From owner-freebsd-hackers Mon Dec 18 14:55:45 1995 Return-Path: owner-hackers Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id OAA25987 for hackers-outgoing; Mon, 18 Dec 1995 14:55:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from etinc.com (et-gw.etinc.com [165.254.13.209]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id OAA25974 for ; Mon, 18 Dec 1995 14:55:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.etinc.com ([204.141.95.140]) by etinc.com (8.6.11/8.6.9) with SMTP id SAA22796; Mon, 18 Dec 1995 18:15:37 -0500 Date: Mon, 18 Dec 1995 18:15:37 -0500 Message-Id: <199512182315.SAA22796@etinc.com> X-Sender: dennis@etinc.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 2.0.3 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: Terry Lambert From: dennis@etinc.com (dennis) Subject: Re: FBSD support inc. Cc: hackers@freebsd.org Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org Precedence: bulk >> >> No, it's how do you deal with suddenly being forced to do release >> >> engineering for 12 platforms where one was formerly enough to drive >> >> the release engineer to early retirement? >> > >> >By making the administrative interfaces for all system identical, and >> >by data-driving those areas where it's not possible to resolve the >> >interface conflicts. >> > >> >CV: my more recent articles on logical device management in a devfs >> >framework. >> > >> >It's an engineering problem, not a management problem. >> >> note that this often leads to widespread mediocrity. > >Like data driving the WWW interfaces instead of writing site specific >clients has "resulted in mediocrity"? > >With due respect, it is possible to have a client/server mechanism >with a data driven front end which operates at a high level of data >abstraction *without* sacrificing Q/A standards. WWW proves this >to no end. > >Again: this is an engineering problem. Your example is certainly not the rule here....most "standard" interfaces are inferior as a matter of compromise. NDIS, Packet Drivers, ODI (for example) enhance functionality and simplicity but are mediocre interfaces and inferior to most custom ones. My personal opinion (please don't flame here...) is that most internet protocols are pretty awful (SNMP ala ASN1 is an obvious example) and the fact that they have gained widespread acceptance has much more to do with the failure of other standards to be widely implemented (due to commercial infighting) than their superior design. As with the American Revolution, a raging mob with rocks and stones will often defeat a well-equipt (yet underdeployed) army. dennis ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Emerging Technologies, Inc. http://www.etinc.com Synchronous Communications Cards and Routers For Discriminating Tastes. 56k to T1 and beyond. Frame Relay, PPP, HDLC, and X.25