reading David Platt's 'Why Software Sucks', in which he discusses why software is regarded so poorly by so many people. It was entertaining, well written and contained a fair amount of wisdom. I'd certainly recommend it to anyone considering writing any software with a user interface.

I was reminded of the book today, when this masterpiece popped up on my screen (Click on it to see it full size):


I've read it several times now and I'm still not sure what it means. I'm pretty certain that I'm not likely to trust any site that asks questions like that. I'm also sure that I don't really trust the test and QA processes of any organisation that lets software like that out of the door.

To make matters worse, there is no way to tell this baffling and irritating dialog to go away. Choose 'No' and it will reappear every time you go back to the page that launched it.

It is always nice to have your prejudices reinforced (I'm not a massive Microsoft fan), and I did really enjoy the slightly theatrical rant I was able to have as a result. But my employer forces me to use this software, and I think I'd really rather they didn't, particularly when there are a number of open-source alternatives that treat their users with a little more respect.

P.S. I initially thought that it was another display of suckiness that it wasn't possible to tell Blogger to upload the picture of the dialog full size - but to do so would ruin the design of the page, so it's probably OK.

Open Source Lessons

Writing in The Observer (a UK Sunday Newspaper) Simon Caulkin suggested that open source development represented a new way of working with wider applicability than software development. Commenting on a new book by management guru Gary Hamel, he points out that existing top-down management structures are both expensive and inefficient, and then continues:

But internet-enabled networks offer a credible third way, Hamel believes. The prime exemplar is Linux, the open-source operating system developed by a self-selecting band of volunteers linked only by the web and their motivation to contribute. There are now 150,000 open-source projects using the freely given energy and initiative of 1.6 million people, according to estimates. While many of these are not-for-profit enterprises, the lessons that they embody have wide application...

Leaving aside that the primary purpose of management books is to sell management books, there is clearly a grain of truth here. The self-organising teams of the agile movement, and the open source community have shown that it is possible to manage complex endeavours without a huge management overhead, and often in a way that is far more enjoyable for the workers than conventionally managed efforts. The main objection that I can see is that the members of successful agile development teams and open-source projects are largely self-selected and drawn from a very thin layer at the top of the development gene pool. Translating their experience to the wider working world will be challenging; and of course, getting management to support it will be like getting turkeys to vote for Christmas :-)

Sect Schools

Any of you who think that so called 'faith schools' are only encouraging and promoting divisiveness and conflict might be interested in this online petition, which:

• proposes the term "sect school" in place of the term "faith school"
  


• calls for amendments to the Education Bill (published 28th February 2006) to prevent the further proliferation of sect schools in the UK
  


• calls for an end to state-funded education which is controlled by any religious group or affiliated with any religious beliefs
  

More at The Brights.

Edit: You can also petition the UK government direct at http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/nofaithinschools/, although this may just be a ploy to gather names and addresses so that they can send the black vans round. Paranoid, me?

big and bad

I was cycling around Warwickshire in an eco-friendly sort of way at the weekend, and in between the excessively frequent stops to repair the damage caused by the visits of the puncture fairy I was thinking about SUVs. Probably prompted by the amount of time one has to spend as a cyclist trying to avoid being killed by them, I was trying to figure out why a) they existed at all and b) why they sold in such numbers. Engineers are generally rational people, so why would they create something quite as preposterous as a Porsche Cayenne Turbo? Obviously, they did it because they wanted to keep their jobs and feed their children, but apart from relishing the challenge of building a 2 tonne off-roader that will go from 0-60 in under 5 seconds, can they really have felt happy about what they were doing? Engineering is about solving problems, but the modern SUV solves very few problems while creating rather a lot of them. In the beginning, SUVs existed as workhorses, to be used by farmers, foresters, explorers and construction workers to get places ordinary cars couldn't go. If you've ever been in a Willys Jeep or a Series 1 Landrover, you will appreciate just how utilitarian these utility vehicles were. Then for many years, the Range Rover was the only 'luxury' 4x4, sold to the landowners rather than their staff, and just as acceptable in Mayfair as in the country. The wider popularity of alleged off-roaders was driven by the American market (the Cayenne and the BMW X5 were created for that market), and according to the American Automobile industry, SUV purchasers

"tend to be people who are insecure and vain. They are frequently nervous about their marriages and uncomfortable about parenthood. They often lack confidence in their driving skills. Above all, they are apt to be self-centered and self-absorbed, with little interest in their neighbors or communities."

(Keith Bradsher, "High and Mighty: The Dangerous Rise of the SUV")

So the problem SUVs solve is how to sell more vehicles to vain, selfish, nervous people, and for that the rest of us must accept unnecessary levels of pollution, increased accident risks and many other reductions in our quality of life. Would it not have been a btter engineering solution to invest in some education and therapy?

Don't go quietly

In 1988 the following text was published in full page advertisements in the quality papers:

We have had less freedom than we believed. That which we have enjoyed has been too dependent on the benevolence of our rulers. Our freedoms have remained their possession, rationed out to us as subjects rather than being our own inalienable possession as citizens. To make real the freedoms we once took for granted means for the first time to take them for ourselves.

The time has come to demand political, civil and human rights in the United Kingdom. We call, therefore, for a new constitutional settlement which will:-

• Enshrine, by means of a Bill of Rights, such civil liberties as the right to peaceful assembly, to freedom of association, to freedom from discrimination, to freedom from detention without trial, to trial by jury, to privacy and to freedom of expression.
  Subject Executive powers and prerogatives, by whomsoever exercised, to the rule of law.


• Establish freedom of information and open government.


• Create a fair electoral system of proportional representation.


• Reform the Upper House to establish a democratic, non-hereditary Second Chamber.


• Place the Executive under the power of a democratically renewed Parliament and all agencies of the state under the rule of law.


• Ensure the independence of a reformed judiciary.
  Provide legal remedies for all abuses of power by the state and by officials of central and local government.


• Guarantee an equitable distribution of power between the nations of the United Kingdom and between local, regional and central government.


• Draw up a written constitution anchored in the ideal of universal citizenship, that incorporates these reforms.

The inscription of laws does not guarantee their realisation. Only people themselves can ensure freedom, democracy and equality before the law. Nonetheless, such ends are far better demanded, and more effectively obtained and guarded, once they belong to everyone by inalienable right.Add your name to ours. sign the charter now!

That was Charter 88; signatories were led by Lord Scarman and many other high profile figures from the law, civil service, politics, media and business. How much progress have we made in nearly 20 years? You can still follow that link and add your name, and you can still apply pressure for our democracy to be made as good as we like to think it is.

Cowards complain as Ramsay kills turkey

I'll admit to a degree of bias on this report from BBC News as I'm a vegetarian. However it seems quite clear to me that people who complain about seeing where their food comes from are just being cowards. If you don't like the fact that cute little animals get killed for your pleasure, then don't eat them. I would go so far as to say that you should be prepared to kill them yourself, or you shouldn't be eating them. Why should someone else be expected to do your dirty work?

This is the argument at the heart of my vegetarianism - I'm not particularly sensitive about cute little animals, although I think that mistreating any living thing is probably bad for the people who do it, as well as the victims. I don't have a religious objection as I don't have a religion. It just seems counter to my conscience to ask others to do things that I am not comfortable doing. Just don't ask where that conscience comes from - I have no idea.

Ends and means

Condi Rice's statement today sounded awfully close to a claim that the end justifies the means. US foreign policy has always seemed to have an element of 'might is right' about it, but as soon as you start to suggest that anything is permissible if it prevents terrorism, it seems to me that you have adopted the terrorists logic. And if you have adopted their logic, their morality goes along with it. Once you have thus surrendered the moral high ground, you will be locked into an escalating cycle of violence which no-one can win. Someone in the US State Department needs to start reading the history books and thinking with their brain, assuming they can find one.

fundaMentalists

Talking about possible future problems like climate change, loss of biological diversity and disease, Royal Society president Lord May says in a speech today

"Sadly, for many, the response is to retreat from complexity and difficulty by embracing the darkness of fundamentalist unreason. The Enlightenment's core values, which lie at the heart of the Royal Society - free, open, unpredjudiced, uninhibited questioning and enquiry; individual liberty; separation of church and state - are under serious threat from resurgent fundamentalism, West and East."

Amen to that, brother. (via the Register)

Another step towards Big Brother

Another excellent article at the Register. Technology is obviously going to make all sorts of things possible, but just because something can be done does not necessarily mean that it should be done. Dealing with untaxed and more seriously uninsured cars is obviously a good thing - uninsured drivers cause a lot of grief every year. But as we all know

Power corrupts - absolute power is kind of neat

or something like that. Technology or even legislation introduced for honourable reasons (look, I'm trying to give them the benefit of the doubt here, OK?) can later be used in less benign ways. It is really difficult to know where the line should be drawn but if we don't draw it somewhere, pretty soon we may have no say in the matter at all. At the very least there should be an open and informed debate about the price we are prepared to pay for security and law enforcement, and I don't see that debate happening at the moment.

Here comes 1984

I know I keep going on about this, but it is really important. Just go and read Martin Brampton's article, and remember what Benjamin Franklin said: "Anyone who trades liberty for security deserves neither liberty nor security". Don't let these illiberal enthusiasts for a totalitarian state sneak this stuff in under the guise of protecting you from terrorism. You won't be protected, and one day you will wake up and realise what you have lost - and there will be no way back but to fight for it. Then you'll be the terrorist...

Software developers 'abandoned' by management

I think I'm getting kind of obsessional about poor quality and the choices our society is making. This article at vnunet is yet another example of how the current obsession with low price as the only differentiator in fact leads to lower quality of life and higher real costs for most of us. I don't think, in 20 years in the industry, that I've ever worked in a software development organisation where management saw quality as an important aspect of their job. Price, and schedule were the main drivers. Quality was 'what can we get away with?'. I don't blame the managers - the reality is that no-one is demanding quality as their priority measure, so in our market economy we get what the market demands which is 'faster, cheaper'. But as the old saying goes: "you can have it good, cheap, or fast - pick any two". As a developer it is depressing to be constantly pressured to release code that you aren't happy with - and as a customer, it's pretty depressing to pay for buggy software. But that seems to be the choice we have made as a society.

Mark's Sysinternals Blog: Sony, Rootkits and Digital Rights Management Gone Too Far

Sony is just so wrong here. Performing criminal acts against ones customers is not generally thought of as being a winning commercial strategy. The record lables must hold the moral high ground if they want to survive, and this kind of idiocy is so counterproductive. Great work by Mark to unearth the skulduggery.

Morgan Spurlock strikes again

If you are in the UK, and you have cable or satellite (not sure if it's on Freeview) you should watch Morgan Spurlock's new show on More4. The first episode showed Morgan and his girlfriend trying to live on the minimum wage in Ohio for 30 days. Showing how the richest country in the world subsidises the lifestyles of the better off by exploiting the poor and vulnerable without even the protection of a basic welfare state, it is another sobering look at the other side of the American Dream. Now we know how they can afford that $419bn defence budget (are my prejudices showing?). It is Morgan's job to give it some shock value, but the consensus seems to be that his view is not inaccurate.

Seasonal Warning

Christmas is approaching inexorably, so I'd just like to remind you that anything that is marketed as an Ideal Gift is likely to be anything but. It is almost certainly not a useful item, but something created specifically to be given away, and to make sure that the process is as painless as possible it will be something that no-one would ever want to keep for themselves. When I rule the world, anyone found giving an 'Ideal Gift' will have their entrails extracted by eagles before being dipped in a salt bath. So just say no - you know it makes sense. If you can't think of anything to give someone, try Good Gifts, Great Gifts or Oxfam Unwrapped. Actually, these are great alternatives to any presents, not just Ideal Gifts. Few of us in the developed world actually need a present this Christmas, so why not spend your money on someone who does?

Devil's Advocate: Why poor customer service is all too common

Martin Brampton's column on Silicon.com raises a number of issues, but his basic thesis, that poor customer service is caused by an almost total disconnect between the people to whom you complain and the people who actually do the stuff you complain about, seems sound.
On a related subject, under the title "Airline cost-cutting gone mad" Stephen McDowell of Interactive Investor asks how much cheaper airlines can get now that they are asking the passengers to clean the planes before they disembark.
Neither Brampton nor McDowell ask why this situation has arisen. It's my belief that it is the result of the constant drive towards lower price as almost the only market differentiator. Coupled with the general dumbing down in society which has resulted in fewer people being able to discriminate between articles or services of varying qualities, it has led to a situation where 'just good enough' is all that is available. I also think that there has been confusion between the pursuit of high quality and elitism, and once again the casualty has been quality.