Super excited to share this set of stories about software quality, I mean blue screens & crashes. Ever wonder what happens when you click "Send to Microsoft?" Does it matter? Where's it from?Who invented it? 1/
2/ In the Windows 95 / internet era when so many people started with computing, "crashing" was a thing computers just did. You'd be working away on a word processor or paint program and 💥 the PC would freeze or worse.
This happened on Macs too. Mac had a very graceful fail :-)
3/ When I started writing, I wanted to go through the entire history of how the PC handled crashes. But along the way, I realized what was fundamentally a user-hostile event just got more hostile over the years.
4/ Who was General Protection in what army?
How "illegal" was the "operation"?
Was the exception really "fatal"?
These and other Ups led to internet "memes" (not the phrase back then) like this Tools Options Crash.
And of course the defining "Blue Screen of Death" in NT 3.1
5/ Turns out back during Windows 3.0 a clever engineer on the Windows team invented a tool called "Dr. Watson" (originally called Sherlock, but that name was used though a decade before Mac).
Watson captured some minimal but critical system info that could be shared w/Microsoft.
5a/ Closely related, though not obvious, was development of sophisticated "Undo".
A big problem with s/w was how "destructive" operations (editing!) led to defensive use (saving, backups, etc) which stressed the system. Undo was a first step in dramatic quality improvements.
6/ There was no internet quite yet so it sort of sat there for a few years.
Then right around holiday 1998, an engineer on Office (a hacker's hacker, Kirk Glerum) had the insight to connect Watson to the internet. he wrote a memo, which was weird b/c he mostly wrote MASM.
7/ Just a brilliant idea. It seems so trivial / obvious now, but before then software didn't do this (there were examples of copiers that signaled errors over phone lines and mainframes did some of this).
Very quickly the team jumped on this idea. Every crash was a data point.
8/ Many more details about how this changed our culture, what was interesting about in terms of customer experience.
I always thought of it as a dramatic change in *computer science*. It turned fixing bugs at massive scale into a solvable problem. My college recruiting prez.
9/ The most important thing we learned quickly was the 80/20 rule—80% of the crashes happening (in the real world) were caused by just 20% of the bugs. In fact just a few bugs were *half* the crashes. This "Pareto" distribution was dubbed "the Watson curve".
10/ The team even wrote a paper that was published in Communications of the ACM "Debugging in the (Very) Large: Ten Years of Implementation and Experience".
11/ This was the start of a dramatic change in software quality (yes I realize people will make jokes!) It is hard to put into words how fundamental this was to software engineering.
Of course this is part of every mobile platform today but it is amazing to think of the start.
12/ I tried to capture many of the details of this evolution. It was pivotal point in the history of engineering brought on by the internet.
We followed this with "watsonizing" everything: feature usage, help topics, spelling, and more. (Prez from 2004)
13/ I wanted to use this first post of 2022 to thank everyone who has been along for the journey of "Hardcore Software". I can't thank enough the over 200,000 unique readers. It is so amazing to be able to share these lessons and history.
Thank you 🙏
14/ Please consider subscribing for 2022. We're only halfway through and will soon be covering topics like SharePoint, .NET, NetDocs (!), the Ribbon, Courier (!), Windows 7, Windows 8, Surface, and so much in-between. hardcoresoftware.substack.com
PS/ I love the personal reflections shared by the members of the teams in "Hardcore Software". Here is Kirk Glerum on what it was like to build and stand up Watson. (ignore the "Mr.", that's Kirk 🙃).
Subscribe and check out more comments.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Today OpenAI put out an AI Action plan for the government.
OpenAI’s proposals for the U.S. AI Action Plan
Recommendations build on OpenAI’s Economic Blueprint to strengthen America’s AI leadership.
It is a broad document that covers many topics. I want to highlight copyright.
In the document there is a call for permissive AI training, noting the carveouts that exist in other countries. Summarized is a call for a "Freedom to Learn".
I mean who is against freedom? Against learning? Against a freedom to learn? No one. Except... cdn.openai.com/global-affairs…
First notice how much they have pivoted to China away from the "please regulate us to save jobs". This is noteworthy. Still this is a call for regulatory capture. Just a different mechanism. Instead of blocking others it is enabling others on the assumption scale wins.
Early-Childhood Tablet Use and Outbursts of Anger - // This study is out today and getting broad media play piling on to more evidence tech is bad. It is so dumb a read it should be getting coverage for how bad it is at science not as a way to "exercise caution in tablets." 1/
2/ This study appears to be instantly generalized to all screens and all content. The underlying tool used to measure the use of *tablets* is a survey+tool described in this referenced study ("CAFE"). Today's paper clearly takes a subset of this data, which is itself questionable.
3/ The underlying study as of 2020 says it monitors content on Android devices. I can't tell and there's no open data available to confirm that for today's study (that I could find.) This is a minor point perhaps but has obvious issues with sampling. But there are other issues:
Today the US DOJ+16 states/DC (HA we had 19+) filed suit against Apple over abuse of market position ̷b̷y̷ ̷m̷a̷k̷i̷n̷g̷ ̷a̷ ̷v̷a̷s̷t̷l̷y̷ ̷b̷e̷t̷t̷e̷r̷ ̷c̷o̷m̷p̷u̷t̷e̷r̷ in an effort to keep customers reliant on iPhone.
🧵contd until I lose steam
1. This is scary/concerning/freaky if you work at Apple. My first thoughts go to them. What I can say is heads down, be patient. It’s an ultramarathon.
2. If you are a competitor cheering then history tells us down the road you will either become a faded memory or will be sued.
Of course I am not a lawyer and don’t pretend to be one. When the Microsoft case first started in the early 90s. MS’s GC said to me “you have to remember, people who chose to practice antitrust (AT) law not only believe in it but see ‘monopolies’ and ‘abuse’ everywhere.”
So much of the evolution of technology can be summed up by “what’s new, was already done before…but being first (or early) if often no different in result than being wrong.”
Of course being done before is never ever the same as the new things… 1/
2/ New things that appear to have been done before have a different perspective, bring unique market forces to a problem, and rely on technologies that are often more mature, not brand new.
Many latest and greatest inventions fail and need to be reinvented in new contexts.
3/ I lived through too many Microsoft examples where we were “first”—even “innovative”—only to watch other companies come along and capitalize on something conceptually close/identical but implemented entirely differently.
Their patience and choices made all the difference.
Apple's 'Mother Nature' sketch was a complete dud, and didn't belong… // No, no. Issue is much more subtle and practical. Need to separate weird marketing from reality. This is greenwashing but the green is…profit. This isn't Bud Light. Or even "woke" 1/appleinsider.com/articles/23/09…
2/Sure the presentation might have been awkward or even a dud to some. A quasi-religious tone viz. Mother Nature isn't everyone's approach.
At the same time, every fact or position put forth is a strategic, margin-positive, and innovative effort from Apple. Super important.
3/ Start with packaging. Most people haven't thought much about packaging. Even most who have made something needing a package haven't thought about it. Packaging is *expensive* and necessary. It is also a whole discipline. How many knew you could get a PhD in packaging?
Why are people so quick to proclaim failure for new products? It seems a dumb thing to ask. I mean knowledgable people look at a new product and think it doesn't cut it and will fail. Much more going on. Innovation is nearly impossible to deliver. Harder to predict/analyze. 1/
2/ Regardless of the era, predicting failure has always been easy, always been attention grabbing, and always kind of fun. Some say it's necessary simply to counter the marketing and power of the launch. Silly. A launch still has to battle the market. The market is really brutal.
3/ Predicting failure is a form of social credit, a way of elevating oneself above the company. It is in effect a power grab. It is also a form of grift. A con. These are harsh words but let me explain.