ontolog-forum
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] How not to write specifications

To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: paola.dimaio@xxxxxxxxx
Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2008 00:33:27 -0400
Message-id: <c09b00eb0807012133t69abf657i681b9b4601d6afb7@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
the relevance (marginal) is that 'modularity' is key to ontology
I agree, that point has been left behind in the first thread    (01)

anyway    (02)

john - i think the original quote was the longhorn one you cited, then
the story got dragged
after the name change    (03)

http://www.trap17.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=39090&mode=linear
(somwhere down)    (04)

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2003460386_btview04.html
(gates says cost is 8/9 bn us)    (05)


How much the apollo cost?    (06)



On 7/1/08, Ron Wheeler <rwheeler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I am not an expert on ontology and I personally find this discussion
>  very interesting and all that but I find it hard to believe that belongs
>  here.
>  Perhaps there is a Microsoft vs NASA forum that you could move this to
>  and let us know where you take it.
>
>
>  Ron
>
>
>  Ed Barkmeyer wrote:
>  > John,
>  >
>  > you wrote:
>  >
>  >
>  >> EB> (1) a general lack of design principles in MS Windows in
>  >>  > the 1990-95 period...
>  >>
>  >> Not true.  Microsoft hired the chief designer of Digital's VMS,
>  >> which was an outstanding operating system.  The foundation for
>  >> NT was OS/2, which was jointly designed by IBM and MSFT.  ...
>  >>
>  >
>  > Which was not MS Windows in the 1990-95 period.
>  >
>  > Windows NT was a separate product, and I said that, and I pointed to the
>  > VMS background.
>  >
>  >
>  >> EB> (2) a poor hardware base...
>  >>
>  >> EB> (3) upward compatibility requirements...
>  >>
>  >> Neither of those is true.  Both NT and OS/2 were designed to run
>  >> on any 32-bit hardware,
>  >>
>  >
>  > Except that Intel didn't actually build a 32-bit hardware architecture
>  > until 1994, which is what I said.  The problem with the previous 80x86
>  > designs was that the memory was never a single address space as seen by
>  > the instruction set, every I/O device control was thru a primary
>  > register, and all the DMA schemes were different.  The 1980 breakthrough
>  > in microcomputers (like the MC68000 used by Apple and the Z8000) was
>  > 32-bit addressing in the processor and "memory-mapped", i.e.
>  > bus-addressable, devices.  And most of them involved shared bus control,
>  > which Intel had pioneered but IBM didn't use in the PC design.
>  >
>  > And NT was not a part of the Windows 95 or Windows 97 or Windows 98 or
>  > Windows 2000 products.
>  >
>  >
>  >> and the migration strategy outlined above
>  >> would have allowed the old 3.1 GUI and a full 32-bit GUI to coexist
>  >> on different applications running simultaneously.
>  >>
>  >
>  > Of course.  But that "GUI" included application intervention in keyboard
>  > interfaces, mouse movement, screen displays, sound management, etc.
>  > Microsoft actually made a significant investment in constructing a
>  > virtual environment to run such applications in Windows 95.  Part of the
>  > upward compatibility problem was to make the real operating system
>  > elements support that virtual environment.  It gave rise to a lot of
>  > cascading interface conversions, which became a bad habit at Microsoft.
>  >
>  > And each system has introduced new upward compatibility issues,
>  > particularly in the graphics and sound areas, because the previous
>  > system functionality set was underdesigned with respect to the next
>  > generation hardware.  The general model being presented to the
>  > application has been different from the underlying support models since
>  > Windows 95, and each time it is augmented, the next generation of
>  > hardware modifies the support model and forces another transform.
>  > Almost all of this is about supporting the fancy graphics and sound
>  > capabilities needed by games and videos, which is where (4) comes in.
>  >
>  >
>  >> EB> (4) all things to all men.  The Windows target market was
>  >>  > businesses, control systems, gamers and hobbyists, and grandmothers.
>  >>
>  >> Apple's OS X meets those requirements far better with a separable
>  >> GUI on top of a Unix clone.  A server doesn't need a high-speed GUI,
>  >> but a game machine needs a super-speed GUI.  If they're separate,
>  >> you can support both with the same kernel.  For example, a game
>  >> GUI could run in a virtual memory that is locked into unpaged RAM.
>  >>
>  >
>  > How and what Apple does in this diverse market I don't really know.  But
>  > unlike Microsoft, they didn't have 18 other companies making new and
>  > wonderful display hardware and graphics accelerators and enhanced sound
>  > systems that Dell and Sony and IBM and HP and ... elected to plug into
>  > their hardware platforms.  Each of the hardware vendors was targeting a
>  > particular market and seeking "best in class" in that market, but they
>  > all depended on Windows to support them.   Microsoft was only somewhat
>  > able to control the interface situation, and unlike Apple, they were not
>  > trying to create and control customer appetites (in that area).
>  >
>  > The point I was making is that trying to support all of it, along with
>  > upward compatibility with earlier underdesigns, and bad ideas like
>  > "integrating" the browser into the operating system, had a much bigger
>  > impact than the degree of "modularity" in the software design.
>  >
>  >
>  >> EB> (5) external pressure.  Vista is a hack on Windows XP whose
>  >>  > primary objective was to lock down security before certain powerful...
>  >>
>  >> Any OS designer with any smarts would know that those security features
>  >> would be broken by a professional hacker in about 15 minutes.
>  >>
>  >
>  > I was recently given to understand that in mid-2008 Mac OS X is known by
>  > security freaks to have about the same level of vulnerability as Vista.
>  >   The advantage it has is that fewer criminals have chosen to attack it,
>  > because targeting 20% of the marketplace produces lower RoI than
>  > targeting 80% of it.
>  >
>  > But you don't need to be a highly skilled professional hacker to
>  > penetrate most of these systems.  There are lots of stupid and careless
>  > people who have access and are just waiting to be used.
>  >
>  >
>  >> Sony
>  >> made the foolish decision to placate the RIAA, and Steve Jobs ate
>  >> their lunch.  When an industry such as RIAA has an obsolete business
>  >> model, getting in bed with them is suicide.
>  >>
>  >
>  > Yes, Apple and Microsoft can ignore certain industry complaints, and
>  > even big political campaigns from some industry organizations.  But I
>  > don't think it was the RIAA that created the security issues that
>  > spawned Vista.  Think who is liable for everything but the first $50 on
>  > credit card frauds, and who is deeply concerned about penetration of
>  > databases of private information that was acquired by law.  And imagine
>  > the pressure they can bring to bear.
>  >
>  >
>  >> EB> And OBTW, the saga of Windows is a nearly one-for-one repeat of
>  >>  > the sequence of mistakes IBM made in designing operating systems
>  >>  > for the 360/370 series between 1964 and 1976.
>  >>
>  >> I was at IBM in those years, and I plan to write some memoirs about
>  >> those events.  The only thing in common was that pointy-haired
>  >> bosses made technical decisions for political reasons.  The kinds
>  >> of mistakes were very different.
>  >>
>  >
>  > Well, John, you and I seem to have different approaches to abstraction.
>  >   So it stands to reason we wouldn't see the same commonalities:
>  > - bad systems design practices
>  > - underdesigned hardware
>  > - upward compatibility requirements
>  > - all things to all men
>  >
>  > But then, you don't believe that those were characteristic of the
>  > Windows legacy either.
>  >
>  > In fairness, the IBM 360 effort was among the first of its kind, and
>  > some of the underdesign was a consequence of unknown territory.  But
>  > unfortunately, some of it was deliberate, and some of it was also
>  > failing to learn from prior experience, or to use the people who had it.
>  >   And once the mistakes were in place in the customer and developer
>  > shops, upward compatibility became an albatross.  MVS was every bit as
>  > ugly and ungainly as Vista, and for many of the same reasons.
>  >
>  > Quod scripsi, scripsi.
>  >
>  > -Ed
>  >
>  >
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
>  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
>
>    (07)


-- 
Paola Di Maio
School of IT
www.mfu.ac.th
*********************************************    (08)

_________________________________________________________________
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    (09)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>