6 ms·

This article reads like an old timer feeling left behind by the current rate of progress who thinks that the problem is really that the rest of the world is doi

by chwahoo 14y ago

This article reads like an old timer feeling left behind by the current rate of progress who thinks that the problem is really that the rest of the world is doing it all wrong. He's probably right that lots of software could be designed better, but I think he's wrong that that's of paramount importance. We need lots of software these days and we simply don't have the resources to built it to Kamp's standards. Also, we've learned that our requirements change so fast that his beautiful design would quickly be twisted into the pile of hacks that he hates. He notes how long it takes to compile the software that runs on his work machine---how long would it take to compile the software on a windows machine? (Or whatever he would claim is the standard-bearer of his cause). He also attacks open-source software. The truth is, we have an amazing amount of free and open source software available. Some of it may be flawed in design or usability, but it enables us to solve so many problems (and look at/modify the software when needed). I don't think that all software needs to be "free", but I do think free software has made us all much richer. I have a hard time seeing all this value that the Bazaar has created as inferior to slow-moving, centralized, big, up-front design development.

phkamp 14y ago
I wonder if you bothered to check who wrote that article, before you started speculating about things you could have found out with a few google searches ? You seem to assume that cathedrals are "slow-moving, centralized, big up-front" designs, where did you get that idea ? Ever looked into how USA put a man on the moon ? Maybe you should. Also: Read Brooks book, if you can.
- chwahoo 14y ago
  Why does it matter who you are? I've tried to respond to what you wrote. Why do you think most of the software we build now is like putting a man on the moon? I think it's nothing like that. Maybe I should read Brook's book (I've enjoyed MMM), but your article doesn't make a strong case for it.
  - phkamp 14y ago
    Because no words are without context.
    - wtvanhest 14y ago
      Actually, the nicest thing about HN for me is that I get to see my words evaluated on their own merit rather than what people know about me. HN has made me a better thinker and better communicator. Over the past year or so that I have contributed, I have clearly seen the way my thoughts diverge from the reality of what others believe. Sometimes I disagree and stop convincing people, other times I present arguments which are stubborn, but backed up. You took the time to write a long essay, and present a novel idea. A lot of posters here disagree with you, but the mindset on HN has been to build first ask questions later. Convincing people in a single day to change their world view would be a huge undertaking regardless of whether you are thinking about it correctly or not.
      - phkamp 14y ago
        And that is probably a good way to filter through the million monkeys. But some topics would require entire books to present in a context free way, this is one of them, and I don't have the time and money to write that book, so you will have to make do with a column @ACM. When I read something, and have the nagging feeling that there is context I'm missing, I go looking for that context, usually starting with "who the heck wrote this", rather than assume that the writer is a clueless bozo. But whatever blows your hair back buddy...
        wtvanhest 14y ago
        I enjoyed your post, but I also understand why people hated it. They hated it because you presented an idea that is completely at odds with the way many HN readers think. Then, rather than sitting back and watching the discussion you became offended and went on an aggressive warpath. You didn’t even consider that what I wrote was meant as a complement to the fact that you are taking a view that no one else currently takes. An idea that has real merit and is worth discussion. You took my comment as an insult and wrote: “But whatever blows your hair back buddy...”
- billswift 14y ago
  Your essay was unbalanced, yes open source sucks in the way you complained about, but Microsoft sucks even worse in some ways (if not quite as badly in others). Complaining about something in isolation is easy; everything sucks compared to perfection. But how is it compared to the real alternatives.
  - phkamp 14y ago
    Who said anything about Microsoft ?
    - zzzeek 14y ago
      it's a prominent example of the "cathedral" model.
      - phkamp 14y ago
        First, it's actually not, because their architecture is focused on architecting a market, not a computing solution. Second, just because there is one bad example of a cathedral, doesn't mean the cathedral model is bad. Many years ago, a fella named Gettys (look him up!) wrote as part of sage advice for OSS philosophy: "The only thing worse than generalizing from one example, is generalizing from no example at all."
        zzzeek 14y ago
        > Second, just because there is one bad example of a cathedral, doesn't mean the cathedral model is bad. right, but this could be applied to your example of the "configure" script as an indictment of the "bazaar" model too. Surely there's software that's come from the "bazaar" model that you feel is of high quality ? There's none whatsoever ?
    - rbanffy 14y ago
      I think it's a cultural reflex. Microsoft has been paying so many people to criticize open source for so long that the first reaction when people see what they interpret as baseless criticism is to look for Ballmer's sweaty palm prints. I understand where you stand and agree some of your criticism is valid, but "quality" doesn't have the same meaning for everyone.
- rbanffy 14y ago
  > I wonder if you bothered to check who wrote that article, I don't think the appeal to authority fallacy will fly here. We are all too smart for that. You arguments should be evaluated for their coherence and, in the end, it really doesn't matter who you are or what you did if you are wrong. To use your example, it doesn't matter if you are Von Braun himself. If you don't bring enough propellant for your descent engine, you'll still crash on the Moon.
  - icarus127 14y ago
    The point isn't an appeal to authority, it's that the author is a supporter of open source. Not Microsoft.
    - mcguire 14y ago
      That is, unfortunately, rather the point. Microsoft is one of the best current examples of the cathedral. The extent that FreeBSD is not-Microsoft is the exact extent that it is more bazaar-like.
tjr 14y ago
Some software is extensively designed up front, like embedded avionics programs. The resources are made available because folks like the FAA demand it. Why don't we employ rigorous software engineering principles to, say, iOS games? It would be a waste. It could be done, but in practice, people just don't care as much if a game on their phone crashes as they do if an airplane they're riding in crashes. There's a wide spectrum of software out there, needing varying levels of robustness. There's not a lot that can be said about software development as a whole along these lines; inadequate design for an online banking site might be excessive design for a llama costume competition voting site.
- phkamp 14y ago
  You are not even in the same zip code as the point I'm trying to make, which, I guess, sort of makes my point. Nobody says you have to write iOS games using the same methodology as avionics, what somebody is trying to say is that random walk will only get you so far... iOS is a pretty bad example btw, because iOS is very much a Cathedral and has a designer and architect who cares and who is in control. That's precisely why don't need to use autoconf to compile stuff for iOS.
  - davidw 14y ago
    > That's precisely why don't need to use autoconf to compile stuff for iOS. You don't need it to compile stuff for one specific version of Debian with packages X, Y and Z installed, either. You're comparing apples to oranges.
    - jfb 14y ago
      But Debian v.x.y.z isn't a target; "Linux" is.
      - davidw 14y ago
        Not necessarily. Plenty of commercial packages say "made for Redhat X.Y.Z". The fact that something only runs on iOs means it's a fairly limited piece of software in terms of portability - which is an acceptable tradeoff for many things, but not for others.

by chwahoo 14y ago

phkamp 14y ago

I wonder if you bothered to check who wrote that article, before you started speculating about things you could have found out with a few google searches ? You seem to assume that cathedrals are "slow-moving, centralized, big up-front" designs, where did you get that idea ? Ever looked into how USA put a man on the moon ? Maybe you should. Also: Read Brooks book, if you can.

chwahoo 14y ago
Why does it matter who you are? I've tried to respond to what you wrote. Why do you think most of the software we build now is like putting a man on the moon? I think it's nothing like that. Maybe I should read Brook's book (I've enjoyed MMM), but your article doesn't make a strong case for it.
- phkamp 14y ago
  Because no words are without context.
  - wtvanhest 14y ago
    Actually, the nicest thing about HN for me is that I get to see my words evaluated on their own merit rather than what people know about me. HN has made me a better thinker and better communicator. Over the past year or so that I have contributed, I have clearly seen the way my thoughts diverge from the reality of what others believe. Sometimes I disagree and stop convincing people, other times I present arguments which are stubborn, but backed up. You took the time to write a long essay, and present a novel idea. A lot of posters here disagree with you, but the mindset on HN has been to build first ask questions later. Convincing people in a single day to change their world view would be a huge undertaking regardless of whether you are thinking about it correctly or not.
    - phkamp 14y ago
      And that is probably a good way to filter through the million monkeys. But some topics would require entire books to present in a context free way, this is one of them, and I don't have the time and money to write that book, so you will have to make do with a column @ACM. When I read something, and have the nagging feeling that there is context I'm missing, I go looking for that context, usually starting with "who the heck wrote this", rather than assume that the writer is a clueless bozo. But whatever blows your hair back buddy...
      - wtvanhest 14y ago
        I enjoyed your post, but I also understand why people hated it. They hated it because you presented an idea that is completely at odds with the way many HN readers think. Then, rather than sitting back and watching the discussion you became offended and went on an aggressive warpath. You didn’t even consider that what I wrote was meant as a complement to the fact that you are taking a view that no one else currently takes. An idea that has real merit and is worth discussion. You took my comment as an insult and wrote: “But whatever blows your hair back buddy...”
billswift 14y ago
Your essay was unbalanced, yes open source sucks in the way you complained about, but Microsoft sucks even worse in some ways (if not quite as badly in others). Complaining about something in isolation is easy; everything sucks compared to perfection. But how is it compared to the real alternatives.
- phkamp 14y ago
  Who said anything about Microsoft ?
  - zzzeek 14y ago
    it's a prominent example of the "cathedral" model.
    - phkamp 14y ago
      First, it's actually not, because their architecture is focused on architecting a market, not a computing solution. Second, just because there is one bad example of a cathedral, doesn't mean the cathedral model is bad. Many years ago, a fella named Gettys (look him up!) wrote as part of sage advice for OSS philosophy: "The only thing worse than generalizing from one example, is generalizing from no example at all."
      - zzzeek 14y ago
        > Second, just because there is one bad example of a cathedral, doesn't mean the cathedral model is bad. right, but this could be applied to your example of the "configure" script as an indictment of the "bazaar" model too. Surely there's software that's come from the "bazaar" model that you feel is of high quality ? There's none whatsoever ?
  - rbanffy 14y ago
    I think it's a cultural reflex. Microsoft has been paying so many people to criticize open source for so long that the first reaction when people see what they interpret as baseless criticism is to look for Ballmer's sweaty palm prints. I understand where you stand and agree some of your criticism is valid, but "quality" doesn't have the same meaning for everyone.
rbanffy 14y ago
> I wonder if you bothered to check who wrote that article, I don't think the appeal to authority fallacy will fly here. We are all too smart for that. You arguments should be evaluated for their coherence and, in the end, it really doesn't matter who you are or what you did if you are wrong. To use your example, it doesn't matter if you are Von Braun himself. If you don't bring enough propellant for your descent engine, you'll still crash on the Moon.
- icarus127 14y ago
  The point isn't an appeal to authority, it's that the author is a supporter of open source. Not Microsoft.
  - mcguire 14y ago
    That is, unfortunately, rather the point. Microsoft is one of the best current examples of the cathedral. The extent that FreeBSD is not-Microsoft is the exact extent that it is more bazaar-like.

tjr 14y ago

Some software is extensively designed up front, like embedded avionics programs. The resources are made available because folks like the FAA demand it. Why don't we employ rigorous software engineering principles to, say, iOS games? It would be a waste. It could be done, but in practice, people just don't care as much if a game on their phone crashes as they do if an airplane they're riding in crashes. There's a wide spectrum of software out there, needing varying levels of robustness. There's not a lot that can be said about software development as a whole along these lines; inadequate design for an online banking site might be excessive design for a llama costume competition voting site.

phkamp 14y ago
You are not even in the same zip code as the point I'm trying to make, which, I guess, sort of makes my point. Nobody says you have to write iOS games using the same methodology as avionics, what somebody is trying to say is that random walk will only get you so far... iOS is a pretty bad example btw, because iOS is very much a Cathedral and has a designer and architect who cares and who is in control. That's precisely why don't need to use autoconf to compile stuff for iOS.
- davidw 14y ago
  > That's precisely why don't need to use autoconf to compile stuff for iOS. You don't need it to compile stuff for one specific version of Debian with packages X, Y and Z installed, either. You're comparing apples to oranges.
  - jfb 14y ago
    But Debian v.x.y.z isn't a target; "Linux" is.
    - davidw 14y ago
      Not necessarily. Plenty of commercial packages say "made for Redhat X.Y.Z". The fact that something only runs on iOs means it's a fairly limited piece of software in terms of portability - which is an acceptable tradeoff for many things, but not for others.