From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: tuhs-bounces@minnie.tuhs.org X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.1 (2015-04-28) on inbox.vuxu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.6 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,HTML_FONT_LOW_CONTRAST,HTML_MESSAGE, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,T_DKIM_INVALID autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.1 Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (minnie.tuhs.org [45.79.103.53]) by inbox.vuxu.org (OpenSMTPD) with ESMTP id a7f66007 for ; Mon, 18 Jun 2018 14:57:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id 11FC0A19EC; Tue, 19 Jun 2018 00:57:09 +1000 (AEST) Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D1439A19D3; Tue, 19 Jun 2018 00:56:54 +1000 (AEST) Authentication-Results: minnie.tuhs.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key; unprotected) header.d=ccc.com header.i=@ccc.com header.b=oXerTotE; dkim-atps=neutral Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id BAB17A19D3; Tue, 19 Jun 2018 00:56:53 +1000 (AEST) Received: from mail-it0-f50.google.com (mail-it0-f50.google.com [209.85.214.50]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 06CC79EC27 for ; Tue, 19 Jun 2018 00:56:53 +1000 (AEST) Received: by mail-it0-f50.google.com with SMTP id a195-v6so12436298itd.3 for ; Mon, 18 Jun 2018 07:56:52 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ccc.com; s=google; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=sdbe7b/vJlVH7cVlOQwENzuQmBbMYXByGbveh6aaMI0=; b=oXerTotE84Hz3Ca2Wp2mp3qY3Ss3E+9EHN7HoFPGJ0XTEmjrlZGKlQG1/xtXnEagE6 H7LNZCXitlGFp4JOSsrUEaqWz7If1hl9JW9fKpreRU16PsKbtp5XUS9nxW6ZFVZ7LW0D MnWoqnc7VCMiNa6LGRPQTeieV51I5FjlSpLb8= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=sdbe7b/vJlVH7cVlOQwENzuQmBbMYXByGbveh6aaMI0=; b=PICSMM4Ywn9orIHDq3h+qpiTtKJqq28xXO90UCGhzTUyY1pTJFXs9kCjSora2OvDHG qnvDU89zAhWqGr4m9IqwPiLHT+43sJvjjRYVf0TmJCPtH9jEx55dAklWJSLYXI0i5Uvj G4lgM8iWrvv4gNDhVpAZ4FssUtwcgJjhHlbFTkccY2gwXwKD3oGaV0BMaw41eobY2LuG 1k9j5qYqOUObuau19lwtaXOjBV2Gytr4lS6fLWafIirVdstzz9bsQprkWySxaX660Ip2 8PG6RAlKk/BUWlrLisVIBf6+++i0WJ7VPWOD4qDCP2kl7KcZZSqY4nrACcay76Gp6kzS cX3Q== X-Gm-Message-State: APt69E1njp6mn2npQIogV4+9cs/P75bh9AG7niCS+Va7UjDvh3DUpwXV w0m5qdcPxFrTpnc2e6IU7twJRJePszjE0YcPQa3Hlw== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADUXVKJ/gRe92l7u04CCeIzUPd0T599OI3eMzHBnNnfYh8teU6fpWdV5qGMxtaDEth6oKjgMwR8rOClKOm71Y99rI8w= X-Received: by 2002:a02:48d:: with SMTP id 135-v6mr10472198jab.92.1529333812128; Mon, 18 Jun 2018 07:56:52 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 2002:a4f:ca8a:0:0:0:0:0 with HTTP; Mon, 18 Jun 2018 07:56:21 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20180617173341.GB31064@thunk.org> References: <20180616133716.2302F18C0A7@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <20180617173341.GB31064@thunk.org> From: Clem Cole Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2018 10:56:21 -0400 Message-ID: To: "Theodore Y. Ts'o" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000009d8b10056eebc6bb" Subject: Re: [TUHS] core X-BeenThere: tuhs@minnie.tuhs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: The Unix Heritage Society mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: The Eunuchs Hysterical Society , Noel Chiappa Errors-To: tuhs-bounces@minnie.tuhs.org Sender: "TUHS" --0000000000009d8b10056eebc6bb Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sun, Jun 17, 2018 at 1:33 PM, Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote: > On Sat, Jun 16, 2018 at 09:37:16AM -0400, Noel Chiappa wrote: > > I can't speak to the motivations of everyone who repeats these stories, > but my > > professional career has been littered with examples of poor vision from > > technical colleagues (some of whom should have known better), against > which I > > (in my role as an architect, which is necessarily somewhere where > long-range > > thinking is - or should be - a requirement) have struggled again and > again - > > sometimes successfully, more often, not.... > > > > Examples of poor vision are legion - and more importantly, often/usuall= y > seen > > to be such _at the time_ by some people - who were not listened to. > > To be fair, it's really easy to be wise to after the fact. Let's > start with Unix; Unix is very bare-bones, when other OS architects > wanted to add lots of features that were spurned for simplicity's > sake. Amen brother. I refer to this as figuring out and understanding what matters and what is really just window dressing.=E2=80=8B That is much eas= ier to do after the fact and for those of us that lived UNIX, we spent a lot of time defending it. Many of the 'attacks' were from systems like VMS and RSX that were thought to be more 'complete' or 'professional.' > Or we could compare X.500 versus LDAP, and X.400 and SMTP. > =E2=80=8BHmmm. I'll accept X.500, but SMTP I always said was hardly 'simple= ' - although compared to what it replaced (FTPing files and remote execution) is was.=E2=80=8B =E2=80=8B > > It's easy to mock decisions that weren't forward-thinking enough; but > it's also really easy to mock failed protocols and designs that > collapsed of their own weight because architects added too much "maybe > it will be useful in the future". > =E2=80=8B+1 =E2=80=8B > > =E2=80=8B... > Adding a database into the kernel and making it a > fundamental part of the file system? OK, stupid? How about adding > all sorts of complexity in VMS and network protocols to support > record-oriented files? > =E2=80=8Btjt once put it well: 'It's not so bad that RMS has 250-1000 opti= ons, but some has to check for each them on every IO.' > > Sometimes having architects being successful to add their "vision" to > a product can be worst thing that ever happened to a operating sytsem > or, say, the entire OSI networking protocol suite. > =E2=80=8BI'll always describe it as having 'good taste.' And part of 'good= taste' is learning what really works and what really does not.=E2=80=8B BTW: havi= ng good taste in one thing does necessarily give you license in another area. And I think that is a common issues. "Hey were were successfully here, we must be genius..." Much of DEC's SW as good, but not all of it as an example. Or to pick on my own BSD expereince, sendmail is a great example of something that solved a problem we had, but boy do I wish Eric had not screwed the SMTP Daemon into it .... > > > So, is poor vision common? All too common. > > Definitely. The problem is it's hard to figure out in advance which > is poor vision versus brilliant engineering to cut down the design so > that it is "as simple as possible", but nevertheless, "as complex as > necessary". =E2=80=8BExactly... or as was said before: *as simple as possible, but n= ot simpler.=E2=80=8B* *=E2=80=8B *But I like to add that understanding 'possible' is different f= rom 'it works.'* =E2=80=8B* =E1=90=A7 --0000000000009d8b10056eebc6bb Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


On Sun, Jun 17, 2018 at 1:33 PM, Theod= ore Y. Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu> wrote:
On Sat, Jun 16, 2018 at 09:37= :16AM -0400, Noel Chiappa wrote:
> I can't speak to the motivations of everyone who repe= ats these stories, but my
> professional career has been littered with examples of poor vision fro= m
> technical colleagues (some of whom should have known better), against = which I
> (in my role as an architect, which is necessarily somewhere where long= -range
> thinking is - or should be - a requirement) have struggled again and a= gain -
> sometimes successfully, more often, not....
>
> Examples of poor vision are legion - and more importantly, often/usual= ly seen
> to be such _at the time_ by some people - who were not listened to.
To be fair, it's really easy to be wise to after the fact.=C2=A0= Let's
start with Unix; Unix is very bare-bones, when other OS architects
wanted to add lots of features that were spurned for simplicity's
sake.=C2=A0
Amen brother.=C2=A0 I refer to this as figuring out an= d understanding what matters and what is really just window dressing.=E2=80= =8B=C2=A0 That is much easier to do after the fact and for those of us that= lived UNIX, we spent a lot of time defending it.=C2=A0 Many of the 'at= tacks' were from systems like VMS and RSX that were thought to be more = 'complete' or 'professional.'
=C2=A0
Or we could com= pare X.500 versus LDAP, and X.400 and SMTP.
=E2=80=8BHmmm. I'll accept X.500= , but SMTP I always said was hardly 'simple' - although compared to= what it replaced (FTPing files and remote execution) is was.=E2=80=8B=C2=A0
=E2=80=8B


= =C2=A0

It's easy to mock decisions that weren't forward-thinking enough; b= ut
it's also really easy to mock failed protocols and designs that
collapsed of their own weight because architects added too much "maybe=
it will be useful in the future".
=E2=80=8B+1
=E2=80=8B
=C2=A0

=E2=80=8B...=C2=A0
=C2=A0Adding a database into the = kernel and making it a
fundamental part of the file system?=C2=A0 OK, stupid?=C2=A0 How about addi= ng
all sorts of complexity in VMS and network protocols to support
record-oriented files?
=E2=80=8Btjt once put it well:=C2=A0 'It's not so bad that RMS h= as 250-1000 options, but some has to check for each them on every IO.'<= /font>

=C2=A0

Sometimes having architects being successful to add their "vision"= ; to
a product can be worst thing that ever happened to a operating sytsem
or, say, the entire OSI networking protocol suite.
<= div>
=E2=80=8BI'll always = describe it as having 'good taste.'=C2=A0 And part of 'good tas= te' is learning what really works and what really does not.=E2=80=8B=C2= =A0 BTW: having good taste in one thing does necessarily=C2=A0give you lice= nse in another area.=C2=A0 And I think that is a common issues.=C2=A0 =C2= =A0"Hey were were successfully here, we must be genius..."=C2=A0 = =C2=A0Much of DEC's SW as good, but not all of it as an example.=C2=A0 = Or to pick on my own BSD expereince, sendmail is a great example of somethi= ng that solved a problem we had, but boy do I wish Eric had not screwed the= SMTP Daemon into it ....

=C2=A0

> So, is poor vision common? All too common.

Definitely.=C2=A0 The problem is it's hard to figure out in adva= nce which
is poor vision versus brilliant engineering to cut down the design so
that it is "as simple as possible", but nevertheless, "as co= mplex as
necessary".
=E2=80=8BExactly...=C2=A0 =C2=A0or as was said before:=C2=A0 as = simple as possible, but not simpler.=E2=80=8B
=C2=A0=
=E2=80=8B=C2=A0 But I like= to add that understanding 'possible' is different from 'it wor= ks.'=C2=A0=E2=80=8B
3D""=E1= =90=A7
--0000000000009d8b10056eebc6bb--