Re: Why does the DoD hate reuse entrepreneurs ?

[agate!spool.mu.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!usc!cs.utexas.edu!natinst.com!h rd769.brooks.af.mil!hrd769.brooks.af.mil!not-for-mail@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Dav e Burgess)]

In article <C2AKxC.B15@world.std.com> srctran@world.std.com (Gregory Aharonian)
 writes:
>
>    Why does the DoD hate software reuse entrepreneurs?  I mean if the DOD
>is going to start the businesses of reuse centers, surely anyone supportive
>of capitalism and free markets would want the support of an important driver
>of these free markets, entrepreneurs.  That is, if the DoD is serious about
>its preaches to others about fighting the N-I-H syndrome.
>
[stuff deleted]
>==============================================================================
>    What's worse is that about ten years ago, the DoD went through a period
>of trying to establish software repositories (I think it was an Air Force
>effort) before reuse was a fad.  They all failed miserably, yet not once
>has anyone of the above interested parties ever cared to lookat their own
>history.
>

  I was in charge of one of those 'failures', thank you.  Do you actually
have any idea at all what you are talking about?  I was processing between
50 and 120 diskettes full of software a day in software and source code,
just for microcomputers, at the height of our project.

>    These panels are pointless for two reasons.  First the DoD officials
>are never going to say "Here's how to do something for less money than we
>have been budgeted by Congress and still get more results".  Doing so is
>one of the few reasons you can actually get courtmartialed in the DoD

Do you actually think before you type?  With contractors working for you?
When was the last time a contractor actually made a bid that they
thought they were going to stay under?  My experience with contractors is
"Well, we didn't realize that none of people knew Ada, so we are going
to have to get trained by writing your system, and then charge you extra
when we have to fix the stupid mistakes we made."

  BTW, there are LOTS of ways to get court-martialed in the Military.
Civilians in the DoD cannot be court-martialed.  So, for two different
reasons, your last statement is completely wrong.  The military is a
society quite different from the one you are used to living in.  When
was the last time you heard of a guy down at the plant that went to
jail for quitting his job?  Happens a lot here.  We give up a whole
block of rights when we come to work for the DoD.  In fact, we give up 
the right to say 'No thanks, I don't want to die today' when we join
the military.  We can be court-martialed for that too.

>Second, there is a neurological impairment for many defense contractors
>so that when they think "Gee - that is a dumb idea - don't fund it" it
>comes out "Gee - that's a great idea, though this is our way to fund
>it" (an impairment plaguing the STARS community for one).
>
>    (As a side note to C.L., how about "COMPONENT COST"!!!!)
>
>    Now some of you are saying, gee Greg, what don't you show up at some
>of these conferences and enlighten us with your wisdom 

>From what I've seen so far, I can't see how anyone could make THAT mistake.

>Any socialist asking such a question just 
>doesn't realize that under current DoD procurement regulations and contractor
>it's not possible to operate a profitable
>defense software reuse business.  

  Let me get this straight.  You want to start a business selling computer
software that the DoD has already bought, back to them, right?  Sounds like
the fiscally responsible thing to do to me.  I suppose it would be a good
idea if you want to terminate some young Captain's career right now; but
other than that I can't see how it would be cost effective.  Would you rather
sell other people's software to the military.  That sounds like software
piracy to me, but I'm just one of those stupid DoD jocks...

>Thus as a good capitalist, I know that
>any money I "invest" in attending these conferences will not lead to enough
>business to make my investment profitable.  Instead, like many others
>avoiding the entire Ada industry, I make my investments in other areas
>such as C/C++.
>

  Actually, you're dead wrong again, but that shouldn't surprise anyone so far.

>

  First, let me say that these are my opinions, not those of the Department 
of Defense, Department of the Air Force, or this Laboratory.

  Second, when you characterize the DoD as a bunch of incompetents, you are
painting with a pretty broad brush.  I personally take offense at several of
these stabs, and thought that I would toss a few generalizations of my own in.

  Most of the programmers that I work with have little to no opportunity to
work in Ada.  By the nature of the applications that we work on in the 
mundane, day-to-day Air Force we just don't get much exposure to Ada.  We 
receive a one week block of instruction during tech school and perhaps a 
little OJT once we get out into the workcenters.  The bulk of what we are 
doing is NOT C/C++, or even Ada.  It is COBOL, FORTRAN, and SQL maintenance.
"What about the Ada mandate?"  Well, it only applies to new development, as
near as anyone I work for has been able to determine.  Also, DBMS software
is a reasonable environment to work in, by the reg, so many places do that.

  "Why?" you may ask.  Well there are several reasons.  The first is that 
there is a general move to contract out most new development.  This means that
the programmers in the service are getting exposure to Ada by watching people
who may or may not be crooks write it.  Not only that, but we have many 
applications that work just fine.  There is no real reason to expend the
effort of cost analysis, design, Object studies, contractor/in-house
programming effort cost comparisons, reusability index searches and all of 
the other stuff that we have to do to ensure we aren't wasting the almighty 
taxpayers dollars.  It is just flat not worth it in terms of time expended
most of the time.

  Another reason is that the validated Ada compilers that are available are
horrendously expensive.  This is not a statement of their worth, just an
observation.  When it costs as much to put Ada on one of my workers 
computers as it does to put a complete Oracle software suite on two, there 
is a problem.

  On to repositories.  In the military, there are many things we can be 
court-martialed for.  One of them is willfully allowing unauthorized people
access to our systems.  This came about mostly because of malicious 
attacks to our systems.  The leadership in my career field has even gone
so far as to describe 'hackers' as one of the three biggest threats to
military computer systems.  Now, with that in mind, and the fact that we
practically have to beg to get compuer equipment most of the time, why 
should I stick MY neck out so that some snot-nosed high school punk can 
play on my system and destroy your re-use repository.
  In other words, what is in it for ME, that lowly computer programmer at
base level somewhere?  I have enough troubles with mandated strength reductions
,
budgets getting slashed with a BIG red pen, and more and more computer
service requests from REAL customers.  What is in it for my unit?  Glamour?
right!  How is my operating a softwarte repository going to make my life
easier?  By doubling my work-load?  That's good economy in the DoD, by your
arguments.  There is a DoD repository, operated by White Sands Missile Range.
You want another?  Fine.  Have you talked to RAPID about getting a user-id?
There's two.  Have you looked at the software that is out there?  Precisely
how many more do you want?
  As the military shrinks (at least at the business end) and fewer and
fewer military people are doing more and more work, I think you will find
that support for software repositories will grow.  Where the rubber meets 
the road, we are trying to automate the Air Force, or the Army, etc.  We
don't have time to sit idly by and watch the industry leave us further and
further behind.  On the other hand, we can't afford to throw money to some
bag of wind that promises to solve our software development problems by
promising us programs and giving us things that we've already bought.

   
-- 
------
TSgt Dave Burgess
NCOIC AL/Management Information Systems Office
Brooks AFB, TX