Search Results

Search found 26740 results on 1070 pages for 'general software developm'.

Page 23/1070 | < Previous Page | 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30  | Next Page >

  • How to interrupt software raid resync?

    - by Adam5
    I want to interrupt a running resync operation on a debian squeeze software raid. (This is the regular scheduled compare resync. The raid array is still clean in such a case. Do not confuse this with a rebuild after a disk failed and was replaced.) How to stop this scheduled resync operation while it is running? Another raid array is "resync pending", because they all get checked on the same day (sunday night) one after another. I want a complete stop of this sunday night resyncing. [Edit: sudo kill -9 1010 doesn't stop it, 1010 is the PID of the md2_resync process] I would also like to know how I can control the intervals between resyncs and the remainig time till the next one. [Edit2: What I did now was to make the resync go very slow, so it does not disturb anymore: sudo sysctl -w dev.raid.speed_limit_max=1000 taken from http://www.cyberciti.biz/tips/linux-raid-increase-resync-rebuild-speed.html During the night I will set it back to a high value, so the resync can terminate. This workaround is fine for most situations, nonetheless it would be interesting to know if what I asked is possible. For example it does not seem to be possible to grow an array, while it is resyncing or resyncing "pending"]

    Read the article

  • Growing a Linux software RAID5 array

    - by chrismetcalf
    On my home file server, I've got a 1.5TB software RAID5 array, built from four 500gb Western Digital drives. I've got a fifth drive that I usually run as a hot spare (but have out of the array at the moment), but if I can I'd like to add that to the array and grow it to 2TB since I'm running out of space. I Googled for guidance, but there seem to be a lot of differing opinions out there (many of them probably now out-of-date) as to whether or not that is possible and/or smart. What's the right way to go about this, or should I start looking into building a new array with more space? Version details: %> cat /etc/issue Debian GNU/Linux 5.0 \n \l %> uname -a Linux magrathea 2.6.26-1-686-bigmem #1 SMP Sat Jan 10 19:13:22 UTC 2009 i686 GNU/Linux %> /sbin/mdadm --version mdadm - v2.6.7.2 - 14th November 2008 %> cat /proc/mdstat Personalities : [raid1] [raid6] [raid5] [raid4] md1 : active raid1 hdc1[0] hdd1[1] 293033536 blocks [2/2] [UU] md0 : active raid5 sde1[3] sda1[0] sdc1[2] sdb1[1] 1465151808 blocks level 5, 64k chunk, algorithm 2 [4/4] [UUUU]

    Read the article

  • Bad performance with Linux software RAID5 and LUKS encryption

    - by Philipp Wendler
    I have set up a Linux software RAID5 on three hard drives and want to encrypt it with cryptsetup/LUKS. My tests showed that the encryption leads to a massive performance decrease that I cannot explain. The RAID5 is able to write 187 MB/s [1] without encryption. With encryption on top of it, write speed is down to about 40 MB/s. The RAID has a chunk size of 512K and a write intent bitmap. I used -c aes-xts-plain -s 512 --align-payload=2048 as the parameters for cryptsetup luksFormat, so the payload should be aligned to 2048 blocks of 512 bytes (i.e., 1MB). cryptsetup luksDump shows a payload offset of 4096. So I think the alignment is correct and fits to the RAID chunk size. The CPU is not the bottleneck, as it has hardware support for AES (aesni_intel). If I write on another drive (an SSD with LVM) that is also encrypted, I do have a write speed of 150 MB/s. top shows that the CPU usage is indeed very low, only the RAID5 xor takes 14%. I also tried putting a filesystem (ext4) directly on the unencrypted RAID so see if the layering is problem. The filesystem decreases the performance a little bit as expected, but by far not that much (write speed varying, but 100 MB/s). Summary: Disks + RAID5: good Disks + RAID5 + ext4: good Disks + RAID5 + encryption: bad SSD + encryption + LVM + ext4: good The read performance is not affected by the encryption, it is 207 MB/s without and 205 MB/s with encryption (also showing that CPU power is not the problem). What can I do to improve the write performance of the encrypted RAID? [1] All speed measurements were done with several runs of dd if=/dev/zero of=DEV bs=100M count=100 (i.e., writing 10G in blocks of 100M). Edit: If this helps: I'm using Ubuntu 11.04 64bit with Linux 2.6.38. Edit2: The performance stays approximately the same if I pass a block size of 4KB, 1MB or 10MB to dd.

    Read the article

  • Software RAID 1 Configuration

    - by Corve
    I have created a software RAID 1 quite some while ago and it always seemed to work for me. However I am not completely sure that I have configured everything right and do not have the experience to check so I would be very grateful for some advice or just verification that all seems right so far. I am using Linux Fedora 20 (32 bit with plans to upgrade to 64bit) The RAID 1 should consist of two 1TB SATA hard drives. This is the output of mdadm --detail /dev/md0 /dev/md0: Version : 1.2 Creation Time : Sun Jan 29 11:25:18 2012 Raid Level : raid1 Array Size : 976761424 (931.51 GiB 1000.20 GB) Used Dev Size : 976761424 (931.51 GiB 1000.20 GB) Raid Devices : 2 Total Devices : 1 Persistence : Superblock is persistent Update Time : Sat Jun 7 10:38:09 2014 State : clean, degraded Active Devices : 1 Working Devices : 1 Failed Devices : 0 Spare Devices : 0 Name : argo:0 (local to host argo) UUID : 1596d0a1:5806e590:c56d0b27:765e3220 Events : 996387 Number Major Minor RaidDevice State 0 0 0 0 removed 1 8 0 1 active sync /dev/sda The RAID is mounted successfully: friedrich@argo:~ ? sudo mount -l | grep md0 /dev/md0 on /mnt/raid type ext4 (rw,relatime,data=ordered) Basically my question are: Why do I only have 1 active device? What does the State removed at bottom mean? Also I noticed some strange error messages that I see on the console on system start and shutdown and always repeating in the background when I switch with Ctrl + Alt + F2: ... ata2: irq_stat 0x00000040 connection status changed ata2: SError: { CommWake DevExch } ata2: COMRESET failed (errno=-32) ata2: exception Emask 0x10 SAct 0x0 SErr 0x4040000 action 0xe frozen ata2: irq_stat 0x00000040 connection status changed ata2: SError: { CommWake DevExch } ata2: exception Emask 0x10 SAct 0x0 SErr 0x4040000 action 0xe frozen ... Are these errors related to the RAID? Something seems wrong with the SATA devices.. All together the system works (I can read and write to the mounted raid) but I always had these strange errors on startup shutdown (probably always in the background). Thx for your help

    Read the article

  • Reusing slot numbers in Linux software RAID arrays

    - by thkala
    When a hard disk drive in one of my Linux machines failed, I took the opportunity to migrate from RAID5 to a 6-disk software RAID6 array. At the time of the migration I did not have all 6 drives - more specifically the fourth and fifth (slots 3 and 4) drives were already in use in the originating array, so I created the RAID6 array with a couple of missing devices. I now need to add those drives in those empty slots. Using mdadm --add does result in a proper RAID6 configuration, with one glitch - the new drives are placed in new slots, which results in this /proc/mdstat snippet: ... md0 : active raid6 sde1[7] sdd1[6] sda1[0] sdf1[5] sdc1[2] sdb1[1] 25185536 blocks super 1.0 level 6, 64k chunk, algorithm 2 [6/6] [UUUUUU] ... mdadm -E verifies that the actual slot numbers in the device superblocks are correct, yet the numbers shown in /proc/mdstat are still weird. I would like to fix this glitch, both to satisfy my inner perfectionist and to avoid any potential sources of future confusion in a crisis. Is there a way to specify which slot a new device should occupy in a RAID array? UPDATE: I have verified that the slot number persists in the component device superblock. For the version 1.0 superblocks that I am using that would be the dev_number field as defined in include/linux/raid/md_p.h of the Linux kernel source. I am now considering direct modification of said field to change the slot number - I don't suppose there is some standard way to manipulate the RAID superblock?

    Read the article

  • How to avoid general names for abstract classes?

    - by djechlin
    In general it's good to avoid words like "handle" or "process" as part of routine names and class names, unless you are dealing with (e.g.) file handles or (e.g.) unix processes. However abstract classes often don't really know what they're going to do with something besides, say, process it. In my current situation I have an "EmailProcessor" that logs into a user's inbox and processes messages from it. It's not really clear to me how to give this a more precise name, although I've noticed the following style matter arises: better to treat derived classes as clients and named the base class by the part of the functionality it implements? Gives it more meaning but will violate is-a. E.g. EmailAcquirer would be a reasonable name since it's acquiring for the derived class, but the derived class won't be acquiring for anyone. Or just really vague name since who knows what the derived classes will do. However "Processor" is still too general since it's doing many relevant operations, like logging in and using IMAP. Any way out of this dilemma? Problem is more evident for abstract methods, in which you can't really answer the question "what does this do?" because the answer is simply "whatever the client wants."

    Read the article

  • HYUNDAI @ Oracle Open World 2012 General Session (GEN9449): Engineered Systems - From Vision to Game-Changing Results

    - by Sanjeev Sharma
     Why do data centers still demand an “assembly required” approach? This necessity  proves costly and complex, forces customers to deal with a wide range of vendors  for each  application, and fails to deliver performance optimization for application and data  workloads.  Oracle believes that systems (just like automobiles) should be designed and engineered “at the  factory” with the goal of reducing customers’ costs and complexity and delivering extreme performance, reliability, availability, and simplicity with a higher degree of automation. Hyundai Motor Company was founded in 1967 and since then has become a global brand in the automotive industry. Hyundai Motor Company’s was looking for a solution to manage its intellectual capital by capturing and facilitating re-use of knowledge of its thousands of employees. To achieve this Hyundai Motor Company set out to build a centralized document management platform that will allow its 30,000 knowledge workers to collaborate by sharing documents in a secure manner, anytime, anywhere. Furthermore this new knowledge management platform would bring about significant improvements in employee productivity.  Hear senior business leaders from Hyundai speak about the role and benefits of running their knowledge management platform on the Oracle family of engineered systems at the following general session at Oracle Open World 2012: Session: GEN9499 - General Session: Engineered Systems—From Vision to Game-Changing Results Date: Monday, 1 Oct, 2012Time: 1:45 pm - 2:45 pm (PST)Venue: Moscone West (2002 / 2004)

    Read the article

  • Inheriting projects - General Rules?

    - by pspahn
    This is an area of discussion I have long been curious about, but overall, I generally lack the experience to give myself an answer that I would fully trust. We've all been there, a new client shows up with a half-complete project they are looking to finish and launch. For whatever reason, they fired their previous developer, and it's now up to you to save the day. I am just finishing up a code review for a new client, and in my estimation is would be better to scrap what the previous developers built since and start from scratch. There's a ton of reasons why I am leaning toward this way, but it still makes me nervous since the client isn't going to want to hear "those last guys built you a big turd, and I can either polish it, or throw it in the trash". What are your general rules for accepting these projects? How do you determine whether it will be better to start from scratch or continue with the existing code base? What other extra steps might you take to help control client expectations, since the previous developer may have inflated those expectations beyond a reasonable level? Any other general advice?

    Read the article

  • Do software developers know what engineers actually do?

    - by lorin
    Software development is often contrasted with the traditional branches of engineering, most commonly civil or mechanical engineering. For example: "Software development isn't like engineering, it's like craftsmanship!" "Software development isn't like engineering, but it should be!" Do software developers understand what it is that engineers do and how they do it? At least, do they understand it well enough to be able to make an informed comparison with what software developers do?

    Read the article

  • How to Tell a Hardware Problem From a Software Problem

    - by Chris Hoffman
    Your computer seems to be malfunctioning — it’s slow, programs are crashing or Windows may be blue-screening. Is your computer’s hardware failing, or does it have a software problem that you can fix on your own? This can actually be a bit tricky to figure out. Hardware problems and software problems can lead to the same symptoms — for example, frequent blue screens of death may be caused by either software or hardware problems. Computer is Slow We’ve all heard the stories — someone’s computer slows down over time because they install too much software that runs at startup or it becomes infected with malware. The person concludes that their computer is slowing down because it’s old, so they replace it. But they’re wrong. If a computer is slowing down, it has a software problem that can be fixed. Hardware problems shouldn’t cause your computer to slow down. There are some rare exceptions to this — perhaps your CPU is overheating and it’s downclocking itself, running slower to stay cooler — but most slowness is caused by software issues. Blue Screens Modern versions of Windows are much more stable than older versions of Windows. When used with reliable hardware with well-programmed drivers, a typical Windows computer shouldn’t blue-screen at all. If you are encountering frequent blue screens of death, there’s a good chance your computer’s hardware is failing. Blue screens could also be caused by badly programmed hardware drivers, however. If you just installed or upgraded hardware drivers and blue screens start, try uninstalling the drivers or using system restore — there may be something wrong with the drivers. If you haven’t done anything with your drivers recently and blue screens start, there’s a very good chance you have a hardware problem. Computer Won’t Boot If your computer won’t boot, you could have either a software problem or a hardware problem. Is Windows attempting to boot and failing part-way through the boot process, or does the computer no longer recognize its hard drive or not power on at all? Consult our guide to troubleshooting boot problems for more information. When Hardware Starts to Fail… Here are some common components that can fail and the problems their failures may cause: Hard Drive: If your hard drive starts failing, files on your hard drive may become corrupted. You may see long delays when you attempt to access files or save to the hard drive. Windows may stop booting entirely. CPU: A failing CPU may result in your computer not booting at all. If the CPU is overheating, your computer may blue-screen when it’s under load — for example, when you’re playing a demanding game or encoding video. RAM: Applications write data to your RAM and use it for short-term storage. If your RAM starts failing, an application may write data to part of the RAM, then later read it back and get an incorrect value. This can result in application crashes, blue screens, and file corruption. Graphics Card: Graphics card problems may result in graphical errors while rendering 3D content or even just while displaying your desktop. If the graphics card is overheating, it may crash your graphics driver or cause your computer to freeze while under load — for example, when playing demanding 3D games. Fans: If any of the fans fail in your computer, components may overheat and you may see the above CPU or graphics card problems. Your computer may also shut itself down abruptly so it doesn’t overheat any further and damage itself. Motherboard: Motherboard problems can be extremely tough to diagnose. You may see occasional blue screens or similar problems. Power Supply: A malfunctioning power supply is also tough to diagnose — it may deliver too much power to a component, damaging it and causing it to malfunction. If the power supply dies completely, your computer won’t power on and nothing will happen when you press the power button. Other common problems — for example, a computer slowing down — are likely to be software problems. It’s also possible that software problems can cause many of the above symptoms — malware that hooks deep into the Windows kernel can cause your computer to blue-screen, for example. The Only Way to Know For Sure We’ve tried to give you some idea of the difference between common software problems and hardware problems with the above examples. But it’s often tough to know for sure, and troubleshooting is usually a trial-and-error process. This is especially true if you have an intermittent problem, such as your computer blue-screening a few times a week. You can try scanning your computer for malware and running System Restore to restore your computer’s system software back to its previous working state, but these aren’t  guaranteed ways to fix software problems. The best way to determine whether the problem you have is a software or hardware one is to bite the bullet and restore your computer’s software back to its default state. That means reinstalling Windows or using the Refresh or reset feature on Windows 8. See whether the problem still persists after you restore its operating system to its default state. If you still see the same problem – for example, if your computer is blue-screening and continues to blue-screen after reinstalling Windows — you know you have a hardware problem and need to have your computer fixed or replaced. If the computer crashes or freezes while reinstalling Windows, you definitely have a hardware problem. Even this isn’t a completely perfect method — for example, you may reinstall Windows and install the same hardware drivers afterwards. If the hardware drivers are badly programmed, the blue-screens may continue. Blue screens of death aren’t as common on Windows these days — if you’re encountering them frequently, you likely have a hardware problem. Most blue screens you encounter will likely be caused by hardware issues. On the other hand, other common complaints like “my computer has slowed down” are easily fixable software problems. When in doubt, back up your files and reinstall Windows. Image Credit: Anders Sandberg on Flickr, comedy_nose on Flickr     

    Read the article

  • TestRail 1.3 Test Management Software released

    Gurock Software just announced version 1.3 of its test management software TestRail. TestRail is a web-based test case management software that helps software development teams and QA departments to efficiently manage, track and organize their software testing efforts.

    Read the article

  • Understanding Software Development Process

    Software development means, creating software to fulfill the specific needs of the customers. Depending upon their requirements, the software outsourcing firms develop customized software solutions. The client requirement can be an open source software or program for personal use.

    Read the article

  • General logging won't work in MySQL

    - by leonstr
    I saw on SF that there's an option in MySQL to log all queries. So, in my version (mysql-server-5.0.45-7.el5 on CentOS 5.2) this appears to be a case of enabling the 'log' option, so I edited /etc/my.cnf to add this: [mysqld] datadir=/var/lib/mysql socket=/var/lib/mysql/mysql.sock user=mysql old_passwords= log=/var/log/mysql-general.log [mysqld_safe] log-error=/var/log/mysqld.log pid-file=/var/run/mysqld/mysqld.pid I then created the file and set permissions: # touch /var/log/mysql-general.log # chown mysql. /var/log/mysql-general.log # ls -l /var/log/mysql-general.log -rw-r--r-- 1 mysql mysql 0 Jan 18 15:22 /var/log/mysql-general.log But when I start mysqld I get: 120118 15:24:18 mysqld started ^G/usr/libexec/mysqld: File '/var/log/mysql-general.log' not found (Errcode: 13) 120118 15:24:18 [ERROR] Could not use /var/log/mysql-general.log for logging (error 13). Turning logging off for the whole duration of the MySQL server process. To turn it on again: fix the cause, shutdown the MySQL server and restart it. 120118 15:24:18 InnoDB: Started; log sequence number 0 182917764 120118 15:24:18 [Note] /usr/libexec/mysqld: ready for connections. Can anyone suggest why this isn't working?

    Read the article

  • Is it normal to sometimes take a while to get even basic things working in software development?

    - by user1092719
    This is a little hard to explain because it's a really generic question, but bear with me... I find that when I am doing or recreating basic things from scratch (i.e. without the help of libraries), sometimes it feels as though I'm taking much more time to do the task than is actually needed. I am not new to programming or development & design concepts and have worked extensively with around 9 languages and various platforms and paradigms over 5/6 years. Although I don't yet have any academic qualification for programming and have learned almost exclusively from the Internet, I have been told that the quality of my code is excellent by those with qualifications. So, I don't think I'm a bad programmer because I really love doing it and working with software architecture, but maybe I'm slow? Or is it normal to take sometimes longer than it seems necessary to do basic tasks?

    Read the article

  • The dislikes of TDD

    - by andrewstopford
    I enjoy debates about TDD and Brian Harrys blog post is no exception. Brian sounds out what he likes and dislikes about TDD and it's the dislikes I'll focus on. The idea of having unit tests that cover virtually every line of code that I’ve written that I have to refactor every time I refactor my code makes me shudder.  Doing this way makes me take nearly twice as long as it would otherwise take and I don’t feel like I get sufficient benefits from it. Refactoring your tests to match your refactored code sounds like the tests are suffering. Too many hard dependencies with no SOLID concerns are a sure fire reason you would do this. Maybe at the start of a TDD cycle you would need to do this as your design evolves and you remove these dependencies but this should quickly be resolved as you refactor. If you find your self still doing it then stop and look back at your design. Don’t get me wrong, I’m a big fan of unit tests.  I just prefer to write them after the code has stopped shaking a bit.  In fact most of my early testing is “manual”.  Either I write a small UI on top of my service that allows me to plug in values and try it or write some quick API tests that I throw away as soon as I have validated them. The problem with this is that a UI can make assumptions on your code that then just unit test around and very quickly the design becomes bad and you technical debt sweeps in. If you want to blackbox test your code with a UI then do so after your TDD cycles not before. This is probably by biggest issue with a literal TDD interpretation.  TDD says you never write a line of code without a failing test to show you need it.  I find it leads developers down a dangerous path.  Without any help from a methodology, I have met way too many developers in my life that “back into a solution”.  By this, I mean they write something, it mostly works and they discover a new requirement so they tack it on, and another and another and when they are done, they’ve got a monstrosity of special cases each designed to handle one specific scenario.  There’s way more code than there should be and it’s way too complicated to understand. I believe in finding general solutions to problems from which all the special cases naturally derive rather than building a solution of special cases.  In my mind, to do this, you have to start by conceptualizing and coding the framework of the general algorithm.  For me, that’s a relatively monolithic exercise. TDD is an development pratice not a methodology, the danger is that the solution becomes a mass of different things that violate DRY. TDD won't solve these problems, only good communication and practices like pairing will help. Above all else an assumption that TDD replaces a methodology is a mistake, combine it with what ever works for your team\business but only good communication will help. A good naming scheme\structure for folders, files and tests can help you and your team isolate what tests are for what.

    Read the article

  • Software/IT security training and certificate

    - by 5YrsLaterDBA
    I am thinking about attending software security training and getting software security certificate. (or IT security in general.) I am in MA Boston area. I am new in software security field and need to know this field for current project and/or future job. Any suggestion about the training and certificate? thanks, EDIT: How about this course and certificate? http://scpd.stanford.edu/public/category/courseCategoryCertificateProfile.do?method=load&from=courseprofile&certificateId=3575647#searchResults

    Read the article

  • What software license to use for commercial software?

    - by GONeale
    Hey there, Under what license agreement should you release software under if it's closed-source and for commercial use only? Are there multiple license types? (such with open source you have BSD, GNU/GPL etc..) If so, which one do I choose, and are there samples out there to get you started? I have heard the term and seen documents named EULA.txt for an End User License Agreement, but can't seem to find a definitive guide on the net as to how to structure one but do see this included with nearly every commercial app I have installed and don't know if it's as simple just to "change to suit your business". Can anyone shed some more light on this? Thanks guys. For further details - our software is non-redistributable, non-modifiable and the user is charged yearly.

    Read the article

  • Should software engineers take the upcoming PE exam for software engineering?

    - by jschmier
    I realize that this question is quite similar to this one, but news of a PE exam being developed specifically for software engineering by the NCEES and IEEE has piqued my interest. Should software engineering professionals take the (upcoming) PE exam for software engineering in addition to their degree (or relevant work experience)? Note: I realize the exam being developed is still sometime away, but I'm curious about the thoughts of the professionals active on Stack Overflow.

    Read the article

  • What makes good software good?

    - by Jonta
    People probably have a lot of different answers here, like good...: scalability, speed, usability, stability, consistency, completeness, absence of bugs, accessibility, documentation, code-quality and so on. There are a lot of philosophies on development of software. Like the UNIX-philosophy. Often vague and not easy to understand. I am looking for statements such as the one cited below. Which you can ask about the software when it's in the design-stage, is ready to be coded, and has been coded and is ready for launch. The software I am talking about, is of course the software made for the end-user. Ken Rockwell wrote: "I expect that it will let me get more accomplished in less time." (Here one could ask "will this let me get more accomplished in less time?")

    Read the article

  • What's the case when using software licensed under GPL or LGPL

    - by Johnas
    With everything legal and in line with the ethical questions in software development, is it allowed to use an open source product in my software that I charge a fee for when selling? Scenario: I've developed an PHP Content Management System (CMS) and use some Linux executables licensed under GPL or LGPL in my CMS to accomplish various tasks like image editing. I'm selling the CMS and also including the executables when I deliver the product. I do not edit the source code of the GPL software, just using it.

    Read the article

  • What are the differences between enterprise software/architecture patterns and open source software?

    - by Jeffrey
    I am mainly a business app developer and I hear terms like CQRS, ServiceBus, SOA, DDD, BDD, AOP a lot. My question is that do these patterns/practices exist only in the "enterprise" world? In contract to the enterprise world is the open source community. Highly trafficked sites like Digg, LiveJournal whenever there is an article mentioning about how they built/scaled their sites all I am hearing is what open source software (Memcached, NoSQL) they used in order to scale/simplify the way they tackle software problems and they rarely mention those above terms. Is it because they are not as sophisticated as those of enterprise level software (I doubt it)? Or are people just making up those terms/practices/patterns in order to keep them jobs? Or am I confusing myself with differences between software development and internet website scaling?

    Read the article

  • Pros and Cons of Proprietary Software

    - by Jon Purdy
    Proprietary software is about as good as open-source software. There are so many problems with proprietary technologies, however, that I'm beginning to think it's best to avoid them: The software will only be maintained as long as the company exists (and profits). The level of security of the application is as unknowable as the source code. Alterations and derivative works, however necessary and beneficial, are disallowed. I simply don't see any point in even learning to use such systems as those created by Microsoft and Apple. Of course I don't pretend that ignorance is the superior option: one has to have a certain working knowledge simply because of the ubiquity of these things. I just don't see any reason why, as an independent developer, I should ever consider it a remotely good idea to actually use them. So that's the question, or discussion topic, or what have you: In what ways do developers benefit at all from using closed-source development software?

    Read the article

  • Software Engineering Component Repository Tool

    - by user320480
    Hello, I'm working as a software engineer for a company. We are going to apply some software engineering standards in our development process. We need a tool which provides a repository for our peripheral products (functions, classes, libraries, ...) which is created during software development process for later use. The tool should provide some functionalities (e.g Name of the component, it's functionality, withing which projects it is used?, author, publication date, list of known bugs, user rating, comment, ...) and it's better to have a web-based interface. Does anybody know such a software?

    Read the article

  • Surface development: it&rsquo;s just like software development

    - by Dennis Vroegop
    Surface is magic. Everyone using it seems to think that way. And I have to be honest, after working for almost 2 years with the platform I still get that special feeling the moment I turn on the unit to do some more work. The whole user experience, the rich environment of the SDK, the touch, even the look and feel of the Surface environment is so much different from the stuff I’ve been working on all my career that I am still bewildered by it. But… and this is a big but.. in the end we’re still talking about a computer and that needs software to become useful. Deep down the magic of the Surface unit there is a PC somewhere, running Windows Vista and the .net framework 3.5. When you write that magic software that makes the platform come alive you’re still working with .net, WPF/XNA, C#, VB.Net and all those other tools and technologies you know so well. Sure, the whole user experience is different from what you’ve known. And the way of thinking about users, their interaction and the positioning of screen elements requires a whole new paradigm. And that takes time. It took me about half a year before I had the feeling I got it nailed down. But when that moment came (about 18 months ago…) I realized that everything I had learned so far on software development still is true when it comes to Surface. The last 6 months I have been working with some people with a different background to start a new company. The idea was that the new company would be focussing on Surface and Surface only. These people come from a marketing background and had some good ideas for some applications. And I have to admit: their ideas were good. Very good. Where it all fell down of course is that these ideas need to be implemented in a piece of software. And creating great software takes skilled developers and a lot of time and money. That’s where things went wrong: the marketing guys didn’t realize and didn’t want to realize that software development is a job that takes skill. You can’t just hire a bunch of developers and expect them to deliver the best sort of software, especially not when it comes to Surface. I tried to explain that yes, their User Interface in Photoshop looked great, but no: I couldn’t develop an application like that in a weeks time. Even worse: the while backend of the software (WCF for communications, SQL Server for the database, etc) would take a lot more time than the frontend. They didn’t understand. It took them a couple of days to drawn the UI in Photoshop so in Blend I should be able to build the software in about the same amount of time. Well, you and I know that it doesn’t work that way. Software is hard to write, and even harder to write well, and it takes skill and dedication. It’s not something you can do as fast as you can draw a mock up for a Surface application in Photohop. The same holds true for web applications of course. A lot of designers there fail to appreciate the hard work that goes into writing the plumbing for a good web app that can handle thousands of users. Although the UI is very important, it’s not all there is to it. And in Surface development this is the same. The UI should create the feeling of magic, but the software behind it is what makes it come alive. And that takes time. A lot of time. So brush of you skills and don’t throw them away if you start developing for Surface. Because projects (and colaborations) can fail there as hard as they can in any other area of software development. On a side note: we decided to stop the colaboration (something the other parties involved didn’t appreciate and were very angry about) and decided to hire a designer for the Surface projects. The focus is back where it belongs: on the software development we know so well and have been doing very well for 13 years. UI is just a part of the whole project and not the end product. So my company Detrio is still going strong when it comes to develivering Surface solutions but once again from a technological background, not a marketing background.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30  | Next Page >