Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Wind River going up, up, up! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Mark Brophy who wrote (3056)	4/18/1998 12:50:00 PM
From: w2j2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10309

Mark, I really enjoyed your post until your closing remarks. Why was it necessary to become belligerent? You put a lot into that post, then you ruined it. Did that make you feel better? :-( wj

To: Mark Brophy who wrote (3056)	4/18/1998 12:56:00 PM
From: w2j2	Respond to of 10309

Mark, with regard to the substance of your post, it is clear that there is software for the masses (ala Msft), and then there is mission critical software (ala Wind River) where "good enough" just does not cut the mustard. wj

To: Mark Brophy who wrote (3056)	4/18/1998 1:16:00 PM
From: Ramsey Su	Respond to of 10309

Message 4102518 Mark, looks like this new book may interest you about Bill G and MSFT. I am looking forward to its release myself. Ramsey

To: Mark Brophy who wrote (3056)	4/18/1998 4:04:00 PM
From: Snowshoe	Respond to of 10309

Yourdon on Embedded Systems Mark, Last summer I began a year-long sabbatical of rest and renewal after 11 years of toil in an MVS/COBOL shop. By coincidence, one of my esteemed colleagues presented me with a parting gift of the book you cited: "Rise and Resurrection of the American Programmer", by Edward Yourdon. The second-last chapter of the book is titled: "Embedded Systems and Brave New Worlds". His concluding paragraph (pages 290-291) does not support your oft-repeated thesis about a Microsoft takeover of the embedded world: "While it's delightful to imagine another Microsoft in an industry like this, it's even more interesting to anticipate hundreds of small companies, each with its software wizards focusing on the design of intelligent toasters, coffee-makers, and refrigerators...and yes, perhaps even intelligent toothbrushes. Indeed, it's even possible to imagine that this "brave new world" will be the downfall of Microsoft, for as noted above, the lingua franca of embedded systems probably will not be Microsoft Windows or Visual Basic. But that's okay: Each new generation of computing technology causes enormous difficulty for the company that dominated the then-current paradigm, but creates vast new opportunities for the next generation of entrepreneurs. And in this field, the important (thing) to remember is this: For every PC, there are a hundred appliances and machines that can serve as a home for an intelligent embedded system. If Microsoft has made its fortunes from a hundred million PCs around the world, think how much more money there is to be made from the vastly large number of embedded systems!" As Dr. Benn says: Let the games begin!

To: Mark Brophy who wrote (3056)	4/19/1998 4:49:00 PM
From: Snowshoe	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 10309

Mark, let's take a closer look at Yourdon's article: "A Reengineering Concept for IT Organizations: 'Good-Enough' Software". Further down from the paragraph you quoted, he states: For an important class of software projects, that battle cry ("We'll deliver high-quality, bug-free software on time, within budget!") is still relevant: obviously, nobody wants to fly on an airplane whose guidance control software has as many bugs as our PC word processor. Nobody wants their telephone system or their bank's ATM system to crash as often as their desktop operating system. But for another class of software projects -- which is arguably far larger today than the class of "critical" software systems -- rapid delivery of the software to the customer is sometimes more important than the number of defects it contains. In other situations, "feature richness" may be the dominant factor; in still others, cost might the only thing the user cares about. I believe Yourdon's thesis about "fast enough, cheap enough, good enough" software refers primarily to shrink-wrap software like word-processors and spreadsheets, and the competitive pressure to beat rival products to market. He obviously agrees that it does not apply to the kind of mission-critical real-time embedded systems that Ramsey and Allen were discussing. Microsoft is well known for slipping its deadlines. The higher reliability requirements of real-time embedded systems will slow them down even more than usual, or make them hedge the applicability of their product, or both. Despite your selective quoting of Yourdan, I think Allen's arguments remain quite valid... This flexibility for passing the buck is not found in embedded systems. First, the interface may not be complex, or may even be non-existent. Indeed, few users may even be aware of the existence of software in a failed product. This means the software component of many embedded systems is not automatically given special treatment. Second, embedded systems often are deployed in mission critical, even life threatening situations, in which unwarranted product failures will not be forgiven or ignored. Reliability is but one of many tests Windows CE will have to pass to be considered seriously for most deeply embedded applications. When the Microsoft representative indicated to the Wall Street Journal that Windows CE would be appropriate for the AutoPC, but not process controls in automobiles, I suspect he really meant something much stronger. I doubt that Microsoft's lawyers would allow Windows CE to be used to control automobile processes, because of obvious difficulties shielding the company from expected product liability suits. The bottom line is this... Wind River Systems has the real-time goods now, and Microsoft is years behind.