#745 From: Ben Ravago <ben.ravago@...>
Date: Sun Aug 24, 2003 8:05 am
Subject: Re: Re: An E-Mail to IBM? ben_ravago
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°
"Lynn H. Maxson" wrote:
> I probably need to offer more meat for these bones.
Your plan sounds all well and good but it occurs to me that what you're
talking about really has more to do with programming in general than
OS/2 in specific. Should your solution materialize tomorrow it would
be as useful to Linux development as for an OS/2 replacement (and
even Windows for that matter). I think there's a bit of a disconnect
here with the stated objectives of this newsgroup and this may be
where some anxiety is coming from. Not that I'm faulting your focus
or your plan, though (at least you have a focus and a plan), but it
seems to be such a tangential approach to the problem of an OS/2
replacement that it doesn't seem to be getting traction with others.
Also, even having such a 4GL tools doesn't mitigate any of the up-front
planning and design work that's needed to get any real work going.
I haven't seen any real discussion of this aspect of the task. Early on
I asked what people were looking for in an "OS/2 replacement" and
only one person seems to have replied. There seem to be people
willing to contribute time but what would they be contributing to?
Are we all waiting for the Messiah?
Part 25 - Aug 18 2003
Re: Part 25
#746 Re: [osFree] Re: An E-Mail to IBM?
Expand Messages
Lynn H. Maxson
Aug 23, 2003
Ben Ravago writes:
"Your plan sounds all well and good but it occurs to me that
what you're talking about really has more to do with
programming in general than OS/2 in specific. ..."
If you do not believe that the people cost associated with
maintaining OS/2 or applications writing for it took IBM and
OS/2 ISPs out of the marketplace, then we differ with respect
to causes. If we agree on this, that we do not in fact differ
on causes, then bringing that cost down in terms of people
resources, the major source of that cost, means enhancing
OS/2 chances at survival regardless that the same benefits
extend to other platforms.
In the meantime I will plead guilty to wanting to bring down
the cost of developing and in particular maintaining software.
It allows open source to achieve more in less time with its
people resources. It allows close source to more easily afford
its people resources to allow them to survive on lower
volumes. In short it makes software more affordable and
maintainable regardless of open or closed source.
As the proposed methodology changes occur in a shift from
manual to software labor, we can expect the same level of
cost and time savings that we achieve for our clients when
we automate their clerical activities. That level
conservatively is a 50 times time savings (productivity gain)
and a 200 times cost savings (cost reduction). It amounts to
devastating the current IT population to 1/50th its current
size. With any kind of luck cream will rise to the top, meaning
we will have the best of the best remaining. That in itself
means higher quality user software along with lower cost.
It also means that any "programming" group beyond 5 to 7
people will not remain cost competitive: the administration and
support costs for larger groups will increase their aggregate
cost. That means large software firms like CA, IBM, and M$
and large services firms like EDS, IBM, and others will
disappear. You wont require government protection from a
monopoly because no one could establish one.
This means that small communities like ours whose lower
volume, i.e. number, cannot attract vendors as a market will
now find ourselves competitive with other users. We can in
fact afford to create our own business unit, i.e. dedicated
staff, to continue to improve our OS/2 replacement.
So I just don't feel like apologizing for proposing something to
bring down the people resources needed to continue OS/2 to
what we an afford. While it benefits others as well those
benefits will more easily cross over to us as now their
suppliers can afford to do so.
"...Also, even having such a 4GL tools doesn't mitigate any of
the up-front planning and design work that's needed to get
any real work going. I haven't seen any real discussion of this
aspect of the task. Early on I asked what people were
looking for in an "OS/2 replacement" and only one person
seems to have replied. There seem to be people willing to
contribute time but what would they be contributing to?
Are we all waiting for the Messiah?"
Remember that we have two "replacements" to consider, one
involves only the OS/2 kernel and the other the OS/2 package.
Unless we eventually offer a replacement for the OS/2
package, whereby we can guarantee product for new users,
we need not undertake the effort at all.
Nevertheless we can begin with the kernel as the first step.
As I understand it we have a group engaged in documenting
that effort. Now I would say document it using a literate
programming approach. Instead of using C or C++ as the
formal language use a 4GL instead. Unfortunately we don't
have an appropriate 4GL. That leads me to believe they are
putting the cart before the horse. That's their choice. I don't
begrudge people doing things the hard way if that's the only
way they know...or care to know.
I know that once I have an appropriate 4GL that I then have
the formal language to specify the base functions as well as
the APIs. Then iteratively with the 4GL tool, using the results
of its completeness proof as a guide, I will make an optimal
set of connections throughout. Once done, I'm done. No need
for a beta test. Just out the door ready.
Contrary to your expectations having an appropriate 4GL
mitigates resolving the situation much easier than any not
having it. The ever increasing people cost, i.e. people
resources, arises directly out of the "demands" that 3GL
methods impose upon us. You cannot break the spiral with
3GL. However, you're welcome to fail just like everybody
else.
Expand Messages
Lynn H. Maxson
Aug 23, 2003
Ben Ravago writes:
"Your plan sounds all well and good but it occurs to me that
what you're talking about really has more to do with
programming in general than OS/2 in specific. ..."
If you do not believe that the people cost associated with
maintaining OS/2 or applications writing for it took IBM and
OS/2 ISPs out of the marketplace, then we differ with respect
to causes. If we agree on this, that we do not in fact differ
on causes, then bringing that cost down in terms of people
resources, the major source of that cost, means enhancing
OS/2 chances at survival regardless that the same benefits
extend to other platforms.
In the meantime I will plead guilty to wanting to bring down
the cost of developing and in particular maintaining software.
It allows open source to achieve more in less time with its
people resources. It allows close source to more easily afford
its people resources to allow them to survive on lower
volumes. In short it makes software more affordable and
maintainable regardless of open or closed source.
As the proposed methodology changes occur in a shift from
manual to software labor, we can expect the same level of
cost and time savings that we achieve for our clients when
we automate their clerical activities. That level
conservatively is a 50 times time savings (productivity gain)
and a 200 times cost savings (cost reduction). It amounts to
devastating the current IT population to 1/50th its current
size. With any kind of luck cream will rise to the top, meaning
we will have the best of the best remaining. That in itself
means higher quality user software along with lower cost.
It also means that any "programming" group beyond 5 to 7
people will not remain cost competitive: the administration and
support costs for larger groups will increase their aggregate
cost. That means large software firms like CA, IBM, and M$
and large services firms like EDS, IBM, and others will
disappear. You wont require government protection from a
monopoly because no one could establish one.
This means that small communities like ours whose lower
volume, i.e. number, cannot attract vendors as a market will
now find ourselves competitive with other users. We can in
fact afford to create our own business unit, i.e. dedicated
staff, to continue to improve our OS/2 replacement.
So I just don't feel like apologizing for proposing something to
bring down the people resources needed to continue OS/2 to
what we an afford. While it benefits others as well those
benefits will more easily cross over to us as now their
suppliers can afford to do so.
"...Also, even having such a 4GL tools doesn't mitigate any of
the up-front planning and design work that's needed to get
any real work going. I haven't seen any real discussion of this
aspect of the task. Early on I asked what people were
looking for in an "OS/2 replacement" and only one person
seems to have replied. There seem to be people willing to
contribute time but what would they be contributing to?
Are we all waiting for the Messiah?"
Remember that we have two "replacements" to consider, one
involves only the OS/2 kernel and the other the OS/2 package.
Unless we eventually offer a replacement for the OS/2
package, whereby we can guarantee product for new users,
we need not undertake the effort at all.
Nevertheless we can begin with the kernel as the first step.
As I understand it we have a group engaged in documenting
that effort. Now I would say document it using a literate
programming approach. Instead of using C or C++ as the
formal language use a 4GL instead. Unfortunately we don't
have an appropriate 4GL. That leads me to believe they are
putting the cart before the horse. That's their choice. I don't
begrudge people doing things the hard way if that's the only
way they know...or care to know.
I know that once I have an appropriate 4GL that I then have
the formal language to specify the base functions as well as
the APIs. Then iteratively with the 4GL tool, using the results
of its completeness proof as a guide, I will make an optimal
set of connections throughout. Once done, I'm done. No need
for a beta test. Just out the door ready.
Contrary to your expectations having an appropriate 4GL
mitigates resolving the situation much easier than any not
having it. The ever increasing people cost, i.e. people
resources, arises directly out of the "demands" that 3GL
methods impose upon us. You cannot break the spiral with
3GL. However, you're welcome to fail just like everybody
else.
Re: Part 25
#747 Alot of Acitivity and Alot of Discussion. 
Expand Messages
Tom Lee Mullins
Aug 27, 2003
This group has not seen this much activity/discussion
in a long time. I am hoping the momentum continues.
BigWarpGuy
Expand Messages
Tom Lee Mullins
Aug 27, 2003
This group has not seen this much activity/discussion
in a long time.
I am hoping the momentum continues.BigWarpGuy
Re: Part 25
#748 Re: [osFree] Alot of Acitivity and Alot of Discussion.
Expand Messages
Ben Ravago
Aug 27, 2003
Tom Lee Mullins wrote:
> This group has not seen this much activity/discussion
> in a long time. I am hoping the momentum continues.
I hope the momemtum continues into something more substantial
than just discussion. I remember similar patterns of 'activity' in this
newsgroup that went pretty much nowhere in terms on the news-
group's objectives. If this keeps up, it looks like OS/2 is going to
follow the Amiga path which was nearly moribund for years and
is only now coming back. In comparison, the BeOS cloners started
working on their projects almost immediately after BeOS.com folded.
Expand Messages
Ben Ravago
Aug 27, 2003
Tom Lee Mullins wrote:
> This group has not seen this much activity/discussion
> in a long time.
I am hoping the momentum continues.I hope the momemtum continues into something more substantial
than just discussion. I remember similar patterns of 'activity' in this
newsgroup that went pretty much nowhere in terms on the news-
group's objectives. If this keeps up, it looks like OS/2 is going to
follow the Amiga path which was nearly moribund for years and
is only now coming back. In comparison, the BeOS cloners started
working on their projects almost immediately after BeOS.com folded.
Re: Part 25
#749 [osFree] Alot of Acitivity and Alot of Discussion.
Expand Messages
yuri_prokushev@mail.ru
Aug 27, 2003
* Answer on message from INET.OSFREE area
Hello!
Answer on message from Ben Ravago to osFree@yahoogroups.com:
>> This group has not seen this much activity/discussion
>> in a long time. I am hoping the momentum continues.
BR> I hope the momemtum continues into something more substantial
BR> than just discussion. I remember similar patterns of 'activity'
BR> in
BR> this
BR> newsgroup that went pretty much nowhere in terms on the news-
BR> group's objectives. If this keeps up, it looks like OS/2 is going
BR> to
BR> follow the Amiga path which was nearly moribund for years and
BR> is only now coming back. In comparison, the BeOS cloners started
BR> working on their projects almost immediately after BeOS.com folded.
BR>
As I said before, we need to restart project. It is a) Web-site b) CVS.
BTW, Command line tools very near to be completed.
CU!
Yuri Prokushev
prokushev at freemail dot ru [http://sibyl.netlabs.org]
Expand Messages
yuri_prokushev@mail.ru
Aug 27, 2003
* Answer on message from INET.OSFREE area
Hello!
Answer on message from Ben Ravago to osFree@yahoogroups.com:
>> This group has not seen this much activity/discussion
>> in a long time.
I am hoping the momentum continues.BR> I hope the momemtum continues into something more substantial
BR> than just discussion. I remember similar patterns of 'activity'
BR> in
BR> this
BR> newsgroup that went pretty much nowhere in terms on the news-
BR> group's objectives. If this keeps up, it looks like OS/2 is going
BR> to
BR> follow the Amiga path which was nearly moribund for years and
BR> is only now coming back. In comparison, the BeOS cloners started
BR> working on their projects almost immediately after BeOS.com folded.
BR>
As I said before, we need to restart project. It is a) Web-site b) CVS.
BTW, Command line tools very near to be completed.
CU!
Yuri Prokushev
prokushev at freemail dot ru [http://sibyl.netlabs.org]
Re: Part 25
#750 Re: [osFree] Alot of Acitivity and Alot of Discussion.
Expand Messages
Dale Erwin
Aug 27, 2003
Tom Lee Mullins wrote:
> This group has not seen this much activity/discussion
> in a long time. I am hoping the momentum continues.
>
> BigWarpGuy
>
But now we seem to have reached an impasse. Is there enough talent is
this group to write such a language as Lynn proposes?
--
Dale Erwin
Salamanca 116
Pueblo Libre
Lima 21 PERU
Tel. +51(1)461-3084
Expand Messages
Dale Erwin
Aug 27, 2003
Tom Lee Mullins wrote:
> This group has not seen this much activity/discussion
> in a long time.
I am hoping the momentum continues.>
> BigWarpGuy
>
But now we seem to have reached an impasse. Is there enough talent is
this group to write such a language as Lynn proposes?
--
Dale Erwin
Salamanca 116
Pueblo Libre
Lima 21 PERU
Tel. +51(1)461-3084
Re: Part 25
#751 Re: Alot of Acitivity and Alot of Discussion.
Expand Messages
Tom Lee Mullins
Aug 27, 2003
--- In osFree@yahoogroups.com, Dale Erwin <daleerwin@i...> wrote:
> Tom Lee Mullins wrote:
> > This group has not seen this much activity/discussion
> > in a long time. I am hoping the momentum continues.
> >
> > BigWarpGuy
> >
>
> But now we seem to have reached an impasse. Is there
> enough talent is this group to write such a language as
> Lynn proposes?
>
> --
> Dale Erwin
> Salamanca 116
> Pueblo Libre
> Lima 21 PERU
> Tel. +51(1)461-3084
> Cel. +51(1)9743-6439
If we tell enough people about this project and what
we are hoping for, perhaps we could find the talent
(or they find us?)?
BigWarpGuy
Expand Messages
Tom Lee Mullins
Aug 27, 2003
--- In osFree@yahoogroups.com, Dale Erwin <daleerwin@i...> wrote:
> Tom Lee Mullins wrote:
> > This group has not seen this much activity/discussion
> > in a long time.
I am hoping the momentum continues.> >
> > BigWarpGuy
> >
>
> But now we seem to have reached an impasse. Is there
> enough talent is this group to write such a language as
> Lynn proposes?
>
> --
> Dale Erwin
> Salamanca 116
> Pueblo Libre
> Lima 21 PERU
> Tel. +51(1)461-3084
> Cel. +51(1)9743-6439
If we tell enough people about this project and what
we are hoping for, perhaps we could find the talent
(or they find us?)?
BigWarpGuy
Re: Part 25
#752 Re: Alot of Acitivity and Alot of Discussion.
Expand Messages
Tom Lee Mullins
Aug 27, 2003
....
> As I said before, we need to restart project. It is a)
> Web-site b) CVS.
>
> BTW, Command line tools very near to be completed.
>
> CU!
>
> Yuri Prokushev
> prokushev at freemail dot ru [http://sibyl.netlabs.org]
Many pieces of the puzzle that make a whole picture (or in
this case operating system).
FreePM is also still being worked on at
http://frepm.sourceforge.net and this could be used with
OSFRee.
There are other 'puzzle pieces' (ie; the DANIS drivers, etc)
that can come together to form an operating system(?).
BigWarpGuy
Expand Messages
Tom Lee Mullins
Aug 27, 2003
....
> As I said before, we need to restart project. It is a)
> Web-site b) CVS.
>
> BTW, Command line tools very near to be completed.
>
> CU!
>
> Yuri Prokushev
> prokushev at freemail dot ru [http://sibyl.netlabs.org]
Many pieces of the puzzle that make a whole picture (or in
this case operating system).
FreePM is also still being worked on at
http://frepm.sourceforge.net and this could be used with
OSFRee.
There are other 'puzzle pieces' (ie; the DANIS drivers, etc)
that can come together to form an operating system(?).
BigWarpGuy
Re: Part 25
#753 Re: [osFree] Alot of Acitivity and Alot of Discussion.
Expand Messages
Ben Ravago
Aug 27, 2003
Dale Erwin wrote:
> But now we seem to have reached an impasse. Is there enough talent is
> this group to write such a language as Lynn proposes?
And is it even in such a state that someone can write a tool that implements it?
Expand Messages
Ben Ravago
Aug 27, 2003
Dale Erwin wrote:
> But now we seem to have reached an impasse. Is there enough talent is
> this group to write such a language as Lynn proposes?
And is it even in such a state that someone can write a tool that implements it?
Re: Part 25
#754 Relevant to OSFree? (eFDS?)
Expand Messages
Tom Lee Mullins
Aug 27, 2003
" eCS File and Directory Standard (eFDS) published
(Posted by Eugene Gorbunoff) (mmo)
Today eCS DevGroup publishes eCS File and Directory Standard
(eFDS) ( http://en.ecomstation.ru/showarticle.php?id=92 )
This standard was used During the development of eCS 1.1.
Developers now can test their own software products for
compliance with operating system standards and can release
an updated version if needed.
Moreover, everybody is invited to express their opinion in comments to the document (use english language) or directly by e- mail --
Nicky Morrow (morrownr@...).
URL: http://en.ecomstation.ru/showarticle.php?id=92 "
Copied from http://en.os2.org
BigWarpGuy
Expand Messages
Tom Lee Mullins
Aug 27, 2003
" eCS File and Directory Standard (eFDS) published
(Posted by Eugene Gorbunoff) (mmo)
Today eCS DevGroup publishes eCS File and Directory Standard
(eFDS) ( http://en.ecomstation.ru/showarticle.php?id=92 )
This standard was used During the development of eCS 1.1.
Developers now can test their own software products for
compliance with operating system standards and can release
an updated version if needed.
Moreover, everybody is invited to express their opinion in comments to the document (use english language) or directly by e- mail --
Nicky Morrow (morrownr@...).
URL: http://en.ecomstation.ru/showarticle.php?id=92 "
Copied from http://en.os2.org
BigWarpGuy