Should software developers do it for themselves?

We don't need no stinkin' management


Reg Reader Workshop On March 7, 1992, a little-known Finnish software developer called Linus Torvalds issued version 0.13 of his open source operating system as version 0.95. It was a bold move, which took place (according to the FAQ) because "Linux is very close to a reliable/stable system". By moving the numbering system from incrementing from zero, to awfully close to 1, he set the sights of those involved very much on the goal.

Few today would have any doubt that the move paid off, but it is a fair reminder of Linus' hands-on role, which continues to the present day. Indeed, however touchy-feely one may consider the world of open source to be, the secret of its success can often be ascribed to a level of centralised control. "Normally the people you find at the core ... know how to run software projects," said Mark Taylor, president of the Open Source Consortium, recently.

The management of software development has always been beset with challenges regarding how to balance innovation with control. Too little control, and those pesky developers start writing their own stuff with scant regard for project deadlines (I remember, back in the day, one chap writing a programme to decide who should go down to the sausage roll machine at break time). But meanwhile there is the perception of overbearing management, who tie software artist-engineer-developers up in layer upon layer of Gantt charts, waterfall lifecycles and apparently unified processes.

It was to counter such views that modern Agile methodologies (such as XP) were first created. Rather than seeing project managers as the masters of the universe, they aimed to put more control in the hands of the developer. The idea was that developers, if allowed to innovate in a structured fashion, will get to an answer faster than being micro-managed through some long-winded process.

But perhaps it doesn’t matter a jot what level of control structure exists. Maybe it's the kinds of measurements in place that are going to make the difference, rather than who is doing the measuring. It's highly likely that ‘lines of code’ or ‘bugs fixed’ are not going to be the best metrics ever, but are they the best that some organisations have got, in the absence of any decent value measures? Perhaps agility and structure exist like a sine wave, rubber-banding from one to the other through the decades to maintain a common direction.

Do we need managers at all? Most probably we do – one can only imagine the lord-of-the-software-flies environments that might evolve given a complete absence of managers. Perhaps you’ve already experienced such a thing, in which case we’d love to hear from you, as we would if you believe the absence of structure is the root of all that is wrong about software projects. Do let us know your views. ®


Other stories you might like

  • While the iPhone's repairability is in the toilet, at least the Apple Watch 7 is as fixable as the previous model

    Component swaps still a thing – for now

    Apple's seventh-gen Watch has managed to maintain its iFixit repairability rating on a par with the last model – unlike its smartphone sibling.

    The iFixit team found the slightly larger display of the latest Apple Watch a boon for removal via heat and a suction handle. Where the previous generation required a pair of flex folds in its display, the new version turned out to be simpler, with just the one flex.

    Things are also slightly different within the watch itself. Apple's diagnostic port has gone and the battery is larger. That equates to a slight increase in power (1.094Wh from 1.024Wh between 40mm S6 and 41mm S7) which, when paired with the slightly hungrier display, means battery life is pretty much unchanged.

    Continue reading
  • Better late than never: Microsoft rolls out a public preview of E2EE in Teams calls

    Only for one-to-one voice and video, mind

    Microsoft has finally kicked off the rollout of end-to-end-encryption (E2EE) in its Teams collaboration platform with a public preview of E2EE for one-to-one calls.

    It has been a while coming. The company made the promise of E2EE for some one-to-one Teams calls at its virtual Ignite shindig in March this year (https://www.theregister.com/2021/03/03/microsoft_ups_security/) and as 2021 nears its end appears to have delivered, in preview form at least.

    The company's rival in the conference calling space, Zoom, added E2EE for all a year ago, making Microsoft rather late to the privacy party. COO at Matrix-based communications and collaboration app Element, Amandine Le Pape, told The Register that the preview, although welcome, was "long overdue."

    Continue reading
  • Recycled Cobalt Strike key pairs show many crooks are using same cloned installation

    Researcher spots RSA tell-tale lurking in plain sight on VirusTotal

    Around 1,500 Cobalt Strike beacons uploaded to VirusTotal were reusing the same RSA keys from a cracked version of the software, according to a security researcher who pored through the malware repository.

    The discovery could make blue teams' lives easier by giving them a clue about whether or not Cobalt Strike traffic across their networks is a real threat or an action by an authorised red team carrying out a penetration test.

    Didier Stevens, the researcher with Belgian infosec firm NVISO who discovered that private Cobalt Strike keys are being widely reused by criminals, told The Register: "While fingerprinting Cobalt Strike servers on the internet, we noticed that some public keys appeared often. The fact that there is a reuse of public keys means that there is a reuse of private keys too: a public key and a private key are linked to each other."

    Continue reading

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2021