Paul Novorese on Type C and Type M arguments – nice.
The most famous type M argument is the “law abiding citizens have nothing to hide” justification for any given big brother policy. I particulary despise this argument, and often I despise those who make it, as they obviously are too lazy to develop rational justifications for thier positions.
And yet, what is the right answer to that? I mean, how do you counter that argument? All suggestions welcome… (Man, I need a commenting system – maybe it’s time I looked at Movable Type).
Dad sent me a couple of photos, which I thought I’d share:
That’s Blossom, their cat, doing the kind of daft thing cats do; and Adam, my nephew, who appears to growing frighteningly fast. Wave to the internet, Adam. :-)
Hmmm, Blossom’s pose (and, to be honest, general attitude) reminds me of this excellent Get Fuzzy cartoon:
It’s quite amazing to see how many of the predictions made in this Byte article on microkernel operating systems from 1994 were just completely wrong.
I mean, apart from the big one at the start, that “Every next-generation operating system will have one [ie, a microkernel]“, there are all sorts of little predictions and “obvious points” about the market about that time which ended up not happening for one reason or another.
Fueling the current microkernel frenzy is the recent fragmentation of the operating-system market. With no one vendor a clear winner in the operating-system sweepstakes, each needs to be able to support the others’ applications.
I suppose this was still in the day when it looked like OS/2 might have a chance.
Since the processor market seems more likely to fragment with competing designs than to converge on a single architecture, running an operating system on more than one processor may be the only way to leverage buyers’ investment in hardware.
Well, that didn’t happen, except in the embedded space.
Operating-system designers have learned their lesson and now build operating systems that make adding extensions manageable. There’s no alternative. With increasingly complex monolithic systems, it becomes difficult, if not impossible, to ensure reliability.
So how come Windows and Linux are still monolithic then? Eh? Eh? Eh?
There’s also a need to subtract features. More users would flock to Unix or NT if these operating systems didn’t require 16 MB of memory and 70 MB or more of hard disk space.
Ah, if only it had been true. But no, we’ll just buy more memory and bigger hard drives, dummy!
Don’t get me wrong. I like the idea of a microkernel and I hope (but doubt) that somehow they’re the future. I’m just marvelling at how much this article got wrong. Not that I’m suggesting I could do better, then or now… It’s just interesting, is all.
Stop stop talking about who’s to blame, when all that counts is how to change.