ontolog-forum
[Top] [All Lists]

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

To: "[ontolog-forum] " <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "Christopher Spottiswoode" <cms@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2008 13:35:34 +0200
Message-id: <03d201c8dc37$c993d580$0100a8c0@Dev>
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)

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