I'm developing an executive dashboard, and I haven't been satisfied
 with the business graphics that are widely available
 (e.g. gauges, dials, stoplights). I decided to make a "Zen" version
 of a KPI status indicator, using as little color as possible,
 and incorporating E.T's innovative "Spark Line" metaphor for display
 of trends. The graphic below shows the proposed KPI display across
 the top of a browser screen with a descriptive example in the middle.
 Any feedback would be wonderful!

 Comments: Because of complex KPI names (e.g. This Week versus Last Week
 Sales (All Divisions), KPIs were labeled with Roman numerals.
 Balloon help could display the KPI name when the cursor brushes the
 KPI indicator.

link

 "Without test-first and refactoring, clients think
 they must assemble as many program requirements as
 they can afford to have written. This effort snarls
 all relative business priorities together, making
 Scope Control impossible. It obscures opportunities
 for simplification. Designing and implementing many
 features all at once is very hard, leading to our
 industry's reputation for very large failures. Putting
 tests in front of development's inner cycle permits an
 outer cycle of incremental feature growth. That
 relieves the Customer of the responsibility to predict
 the future and guess which complete set of features
 will maximize productivity."

.. Juergens answer:

 Nice description.
 Sometimes I try to explain that to non technical people
 with the following picture:

 If you have only one chance to get your wishes on a
 list, it is like Christmas for a child. You make sure
 you get every little wish on that list and hope for the best.

 If you are sure that you can get your wishes on the list
 at any time. You will just put the most important ones
 there which come to your mind easily.

Samizdat homepage

Slides Dmitry Borodaenko presented about Samizdat ath the Euruko 2003

 Inside my head, I sometimes refer to Del.icio.us as the Google In Reverse.
 Google has amassed a solid mound of ranked and twined web sites. The
 standings shift about with caution, the behemoths are tough to dethrone.
 And if I ask for Ruby, the answers in place may hold through the end of
 the year.
 ...
 Del.icio.us is perfect! The activity bred by competitive linking would
 be enhanced by the sharing of richer media.
 ...
 Better client software is needed to make this happen.

 But anyway, when I last asked Kent what XP is, he said
 "XP is a community of software development practices based on
 values of simplicity, communication, feedback, and courage".
 That was about two or three years ago.

 I look forward to seeing the second edition as well.
 I'm sure it will be enlightening ...

Been coding hard now on SW and CFaR. I would really need some good vodka now before getting up early tomorrow morning to catch the train.

Hope you all had a good weekend, -A.

This vodka bottle reminds me that I am way behind on Futurometer. We will kick ass there soonish!

 Below is a quote from Dave Pollard, the former Chief Knowledge Officer from
 Ernst & Young. It is a great paragraph because is is truly representive of
 why enterprise knowledge managment solutions failed. He is talking about the
 fact that knowledge managment systems have to be personal content management systems first.

 Quote:

 I believe personal content management tools are the place to start, because
 since the earliest days of business, the principal way of sharing information
 has been peer-to-peer, the most valued 'repositories' of business information
 have been personal filing cabinets, and the principal schema for organizing
 work has been the personal desktop. It makes sense, therefore, that tools
 that facilitate and reflect these well-established 'knowledge processes',
 information sources and networks should be much more successful than the complex,
 centralized, hierarchical knowledge management tools and repositories that have
 been foisted on users for the past decade.

 End Quote:

 It is a great quote because how is it possible that anyone could believe that
 a centralied hierarchical tool could work when it was in no way related to how
 people did and have done knowledge work since the beginning.

 JR> Yes, those are the "certified" Linux releases, but Oracle versions prior to
 JR> 10g could be installed on other distros.  The screenshots seem to indicate
 JR> that the Installer now checks which Linux you're running, which leads me
 JR> back to the original question.

 I haven't tried it myself, but Wim Coekaerts once mentioned
 an "-ignoreSysPrereqs" installer option that would get you
 past that Linux distribution check.

Or suggested by DJ: edit the oraparam.ini file and edit the supported versions section.

Or: run

 runInstaller --help

and actually read it :-)

Welcome to the Open BEAGLE W3 page. Open BEAGLE is a C++ Evolutionary Computation (EC) framework. It provides an high-level software environment to do any kind of EC, with support for tree-based genetic programming, bit string and real-valued genetic algorithms, and evolution strategy.

The Open BEAGLE architecture follows strong principles of object oriented programming, where abstractions are represented by loosely coupled objects and where it is common and easy to reuse code. Open BEAGLE is designed to provide an EC environment that is generic, user friendly, portable, efficient, robust, elegant and free.

The Open BEAGLE code is compliant with the C++ ANSI/ISO 3 standard. It requires the Standard Template Library (STL). No specific call in the core libraries are made to the operating system nor to the hardware.

Make sure you also check out distributed BEAGLE. Distributed BEAGLE was created to distribute the evolutionary process using the EC framework Open BEAGLE. Its key features are robustness, fault tolerance, adaptability for heterogeneous networks, and transparency for the user. Distributed BEAGLE uses the Master-Slave model to distribute data over the network.

When doing an Open BEAGLE EC application, just 3 little modifications to your code are needed to enable Distributed BEAGLE. There's two types of program that can be executed by using different configuration files. The first one evolves the population over one generation by applying Darwinian selection and genetic operators. It usually runs on the same computer as the master. The second one evaluates the individuals's fitness. The slaves can be eventually used as screen savers.

The master is called DAGS for DAGS is an Agile Grid Scheduler. It is not specific for a given evolutionary algorithm. DAGS uses dynamic adjustment of the size of sets of individuals that are sent to the slaves based on the recent history of the evaluation clients. If an evaluation client lags to return results, the data is redistributed to another evaluation client. There's a database in the master that insures data persistency. link

 > Surely, you're not calling design documents you built in the middle
 > of a project "up-front" design?

Let’s talk about "project" and "up-front" for a second.

In the old world I came from, a project had a feedback loop. This feedback loop could be considered to have covered design to unit testing, roughly a period of 6 months to a year on many projects. In other words, I would get feedback on my design 6 months after I made it.

Now let’s enter the fractal nature of XP.

My design to unit test feedback loop is the duration of a card in most cases. In some cases it’s as small as design/refactor/new test/new code/refactor/ (which may be a scope of minutes). In some cases it may be as large as an iteration (after all, we didn’t pick the cards in this iteration at random, we had a plan). It may even have been as large as a release plan.

The difference is that I get my feedback quickly and the design I do at any given stage is as small as it needs to be instead of as large as it can be. But I still do design "up-front". I have a plan before I leave the release meeting. I have a plan before I leave the iteration meeting. I have a plan before I even start refactoring before that first unit test. I have to make the same decisions I would have made in the BDUF, the only difference is that I make them as late as possible. In short, I make them just before I do the task that requires that decision to have been made.

XP is fractal. It’s possible to think about an XP project as a large collection of projects, each small enough to be written on 3*5 cards. And I do design for every one of those projects up front.