From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-iy0-f171.google.com (mail-iy0-f171.google.com [209.85.210.171]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority" (verified OK)) by huchra.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 42A43200ABA for ; Thu, 22 Sep 2011 15:09:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: by iagv1 with SMTP id v1so5860792iag.16 for ; Thu, 22 Sep 2011 15:09:45 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=d+RZwsEdmS3UmG+ph3z+ChQ3R6H36z28EhF022Di8+w=; b=p/DMpbLrIee8F+5RJaqnwnXTdhO5Vzr9CfKIqx5I4VQTwQOsvxa6zvmJFaL/UoVCSi jm0THKOMQTXR1X851/u75PGgRYWP7+4VsAULAT0B27q3LV5eYOqKhSv/01e7CC4pniNf XA2YT2wHCWY66hnngmjT55Y7YJj1mwHeg2hmQ= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.42.156.4 with SMTP id x4mr3001945icw.96.1316729385629; Thu, 22 Sep 2011 15:09:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.43.132.8 with HTTP; Thu, 22 Sep 2011 15:09:45 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2011 15:09:45 -0700 Message-ID: From: Dave Taht To: debloat-proposals@lists.bufferbloat.net Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: [Debloat-proposals] ground up development? X-BeenThere: debloat-proposals@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2011 22:09:46 -0000 E) "Preliminary assessment, with rough timelines and budgets, for additional development of a specific OS (if available), or ground up development (if no appropriate OS is found) to a level suitable for deployment as an R&D or production platform, including initial requirements for necessary management and testing tools." 1) I'd like to rule out "ground up development" as an option. Nobody has succeeded in ground up development of an OS in todays environment since windows NT and Linux and freebsd in the early 90s. The list of failed 'new oses' is very long. The list of failing old os's is very long too - vxworks as one example, qnx as another. If some argument needs to be presented as to the futility of creating a new os, I usually point people at various analyses done with sloccount, which is a useful first step at analyzing a project's complexity. http://www.dwheeler.com/essays/linux-kernel-cost.html It's too bad this sloccount analysis hasn't been updated in 8 years, and that one that did all of debian seems unavailable. I also note that the COCOMO model understates the case for the amount of work involved in the development of any OS, as there is and has always been, an enormous amount of refactored code involved in expansion and generality that this model cannot account for. It takes as much work, or more, to remove lines of code as add them. Sloccount also uses a low, out of date figure for engineering salaries and doesn't factor in management overhead, testing, validation, support, etc. I did just run sloccount for just the core packages in cerowrt's version of openwrt, updating the engineering costs to modern salary levels, etc. I'll post it, if you really, really, really want to know, in gruesome detail, what it would take to build a new OS, or how hard the problems are in fixing various packages. 2) conflating R&D and production is a bad idea. Are we delivering two proposals? --=20 Dave T=E4ht SKYPE: davetaht US Tel: 1-239-829-5608 http://the-edge.blogspot.com