Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
IBM

IBM Donates Parts of Rational to Open Source 168

Posted by ScuttleMonkey from the swiss-army-knife-of-dreams dept.
slashbob22 writes "IBM has decided to contribute portions of the Rational Unified Process to the Eclipse Foundation. From the article: 'RUP is a vast collection of methods and best practices for promoting quality and efficiency throughout software development projects. IBM's donation will also provide a foundation architecture and Web-based tools for the industry to engineer, collaborate on, share and reuse software development best practices.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

IBM Donates Parts of Rational to Open Source More

IBM Donates Parts of Rational to Open Source

Comments Filter:

  • heh (Score:5, Funny)

    by Ooblek ( 544753 ) on Wednesday October 12, 2005 @06:02PM (#13777108)
    If you can't sell it....DONATE IT!!!
    • Opera is the best browser out there and has been for years, but no one was buying it so they first gave free coupons away for it here on Slashdot a couple months back. Then they enjoyed the press so figured let's just give it away for free with no ads.

      Granted, Firefox is excellent but Opera has been amazing for at least half a decade and is useable on everything from PCs to cell telephones.

    • Irrational (Score:5, Funny)

      by yintercept ( 517362 ) on Wednesday October 12, 2005 @06:51PM (#13777424) Homepage Journal
      Giving away half a product away may not seem rational, but it is shrewd. You have the engine, would you like to buy the key.

      As for for the decision to give half the product away, I understand IBM was thinking of giving away the square root of the product away ... Now, THAT would have been irrational.
    • Wasn't the original Eclipse source code donated by IBM as well?
  • I've used Rational(tm) before and thought it was great at what it claimed to do. Much like UNIX(tm) and GNU/Linux(tm) applications, it did one thing and it did it well.

    Now, combining Rational with Eclipse(tm) should make the latter even better!
    • Rational what? They're a company... they make several products.

    • Re:This is VERY GOOD news (Score:4, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 12, 2005 @06:09PM (#13777162)
      You DO know that this is about the "Rational Unified Process" and NOT Rational Rose, right? RUP is the development process that Rational tries to sell you on when you sell you the Rose UML tool. If you buy into RUP, they can manage to send you tons of consultants and sell you even more costly software.

      RUP is a step up from the Waterfall model, but it's certainly not the greatest thing out there.
      • RUP is a step up from the Waterfall model, but it's certainly not the greatest thing out there.

        It's obvious you have a limited view on what the RUP process is... RUP is in the Agile category of develpment processes and can be tailored from basically no ceremony (design documents, traceability, etc.) to high-levels of ceremony. The problem with RUP is that it's been heavily used in the Government sector, which historically has been at the far-right on the ceremony scale; many people have a vast misconceptio

        • Re:This is VERY GOOD news (Score:4, Funny)

          by AuMatar ( 183847 ) on Wednesday October 12, 2005 @06:53PM (#13777442)
          In otherwords, its a buzzword generator with no real content.
        • > RUP is in the Agile category of develpment processes

          got to disagree here

          RUP is heavy as hell, it's just that since XP took off at the same time the RUP folks have tried to make RUP do it all. So, sometimes they'll tell you that it can encompass agile methodologies - even though their iterations have so much overhead they really are more like waterfall phases than agile iterations.

          Anhow, the way it pans out is that you typically end up with is a $100k consultant bill as well as months of work to chop a
          • Ugh, god no. There are plenty of reasons to hate RUP, but there are equally as many reasons to hate XP. Considering that XP is tiny in comparison to RUP, I'd say that weighs more heavily against XP.

            (if I might recommend: it's not precisely unbiased, but there's more than a little truth in it, and it'll make you laugh. Extreme Programming Refactored [softwarereality.com].)
            • Well - I can agree with you that i've got concerns about XP:
              - poor use of patterns
              - poor use of easily reusable code
              - poor use of technical domain knowledge (everything is reinvented with each project)
              - poor consideration of long-range architecture issues
              - absolute dependency on skilled staff

              But in spite of the above, I've seen XP projects be far more successful than RUP projects. Sure, they may need massive refactoring 1-2 years la
      • I have been examining the Rational Unified Process (RUP) quite intensly, and
        I have to agree.

        Firstly, let me say that since 10,000 organisations out there use the thing, it would seem that it is I that is missing something, hence my frustration.

        How come, in the entire Rational Unified Process, no-one actually codes the software?

        I mean it has been analysed and designed, and documented, and modelled, and designed again until no stone is left unturned, and BAM! suddenly we are implmenting software? Am I the onl
        • That's because the code stage is handled in India.
        • Check out any textbook on software development. For that matter, check a thesaurus. "Build" and "Construct" are the same thing. "Code" is actually a commonly accepted slang term for "writing computer code," and not proper to use in such a formal document.

        • I mean it has been analysed and designed, and documented, and modelled, and designed again until no stone is left unturned, and BAM! suddenly we are implmenting software? Am I the only guy who thinks this is too good to be true? Nowhere in the Rational Unified Process can I find any diagram, reference to, or project plan, about the "Build" or "Code" stage. Yes, I know there is a "Construct phase" but nothing inside it actually talks about putting hands on keyboard and coding.

          You're probably confused by RU

      • You make it sound like the programming equivalent of scientology..

    • Not really (Score:2, Informative)

      by fprog ( 552772 )
      Well, maybe, but IBM Rational Rose XP is worst usability wise
      then the old Rational Rose.

      Also, if Rational Rose XP is a plug-in for Eclipse, but Rose is 30x the size of eclipse...
      which one is really the plug-in?

      And why do you need Eclipse?!
      I think it was just a fast way for them to bloat up Eclipse,
      and reuse existing Eclipse parts to recrate Rational Rose XP.

      It crash less often than the old, but it eats way more memory.

      For instance, you cannot create some non-implementation abstract specification scenario di
      • Look at the 80 character line lengths in the parent post and thus the premature line breaks.

        You obviously copy+pasted this post from somewhere, which isn't cool to do unless you properly attribute it.

      • It's a great post. You sum up all the reasons why IBM would actually donate RUP: make sure everyone can use it - and if needed be, have anyone contribute to the code at their liking. You can now yourself fix all the little worries you have listed.

    • From TFA:

      "RUP is a vast collection of methods and best practices for promoting quality and efficiency throughout software development projects.

      Yawn. Books and stuff.

      • Yawn. Books and stuff.

        Actually, RUP is delivered as a set of HTML pages, with a search/navigation applet. You drop it onto your disk, point your browser to the index page and you're off.

        The process describes how to organize a project from the start (business analysis) to the rollout of the application. For each phase in the project, it defines a set of "artifacts" and guidelines (who is responsible, what should be in there, is it mandatory...). Apart from that, there are a couple of examples and a set

  • Hard to Understand (Score:4, Interesting)

    by someguy456 ( 607900 ) <someguy456@phreaker.net> on Wednesday October 12, 2005 @06:06PM (#13777145) Homepage Journal
    As an intern at IBM this summer, I found that some of the regulars themselves didn't know what RUP was. In particular, some claimed it was simply a process to follow, some linked it with a special program, others claimed complete ignorance, and others simply waved it off as labeling the pre-existing procedures. I still wonder what RUP is all about...

    • OK OK I'll admit it -- coders are LAZY my friend (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Work Account ( 900793 ) on Wednesday October 12, 2005 @06:13PM (#13777179) Journal
      Look, we are and I'll admit that. I'm not afraid to criticize myself and other developers:

      - Me and other coders are often eager to jump right into projects instead of designing them thoroughly (using RUP for example)
      - Other coders and I often get bored after I figure out the hard part and say the rest is trivial

      It's more of a work ethic. Also, my friends in the gaming industry (Electronic Arts(tm) for example) work 60-80 hour weeks, so it's understandable that they seek out shortcuts.

      Let's agree to work a little harder and/or smarter and not skimp on design! USE RATIONAL!

      • Re:OK OK I'll admit it -- coders are LAZY my frien (Score:5, Insightful)

        by SlowMovingTarget ( 550823 ) on Wednesday October 12, 2005 @06:40PM (#13777351) Homepage

        First, I have personally used the RUP successfully. The success was in spite of the process, not because of it. The excellent people I had on my team made the work a success, and not a paperwork-on-rails approach to software development.

        On the upside, the RUP is geared toward control of iterative projects. On the downside, it treats every diagram you draw as though it were as valuable as the working software you really intend to produce. It also adds artificial divisions between roles in the process (the architect sends X to the analyst who elaborates it and sends it on to the developer who extrudes Y...). It tends to reduce communication among team members, and between team members and stakeholders. It's original intent seems to have been to give all the diagrams in the UML a reason for being (and by extension, Rose).

        Show me a failing unit test and I'll show you a low-level design awaiting implementation. Running code trumps "managed artifacts" any day.

        • yeah, unit tests kick RUPs overbloated process into the wilderness

          I cannot get over the idea that OSS projects have been suffering from a lack of the RUP. We have been making do with distributed SCM, email and wiki collaboration, bugzilla, xUnit testing and plaintext artifacts. Oh, and well documented code.

          Now that we have the RUP, we can stop all that and do fancy UML pictures showing how use cases are implemented instead. I am so overjoyed,.
          • ...I actually agree with you.

            However, I always saw RUP presented as an array of smaller, compatible processes within the iterative process. IOW you adopt an iterative cycle in your collective workflow (very easy by itself) and pick what you need out of the (admittedly large and overspecific) RUP. Or you take the whole RUP and 'knock-out' what you don't need. RUP the standard anticipates this, even though RUP the product could provide more help in this regard.

            With that said, I believe that FOSS projects have
        • ...and between team members and stakeholders.
          Dude, you said "my team" and "stakeholder." Throw in some stuff about "Core Values" and "takeaways" and we'll know you're a manager.

        • Re:OK OK I'll admit it -- coders are LAZY my frien (Score:5, Insightful)

          by jdray ( 645332 ) on Wednesday October 12, 2005 @08:09PM (#13777993) Homepage Journal
          While what I understand of RUP is that it tends to go overboard with extreme implementation of basic ideas, the root of their labor division is in the excellent practice of not allowing one coder to push his code changes all the way through to distribution without some amount of validation by another set of eyes.

          I'm part of the enterprise change control staff at my company, and I can tell you that the more tightly we implement controls, the more often we discover that the problems that arise are from developers implementing untested changes without authorization. If you force them to submit change documents, and don't let the changes get into the code base until the change has been authorized (for that matter, don't let them code until the change has been authorized), then have someone else test the changed software before the code gets pushed up, you've got a three-legged stool to stand on, and you have an auditable process that maintains accountability.

          I bet if you look at the submission process of any successful open source project, you'll find the same constructs, maybe just not called out so formally. The basic ideas aren't bad, just some implementations. RUP gives you a framework to design your procedures with.
          • > I'm part of the enterprise change control staff at my company, and I can tell you that the more tightly
            > we implement controls, the more often we discover that the problems that arise are from developers
            > implementing untested changes without authorization. If you force them to submit change documents, and
            > don't let the changes get into the code base until the change has been authorized (for that matter, don't
            > let them code until the change has been authorized), then have someone else tes

          • If the development team is undisciplined enough to require a formal process, then RUP is one of the least harmful heavyweight processes. But make no mistake, it is heavyweight.

            The truth of the matter is that you can automate much of the gating needed to keep "unauthorized" code from making it into production. The key to your statement is that developers were adding "untested" changes to the code base. Part of the demand of agile processes is that you write code to make a test pass (whether this be an ac

            • The change documents simply set the agenda for the discussion.

              You've sat in on our change control meetings, then?

              I'd honestly like to see a lot more automation in our basic development process. We're using Serena Dimensions as our code repository and change management tool, and it supposedly has command line-based APIs to use for a lot of automation, but the process is so convoluted and the system so delicate that the slightest mishap means a major recovery process for the whole database. Henceforth w

        • Running code trumps "managed artifacts" any day.

          Unless that running code happens to be on Mars, and is not quite running as expected. Then those managed artifacts become very useful.

      • To quote Larry Wall, "the three great virtues of a programmer are Laziness, Impatience and Hubris".
    • RUP is, in fact, a process to follow. It stands for Rational Unified Process, and defines a set of Roles, Activities, and tools used to write software. It goes into extremely exacting detail, which is, in my opinion, it's biggest weakness: unless you've memorized huge chunks of RUP, you spend a lot of your time trying to remember how to follow it. Once you have, you've spent too much time.

      The activities described by RUP are supported to varying degrees by the various Rational tools: Rose for modeling, Clear

  • Depends on the "Subset" (Score:4, Informative)

    by Deinhard ( 644412 ) on Wednesday October 12, 2005 @06:07PM (#13777147)
    I've been a RUP user/proponent for several years. This may be, as the article alludes, a shot in the arm for improved processes. However, it remains to be seen just what the "subset" of RUP entails. RUP can be an unwieldy process that, if used in the (lowercase "e") extreme, make development slower and more "process-laden."

    However, from what I've seen lately out of some shops that are using more "modern" approaches (and failing miserably) this could be welcome relief.

  • The Rational Unified Process is excelent (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ElMiguel ( 117685 ) on Wednesday October 12, 2005 @06:09PM (#13777161)

    That's why Rational Rose is such an efficient, consistent, bug-free software.
    </sarcasm>

    I don't know about other people's experiences, but some of the worst pieces of software I've ever used have been CASE tools (you know the type: UML, lifecycle, etc). Kinds of make you question the usefulness of those tools and processes.

    • Re:The Rational Unified Process is excelent (Score:4, Insightful)

      by arudloff ( 564805 ) * on Wednesday October 12, 2005 @06:14PM (#13777191) Homepage
      Kinds of make you question the usefulness of those tools and processes.

      If your relying on the tools, then your probably missing the point of the process. Tools can aid you in the process, but a process doesn't require tools (not even a commercial 'product' like RUP).
      • Tell me, how can you do "Computer Aided Software Engineering" without tools?

      • The tools stand for the process though. If they used RUP to create the tools, then you would expect the quality of the process to be reflected in the tools. If they did not use the process to create the tools you need to ask why not.

        So while I agree you don't need the tools for the process, I judge the process itself (I have never used RUP for a project) in part by the tools created with it.

        Though really all this proves is the process isn't a silver bullet, something Fred Brooks predicted years before

    • I have no clue what sort of organization would benefit from RUP. It's a top heavy, brittle process with very little room for customers' "changing their mind" which of course is notorious in most software development scenarios, making RUP the most stifling, overweight, expensive way to develop software I can think of.

      It does require an army of "Architects" in various "Roles" so obviously Accenture con$ultants love it to no end.

      I'm willing to bet any money that RUP sunk more development projects than it s

    • It took me 20 minutes to save my first CASE tool work, I couldn't figure out how to save!

      The only 'practice what it preaches' tool I have used is DENIM from phys.cam.ac.uk - it is a joy to use and learn, a little complex but very expert, and improving. Also try DASHER a fun little alternative input device that I just love to use.

      A wise programmer once told me, on a subject of methodologies, extreme programming, UML and other design practices and work ideals:

      There is no substitute for writing good code, conc
      • I dropped my fancy pants eclipse 'plugged to the nines' IDE

        You can use as much or as little of a tool as you want.

        I use Ecplise because it removes the druggery of typing in get/set methods. Type in your class attributes, right click on one, choose Source/Generate Getter/Setters, click on the ones you want generated, and tens of lines of code are created for you, including JavaDoc and comments if you so wish.

        Not to mention auto-completion for class names, variable names, method names. By having auto-complete

        • Re:+6 insightful if you will (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Taladar ( 717494 ) on Wednesday October 12, 2005 @09:06PM (#13778328)
          Did it ever occur to you that a language that needs auto-generated code is fundamentally flawed (too low-level)?
        • I also used eclipse pre version 1, in around '98 until version 3.0. I migrated from visual age, to forte, then netbeans (yep) and then to eclipse (some time in JDeveloper, which was not too bad in latest version actually - great for oracle + J2EE development, now I hate EJB's though). I know all about the features you are talking about, and how the cvs integration changed in each version, and all sorts of great features.

          I still use it frequently outside my main project build. But the methodology I now use i
    • I remember when Rational demoed Rose to us. They said "here's the actual diagram for Rose itself" and put up UML on the projector. They zoomed in and out during the presentation, and all the managers in the room were going "oooh aaah".

      However, all the real programmers were aghast at the horrible spiderweb. I don't know if it was a good design or not, because you could not tell. They had EVERY class with every member and association. You couldn't make sense of it.

  • Huh? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by 0WaitState ( 231806 ) on Wednesday October 12, 2005 @06:13PM (#13777184)
    IBM is "donating" the methods of RUP to open source projects? I thought IBM liked open source?

    As far as RUP goes, it's kind of like communism. Looks good in theory, but goes all pear-shaped when real human beings get involved. Pull the UML out of RUP and leave it at that--the rest is madness, enobling "process" over productivity.

    • Re:Huh? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by arudloff ( 564805 ) * on Wednesday October 12, 2005 @06:27PM (#13777277) Homepage
      People try to make RUP into more than it is. The idea is to take and leave what works for your organization, and build a loose process around it. It's a framework for generating your own applicable process, and all too often companies want to do everything that RUP tells them to do (ignorning the fact that RUP tells you not to do everything..)

      What really needs to be taken from RUP is the idea that an iterative approach reduces risk of failure. The concept of "roles" is helpful, but thats just basic teamwork.
      • Rubbish. All the RUP "consultants" I talked to, when I challenged the unusually high failure rate of their proce$$, claimed that the problems lie in people not adhering to RUP in its entirety and only adopting pieces of it. I've yet to meet a RUP "expert" who recommends something lightweight or tailored to the development team's specifics. No, it's always the other way round, it's the lowly engineers and the only marginally less lowly architects who are supposed to obey The Process. And don't they ever dare
        • Our shop requires that we get the RUP certification and become "experts" on the subject (a bunch of our early people are former rational folks.) From what I remember (hah), the entire test drills the adaptable-framework concept into your head. I'd go ahead and call those folks out next time they suggest something similar.

      • The idea is to take and leave what works for your organization

        I HATE this. It used to be you could tell what kind of shop you were getting in to by asking "So, what development methodology do you use?" You'd either get an honest "well, we really don't have one" to "We use DOD-STD-2167A" (semantically equivalent to "we don't have one") or "We like to follow Yourdon/Booch/whoever". Regardless, you could tell something about how seriously management took the software development process.

        Nowadays it's the sa

    • Re:Huh? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by supabeast! ( 84658 ) on Wednesday October 12, 2005 @06:43PM (#13777367)
      They didn't do this because they thought the open-source community needs or deserves Rational, they did it because a lot of US Government Agencies require Rational procedures (Or at least write documentation claiming they will) for any project with a budget above a few million dollars. IMHO, IBM did this to put a positive spin on OSS in the minds of those important people, since there are still a lot of them that assume OSS is crappy shareware, a communist plot, etc..
      • Now that is genuinely interesting. I hadn't thought of the need to apply "certificates of standards compliance" to open source projects, and didn't know RUP had its hooks into US gov procurements. Are there also requirements for CMM or (gawdhelpus) ISO9000 certs?

    • Re:Huh? (Score:1, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      As far as RUP goes, it's kind of like communism. Looks good in theory, but goes all pear-shaped when real human beings get involved.


      ALso kind of like capitalism. See ENRON.

    • Re:Huh? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by at_slashdot ( 674436 )
      "As far as RUP goes, it's kind of like communism. Looks good in theory..."

      Actually, communism looks awful in theory if you understand a little bit what that theory means.

      • Actually, communism looks awful in theory if you understand a little bit what that theory means.

        Actually Soviet Communism looks an aweful lot like Feudalism in theory if you actually read Marx. Of course Soviet Communism existed because someone lacked a sense of humor.

        Back in Marx's day, one of the Russian revolutionaries (pre-Lenin, I think) asked Marx about the fact that one would conclude from reading Marx's Das Kapital and other writings that it would take several hundred years to create a Marxian comm
      • Yeah, yeah. I should have said "Looks plausible in theory" but fell into the cliche instead.
  • I know that the company "Rational Software" was bought by IBM a year or so ago, as my mom works for Rational. But does this software suite have to do with the Rational Software company?
    • Yes, Rational Software used to sell

      ClearCase: the SCM system of wonder and fear.
      ClearQuest: defect tracking app from hell.
      RatRose: UML design app -very pricy, awful quality
      Rational Unified Process: a design methodology that used the apps.

      There are some aspects of the RUP; a little design is a good thing. But a good test suite is better than an overdesigned app, IMO.

    • Re:Rational Software (Score:1, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Young man! you should talk to your mother more often

  • Open Source - Oh My Gawd! (Score:3, Funny)

    by Nom du Keyboard ( 633989 ) on Wednesday October 12, 2005 @06:24PM (#13777260)
    is a vast collection of methods and best practices for promoting quality and efficiency throughout software development projects.

    OMG! Now Microsoft will be able to use it and write good products.

    [[SLAP]]

    Oh, never mind. Everyone knows MS would never be caught dead touching anything OSS.

  • Two best practices for security (Score:3, Funny)

    by G4from128k ( 686170 ) on Wednesday October 12, 2005 @06:31PM (#13777304)
    1. Thou shalt check thy inputs for malformity

    2. Thou shalt not let thy buffers overflow.

    I hope those are in the Rational Unified Process (perhaps the construction phase of RUP).

    • 1. Thou shalt check thy inputs for malformity

      2. Thou shalt not let thy buffers overflow.

      I hope those are in the Rational Unified Process (perhaps the construction phase of RUP).

      If that is your method for preventing security problems, I will *never* use your software.

      Security starts with the following best practices:

      1) Thou shalt write modular software
      1a) Each module shall not run with more priveleges than absolutely necessary
      2) Thou shalt rely on platform permissions enforcement wherever possible.

      Then w

  • Comments on RUP/RUPP (Score:3, Insightful)

    by vectorian798 ( 792613 ) on Wednesday October 12, 2005 @06:55PM (#13777460)
    I don't know too much about RUP (read here [wikipedia.org]) but here is what I do know. With RUP comes the RUPP, a set of RUP Products that are meant to facilitate the development process that RUP is supposed to be all about.

    However, some of IBM's products that are part of RUPP are shit. Rational Software Architect (the 'visual modeling' part of the RUP process) is the most bloated piece of crap I have ever used. It is unintuitive, a massive memory hog, slow, and overall just a bad piece of software. About the only thing it gets right is that it is UML 2.0 compliant and has all the different models...but I have found that there are many cheaper UML modelers that are better.

    Heh in a way it is just like Eclipse (which is what RSA runs on top of) - too much crap that is inaccessible. The trend in software for a while has been adding new features that people don't know about. I believe MS had the same issue with Office in a survey they conducted, where they asked people what features they wanted to see in Office and 95% of the features were already there, but people didn't know about it. For every feature added for functionality, there should be two more added for usability!

    Similarly, for a programming process/paradigm to take hold, developers need to be provided with (process-related) tools that are lightweight and approachable. A process that is too rigid, too heavy-weight, etc. will never be adopted - worse yet, some team will start using that process then slowly become lazy and soon they will be in a middleground of incomplete requirements, specifications, design docs, etc.

    • I use Rose at work, and I find it to be fine to work with -- all I'm trying to do is create a few diagrams, and it makes it relatively easy (relative to Visio) to piece together a class or use case diagram with as little work as possible.

      It's bloated, but as long as your company furnishes you with decent hardware to run it on, that's hardly an issue.

      It needs some work on exporting the diagrams to a useful format (a vector-based diagram export, such as SVG or eps, would be a nice addition) but in general it

  • Pardon me for asking a stupid question, but... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by lenmaster ( 598077 ) on Wednesday October 12, 2005 @07:03PM (#13777510)
    What exactly does it mean to donate a software development process? Wasn't the Eclipse Foundation already free to use RUP for the development of the Eclipse environment? And couldn't companies using RUP already use the Eclipse environment for their projects?
    • It really depends on what you mean by "free to use RUP". RUP is a customisable, end-to-end process, which I suppose anyone can follow if they can remember all of the bits. As with any end-to-end process though, it is not much use unless it is documented. The software to tailor the process, and the actual process documentation are not free.

      While TFA does not really make it clear which bits of RUP are donated, I imagine IBM is at least donating some instantiation of the process, which includes documented p
  • IBM donates parts of the most retarded, inefficient, bug ridden and downright atrocious software suite in the world to Open Source. Open Source folks don't want to touch it with a 10 foot pole.

    Honestly, people. Rational Suite is the shittiest, most pointless piece of garbage I've ever used. The only useful part of it is Rational Rose, and even that you can find a good replacement for.
    • I have to agree.

      I have watched people in my office spend WEEKS trying to get ClearCase configured and working correctly, and it needs a buff blade server all to itself. Meanwhile I put up a CVS server (yes, I'm interested in Subversion, but we needed something up and working, FAST, with minimal learning curve) on a pentium-3 linux box and imported everything into it and had it production ready in an hour.

      The IBM/Rational guys came out to talk to us about ClearCase setup and they literally wanted something
    • You know, i'd agree, except IBM isn't donating any software AT ALL here. They're donating IP about the process, not software that implements the process, from what I can see.

      (fwiw, there's already a UML framework being built for eclipse for other utilities to build upon. not a complete UML modelling tool yet, however, by any means)

      ash

    • I agree completely. I am forced to use two Rational products in my job here. Clearcase is an abomination. The server seems half-way decent, but the GUI is absolutely attrocious. The only app I use that is worse is Lotus Notes.

      The other Rational product is 'Rose', which as far as I can tell is little more than a collection of graphics. The reverse engineering tool is all but useless. The types of projects you really need to reverse engineer are far too complex for Rose to handle, it dies after chewing

  • RUP in practice (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Is0m0rph ( 819726 )
    My company decided to go with RUP a few years ago. It took months of classes and basically just an iterative process that has very heavy on process and paperwork and is based on UML. Very unproductive in the environment I worked in. A few lines of code changes could result in 40+ hours of paperwork and reviews. So I saw in practice you start with RUP, strip out what you don't like, and you end up with simple iterative process we could have thought of ourselves rather than spending a ton of money on Rati
  • The only valuable piece of software owned by Rational is purify. Does anyone know if IBM donated purify to open source or did they keep it to themselves?

    • Re:What about purify? (Score:2, Informative)

      by notwrong ( 620413 )
      ClearCase [wikipedia.org] is pretty neat too, once you're used to it. I no longer work for the company where I used it, but there are some very nice features, eg having version control transparently part of the filesystem, actually useful branching and labelling schemes, decent merge/conflict resolution, and multi-site support. This meant we were mainly dealing with the genuine complexity in making 50 or so developers work together, rather than fighting against version control and each other.
  • I don't care so much about RUP, but I would like to be able to produce a decent class diagram from source or by hand when I want one and no such tool seems to exist in all of open source... Everything out there (including Argo UML) just sucks.

    Pat
  • If this is the same process used to design Lotus Notes, I'd avoid it like the plague. Or bird flu for that matter. No wonder they'd give it out for free then.

Slashdot Top Deals

Two can Live as Cheaply as One for Half as Long. -- Howard Kandel

Close