[cap-talk] Demonstrations and explanations (was: Re: Avoid overconfidence)

[Jed Donnelley]

On 4/8/2008 11:20 AM, Ivan Krstić wrote:
> On Apr 8, 2008, at 2:07 PM, Jed Donnelley wrote:
>> The above sounds like more argument/engagement.
> 
> It is! But it's very much to be read as non-confrontational.

There are huge amounts of non-confrontational reading material
on the capability paradigm, systems, etc. available.  The only
time confrontation is needed is when somebody (particularly
somebody considered an industry leader like Butler Lampson in
a very visible keynote presentation) says, in effect,

"This approach <POLP> has never worked and it never will
for these reasons...>"

At that point I believe "confrontation" is the only viable
form of engagement.  If the audience (many hundreds to
a thousand? in that case) accepts such arguments (for that is
what they are, all demonstrations to that point are shared)
for lack of any effective counter arguments, then the 'door'
that Fred Spiessens referred to is closed that much more firmly.

Still, discussing it on cap-talk has only the limited value of
honing up talking points for future discussions outside cap-talk.

With most people we aren't dealing with that sort of direct
attack on a principle like POLA, let alone any implementation
based on capabilities.

> You are obviously very passionate about the topic of capabilities,

You noticed?  ;-)

> and have repeatedly expressed your frustration about these ideas
> not reaching a wider audience.

Which isn't particularly productive on cap-talk.  That's something
I need to review.

> I've identified two concrete problems...

Problems?  Recapitulating a bit, you identified the challenge of
producing:

1. Demonstrations: real-world systems that solve real-world problems
    in convincingly superior ways than mainstream alternatives, and

2. Explanations of their <the demonstrations> beliefs and ideas <I
    would say 'architectures'> that are widely-accessible, well-written,
    and compelling.

and you suggested:

I.  The Tahoe file system and

II. an explanation of its architecture that is widely-accessible,
     well-written, and compelling.

as possible specific instances.  You offered to assist with II.
Did I get that much right?

That sounds promising.  I will spend some time testing Tahoe and
looking particularly at how capabilities show up in it.  I'm curious
about a number of aspects of Tahoe in any case.  I'll let you know
when I've finished that testing.  At that time I'll contact you
regarding II.

--Jed  http://www.webstart.com/jed/