RE: design goals vs mechanisms

[Christopher Nelson]

> Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> > At Thu, 27 Oct 2005 16:08:36 +0200,
> > ness <address@hidden> wrote:
> > 
> >>Yes. That is right. I really don't have a problem with 
> redesigning the 
> >>Hurd's architecture. I see this is necessary. But I don't think 
> >>whether refining the goals is a good idea.
> > 
> > 
> > Fair enough.  Maybe it helps if you say what you think the 
> goals are 
> > (irregardless of who defined them), either by reference or 
> in your own 
> > words.
> > 
> > I am asking because I simply don't have a normative document which 
> > states "The goals of the Hurd are (a), (b) and (c)" and which then 
> > says what (a), (b) and (c) are.  This is not a trick question.  I 
> > really don't know.
> > 
> You have pushed me into sth. I didn't expect. You say you 
> have this huge trea and there's no real list of goals?
> I can only quote the Hurd web page:
> 
>    it's free software
>    it's compatible
>    it's built to survive
>    it's scalable
>    it's extensible
>    it's stable

That's like saying "Let's go to the moon!"  Sure, that's the end goal,
but *how* do you get there?  Rocket? Space Shuttle? Energy Transport?
You have to sit down and specify the concrete embodiments of how you
plan to achieve that goal.  So that means sub-goals.

        * we need a transport that can carry three people to the moon.
        * it must use materials that we have on hand or can quickly
fabricate.
        * it must use our current understanding of physics.
        
Each of those can be subdivided even more.

With respect to the Hurd, maybe you have to decide what designs it will
use to achieve those goals:

        * we have a rocket that can get us to the moon right now, but it
blows up 2 out of 4 launches. Is that acceptable?  If not, maybe we need
to rethink our rocket design.  
                * is the aerodynamics of the shape unstable?
                * does the engine have some inherent defect?
                * is it the fuel delivery system?

If you determine that it's the engine you might need to redesign it.

        * should we use hydrox? Maybe some other fuel is better.  But
that means we might have to redesign the fuel delivery system as well...

-={C}=-
        



  The end result will still get you to the moon, but maybe it will do so
in a safer fashion.