×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

What Developers Can Learn From Anonymous

samzenpus posted about a year and a half ago | from the pay-attention dept.

Programming 120

snydeq writes "Regardless of where you stand on Anonymous' tactics, politics, or whatever, I think the group has something to teach developers and development organizations,' writes Andrew Oliver. 'As leader of an open source project, I can revoke committer access for anyone who misbehaves, but membership in Anonymous is a free-for-all. Sure, doing something in Anonymous' name that even a minority of "members" dislike would probably be a tactical mistake, but Anonymous has no trademark protection under the law; the organization simply has an overall vision and flavor. Its members carry out acts based on that mission. And it has enjoyed a great deal of success — in part due to the lack of central control. Compare this to the level of control in many corporate development organizations. Some of that control is necessary, but often it's taken to gratuitous lengths. If you hire great developers, set general goals for the various parts of the project, and collect metrics, you probably don't need to exercise a lot of control to meet your requirements."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

120 comments

What the group has to teach (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41135727)

What the group has to teach is simple: If all you want is to disturb the normal process, and highlight certain aspects, then you don't need much organization.

Wake me up when anonymous actually produced something non-trivial.

Re:What the group has to teach (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41135831)

Everything I need to know about Anonymous I learned in Junior High School.

Re:What the group has to teach (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41135971)

Were you the asshole that smeared shit all over the walls?

Re:What the group has to teach (4, Insightful)

jones_supa (887896) | about a year and a half ago | (#41135857)

Exactly. Destroying anarchistically random stuff all over the Internet and putting the label "Anonymous" on it, not much sophistication required.

Re:What the group has to teach (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41136151)

Actually this is incredibly hard, no matter how you put it. Humans, and I mean every one in the species, are by nature social creatures. We all, not crave, but need attention, approval to some degree. Pulling off stuff like that but resisting the urge to stamp your name on it, or even a nickname is quite incredible.

My only issue with them, is that they make it easier for politicians to push people into using real credentials on the net. I enjoy my anonymity, we might lose that sooner or later, but I would have prefered it was later.

As for what they do ... well, banks are supposed to be secure, isn't that the reason people trust banks, why they deposit money there? If they start losing customers, it's not because the customers saw their data online, but because their false advertisment for security.

Politicians ... well, they're representatives of the people, there's this thing called transparency, if the guy I voted for, the I NEED to know about it, even if it reveales personal aspects of his personal life. Isn't this what democracy is about? Needs of the many over the needs of the few?

In the summary it says "the organization simply has an overall vision and flavor." for religion or politicals this is called doctrine. As long as they don't make the mistake those two do, of focusing on a few individuals or something more than the basic idea, the movement will keep on going virtually unhindered for years.

What they're doing is wrong, but there's no other alternative, police, and other law enforcement bodies are useless in these situations, and the press ... well, the term yellow journalism appeared two seconds after the term journalism was created.

Re:What the group has to teach (4, Insightful)

johnlcallaway (165670) | about a year and a half ago | (#41136399)

Banks are supposed to be secure .. and a responsible person would notify the bank if they found the door unlocked instead of giving out private information to strangers on the street.

Politicians are representatives of the people. Their personal lives are not important, only what they do when on the job. Other people have jobs, should their employers have access to their private lives???

Anonymous gets all the attention they need within their own group and by the publicity they generate. Kind of like serial killers who thrive off the publicity and kill more so they get more attention. 'They' know who they are, and they know people are talking about them. It's not necessary for them for people to know their name. In fact, it's the secrecy that is so attractive, doing something wrong, and talking with your buddies about it but knowing your buddies aren't in on the secret.

Anonymous is a terrible model. For one, it requires fanatical devotion. How many programmers out there are going to get that fanatical about rewriting 20 year old COBOL code??? I'm sure it works great for open source products where people can get excited about what they are doing. But for the other 90% of tasks out there, I seriously doubt it will work.

I seem to have a different idea of the fun stuff I want to work on than what my boss wants me to work on. Without his telling me what to work on, it's doubtful the stuff he finds important would ever get done. Oh wait .. I work on the stuff he finds important because if I didn't he would fire me.

Seems to me like Anonymous is more like the establishment than they are willing to admit.

Re:What the group has to teach (2, Insightful)

Dodgy G33za (1669772) | about a year and a half ago | (#41136731)

When a politician stands on the podium with their wives and children, it is them that have brought them into the discussion. When they preach conservative "family" values that effect the whole of the electorate, but are happy to sleep with hookers, then no, they do not have a right to privacy. Same with those that preach morals from the pulpit or the vatican balcony and then don't report the kiddie fiddlers to the police.

The thing is, those is public office often get additional protections (killing a cop is worse than killing a non-cop for example). With privilege comes responsibility, and the other side of the coin is that a cop who abuses their position, or a politician who is a hypocrite, should be called to account.

Re:What the group has to teach (3, Insightful)

cream wobbly (1102689) | about a year and a half ago | (#41137751)

Anonymous is a terrible model. For one, it requires fanatical devotion. How many programmers out there are going to get that fanatical about rewriting 20 year old COBOL code??? I'm sure it works great for open source products where people can get excited about what they are doing. But for the other 90% of tasks out there, I seriously doubt it will work.

I think you missed the point. The conclusion from TFA:

We can also see this in server architecture. There are still clustering platforms managed through a central server -- the weak point in everything from Hadoop to WebSphere. Yet we're watching the evolution of these architectures away from central control. This results in less predictability in some circumstances, but makes them more robust in the long term.

That metaphor is transferrable to the management of software projects. Yes, setting expectations, establishing norms, and spurring motivation can have great positive effect and avert crises. I am not advocating for anarchy. But the loose affiliation model of Anonymous, an organization notorious for wreaking chaos, has more to teach than many of us would like to admit.

The comparisons being drawn describe the political "cell" to a tee: i.e., loosely coupled atomic groups that aggregate to form a greater work. What makes Anonymous unique among political movements that operate in this manner, is that there is no "Dear Leader" -- no visionary from whom to take praise.

And yet there is in existence a developer model that fits this "cell" structure, albeit with smaller cells than extremist groups: that of the FLOSS world, where there are a clutch of "Dear Leaders" to follow; each with "enemies" to crush.

In other words, nothing at all like Anonymous -- but exactly like GNU.

Re:What the group has to teach (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about a year and a half ago | (#41136917)

Isn't this what democracy is about? Needs of the many over the needs of the few?

That alone marks a failure of democracy. We only need to know everything about the politician due to his desire for authority. It has nothing to do with the 'needs of the many'. Transparency is a merely a fundamental cost of authority. Making sure they pay up is not wrong. They are causing no real harm to society. They are only throwing pies into the face of authority. A good thing.

Re:What the group has to teach (1)

DerekLyons (302214) | about a year and a half ago | (#41137253)

Actually this is incredibly hard, no matter how you put it. Humans, and I mean every one in the species, are by nature social creatures. We all, not crave, but need attention, approval to some degree. Pulling off stuff like that but resisting the urge to stamp your name on it, or even a nickname is quite incredible.

Not really. Humans are called "social creatures" not just because we crave individual attention and social interaction. "Social creatures" are also those who form societies [tribes|clans|gangs|etc...] and there's also a tendency to submerge one's identity into that society. This is often forgotten in today's individualistic ("me, me, me") society where we're often trying (consciously or no) to suppress that primal instinct.
 
The habit of taking an action and attributing that action to your [tribe|clan|gang|etc...] is a very, very old one. There's also a deep primal instinctive desire to belong, and proving that one belongs by taking part in a [tribe|clan|gang|etc...] approved activity without claiming individual credit is equally old.
 
That no visible leaders have emerged is incredible, but that the masses behave as [tribe|clan|gang|etc...] members have long done is not.

Re:What the group has to teach (2)

canadiannomad (1745008) | about a year and a half ago | (#41137325)

I find it interesting how democracy, a selection of one of two similarly leaning people by a minority of the populous, is considered so superior to a group of smart people trying, no matter how misguidedly, to educate people about how broken the system is.

Re:What the group has to teach (1)

cream wobbly (1102689) | about a year and a half ago | (#41137941)

You mischaracterize democracy. Our elected officials are put in office not only by those who vote and those who vote against, but also by those who choose to abstain. Voter abstinence is a valuable part of democracy. Without out it, the will of the government is thrust upon the people, and that is not democracy. It is your duty to vote, but abstinence should not be penalized.

In addition, it is vital that the populace of a democracy be allowed to air grievances. However, that should be done in accordance with the law -- which by dint of it being applied by a democratically elected body, is the will of the majority.

(I was going to enumerate the logical fallacies you'd employed, but it might take up more room than the rest of my reply.)

Re:What the group has to teach (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41135887)

Basically how to be a criminal, go dumb dumbos.

Re:What the group has to teach (2)

poity (465672) | about a year and a half ago | (#41135987)

It doesn't seem like the author has convinced himself, either.
FTA:

I've seen a lot of organizations function with neither shared vision or a plan. I've yet to see a successful software project without both.

If you read all the way to the end, you'll realize it was just an attention-grabber intro that didn't get analyzed all that much (cue infoworld rubbing their hands together and grinning), and that he's just against managerial interference when a group of devs are working well together. Well, no shit...

Re:What the group has to teach (2)

Samantha Wright (1324923) | about a year and a half ago | (#41137669)

Yyyyyyeah... the moment I finished the summary, I wondered, "wait, don't we already have Agile development?"

Re:What the group has to teach (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41136043)

Wake me up when anonymous actually produced something non-trivial.

Katawa Shoujo, educate yourself.

Re:What the group has to teach (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41136509)

Katawa Shoujo, educate yourself.

A Japanese visual novel? Seems a bit irrelevant in the context of this discussion.

Re:What the group has to teach (1)

gbjbaanb (229885) | about a year and a half ago | (#41136067)

the quantity is also very important - if you have a team of 10 developers, you can't let them just go off working on their own thing hoping it'll come up with your customer's exact requirements.

Now, if you had an infinite monkey cage, then your options are more flexible and you can use the same development style as Anonymous.

But.. there is a way it does work - if you have a small team, of senior people, who are committed to your development goals... then you can put them in a room without supervision and tell them to make the requirement happen. That works, but it works by reducing the amount of interference, not changing the way people work. (BTW this is one of the Crystal Clear [cockburn.us] agile methodologies by Alistair Cockburn)

Re:What the group has to teach (1)

kgskgs (938843) | about a year and a half ago | (#41136599)

I agree to the parent.
I agree in exerting control in moderation. However, the difference between what anonymous is doing and what a big corporate team of developers is doing is between doing a hit and run and driving a car for a long distance over a long time. The second task definitely needs a lot more control and management infrastructure in place.

Re:What the group has to teach (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41136801)

Wake me up when anonymous actually produced something non-trivial.

I'm not sure what you mean by "produced", obviously the goal of anonymous is not to manufacture a physical product. However, they have produced useful, non-trivial information. For example, the HBGary hack [forbes.com] exposed immoral and possibly illegal behavior by significant government contractors. The media, at least, seemed to agree that this information was valuable.

Re:What the group has to teach (1)

Githaron (2462596) | about a year and a half ago | (#41137317)

Wake me up when anonymous actually produced something non-trivial.

I would venture a guess that most Anonymous members do not do much beyond running canned scripts. You have to wonder what they could do if a majority of their members had real skill.

Re:What the group has to teach (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41137481)

Says anonymous coward.

The point is that anybody can be anynomous. So yes, anybody has produced non trivial stuff in several areas.

i guess it has to be said (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41135731)

developer wants autonomy, thinks management overreaches, film at 11

Re:i guess it has to be said (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41136395)

At work I spend over 90% of my development time is documenting and generating metrics. Most of the rest is used to clean up messes made by incompetents, usually provoked if not outright done by managers themselves. Management's answer: More documentation, more metrics.

Exactly (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41135739)

Exactly, in most corporate environments you have to go through so many bosses (most of which shouldn't be making technical decisions) before you can ever get anything done.

Re:Exactly (2)

luis_a_espinal (1810296) | about a year and a half ago | (#41135829)

Exactly, in most corporate environments you have to go through so many bosses (most of which shouldn't be making technical decisions) before you can ever get anything done.

Citations please. True that those organizations exist, but in my experience, they are the exception rather than the rule. Obviously, saying that most companies are like that makes good stuff for posting in teh slashdotties water coolers, but c'mon.

Re:Exactly (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41136135)

How do i get citation for that, do i go around to all the business and film them. I admit i may of exaggerated, but i've worked with a fair few tech companies (in no way a majority of corporations) but they have all been scarily like dilbert cartoons at times. If your experiences have been different i'm very happy for you, and hope the best for you at nirvana co.

Re:Exactly (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41136277)

{sigh} "Citations please" is not a literal request for references; it's a comment indicating that your statement lacks a basis in fact. Maybe the difficulty you're having in so many different companies is related to your inability to understand people.

Re:Exactly (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41136349)

What an idiot. How could anyone get that wrong?

Depends on your requirements (5, Insightful)

melonman (608440) | about a year and a half ago | (#41135745)

I was reading "The mythical man-month" only this weekend, which starts with the observation that "everyone knows" that two kids in a garage can do more than a corporate development team, and then points out that, if this was actually true without caveats, corporations would hire two kids in a garage every time. There's a difference between producing a standalone program and developing/maintaining a product system.

Re:Depends on your requirements (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41135901)

There's a difference between two kids in a garage and a large corporate development team. The biggest difference is the number of stakeholders. Two kids in the garage (let's just say startup) can set the requirements for the app their building themselves. There is no one to answer to. If it succeeds, they enter the world of business and it fails they move on to the next great thing. A large company has to worry about shareholders. They have to worry about taking risks. It's a completely different scenario. It's impossible for a company to hire two kids in a garage because there's too much risk in doing so.

Re:Depends on your requirements (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41136011)

It's impossible for a company to hire two kids in a garage because there's too much risk in doing so.

And yet companies do this all the time. They're called skunkworks.

Re:Depends on your requirements (1)

DaveV1.0 (203135) | about a year and a half ago | (#41137809)

And yet companies do this all the time. They're called skunkworks

Please list the names of 30 people, in 10 to 15 groups, who are "kids in a garage" to work as the "skunkworks" of a company, and the company that hired them.

Re:Depends on your requirements (5, Insightful)

Missing.Matter (1845576) | about a year and a half ago | (#41136025)

What you've just said is something many entrepreneurs find out too late: that ideas are dime a dozen, and execution is what really differentiates successes from failures. Strong organizations differ significantly from "two kids in a garage," in that they have people who are experienced in execution and all it entails including: capital management, marketing, legal, supply chain, distribution, manufacturing, personnel, security, infrastructure etc. These things all need to coordinate with R&D and work on specific timelines to sync with departments, and this is all happening in parallel. Two guys in a garage operate serially, so management isn't really needed.

I know most people here are developers, so most of us see the world in developer-colored glasses, so saying things like "Just hire good developers and let them loose and they'll churn out good work and you'll be a success." is just plain wrong. They'll do what good developers do: develop. And that might be enough to make a good product (or in some cases a good prototype or preproduction product), but it's not enough to make a successful product. This is also why the "two guys in a garage" stories are few and far between; their efforts were met with a good deal of luck and happenstance which drove their success. Right place, right time sort of stuff. Everyone else with the next big idea in their garage met with failure because they lacked execution.

Re:Depends on your requirements (2)

JaredOfEuropa (526365) | about a year and a half ago | (#41136193)

TMMM is right but not for the reasons you cite. I have often extolled the merits of using a more or less autonomous team of highly skilled developers instead of following the corporate habit of using a closely managed team of so-so, interchangable programmers, preferably outsourced to some cheap-labor outfit in India or China. Few corporations want to go that route, but not because the autonomous team would be more expensive, or produce poorly maintainable and undocumented code, unfit to hand over to a support team. Neither is (or has to be) true.

There are a few other reasons corporations steer away from crack teams:
- Many managers are good at managing resources but they suck at managing people. In HR Lingo: they find talent management difficult. Which is true for talent in almost all non-managerial career paths, by the way. So they prefer to manage by the numbers, hire 3 mid-level c# guys, a senior UX designer, and a junior db person, rather than hire 5 (or probably fewer) crack programmers who, combined, posess all the necessary skills between them. The first group comes off the shelf. The second group needs to be found, which is harder.
- Corporate IT managers favour predictability and accountability over speed, quality and cost. They prefer to wait a bit and get a mediocre product that comes with a well defined SLA at a fixed cost, over a superior product that is "likely" to be developed faster and "probably" costs less. Quotation marks indicate that we're dealing with stuff that is not part of any SLA.

The two kids in a garage produce better work, and work faster and cheaper... most of the time. However the actual effort and results from project to project are hard to predict, and more difficult to manage. That is why corporations don't go for autonomous crack teams even if they can be an order of magnitude better. Thankfully some corporations are starting to see the value of having such people on the payroll (or on long term contracts), letting them organise their own work and steering on outcome rather than process, often in projects designated as "pilots" but set up to come up with production-ready software. It's how I make my living these days...

Re:Depends on your requirements (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41136217)

It seems I read all of this in The Cathedral and the Bazaar.

Re:Depends on your requirements (1)

alen (225700) | about a year and a half ago | (#41136289)

there are always lots of people in the garage making up similar ideas. why did apple come out on top in the 80's? what about MS? why is youtube so popular and the other video sites of the time are history.

corporate money and connections to take the idea to the next level

Re:Depends on your requirements (1)

fa2k (881632) | about a year and a half ago | (#41136457)

I was reading "The mythical man-month" only this weekend

Is it bad that I always read that as "The mystical moth-man"?

Re:Depends on your requirements (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41136743)

On this site, Yes.

Far-fetched much (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41135755)

This has to be the most far-fetched argument ever made in the history of mankind.

Also, using the sentence "success" and "Anonymous" in the same sentence makes you seem insane.

Anonymous not the only decentralised group (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41135773)

Remember USENET? With its clear distinction between abuse ON the net and abuse OF the net, and admins who only care about the latter?

Andrew Oliver (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41135775)

As leader of an open source project

Apache POI [wikipedia.org], funded by MS [opensource.org].

Do we need Anonymous to learn this? (3, Insightful)

luis_a_espinal (1810296) | about a year and a half ago | (#41135801)

the organization simply has an overall vision and flavor. Its members carry out acts based on that mission. And it has enjoyed a great deal of success — in part due to the lack of central control. Compare this to the level of control in many corporate development organizations. Some of that control is necessary, but often it's taken to gratuitous lengths. If you hire great developers, set general goals for the various parts of the project, and collect metrics, you probably don't need to exercise a lot of control to meet your requirements

This is standard common sense, and the negative effects of over/micro-managing and red tape are recognized (and felt) not just in software but in all endeavours (even within families.) We know what to do about that in all forms of organizations and projects.

That people and project still fall far from the well-known solutions, that has more to do with human behavior, team dynamics and the economics of the incentives/rewards, disinsentives/penalties, (whether tangible or psychological, subjective or objective) than anything else.

Anonymous, with its faceless nature (that precludes the realities of disinsentives and penalties), and incoherent goals, has nothing to teach us or anyone engaged in a real-life project or mission subject to incentives and disinsentives, and the realities of identifiable human relations.

The article might be good to drive traffic (ZOMG, Anonymous in teh titl3!), I'll give the author that </journalistic-attention-whoring>

Best practices (1)

elucido (870205) | about a year and a half ago | (#41135897)

the organization simply has an overall vision and flavor. Its members carry out acts based on that mission. And it has enjoyed a great deal of success — in part due to the lack of central control. Compare this to the level of control in many corporate development organizations. Some of that control is necessary, but often it's taken to gratuitous lengths. If you hire great developers, set general goals for the various parts of the project, and collect metrics, you probably don't need to exercise a lot of control to meet your requirements

This is standard common sense, and the negative effects of over/micro-managing and red tape are recognized (and felt) not just in software but in all endeavours (even within families.) We know what to do about that in all forms of organizations and projects.

That people and project still fall far from the well-known solutions, that has more to do with human behavior, team dynamics and the economics of the incentives/rewards, disinsentives/penalties, (whether tangible or psychological, subjective or objective) than anything else.

Anonymous, with its faceless nature (that precludes the realities of disinsentives and penalties), and incoherent goals, has nothing to teach us or anyone engaged in a real-life project or mission subject to incentives and disinsentives, and the realities of identifiable human relations.

The article might be good to drive traffic (ZOMG, Anonymous in teh titl3!), I'll give the author that </journalistic-attention-whoring>

Micro-management shouldn't be the object. The object should be to develop a system to distribute best practices. This could apply to Anonymous or to software development where more experienced workers can share their best practices with less experienced workers. The other is to focus on the process of making critical decisions. The problem of decision making can only be solved by developing a methodology of decision making along with some basic rules to follow when making certain types of decisions.

If this is Anonymous then it's what is a legitimate vs illegitimate op. Emphasis should be on the process of decision making so that there is a standard process or guideline for choosing an op. If it's software development then developers need to know when to use certain designs and when not to use them or when certain tools work best and not others.

It's not a matter of control or not, it's a matter of separation of duties. The people who design the software don't necessarily have to be the people coding it. The design team could simply just design. The same could be said about Anon-ops, the people who develop the philosophical/ethical theory do not have to be the people who do the ops. The problem in my opinion with Anonymous is you have a lot of people involved who are doers but not very deep thinkers. As a result the ops are often successful but completely miss the point.

Separate the philosophical debate, decision making process, and theory from the coding, ops, and direct action. Same with development, separate the theoretical design from the development and programming. Let the best designers design whether they are the best developers or not as those are two different jobs and not all skilled developers are skilled at software design.

Re:Best practices (2)

luis_a_espinal (1810296) | about a year and a half ago | (#41136119)

the organization simply has an overall vision and flavor. Its members carry out acts based on that mission. And it has enjoyed a great deal of success — in part due to the lack of central control. Compare this to the level of control in many corporate development organizations. Some of that control is necessary, but often it's taken to gratuitous lengths. If you hire great developers, set general goals for the various parts of the project, and collect metrics, you probably don't need to exercise a lot of control to meet your requirements

This is standard common sense, and the negative effects of over/micro-managing and red tape are recognized (and felt) not just in software but in all endeavours (even within families.) We know what to do about that in all forms of organizations and projects.

That people and project still fall far from the well-known solutions, that has more to do with human behavior, team dynamics and the economics of the incentives/rewards, disinsentives/penalties, (whether tangible or psychological, subjective or objective) than anything else.

Anonymous, with its faceless nature (that precludes the realities of disinsentives and penalties), and incoherent goals, has nothing to teach us or anyone engaged in a real-life project or mission subject to incentives and disinsentives, and the realities of identifiable human relations.

The article might be good to drive traffic (ZOMG, Anonymous in teh titl3!), I'll give the author that </journalistic-attention-whoring>

Micro-management shouldn't be the object. The object should be to develop a system to distribute best practices.

First, best practices care about a lot of things beyond management. Secondly, best practices cannot be defined without first having something to compare (favorably) across an spectrum of things, and not just one spectrum, but a multiplicity of them (coding, process, management, etc.) In the management spectrum, micro-management sits on the polar opposite of management-related best practices. Ergo, one cannot describe or study best practices without first identifying and understanding the pathological case one has to avoid (at best) or directly deal with (at worst): in this case, micro-managing.

This could apply to Anonymous or to software development where more experienced workers can share their best practices with less experienced workers.

But herein lies the problem: anonymous and software development are not comparable, not unless you want to stretch the definition of problem statement. But that's just Reductio ad Absurdum just to fit an argument.

The other is to focus on the process of making critical decisions. The problem of decision making can only be solved by developing a methodology of decision making along with some basic rules to follow when making certain types of decisions.

Which problem of decision making are we referring to here?

If this is Anonymous then it's what is a legitimate vs illegitimate op. Emphasis should be on the process of decision making so that there is a standard process or guideline for choosing an op.

How does this draw lessons for software development, and to general projects and missions with identifiable players? Is it a legitimate argument that requires Anonymous as an example (which is what the article says, remember the topic)?

If it's software development then developers need to know when to use certain designs and when not to use them or when certain tools work best and not others.

But that's a myopic view of software development because software development does not work in a vacuum. There is an organizational context at play that will guide (or force) a developer's hand into what choices to make. One cannot talk about the former without considering the later.

It's not a matter of control or not, it's a matter of separation of duties.

Separations of duties are subject (for good or bad) to managerial control (or lack thereof, there is such a thing as bad managerial control by omission). Considering that the premise of the original article intends to draw lessons from Anonymous in the context of excessive control, then that puts micro-management as the main focus of the discussion.

The people who design the software don't necessarily have to be the people coding it. The design team could simply just design.

And that typically ends horribly in the form of architect astronauts [joelonsoftware.com] building crystal citadels [thedailywtf.com]. I've seen in the enterprise and in the defense sector. The moment you separate design from hand-to-hand development, you are typically doomed. Development gives immediate feedback about the consequences of architectural/design decisions.

You, as a designer (or as part of a design team) can create design blue prints send to junior developers (local or offshore), but you need to be substantially involved in day-to-day development (in addition to conducting frequent code reviews to ensure your juniors/minions are implemented the design as intended.) The only time I've seen such partitioning working out is when the designers are involved in coding as well. It rarely works otherwise.

The same could be said about Anon-ops, the people who develop the philosophical/ethical theory do not have to be the people who do the ops.

One can always draw analogies from anything. You stretch it enough, it leaves the realm of the practical and into the realm of the philosophical/metaphysical. The usefulness of the later dismisses as you stretch the argument. For the purposes of tackling the problems we have in software development (here on planet Earth), this discussion is an argumentative solution looking for a tangible problem.

Apply Occam's Razor please.

The problem in my opinion with Anonymous is you have a lot of people involved who are doers but not very deep thinkers.

The problem with Anonymous is that it exists.

Let the best designers design whether they are the best developers or not as those are two different jobs and not all skilled developers are skilled at software design.

SAY WHAT????

There is no such thing as a skilled developer that is not skilled at development. In fact, development entails design. Maybe you are thinking about coding. And then there are junior programmers who are good at coding, but do not have the experience of design (and that will change over time, hopefully) and there is the eternal code monkey.

Please do not conflate development with coding, nor draw dichotomies between development and design (since the former encompases the later in conjunction with coding.)

Re:Best practices (1)

zentigger (203922) | about a year and a half ago | (#41138429)

What you are talking about is really just parliamentary procedure: adopt a "body of rules, ethics, and customs governing meetings and other operations of clubs, organizations, legislative bodies, and other deliberative assemblies" -Wikipedia [wikipedia.org]

Most governments of the world today practice this in some form or other. You generally have the politicians who go about making the rules and the bureaucrats that are responsible for the implementation of those rules. Same goes for most corporations: Board sets policy, and the executive...well...executes it. Some do this better than others.

Time for Anonymous 2.0 (1)

elucido (870205) | about a year and a half ago | (#41135823)

And in the new version of Anonymous they need to agree on a process or methodology for deciding which ops to take and not to take, on deciding which principles to adopt and which not. Basic concepts like decision theory, a weighing of pros and cons, or benefit and risk, a set of principles from which to base everything around in language which is more concise, specific.

Anonymous is a good idea but unless it's continuously updated it's going to become outdated real fast if it isn't already. The same could be said of any software in development, it has to be properly designed from the start (Anonymous wasn't well designed at the foundation), and it has to be continuously updated.

Here is my idea, how about starting a project for an Anonymous Cyber Constitution? Some rules could be put into place to avoid collateral damage for instance so that stuff LulzSec was doing exposing innocent gamers private information could never be done in the name of Anonymous because it could be specifically outlawed in the Cyber Constitution.

Evolution renders version numbers irrelevant. (1)

VortexCortex (1117377) | about a year and a half ago | (#41136219)

And in the new version of Anonymous they need to agree on a process or methodology for deciding which ops to take and not to take, on deciding which principles to adopt and which not. Basic concepts like decision theory, a weighing of pros and cons, or benefit and risk, a set of principles from which to base everything around in language which is more concise, specific.

Anonymous is a good idea but unless it's continuously updated it's going to become outdated real fast if it isn't already.

I put it to you that their loose system is ever changing and evolving already, and that your assessment was invalid before even contemplated writing it down.

I see that despite everyone's brains being a loose collection of self organizing neurons, you're still shackled by the antiquated concept of top down structural design. Are you a Moron, or merely a Fool?

Valve (1)

yuriks (1089091) | about a year and a half ago | (#41135827)

This sounds a lot like the Valve model: Hire awesome people and let them set their own goals, with little to no management.

Re:Valve (1)

ghostdoc (1235612) | about a year and a half ago | (#41136305)

I had the same thought. After reading their introduction manual, it seems they work by the same model.

In theory this should work.. hire bright, motivated people, set them broad goals to achieve, don't let anything impair their motivation or the ability to achieve their goals, and you should out-perform conventional top-down management structures by an order of magnitude.

It'll be interesting to see how it works in practice as Valve scales up. So far so good, but they're about to come up against the likes of Google and Microsoft with their latest projects, so let's see if the theory holds true...

I love Anonymous (1)

FudRucker (866063) | about a year and a half ago | (#41135843)

the established powers that be in finance & govt need a nemesis to keep them in check, because the checks & balances meant to minimize corruption in the banking & investment and govt has failed miserably.

Kudos to Anonymous!

Anonymous needs a Constitution (1)

elucido (870205) | about a year and a half ago | (#41135941)

the established powers that be in finance & govt need a nemesis to keep them in check, because the checks & balances meant to minimize corruption in the banking & investment and govt has failed miserably.

Kudos to Anonymous!

The problem with Anonymous's design and I'll say it again, they need to thoroughly separate the think tank philosophical ethical debate theoretical portion from the practical operative coding hacking portion. Meaning if an Anonymous Cyber Constitution were to be developed then everyone should be able to Facebook like it to approve of it and it should be on a wiki so it can be continuously updated and debated as new information comes in. There should be constant debate about certain subjects regarding philosophical principles. Also they need to develop standardization of processes, best practices, that sorta stuff because right now Anonymous has very little discipline on the practical operative hacker end of the spectrum even though that is the end of the spectrum making most of the noise in the media.

Right now they are hit and miss. Sometimes they do something which seems to hit the nail on the head and other times they do really stupid ops which make people question why Anonymous should even exist.

Re:Anonymous needs a Constitution (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41136455)

>everyone should be able to Facebook like it to approve of it
Facebook by its nature of data mining is non-anonymous. The "Like/+1" would truely works if there is a "Dislike/-1".

Re:I love Anonymous (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41136061)

If you think Anonymous keeps them in check you're a moron. Anonymous does nothing but allow lawmakers and powerful lobbyists to get stricter and stricter laws passed and give them more control of the Internet.

Re:I love Anonymous (1)

FudRucker (866063) | about a year and a half ago | (#41137819)

you're the moron, whats to control or restrict? either you have free speech on the internet or you dont, there is no varying degrees of free speech like the changing the water volume on a faucet by turning the knob, the govt wont mess with the goose that lays the golden eggs.

History backs this up... (2)

McCat (1438893) | about a year and a half ago | (#41135847)

I remember a /. comment from a week or two back that mentioned a colleague/peer who was told he had to submit reports on the number of new lines of code produced every week. Through editing and refining the software, he ended up with a net loss of 20,000 lines of code (and submitted -20,000 in his report). Ultimately, he ended up submitting weekly reports that didn't really "mean" anything-- but was never questioned because his work was good and profitable. Just this week my supervisor was gone on vacation. Our department ran more smoothly than it has for months because my peers and I took care of all our necessary duties and paperwork without having to deal with the stress of a boss fretting about reports getting submitted and said boss being fired for insufficient job performance. However, while the principle holds true, I think there are guidelines required for it to be the most practical principle by which to run a company/department. For example, employees need to have firm directional guidance for their work-- just no heavy-handed iron-fistedness.

Re:History backs this up... (0)

DaveV1.0 (203135) | about a year and a half ago | (#41138037)

I remember a /. comment from a week or two back that mentioned a colleague/peer who was told he had to submit reports on the number of new lines of code produced every week. Through editing and refining the software, he ended up with a net loss of 20,000 lines of code (and submitted -20,000 in his report).

The me see if I have the straight. He was told to submit a report on "the number of new lines of code produced". He didn't produce -20,000 lines of new code. He "edited and refined" the code which could mean many things including writing new code to replace old poorly written code. If he replaced 30,000 lines of crap spaghetti code with 10,000 of new, tight code, he produced10,000 lines of new code to replace 30,000 lines of old code. What he did not do is produce -20,000 lines of new code.

In other words, according your summary above, he did not follow direction in reporting which means he failed to answer the question asked. If I were his manager, I would have seriously considered firing the "colleague/peer" you mention for being stupid and not following directions. At the very least, I would have had a very direct conversation with him about why he couldn't follow simple work reporting directions.

Re:History backs this up... (2)

McCat (1438893) | about a year and a half ago | (#41138701)

I think your comment illustrates how people like you can "learn from Anonymous."

Big difference between FOSS and corporations (1)

O('_')O_Bush (1162487) | about a year and a half ago | (#41135859)

The problem with his argument is that he assumes it is possible to do any of those things. All developers aren't great developers, and the great ones aren't likely to want to go anywhere but Google. Instead, you have mediocre developers to deal with.

Neither are you able to set goals for sections of the projects, as customer's requirements often change. Developing something for consumers is easy, the hard projects are the ones being contracted.

Finally, the biggest difference that makes this advice near worthless to companies is that unlike his OSS project, companies need to turn a profit. Guaranteeing this and making sure devs aren't spinning their wheels for stupid reasons is why they need managing.

Better advice is that managers need to be those serving the developers and making sure they have what they need to do their job, rather than developers being forced to do management's whims.

Re:Big difference between FOSS and corporations (1)

Torp (199297) | about a year and a half ago | (#41135909)

"the great ones aren't likely to want to go anywhere but Google."
After the famous Marissa Meyer statements that she doesn't believe in burnout and that you can work 130 hour weeks all the time, why would anyone want to go to Google? Note that she is at Yahoo now, but those statements are from the time when she was working at Google...

Re:Big difference between FOSS and corporations (1)

O('_')O_Bush (1162487) | about a year and a half ago | (#41135983)

Google was used as hyperbole. That point is true for any large and prestigious software development house, that the vast majority of developers do not work for.

What Black can learn from White (4, Insightful)

tverbeek (457094) | about a year and a half ago | (#41135869)

The only lesson here is that creating chaos doesn't require any kind of organizational structure (which is almost tautological). Producing something orderly is a whole different question, and unless you happen to have an infinite number of monkeys at your disposal, the chance of that happening in a finite period of time is pretty damn improbable.

Re:What Black can learn from White (1)

VortexCortex (1117377) | about a year and a half ago | (#41136271)

I find it amazing that you were able to produce this ordered collection of words in a finite period of time given that your mind began as a chaotic collection of neurons. Pray tell, do you reject the concept of self organization only so long as such concepts are unapparent to you, or do you simply dismiss anything out of hand if it doesn't agree with your immediate perception of reality? Furthermore, I note that you remain ignorant of several works developed by the very unorganized structure you claim could not have developed them. Educate yourself, lest you further prove yourself a fool.

Re:What Black can learn from White (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41136701)

Mod parent -1, Delusional.

Re:What Black can learn from White (1)

MacGyver2210 (1053110) | about a year and a half ago | (#41136351)

I will waste the mod point I used above to tell you: it actually requires quite a great deal of coordination and collective agreement to do what Anonymous does. If you have ever tried to promote an event via Facebook or email, I'm sure you know what a daunting task it can be to organize a large number of people via a non-face-to-face method like chat, the internet, email, etc. I'm sure Anonymous and its activities could provide material for a panacea of sociological studies, and I can't figure out why more serious research isn't being done into their organization and interaction protocols.

The fact that Anonymous is able to get literally thousands of people to agree on a common target, launch a program(which they developed), and stick with running it for more than a few seconds with little to no feedback from it is truly a remarkable feat of organization. I would say I am not as impressed with their programming skills, which are moderate at best. The programs they develop are about as complex as a first-year tools programmer would make, with a single straightforward intent. Their 'hacking' is largely nothing more than exploiting poor security in scripts and databases, though I can't deny its effectiveness at exposing 'hidden' information. Still, the way they are able to get their shit together and move people to a common goal, even if they are angry teenaged people, is pretty impressive.

Re:What Black can learn from White (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41136761)

Promoting an organized event is daunting.

Inciting a mob to lash out at something and passing out torches... not so much.

Re:What Black can learn from White (2)

DaveV1.0 (203135) | about a year and a half ago | (#41138195)

The fact that Anonymous is able to get literally thousands of people to agree on a common target, launch a program(which they developed), and stick with running it for more than a few seconds with little to no feedback from it is truly a remarkable feat of organization

That is a false statement. A hand of people decide to attack a target. Thousands of sheeple out to stick it to the Man are running the program with little or no knowledge of what the program does, how it does it, or who is actually being attacked. The programs are developed by a small group of people and not the thousands of sheeple.

Basically, Anonymous consist of a very small group of deciders, some or all of whom are the technically skilled group who created the tools, and a massive group of idiotic followers who simply do what they are told when they are told so they will feel like they are empowered when they are just sheep. These same followers think that DDoS the CIA's public website is the same as hacking into the CIA's internal network and servers. They mistake tearing down posters for doing real damage.

That is your "having their shit together".

Yeah, if your goal is anarchy (4, Insightful)

Dachannien (617929) | about a year and a half ago | (#41135873)

And it has enjoyed a great deal of success - in part due to the lack of central control.

But Anonymous hasn't really done anything that requires the true contributive efforts of more than a few people at a time. LOIC doesn't count, because "here, run this" isn't in the same ballpark as actually contributing code to a project. The person/people who wrote LOIC still exercised control over the actual software and made decisions about what features went in and what didn't.

Re:Yeah, if your goal is anarchy (1)

fermion (181285) | about a year and a half ago | (#41136459)

Which is to say it is much easier to be an obstructionist or a destroyer or even just copy than it is to create something innovative.

Here is my thoughts. While I am not saying anything about the products, I am always suspicious of buying products that are represented by non professional sales staff. My feeling is that if one has a product, or brand, and it is policy to just let any violent convicted criminal from off the street represent your brand or product, then what does that say about the supply chain, the quality control, the aftermarket support, of that product? It may be good, but it may not be, and clearly there is not a lot of concern beyond just regular product liability issues.

So this is what a good manager does and how a firm making innovative products should be different than Anonymous. The manager should gather a group of people and provide a structure in which each person is going to be able to maximize creativity and support from the other members while minimizing destructive interactions. This is going to make some of the members mad because they want to get their way and some people don't like it when other are doing something they don't agree with. In anonymous you get to destroy others who don't share you point of view. In a productive environment you have to assume the manager knows what is going on, or leave. The manager may not know what is going on, in which case why would one want to work at a firm with incompetent manager. Starts ones own firm.

Second, the manager will make sure people are operating a little outside of their conforts zone. That means doing a little bit to grow as a person, a designer, a software developer. Not always doing everything in the exact same way. That is how one effects change. Not by destroying things one does not like, but by supplying superior original alternatives. I am thinking the iBM selectric typewriter which replaced the traditional individual keybar with a golf ball design. Sure something like it had been though up 100 years ago, but the IBM had to push outside the confort zone to get the new typewrite out. Or Apple with the GUI interface and cartoon trash can. A toy that would never work.

Wrong strategy (1)

BigSlowTarget (325940) | about a year and a half ago | (#41135875)

Except of course that for an attack only one attempt ever need work properly to get the information desired. For a development project the whole thing better work and somebody should even be able to maintain it after whoever slapped the thing together has moved on to ruining something else.

But if you hire great developers... (1)

Torp (199297) | about a year and a half ago | (#41135877)

Any method will work, as long as you don't piss them off enough to leave for greener pastures.
Agile, waterfall, they will make anything work.
Unfortunately there's a limit to the number of awesome people you can find.
When someone presents a new development method that does not include the phrase "if you hire awesome people", please wake me up.

I've said this before NUMEROUS times here on /. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41135885)

The 1 good thing "hacker/cracker" types online do is spot holes that need "shoring up"... but, that's about it!

* Making lemonade out of lemons on this note is all!

APK

P.S.=> They MAY be some of the better "pen testers" out there in essence, & there's no getting rid of them easily, so make the best of it - So, again/once more:

What they expose via various exploits obviously needs re-examination & repair OR just reinforcement, so it cannot happen again (hopefully)...

... apk

Re:I've said this before NUMEROUS times here on /. (1)

jones_supa (887896) | about a year and a half ago | (#41136419)

The 1 good thing "hacker/cracker" types online do is spot holes that need "shoring up"... but, that's about it!

Is it always necessary? For example, if the attacks to the Sony PSN network were left undone, where would we be now? We can't tell for sure, but possibly the network would be humming along just fine, no one would have their credit card numbers stolen, and Sony would have avoided the cleanup of all the mess. So would the world actually be collectively in a better state?

Even if the cracking is be done in an ethical manner, that is by not destroying anything or leaking username/password lists, maybe just leaving a "haha you got cracked" message...even then the service provider can't for sure know if the integrity of the system has somehow been threatened, and it just causes unnecessary worry.

Necessary? No - just "unstoppable"... apk (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41136511)

As I said earlier & using your example of the SONY network: Now that it came out & it was a "doable" exploit?

Then, it can be examined & fixed/reinforced, so it CANNOT happen again (hopefully).

* That's all... once you're aware of a problem, you can fix it!

APK

P.S.=> The MOST DANGEROUS ones are the ones you don't KNOW about... & what "anonymous" & the like do? They MAKE IT KNOWN...

A good thing?

Yes, & No!

However/Again: At least those victimized, once they ARE truly AWARE of it happening can examine the problem, & thus, have an opportunity to fix it - you don't get THAT with the exploits you have NO CLUE of & those? They're the worst...

...apk

Re:I've said this before NUMEROUS times here on /. (1)

tlhIngan (30335) | about a year and a half ago | (#41137551)

Is it always necessary? For example, if the attacks to the Sony PSN network were left undone, where would we be now? We can't tell for sure, but possibly the network would be humming along just fine, no one would have their credit card numbers stolen, and Sony would have avoided the cleanup of all the mess. So would the world actually be collectively in a better state?

Or just an illusion of one.

Sony shut down PSN when they discovered that a bunch of hacked PS3s were accessing and downloading DLC via the developer network. For free.

Investigations into the system then revealed that hackers have been going in and out and retrieving "securely stored data". It was found post-hack, not released pre-emptively. Sony found out people were downloading stuff for free, shut down their network to prevent it from happening, Then in an attempt to fix it, discovered they've been breached.

Or, the breach happened, and Sony failed to detect it. Even then there were vulnerabilities - until Sony started changing how PSN logins were handled, people could login to PSN from hacked consoles and cheat online.

If it weren't for the greedy people downloading free DLC, everything would be humming along fine, and people would be wondering why their credit cards and such were being charged, or extra bills appearing the mail, etc.

Or the other hacks and such - like credit card processors being breached. We know about them because it's reported, but it oculd've been covered up, giving a false impression that things are fine.

So - would you rather not know if your information has been compromised but things appear fine, or know that it was?

WikiCode (1)

wvmarle (1070040) | about a year and a half ago | (#41135893)

This sounds very much like WikiPedia but then for software.

Everyone can contribute to the project, and change or delete existing parts. Now how this would ever really work for code I don't know - making sure it still compiles after any changes is just the first issue that I can think of - but it'd be interesting if someone can figure out a way to set up a site where such a project could take shape.

Though having a central repository for code is in itself already a form of central control... just like WikiPedia which used to be a free-for-all, and now also has more and more restrictions on what users can do, down to complete locks on certain pages.

Vision (1)

Max Romantschuk (132276) | about a year and a half ago | (#41135923)

Often telling people what to do is worse than having a well defined vision and inspiring a self-organising team to work towards it.

But there are no silver bullets in software development. The hard stuff is still what it is, hard.

Nonsense (1)

ilsaloving (1534307) | about a year and a half ago | (#41135939)

Development of major software projects require discipline and expertise from all it's contributors. There needs to be a clear goal, both overall as well as what each individual contributor does. Each contributor also needs to feel that they have ownership of their piece.

If a company fosters an environment where the above is not true, then yeah the project is going to run into problems.

Yes, gratuitous control (what used to be called 'micromanagement') can be a great way to hurt a projects long term success, but to say that Anonymous has things to teach the general development community is absurd. Anonymous is essentially an anarchy. Sure, what they do requires some coordination between individuals, but there's a huge difference between a handful of hackers spending a day or three hacking into a company under the cover of a DDOS attack and a group of individuals that work together every day for months to put together a product to solve specific problems for their customers.

There are so many things wrong and out of touch with this article that I can't decide where to begin. It sounds like the author was nothing more than a really lousy manager. What he needs is management training, not random perceived lessons from a random nebulous collective.
 

open source terrorism? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41135947)

Sure, doing something in Anonymous' name that even a minority of "members" dislike would probably be a tactical mistake

When one of your developers goes rogue, using fear and intimidation isn't an option available to most open source projects. The idea that you can apply anything about Anonymous to development is a pretty far stretch.

re: What Developers Can Learn From Anonymous (1)

CFBMoo1 (157453) | about a year and a half ago | (#41135973)

For all we know the developers could already be anonymous since we don't have an exact list of who anonymous is and the public arrests may have been just sacrificial lambs so to speak.

What developers can learn from Slashdot (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41135989)

Not a goddamned thing, lol

One of the few articles (1)

DevotedSkeptic (2715017) | about a year and a half ago | (#41135997)

this is one of the few articles i've read where it sounds like someone actually understands a little bit about anonymous. Every time flocks news, or msnbc reported about some activity attributed to anonymous, they would talk about law enforcement going after anon's command and control, or leadership...not understanding that there is no leadership. When a lot of strangers get together and are motivated to complete a goal, it can get done, and I believe that is the main point and I believe it was made.

Infoworld... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41136009)

The problem isn't anonymous, nor red tape, nor excessive anything.

Infoworld needs to fill their magazine - and when there is nothing to report, they make it up.

The only shame here, is that it somehow made it to slashdot.

Great Deal of Success (1)

Martin S. (98249) | about a year and a half ago | (#41136091)

Success in the same way the Mafia can be considered a success.

Re:Great Deal of Success (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41136481)

More like a bunch of arsonists randomly setting buildings on fire.

fines (1)

a2wflc (705508) | about a year and a half ago | (#41136199)

My company has faced fines of 100s of thousands and even millions of dollars in fines and even a threat of a 5 year ban on internet presence in a country. We've also had a $50K project cost 20x as much because of a "minor" bad decision by a developer.

Anonymous doesn't do product development (1)

AutumnLeaf (50333) | about a year and a half ago | (#41136221)

Sorry, but numerous, disjointed visions of what passes for good user-interface design, along with different standards for reliability doesn't sound like something I'm interested in at all. Especially if every user-interface panel requires me to push the "I'M A CHARGIN' MA LAZER" button before pressing "OK".

I'm getting sick of people generating web-hits by relating anything and everything to Anonymous.

Just one thing to recall (1)

AHuxley (892839) | about a year and a half ago | (#41136269)

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/03/lulzsec-snitch/ [wired.com]
If you can find a group to 'join' the Feds have joined long long ago.
"has been working undercover for the feds since the FBI arrested him without fanfare last June"
Like a protester in East Germany you will be surrounded by informants, deep undercover LEO and the added fun of vigilantes (alone/private/gov funded)
The problem is your looking at 28 years and usually have an hour with your lawyer to take the ~90% conviction court option or make a long list of your friends and become an informant....
From a developer perspective its like your boss was in talks with a big brand and sold out months ago.
Your ideas where sold long ago.

Wrong Title (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41136477)

"What Developers Can Learn From Anonymous" is the wrong title. What you want to say is "What Managers Can Learn From Anonymous", because what's the use if developers in a company with tight controls have a good idea that's never implemented.

Slightly relevant thing I once heard: (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41136543)

Saying you're part Anonymous is like saying you're punk rock. Anyone can say they are, but there are songs that are clearly punk rock and things that claim to be but are clearly not in the spirit of it.

A pox on your "collect metrics" (1)

Rogerborg (306625) | about a year and a half ago | (#41136735)

Every time in my career that I've been asked to "provide metrics", I've asked (friendly like) "What decisions will be taken based on them? What will we do differently? What can we do differently?"

I've never, ever, received any answer other than "Can't change anything, but Bossman wants them".

So you can take your metrics and shove them right up your ISO 14001. They're very likely to be a waste of time demanded by a waste of oxygen.

Re:A pox on your "collect metrics" (1)

wmbetts (1306001) | about a year and a half ago | (#41137841)

I guess I'm in a lucky situation. I work pretty much in an autonomous dev group. We got all the requirements up front, but after that we were left to our own devices. I've been there close to a month and so far the only metric is "you said feature X would be done by Y. Where is it!" and I'm perfectly okay with that metric. The only reason I'm where I'm at now is because of the structure. It's pretty much what the summery describes as being "good", but to me it's always seemed to be "the right way to do things". I don't go around telling you how to do your job so don't come over to my desk and tell me how to do mine or measuring productivity in some bullshit way like LoC counting. If you want to come talk about bugs in the software, video games, or anything else I'll be happy to talk to you though :).

lol wut (1)

Alex Belits (437) | about a year and a half ago | (#41136891)

Sure, doing something in Anonymous' name that even a minority of "members" dislike would probably be a tactical mistake,

Most things "done by Anonymous" were followed by massive Internet flame outbursts directed toward the people who performed them -- supposed "newfags" who are "not really Anonymous". I think, the only action that did not provoke such reaction was the original Habbo Hotel invasion (of "Pool is closed due to AIDS" fame).

No the best example (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41136921)

I think the Linux kernel development is better example of colaborative development. The bazar (vs. cathedral) way works great for production, the agile methodologies has appropiated this anarchic success.

The great success of Anonymous? (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about a year and a half ago | (#41137093)

They prove you to don't need a fixed goal or purpose to do something. We can do things just for the hell of it. Don't assume that we need a reason to do something. It could be that we exist just because... no end game needed. That's my fantasy, and I'm sticking to it!

Will this get more women into computer science? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41137231)

Nothing else has worked. Maybe Anonymous can do it?

Learning from terrorists? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41137791)

Sure. Sounds very sensible.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...