 |
 |
 |
|
Wow. No time to say more than the above to this outstanding response from Dave Winer. Great stuff coming in from the rest of ya'll. Thanks, and keep it coming! BTW Dep't: The "no Moore's Law for software" question comes from Ellen Ullman, not me. I just thought it was provocative, which turns out to be true. And soon. The finished deadline is December 15. Like I said earlier, I'm writing this piece called Why operating systems suck (and what we're doing about it) for a bigtime magazine. Whether they know it or not, here are my sources, in no particular order:
Anybody I'm leaving out? I've already talked with some of these folks, but I need to hit a lot more — and I know I'm forgetting more than a few that matter. Only one of them is dead, so that keeps the list of calls to make on the long side. If it needs to grow by your name or some other obvious omission, I'm sorry I forgot to put you and the others on the list. Get in touch. One of my questions is "Why is there no Moore's Law for software?" The first response, concerning documentation, comes from Charles Roth. The question itself comes from Ellen Ullman, who spoke at the PopTech! conference in Maine last month. In a very provocative talk, she suggested that a big problem with software is that the people writing it are often far less terrific at understanding the problems they are solving than they are at writing software. Well, there's the phone. More later. There are responses to this message:
|
