Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!ncis.llnl.gov!ncis!helios.ee.lbl.gov!pasteur!agate!eos!eugene
From: eugene@eos.UUCP (Eugene Miya)
Newsgroups: comp.os.misc
Subject: Re: Generalized bigotry
Message-ID: <2372@eos.UUCP>
Date: 18 Jan 89 02:56:11 GMT
References: <19@xenlink.UUCP> <225800108@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu> <2075@scolex> <KARL.89Jan16142115@triceratops.cis.ohio-state.edu>
Reply-To: eugene@eos.UUCP (Eugene Miya)
Organization: NASA Ames Research Center, Calif.
Lines: 127

In article <KARL.89Jan16142115@triceratops.cis.ohio-state.edu> karl@triceratops.cis.ohio-state.edu (Karl Kleinpaste) writes:
>Someone writes:
>   Keywords: begin flame

Karl throws some cooling fluid from a bottle (Flames doused.)
A generally very good posting.

>Different machines are designed with different purposes in mind.
>There is software appropriate to those purposes written for such
>machines.  A lot of machines can be asked to generalize to a UNIX-like
>set of software. . .
>Neither situation is Morally Wrong.
> . . .
>Machine design, and the attendant software design which follows on
>with it, is quite possibly the one place in the world where situation
>ethics is appropriate.
>If it does not make sense to do something,
>there is no reason to waste time trying to retrofit concepts that are
>pointless within the context.
	[The cheapest, fast components are those that aren't there
	--ascribed to Gordon Bell (Bentley, 8[78])]
> . . .
>Retrofitting any number of software concepts into such a box is
>Minicomputers are designed with different purposes in mind. 
> . . .
>Mainframes and supercomputers are designed with yet another set of
>purposes, typically related to large quantities of raw throughput.
> . . .
>It all revolves around the purposes for which the machine is designed.
> . . .
>We can all congratulate <large mainframe and supercomputer
>manufacturers> who have seen fit to perform these retrofits of
>familiar concepts for us, but let's not get ourselves into the trap of
>thinking, because we have a certain set of concepts which we hold as
>wonderful and useful, that those concepts constitute the moral high
>ground.  There is no moral high ground here.  There are merely various
>regions and corners in a flat field, where the corners and regions
>define intended machine purposes.

Very astute observations.

There are several forces at work here.
There is the technology to make and sustain machines.  This gives
us the the 360/370 line (both good and bad points).  We have an
incredible diversity of architectures to make uniprocessors.
Face it, making hardware is still an art.

There are the application programs which require specific software for each of
those different pieces of hardware.  They are surprising inflexible for
something called software.  As a few have pointed out, operating systems
really differ very little.

Lastly there is the human resource which maintains all of this.
The problem is that this is the most precious resource (a few companies
might think otherwise).  The problem is one of intellectual capacity
being spread too thin.

Originally, Unix was this fad which had a few features/strengths which made
it stand out.  The problem now is that with growing architectural diversity
we are spreading our software talent, too thin.  Many existing software systems
are too obtuse to teach in a university environment.  Lots of stuff didn't
generalize from one system to the next.

As a part of the fad, a religious fervor grew. ("We was sittin' there, jumpin'
up and down...")  The problem now is that we have a bandwagon which is
attracting lots of people (half-heartedly).  We can convert some of these
people without being religious (I've even seen physicists convert).
But a few people will complain without offering positive contribution.
These people (some will say), work for smaller or larger than average sized
companies.

The point I think I should make to you is that we have reached a second
stage in the evolution of Unix.  We have be quieter, now.  We have to
eliminate the religious fever (<-ok?) and take a different approach.
Those people who are skeptical, should NOT be converted.  In fact,
if they can be encouraged to spin their wheels more, so be it.  All Unix effort
should be directed to more constructive efforts than conversion.
This is like Brooks' Mythical Man-Month.  Converting people this late
in the game will only make positive efforts late.  Brooks, himself,
was once quite skeptical about the "small is beautiful" approach.
In his IEEE "Silver Bullets" article, he comes around.

If these people don't see the shifts in the computer industry, tough.
But, we should also make an effort to learn what their systems have to offer
and integrate them into what is called Unix.  If managers do not have foresight
to see changes and handle them, and their industries suffer for their
decision, so be it.  Unix "expertise"  is what the university computer
science departments are putting out not vendor specific OSes.  Maybe in other
non-computing departments, but who controls the direction?  End users?
Manufacturers or Universities?  Remember the progression of arguments?
First it was Unix versus MVS.  Then it was Unix versus VMS, now it's
Unix versus PC/DOS and OS/2.  Those other systems haven't died.  Does
nothing else rate comparison?  None of those other systems made the
transitions of hardware.

I had an interesting argument with Sid Fernbach.  He wanted commonality, too.
When asked what he thought made an good OS, he replied CTSS.  Sounds fine to
me, let there be CTSS on VAXen, CTSS on PCs, etc.  You don't need those
fancy software tools?  Who needs a screen-oriented editor?  Sounds great!
Don't try to argue with Sid!

The other extreme is to believe there is a OS for every specific manufacturer
piece of hardware.  Let them churn out operating systems.  One for the personal
computer, one for the mini, one for the mainframe, one for the super, and
let them all have different command languages.  For uniprocessors, sure,
this is fine.  Let these users get bogged
down, encourage them to get bogged down.  Then OUR users can use
commonality to hopefully be more productive.  Let them win the grants,
Let them get into decision making positions to buy to hardware and software.

Right now the pendulum is swinging to commonality, but in ten or
twenty years we can seek other ways of doing things.

A similar situation was pointed out by Rickover as he left the Pentagon:
he said let the 1/3 of the Pentagon go and do good work, and the other
2/3s should be made to sit and write memos to each other in long hand.
Note that it was the minority, not the majority which controlled.

Go do it.        Do good.		Do not convert the skeptical anymore.

Another gross generalization from

--eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eugene@aurora.arc.nasa.gov
  resident cynic at the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers:
  "Mailers?! HA!", "If my mail does not reach you, please accept my apology."
  {uunet,hplabs,ncar,decwrl,allegra,tektronix}!ames!aurora!eugene
  "Send mail, avoid follow-ups.  If enough, I'll summarize."