From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <b06cd8ef67f3a02641279b097ef8c85e@9netics.com>
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] alright, this should be interesting
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 23:23:25 -0700
From: Skip Tavakkolian <9nut@9netics.com>
In-Reply-To: <ee9e417a041019211960b8f2a5@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Topicbox-Message-UUID: f16444bc-eacd-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

> You're claiming that the "software quality" of the
> underlying kernel somehow plays a role in determining
> the "software quality" of the software written on top of
> it, presumably by providing an example for others to
> follow.

I think the effect is direct, not just by examples.
If some specific function of your (high quality) software
written for some (low quality) kernel counts on a kernel feature that
works sometimes depending on special cases, sooner or later
that ugliness will cause ugliness in the code that deals with it.
I think forsyth's example says it exactly. You can't build any better
than the foundation will allow.