Seven deadly excuses for poor design

TalkBack 21 of 67:

Next »

« Previous

• Thread View
• Flat View

last time I checked

various bits of the Linux/FreeBSD/OpenBSD/NetBSD/OpenDarwin(OSX)/GNU and UNIX world (Solaris, SCO UNIX, AIX, etc) exhibit next to no feature creep.

Tools like grep, bash, sftp, ssh, busybox, tar, gzip, and so on are remarkably stable. I know instantly that the NoAx view of this is old and tired, however, the code is maintained, BUT, CRUCIALLY, in posix systems, other tools are added that build on the basic set of tools.

(for example, for compression, tar uses gzip, both can be split into command stub and library, a GUI compressed folder as on KDE can exec the command stubs as appropriate, or via the library).

The uber modularity of Unix-like systems is no accident at all. It was designed to be like that from the ground up.

All these tools feel finished to me, even though they are modified from time to time.

There are all kinds of reasons, like a spaceship going into space, and systems requiring FDA approval, why buggy, unfinished sofware is not possible (in certain circumstances).
Generally with mission critical systems, a very clear engineering objective is specified with Design Spec, Functional Spec, and the Test plans.
As importance of bug-free-ness increases, customers expect less functionality, more guaranteed, and for more money.
Code auditing is always an option, and then there is Z, to prove software works.

Clearly, it probably isn't worth investing the same level of effort in a minesweeper game that crashes 1 time in 100 the user uses it, however that would be unacceptable for the guidance system for the space shuttle.

Note, the OpenBSD kernel is audited, and is extremely secure and stable. So if you make an application using Unix-like technology, you can CHOOSE supportfor the ultra latest hardware like USB2, hotplug and so on, OR, CHOOSE ultra-reliability. (OpenBSD or QNX).

You don't have CHOICE with Windows, it's trying to wear two hats.

As usual, NoAX, you try to level all software to the same level. In essence your argument is "no software will ever be secure and bug free because of the drive for features".
I say RUBBISH minimise redundant features or architect through factoring to make the core code as simple as possible! (Don't charge by Line!).

Posted by: hipparchus2000   Posted on: 09/03/04 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use

Alert moderator to an offensive message

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

• Three Steps You Need to Know to Stop Data Loss Varonis Sensitive data exposed to misuse or loss... it is the stuff of nightmares ... Download Now
• The True Costs of Virtual Server Solutions VMware In an economic environment that is repeatedly heralding the message "do ... Download Now
• Virtualization: Architectural Considerations And Other Evaluation Criteria VMware Of the many approaches to x86 systems virtualization available in the ... Download Now