On Tue, Nov 17, 1998 at 03:53:06PM -0500, Bob Munck wrote:
> > ...that's the terminology I learned while at a
> > certain Three Initial Company. (Anybody else read "Eyebeam"?)
>
> Funny, IBM invented the idea of function points.
Oh. I wasn't at that particular Three Initial Company. The reference
to Eyebeam was in there because one of the characters in Eyebeam
works for "T.I.C.", which stands for...
I use it as a generic name for large faceless corporations, not just IBM.
> That means you have to do all your contracts on a T&M basis [...]
That's pretty much what I do, yes.
> The problem with CPFF is that programmers who are optimistic about
> their estimating ability tend also to be optimistic about their
> productivity; if you underestimate, you end up working most of
> the time for a lousy $75/hour or whatever your base rate is.
That's also correct. I've been lightly singed (but not burned) by it, too.
On the other hand, I'm not really trying to get rich at this: I'd much
rather go paddle whitewater. So as long as I make enough money to support
that (and keep a roof over my head, and keep me and the dog fed),
I don't really care how much money I make. Heck, I don't even know
much I made this year, nor do I really feel the need to.
> I assume you're comparing your seat-of-the-pants estimate to someone
> else's analysis- and model-based estimate.
Yep. I find myself vaguely surprised by all this, by the way: I would
have expected to have a much lower accuracy rate. Maybe I'm just lucky.
So far. ;-) One truly boneheaded estimate could change all that. ;-)
> You don't charge your customers? That would explain much, but
> I don't think so.
I don't charge *some* of them. I figure it's payback. Or a charitable
contribution. Or whatever. But I yes, I really do charge most of them.
> I can't think of a job I've been on where the cost of buying or leasing
> software wasn't down in the noise compared to labor costs.
Largely speaking, that's true for me, too. But thanks to a lot of
the freeware that's out there, it's starting to change: I can now roll
out a complete web/ftp/mail/etc. Internet server for a customer
in a day, starting from hardware-in-box to fully functional system
completely configured and plugged into the 'net. So whether that
server runs Solaris or Linux or BSDI with Netscape Server or Apache
or whatever, the labor costs are now getting down to the point
where what the hardware and software costs actually matters. Not a lot,
but some. In six months, I'll be able to do the same job in 4 hours: so
the other costs will matter a bit more. So yes, they're mostly still
down in the noise, but they're now visible.
> For a web server use, Linux isn't
> going to beat out NT simply because it costs a thousand or so less.
I agree. But a web server with Linux+Apache beats one with NT+IIS
by every criteria that I can think of: throughput, reliability, security,
support, etc., so the fact that it's free is just a nice bonus.
---Rsk
Rich Kulawiec
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
____________________________________________________________________
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Join The Web Consultants Association : Register on our web site Now
Web Consultants Web Site : http://just4u.com/webconsultants
If you lose the instructions All subscription/unsubscribing can be done
directly from our website for all our lists.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
