Perhaps, as long as you remain obscure. But once you become a research target -- being suspected of a crime, mentioned in a news story, or applying for a security clearance, for example -- then all that data can provide seeds for speculation about your motives, integrity, or personality.

The public IP addresses of my servers are buried in relative obscurity, just another 32-bit number among millions. But if I post a log file to a support forum then you can bet that I'll strip that IP address out.

That's more or less the vision of this company's owner. I heard him speak at PopTech a couple of years ago, and he has some very interesting goals. Unfortunately, they seem to be limited at the moment to helping you build that ugly-ass rally car on their home page.

The 21 hour day on the way back ought to even it out.

This is a US government project, so all US citizens are essentially stakeholders. All government agencies are stakeholders. You just can't please that many people, and it's the process of trying to do so that does projects like this in.

I didn't mean to suggest that the guy calling the shots would ignore stakeholders. He's a project manager. This person is in a position to consider ALL input and make fair compromises, instead of trying to create an amalgamation of whimsical directives by those who "outrank" him but don't have the complete picture (e.g. politicians responsible for project funding, the guy he works for, the gal he owes a favor to). While I did say a lot of people would be annoyed with the details of the end result, they wouldn't be the majority. Those people truly willing to compromise will be happy with a working system that meets the goals set out for the project.

So, we're relying on security through obscurity?

Google and it's users seem to be doing a pretty good job of utilizing free text to locate documents.

Why is it hard? Too many people have influence in the process. Put one person in charge who will (1) actively be involved in the project and (2) have final say on decisions. No committees, no one-off directives from politicians or bosses who don't know the day-to-day details, no approval process. Just one guy calling the shots. A lot of people will be disappointed because it doesn't do X, Y or Z, or because it uses platform P instead of platform Q, but the project will be completed and will serve its purpose.

Lobster was absolutely in this category. When my grandmother was a child in the 30's 40's, families hard up for food would collect lobsters that washed up on shore. After eating, they would bury the shells in their yard to prevent neighbors from seeing or smelling the evidence in garbage cans, such was the embarrassment of eating lobster.

Speak for yourself.

You agile folk like to claim that "requirements will always change, so let's plan for it and embrace it." Bullshit. Requirements only change when (1) people don't plan properly, and (2) developer and project managers cater to the whims of clients without charging what they should for change orders. If I hire an engineering firm to build a commercial building, I can't expect to keep changing the requirements after I sign off on the spec, the way people seem to think they can when they hire a software developer. The change order charges would be exorbitant, because with every change a traditional engineer will properly re-evaluate the plan from the ground up and adjust the infrastructure as necessary.

There's a joke out there about what would happen if structural engineers built structures the way software developers build software. I don't remember the exact punch line, but it doesn't take much imagination to realize that it's along the lines of "no one would dare use bridges or enter commercial buildings out of fear that they would fail." It's funny because it's true. We've set such low standards for software reliability that there is now an entire development methodology that advocates (and attempts to justify) a lack of planning and QC only of completed work, rather than QC'ing design plans BEFORE we waste time building something that may or may not pass QC.

Apologies for the rant, but the whole agile mindset just pisses me off.

Why should they? OSS devs aren't a group of altruistic folks just waiting around to fulfill arbitrary feature requests from end users. They, like the rest of us, need some incentive to implement a new feature. If a dev on the project finds your proposed feature useful, or sees it as an interesting technical challenge, or has some other (possibly financial) incentive to implement it, then he'll listen. Otherwise it's up to you to either implement it yourself or hire someone to do so.

It's not sane people that avoid OSS; it's the people who expect a typical customer/vendor relationship with a software publisher who are turned off by (or just don't realize) the fact that OSS doesn't work quite the same way.

I'm not old enough to scream "get off my damn lawn," yet I find the phrase years ago disturbingly incongruous with the practice of Googling a name using a wireless network.

FTFY

Nor do artists who "draw" pictures always pull their writing implement. Language evolves and words take on more general definitions.

It's not like that at all. Hiring a carpenter would be analogous to hiring a developer to write a custom web browser for you. If that were the case, then yes, customers would have reason to gripe. But Google's response is more like a cabinet manufacturer that offers its wares on the open market (a la Lowe's, Home Depot, etc.). Customers can gripe all they want, but if it's not a bespoke job then you have to choose from what's available.

Even in a free market economy, consumer choice among vendors is limited to those vendors who choose to enter the market.

Surround your house with plastic wrap and duct tape.