TUNES Manifesto [draft]

[PB]

Once upon a time you wrote:

> I propose the following document as a TUNES manifesto.
> If I am severely wrong, and you disagree this is where tunes should be
> going, let me know, and I'll call it something else ("Tril's project
> manifesto" :).
>
> -----------------------------------
> TUNES Manifesto: Redesigning Computing [Draft]
>
> Programmers have too much power and too much responsibility. They can
> control everything on a user's computer and they feel a need to do so.

Don't think that "too much power" works: It gives the idea that
subtracting functionality, i.e. reducing power, is a working solu-
tion. The subsequent phrase clarifies that this is not the point,
i.e. that the point is the fact that programmers too often have to
unnecessarily use all the (expressive) power to perform their
tasks. Also the first phrase should have that kind of cut.

>...
> In addition other problems exist in computing: Bloated programs that
> have features no one will ever use, platform incompatibilities, frequent
> crashing, rebooting, reinstalling.  Debugging is difficult.  The bloat
> is defined as a feature exists that the user doesn't want...

Here each point (bloat, incompatibility, crash, reboot, reinstall) is
explained. May I suggest a bullet list in order to have a less abrupt
transition? The phrase "Debugging is difficult" is left there alone, wi-
thout any explanation on why debugging is difficult, leaving for
granted that everyone agrees on it, even if the reader doesn't know
what debugging is.
By the way: what Kyle (is this your first name? :)) said about bloat
is right; we can define bloat not just as unwanted information,
but, perhaps better, as unnecessary information *in some
place* if and when the amount of it causes a perceivable
decayment in (one or more) performance indicator.
The complete database of the daily transactions of a big
distribution chain is bloat for the manager, who wants to see
some aggregate metrics, but it is not for the system who this
metrics should build.
It is really an engineer matter, and it is function of the distribu-
tion of information, not much of the amount of it, if we
make some a priori hypothesis on knowledge about which
kind of information we need (and which not) at each node.
If such an hypothesis doesn't hold, well, I see some difficulty
in telling what is bloat and what isn't.

>...
> It is obvious that existing systems in any combination or organization
> are brutally incapable of fulfilling the needs stated above.  If it is
> not obvious, you have either not used computers enough, or are ignorant
> of the possibilities of how much better it can be (Or, maybe you know of
> some systems we don't: Let us know).

This is a bit rude. I would replace "ignorant" with "unaware".

> So, to create a computing system that gives total control to the user,
> is extremely portable, safe, and fast at allowing changes to programs
> and to itself, freely available, and moves information where and when it
> is needed, we require a redesign of every aspect of computing from the
> hardware, the operating system, language, applications, and the user
> interface, to the users themselves.  In fact, we need a "whole" system
> that redefines all of these components and lets them interact in better
> ways.
>
> Here are the main requirements of such a system:
>...

OK, the part that follows is very well written. I would just make
clearer that what here are proposed as requirements are actual-
ly more the ways we think to achieve the true requirements, i.e.
control to the user, portability, safety, velocity, freedom... Some-
times the TUNES site gives the impression that some features
like reflection should be added because they are spiffy features
to add to an operating system - which obviously isn't! We must
state clearly that those things should be in TUNES because
they give advantage to people using it, and thus improve their
quality of life, their freedom, their access to information by raising
S/N ratio, etc.

The text is very close to what I think it should be a general
introduction to TUNES. It is very readable, and this is definitely
a Good Thing. Still had no time to read the other one...

Pietro