QuoteOSs are well-defined beasts and much is known about them (i.e. low risk).QuoteAlso a good illustration of how "building a house" is not a good analogy, of course.The 'of course' part is not so obvious.I don't know; have any experience reports been written by someone who attempted it? BTW what is Zachman (method)?Remark:For OS design, the Microkernel architectural pattern (Dijkstra) seems to be influential. I would describe it as a supply/service chain model. It is also very difficult to get right, especially with votatile requirements. Then there is always a monolithic kernel.What are the criteria for any design choice?QuoteA house is built from lots of little general parts that are cut and put together in situ. They have to be put together from the bottom up. Thus, when the foundation has not been built, no substantial part has been built; all you have is a hole in the ground.By contrast, an operating system consists of complex components that can be developed in any order. When you have developed most of the components, most of the work is done. This is much more like the International Space Station than like a house. If most of the Space Station modules were in orbit but awaiting one other essential module, that would be like the GNU system in 1992. Most s/w systems are _not_ built on ISS analogy. There are many reasons why not, some technical but most are organisational. IMO ISS idea only works on a small % of problems.
Last edited by Cuchulainn
on September 3rd, 2012, 10:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.