Feeping Creaturism (was Re: Unlimited software warranties)

[Dick Dunn]

jgd at Dixie.Com (John G. DeArmond) gives us a straw poll:

> ...I'd hate to see Unix go the way of DOS and
> start putting in what I call "Road Test" features; ie, those features that
> make dumbsh*t magazine reviewers babble but annoy the people who use the
> stuff all day...

I think it's already started.  Look, we've got X, which is an interesting
experiment but it's got too much stuff that isn't right, or that happens at
the wrong level or in the wrong way.  (What the heck; it's got too much
stuff, period.)  So what are we going to do about it?  Nothing; forget it,
man, it's cast in concrete.  The magazine reviewers have decided that one
for us; they've mostly decided the Motif/Open-Look question and they're
working on the next level beyond that.  There are software folk saying
"ummm...shouldn't we break up this part of the foundation and re-pour
it??" while these guys are taping the wallboard on the second floor.  Of
course, if it falls, it gonna fall on our haids.

> Well hey, this is a network, let's do a little survey.  A hand count will do.
> (If anyone actually wants to answer these questions, I'll tally 'em.)
> 
> Question 1:  How many people are wetting their pants waiting for System 4 on
> 	a PC platform.  Hmm... A hand or 2.  Well, there's always those types.
> 	After all, some people buy RS/6000s too.

John, wait!  You counted carefully in our vicinity, but look over there in
the distance...see that glare?  It's the unFortunate 500...they heard you
say something about more features, and that uncomfortable brightness is the
sun glinting off the drool on a thousand well-polished Guccis.

> Question 2:  Given a mythological Unix vendor, call it ISC, would you rather
> 	see this vendor put its resources in System 4 or would you rather see
> 	those resources put into making release 3.xxx more stable, more secure,
> 	faster, and last but not least, not have the Inode bug?  Hmm, looks
> 	damn near unanamous for release 3.

Now something changed in the distance.  The glare is gone; instead I hear
a grim muttering out there...wait, I'm catching it...it sounds something
like "must move on / at all cost / if we pause / all is lost."
They're closer now; I can see a few YSL-logo checkbook covers showing in
that special subtle-brandishing motion, not calling attention but being
sure they're seen, the nonverbal equivalent of clearing the throat and
noting with some severity, "excuse me; I'm not sure I heard what I hoped
you meant to say..."

Meanwhile, some of the programmers who had their hands in the air have now
nervously looked over their shoulders and are adopting different gestures,
with matching facial expressions..."Who? What? Dear me, no, I was just
scratching my head at how anyone could propose such a preposterous
question!"..."Just brushing my hair back"..."The SUN was in my eyes"...

> Question 3: Same premise but the alternative this time is this company sinking
> 	its resources in merging in Berkely functionality and compatability and
> 	maybe even getting with other vendors to try again to merge sys V and
> 	Berkely.  Hmm.  I did not know middle aged programmers could do 
> 	double back flips.  

John, John, John...you have to watch for more than a second...
Serious misinterpretation.  Look at them now; they're flopping about on the
floor, as if reliving the anguish of the electroshock treatments that they
needed after dealing with the last attempt to merge BSD and SysV.  A few
have passed out as they grasped the totality of what you've suggested: an
obscenely difficult task in the best of all possible worlds, merging two
systems to produce something which retains all features of both while
becoming simpler, introduces no incompatibilities and exacts neither time
nor space penalties...and now a task which must succeed on technical merit
alone, against the arrayed marketing skills of AT&T, SUN, OSF, DEC,
HPollo, IBM,...

The situation could have turned ugly on us, except that the suits listened
to what you said, watched the histrionics of the hackers, and decided it
was all a big joke.  They're forcing smiles, nervously adjusting their
ties, and a few are trying to make amends by saying things like, "well, you
had us going for a bit, future-plan-wise, but let me assure you that we do
appreciate your concerns and we'll be hoping you keep us apprised vis-a-vis
the technical implications, not to say that we can ignore the value of
image and presentation for the long-term bottom line of next week, and per-
haps we should do lunch sometime in the nebulous frostbitten-Hades not-
quite-near-future term, so please have your email call the car-phone-for-
warding fax-machine for my answering service."
_ _ _ _ _

OK, back to reality (but only for a moment, I promise!:-).  John, I agree
with a lot of what you say.  NOW:  Show me where there's bucks in your way.
That's not to say it couldn't happen!  I just want to see if you really
think there's a good business case for it.  Put forth a straw-man for a
stable system.  It should take about a page to sketch to reasonable
detail; it's not hard.  See how many people (more to the point, how many
potential licenses) will sign up for it.

Oh, and while you're at it, go back through a week or so of comp.unix.
sysv386.  Note the folks who are grumbling that ISC won't have production
V.4 until later in the year.  (Dear me, they want it *right*now*, but I'll
give you dollars to donuts they also wanted it tested!)  Note the ones who
can't understand why we haven't got all eleventy-seven displays (from $27
Hercules through the UltraTurboHypergraphics setups that cost more than
the rest of the machine) converted to X11R4 yet.  I point them out because
these are people who aren't having any of your idea.

> Question 4:	How many people would just kill for a high performance K&R 
> 	compiler with ANSI and POSIX relegated to the 4 letter word file?...

Let's be a bit careful here...as much as I would like to go "forward...into
the past!", I'd also like to stop worrying about getting code from the out-
side world that has to be hacked before I can use it--like stuff that's
starting to come across in ANSI C, or the endless stream of BSDish stuff
created with long file names that collide when truncated in SysVland...
Actually, *I'D* probably be fairly happy with a compiler that would
ignore differences between ANSIosity and K&R.

ok, I promised we wouldn't stay long in reality...
_ _ _ _ _

> Well there you have it.  Leading programmers everywhere vote for stable,
> reliable, functional and high performance platforms...

Yeah, but who wants to sell to programmers?  They're SUCH a surly lot, and
anyway, they don't have the big bucks.

(sprinkle liberally with ":-)" before roasting)
-- 
Dick Dunn     rcd at ico.isc.com -or- ico!rcd       Boulder, CO   (303)449-2870
   The Official Colorado State Vegetable is now the "state legislator".