UNIX-like, or profitable?

[Dick Dunn]

jerry at TALOS.UUCP (Jerry Gitomer) writes:
> kemnitz at 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 at ico.isc.com -or- ico!rcd       Boulder, CO   (303)449-2870
   ...While you were reading this, Motif grew by another kilobyte.