Re: [OT] Right to use vs. sue

[Dmitry A. Kazakov <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>]

On Tue, 04 May 2004 12:50:12 -0400, "Warren W. Gay VE3WWG"
<warren@ve3wwg.tk> wrote:

>Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
>> On Tue, 4 May 2004 10:53:03 +0100, "Marius Amado Alves"
>> <amado.alves@netcabo.pt> wrote:
>...snip...
>
>> I would not be so sure. The present model is so inefficient that in
>> some period of time it would be impossible to keep on with software
>> development [of exponentially growing complexity]. Note that all
>> economical growth will depend on software developing. At this moment
>> either we will be able to drastically improve software quality, safety
>> and reuse, or our civilisation will collapse.
>...
>> Dmitry Kazakov
>> www.dmitry-kazakov.de
>
>This is an interesting point: perhaps for reasons you didn't intend. If
>as you say, software continues to grow (exponentially or not), then
>one must continue to build upon a foundation. Eventually, the focus
>must shift away from the foundation to the new development on the
>higher levels because all programming resources are limited.
>
>So..
>
>If your foundation is a proprietary one, then it will likely stagnate
>eventually. A corporation's interest (say M$) and resources will move
>to the areas of new development, since that is where all the creativity
>and competition will lie. The foundation meanwhile, will tend to be
>neglected and remain the same (save for bug fixes etc.) This tends
>to be the natural consequence of any foundation that you want to
>build on (you want to discourage change).
>
>The open sourced situation isn't much different, except that you do
>have the choice to go back and experiment with the foundation, if it
>makes sense to (a new idea occurs). This is possible because of the
>source code, of course.
>
>But all of this really suggests to me that all foundations, will
>eventually become commodity items. Commodity items will likely
>include source code, since the priorities will not be there. So
>companies like HP, will likely someday drop HPUX, and continue
>with Linux, since it will be cheaper for them in the long run
>(less O/S to maintain, apart from hardware issues). The same
>argument can be made for higher level items like compiler
>tools.
>
>For M$ to give away the source code now, seems inconceivable. But
>eventually I can see them doing so because it will actually be in
>their best interest to do so. When the pyramid of software gets
>large enough, no one will want to significantly change the foundation
>anyway (it will risk breaking everything above it). They will be
>focused upon the things that are on upper levels where all the
>"action" is.

A terrifying picture.

>This is the only way that I can see this pyramid of general purpose
>software moving forward over the long haul. The programming resources
>are always going to be limited, so the emphasis of the development
>has to change from lower levels to higher levels.
>
>For this to happen, it tends to demand that the reliability of the
>foundation layers improve!

If the picture is true, then sooner or later it will collapse anyway.
Actually the pyramid is upturned. A growing number of larger and
larger layers are balancing on the nose. One cannot do it
indefinitely.

Additionally to reliability one have to ensure a steady progress of
the technology of programming. This way one will be able to replace
parts of the pyramid as they rotting.

--
Regards,
Dmitry Kazakov
www.dmitry-kazakov.de