Skip to main content

stuff I left out of the Fort Lewis presentation

Even before I ever heard of Edward Tufte, I had always disliked scripted presentations. My approach to speaking in public is very much like my approach to performing music used to be, back when I made my living that way: know your material thoroughly, and be prepared to interact with your audience as much as possible. It's a strangely rare approach among those who speak about software, but one or two people get it.

Martin Fowler points out one danger of this kind of presentation, being quoted, but what I find is that there are always one or two points that I really, really planned to make, but the conversation with the audience didn't go that way.

Luckily, here in the 21st century, we have blogs, so we can go back and talk about the bits we missed the first time around.

I discussed the very basic aspects of copyright and license and how they relate to open-source and proprietary software. I left out a discussion of plagiarism, which is critically important in an academic setting, and ought to be critically important everywhere else.

Just because software is free and unencumbered, does not give users of that software license to claim it as their own work. Whenever you use software created by other people, please please please make a concerted effort to provide the correct citations for that work, even if the license does not require it. You have far more to gain by honest reference to others' work than you do by plagiarism.

The other bit that I never mentioned (sorry Jonathan) was the ideas in Fred Brooks No Silver Bullet. We talked about all sorts of great stuff, open source, agile development, non-hierarchical management strategies, scripting languages. The point that I should have made explicitly but did not, is that all this stuff is cool, but a) it's not magic and b) in another ten years, it will all be quaint if not hilarious.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Reviewing "Context Driven Approach to Automation in Testing"

I recently had occasion to read the "Context Driven Approach to Automation in Testing". As a professional software tester with extensive experience in test automation at the user interface (both UI and API) for the last decade or more for organizations such as Thoughtworks, Wikipedia, Salesforce, and others, I found it a nostalgic mixture of FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt), propaganda, ignorance and obfuscation. 

It was weirdly nostalgic for me: take away the obfuscatory modern propaganda terminology and it could be an artifact directly out of the test automation landscape circa 1998 when vendors, in the absence of any competition, foisted broken tools like WinRunner and SilkTest on gullible customers, when Open Source was exotic, when the World Wide Web was novel. Times have changed since 1998, but the CDT approach to test automation has not changed with it. I'd like to point out the deficiencies in this document as a warning to people who might be tempted to take it se…

Watir is What You Use Instead When Local Conditions Make Automated Browser Testing Otherwise Difficult.

I spent last weekend in Toronto talking to Titus Fortner, Jeff "Cheezy" Morgan, Bret Pettichord, and a number of other experts involved with the Watir project. There are a few things you should know:

The primary audience and target user group for Watir is people who use programming languages other than Ruby, and also people who do little or no programming at all. Let's say that again:

The most important audience for Watir is not Ruby programmers 
Let's talk about "local conditions":

it may be that the language in which you work does not support Selenium
I have been involved with Watir since the very beginning, but I started using modern Watir with the Wikimedia Foundation to test Wikipedia software. The main language of Wikipedia is PHP, in which Selenium is not fully supported, and in which automated testing in general is difficult. Watir/Ruby was a great choice to do browser testing.  At the time we started the project, there were no selenium bindings for …

Open letter to the Association for Software Testing

To the Association for Software Testing:

Considering the discussion in the software testing community with regard to my blog post "Test is a Ghetto", I ask the Board of the AST  to release a statement regarding the relationship of the AST with Keith Klain and Per Scholas, particularly in regard to the lawsuit for fraud filed by Doran Jones (PDF download link) .

The AST has a Code of Ethics  and I also ask the AST Board to release a public statement on whether the AST would consider creating an Ethics Committee similar to, or as a part of the recently created Committee on Standards and Professional Practices.

The yearly election for the Board of the AST happens in just a few weeks, and I hope that the candidates for the Board and the voting members of the Association for Software Testing will consider these requests with the gravity they deserve.