Main Area and Open Discussion > General Software Discussion
Chocolatey...opinions? portable?
IainB:
...I'd guess it's quite normal for something of this nature to not have documentation that's spelled out tidily -- but apart from docs, who knows how well the software behaves in practice (it might be fine, just haven't tested)! Single programmer working for fun in spare time and all :)
_________________________
-ewemoa (September 21, 2015, 08:47 PM)
--- End quote ---
Yes, sure, but I wasn't suggesting that the AS-IS process had to be covered by "documentation that's spelled out tidily", but that the documentation should always - at any point in time - accurately reflect the AS-IS process (regardless of the form that the documentation took).
I wasn't trying to denigrate the efforts of the people who got the video to that state, I was trying to show a line of reasoning, based on general theory, that the likelihood of being able to automate the relevant AS-IS processes seemed potentially low. I put the video link there because I reckon it was fantastic - I mean, it seemed really impressive in what it showed could be done there. It's just that, if you have that dependency - i.e., that you need to be a Grade A systems mechanic, or something, or drag one around with you to get it all working - then it's unlikely to be of much use to the general public/user. Only the techos would really be able to take advantage of all that good technology. So that could probably be quite a severe a limitation as to practical usage/applicability.
A key realisation to the understanding of the CMM and its implications is that, to all practical intents and purposes, if a process is generally likely to be in a perpetual or semi-perpetual state of dynamic change - e.g., as in CMM Level 1 (Ad hoc/Chaotic) or Level 2 (Repeatable) - then it is impermanent, and, try as one might to define it and automate it, it would be likely to keep changing whilst one was doing that, thus invalidating the definition/automation. A bit like trying to pin down a blob of mercury. It would be a process that was probably outside of one's control, and would almost certainly be out of statistical control (Shewhart, Deming et al), so it would be unpredictable, by definition.
Automation necessarily carries the prerequisite of predictability of the AS-IS process and its outcomes.
Interestingly, and as an aside, the characteristics of organisations whose processes are generally at CMM Level 1 or 2 can typically include:
* (a) the working environment is chaotic,
* (b) there is a low level of general knowledge/understanding as to how the core business processes operate,
* (c) there is a lack of mutual professional respect,
* (d) there is frustration with the seeming inability to manage projects in a consistent, orderly and planned fashion,
* (e) there is a persistent culture of blame,
* (f) the rate of staff turnover is relatively high.
- so if that seems somewhat déjà vu, then that could be the the explanation as to why.
ewemoa:
Not familiar with CMM, so am scanning a Wikipedia page for it (perhaps that's not too awful ;)).
A key realisation to the understanding of the CMM and its implications is that, to all practical intents and purposes, if a process is generally likely to be in a perpetual or semi-perpetual state of dynamic change - e.g., as in CMM Level 1 (Ad hoc/Chaotic) or Level 2 (Repeatable) - then it is impermanent, and, try as one might to define it and automate it, it would be likely to keep changing whilst one was doing that, thus invalidating the definition/automation.
-IainB (September 23, 2015, 12:18 AM)
--- End quote ---
Sounds familiar :)
IainB:
Not familiar with CMM, so am scanning a Wikipedia page for it (perhaps that's not too awful ;)).
___________________
-ewemoa (September 23, 2015, 09:31 PM)
--- End quote ---
Try this. I think it will still work: CMM - Capability Maturity Model
panzer:
Bower is also a package manager, but for the web:
http://bower.io/
Edvard:
More info: Gow is a shell, not a package manager. It's an alternative for windows to Cygwin. But it was a welcome find for other reasons, even so. I'd stopped using Cygwin because it was so huge. Gow is apparently small.
-wraith808 (September 18, 2015, 01:35 PM)
--- End quote ---
Looking at Gow now. Looks nice, glad to hear of it.
Also, if all you need are the tools, not the environment, look at GNUWin32:
http://gnuwin32.sourceforge.net/
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version