John
I would like to know the evidence that you have for: (01)
>
> This complexity explains how Microsoft managed to spend more money on
> developing Vista than NASA spent on the Apollo mission to the moon. (02)
This is quite a quote!
Frank (03)
On Jul 1, 2008, at 7:07 AM, John F. Sowa wrote: (04)
> In response to legal requirements by various governments and the EU,
> Microsoft has released a massive dump of protocols, binary file
> formats, and other specifications for Windows Vista (including the
> .NET Framework), Windows Server 2008, SQL Server 2008, Office 2007,
> Exchange Server 2007, and Office SharePoint Server 2007:
>
> http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2008/jun08/06-30InteropUpdatePR.mspx
>
> That's the good news. The bad news is that people who have looked
> at this dump have summarized the results in one pithy observation:
>
> In order to understand any of it, you must understand *all* of it.
>
> Another comment is that the complexity of this dump makes the
> successful
> reverse engineering by open-source developers seem like a miracle. In
> fact, there are reports that Microsoft employees read the open source
> documentation in order to understand the products they're working on.
>
> This complexity explains how Microsoft managed to spend more money on
> developing Vista than NASA spent on the Apollo mission to the moon.
> It also explains how Apple, with a fraction of the resources of MSFT,
> was able to produce a more stable, more efficient, more secure OS
> that also provides more functionality and a better user interface.
>
> The moral of this story is that writing complete specifications
> cannot, by itself, make a system intelligible. Furthermore, the
> task of rewriting those spec's in a formal language, by itself,
> will do nothing to make them more intelligible.
>
> What makes Apple's OS X more intelligible, efficient, and robust
> than Vista is the fundamental principle at the core of Unix from
> day 1: modularity.
>
> The original NT, which was based on the same foundation as OS/2,
> was very modular until version 3.5. But for version 4.0, Bill Gates
> made an incredible blunder: he edicted that the GUI interfaces for
> Windows had to be incorporated into the OS kernel. That decision
> destroyed the modularity, increased the complexity of the kernel by
> many orders of magnitude, and enabled bugs in the GUI to crash the
> entire system.
>
> Modularity is essential for any large project of any kind,
> including formal ontologies.
>
> John Sowa
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
> Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
> Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
> Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
> To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> (05)
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (01)
|