3 ms·
> There is nothing inherent in the fragility, it is self-inflicted problem of some applications. The architecture is fragile due to too many layers. Anything i
by kkfx 4y ago
> There is nothing inherent in the fragility, it is self-inflicted problem of some applications.
The architecture is fragile due to too many layers. Anything is "fragile" in the sense that you can't really design a really complex, generic system with all possible state pre-computed and handled up front, the point is how to handle the fragility.
Classic systems was "the OS is a single application where anything is ready available source code", this was utterly fragile in potential faults BUT far easier to correct any error so in the end far more robust. Think about some CL systems: you'll easily get far more issues in normal usage, but essentially any issue is easy to handle.
The real underneath issue is business: software can't be a commercial product, must be a common open knowledge, like a kitchen recipe, where any party involved can see and act and anything is designed ONLY for the human. We need desktops in a network not dummy terminals of a central service designed to serve their owner.
- nine_k 4y ago> software can't be a commercial product, must be a common open knowledge, like a kitchen recipe Kitchen recipes rarely need features added or even bugs fixed. But when this happens, it's usually done by a cook on the spot. This is only possible due to utter simplicity of a typical recipe, compared to any substantial piece of software. Also, small variations in cooking usually result in pretty edible dishes, while small variations in a program can have drastic results. So no, sadly, software already cannot be like a cookbook.
- kkfx 4y agoTry to compare commercial support, 99% of the time crappy and utterly slow vs community support and you'll get the answer. Even hyper-expensive commercial software have terrible support. Most FLOSS devs acts far better. Surely without formal legal guarantees.
- nine_k 4y agoWhile I can agree in many cases (YMMV), the point is that there still need to be expert cooks, and pretty few of them cook a particular piece of software right. Very unlike NYT plum pie recipe which exists as common knowledge and which even I can cook adequately.
- kkfx 4y agoSure, but this is another problem: we need a common culture in IT, with specialists of that field that are missed because most schools of any degree do not form them being tied to some specific corporate and political interests. Let's say we have a widespread classic desktop system, we start learning it when we start using a desktop computer in the childhood, when we arrive at the high school most already know it a bit, not differently by those who start driving cars: they do not really start from sketch. After university some will know some aspects, some others some other aspects but in general the current common social brain is known enough by most to be mastered enough by most. At that point a CAD user do know how to fix certain CAD issues and who to ask if he/she can't because at that point IT is a common knowledge enough. Instead if we keep up the refrain "just learn to click around and there you go, no need to study more" we end up in present impasse where in most professions, not just IT, there is a so deep lack of competence that anything fall apart because even those who know a bit can't act lacking tools to act. We can't design of course a really perfect system, there always be issues, but we can and should try to tend to. Aiming high to still collect something good.