61–70 of 107 posts
I worked at Lockheed with Red Hat doing exactly what they are talking about here on the F-35. Unsurprisingly, It was a total disaster from the top down. I guarantee this will be as well. I was happy to get out after a year.
"The Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor is one of the world’s premier fighter jets, thanks to its unique combination of stealth, speed, agility, and situational awareness." A huge understatement. It's the only true 5th gen that's tailored for performance, rather than cost savings (ala the F-35). The others are completely unproven (Chinese) or both unproven and in extremely limited quantities, while not providing true stealt…
I’m not a huge fan of obscene military spending, but the cancellation[0] of F-22 production must be one of the most boneheaded decisions I’ve seen in US military procurement. I must add the caveat that I have no security clearance so there may be other factors. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-22_Raptor > Service officials had originally planned to buy a total of 750 ATFs. In 2009, the program was…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’m not a huge fan of obscene military spending, but the cancellation[0] of F-22 production must be one of the most boneheaded decisions I’ve seen in US military procurement. I must add the caveat that I have no security clearance so there may be other factors. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-22_Raptor > Service officials had originally planned to buy a total of 750 ATFs. In 2009, the program was…
Keep in mind the military has a history of claiming they stopped production and then producing them in secret or producing a slightly modified version as a way of making our enemies think we have fewer weapons than we actually have.
"The Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor is one of the world’s premier fighter jets, thanks to its unique combination of stealth, speed, agility, and situational awareness." A huge understatement. It's the only true 5th gen that's tailored for performance, rather than cost savings (ala the F-35). The others are completely unproven (Chinese) or both unproven and in extremely limited quantities, while not providing true stealt…
I’m not a huge fan of obscene military spending, but the cancellation[0] of F-22 production must be one of the most boneheaded decisions I’ve seen in US military procurement. I must add the caveat that I have no security clearance so there may be other factors. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-22_Raptor > Service officials had originally planned to buy a total of 750 ATFs. In 2009, the program was…
It may have looked more expensive on paper with ideal assumptions to produce lots of expensive F-22s instead of a few F-22’s and lots of cheaper JSFs. But in practice I bet the costs would have equalized, due to the increased volume of F-22s and the development of extensive institutional knowledge of that airframe - from manufacturing to maintenance to piloting/operating.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> My current policy is to allow zero tech debt I was in an office that had such a policy - it didn't go well. Perhaps it's a matter of definition, because: > I hadn't heard of tech debt being something so subjective/invisible that it just creeps in and you have to discover it. Tech debt is _inevitable_. Any decision will eventually be debt - rot begins before the code is even finalized. Focusing on avoiding short ter…
Great insight. I think you are describing tech debt of the "unavoidable" kind. My efforts tend to be focused on the avoidable kind. Definitionally, no methodology makes the unavoidable avoidable? Now, let's say you get to that dreaded point - requirements have changed, dependencies have changed, the industry landscape has changed. Which codebase will be easier to adapt - the debty one or the zero-avoidable-debt one?
Could someone here with experience in this things enlighten me ? F22 raptor is still an embedded system, I cannot believe that it runs a linux with container. What I am missing to comprehend this article.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’m not a huge fan of obscene military spending, but the cancellation[0] of F-22 production must be one of the most boneheaded decisions I’ve seen in US military procurement. I must add the caveat that I have no security clearance so there may be other factors. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-22_Raptor > Service officials had originally planned to buy a total of 750 ATFs. In 2009, the program was…
I always wondered why they couldn’t have just used the F-22 for both the air superiority role it was originally designed for and the multi-purpose role the F-35 was made for. The F-22 is more capable in every way, and more survivable with dual engines. They would have needed to figure out vertical take-off/landing version of the F-22 but I’m sure that was not impossible. It may have looked more expensive on paper wit…
In addition, the threats anticipated that led to its development never materialized.
That's why it was cancelled.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
DevOps is mashing development and operations together. But that ignores security, often putting security reviews after the code has been deployed or at least after it's done being written, which necessitates re-work. DevSecOps makes sure security is a part of the development and operations work. Yes it's a re-wording of an existing concept. No, it is not a new idea. Yes, it is important enough to call it out because…
What is the size of the company when CISO, on average - exists as part of the company? I know Google has security teams, but what about the smallest company that has one?
To answer the question more directly: I've worked with 10,000+ employee companies with no CISO and I've worked with <1,000 employee companies with separate CTO, CIO, and CISO roles. At the executive level, job titles are more of suggestions than strictly defined silos. It all depends on how the company is organized and what their strategic priorities are.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> My current policy is to allow zero tech debt I was in an office that had such a policy - it didn't go well. Perhaps it's a matter of definition, because: > I hadn't heard of tech debt being something so subjective/invisible that it just creeps in and you have to discover it. Tech debt is _inevitable_. Any decision will eventually be debt - rot begins before the code is even finalized. Focusing on avoiding short ter…
Great insight. I think you are describing tech debt of the "unavoidable" kind. My efforts tend to be focused on the avoidable kind. Definitionally, no methodology makes the unavoidable avoidable? Now, let's say you get to that dreaded point - requirements have changed, dependencies have changed, the industry landscape has changed. Which codebase will be easier to adapt - the debty one or the zero-avoidable-debt one?
I feel this is a bit of strawman, though that may not be your intent.
As I mentioned in the above comment, wanting to avoid hurting your long term for the short term is fine and admirable. However, I think the distinction between "unavoidable" and "avoidable" debt is somewhat facile and unrealistic. It's a continuum, with points scattered throughout the center. Is this decision the best one? That is debatable, and should be debated, but the result won't be "yes debt" or "no debt".
I also said that if someone is shooting for "Zero debt" they should talk with their devs and make sure everyone is using words to mean the same thing. I continue to stand by that, because however clean and rational your personal definition may be, it's worthless if that's not the meaning anyone else is using.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> My current policy is to allow zero tech debt I was in an office that had such a policy - it didn't go well. Perhaps it's a matter of definition, because: > I hadn't heard of tech debt being something so subjective/invisible that it just creeps in and you have to discover it. Tech debt is _inevitable_. Any decision will eventually be debt - rot begins before the code is even finalized. Focusing on avoiding short ter…
> because management had decided an unachievable purity was more important than frank and open communication Can you expand on what you mean by this?
"zero tech debt", when understanding that tech debt is maintenance efforts at a minimum, is unavoidable. If a workplace has a "zero tech debt" rule, that workplace (the management, assuming they're the ones putting the rules in place) is placing that unachievable purity above the frank and open communication about their very real tech debt.
Where I was at, when "zero tech debt" was the policy, we stopped talking about potential tech debt to management. Decisions were made to avoid short-term debt (good), but no discussion was had about any longer term issues (bad), because we couldn't HAVE those decisions when every choice involves some tech debt.
When tech debt issues arose, we didn't want to surface them, because we'd spend more time trying to justify why this wasn't our fault, wasn't predictable, or taking lumps when it was our decision instead of actually addressing the issue.
Management had placed the ideal above the reality, so they saw the ideal. That didn't prevent the reality, and it left the reality unmanaged. We did what we could - we all took pride in our work and tried to make the best decisions - but the company limited what could be done.