Linux to IBM Developers '5 reasons why you are so wrong'

This post is a response to Information Week's article on Bob Sutor's failed attempt to speak for- and consequent preaching down to- the Linux community.

I wanted to let it lie but I just couldn't and since everybody else seems to be doing it, I hereby appoint myself spokesperson for the linux community.

Deep breath... here goes.

1) IBM is not the reason why people are using Linux.
And no, IBM is not a "driver" either. Maybe what they mean is that they once wrote a driver, but thats not really the same thing. Oh, the driver was for Oki Data printers (who?). And it was written with some help from Oki data. But IBM did help- I think they got the coffee or something...

2) Thats because nobody really knows what IBM does with Linux
Sure they have the nice shiny LTC (Linux Technology Centre) which by all accounts has a head count of 10000 and a budget of several billion (OK I'm just joking), but what so they actually do? They are not involved with the steering groups of any of the major linux projects, far less the linux kernel itself. Whats that? Oh they work with eServer? But isn't that actually a commercial product? With no users? Which actually has nothing to do with Linux other than running on it? Did I mention that nobody uses it? mmkay.

3) The desktop on Linux in no way resembles a 2001 version of windows. This is so wrong on so many levels.
Let it suffice to say that Bob Sutor is a foppish wide brimmed asshat who probably doesn't like the inconvenience of actually using Linux since he, like all the other worker drones in his soul-crushing corporate hell, are forced to use a patched version of windows 2000. But hey, that last patch was put out in 2002 (which is way more recent than 2001) and at that last conferance he attended, the keynote speech on Linux was delivered by somebody who had once looked over the shoulder of his nephew while they installed redhat. That means that Bob is a Linux expert bitches. Putting aside for one moment the naked glaring innacuracy that is being screamed at the monitors of 1000 Linux users at this very moment (which is that kde and knome, not linux, provide the desktop), the experience of a recent Ubuntu install comprehensively kicks the butt of even Vista. XP and 2000? No chance. On a side note, I really like the cube.

4) IBM's comments to the Linux community of developers carry a lot of weight. Not.
They just don't. The opinions of IBM are insiginificant to the direction linux is going in, to a degree that is so minuiscule it is hard to quantify. I want to but I can't. Really I can't. NEXT!

5) Bob's 'thinking outside of the box'. He envisions linux running on platforms other than x86 sometime in the future, becoming a strong player in internet-enabled devices.
errrr, Say what now?

10 reasons why Agile is a Load Of Bollocks™

Lets be clear about this: Agile has its good sides, that said...

1. It is essentially undefined- the Agile Manifesto comprises four cryptic bullet points, yet is generally sold as a way to solve gigantically complex software engineering challenges. Compare with for example Prince2 or ITIL, which, at least make a good-faith effort to be comprehensive (although reading a manual for either will be so soul-crushingly boring that it will rob you of your will to live). Advocates of Agile have a propencity to "fill in the blanks", which I fear may offend our friends the Blanks, who are more used to being small holes of indefinition rather than vast tracts of nothingsness stretching off to the horizons in either direction.

2. There has been no scientific or academic verification that Agile methods actually work, mostly because nobody can agree on what exactly Agile methods are.

3. Big Consultancy^TM sells Agile. This means that they have a vested interest in being able to bill hours to customers for Agile, which in turn means that it is best if Agile cannot be understood by customers. Is it vapourware?

4. There is a significant industry that exists to "teach you Agile" through expensive seminars yet independent, peer-reviewed literature on the subject is non-existant.

5. The "not for profit" Agile Aliance seems remarkably profit-driven.

6. Where are all the Open Source supporters? Should they not be the bastions of Agility? The Agile Alliance seems to attract traditional corporate members that are the antithesis of Agility.

7. Agile colonises other methodologies. If a way of developing software is clearly effective, Agile tends to claim it as its own. Scrum, Extreme Programming and Test Driven Development are all well defined and reasonably good approaches in their own right, but are they really subdivisions of Agile?

8. Most experienced software engineers know the best way to make software. It is natural to eventually realize that you have to talk to your customers regularly, that you have to set clear tasks, that planning too far ahead will generally not work. Ditto: unit testing, knowledge sharing and short release cycles. Experienced engineering teams will do all of these things no matter which methodology they adhere to.

9. Although undefined most of its proponents would agree that Agile is about operating with short planning and release cycles. This is not appropriate for every type of project- think: banking system, spaceshuttle control, anything to do with complex mathematical formulae. Great for web-apps though...

10. Yes, we all know that the "waterfall" software development method is broken, indeed the man who originally proposed it, Winston W. Royce, did so in order to illustrate a methodology which could not succeed. The Waterfall is the classic straw man, which is why Agile is usually compared to it rather that other methods.

11. (bonus) What is the difference between "method" and "methodology"- is it the same as difference between "science" and "scientology"?