Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!ucsd!pacbell.com!pacbell!att!cbnewsc!lgm
From: lgm@cbnewsc.att.com (lawrence.g.mayka)
Newsgroups: comp.object
Subject: Re: Overused metaphors - Software ICs, etc.
Message-ID: <1990Aug14.020240.9257@cbnewsc.att.com>
Date: 14 Aug 90 02:02:40 GMT
References: <4078@kim> <8190@fy.sei.cmu.edu> <26C2AFDA.178E@tct.uucp>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 26

In article <26C2AFDA.178E@tct.uucp> chip@tct.uucp (Chip Salzenberg) writes:
>Look at "standard" operating systems.  By the act of defining the
>interface to an OS, you imply many things about its feature set, if
>only by omission.  Yet competition will always drive vendors to add
>features to their operating systems.  How can you have a "standard" OS
>interface when each OS has unique features?

Two comments about standards:

1) Standards are, or ought to be, merely least common denominators.  A
standard that prohibits evolutionary improvement will (hopefully!) not
last long. 

2) Standards are not meant to accommodate revolutionary change.  For
example, to expect the standard for ordinary analog phones to "evolve"
into a standard for ISDN digital phones is unrealistic and in fact
undesirable.  The corollary is that one should not be surprised that a
revolutionary improvement in technology is "nonstandard" in comparison
with the old standby.


	Lawrence G. Mayka
	AT&T Bell Laboratories
	lgm@iexist.att.com

Standard disclaimer.