http://www.idkfa.com/v3 idkfa: syndicated http://www.idkfa.com/v3/v_thread.php?thread_id=5533&msg_id=5546 More graphical comparisons here: http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/million-lines-of-code/ kaiden@idkfa.com (kaiden) Indiscernible from Magic Mon, 28 Oct 2013 13:00:02 -0800 http://idkfa.com/v3/v_thread.php?thread_id=5533&msg_id=5546 http://www.idkfa.com/v3/v_thread.php?thread_id=5533&msg_id=5539 NPR had a pretty good comment on why many of the Governments tech contractors are terrible. It was summed up in that any tech company with muscle and expertise don't even bid for Government contracts. The way contracts have to be written require a full time division just to bid for the job, never mind produce it. Having had to mine government Request For Proposals for jobs, I know even something as small as landscaping is a task in tedium. Bids build in inordinate amount of profit and overhead for simple things, because companies create many proposals, but win few. The time dedicated to constructing the proposal blows any profit away. So prices are inflated. While competition should yield a better product, in government contracting instances it results in massively inflated prices. In this healthcare case, it's probably a result of poor reporting, poor subcontractors, poor project management, overrun budgeting and timeline. If an existing powerhouse in the tech world was presented with this task, they could probably produce something streamlined and under budget. I can only wonder what a Google or Apple Healthcare site would look like. It would probably be easy to use and would actually work. Green Man@idkfa.com (Green Man) Indiscernible from Magic Fri, 25 Oct 2013 18:42:27 -0800 http://idkfa.com/v3/v_thread.php?thread_id=5533&msg_id=5539 http://www.idkfa.com/v3/v_thread.php?thread_id=5533&msg_id=5538 Thanks, Obama. kaiden@idkfa.com (kaiden) Indiscernible from Magic Thu, 24 Oct 2013 20:49:41 -0800 http://idkfa.com/v3/v_thread.php?thread_id=5533&msg_id=5538 http://www.idkfa.com/v3/v_thread.php?thread_id=5533&msg_id=5537 It's only 14 types of aircraft, Josh. I mean, the aircraft has blown its weight, stealth/detection, performance, and range requirements. Oh, and it will only take 6 F-35s to replicate the 90% of the capabilities of two A-10s in a forward combat air support role. Oh, and the F-35 has to trade stealthiness for compatibility with current battlefield communications systems, just like the F-22. Strange how physics rears its ugly head. Oh, and the F-35 only has one engine, which means that carrier-based F-35s with an engine flameout are guaranteed to go swimming. This is in contrast with every other carrier-based aircraft since World War II, 70 years ago. NBD. The F-35 might go for the same engine "improvements" that the F-22 did, and the F-22 is giving any flying pilot the Black Lung, just like coal miners. kitacek@idkfa.com (kitacek) Indiscernible from Magic Thu, 24 Oct 2013 19:34:15 -0800 http://idkfa.com/v3/v_thread.php?thread_id=5533&msg_id=5537 http://www.idkfa.com/v3/v_thread.php?thread_id=5533&msg_id=5535 Nngh. kaiden@idkfa.com (kaiden) Indiscernible from Magic Thu, 24 Oct 2013 18:07:54 -0800 http://idkfa.com/v3/v_thread.php?thread_id=5533&msg_id=5535 http://www.idkfa.com/v3/v_thread.php?thread_id=5533&msg_id=5534 "Having one big thing that solves all problems is a near-impossible task" In that case, it's a good thing the F-35 program is supposed to replace 14 types of combat aircraft. kitacek@idkfa.com (kitacek) Indiscernible from Magic Thu, 24 Oct 2013 17:59:47 -0800 http://idkfa.com/v3/v_thread.php?thread_id=5533&msg_id=5534 http://www.idkfa.com/v3/v_thread.php?thread_id=5533&msg_id=5533 At my previous job, the ancient version of Firefox we used had become sort of a joke. It would constantly render incorrectly such that I was always chasing down formatting/styling bugs that had long since been fixed. Or, it would incur miserable slowdowns on Javascript-heavy client applications (of which we had many). Add to that, almost every site we visited claimed that we needed to "upgrade our browser to a more secure version," and some would even refuse to function based on that alone. I would have to get a plugin to falsely report my version in order to gain access to some sites. At one point, I tried to take it upon my self to upgrade my workstation's Firefox. I downloaded the source code, and did the usual ritual to get it configured and compiled. However, about halfway through the compilation, it would come back with memory errors, claiming the compiler (a relatively small, concise program) had ran out of memory in trying to compile the pieces of Firefox together. Turns out, even though Firefox itself will run on a machine with less than 4GB of RAM, you will still need at least 4GB of RAM in order for it to compile correctly. Add to that the fact that Firefox eventually outgrew being able to compile on 32-bit Windows systems, such that you would need a 64-bit machine with 4GB+ memory in order to even build a 32-bit Firefox. That is to say: Firefox, though perhaps only a "simple" web browser, is a large project, both in scope, breadth, and the number of people involved with its development. That said, Firefox releases are estimated to weigh in at ~2.9 million lines of source code. Which is why I laugh when I hear size estimates of HealthCare.Gov to be in the 500 million lines of source code. This implies to me that that number is one or more of the following: Wrong, or estimated not on the actual lines of code, but underlying system functions not developed by CGI Federal or their subsidiaries. Off kaiden@idkfa.com (kaiden) Indiscernible from Magic Thu, 24 Oct 2013 13:07:31 -0800 http://idkfa.com/v3/v_thread.php?thread_id=5533&msg_id=5533