Well said, Antoinette! (01)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Antoinette Arsic" <aarsic@xxxxxxxx>
To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2008 1:02 PM
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] How not to write specifications (02)
> Think of this thread as code :-) Modules in whatever OS is
> being discussed is really about modularity in ontologies.
> Kernels, as Pat C pointed out is really about vocabularies with
> definitions. Going through the thread and deciphering the "code"
> that this discussion really is about ontologies has been more
> interesting to me than what is on the outside - MS OS versus
> Apple. I find it clever in that respect and some enlightening
> parallels.
> Antoinette
>
>
> SGIS
> Antoinette Arsic
> Sr. Systems Engineer
> 8618 Westwood Center Drive, Suite 100
> Vienna, VA 22182
> 703-506-8621
> 443-567-2703
> aarsic@xxxxxxxx
> www.SGIS.com
> ________________________________________
> From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Azamat
> [abdoul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2008 4:51 AM
> To: [ontolog-forum]
> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] How not to write specifications
>
> Agree.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ron Wheeler" <rwheeler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <edbark@xxxxxxxx>; "[ontolog-forum]"
> <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2008 5:54 AM
> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] How not to write specifications
>
>
>>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
>>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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
>
>
> __________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of
> virus signature database 3232 (20080701) __________
>
> The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.
>
> http://www.eset.com
>
> (03)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (04)
|