From: Michael M. Butler (mmb@spies.com)
Date: Sun Feb 02 2003 - 16:11:27 MST
Max M wrote:
> He is actually pretty much right on target!
>
> This article explains my opinion pretty well:
> http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000069.html
>
> Refactor not revolution!
You give Bill too much credit. He is only defending his installed base using every
rhetorical means at his disposal. He'd appeal to Santa Claus if he thought it would
help calm the market more.
He is claiming, grandiosely, that nature doesn't make mistakes when compared with
careful initial design. That, at least, is my facial interpretation of his wording.
He is, as crude people sometimes say, /jerking us off/.
Of *course* one likes to fix only what's broken. I believe that successive refinement is often a good thing.
It is also, sometimes, only disguising a mudball. So...
A fundamentally flawed interprocess communications model can be refactored *how*?
Truly secure capabilities a la KeyKOS can be added to the existing OS--*how*?
Brittle software systems can be made as reliable as a Rolls-Royce--*how*?
I've been in the software business 30 years (no brag, just fact), and I think
I can at least sometimes tell the difference.
If Microsoft can't factor out a web browser from its OS, as it claimed in its
recent court cases, what does that indicate?
Or were they lying through their teeth? If so, what does *that* indicate?
MMB
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Feb 02 2003 - 21:26:09 MST