Re: [OT] Right to use vs. sue

["Warren W. Gay VE3WWG" <warren@ve3wwg.tk>]

Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
> 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
...
>>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.

I cannot know what aspects of this terrify you, but certainly there
are some areas for concern (lack of improving reliability for one).

I also see this to be more of a trend, rather than an absolute thing.
There will always be some Operating System (foundation) research
happening, but I do believe that the overall emphasis will move
away from it.

>>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.

Whether or not it can be sustained indefinitely or not, is largely
a function of design, I think. I suppose, also that if the design
is constrained at the higher levels, then one must revisit the
foundations to make it possible. If there is enough
of this going on, then perhaps the trend I have painted is
unrealistic. But if I was betting on this horse race, I would
bet on the scenario that I previously mentioned.

There is also the argument that the design may be so constraining
at some future point, that as you say, will cause it all to
collapse. When that happens, then obviously the foundation must
be revisited with new requirements in mind, and rebuilt from
scratch.

I guess the fundamental question is whether or not
new designs will apply safe tools (languages) or not.

> 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.

Perhaps we'll actually see this someday (one can hope, anyhow).
Perhaps someone will take the Windows foundation (for example),
and replace it with a predominantly Ada/SPARK version of the
same. The same could be said about other foundational software
(but I wouldn't bet on this horse!)

I do agree that reliability and security are two extremely
important fronts that need continued development.
-- 
Warren W. Gay VE3WWG
http://ve3wwg.tk