From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on inbox.vuxu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.5 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,HTML_FONT_LOW_CONTRAST,HTML_MESSAGE, MAILING_LIST_MULTI autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (minnie.tuhs.org [IPv6:2600:3c01:e000:146::1]) by inbox.vuxu.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D200F28B56 for ; Wed, 3 Jul 2024 16:05:44 +0200 (CEST) Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C54C242858; Thu, 4 Jul 2024 00:05:38 +1000 (AEST) Received: from mail-vk1-xa2b.google.com (mail-vk1-xa2b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::a2b]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6915C42821 for ; Thu, 4 Jul 2024 00:05:35 +1000 (AEST) Received: by mail-vk1-xa2b.google.com with SMTP id 71dfb90a1353d-4eb02c0c851so1664280e0c.0 for ; Wed, 03 Jul 2024 07:05:35 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ccc.com; s=google; t=1720015534; x=1720620334; darn=tuhs.org; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=/r20VwkILH0lHMqVK1PVt+YVS1d62rZ9VCcfSDMlMWM=; b=o4fvXpU+iggX71qpB6b1/q4WtlkumpN5g499QRmUfnPraxbUTF7XTn3Bg+dieqKzn+ 0SLKpR0nJxVQnubljbur3onYBnSY5EVPgVvsZ7A/dhEW3AsirveSSYZJcBZUEAv6eWg+ 4cyguOpZQ0DsLmR3K+FyQ+b4/Tuygc3DpGpaY= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1720015534; x=1720620334; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=/r20VwkILH0lHMqVK1PVt+YVS1d62rZ9VCcfSDMlMWM=; b=tt1ICxUY/wLBulX7G8askbC/hZT7YNKQ07P8oS57WdAOnlUqL9ng7t5pzYgihZkP8U bUc+Cs+OsPjHGLO7WkfPYB8ludg45oBYGAPlxZdZ1biNS9E9hSS3llKmrrFwqC/aR3vd Vnaze7e3tbb3vi+vMM8VNZFYT0HelgShXyX+r71RTW74GkiZ4MUWAaFD+qq4jDT2gjTK /8mvYcd++1C6Uu6P2RVH6MXGsK9XgDIo5wzehLbiz91Ts0ZXFeQNhCTqERA4l+oJaaea kCfrqyVMWRMjJRNzGnPopOXx8FWv/QJO3I/mu2THlAZS4CYjCc0nWsDY7wyitrXHSaZS 3W/g== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Yw9+PW25+Hf+EX/x1WZRx86KO4AAadx89M1EySAGSFJOtM3AknN y3k+KKyvP3r9luhMmI8bPqMlwbQrL/ZrABFEHNXibg5BbvkQodo31eIu/Y9u23oSVNt69auwB// VMp/HW7WE3QucpfzyPKizrudTCuT3wWnUbl+V X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IH7oorPywm2KbfDtXYu74aInW4Uulx83Z0nBb//3aylZQ8XVEEXskzn2zg/wcY6BI1uT3plhvxBvQcozrc2tkg= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6122:270b:b0:4ed:145:3489 with SMTP id 71dfb90a1353d-4f2a56f27f8mr14016819e0c.13.1720015534089; Wed, 03 Jul 2024 07:05:34 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <93529CA0-7097-443C-999B-384BE6BD5683@canb.auug.org.au> <1b03f128-192f-4f46-4e76-50b68cd0e5af@bitsavers.org> In-Reply-To: <1b03f128-192f-4f46-4e76-50b68cd0e5af@bitsavers.org> From: Clem Cole Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2024 10:04:58 -0400 Message-ID: To: Al Kossow , steve jenkin Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000eb03dd061c585291" Message-ID-Hash: ZFSVANYCNDJEQGLRH2TH57VIEBR7SNJ5 X-Message-ID-Hash: ZFSVANYCNDJEQGLRH2TH57VIEBR7SNJ5 X-MailFrom: clemc@ccc.com X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-tuhs.tuhs.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header CC: tuhs@tuhs.org X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.6b1 Precedence: list Subject: [TUHS] Re: Anyone ever heard of teaching a case study of Initial Unix? List-Id: The Unix Heritage Society mailing list Archived-At: List-Archive: List-Help: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: --000000000000eb03dd061c585291 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, Jul 3, 2024 at 1:02=E2=80=AFAM Al Kossow wrote: > > > Managing an open source project is like herding a pack of alpha male > tomcats with their own agendas that you can't fire. > *i.e., *the Cathedral (*vs.* the bazaar) with a small group of people, like original, UNIX and Plan9 projects works better. Small is beautiful, particularly in a development team, but the principles of throwing one away and "*it is done when it is done*" have to be considered. FWIW: In the HW world, Seymour Cray said that the best HW development team has about 10-12 people and no more. Maybe there is someone who knows about real-world complex systems that can still be understood by a small number of designers. Of course, the problem today is that the systems are a few orders of magnitude more complex. There is no way a single human can comprehend every transistor in a modern processor, as Seymour did in the CDC and later Cray machines. The same is true for operating systems environments - although I think the >>kernel< can be, particularly if it's something more like Per Brinch Hansen's idea of a 'nucleus,' which I think you can argue is what Plan9 was and Unix V0-6 were pretty close to being. @steve jenkin FWIW: It also depends on how you measure "success." Both the original and derivatives of Linux and OS/360 can be considered "success" if you look at how they are used and their impact, particularly in a commercial setting. But in many ways, neither had (nor has had) an impact as the core *UNIX ideas* have on the industry/CS community at large. There was really little that was "new" in either OS/360 or Linux. Both were based on keeping SW developed for older systems working and offering new *attributes* (like not being AT&T copyright) and, eventually (later) some new features. Compare the fact that were not really novel with Plan9. While moving from an application from UNIX to Plan9 was possible, the designers decidedly broke from the past - such as making a uniform namespace and using 9P as the "glue layer." It turns out 9P could do many of the things that original UNIX layers could, so moving from a UNIX system was not a huge lift, but (as I understand it - Rob, please correct me if I have misinterpreted), it was not a goal to allow UNIX programs to be rebuilt with make(1) [or mk(1)] with no changes. That can not be said for OS/360 or Linux. In fact, if the programmer had followed Henry's 10 Programmers' Commandments, you could type: make and most programs coming from your vax or 68000 UNIX box - "just worked." Brooks and team considered it a requirement that older applications "just work" - which, in fact, was one of the reasons why, even though at the inception of the project, S/360 was designed to be IBM's first ASCII system [remember IBM and AT&T were the two primary sponsors of ASCII to ASA and IBM person chaired the committee]. EBCDIC was created so that those old codes could be supported and ended up being the path of least resistance when OS/360 was late. My point is that the cats appear after the fact. It is challenging to direct them towards your goals, not theirs. Thus, the 'benevolent dictator' model seems to appear in "successful" FOSS projects. I would argue with ers that this is actually the same Cathredal with a master builder making the choices, BTW. Clem =E1=90=A7 --000000000000eb03dd061c585291 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


On W= ed, Jul 3, 2024 at 1:02=E2=80=AFAM Al Kossow <aek@bitsavers.org> wrote:


Managing an open source project is like herding a pack of alpha male tomcat= s with their own agendas that you can't fire.
i.e., the Cathedral=C2=A0(vs. the bazaar) with a= small group of people, like original, UNIX and Plan9 projects works better= .

Small is beautiful, particularly in a developm= ent team, but the principles=C2=A0of throwing one away and "it is d= one when it is done" have to be considered.=C2=A0=C2=A0FWIW: In the HW world, Seymour Cray said that=C2=A0the best HW development team has about 10-12 people and = no more.=C2=A0=C2=A0Maybe there is someone who knows about real-worl= d complex systems that can still be understood by a small number=C2=A0of de= signers.

Of course, the problem tod= ay is that the systems=C2=A0are a few orders of magnitude more complex.=C2= =A0 There is no way a single human can comprehend every transistor in a mod= ern processor, as Seymour did in the CDC and later Cray machines. The same = is true for operating systems environments - although I think the >>k= ernel< can be, particularly if it's something more like Per Brinch H= ansen's idea of a 'nucleus,' which I think you can argue is wha= t Plan9 was and Unix V0-6 were pretty close to being.
=
@steve jenkin=C2=A0FWIW: It also depends on how you measure "su= ccess."=C2=A0 =C2=A0Both the original and derivatives of Linux and OS/= 360 can be considered "success" if you look at how they are used = and their impact, particularly in a commercial setting.=C2=A0 But in many w= ays, neither had (nor has had) an impact as the core UNIX ideas have= on the industry/CS community at large.=C2=A0=C2=A0There was really little = that was "new" in either OS/360 or Linux.=C2=A0 Both were based o= n keeping SW developed for older systems working and offering new attrib= utes (like not being AT&T copyright) and, eventually (later) some n= ew features.= =C2=A0

Compare the fact that were not really novel with Plan9.=C2=A0 While moving= from an application from UNIX to Plan9 was possible, the designers decided= ly broke from the past - such as making a uniform namespace and using 9P as= the "glue layer." It turns out 9P could do many of the things th= at original UNIX layers could, so moving from a UNIX system was not a huge = lift, but (as I understand it - Rob, please correct me if I have misinterpr= eted), it was not a goal to allow UNIX programs to be rebuilt with <= font face=3D"monospace" color=3D"#38761d">make(1) [or mk(1)] with no chan= ges.

That can not be said for OS/360 or L= inux.=C2=A0 In fact, if the programmer had followed Henry's 10 Programm= ers' Commandments, you could type: make and most programs coming from your vax or 68000 UNIX box - "just= worked."=C2=A0 =C2=A0Brooks and team considered it a requirement that= older applications "just work" - which, in fact, was one of the = reasons why, even though at the inception of the project, S/360 was designe= d to be IBM's first ASCII system [remember IBM and AT&T were the tw= o primary sponsors of ASCII to ASA and IBM person chaired the committee]. E= BCDIC was created so that those old codes could be supported and ended up b= eing the path of least resistance when OS/360 was late.
My point is that the cats appear after the fact= . It is challenging to direct them towards your goals, not theirs. Thus, th= e 'benevolent dictator' model seems to appear in "successful&q= uot; FOSS projects. I would argue with ers that this is actually the same C= athredal with a master builder making the choices, BTW.
Clem

3D""=E1= =90=A7
--000000000000eb03dd061c585291--