Subj : Re: i need help
To   : comp.programming
From : Joe Butler
Date : Mon Sep 05 2005 10:43 pm

Certainly the ego of the boss combinded with the Indian culture of never
saying, "No" were both contributing factors.  But, the original task (as far
as we can assertain with an uncooperative 'boss') was, "Here's our system.
Make it work on OS B.  It'll also be required to continue working on OS A,
and eventually it will need to run on OS C and D and E".  So, the 'boss'
couldn't have imagined a re-write would be cheaper, he was categorically
told by the Indian's that it was "impossible" to achieve with the existing
code base.  In fact, as part of the boss's own defence, he stated that my
own porting method (even though they didn't know what that was) was
discussed and rejected in the 2-days that they took to design their own
'port'.

Eventually, when I then hinted that I'd made good progress on the port to OS
B, would be demoing soon, and would shortly be in a position to prove that
the statements coming out of India were technically wrong (and charging 10
times the true cost of the job), the Indians dropped the "Impossible"
qualification and replaced it with, "It won't be compatible with OS B."

The Indians have still not finished the project - the new port is now too
big to fit into the original, extremely resource limited, hardware.

Let's just put that again:
Hardware 'A' is resource limited and has some portable software ('the
software') specially taylored to it (that has successfully been ported to OS
B by myself).
Hardware 'B' is not so resource limited (at least 10 time more of
everything).
So, the solution, that $100,000 bought you, was to write the entire system
again from scratch in a non-portable way for Hardware B (1600 man hours
effort for this).
Only after I pointed it out, did they consider that the system (with
additional facilities) was still required to run on OS A.
'Solution': a 'hardware compatibility layer' was introduced to thunk between
the native OS B calls and the OS A hardware when compiled for OS A.  Now the
system won't fit into the limited and fixed resouces of OS A.

And remember that the original reason stated for the OS B re-write was, "OS
A uses messages.  OS B uses events.  Therefore not technically possible to
use all this code that you already have - we have to write it all again for
you.  But our hourly rate is less"

There's enough material in that project for an entire book, if only I had
the time.


"Phlip" <phlipcpp@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:zp0Te.190$nt1.82@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com...
> Joe Butler wrote:
>
> > The OP apparently posted from India (unless they forged their posting).
> >
> > I won't be appologising for describing my experiences with Indian
> > programmers.
> >
> > If an offshoring company (from India) can sting a client to the tune of
> > $100,000 by re-writing ALL of the client's existing portable code into a
> > single OS-specific version for 'OS B' due to the fact that "Your
> > [portable]
> > code uses 'messages', and 'OS B' uses 'events', therefore...
>
> Could the problem _possibly_ be in your own office? In the boss who
thought
> a rewrite would be "cheap" if many low-wage workers banged on it?
>
> > would.  Is this just my unique experience of the situation or is this
more
> > widespread?
>
> My personal experience with overseas workers has been average, with the
same
> spread as with other workers.
>
> My experience with bosses inappropriately relying on them has been ...
> disappointing.
>
> -- 
>   Phlip
>   http://www.greencheese.org/ZeekLand  <-- NOT a blog!!!
>
>

.