4 ms·

I think you just weirdly don't know what over engineering means. It absolutely means adding things to a system that aren't necesary, even if you personally thin

I think you just weirdly don't know what over engineering means. It absolutely means adding things to a system that aren't necesary, even if you personally think they are simple or elegant or great or should be included. That's half the reason why over-engineering happens in the first place is because engineers let their desires or passion override rational analysis. That's really one of the primary psychological drivers behind second system syndrome actually, is that designers will latch on to their pet ideas or theories in the mistaken belief that the success of their first product validated them. Everything is a file is a great example. Everything is a file is not what made unix so successful, and yet they over engineered all their network APIs into the file and mount interfaces unnecessarily. It's not that it wasn't neat or a fun toy, but it's just an over engineering of an already solved problem in an incompatible way that offered no compelling real world advantage. > It is LESS COMPLEX. This is not a tricky or difficult concept. It was MORE COMPLEX than it could have been. Also not tricky or difficult. > No, I did not say that, or mean that, or imply that. You definitely did. > Totally disagree. What useful things did it bring to systems design? And I gave some examples of existing distributed systems. Lots of material on those you can read up on if you weren't aware of them.

lproven 4y ago
No. No to every line of this. You cannot simply re-interpret existing terms as you wish. You do not get to saty "well clearly bigger can really mean smaller, and more complex can sometimes mean less complex, and therefore this smaller thing is therefore an example of how things get bigger over time." The statement is ridiculous and your attemps to defend it are just getting increasingly absurd the more you flail around angrily trying to make your meaning fit. When Lewis Carroll put these words in his character's mouth, he was mocking what you are doing: “When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’ ’The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’ ’The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.” https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/12608-when-i-use-a-word-humpty-dumpty-said-in-rather https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/12608-when-i-use-a-word-hum...
- throwawaylinux 4y ago
  You've gone off the rails because you can't respond to the fact that things like the distributed design are bigger and more complex and over engineered than necessary. And you also can't respond to the fact that your claim the system as a whole is smaller or simpler is meaningless because you're comparing a toy to real systems. You were also unable to furnish me with any examples of what it brought to systems design. So, this is just a total desperate clutching at straws to try to claim it's not over-engineered for some weird reason. Whatever you call it does not change what it is! And that thing is an unremarkable and un-notable system that grew overly complicated features that were not necessary because the designers fixated on or misidentified certain features from their fist successful system, and failed to gain adoption or influence, in part because of these complexities causing incompatibility and lack of focus on more important areas. That is easily recognizable as second system syndrome by anybody, but you can call it something else if it pleases you.
  - lproven 4y ago
    Every paragraph is still wrong. You are, in the typical way of people whose belief systems are based on faith instead of facts and evidence, accusing me of what you are doing. > You've gone off the rails because you can't respond to the fact It is not a fact. You are wrong. This claim is false. > that things like the distributed design are bigger It is smaller. > and more complex It is simpler. > and over engineered than necessary. Therefore it is not over-engineered. > And you also can't respond to the fact that your claim the system as a whole is smaller or simpler is meaningless because you're comparing a toy to real systems. I am not. I am not comparing Plan 9 to anything other than things that compare in scope to Plan 9, in other words, previous and subsequent UNIX-type OSes. You are. And you're wrong. > You were also unable to furnish me with any examples of what it brought to systems design. I did not, because I did not need to. I am not making that claim. You are. This is called a "straw man argument", where you attempt to rebut me by claiming I said something I didn't say and then attempt to prove that wrong. I didn't claim it was a success, I didn't claim it was influential, and I didn't claim it influenced anything else. Therefore, your attack fails, because it doesn't matter if you disagree with things I didn't say. > to try to claim it's not over-engineered for some weird reason. "That is not what the phrase `over-engineering' means" is not a weird reason. > Whatever you call it does not change what it is! Again, it is what you are calling it that I am debating. You are just shouting angrily, as far as I can see, because you are unable and unwilling to engage with what I am actually saying. > And that thing is an unremarkable The only way to refute this would be to give examples of rival systems that did so much in so little code. I am not aware of any, and you have given none. That makes it remarkable. > and un-notable system It is the last system from the group of developers who built the most successful OS that the world has ever known. That in itself is very notable, even if it's a flop. > that grew overly complicated features It is small and simple in design. That is not "overly complicated". It has few features. This is your core argument and what you claim is not true. > that were not necessary because the designers fixated on or misidentified certain features from their fist successful system, That may be true. I am not disputing that. The increasing number of typos reinforces my impression that you are angrily pounding away at your keyboard, angrily arguing with things you only imagined I said. You are shouting at yourself. > and failed to gain adoption or influence It did. This is true. I am not arguing that. > in part because of these complexities I am arguing that, though. > causing incompatibility and lack of focus on more important areas. All fair. All valid. None are my points. > That is easily recognizable as second system syndrome by anybody Nope. I refer you again to the definition. > but you can call it something else if it pleases you. Being right pleases me, yes. It's my job. My real name is at the top of my posts, while you hide behind a pseudonym. I've been a published writer since 1995, writing about technology for about 15 different print magazines on 4 continents, paid by hundreds of organizations around the world to explain tech for them and to them. My job is to understand words, language and technology, and explain it. I am proud of my record in this. I list many of those publications on my LinkedIn profile. I don't have a homepage on the WWW because if you Google my name, you will find me. I do not use pseudonyms or screen names anywhere. I am always "lproven" or "liamproven" online and have been since 1991, when I signed up for my first personal/home email address. But do continue angrily telling me that I don't understand technology, even though it's been my day job since 1988. It's quite funny.

lproven 4y ago

No. No to every line of this. You cannot simply re-interpret existing terms as you wish. You do not get to saty "well clearly bigger can really mean smaller, and more complex can sometimes mean less complex, and therefore this smaller thing is therefore an example of how things get bigger over time." The statement is ridiculous and your attemps to defend it are just getting increasingly absurd the more you flail around angrily trying to make your meaning fit. When Lewis Carroll put these words in his character's mouth, he was mocking what you are doing: “When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’ ’The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’ ’The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.” https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/12608-when-i-use-a-word-humpty-dumpty-said-in-rather https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/12608-when-i-use-a-word-hum...

throwawaylinux 4y ago
You've gone off the rails because you can't respond to the fact that things like the distributed design are bigger and more complex and over engineered than necessary. And you also can't respond to the fact that your claim the system as a whole is smaller or simpler is meaningless because you're comparing a toy to real systems. You were also unable to furnish me with any examples of what it brought to systems design. So, this is just a total desperate clutching at straws to try to claim it's not over-engineered for some weird reason. Whatever you call it does not change what it is! And that thing is an unremarkable and un-notable system that grew overly complicated features that were not necessary because the designers fixated on or misidentified certain features from their fist successful system, and failed to gain adoption or influence, in part because of these complexities causing incompatibility and lack of focus on more important areas. That is easily recognizable as second system syndrome by anybody, but you can call it something else if it pleases you.
- lproven 4y ago
  Every paragraph is still wrong. You are, in the typical way of people whose belief systems are based on faith instead of facts and evidence, accusing me of what you are doing. > You've gone off the rails because you can't respond to the fact It is not a fact. You are wrong. This claim is false. > that things like the distributed design are bigger It is smaller. > and more complex It is simpler. > and over engineered than necessary. Therefore it is not over-engineered. > And you also can't respond to the fact that your claim the system as a whole is smaller or simpler is meaningless because you're comparing a toy to real systems. I am not. I am not comparing Plan 9 to anything other than things that compare in scope to Plan 9, in other words, previous and subsequent UNIX-type OSes. You are. And you're wrong. > You were also unable to furnish me with any examples of what it brought to systems design. I did not, because I did not need to. I am not making that claim. You are. This is called a "straw man argument", where you attempt to rebut me by claiming I said something I didn't say and then attempt to prove that wrong. I didn't claim it was a success, I didn't claim it was influential, and I didn't claim it influenced anything else. Therefore, your attack fails, because it doesn't matter if you disagree with things I didn't say. > to try to claim it's not over-engineered for some weird reason. "That is not what the phrase `over-engineering' means" is not a weird reason. > Whatever you call it does not change what it is! Again, it is what you are calling it that I am debating. You are just shouting angrily, as far as I can see, because you are unable and unwilling to engage with what I am actually saying. > And that thing is an unremarkable The only way to refute this would be to give examples of rival systems that did so much in so little code. I am not aware of any, and you have given none. That makes it remarkable. > and un-notable system It is the last system from the group of developers who built the most successful OS that the world has ever known. That in itself is very notable, even if it's a flop. > that grew overly complicated features It is small and simple in design. That is not "overly complicated". It has few features. This is your core argument and what you claim is not true. > that were not necessary because the designers fixated on or misidentified certain features from their fist successful system, That may be true. I am not disputing that. The increasing number of typos reinforces my impression that you are angrily pounding away at your keyboard, angrily arguing with things you only imagined I said. You are shouting at yourself. > and failed to gain adoption or influence It did. This is true. I am not arguing that. > in part because of these complexities I am arguing that, though. > causing incompatibility and lack of focus on more important areas. All fair. All valid. None are my points. > That is easily recognizable as second system syndrome by anybody Nope. I refer you again to the definition. > but you can call it something else if it pleases you. Being right pleases me, yes. It's my job. My real name is at the top of my posts, while you hide behind a pseudonym. I've been a published writer since 1995, writing about technology for about 15 different print magazines on 4 continents, paid by hundreds of organizations around the world to explain tech for them and to them. My job is to understand words, language and technology, and explain it. I am proud of my record in this. I list many of those publications on my LinkedIn profile. I don't have a homepage on the WWW because if you Google my name, you will find me. I do not use pseudonyms or screen names anywhere. I am always "lproven" or "liamproven" online and have been since 1991, when I signed up for my first personal/home email address. But do continue angrily telling me that I don't understand technology, even though it's been my day job since 1988. It's quite funny.