HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: wicklund@intellistor.com (Tom Wicklund)
Newsgroups: comp.software-eng
Subject: Re: 200 software patents in two months - what's going on?
Date: 30 Jul 92 22:10:25 GMT
Organization: Intellistor, Inc.

In <GEOFF.92Jul27103700@wodehouse.flash.bellcore.com> geoff@flash.bellcore.com (Geoffrey Clemm) writes:

>For example, US Patent #4992971 was awarded for the "Method and Apparatus for
>an Automatic Check of Whether or Not Calling Parameters Correspond to
>Called Parameters During Linkage Operation".  "Apparatus" in this case
>turns out to be a computer program ... one of those "hard to manufacture"
>physical devices that require patent protection.  So the next time you
>write a loader that verifies that the number and types of your routines
>match across separate compilation boundaries, better start negotiating
>with NEC for how much you owe them for royalties.

Exactly what does this patent say?  I doubt a patent on the concept of
checking calling parameters at link time is valid.  A particular
method of checking parameters might be valid (e.g. c++ name mangling,
a copy or encoding of the calling sequence, etc).  In this case you'll
need to use a different method, talk to NEC, or fight it if they
object.

>No problem, you say, we'll just prove prior art for this case.  Well,
>better break open that piggybank, because it's not cheap fighting big
>corporation lawyers.  And while you're at it, get ready to work on the
>thousands of other "methods" and "apparatuses" that you've inadvertently
>infringed upon.

>So if you think you might want to produce software in a company with
>less than 10,000 employees (and 500 laywers on staff), you might want
>to get active in fighting against software patents.

How do recent IC startups exist?  Many, many IC patents exist yet new
IC manufacturers continue to enter the market.  If patents are so
restrictive IC manufacturing should be restricted to a few companies
like IBM, National, TI, and the others who started in the 60's.  No
Japanese since they entered the market well after ICs were surrounded
by a huge number of patents.
Xref: sparky comp.software-eng:2931 comp.arch.storage:534 comp.unix.internals:1592
From: moss@cs.umass.edu (Eliot Moss)
Newsgroups: comp.software-eng,comp.arch.storage,comp.unix.internals
Subject: Re: Extent-based Filesystems (was: Large Application data sets )
Date: 23 Jul 92 13:27:18 GMT
	<1992Jul21.113652.4898@metapro.DIALix.oz.au>
	<1992Jul22.194214.20451@sequent.com>
Reply-To: moss@cs.umass.edu
Followup-To: comp.software-eng
Organization: Dept of Comp and Info Sci, Univ of Mass (Amherst)
In-reply-to: dafuller@sequent.com's message of 22 Jul 92 19:42:14 GMT

>>>>> On 22 Jul 92 19:42:14 GMT, dafuller@sequent.com (David Fuller) said:
David> Nntp-Posting-Host: sequent.sequent.com

David> Every proprietary OS I can think of has strongly typed files and that 
David> means extenting.

I see no necessary relationship between structured files (e.g., as in VMS) and
extenting. The structure can be laid down on top of unstructured files
supported by a lower level of the file system, not exported to the user. The
structure can thus be entirely independent of whether extenting is used. One
can also have an extent based file system where the files are unstructured, as
in the Dartmouth Time Sharing System (sorry, I don't have the citation handy,
but some years ago there was an interesting article on this in ACM Trans on
Computer Systems).

It is certainly *possible* to related extents to structure. For example, some
IBM disks (in the earlier days anyway, not so sure now) were set up more like
rotating tape drives in the sense that the user could determine the lengths of
the blocks and where the physical inter-record gaps fell, and blocks did not
have to be all the same size. These were allocated in cyclinders and tracks,
of course, and a collection of standard formats were offered by the OS, but
one could come up with new ones I believe. But this no longer seems the way to
go on most systems; pre-formatting to a certain block size (and accepting a
little waste) is just easier, more portable, etc.
--

		J. Eliot B. Moss, Associate Professor
		Department of Computer Science
		Lederle Graduate Research Center
		University of Massachusetts
		Amherst, MA  01003
		(413) 545-4206, 545-1249 (fax); Moss@cs.umass.edu
Newsgroups: comp.software-eng
From: exuslh@exu.ericsson.se (Sherry HArris,xtr,0334)
Subject: Software Critical Paths
Reply-To: exuslh@exu.ericsson.se
Organization: Ericsson Network Systems, Inc.
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 20:42:33 GMT

Looking for some information on software critical path testing.
Any documentation would be appreciated.  Book, magazine references
or methodology.

Thanks in advance


----------------------------------------------------------------
Sherry Harris        		 Ericsson Network Systems, Inc.
exuslh@exu.ericsson.se           730 International Parkway
(214) 997-0334			 Richardson, TX 75081
----------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroups: comp.software-eng
From: mcgregor@netcom.com (Scott L. McGregor)
Subject: Re: 200 software patents in two months - what's going on?
Reply-To: mcgregor@netcom.com
Organization: Atherton Technology, Inc.
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 19:03:45 GMT

In article <BrvIqF.9M5@world.std.com> srctran@world.std.com (Gregory Aharonian)  
writes:
>      To appreciate the magnitude of the problem of software patents, what
> follows is a list of about two hundred patents from just TWO months of 1991.
> The software community should start helping the patent office better manage
> the process of awarding software patents.
>       A good guess is that there at least 20,000 patents dealing with  
software
> and algorithms.  I am preparing a compendium of all of these patents by title
> and number and assignee.

I read through the list and there were a great many which had titles that  
suggested that they were not software per se, but hardware (systems, ASICs,  
microprocessors, firmware, embedded systems), or processes or methods that  
merely used a computer to control the process (controller, etc.).   At the same  
time, I would be astonished if there weren't a great many more patents that  
involved embedded hardware or computer controlled processes that aren't  
mentioned here. 

Of course, this list was only the titles and they could be misleading me.   
Perhaps the originator of this list (I can't tell if that is Mr. Aharonian or  
if he is just passing on a list he obtained somewhere else) did detailed  
reading of all patents issued in those two months, and picked these out based  
upon that reading and some objective criteria.  Anyway, I'm curious as to that  
person's selection criteria. How is this list built?  How is it decided whether  
or not to include a patent which includes a digital or analog electronic  
component or process?  How is it decided what to exclude?

As comp.software-eng members frequently point out, what you measure is  
intimately dependent upon your measuring device.  There may be many more or  
many fewer as measured by different criteria. 

Scott L. McGregor
From: d3g325@lovie.oname (DT McGowan)
Newsgroups: comp.software-eng
Subject: DoD2167A/Objects/Ada
Date: 29 Jul 92 19:19:38 GMT
Article-I.D.: oracle.1992Jul29.191938.7760
Reply-To: d3g325@lovie.oname
Followup-To: comp.object
Organization: Sun Microsystems


  Here is the dilemma:

   Given:
     Object Oriented project constrained to implementation in Ada requiring
     DoD-STD-2167A documentation (yuck!)

   Question:
     Any recommendations for what Ada construct is mapped to Computer Software
     Components (CSCs) and Computer Software Units (CSUs)?
     Also, what recommendations would you have for tailoring 2167A (SDD, IDD
     and backward to the SRS, IRS) in order to facilitate this view of CSCs and CSUs?

   Position-to-date:
     Gleening info from "Experiences in Preparing a DoD-STD-2167A Software Design Document
     for an Ada Project" (C.A. Meyer, et. al. 1989 ACM publication) we are leaning toward
     having CSCs be wholly logical entities (not mapping to any physical Ada construct) and
     having CSUs represent the lowest level of object present in our object diagrams.  Since
     our definition of an object includes operations performed by that object, the Ada
     construct associated with the current choice for a CSU would be a package or a task.
     Another example of a CSU would be an object class that is utilized by at least one
     other additional object.  This class would then map to the physical representation
     of a generic package in Ada.

     This position would require a tailoring of the SDD to redefine "separately testable"
     in a far more liberal fashion.  Also required would be the removal of "execution control"
     from the descriptions of CSCs and would have to explicitly call out components of the CSU
     when presenting detailed descriptions of data elements,PDL, etc..

   Any comments/suggestions regarding the "dilemma" and/or the position-to-date
   presented would be greatly appreciated.  Thanks.


                                                               Dan McGowan
                                                               d3g325@lovie.oname (DT McGowan)

                                                               Research Scientist
                                                               Battelle
                                                               Pacific Northwest Laboratories
                                                               Richland, WA 99352
From: dsanders@doc.bmd.trw.com
Newsgroups: comp.software-eng
Subject: Re: Air Force 2167A Training
Date: 30 Jul 92 11:25:33 MST

TO:  Software Eng Newsgroup
RE:  2167A Training

I contacted the Air Force's 3390th Technical Training Group.

This organization is responsible for, among many other things,
training new Communications and Computer Engineering Officers on
software development under 2167A.  The text they use and are extremely
satisfied with, is "Developing Software to Government Standards" by
William Rotzheim, ISBN 0-13-829755-X.  The book can be ordered through
Prentice Hall by calling 1-515-284-6751 (civilian orders) or
1-201-767-5994 (government orders).

As a side note, the 3390th (people with whom I spoke) has not heard
any reputable rumors regarding the issue of 2167B.

Dale Sanders
Newsgroups: comp.software-eng
From: lehman@george.arc.nasa.gov (John Lehman -- GDP)
Subject: Re: The Hot Designer
Summary: Explicit statements are also desired.
Organization: NASA Ames Res. Ctr. Mtn Vw CA 94035
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 92 18:01:59 GMT

I tried to email to you individually (timc@minnie.NoSubdomain.NoDomain)
but it didn't work.

Your anecdote is good.  Most hot designers 
would not learn from it anyway.  Some of
them might learn from a really explicit
statement of why another way of working
is better.  It's not easy to write the
explicit statement.  Maybe something along
the lines of:  "(1) The customer wants to
do a simple task; (2) software which requires
complicated maneuvers to do the simple task
would take up the customer's time and energy,
which needs justification if done; (3) the
customer has a right to his/her preferences
and s/he doesn't _have_ to buy your software
so you can't force it on him/her anyway."
There are lots of similar statements we
could make, and I think they are even more
useful than the anecdotal approach, which
is also useful.  One could say, we are trying
to persuade the "hot designers" to change
their behaviors; which is more or less true;
although I prefer to think I am "clarifying"
(as my main purpose, rather than "persuading"
which word connotes manipulation at the
expense of truth).  
  Where did you get your story, and are you 
mainly just venting frustration?
  I could go on and on about things/people
like "hot designers"; I usually try to
explain my rationale to myself in my own
mind, but am not satisfyingly able to
influence others to change the (e.g. hot
designer) behaviors.  My peeves include
fast talkers and needless complications.
  I think the real answer to `wrong behavior'
is to be able to walk away from it, but
for a social animal that means one must
find a group with a spirit kindred to
one's own.
- John Lehman   lehman@ames.arc.nasa.gov
Xref: sparky comp.software-eng:2921 comp.arch.storage:529 comp.unix.internals:1586
From: jesup@cbmvax.commodore.com (Randell Jesup)
Newsgroups: comp.software-eng,comp.arch.storage,comp.unix.internals
Subject: Re: Extent-based Filesystems (was: Large Application data sets )
Date: 23 Jul 92 01:10:20 GMT
Reply-To: jesup@cbmvax.commodore.com (Randell Jesup)
Organization: Commodore, West Chester, PA

dafuller@sequent.com (David Fuller) writes:
>>Who implements extent-based filesystems commercially? How
>>does it compare with the alternatives?

>Well, CP/M had an extent-based file system.

	So did TRSDOS and NewDOS/80.

>Every proprietary OS I can think of has strongly typed files and that 
>means extenting.

	AmigaDos doesn't have typed files or extents (though I quite strongly
plan to implement extents in it when I get enough free hours (and enough
aspirin to cover the headaches of trying to debug coroutines...))

-- 
"Rev on the redline, you're on your own; seems like a lifetime, but soon it's
 gone..."  Foreigner
-
Randell Jesup, Jack-of-quite-a-few-trades, Commodore Engineering.
{uunet|rutgers}!cbmvax!jesup, jesup@cbmvax.cbm.commodore.com  BIX: rjesup  
Disclaimer: Nothing I say is anything other than my personal opinion.
Newsgroups: comp.software-eng
From: ah739@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Leslie J. Somos)
Subject: Re: TELON
Reply-To: ah739@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Leslie J. Somos)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 92 18:48:37 GMT


In a previous article, dsr@bnr.co.uk () says:

>I'm trying to find out some information on a language called Telon
>which, I believe, was created by a company called Panasophic.
>
>As yet I've had no luck so I'm turning to the net for its wisdom.
>
>Thanks
>
>Dave
>   Dave Riches
>   Email:  David.S.Riches@bnr.co.uk
>   Smail:  BNR Europe Ltd, London Road,
>           Harlow, Essex. CM17 9NA.  England
>   Phone:  +44 (0)279-402496
>   Fax:    +44 (0)279-451434
>


Pansophic was bought by, and now is a division of
Computer Associates, the software company that ate the world.

I never worked with TELON, but I understand that you code-up
your program specs, and tell it to generate the code, for
either IMS or CICS, and in either COBOL or PL/I.

CA is probably in your phone book, the info I have is:
2400 Cabot Drive,  Lisle, Illinois,  60532  USA  708/505-6000.
I'm sure they would be glad to send you info on TELON.

--
Leslie J. Somos    ah739@Cleveland.Freenet.Edu
Xref: sparky comp.software-eng:2926 comp.object:2980
From: hayes@valkris.aero.org (Brian Hayes 74-35 x65129)
Newsgroups: comp.software-eng,comp.object
Subject: Re: Software costs revisited?
Date: 21 Jul 92 17:12:29 GMT
Followup-To: hayes@hac2arpa.hac.com
Organization: Hughes Aircraft Company, EDSG

In article <1992Jul20.120345.26472@cs.tu-berlin.de> gregor@cs.tu-berlin.de (Gregor Engelmeier) writes:
>In Brad Cox's book: "Object Oriented Programming" from 1986, he
>quotes an inquiery carried through by the U.S. Goverment Accounting
>Office in 1979, in wich a breakdown of software costs versus actual
>results is performed (FGMSD-80-4). The results at that time were:
> 
...
>This was meant to be a motive the introduction of object oriented 
>techniques in the production of complex software systems.

It is always interesting to read about motivation for using OO.  I'm
currently reading Booch's "Object-Oriented Design With Applications"
(1991) and his stated motivation for OO is that previous/other methods 
have failed to master complexity (with regard to "industrial strength
software") which leads to the software crisis were a project is "late,
overbudget and deficient in their stated requirements."

I am new to OO, so forgive my ignorance, but, IMHO:  These motivations
are not good enough to justify using OO.  I believe that functional 
oriented analysis and design is as good as OOA and OOD if not better.
The problem in the past (and currently) is that few people/projects
apply a rigorous life-cycle methodology when producing systems.  One 
problem, of course is that there are few methodolgies that are 
rigorous enough (appoligies to Hatley-Pirbahi method, ADARTS, and 
other similar methods and methodologies who fall short of being 
rigorous).

As I investage and analyze the OO paradigm, I will be attempting to 
find answers to the following questions:
Are the OO methodologies rigorous enough? 
When I complete my OOA phase, can I be assured that the system will 
work and meet requirements?
When I complete the OOD phase, can I be assured that the system 
will work and will meet requirements?

---

-- 
*** Brian Hayes hayes@hac2arpa.hac.com (310) 616-5129 ***
Newsgroups: comp.software-eng
Subject: Re: PCTE and ATIS
From: ronp@oodis01.af.mil (Contractor Ron Dr. Peterson)
Date: 24 Jun 92 15:36:48 GMT
Organization: Hill AFB, Utah

In article <1992Jun22.114646.17849@hemel.bull.co.uk> ewoods@hemel.bull.co.uk (Eoin Woods) writes:
>Jenny.Rowland@levels.unisa.edu.au writes:
>>I am interested in information on:
>>1. availability and cost of PCTE ...
>
>For a PCTE implementation (called "EAST") - note that PCTE is a standard, not
>a product - contact SFGL.
>

Actually, EAST is a Software Engineering Environment _based_on_ PCTE.  In
particular, EAST uses the Emeraude V12 implementation of the PCTE 1.5
standard.  For information in general about PCTE, you may want to contact:

        European Computer Manufacturers Association (ECMA)
        114, Rue du Rhone
        CH - 1204 Geneva
        Switzerland
                tel.:   +41 22 735 36 34

or line up some commercial training/consulting from:

        Software Design & Analysis Inc (SDA)
        1113 Spruce St., Suite 500
        Boulder, Colorado  80302
                tel.:   (303) 444-9100

For information on the Emeraude V12 product try:

        GIE Emeraude c/o Bull S/A
        68, route de Versailles
        78430 Louveciennes
        France

Two other companies are now providing implementations of PCTE:
        Heuristix (India) -- a partial implementation of PCTE+
        Verilog (France) -- a VAX VMS version of PCTE 1.5.

Another SEE based on the Emeraude implementation is Syseca's Entreprise II.
For more info on that one contact:

        Syseca
        315, bureaux de la Colline
        92213 Saint-Cloud
        France
                Tel.:   +33.1 49 11 70 00

For more information on environments (SEEs), you can request the
        Software Engineering Environments Report
from the USAF Software Technology Support Center at Hill AFB, Utah.
        Tel.:   (801) 777-8045
        or      1-800-392-1798

Hope this gives those interested some leads.

        Ron Peterson
                Weber State University          rpeterson@cc.weber.edu
        &       TRW/STSC                        ronp@oodis01.af.mil


---------
X-NEWS: levels comp.software-eng: 8106
Relay-Version: VMS News - V5.9C 19/12/89 VAX/VMS V5.4; site levels.unisa.edu.au
From: sss@world.std.com (Sergiu S Simmel)
Subject: Re: Large Application data sets (was: Copyless I/O)
Organization: Penobscot Development Corporation, Arlington MA
	<21110@rpp386.lonestar.org>
	<1992Jul11.031141.8140@metapro.DIALix.oz.au>
	<21144@rpp386.lonestar.org>
	<1992Jul13.090423.20408@metapro.DIALix.oz.au>
	<32999@cbmvax.commodore.com>
	<1992Jul19.052730.1748@metapro.DIALix.oz.au>
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 00:10:58 GMT



   UNIX filesystems are IMHO, OK for almost 100% of all files.
   The 1 in 100,000 that doesn't fit is usually some database
   which is from my experience, is more appropriately managed
   by the DB engine on a raw disk (or 10) to optimise placement
   of indexes and data.

Now imagine that both the file system and your database sit on top of
THE SAME data manager -- which presents a low level raw data
abstraction (no types, no names, no directories, etc. just bits,
pointers, identifiers, etc.). The data manager sits on top of the disk
drivers. And the data manager also manges who can get to what (that
is, data visibility). Higher level layers (call them file systems,
dbms, etc.) define data models, naming schemes, transaction models,
access control and security, etc.

Why? (1) reuse (2) interoperability (3) robustness (4) compactness.

---SSS---
-- 
  ___    ___    ___   ________________________________________________________ 
 |   `  |   `  |   `  Sergiu S. Simmel       Penobscot Research Center, Inc.
  \ __   \ __   \ __   50 Princeton Road      Internet: sss@world.std.com
       \      \      \  Arlington, Mass        Voice:  +1-617-646-7935
Newsgroups: comp.software-eng
From: dennisp@Newbridge.COM (Dennis Peters)
Subject: Re: IFPUG - info anyone?
Reply-To: dennisp@Newbridge.COM
Organization: Newbridge Networks Corporation
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 13:55:42 GMT

In article 519@sadis01.sa.aflc.af.mil, dgray@sadis01.sa.aflc.af.mil (1LT DOUGLAS S. GRAY) writes:
> 
> 	Does anyone out there know how I can get in contact with the
> International Function Point Users' Group?  Are there local chapters -
> . . . 
> 
> 	Thanks,
> 	   Doug Gray

AND 

In article 081605GRFG086@TWNMOE10.BITNET, GRFG086@TWNMOE10.BITNET () writes:
> Greeting from Taiwan!
> 
> I am Feili Brenda Tu, and I am serving as a reference librarian in the Informat
> ion and Computing Library, Taipei, Taiwan, THE REPUBLIC OF CHINA. I have a patr
> on who needs to know about "International Function Point User Group (IFPUG)."
> . . . 

From the file:comp.software-eng archive file "funcpoints" last changed 10 Apr 1992
which I picked up from an ftp site at queensu.ca (I've forgotten the rest):

>From: warren@eecs.cs.pdx.edu (Warren Harrison)
>Subject: International Function Points User's Group
>Date: 6 Aug 91 19:56:39 GMT
>Organization: Portland State University, Portland, OR
>
>The IFPUG (International FUnction Points Users' Group) will have their Fall
>Conference on October 7-11 in Scottsdale Arizona. For more info, call IFPUG
>at 614/895-7130 or FAX at 614/895-3466. They are predicting approx. 200
>attendees (at least that's how many copies of their handouts authors need
>if they don't make the deadline for the proceedings).

Hope this helps.

---
Dennis Peters                  | dennisp@newbridge.com  | 
Newbridge Networks Corporation | Phone: (613) 591-3600  |
Kanata, Ontario, Canada.       | FAX:   (613) 591-3680  |

Xref: sparky comp.software-eng:2955 comp.arch.storage:546 comp.unix.internals:1611
From: miket@frog.CRDS.COM (vulture)
Newsgroups: comp.software-eng,comp.arch.storage,comp.unix.internals
Subject: Re: Extent-based Filesystems (was: Large Application data sets )
Date: 24 Jul 92 22:49:58 GMT
Organization: Charles River Data Systems

<1992Jul21.113652.4898@metapro.DIALix.oz.au> bernie@metapro.DIALix.oz.au (Bernd Felsche) writes:
>Who implements extent-based filesystems commercially?

We do here at Charles River Data Systems.  We have a realtime UN*X variant
which allows files to be flagged as written as extents with user defined
parameters.
-- 
<< MCT >>  Michael C Tiernan. - GEnie:M.Tiernan - AOL:M Tiernan/BCS Mike 
UUCP = alfalfa!pro-angmar!m.tiernan OR miket@frog.UUCP
      It's too bad that it takes almost half of our life
	to realize that it was a "Do-It-Yourself" project.
Newsgroups: comp.software-eng