I think the cost of dumping Clearcase is so high that no individual project can afford to do it. So no one does. So you're stuck with it forever. In practice, the issue of it being a sunk cost never enters the discussion. The problem is that Clearcase is integrated into your builds, into developer scripts, into the release cycle and into fixing bugs in older releases. Ripping all that out is extremely painful, and individual project managers just don't see as a net win, quite reasonably in my view. The only hope is a new project that shares no code with any other existing project, and that, in my experience, is a rarity. --- Vladimir -------- Vladimir G. Ivanovic http://leonora.org/~vladimir 2770 Cowper St. vladimir@acm.org Palo Alto, CA 94306-2447 +1 650 678 8014 "RT" == Richard Troy <rtroy@sciencetools.com> writes: >> "JOO" == James Olin Oden <joden@lee.k12.nc.us> writes: >> JOO> As it is though the current company I am working with has JOO> invested heavily in clearcase and so any solution would require JOO> it. >> >> Vladimir G. Ivanovic http://leonora.org/~vladimir: >> Precisely. Once you start with ClearCase, you're effectively locked into >> a costly, proprietary solution[sic] forever. RT> Well, no. RT> Let me preface by saying that there's absolutely nothing wrong with RT> proprietary solutions - they just have to actually be of more value than RT> their total costs to be worthwhile. RT> ...The "stuck with it forever" part is a key indicator of what is RT> appropriately viewed as "bad management." ...I'm really a techie, but as RT> Chief Scientist, I have a management role with my firm. From this RT> experience, I have learned a little about such issues, thankfully from RT> some enlightened souls... There is a concept of "sunk costs." These are RT> expenses for which your organization is "underwater" - essentially RT> forever, such as with ClearCase as described above. RT> Like a sunken ship, such "resources" are only good for salvage. Because of RT> the fast-pace of computer hardware development and the plumeting prices RT> for it, it's more frequent that organizations are stuck with sunk costs on RT> hardware. As an example, consider "optical juke boxes", and "tape robots." RT> Storage systems such as these are oft found with sunken costs these days RT> because magnetic disks offer faster access with lower total costs of RT> ownership - especially so when maintenance, personel, floor RT> space, air-conditioning and electrical power are taken into consideration. RT> ...The same reasoning applies to software as well, of course... RT> When your organization has a sunk cost, it's wise to recognize it as early RT> as possible and move on. True, as a technical person it can be difficult RT> to deal with situations like this because often management doesn't RT> consider seriously the business acumen of technical people. But, honestly, RT> we are often the first to recognize these shipwrecks when they occurr in RT> the technology. A secondary and not to be minimized problem is the "you're RT> wrong" or "placing blame" issue. Simply put: It's not about blame, it's RT> about your organization being profitable. If put in these terms, USUALLY RT> management will listen... A thoroughly researched perspective, articulated RT> gently will usually win the day, and even if you don't get what you want, RT> you will likely impress your management and you may win the next battle. RT> ...Sorry to be so far off topic... RT> Good luck out there, RT> Richard RT> -- RT> Richard Troy, Chief Scientist RT> Science Tools Corporation RT> rtroy@ScienceTools.com, 510-567-9957, http://ScienceTools.com/ RT> _______________________________________________ RT> Redhat-devel-list mailing list RT> Redhat-devel-list@redhat.com RT> https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-devel-list _______________________________________________ Redhat-devel-list mailing list Redhat-devel-list@redhat.com https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-devel-list
