just wanted to say, it kind of sucks cause intel is more win made, and amd and powerpc are for unix
Source?
I think it's funny that you say that, because the current core of Windows has a lineage such that it was made for RISC first. I ran a RISC computer using Windows NT 4.0 for several years, it was the most dependable platform I have ever used.
Apple has made improvements to to the Unix layer. Launchd is a good example. There was resistance at first. But it's been acknowledged as being a useful advance.
Unix hasn't remained where it was. There have been other advances over the decades. None of these systems stand still.
Source? ...I think it's funny that you say that, because the current core of Windows has a lineage such that it was made for RISC first. I ran a RISC computer using Windows NT 4.0 for several years, it was the most dependable platform I have ever used.
windows NT and further OSes based on winNT codebase (afaik win2000, win2003, winxpPro???)** is the only thing microsoft has done right... but given all the security holes though \ hmmm .... **don't get all uppity with me, but if someone can clarify in a evolutionary tree type thing of current microsoft OSes based on winNT that would be great.
Actually, IMHO, I think it IS. Again, I see the OS glass as half full, do you see it as half empty? It obviously works, something must be right? Again, "Nature abhors a vacuum," you must start from somewhere (i. e. what you are doing right). Start from scratch, with absolutely no previous knowledge, I DON'T THINK SO!
Actually, IMHO, I think it IS. Again, I see the OS glass as half full, do you see it as half empty? It obviously works, something must be right? Again, "Nature abhors a vacuum," you must start from somewhere (i. e. what you are doing right). Start from scratch, with absolutely no previous knowledge, I DON'T THINK SO!
I think that Programmer was referring to the fact that before you move forward you need to learn from the past. And what you learn, if you were writing code the logical is to say what went wrong and why. This gives credit to those that came before you, in that they were smart people and made mistakes. It is very possible to follow that same path, because these were smart people. We learn from our mistakes. Unix is very old, I think that Apple has done an exceptional job of forward looking, and not repeating some of the mistakes of the past. Let us face it most of what they are doing today were technologies that were considered well before OSX ever got off of the ground.
As far as Intel building the MBs, I seem to remember that they are rock solid but don't appear to use the latest technologies, a bit more tried and true. So what will be those compromises? Or is Napa and Merom chip sets cutting edge? Or more evolution with a healty dose of conserve those Watts?
I'm not sure what you means by "don't appear to use the latest technologies"?
As far as I have seen, they use all the latest and greatest.
Do you have any specific examples?
You maybe refering to the fact that they may not have the most "add-ons" such as extra RAID controllers and such which some of the more "enthusiast's" boards offer. However, if you're not a complete computer junkie, you don't miss them a bit.
Anybody who thinks Intel inside logo is not a big deal does not undesrtand what ideals Steve Jobs has stood for since the beginning. True, what makes Macs great is more than their gorgeous industrial design, but what lies beneath it: they have always been fast and far more reliable machines than their PC (Piece of Crap) counterparts. But a big Intel logo on the case would not just be a blemish but would also simbolize Apple's utter succumb to the Man. It would not simbolize a partnership between the two companies but a dominance of one over the other.
Unfortunately, fellow Mac users, all bets are off. Will Steve fold before the all mighty dollar or will he stand his ground against the cold, dry emptiness of marketing, and victoriously keep bringing users a superior computer that also reminds them of the ideal that America was founded on freedom? Freedom of thought and freedom from greed and everything that corrodes our hearts. If what we fear becomes true Apple will just become another Dell, Compaq, HP, etc...
As a creative professional I would hate having to stare at some stupid logo all the time, it would distract me from my work, and get in my way. And those who think an etched or embossed logo would be better or classier than a sticker obvioulsy don't know crap about visual design. A sticker can at least be removed (and then burned. hahaha).
Anybody who thinks Intel inside logo is not a big deal does not undesrtand what ideals Steve Jobs has stood for since the beginning. True, what makes Macs great is more than their gorgeous industrial design, but what lies beneath it: they have always been fast and far more reliable machines than their PC (Piece of Crap) counterparts. But a big Intel logo on the case would not just be a blemish but would also simbolize Apple's utter succumb to the Man. It would not simbolize a partnership between the two companies but a dominance of one over the other.
Unfortunately, fellow Mac users, all bets are off. Will Steve fold before the all mighty dollar or will he stand his ground against the cold, dry emptiness of marketing, and victoriously keep bringing users a superior computer that also reminds them of the ideal that America was founded on freedom? Freedom of thought and freedom from greed and everything that corrodes our hearts. If what we fear becomes true Apple will just become another Dell, Compaq, HP, etc...
As a creative professional I would hate having to stare at some stupid logo all the time, it would distract me from my work, and get in my way. And those who think an etched or embossed logo would be better or classier than a sticker obvioulsy don't know crap about visual design. A sticker can at least be removed (and then burned. hahaha).
Anyway, I guess we'll find out soon.
I don't think things will be as bleak as you suggest. However, perhaps except for the image thing (nee facade), Apple in most respects, is just like any other major corporation. Oops, forgot that Apple IS the current leading computer vendor that has control over both the HW and SW (Sun would be the next, I guess). IMHO, that's a good thing.
WRT, the logo (how it's branded, marketed, etcetera (the image thing)), I'd prefer something very similar to Apple's current symbol, by that I mean a symbol without words, preferably a monotone. It's clean, simple, and elegant. IMHO that's a great thing.
However, I would like to think that whatever the MACTEL branding ends up being, would be unique to that partnership (i. e. leadership in HW/SW/Industrial design). Fudge the rest of the PeeCee vendors, they get stuck with the (updated) Intel logo. IMHO, I would think both Apple and Intel would want something unique. Perhaps, the Apple logo on the sides and Apple's rebranding of the CPU (a la G3/G4/G5).
But in the end, to me, its mostly about the OS and not how the HW package (i. e. the wrapper) looks. I guess THAT would make me a real Mac fanbois .
If the new Macs were to have Intel labels or logos, wouldn't they go on the back or bottom of the unit along with the standards logo's and text (like on the base of a Mac mini)?
I think that Programmer was referring to the fact that before you move forward you need to learn from the past. And what you learn, if you were writing code the logical is to say what went wrong and why. This gives credit to those that came before you, in that they were smart people and made mistakes. It is very possible to follow that same path, because these were smart people. We learn from our mistakes. Unix is very old, I think that Apple has done an exceptional job of forward looking, and not repeating some of the mistakes of the past. Let us face it most of what they are doing today were technologies that were considered well before OSX ever got off of the ground.
As far as Intel building the MBs, I seem to remember that they are rock solid but don't appear to use the latest technologies, a bit more tried and true. So what will be those compromises? Or is Napa and Merom chip sets cutting edge? Or more evolution with a healty dose of conserve those Watts?
I think were both saying the same thing, its one of those horse and egg things .
I think that Programmer was referring to the fact that before you move forward you need to learn from the past. And what you learn, if you were writing code the logical is to say what went wrong and why. This gives credit to those that came before you, in that they were smart people and made mistakes. It is very possible to follow that same path, because these were smart people. We learn from our mistakes. Unix is very old, I think that Apple has done an exceptional job of forward looking, and not repeating some of the mistakes of the past. Let us face it most of what they are doing today were technologies that were considered well before OSX ever got off of the ground.
As far as Intel building the MBs, I seem to remember that they are rock solid but don't appear to use the latest technologies, a bit more tried and true. So what will be those compromises? Or is Napa and Merom chip sets cutting edge? Or more evolution with a healty dose of conserve those Watts?
I'n not sure that I understand what this part of the argument is about.
Both the good and the bad have to be examined equally.
First, you have to determine if there is something worth saving, then you have to see if the problems are so great as to overwhelm the work necessary to do so.
Sometimes, the basic ideas are good, but the implimentation is poor, or outdated. In that case, a complete reworking is required. That may simply be too much.
But if the system is basically functionable, but needs some tuning, modernization, etc., it might pay to do it.
This is true whatever it is that's being worked on. It can be software or hardware.
Anybody who thinks Intel inside logo is not a big deal does not undesrtand what ideals Steve Jobs has stood for since the beginning. True, what makes Macs great is more than their gorgeous industrial design, but what lies beneath it: they have always been fast and far more reliable machines than their PC (Piece of Crap) counterparts. But a big Intel logo on the case would not just be a blemish but would also simbolize Apple's utter succumb to the Man. It would not simbolize a partnership between the two companies but a dominance of one over the other.
Unfortunately, fellow Mac users, all bets are off. Will Steve fold before the all mighty dollar or will he stand his ground against the cold, dry emptiness of marketing, and victoriously keep bringing users a superior computer that also reminds them of the ideal that America was founded on freedom? Freedom of thought and freedom from greed and everything that corrodes our hearts. If what we fear becomes true Apple will just become another Dell, Compaq, HP, etc...
As a creative professional I would hate having to stare at some stupid logo all the time, it would distract me from my work, and get in my way. And those who think an etched or embossed logo would be better or classier than a sticker obvioulsy don't know crap about visual design. A sticker can at least be removed (and then burned. hahaha).
Anyway, I guess we'll find out soon.
Decisions like this should be based on more than someone's ideals.
If an ideal is that no stickers be put on, I can see a vast amount of wasted talent going into what is a nothing area. Even if it is embossed.
Ideals should be reserved for areas such as the best, GUI, ergonomics, functionality, presentation, cost, reliability, service, software, etc.
We don't need ideals to decide whether we will have a logo on a box, or a sticker on the machine. Most people rightfully would prefer the 5 or 10% discount on the price that having that sticker might make possible.
Christ people. Apple sells Macs to Mac users, not Intel & Co.
This statement is not altogether true.
The estimate is that in 2005 (ending in Sept quarter), Apple sold about 1 million of its 4.5 million machines to Windows users. Another 3/4 million went to people who never bought a machine before.
Thid is what we need. Otherwise, Apple will be selling fewer machines each year as people get older and stop buying new machines. This was happening for several years. We DON'T need that.
It's estimated that Win buyers will be a larger number this year, as will new buyers.
I'n not sure that I understand what this part of the argument is about.
Both the good and the bad have to be examined equally.
First, you have to determine if there is something worth saving, then you have to see if the problems are so great as to overwhelm the work necessary to do so.
Sometimes, the basic ideas are good, but the implimentation is poor, or outdated. In that case, a complete reworking is required. That may simply be too much.
But if the system is basically functionable, but needs some tuning, modernization, etc., it might pay to do it.
This is true whatever it is that's being worked on. It can be software or hardware.
Not an argument, an observation. Yes both are looked at but the bulk of the time is spent on figuring out the bad and why it went bad. If you work in a large organization this is what is done. The bad did not start out like that it went wrong, why? Was it an internal organization problem? Did external factors have any bearing on the failure and if so how much. Did we see this comming? Is so could we not react quick enough, or was it lost in translation?
You can see that in a large organization, you can fix the problem with the software or hardware but equal or more attention must be payed to the health of the organization, fixing the problem is one of scope. The problem is that the widget is no longer viable, why? If the organization is running properly it should be that all things are noticed and fixed in time. The last place you want to go is down pat on the back lane, wow we really did this well, those things should be obvious. It is the bad things that you need to identify, most are very well hidden. This is Situation Normal in a large well run organization, most of them spend their problem solving time looking internal as well as external. Bad things could happen to the person that does not identify the real problem. For example fixing the motor of a boat, while not properly identifying that the pilot had no idea where the boat or land was. Now if you are in a lake this is a small problem, if you are in an Ocean...
Not an argument, an observation. Yes both are looked at but the bulk of the time is spent on figuring out the bad and why it went bad. If you work in a large organization this is what is done. The bad did not start out like that it went wrong, why? Was it an internal organization problem? Did external factors have any bearing on the failure and if so how much. Did we see this comming? Is so could we not react quick enough, or was it lost in translation?
You can see that in a large organization, you can fix the problem with the software or hardware but equal or more attention must be payed to the health of the organization, fixing the problem is one of scope. The problem is that the widget is no longer viable, why? If the organization is running properly it should be that all things are noticed and fixed in time. The last place you want to go is down pat on the back lane, wow we really did this well, those things should be obvious. It is the bad things that you need to identify, most are very well hidden. This is Situation Normal in a large well run organization, most of them spend their problem solving time looking internal as well as external. Bad things could happen to the person that does not identify the real problem. For example fixing the motor of a boat, while not properly identifying that the pilot had no idea where the boat or land was. Now if you are in a lake this is a small problem, if you are in an Ocean...
That can be true.
But remember that when a systen has been around for a long time, it isn't always that there are "bad" parts. They may seem bad because technology has eliminated the need for the way the system operates.
To get back to UNIX. Back when it was developed, RAM was both very expensive, and thus available, even in mainframes, in, by todays standards, very small amounts. So the system used virtual memory for most everything.
Even today, UNIX's tend to do that more than other, more modern systems. So a redesign of the memory systems is in order. That's fine. But, there's nothing "bad" about it. It just isn't required to do things that way anymore. But it doesn't sink the system either. If fact, UNIX based systems tend to have the best virtual memory systems around. And it can't go away altogether.
Besides, most of this has nothing to do with whether we are talking about a large system or organizarion or a small one.
Small bits take less work to correct, but they are also less valuble to begin with. Large bits take much more work, but thet are also much more valuble.
small organizations are the same way. They are easier to move, but have less at stake overall. If they fail, there is less loss (not to them, of course).
Large organizations move more slowly. But they have much more to lose. It isn't always good for a large organization to move too quickly on a major project. They have much at stake in present operations. Much disruption occurs. Sometimes, it;s actually cheaper, and better in the long run to make incremental changes in systems thatn it is to do a complete overhaul, which might contain major bugs.
There are numerous cases of companies and governmental agencies trying to completely overhaul their systems, only to find that they were mired in the muck.
UNIX is very much like that. It started out 40 years ago as a modern system. Today it has much legacy code, and functionality. But it has also improved over the years. Code has been dropped, and new code added. Many major OS's are still based on it. Even Linux is a copy, and not a very good one either.
Comments
Originally posted by Rise Above
just wanted to say, it kind of sucks cause intel is more win made, and amd and powerpc are for unix
Source?
I think it's funny that you say that, because the current core of Windows has a lineage such that it was made for RISC first. I ran a RISC computer using Windows NT 4.0 for several years, it was the most dependable platform I have ever used.
Unix hasn't remained where it was. There have been other advances over the decades. None of these systems stand still.
Originally posted by franksargent
Wouldn't step 0 be to understand what is RIGHT with the existing code(s)?
Oddly enough, no I don't think it is...
Source? ...I think it's funny that you say that, because the current core of Windows has a lineage such that it was made for RISC first. I ran a RISC computer using Windows NT 4.0 for several years, it was the most dependable platform I have ever used.
windows NT and further OSes based on winNT codebase (afaik win2000, win2003, winxpPro???)** is the only thing microsoft has done right... but given all the security holes though
I think its derailed so far off track it will never come back. "Sources: Intel developing next-generation Power Mac for Apple"... weird
Originally posted by Programmer
Oddly enough, no I don't think it is...
Actually, IMHO, I think it IS. Again, I see the OS glass as half full, do you see it as half empty? It obviously works, something must be right? Again, "Nature abhors a vacuum," you must start from somewhere (i. e. what you are doing right). Start from scratch, with absolutely no previous knowledge, I DON'T THINK SO!
Originally posted by onlooker
Boy does this thread suck. I forgot that I ever posted in here.
LOL AGREED!
Originally posted by franksargent
Actually, IMHO, I think it IS. Again, I see the OS glass as half full, do you see it as half empty? It obviously works, something must be right? Again, "Nature abhors a vacuum," you must start from somewhere (i. e. what you are doing right). Start from scratch, with absolutely no previous knowledge, I DON'T THINK SO!
I think that Programmer was referring to the fact that before you move forward you need to learn from the past. And what you learn, if you were writing code the logical is to say what went wrong and why. This gives credit to those that came before you, in that they were smart people and made mistakes. It is very possible to follow that same path, because these were smart people. We learn from our mistakes. Unix is very old, I think that Apple has done an exceptional job of forward looking, and not repeating some of the mistakes of the past. Let us face it most of what they are doing today were technologies that were considered well before OSX ever got off of the ground.
As far as Intel building the MBs, I seem to remember that they are rock solid but don't appear to use the latest technologies, a bit more tried and true. So what will be those compromises? Or is Napa and Merom chip sets cutting edge? Or more evolution with a healty dose of conserve those Watts?
As far as I have seen, they use all the latest and greatest.
Do you have any specific examples?
You maybe refering to the fact that they may not have the most "add-ons" such as extra RAID controllers and such which some of the more "enthusiast's" boards offer. However, if you're not a complete computer junkie, you don't miss them a bit.
Unfortunately, fellow Mac users, all bets are off. Will Steve fold before the all mighty dollar or will he stand his ground against the cold, dry emptiness of marketing, and victoriously keep bringing users a superior computer that also reminds them of the ideal that America was founded on freedom? Freedom of thought and freedom from greed and everything that corrodes our hearts. If what we fear becomes true Apple will just become another Dell, Compaq, HP, etc...
As a creative professional I would hate having to stare at some stupid logo all the time, it would distract me from my work, and get in my way. And those who think an etched or embossed logo would be better or classier than a sticker obvioulsy don't know crap about visual design. A sticker can at least be removed (and then burned. hahaha).
Anyway, I guess we'll find out soon.
Originally posted by RANSOMED
Anybody who thinks Intel inside logo is not a big deal does not undesrtand what ideals Steve Jobs has stood for since the beginning. True, what makes Macs great is more than their gorgeous industrial design, but what lies beneath it: they have always been fast and far more reliable machines than their PC (Piece of Crap) counterparts. But a big Intel logo on the case would not just be a blemish but would also simbolize Apple's utter succumb to the Man. It would not simbolize a partnership between the two companies but a dominance of one over the other.
Unfortunately, fellow Mac users, all bets are off. Will Steve fold before the all mighty dollar or will he stand his ground against the cold, dry emptiness of marketing, and victoriously keep bringing users a superior computer that also reminds them of the ideal that America was founded on freedom? Freedom of thought and freedom from greed and everything that corrodes our hearts. If what we fear becomes true Apple will just become another Dell, Compaq, HP, etc...
As a creative professional I would hate having to stare at some stupid logo all the time, it would distract me from my work, and get in my way. And those who think an etched or embossed logo would be better or classier than a sticker obvioulsy don't know crap about visual design. A sticker can at least be removed (and then burned. hahaha).
Anyway, I guess we'll find out soon.
I don't think things will be as bleak as you suggest. However, perhaps except for the image thing (nee facade), Apple in most respects, is just like any other major corporation. Oops, forgot that Apple IS the current leading computer vendor that has control over both the HW and SW (Sun would be the next, I guess). IMHO, that's a good thing.
WRT, the logo (how it's branded, marketed, etcetera (the image thing)), I'd prefer something very similar to Apple's current symbol, by that I mean a symbol without words, preferably a monotone. It's clean, simple, and elegant. IMHO that's a great thing.
However, I would like to think that whatever the MACTEL branding ends up being, would be unique to that partnership (i. e. leadership in HW/SW/Industrial design). Fudge the rest of the PeeCee vendors, they get stuck with the (updated) Intel logo. IMHO, I would think both Apple and Intel would want something unique. Perhaps, the Apple logo on the sides and Apple's rebranding of the CPU (a la G3/G4/G5).
But in the end, to me, its mostly about the OS and not how the HW package (i. e. the wrapper) looks. I guess THAT would make me a real Mac fanbois
Originally posted by Brendon
I think that Programmer was referring to the fact that before you move forward you need to learn from the past. And what you learn, if you were writing code the logical is to say what went wrong and why. This gives credit to those that came before you, in that they were smart people and made mistakes. It is very possible to follow that same path, because these were smart people. We learn from our mistakes. Unix is very old, I think that Apple has done an exceptional job of forward looking, and not repeating some of the mistakes of the past. Let us face it most of what they are doing today were technologies that were considered well before OSX ever got off of the ground.
As far as Intel building the MBs, I seem to remember that they are rock solid but don't appear to use the latest technologies, a bit more tried and true. So what will be those compromises? Or is Napa and Merom chip sets cutting edge? Or more evolution with a healty dose of conserve those Watts?
I think were both saying the same thing, its one of those horse and egg things
Originally posted by RANSOMED
Unfortunately, fellow Mac users, all bets are off. Will Steve fold before the all mighty dollar or...
Uuuh, I'm counting on him folding on the all mighty dollar--MINE!
Christ people. Apple sells Macs to Mac users, not Intel & Co.
Originally posted by Brendon
I think that Programmer was referring to the fact that before you move forward you need to learn from the past. And what you learn, if you were writing code the logical is to say what went wrong and why. This gives credit to those that came before you, in that they were smart people and made mistakes. It is very possible to follow that same path, because these were smart people. We learn from our mistakes. Unix is very old, I think that Apple has done an exceptional job of forward looking, and not repeating some of the mistakes of the past. Let us face it most of what they are doing today were technologies that were considered well before OSX ever got off of the ground.
As far as Intel building the MBs, I seem to remember that they are rock solid but don't appear to use the latest technologies, a bit more tried and true. So what will be those compromises? Or is Napa and Merom chip sets cutting edge? Or more evolution with a healty dose of conserve those Watts?
I'n not sure that I understand what this part of the argument is about.
Both the good and the bad have to be examined equally.
First, you have to determine if there is something worth saving, then you have to see if the problems are so great as to overwhelm the work necessary to do so.
Sometimes, the basic ideas are good, but the implimentation is poor, or outdated. In that case, a complete reworking is required. That may simply be too much.
But if the system is basically functionable, but needs some tuning, modernization, etc., it might pay to do it.
This is true whatever it is that's being worked on. It can be software or hardware.
Originally posted by RANSOMED
Anybody who thinks Intel inside logo is not a big deal does not undesrtand what ideals Steve Jobs has stood for since the beginning. True, what makes Macs great is more than their gorgeous industrial design, but what lies beneath it: they have always been fast and far more reliable machines than their PC (Piece of Crap) counterparts. But a big Intel logo on the case would not just be a blemish but would also simbolize Apple's utter succumb to the Man. It would not simbolize a partnership between the two companies but a dominance of one over the other.
Unfortunately, fellow Mac users, all bets are off. Will Steve fold before the all mighty dollar or will he stand his ground against the cold, dry emptiness of marketing, and victoriously keep bringing users a superior computer that also reminds them of the ideal that America was founded on freedom? Freedom of thought and freedom from greed and everything that corrodes our hearts. If what we fear becomes true Apple will just become another Dell, Compaq, HP, etc...
As a creative professional I would hate having to stare at some stupid logo all the time, it would distract me from my work, and get in my way. And those who think an etched or embossed logo would be better or classier than a sticker obvioulsy don't know crap about visual design. A sticker can at least be removed (and then burned. hahaha).
Anyway, I guess we'll find out soon.
Decisions like this should be based on more than someone's ideals.
If an ideal is that no stickers be put on, I can see a vast amount of wasted talent going into what is a nothing area. Even if it is embossed.
Ideals should be reserved for areas such as the best, GUI, ergonomics, functionality, presentation, cost, reliability, service, software, etc.
We don't need ideals to decide whether we will have a logo on a box, or a sticker on the machine. Most people rightfully would prefer the 5 or 10% discount on the price that having that sticker might make possible.
[i]Originally posted by strobe
Christ people. Apple sells Macs to Mac users, not Intel & Co.
This statement is not altogether true.
The estimate is that in 2005 (ending in Sept quarter), Apple sold about 1 million of its 4.5 million machines to Windows users. Another 3/4 million went to people who never bought a machine before.
Thid is what we need. Otherwise, Apple will be selling fewer machines each year as people get older and stop buying new machines. This was happening for several years. We DON'T need that.
It's estimated that Win buyers will be a larger number this year, as will new buyers.
Originally posted by melgross
I'n not sure that I understand what this part of the argument is about.
Both the good and the bad have to be examined equally.
First, you have to determine if there is something worth saving, then you have to see if the problems are so great as to overwhelm the work necessary to do so.
Sometimes, the basic ideas are good, but the implimentation is poor, or outdated. In that case, a complete reworking is required. That may simply be too much.
But if the system is basically functionable, but needs some tuning, modernization, etc., it might pay to do it.
This is true whatever it is that's being worked on. It can be software or hardware.
Not an argument, an observation. Yes both are looked at but the bulk of the time is spent on figuring out the bad and why it went bad. If you work in a large organization this is what is done. The bad did not start out like that it went wrong, why? Was it an internal organization problem? Did external factors have any bearing on the failure and if so how much. Did we see this comming? Is so could we not react quick enough, or was it lost in translation?
You can see that in a large organization, you can fix the problem with the software or hardware but equal or more attention must be payed to the health of the organization, fixing the problem is one of scope. The problem is that the widget is no longer viable, why? If the organization is running properly it should be that all things are noticed and fixed in time. The last place you want to go is down pat on the back lane, wow we really did this well, those things should be obvious. It is the bad things that you need to identify, most are very well hidden. This is Situation Normal in a large well run organization, most of them spend their problem solving time looking internal as well as external. Bad things could happen to the person that does not identify the real problem. For example fixing the motor of a boat, while not properly identifying that the pilot had no idea where the boat or land was. Now if you are in a lake this is a small problem, if you are in an Ocean...
Originally posted by Brendon
Not an argument, an observation. Yes both are looked at but the bulk of the time is spent on figuring out the bad and why it went bad. If you work in a large organization this is what is done. The bad did not start out like that it went wrong, why? Was it an internal organization problem? Did external factors have any bearing on the failure and if so how much. Did we see this comming? Is so could we not react quick enough, or was it lost in translation?
You can see that in a large organization, you can fix the problem with the software or hardware but equal or more attention must be payed to the health of the organization, fixing the problem is one of scope. The problem is that the widget is no longer viable, why? If the organization is running properly it should be that all things are noticed and fixed in time. The last place you want to go is down pat on the back lane, wow we really did this well, those things should be obvious. It is the bad things that you need to identify, most are very well hidden. This is Situation Normal in a large well run organization, most of them spend their problem solving time looking internal as well as external. Bad things could happen to the person that does not identify the real problem. For example fixing the motor of a boat, while not properly identifying that the pilot had no idea where the boat or land was. Now if you are in a lake this is a small problem, if you are in an Ocean...
That can be true.
But remember that when a systen has been around for a long time, it isn't always that there are "bad" parts. They may seem bad because technology has eliminated the need for the way the system operates.
To get back to UNIX. Back when it was developed, RAM was both very expensive, and thus available, even in mainframes, in, by todays standards, very small amounts. So the system used virtual memory for most everything.
Even today, UNIX's tend to do that more than other, more modern systems. So a redesign of the memory systems is in order. That's fine. But, there's nothing "bad" about it. It just isn't required to do things that way anymore. But it doesn't sink the system either. If fact, UNIX based systems tend to have the best virtual memory systems around. And it can't go away altogether.
Besides, most of this has nothing to do with whether we are talking about a large system or organizarion or a small one.
Small bits take less work to correct, but they are also less valuble to begin with. Large bits take much more work, but thet are also much more valuble.
small organizations are the same way. They are easier to move, but have less at stake overall. If they fail, there is less loss (not to them, of course).
Large organizations move more slowly. But they have much more to lose. It isn't always good for a large organization to move too quickly on a major project. They have much at stake in present operations. Much disruption occurs. Sometimes, it;s actually cheaper, and better in the long run to make incremental changes in systems thatn it is to do a complete overhaul, which might contain major bugs.
There are numerous cases of companies and governmental agencies trying to completely overhaul their systems, only to find that they were mired in the muck.
UNIX is very much like that. It started out 40 years ago as a modern system. Today it has much legacy code, and functionality. But it has also improved over the years. Code has been dropped, and new code added. Many major OS's are still based on it. Even Linux is a copy, and not a very good one either.