James Hague: "But all the little bits of complexity, all those cases where indecision caused one option that probably wasn't even needed in the first place to be replaced by two options, all those bad choices that were never remedied for fear of someone somewhere having to change a line of code... They slowly accreted until it all got out of control, and we got comfortable with systems that were impossible to understand."
Counterpoint by John Cook: "Some of the growth in complexity is understandable. It's a lot easier to maintain an orthogonal design when your software isn't being used. Software that gets used becomes less orthogonal and develops diagonal shortcuts." If there's ever been a system in
dire need of a complete redesign, it's UNIX and its derivatives. A mess doesn't even begin to describe it (for those already frantically reaching for the comment button, note that this applies to other systems as well).
Member since:
2007-02-18
In continuance of something I said in another article comment - I don't think we can solve any operating system organization given that we can't solve real world organization. The messiness of an operating system, whether it's the user interface or file system, is a reflection of the messiness of the people (in general) who use them.
"Intelligent design" doesn't even work for things that are actually intelligently designed, because sooner or later, outside pressures change (often as a result of the new design), causing the need for evolution of the system in a positive feedback loop.
I think the mistake is to try and force everything into just one kind of organization. Just like software design patterns and data structure, each organization has their own strengths and weakness in flexibility, performance and consistency maintenance. The argument between Torvalds and Tenenbaum notwithstanding, there just hasn't been a scientific study of the properties of organization.