From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,a7365ff3531de5f4 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public Path: controlnews3.google.com!news2.google.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!tar-meneldur.cbb-automation.DE!not-for-mail From: Dmitry A. Kazakov Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: [OT] Right to use vs. sue Date: Wed, 05 May 2004 13:34:00 +0200 Message-ID: <5m9h90pmathgv2rptouab30o58dspqah6c@4ax.com> References: <1dte909trkf0epv4k6dpu29l2up9mek0q9@4ax.com> <8QPlc.22135$3Q4.552939@news20.bellglobal.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: tar-meneldur.cbb-automation.de (212.79.194.119) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: news.uni-berlin.de 1083755971 1774530 I 212.79.194.119 ([77047]) X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548 Xref: controlnews3.google.com comp.lang.ada:270 Date: 2004-05-05T13:34:00+02:00 List-Id: On Tue, 04 May 2004 12:50:12 -0400, "Warren W. Gay VE3WWG" wrote: >Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote: >> On Tue, 4 May 2004 10:53:03 +0100, "Marius Amado Alves" >> wrote: >...snip... > >> I would not be so sure. The present model is so inefficient that in >> some period of time it would be impossible to keep on with software >> development [of exponentially growing complexity]. Note that all >> economical growth will depend on software developing. At this moment >> either we will be able to drastically improve software quality, safety >> and reuse, or our civilisation will collapse. >... >> Dmitry Kazakov >> www.dmitry-kazakov.de > >This is an interesting point: perhaps for reasons you didn't intend. If >as you say, software continues to grow (exponentially or not), then >one must continue to build upon a foundation. Eventually, the focus >must shift away from the foundation to the new development on the >higher levels because all programming resources are limited. > >So.. > >If your foundation is a proprietary one, then it will likely stagnate >eventually. A corporation's interest (say M$) 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