Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!ncar!ico!rcd From: rcd@ico.isc.com (Dick Dunn) Newsgroups: comp.unix.wizards Subject: UNIX-like, or profitable? Summary: lamentations are fine, but what are we gonna DO about it? Message-ID: <1991Apr12.211439.28040@ico.isc.com> Date: 12 Apr 91 21:14:39 GMT References: <9104072151.AA28702@gaia> <1795@TALOS.UUCP> Organization: Interactive Systems Corporation, Boulder, CO Lines: 68 jerry@TALOS.UUCP (Jerry Gitomer) writes: > kemnitz@POSTGRES.BERKELEY.EDU (Greg Kemnitz) writes: [first painful encounter with X] > |...But it appears that it is easier to wait for fast > |machines rather than to design standard graphics protocols that aren't bloated, > |politically acceptable masses. Also, it appears that the de facto trend in > |industry is to hope hardware improves fast enough to let poorly written > |software run well rather than writing software properly, and it is hard to > |argue that this strategy has been a complete failure,... Note here: I don't see Greg arguing in favor of this approach; I read his argument as saying simply "it works (so far)". > I take exception to it being "hard to argue that this strategy > has been a complete failure". What I see is an industry that has > forgotten its brief past, ignored any research done more than ten > years ago, and is constantly moving from fad to fad. Yes to forgetting past, ignoring research, and being fad-oriented. But it's been profitable! Greg is saying the same thing as Jerry, as far as what the industry has done. Jerry says it's crazy, where Greg has with- held any value judgment other than noting (cynically) that on the bottom line, it works. It's not a complete failure because, while it may be a technical disaster, it sells. In my heart, I believe it's the royal road to disaster--I believe I can see a heat death coming. But what do I know? It hasn't happened yet, and there are very large companies making very large amounts of money selling bloated software. Can you make a convincing argument that says better, simpler software without all the goo will sell? Can you cite any market- place examples as evidence? I can't. Chrome sells. > Over 25 years ago IBM published data (I only have a copy of a > final published chart) illustrating that doubling the size of > a program quadrupled the cost of developing that program -- and > this held true regardless of the programming language used. OK, suppose that's true. There's good reason to believe it's true for a fair class of programs, because the number of potential interactions goes quadratically with size. So what? Sell more hardware to hold the larger programs; use some of the profit to hire more programmers. It works, just like cancer...and it sells! > Therefore, IMHO, today's baroque software is not only a complete > failure, but a fiasco... You can believe it's a fiasco (and I'll agree wholeheartedly), but it is NOT a failure, in the one sense that matters to the suits: It sells. > ...I believe that baroque is a synonymn for > broke. This bloated software is (generally speaking) noted for > substituting features no one really needs for the reliability that > every serious user needs. No doubt true. But it sells. OK, enough marketplace cynicism for a moment. What are we gonna DO about it? Anybody got any ideas for getting back to where UNIX started...to the "simplicity, elegance, and ease of use" that characterized it when R&T wrote about it in '74? I don't expect anything that will sweep the world; I'd settle for something that could find a comfortable niche. Do we have to wait for the current mess to collapse of its own weight, at which point it will be a crisis? Or is there a path out, or a way to start over, without getting sucked into the second-system effect? -- Dick Dunn rcd@ico.isc.com -or- ico!rcd Boulder, CO (303)449-2870 ...While you were reading this, Motif grew by another kilobyte.