Re: [OT] Putty invocation

[Simon_Wilcox]

I think everything is stored on a per-session basis.

  So if you want something changed for all sessions you have to change and
  re-save each one.

  I think (having only ever used Putty against two machines running the same
  OS) !

  Simon.






>The backspace->ctrl-h. I can set it once in putty, and it works, but if I
>quit putty and restart, new sessions don't get it.
>
>Michael











__


   This document should only be read by those persons to whom it is addressed
   and is not intended to be relied upon by any person without subsequent
   written confirmation of its contents. Accordingly, our company disclaim all
   responsibility and accept no liability (including in negligence) for the
   consequences for any person acting, or refraining from acting, on such
   information prior to the receipt by those persons of subsequent written
   confirmation.

   If you have received this E-mail message in error, please notify us
   immediately by telephone. Please also destroy and delete the message from
   your computer.

   Any form of reproduction, dissemination, copying, disclosure, modification,
   distribution and/or publication of this E-mail message is strictly
   prohibited.

Re: Hardware Upgrade Fund

[Jonathan Stowe]

On Mon, 22 Jan 2001, Philip Newton wrote:

> alex wrote:
> > I'd prefer to do it the other way round if you don't mind, and say you
> > have just one month to send a cheque for 50 pounds made out 
> > to C A McLean [1] to state51, 8 rhoda street, bethnal green, e2 7ef ,
> > or brought along to the next social or technical meeting.
> 
> Hm, random question -- is penderal just for London.pm members or might it
> conceivably be opened to a wider public? For example, what about honourary
> London.pm members such as dha?
> 

dha *is* a London.pm member - not honourary, (not honourable either :)
just a plain old member like everyone else - hfb, gnat, you, marcel and
everyone else who has washed up and stayed here - I don't think any
distinction is possible :) After all some of us only *work* in London.

> To come to the point, I might be interested in buying a share since I don't
> really have a decent machine anywhere else besides a shell account somewhere
> in California. And colocating a machine of my own seems a bit costly to me
> at the moment. However, I can imagine you might be wanting to keep penderel
> a London thingy, which is why I thought I'd ask.
> 

Go for it geezer - I can't think there would be any objection :)

/J\
-- 
Jonathan Stowe   |   
http://www.gellyfish.com |   I'm with Grep on this one 
http://www.tackleway.co.uk   |

Re: Lunch

[Dave Hodgkinson]

Piers Cawley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> Cheung fun. The ho fun were the white noodles in my soup.



-- 
Dave Hodgkinson, http://www.hodgkinson.org
Editor-in-chief, The Highway Star   http://www.deep-purple.com
  Apache, mod_perl, MySQL, Sybase hired gun for, well, hire
  -

Re: Lunch

[Piers Cawley]

Dave Hodgkinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> Dave Cross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 
> > Any chance of someone posting a summary of the discussion?
> 
> "Three bowls of noodle soup, some of those crab things on a stick, one
> each of the ho fun..."

Cheung fun. The ho fun were the white noodles in my soup.

-- 
Piers

Re: Lunch

[Piers Cawley]

David Cantrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> On Mon, Jan 22, 2001 at 09:18:09AM -0500, Dave Cross wrote:
> 
> > Any chance of someone posting a summary of the discussion?
> 
> pdcawley:  talk talk take charge talk bully us into having a clue

Hmm... but I think we achieved rather more than that. And you forgot 

pdcawley:  mange mange mange mange gulp. 

-- 
Piers

Re: Consultancy company

[Piers Cawley]

Robin Szemeti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> On Mon, 22 Jan 2001, you wrote:
> 
> > Inded. Look at XP. The whole idea is that at the end of every day /
> > week you have changed something and can show it to the client
> > again. This way the client really understands what he really wants.
> 
> wow ... "a client that understands what they want"  ... Mr Brocard,
> for gods sake WALK to the meeting, DO NOT drive. I have no idea what
> you're taking but I want some .. do you get to see little blue spacemen
> too ;))
> 
> nah seriously.. if XP can really achieve this then great .. I hope
> it can .. infact I almost believe it can ... a little voice in my
> head keeps saying 'please let this be true' .. but sometimes when
> people come up with such abstract ideas as 'a client that
> understands what they want' I do begin to wonder if its not pushing
> it a bit far ;))

One of the things that I love about the iterative approach of XP is
that during the process the client begins to learn exactly what she
wants, and is taught to express that by the team. The idea is to
create genuine collaboration.

-- 
Piers

Re: Consultancy company

[Piers Cawley]

Dave Mee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> >= Original Message From "James O'Sullivan" 
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> =
> >On Mon, 22 Jan 2001, Michael Stevens wrote:
> >> On Mon, Jan 22, 2001 at 08:47:35AM +, Roger Burton West wrote:
> >> > Contracts _should_ say that the client pays for changes to what he
> >> > originally said he wanted. Sometimes they do. It's quite rare, in my
> >> > experience, for this payment actually to be demanded. (Usually some
> >> > excuse along the lines of "it's a big customer and we don't want to
> >> > annoy them".) This XP approach seems to require a lot more firmness
> >> >
> >> I've also found a lot of customers are absolute *geniuses* at fudging the
> >> issue of what they did and didn't agree to, no matter how specific
> >> you attempt to be.
> >>
> 
> >This, in theory, should make the client think whether they really need
> >this "small change" or if it can wait until a later date.  It also gives
> >you some ammo if the client changes their mind as there should be no
> >ambiguity.
> >
> 
> Apologies if I'm walking in late on this one...
> 
> One of the best solutions I've come accross to this problem is to
> take an iterative approach to development. Instead of a three month
> deadline, you work towards three one month deadlines. the client
> prioritises at each stage what is most important for them, along
> with the developers; then you work to the deadline, and slip
> functionality (rather than time). Any things that are missing are
> then rolled into the next iteration, and again prioritised along
> with any new functionality the client feels they need.

This is an XP thing. And it is good. Specs change. This is a law of
nature. If you plan up front for that to happen then you reduce the
cost of change dramatically.

-- 
Piers

Re: Consultancy company

[Piers Cawley]

Michael Stevens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> On Mon, Jan 22, 2001 at 10:26:18AM +, James O'Sullivan wrote:
> > On Mon, 22 Jan 2001, Michael Stevens wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jan 22, 2001 at 08:47:35AM +, Roger Burton West wrote:
> > > > Contracts _should_ say that the client pays for changes to what he
> > > > originally said he wanted. Sometimes they do. It's quite rare, in my
> > > > experience, for this payment actually to be demanded. (Usually some
> > > > excuse along the lines of "it's a big customer and we don't want to
> > > > annoy them".) This XP approach seems to require a lot more firmness
> > > >
> > > I've also found a lot of customers are absolute *geniuses* at fudging the
> > > issue of what they did and didn't agree to, no matter how specific
> > > you attempt to be.
> > >
> > 
> > All changes no matter how small should be passed through a change control
> > process, normally put in place by the project manager assigned to that
> > specific job.
> > 
> > A change control document will normally be produced which will detail what
> > the client wants, how much it will cost and what the effects are on the
> > project timeline.  This will need to be read and physically signed off by
> > the client before any work is undertaken.
> 
> a) you need to be able to persuade management this is a good idea
> 
> b) you need to get someone writing specs who is actually able to be specific.
> And you need to have some way of dealing with a client who will
> refuse to pay until you implement something that they say is
> contained within the spec, and you don't. Despite the fact you're
> both reading the same spec.

Keep the specs/stories simple. If the team is unsure of what a story
means then they need to go back to the client for clarification, and
possibly to have the requirement broken down into simpler bits. As
time passes in the project, the client will get better at writing
requirements. And we'll get better at estimating how long they'll take
to implement.

-- 
Piers

Re: Consultancy company

[Piers Cawley]

"James O'Sullivan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> On Mon, 22 Jan 2001, Michael Stevens wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 22, 2001 at 08:47:35AM +, Roger Burton West wrote:
> > > Contracts _should_ say that the client pays for changes to what he
> > > originally said he wanted. Sometimes they do. It's quite rare, in my
> > > experience, for this payment actually to be demanded. (Usually some
> > > excuse along the lines of "it's a big customer and we don't want to
> > > annoy them".) This XP approach seems to require a lot more firmness
> > >
> > I've also found a lot of customers are absolute *geniuses* at fudging the
> > issue of what they did and didn't agree to, no matter how specific
> > you attempt to be.
> >
> 
> All changes no matter how small should be passed through a change control
> process, normally put in place by the project manager assigned to that
> specific job.
> 
> A change control document will normally be produced which will detail what
> the client wants, how much it will cost and what the effects are on the
> project timeline.  This will need to be read and physically signed off by
> the client before any work is undertaken.
> 
> This, in theory, should make the client think whether they really need
> this "small change" or if it can wait until a later date.  It also gives
> you some ammo if the client changes their mind as there should be no
> ambiguity.

The XP approach to this goes something like:

Client: We want this. 
Team: Write it on a card. 
Client:  There you go. 
Team: This will take 'm' days to implement. We have n > m days available
  in this iteration, do you want this in this iteration.

or

Team: This will take m days to implement. We have n < m days in this
  iteration. If this goes in, which ones to we take out?

And the client makes the decision.

-- 
Piers

Re: Hardware Upgrade Fund

[Philip Newton]

alex wrote:
> I'd prefer to do it the other way round if you don't mind, and say you
> have just one month to send a cheque for 50 pounds made out 
> to C A McLean [1] to state51, 8 rhoda street, bethnal green, e2 7ef ,
> or brought along to the next social or technical meeting.

Hm, random question -- is penderal just for London.pm members or might it
conceivably be opened to a wider public? For example, what about honourary
London.pm members such as dha?

To come to the point, I might be interested in buying a share since I don't
really have a decent machine anywhere else besides a shell account somewhere
in California. And colocating a machine of my own seems a bit costly to me
at the moment. However, I can imagine you might be wanting to keep penderel
a London thingy, which is why I thought I'd ask.

Cheers,
Philip

Re: Consultancy company

[Piers Cawley]

Mark Fowler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> Roger claimed that:
> 
> > This XP approach seems to require a lot more firmness
> > in customer relations than I've ever seen - and if that firmness were
> > present, we wouldn't need XP anyway...
> 
> One of the main problems with full disclosure with the client is that it
> can only ever work when you've only got one client.  In my job you tend to
> be working on more than one project at any given time;  I certainly don't
> think I'd like to be the one to tell the client 'sorry this is late, but
> there was this unexpected problem with some work we were doing for another
> client and it took up all our time'.

This is a good point. Eventually I'd like to see 'client teams' built
on a project by project basis, but this definitely needs a good deal
of thought.

-- 
Piers

Re: [OT] Putty invocation

[Robert Shiels]

> On Mon, Jan 22, 2001 at 04:33:11PM -, Robert Shiels wrote:
> > > And does anyone know how to get putty to save settings like they key
> > > for backspace, etc, rather than my having to set them every time I
start
> > > it?
> > Do you mean setting the backspace to Control-H in the keyboard tab isn't
> > working, or are there other esoteric things you want to set?
>
> The backspace->ctrl-h. I can set it once in putty, and it works, but if I
> quit putty and restart, new sessions don't get it.

You need to change it individually for each session that you save as it's
not a global thing. I've got it working here.

/Robert

Re: Conslutancy

[Robert Shiels]

> 
> i'm ignoring all your points 
> 
> reply-to having the address of the sender is the right thing,
> 
> it means when you reply to a message you reply to author of
> that message, when you reply-all you reply to all
> 
> its just the right thing
> 
> so there 

Define sender then?  the mailing list is the sender IMO (no H :-)

/Robert

Re: Munging Reply-To

[Robin Houston]

On Mon, Jan 22, 2001 at 05:10:57PM +, alex wrote:

> there is only one right way, and that's to give people the choice.
> 
> that's what i do, and in my experience the majority prefer to have their
> reply-to's munged on discussive lists such as this one.

I wonder whether that's really true, or if it's simply that
most people don't bother to change from the default because
they're not that interested?

If the default was an unmunged (void) and (void-munged) was
also available for the munging fanatics, which would be the
majority then?

Don't know, but wondering...

 .robin.

Re: [OT] Putty invocation

[Michael Stevens]

On Mon, Jan 22, 2001 at 04:33:11PM -, Robert Shiels wrote:
> > And does anyone know how to get putty to save settings like they key
> > for backspace, etc, rather than my having to set them every time I start
> > it?
> Do you mean setting the backspace to Control-H in the keyboard tab isn't
> working, or are there other esoteric things you want to set?

The backspace->ctrl-h. I can set it once in putty, and it works, but if I
quit putty and restart, new sessions don't get it.

Michael

Re: Conslutancy

[Michael Stevens]

On Mon, Jan 22, 2001 at 04:33:34PM +, Simon Wistow wrote:
> Greg McCarroll wrote:
> > reply-to having the address of the sender is the right thing,
> > it means when you reply to a message you reply to author of
> > that message, when you reply-all you reply to all
> No. When you reply-all it replies to the sender *AND* the list. So the
> sender gets two copies of everything. Which is just fricking irritating
> *AND* a waste of bandwidth.

So you use list-reply like sensible people.

Or you actually take the time to pay attention to who you're sending
the message to.

Aargh. help! i'm being drawn in!

Michael

Reply-to (was: Conslutancy)

[Robin Houston]

On Mon, Jan 22, 2001 at 03:47:03PM +, Andy Wardley wrote:
> 
> So without wishing to start another holy war, is it possible to change
> the mailing list configuration to have a more sensible default Reply-to?

I doubt it.

There is an obstinate minority of list members who refuse to
countenance such a change.

The fools!

 .robin.

-- 
Straw? No, too stupid a fad! I put soot on warts.

Re: Munging Reply-To

[alex]

On Mon, 22 Jan 2001, Andy Wardley wrote:
> If I explicitly set the Reply-To: in a message posted to the list then
> the software is munging it to set it to reply to the list.
> Therefore, the current behaviour is wrong, even according to the
> "Munging Reply-To considered harmful" arguments (which we don't
> necessarily accept as valid).

there is only one right way, and that's to give people the choice.

that's what i do, and in my experience the majority prefer to have their
reply-to's munged on discussive lists such as this one.


alex

-- 
Snack pastries are dramatic when shapes are combined

RE: Conslutancy

[Andrew Bowman]

> On Mon, Jan 22, 2001 at 04:38:31PM +, Greg McCarroll wrote:
> > la la la la *has hands over ears* i cant here you, la la la la
> 
I like the sentiment, but must record the problems it caused when I tried
that response to Mrs. B's arguments - it didn't help matters, oh no, not at
all, even though it was merely a visible manifestation of my customary
response to such matters :-)

Andrew.

Re: Conslutancy

[DJ Adams]

On Mon, Jan 22, 2001 at 04:33:33PM +, Greg McCarroll wrote:
> > 
> 
> war implies a large struggle, this would be more like a 5 second
> knockout - everyone knows mutt is the one true mail client

Now _that_ is something I can agree with 

dj
happy just to have realised he'll be able to make next week's meet

Re: Conslutancy

[DJ Adams]

On Mon, Jan 22, 2001 at 04:38:31PM +, Greg McCarroll wrote:
> la la la la *has hands over ears* i cant here you, la la la la

ROFL 

Always good to end the day with a giggle :-)

dj

Re: Conslutancy

[DJ Adams]

On Mon, Jan 22, 2001 at 04:26:32PM +, Greg McCarroll wrote:
> reply-to having the address of the sender is the right thing,
> 
> it means when you reply to a message you reply to author of
> that message, when you reply-all you reply to all

trying...to...resist...AARGH!

No no no!

You're on a mailing list because you're corresponding with the group as a
while so you want ot reply to the group as a whole too. 

Mailing list parallel in IRC:

type something (i.e. path of least resistance) : goes to channel
/dcc chat (extra effort) : goes to individual

having a reply-to sender as default for a mailing list is very rude as
you're presuming the 'default' exclusion of the very collective you're
conversing with.

If you want to make an aside to the person who actually posted something,
then by all means change the To: to their email address.

:-)

DJ
who thinks people who refer to the "...Considered Harmful" doc are guilty of 
cargo-cult meme-mongering.

P.S. nice to come back to the list on a juicy non-Perl (!) topic ;-)

Munging Reply-To

[Andy Wardley]

On Jan 22,  4:26pm, Greg McCarroll wrote:
> reply-to having the address of the sender is the right thing,
[...]
> its just the right thing

Nail meets hammer.  

If I explicitly set the Reply-To: in a message posted to the list then
the software is munging it to set it to reply to the list.  Therefore,
the current behaviour is wrong, even according to the "Munging Reply-To
considered harmful" arguments (which we don't necessarily accept as
valid).




A


-- 
Andy Wardley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>   Signature regenerating.  Please remain seated.
 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>   For a good time: http://www.kfs.org/~abw/

Re: Conslutancy

[Struan Donald]

* at 22/01 16:33 + Greg McCarroll said:
> * Struan Donald ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > 
> > actually mutt has cool mailing list functions in that you can define a
> > mailing list  in the config and then l (or L, i forget) replies to the
> > list rather than the person.
> > 
> > not that i want this to degenerate into a mail client holy war :)
> > 
> 
> war implies a large struggle, this would be more like a 5 second
> knockout - everyone knows mutt is the one true mail client

well yes but some people are stubborn, plus there's always the school
of thought that everyting should be done from within emacs...

struan

Re: [OT] Putty invocation

[Robert Shiels]

> And does anyone know how to get putty to save settings like they key
> for backspace, etc, rather than my having to set them every time I start
> it?

Do you mean setting the backspace to Control-H in the keyboard tab isn't
working, or are there other esoteric things you want to set?

/Robert

Re: Conslutancy

[Greg McCarroll]

* Simon Wistow ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Greg McCarroll wrote:
> 
> > reply-to having the address of the sender is the right thing,
> > 
> > it means when you reply to a message you reply to author of
> > that message, when you reply-all you reply to all
> 
> No. When you reply-all it replies to the sender *AND* the list. So the
> sender gets two copies of everything. Which is just fricking irritating
> *AND* a waste of bandwidth.

la la la la *has hands over ears* i cant here you, la la la la

> Yes I could have a procmail rule to delete duplicate message IDs but
> some places I work (like here) I can't use procmail. 

i can and do

-- 
Greg McCarroll  http://www.mccarroll.uklinux.net

Re: Conslutancy

[Greg McCarroll]

* Struan Donald ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> 
> actually mutt has cool mailing list functions in that you can define a
> mailing list  in the config and then l (or L, i forget) replies to the
> list rather than the person.
> 
> not that i want this to degenerate into a mail client holy war :)
> 

war implies a large struggle, this would be more like a 5 second
knockout - everyone knows mutt is the one true mail client



-- 
Greg McCarroll  http://www.mccarroll.uklinux.net

Re: Conslutancy

[Simon Wistow]

Greg McCarroll wrote:

> reply-to having the address of the sender is the right thing,
> 
> it means when you reply to a message you reply to author of
> that message, when you reply-all you reply to all

No. When you reply-all it replies to the sender *AND* the list. So the
sender gets two copies of everything. Which is just fricking irritating
*AND* a waste of bandwidth.

Yes I could have a procmail rule to delete duplicate message IDs but
some places I work (like here) I can't use procmail. 

Or in fact want to.

Re: Conslutancy

[Greg McCarroll]

* Simon Wistow ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Andy Wardley wrote:
> 
> > So without wishing to start another holy war, is it possible to change
> > the mailing list configuration to have a more sensible default Reply-to?
> 
> 
> I have arguments with Leon about this. He usually quotes 'Reply To
> munging considered harmful'
> (http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html) but as I keep trying to
> point out to him this document is bollocks.
> 
> The main statemests it makes are ...
> 

i'm ignoring all your points 

reply-to having the address of the sender is the right thing,

it means when you reply to a message you reply to author of
that message, when you reply-all you reply to all

its just the right thing

so there 

Re: Conslutancy

[Struan Donald]

* at 22/01 16:22 + Simon Wistow said:
> Andy Wardley wrote:
> 
> > So without wishing to start another holy war, is it possible to change
> > the mailing list configuration to have a more sensible default Reply-to?
> 
> 
> I have arguments with Leon about this. He usually quotes 'Reply To
> munging considered harmful'
> (http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html) but as I keep trying to
> point out to him this document is bollocks.
> 
> The main statemests it makes are ...
> 

> 
> 2) It provides no benefit to the user of a reasonable mailer. 
> What mailer? I use Netscape which amkes it a pain in the arse. But
> Netscape isn't a decent mailer you'll say. Ok. Pine. Pine has, IIRC a
> Reply and a 'Reply To All' capability. I believe Mutt is the same? How
> does non munging help here?  

actually mutt has cool mailing list functions in that you can define a
mailing list  in the config and then l (or L, i forget) replies to the
list rather than the person.

not that i want this to degenerate into a mail client holy war :)

struan

Re: Conslutancy

[Simon Wistow]

Andy Wardley wrote:

> So without wishing to start another holy war, is it possible to change
> the mailing list configuration to have a more sensible default Reply-to?


I have arguments with Leon about this. He usually quotes 'Reply To
munging considered harmful'
(http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html) but as I keep trying to
point out to him this document is bollocks.

The main statemests it makes are ...

1) It violates the principle of minimal munging. 
Well, can't argue against that. Although I think the uses outway the
principle.

2) It provides no benefit to the user of a reasonable mailer. 
What mailer? I use Netscape which amkes it a pain in the arse. But
Netscape isn't a decent mailer you'll say. Ok. Pine. Pine has, IIRC a
Reply and a 'Reply To All' capability. I believe Mutt is the same? How
does non munging help here?  

3) It limits a subscriber's freedom to choose how he or she will direct
a response. 
Bollocks. 

4) It actually reduces functionality for the user of a reasonable
mailer. 
Bollocks.

5) It removes important information, which can make it impossible to get
back to the message sender. 
Bollocks.

6) It penalizes the person with a reasonable mailer in order to coddle
those running brain-dead software. 
What mailer? Put it this way. How many times are you replying to a list
and you actually want to reply to a person individually. 1 in 10? 1 in
50? So non-mungin helps in those cases. Whereas munging helps in the
other 9 or 49 depednign on how concillitory you're being.

7) It violates the principle of least work because complicates the
procedure for replying to messages. 
See above.

8) It violates the principle of least surprise because it changes the
way a mailer works. 
Not true. You are in genrral reply-ing to the list. Not to the
individual person. 

9) It violates the principle of least damage, and it encourages a
failure mode that can be extremely embarrassing -- or worse. 
Hmmm. Fair enough I suppose. But more often I've replied to a mail and
then gone back to repost it to the list.

10) Your subscribers don't want you to do it. Or, at least the ones who
have bothered to read the docs for their mailer don't want you to do it. 
Subjective you honour. The prosecution is leading. 

Conslutency Location

[Andy Wardley]

On Jan 21,  1:20pm, Greg McCarroll wrote:
> potential london clients will be put off dealing with a company
> not in london

Surely you jest, sir!

What about the M3/M4 corridor, otherwise known as "Silicon Alley"?
What about places like Stockley Park (next to Heathrow), or the
Surrey Research Park (where we're based, just a few doors down from
Red Hat UK), just to name two off the top of my head?

Are all those huge IT companies based in places like Bracknell (archetypal
Silicon Alley town, but butt ugly), like Oracle, ICL/Fujitsu, Informix,
etc., etc., not doing business with anyone else because they're not based
in London?  I think not.

Anyway, the solution is simple.  We have a London office and a Guildford
office.  The former is convenient for people in London, the latter
convenient for both airports, M3, M4, M25, Brighton, and me! :-)=

We give everyone a nice laptop and have desks with monitors, keyboards
and telephones in the offices.  They can work in one or other place,
depending on where they are, what they're doing and/or who they're
currently working with in terms of team members and/or clients.


A

-- 
Andy Wardley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>   Signature regenerating.  Please remain seated.
 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>   For a good time: http://www.kfs.org/~abw/

Re: [OT] Putty invocation

[Michael Stevens]

On Mon, Jan 22, 2001 at 03:32:58PM +, DJ Adams wrote:
> Hi folks
> Am I going mad or is there no way I can start my fav client program
> PuTTY and specify a saved 'session' directly with a switch?
> (i.e. I can specify a hostname, but I _want_ to specify a session
> name - to have my colours / fonts etc)

And does anyone know how to get putty to save settings like they key
for backspace, etc, rather than my having to set them every time I start
it?

Michael

Re: Conslutancy

[Michael Stevens]

On Mon, Jan 22, 2001 at 03:52:08PM +, DJ Adams wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 22, 2001 at 03:47:03PM +, Andy Wardley wrote:
> > So without wishing to start another holy war, is it possible to change
> too late ;)
> > the mailing list configuration to have a more sensible default Reply-to?
> No no! Please no!


Why surely the most sensible reply-to is no reply-to at all...

Re: Conslutancy

[DJ Adams]

On Mon, Jan 22, 2001 at 03:47:03PM +, Andy Wardley wrote:
> 
> So without wishing to start another holy war, is it possible to change

too late ;)

> the mailing list configuration to have a more sensible default Reply-to?
> 

No no! Please no!

dj

Re: Conslutancy

[Andy Wardley]

On Jan 22,  3:33pm, Andy Wardley wrote:
> Please consider yourself emailed.

Damn, damn, damn!

OK, it was my stupid mistake that I didn't check the headers before I
clicked send, but I can't help thinking that the default Reply-to
header should be to the sender, not the entire group.

And I also note that this was originally sent to the defunct list (at least
I think this is the defunct list???), so I've changed the To: header.

So without wishing to start another holy war, is it possible to change
the mailing list configuration to have a more sensible default Reply-to?

And Dave, if you're reading this please add me to the conslutancy
list.


A


-- 
Andy Wardley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>   Signature regenerating.  Please remain seated.
 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>   For a good time: http://www.kfs.org/~abw/

Re: [OT] Putty invocation

[DJ Adams]

On Mon, Jan 22, 2001 at 03:40:48PM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> 
> "C:\Program Files\Putty\putty.exe" @SessionName

wow - excellent. Thanks. I don't think I would have come upon '@' in 
my guessing ;-)

cheers
dj

Re: [OT] Putty invocation

[Simon_Wilcox]

I make a shortcut and then put something like this in the Target field in
Properties.

"C:\Program Files\Putty\putty.exe" @SessionName

HTH,

Simon.







Please respond to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

   From   DJ Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>   Date   22
January 2001


To  
London PM <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Time  15:32 



  Copy to (bcc: Simon Wilcox/BASE/WilliamsLea)



  Bcc Simon Wilcox/BASE/WilliamsLea



  Fax to



  Subject   [OT] Putty invocation





Hi folks

Am I going mad or is there no way I can start my fav client program
PuTTY and specify a saved 'session' directly with a switch?

(i.e. I can specify a hostname, but I _want_ to specify a session
name - to have my colours / fonts etc)

cheers
dj











   __


   This document should only be read by those persons to whom it is addressed
   and is not intended to be relied upon by any person without subsequent
   written confirmation of its contents. Accordingly, our company disclaim all
   responsibility and accept no liability (including in negligence) for the
   consequences for any person acting, or refraining from acting, on such
   information prior to the receipt by those persons of subsequent written
   confirmation.

   If you have received this E-mail message in error, please notify us
   immediately by telephone. Please also destroy and delete the message from
   your computer.

   Any form of reproduction, dissemination, copying, disclosure, modification,
   distribution and/or publication of this E-mail message is strictly
   prohibited.

[OT] Putty invocation

[DJ Adams]

Hi folks

Am I going mad or is there no way I can start my fav client program
PuTTY and specify a saved 'session' directly with a switch?

(i.e. I can specify a hostname, but I _want_ to specify a session
name - to have my colours / fonts etc)

cheers
dj

Re: Consultancy company

[Robert Shiels]

> On or about Mon, Jan 22, 2001 at 12:51:59PM -, Robert Shiels typed:
>
> >Often, when I do something that I consider really easy and spend little
> >effort on it, I get lots of really good feedback. Alternatively if I
spend
> >weeks on a trickey problem, no one says anything. This seems like a
similar
> >rule.
>
> That can also be caused by management that has no idea of what's difficult
> and what isn't. Believing such feedback leads to flashy sites that don't
> work, in my experience. Just another reason for workplace cynicism...

Agree totally. But it doesn't harm your career/salary much to look out for
these little snippets, work out how to do more of them, and produce one now
and again.

At a recent client they were trying to get batch ftp to work with a password
that has '%' in it (two people had been working on it for two hours). I
wasn't expected to know how to do this, but my various buggering about on
the internet must be worth something because I remembered to use '%%' [1].
Instantly I'm a guru. People rememered the 30 seconds work, my reputation
grew, I got really good feedback to my company.

Don't tell them how much I really know :-)

/Robert

[1] I've googled around, but can't seem to verify this now

Re: Consultancy company- Where do you want to go?

[Robin Szemeti]

On Mon, 22 Jan 2001, you wrote:
> Greg Cope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 
> > Men in black theme - we must all have black suits - dark glasses
> > avliable from Macy D's soon, and we can get a clapped out van from BT
> > for next to nothing 
> 
> Don't forget the welding gear.

good point, well made.  .. hey .. say I wanted weld a diesel tank for
instance ... 

-- 
Robin Szemeti

The box said "requires windows 95 or better"
So I installed Linux!

Re: Lunch

[David Cantrell]

On Mon, Jan 22, 2001 at 09:18:09AM -0500, Dave Cross wrote:

> Any chance of someone posting a summary of the discussion?

pdcawley:  talk talk take charge talk bully us into having a clue
dcantrell: is there any tea left?
food:  

NB: :-)

-- 
David Cantrell | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.cantrell.org.uk/david/

  This is nice.  Any idea what body-part it is?

Re: Lunch

[Dave Hodgkinson]

Dave Cross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> Any chance of someone posting a summary of the discussion?

"Three bowls of noodle soup, some of those crab things on a stick, one
each of the ho fun..."


-- 
Dave Hodgkinson, http://www.hodgkinson.org
Editor-in-chief, The Highway Star   http://www.deep-purple.com
  Apache, mod_perl, MySQL, Sybase hired gun for, well, hire
  -

Re: Lunch

[Dave Cross]

At 22 Jan 2001 12:18:05 +, Dave Hodgkinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> Lunch was fabulous if only to hear Cantrell say: "this is nice, what
> the hell is it?" (or something).

Any chance of someone posting a summary of the discussion?

Dave...

Re: Lunch

[Dave Cross]

At 22 Jan 2001 12:18:05 +, Dave Hodgkinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> Lunch was fabulous if only to hear Cantrell say: "this is nice, what
> the hell is it?" (or something).

Any chance of someone posting a summary of the discussion?

Dave...

Leftover ORA bumpf finds good home

[DJ Adams]

evidence:

http://www.pipetree.com/~dj/nr.pm/jan01/

:-)

dj

Lunch

[Dave Hodgkinson]

Lunch was fabulous if only to hear Cantrell say: "this is nice, what
the hell is it?" (or something).

-- 
Dave Hodgkinson, http://www.hodgkinson.org
Editor-in-chief, The Highway Star   http://www.deep-purple.com
  Apache, mod_perl, MySQL, Sybase hired gun for, well, hire
  -

RE: Consultancy company

[Jonathan Stowe]

On Mon, 22 Jan 2001, Jonathan Peterson wrote:

> > > There is in fact Pareto's Law which says that 80% of
> > results come from
> > > 20% of work (or 10-90 or whatever the numbers don't really matter).
> > >
> >
> > Often, when I do something that I consider really easy and
> > spend little
> > effort on it, I get lots of really good feedback.
> 
> Glad I'm not the only one. I spend three days futzing around unable to get
> stuck into a problem, and then eventually manage a decent half days work to
> get it done before the deadline. Then, while I'm worrying about having
> wasted 2 1/2 days someone comes and says what a good document it was. I
> don't get it.
> 
> I wouldn't mind if it weren't for the way other people in the office seem to
> beaver away steadily.
> 

But in truth they are doing the same as you and think everyone else is
beavering away while they futz around.  I mean to a casual observer me
typing this message will appear to be legitimate work :) 

/J\
-- 
Jonathan Stowe   |   
http://www.gellyfish.com |   I'm with Grep on this one 
http://www.tackleway.co.uk   |

RE: Consultancy company

[Jonathan Peterson]

> > There is in fact Pareto's Law which says that 80% of
> results come from
> > 20% of work (or 10-90 or whatever the numbers don't really matter).
> >
>
> Often, when I do something that I consider really easy and
> spend little
> effort on it, I get lots of really good feedback.

Glad I'm not the only one. I spend three days futzing around unable to get
stuck into a problem, and then eventually manage a decent half days work to
get it done before the deadline. Then, while I'm worrying about having
wasted 2 1/2 days someone comes and says what a good document it was. I
don't get it.

I wouldn't mind if it weren't for the way other people in the office seem to
beaver away steadily.

Re: Consultancy company

[Roger Burton West]

On or about Mon, Jan 22, 2001 at 12:51:59PM -, Robert Shiels typed:

>Often, when I do something that I consider really easy and spend little
>effort on it, I get lots of really good feedback. Alternatively if I spend
>weeks on a trickey problem, no one says anything. This seems like a similar
>rule.

That can also be caused by management that has no idea of what's difficult
and what isn't. Believing such feedback leads to flashy sites that don't
work, in my experience. Just another reason for workplace cynicism...

R

Re: Consultancy company

[Robert Shiels]

> Simon Wistow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I sometimes feel guilty because 90% of my work gets done in 10% of my
> > time.
>
> There is in fact Pareto's Law which says that 80% of results come from
> 20% of work (or 10-90 or whatever the numbers don't really matter).
>

Often, when I do something that I consider really easy and spend little
effort on it, I get lots of really good feedback. Alternatively if I spend
weeks on a trickey problem, no one says anything. This seems like a similar
rule.

C'est la vie.

/Robert

Re: Consultancy company- Where do you want to go?

[Dave Hodgkinson]

Greg Cope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> Men in black theme - we must all have black suits - dark glasses
> avliable from Macy D's soon, and we can get a clapped out van from BT
> for next to nothing 

Don't forget the welding gear.

Actually, I'm more for the Ghostbusters theme: boiler suits, handhled
nuclear weapons, a disused fire station and an ambulance.


-- 
Dave Hodgkinson, http://www.hodgkinson.org
Editor-in-chief, The Highway Star   http://www.deep-purple.com
  Apache, mod_perl, MySQL, Sybase hired gun for, well, hire
  -

Re: Consultancy company

[Dave Hodgkinson]

Robin Szemeti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> and this template toolit thing rocks dunnit .. (now I have the hang of it
> .. sorta)

It is the rockingest thing I've rocked to since the last one.


-- 
Dave Hodgkinson, http://www.hodgkinson.org
Editor-in-chief, The Highway Star   http://www.deep-purple.com
  Apache, mod_perl, MySQL, Sybase hired gun for, well, hire
  -

Re: Consultancy company

[Dave Hodgkinson]

Robin Szemeti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> The overiding thing should be 'make this the very best company to work
> for AND the very best company to have work done by' A1 bleeding edge code
> written by the planets happiest programmers ... sounds like a good recipe
> to me. 

Not sure about the bleeding edge part, but certainly "using the
highest productivity techniques known to man" would certainly rank
high up there.

-- 
Dave Hodgkinson, http://www.hodgkinson.org
Editor-in-chief, The Highway Star   http://www.deep-purple.com
  Apache, mod_perl, MySQL, Sybase hired gun for, well, hire
  -

Re: Consultancy company

[Dave Hodgkinson]

Mark Fowler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

>  2. I first heard about building at the end of the day in Brooke's
> Mythical Man Month.

Continuous integration and smoke testing. Oh yes.

-- 
Dave Hodgkinson, http://www.hodgkinson.org
Editor-in-chief, The Highway Star   http://www.deep-purple.com
  Apache, mod_perl, MySQL, Sybase hired gun for, well, hire
  -

Re: Consultancy company

[Steve Mynott]

Simon Wistow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> I sometimes feel guilty because 90% of my work gets done in 10% of my
> time. 

There is in fact Pareto's Law which says that 80% of results come from
20% of work (or 10-90 or whatever the numbers don't really matter).

No need to feel guilty since this is the way things are.

-- 
1024/D9C69DF9 steve mynott [EMAIL PROTECTED]

reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.
-- philip k. dick

Re:

[Neil Ford]

>is it still 12:30 at the new world today?
>
That does indeed seem to be the plan.

Neil.
-- 
Neil C. Ford
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.binky.ourshack.org

Re: Consultancy company

[Steve Mynott]

Robin Szemeti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> On Mon, 22 Jan 2001, you wrote:
> 
> > Inded. Look at XP. The whole idea is that at the end of every day /
> > week you have changed something and can show it to the client
> > again. This way the client really understands what he really wants.
> 
> wow ... "a client that understands what they want"  ... Mr Brocard,
> for gods sake WALK to the meeting, DO NOT drive. I have no idea what
> you're taking but I want some .. do you get to see little blue spacemen
> too ;))

Further to this most clients aren't even interested in understanding
what they want (that's _your_ job).

They just _want_ it.

-- 
1024/D9C69DF9 steve mynott [EMAIL PROTECTED]

imagination is more important than knowledge. -- albert einstein

RE:

[Jonathan Peterson]

> is it still 12:30 at the new world today?

My God, they're trapped in a time hole! It's been 12.30 here for years. Get
back to the Tardis, quick!

No Subject

[Greg McCarroll]

is it still 12:30 at the new world today?

-- 
Greg McCarroll  http://www.mccarroll.uklinux.net

Re: Consultancy company- Where do you want to go?

[Neil Ford]

>On Mon, 22 Jan 2001, Roger Burton West wrote:
>
>>  On or about Mon, Jan 22, 2001 at 10:44:11AM +, Neil Ford typed:
>>
>>  >That just has me conjering up images of turning up at a client site
>>  >in a big black van (screeching tyres obligatory) and either leaping
>>  >out laptops in hand or just unrollong some CAT5 and plugging into
>>  >their network :-)
>>
>>  Wireless, shurely? Just drive by and connect to their LAN...
>>
>
>What 'Drive-by Hacking' ?
>
>You really need a low-rider chevvy and wear bandana round head for that
>one. :)
>
As was known to happen at 1 Infinity Loop when the Airport was first 
released :-)

Neil.
-- 
Neil C. Ford
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.binky.ourshack.org

Re: Consultancy company- Where do you want to go?

[Jonathan Stowe]

On Mon, 22 Jan 2001, Roger Burton West wrote:

> On or about Mon, Jan 22, 2001 at 10:44:11AM +, Neil Ford typed:
> 
> >That just has me conjering up images of turning up at a client site 
> >in a big black van (screeching tyres obligatory) and either leaping 
> >out laptops in hand or just unrollong some CAT5 and plugging into 
> >their network :-)
> 
> Wireless, shurely? Just drive by and connect to their LAN...
> 

What 'Drive-by Hacking' ?

You really need a low-rider chevvy and wear bandana round head for that
one. :)

/J\
-- 
Jonathan Stowe   |   
http://www.gellyfish.com |   I'm with Grep on this one 
http://www.tackleway.co.uk   |

Re: Consultancy company

[Robin Szemeti]

On Mon, 22 Jan 2001, you wrote:

> Inded. Look at XP. The whole idea is that at the end of every day /
> week you have changed something and can show it to the client
> again. This way the client really understands what he really wants.

wow ... "a client that understands what they want"  ... Mr Brocard,
for gods sake WALK to the meeting, DO NOT drive. I have no idea what
you're taking but I want some .. do you get to see little blue spacemen
too ;))

nah seriously.. if XP can really achieve this then great .. I hope it can
.. infact I almost believe it can ... a little voice in my head keeps
saying 'please let this be true' .. but sometimes when people come up
with such abstract ideas as 'a client that understands what they want' I
do begin to wonder if its not pushing it a bit far ;)) 

-- 
Robin Szemeti

The box said "requires windows 95 or better"
So I installed Linux!

Re: Consultancy company- Where do you want to go?

[Greg Cope]

Neil Ford wrote:
> 
> >
> >The "A-Team" - scenario is one in which a team goes in to rescue a failing
> >project, or go in and retune/redesign an existing project that works but has
> >become a victim of its own success.  Think of this work as bespoke
> >enhancements.
> >
> That just has me conjering up images of turning up at a client site
> in a big black van (screeching tyres obligatory) and either leaping
> out laptops in hand or just unrollong some CAT5 and plugging into
> their network :-)
> 
> So who's bankrolling the van and who wants to be BA?

lol - monday's been c*** so far (Linx rooter down apparently - sounds
like something off an excuse sheet).

Men in black theme - we must all have black suits - dark glasses
avliable from Macy D's soon, and we can get a clapped out van from BT
for next to nothing 

Greg 


> 
> Neil.
> (whose tounge is ever so slightly on his cheek!)
> --
> Neil C. Ford
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://www.binky.ourshack.org

Re: Consultancy company- Where do you want to go?

[Robert Shiels]

> So who's bankrolling the van and who wants to be BA?
>
> Neil.
> (whose tounge is ever so slightly on his cheek!)
> --
Sorry, but I can't resist pointing out that this amusing misspelling. I
guess I'd pronounce this a bit like lounge. Tongue is a pretty stupid way to
spell it anyway, tung would be better.

Now back to your regular (extreme) programming.

/Robert

Re: Consultancy company

[Leon Brocard]

Mark Fowler sent the following bits through the ether:

> Two points:

Picky, picky. Fine. I'd say that of the bits I've tested, I've found
that continuous testing is a very important part. Writing the tests
before the code is cool too. But you know this already ;-)

Leon
-- 
Leon Brocard.http://www.astray.com/
yapc::Europehttp://yapc.org/Europe/

... For Sale: Slightly used message. Enquire within

Re: Consultancy company- Where do you want to go?

[Neil Ford]

>On or about Mon, Jan 22, 2001 at 10:44:11AM +, Neil Ford typed:
>
>>That just has me conjering up images of turning up at a client site
>>in a big black van (screeching tyres obligatory) and either leaping
>>out laptops in hand or just unrollong some CAT5 and plugging into
>>their network :-)
>
>Wireless, shurely? Just drive by and connect to their LAN...
>
That one had hit me after I'd hit send. Just plug in your airport and 
away you go.

Neil.
-- 
Neil C. Ford
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.binky.ourshack.org

Re: Consultancy company

[Michael Stevens]

On Mon, Jan 22, 2001 at 10:26:18AM +, James O'Sullivan wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Jan 2001, Michael Stevens wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 22, 2001 at 08:47:35AM +, Roger Burton West wrote:
> > > Contracts _should_ say that the client pays for changes to what he
> > > originally said he wanted. Sometimes they do. It's quite rare, in my
> > > experience, for this payment actually to be demanded. (Usually some
> > > excuse along the lines of "it's a big customer and we don't want to
> > > annoy them".) This XP approach seems to require a lot more firmness
> > >
> > I've also found a lot of customers are absolute *geniuses* at fudging the
> > issue of what they did and didn't agree to, no matter how specific
> > you attempt to be.
> >
> 
> All changes no matter how small should be passed through a change control
> process, normally put in place by the project manager assigned to that
> specific job.
> 
> A change control document will normally be produced which will detail what
> the client wants, how much it will cost and what the effects are on the
> project timeline.  This will need to be read and physically signed off by
> the client before any work is undertaken.

a) you need to be able to persuade management this is a good idea

b) you need to get someone writing specs who is actually able to be specific.
And you need to have some way of dealing with a client who will refuse to
pay until you implement something that they say is contained within the
spec, and you don't. Despite the fact you're both reading the same spec.

>From memories of my last job, both of these can be a problem.

Michael

Re: Consultancy company

[Mark Fowler]

That Brocard bloke wrote:

> > Inded. Look at XP. The whole idea is that at the end of every day /
> > week you have changed something and can show it to the client
> > again. This way the client really understands what he really wants.

Two points:
 
 1. This is not what the book is all about.  The book is all about many
things working together, this being one concept.  In XP they are all
important.

 2. I first heard about building at the end of the day in Brooke's
Mythical Man Month.

Later.

Mark.

-- 
print "\n",map{my$a="\n"if(length$_>6);' 'x(36-length($_)/2)."$_\n$a"} (
   Name  => 'Mark Fowler',Title => 'Technology Developer'  ,
   Firm  => 'Profero Ltd',Web   => 'http://www.profero.com/'   ,
   Email => '[EMAIL PROTECTED]',   Phone => '+44 (0) 20 7700 9960'  )

Re: Consultancy company

[Simon Wistow]

Andy Wardley wrote:

> Having said that, I do very little "real" work at work, instead
> spending my time reading/writing email, chatting to people, playing
> table tennis, having meetings, and doing other brain dead tasks.

I sometimes feel guilty because 90% of my work gets done in 10% of my
time. 

I mean I *know* I can pull out the stops and work my arse off for
extended periods of time but I can't seem to get myself to get into work
at 9:30am work till lunch, 45 mins having a sandwich then work till
5:30-6:00pm and still be productive. In fact now I don't think I could
do it at all.  But I get my work done and people seem to be happy with
the quality and how fats it gets delivered so ... 

Re: Consultancy company- Where do you want to go?

[Roger Burton West]

On or about Mon, Jan 22, 2001 at 10:44:11AM +, Neil Ford typed:

>That just has me conjering up images of turning up at a client site 
>in a big black van (screeching tyres obligatory) and either leaping 
>out laptops in hand or just unrollong some CAT5 and plugging into 
>their network :-)

Wireless, shurely? Just drive by and connect to their LAN...

R

Re: Consultancy company

[Dave Cross]

At Mon, 22 Jan 2001 10:42:46 +, Leon Brocard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Dave Mee sent the following bits through the ether:
> 
> > One of the best solutions I've come accross to this problem is to 
> > take an
> > iterative approach to development.
> 
> Inded. Look at XP. The whole idea is that at the end of every day /
> week you have changed something and can show it to the client
> again. This way the client really understands what he really wants.

And if you don't want to buy the XP books, but want to know more...

http://www.extremeprogramming.org/

Dave...

Re: Consultancy company

[Mark Fowler]

On Mon, 22 Jan 2001, Leon Brocard wrote:
> Dave Mee sent the following bits through the ether:
> > One of the best solutions I've come accross to this problem is to take an
> > iterative approach to development.
> 
> Inded. Look at XP. The whole idea is that at the end of every day /
> week you have changed something and can show it to the client
> again. This way the client really understands what he really wants.

This even works well if you are working on projects for yourself.  It's a
very good way of maintaining focus and not going off on tangents when
you're programming.

Later.

Mark.

-- 
print "\n",map{my$a="\n"if(length$_>6);' 'x(36-length($_)/2)."$_\n$a"} (
   Name  => 'Mark Fowler',Title => 'Technology Developer'  ,
   Firm  => 'Profero Ltd',Web   => 'http://www.profero.com/'   ,
   Email => '[EMAIL PROTECTED]',   Phone => '+44 (0) 20 7700 9960'  )

Re: Consultancy company- Where do you want to go?

[Neil Ford]

>
>The "A-Team" - scenario is one in which a team goes in to rescue a failing
>project, or go in and retune/redesign an existing project that works but has
>become a victim of its own success.  Think of this work as bespoke
>enhancements.
>
That just has me conjering up images of turning up at a client site 
in a big black van (screeching tyres obligatory) and either leaping 
out laptops in hand or just unrollong some CAT5 and plugging into 
their network :-)

So who's bankrolling the van and who wants to be BA?

Neil.
(whose tounge is ever so slightly on his cheek!)
-- 
Neil C. Ford
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.binky.ourshack.org

Re: Consultancy company

[Leon Brocard]

Dave Mee sent the following bits through the ether:

> One of the best solutions I've come accross to this problem is to take an
> iterative approach to development.

Inded. Look at XP. The whole idea is that at the end of every day /
week you have changed something and can show it to the client
again. This way the client really understands what he really wants.

Leon
-- 
Leon Brocard.http://www.astray.com/
yapc::Europehttp://yapc.org/Europe/

... (This tagline in Stereo where available)

Re: Consultancy company

[Greg McCarroll]

* James O'Sullivan ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> 
> A change control document will normally be produced which will detail what
> the client wants, how much it will cost and what the effects are on the
> project timeline.  This will need to be read and physically signed off by
> the client before any work is undertaken.
> 

i've always been very fond of change control documents and work order
documents (those of you who were at ebookers at the time i was there
will remember this), however they really come in to their own when
they are tied to one of my other great loves - VCS's

so that all changes are associated with some form of work order - of
course the fun is making it all easy for the programmer - now if only
we knew some flexible text processing language that could help
here ;-)

-- 
Greg McCarroll  http://www.mccarroll.uklinux.net

RE: Consultancy company

[Dave Mee]

>= Original Message From "James O'Sullivan" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
=
>On Mon, 22 Jan 2001, Michael Stevens wrote:
>> On Mon, Jan 22, 2001 at 08:47:35AM +, Roger Burton West wrote:
>> > Contracts _should_ say that the client pays for changes to what he
>> > originally said he wanted. Sometimes they do. It's quite rare, in my
>> > experience, for this payment actually to be demanded. (Usually some
>> > excuse along the lines of "it's a big customer and we don't want to
>> > annoy them".) This XP approach seems to require a lot more firmness
>> >
>> I've also found a lot of customers are absolute *geniuses* at fudging the
>> issue of what they did and didn't agree to, no matter how specific
>> you attempt to be.
>>

>This, in theory, should make the client think whether they really need
>this "small change" or if it can wait until a later date.  It also gives
>you some ammo if the client changes their mind as there should be no
>ambiguity.
>

Apologies if I'm walking in late on this one...

One of the best solutions I've come accross to this problem is to take an
iterative approach to development. Instead of a three month deadline, you work
towards three one month deadlines. the client prioritises at each stage what 
is
most important for them, along with the developers; then you work to the
deadline, and slip functionality (rather than time). Any things that are 
missing
are then rolled into the next iteration, and again prioritised along with any
new functionality the client feels they need.

This has the benefit that you generally meet deadlines, and the client is much
more aware of what is going on. Generally they will also have agreed to what 
has
and hasn't happened, and they don't suddenly turn around and scream 'waht the
hell is this', as they have watched and been involved in the development 
process.


easy!

Dave

---
SKI FOR FREE!!! For every passenger that travels another goes free.
http://www.thefirstresort.com/index.asp?linkfrom=tot1

Re: Consultancy company

[James O'Sullivan]

On Mon, 22 Jan 2001, Michael Stevens wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 22, 2001 at 08:47:35AM +, Roger Burton West wrote:
> > Contracts _should_ say that the client pays for changes to what he
> > originally said he wanted. Sometimes they do. It's quite rare, in my
> > experience, for this payment actually to be demanded. (Usually some
> > excuse along the lines of "it's a big customer and we don't want to
> > annoy them".) This XP approach seems to require a lot more firmness
> >
> I've also found a lot of customers are absolute *geniuses* at fudging the
> issue of what they did and didn't agree to, no matter how specific
> you attempt to be.
>

All changes no matter how small should be passed through a change control
process, normally put in place by the project manager assigned to that
specific job.

A change control document will normally be produced which will detail what
the client wants, how much it will cost and what the effects are on the
project timeline.  This will need to be read and physically signed off by
the client before any work is undertaken.

This, in theory, should make the client think whether they really need
this "small change" or if it can wait until a later date.  It also gives
you some ammo if the client changes their mind as there should be no
ambiguity.

--
James

Re: Consultancy company

[David Cantrell]

On Mon, Jan 22, 2001 at 09:41:11AM +, Michael Stevens wrote:

> I've also found a lot of customers are absolute *geniuses* at fudging the
> issue of what they did and didn't agree to, no matter how specific
> you attempt to be.

So get it on paper, with a signature, so you can wave it at them.  If that
doesn't work, use weapons.

-- 
David Cantrell | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.cantrell.org.uk/david/

   Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced

Damian/TPC Papers

[Dave Cross]

I see that in Damian's latest diary entry (you _are_ reading Damian's
diary I assume) he talks about the ridiculous number[1] of papers, talks
and tutorials that he's proposing to give at TPC5.

The piece also seems to act as an advert to encourage other people to
submit proposals to the conference committee. This, together with Nat's
recent posting on the same subject and the extension to the submission
dates lead me to beleive that the committee members haven't had as many 
submissions yet as they might have liked. This would therefore seem to
be a good time to get your proposals in. It would be nice to see a very
strong speaking presence from london.pm at the conference.

Damian's article is at:



Dave...

[1] We certainly seem to be getting our money's worth out of him :)  

Re: Consultancy company

[Michael Stevens]

On Mon, Jan 22, 2001 at 08:47:35AM +, Roger Burton West wrote:
> On or about Sun, Jan 21, 2001 at 11:08:29PM +, Piers Cawley typed:
> >And if the Big Cheese does hand down decisions that override the
> >Minion then the contract between developer and client should stipulate
> >that the client pays for the wasted time.
> 
> Contracts _should_ say that the client pays for changes to what he
> originally said he wanted. Sometimes they do. It's quite rare, in my
> experience, for this payment actually to be demanded. (Usually some
> excuse along the lines of "it's a big customer and we don't want to
> annoy them".) This XP approach seems to require a lot more firmness

I've also found a lot of customers are absolute *geniuses* at fudging the
issue of what they did and didn't agree to, no matter how specific
you attempt to be.

Michael

Re: Consultancy company

[Mark Fowler]

Roger claimed that:

> This XP approach seems to require a lot more firmness
> in customer relations than I've ever seen - and if that firmness were
> present, we wouldn't need XP anyway...

One of the main problems with full disclosure with the client is that it
can only ever work when you've only got one client.  In my job you tend to
be working on more than one project at any given time;  I certainly don't
think I'd like to be the one to tell the client 'sorry this is late, but
there was this unexpected problem with some work we were doing for another
client and it took up all our time'.

Later.

Mark.

-- 
print "\n",map{my$a="\n"if(length$_>6);' 'x(36-length($_)/2)."$_\n$a"} (
   Name  => 'Mark Fowler',Title => 'Technology Developer'  ,
   Firm  => 'Profero Ltd',Web   => 'http://www.profero.com/'   ,
   Email => '[EMAIL PROTECTED]',   Phone => '+44 (0) 20 7700 9960'  )

Re: Consultancy company

[Roger Burton West]

On or about Sun, Jan 21, 2001 at 11:08:29PM +, Piers Cawley typed:

>And if the Big Cheese does hand down decisions that override the
>Minion then the contract between developer and client should stipulate
>that the client pays for the wasted time.

Contracts _should_ say that the client pays for changes to what he
originally said he wanted. Sometimes they do. It's quite rare, in my
experience, for this payment actually to be demanded. (Usually some
excuse along the lines of "it's a big customer and we don't want to
annoy them".) This XP approach seems to require a lot more firmness
in customer relations than I've ever seen - and if that firmness were
present, we wouldn't need XP anyway...

Roger