Читать книгу Code Nation - Michael J. Halvorson - Страница 20

Who were these early software systems designed for, and what percentage of the population did they actually represent? Playing back conversations from the 1960s, it is sometimes hard to tell. Here is one fascinating transcript from the 1968 conference that we have been using as a touchstone. It involves six prominent leaders from the global computer industry, including two computer manufacturers, three academics, and one of the conference’s organizers.¹⁴ (See Figure 2.3.) The exchange focused on the users of computer software and the extent to which customersComputing mythologiessystems for customers Systemfor customers should be included in the design of new software —an emphasis which appears to be lacking in the first systems. A cautious professor J. N. P. Hume begins the dialog. (The italic is mine.)

J. N. P. Hume [University of Toronto]: One must be careful to avoid over-reacting to individual users. It is impossible to keep all of the users happy. You must identify and then concentrate on the requirements common to a majority of users, even if this means driving a few users with special requirements away. Particularly in a university environment you take certain liberties with people’s freedom in order to have the majority happy. J. D. Babcock [Allen-Babcock ComputingAllen-Babcock Computing, New York, NY]: In our experience the users are very brilliant people, especially if they are your customers and depend on you for their livelihood. We find that every design phase we go through we base strictly on the users’ reactions to the previous system. The users are the people who do our design, once we get started. J. Berghuis [Dutch professor and industry consultant]: Users are interested in systems requirements and buy systems in that way. But that implies that they are able to say what they want. Most of the users aren’t able to. One of the greatest difficulties will be out of our field as soon as the users realize what kind of problems they have. J. W. Smith [Scientific Data Systems, El Segundo, CA]: Many of the people who design software refer to users as ‘they’, ‘them’. They are some odd breed of cats living there in the outer world, knowing nothing, to whom nothing is owed. Most of the designers of manufacturers’ software are designing, I think, for their own benefit — they are literally playing games. They have no conception of validating their design before sending it out, or even evaluating the design in the light of potential use. The real problem is training the people to do the design. Most designers of software are damn well incompetent, one way or another. M. Paul [Leibniz-Rechenzentrum, Munich]: The customer often does not know what he needs, and is sometimes cut off from knowing what is or what might be available. Perlis, AlanAlan Perlis [Conference organizer, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA]: Almost all users require much less from a large operating system than is provided.

Computing mythologiessystems for customers

Systemfor customers

Imagine a heated conversation among influential professors and experts who think that they each know best, and you’ve got the gist of this exchange. But notice how divided the industry leaders are about computer users and the design of software in the 1960s. Each person is wondering: who are these systems really designed for? How much functionality should be provided to users?

Professor Hume outlined a realist position: You cannot make all of the software users happy, but if you try to satisfy a majority of them, you will probably find a good balance. Hume believed that it was legitimate to take away the freedoms of users on occasion to protect the system or satisfy the needs of the majority. We are still wrestling with the implications of this statement for security and civil liberties in electronic environments.

Bristling at the regimenting tone of this statement, James Babcock of Allen-Babcock Computing Allen-Babcock Computing rushed to the defense of software users, whom he styled as “brilliant.”

Allen-Babcock Computing was founded in 1964 in Los Angeles by James Babcock and Michael Jane Allen Babcock to profit from the rapidly expanding market for computer time-sharing services. Between 1965 and 1966, the company participated in the development of CPS.Conversational Programming System (CPS) Conversational Programming System (CPS) Conversational Programming System (CPS), a time-sharing product that ran under IBM’s popular OS/360 OS/360. In 1969, Allen-Babcock held a 3% share of the time-sharing services market—a lucrative position in this developing field.¹⁵ Babcock’s direct experience with “external” computer users like this is unusual but important to catch. He had regular contact with paying customers in a competitive marketplace outside of academic or corporate contexts, where “control” over the system typically trumped the preferences of users. In Babcock’s opinion, if computer users do not directly enjoy the benefits of a new system, it is of little value.

But can computer users really be trusted? Professor Berghuis replied to Babcock that in his opinion customers had the right to make their selections, but most users do not know how to do it. If they only knew what computers were capable of, Berghuis mused, then software construction would be so much easier. Here, Berghuis puts the burden on users to know what they need, rather than on software designers to assess a customer’s requirements.

J. W. Smith of SDS.Scientific Data Systems (SDS) Scientific Data Systems (SDS) Scientific Data Systems (SDS), El Segunda, California, supported James Babcock’s position and he also spoke as an advocate for users. Computing mythologiessystems for customers Systemfor customers

SDS Scientific Data Systems (SDS) was a computer company established in 1961 by Max Palevsky and Robert Beck, veterans of the engineering firms Packard Bell and Bendix. This firm was an early adopter of Integrated circuit technology integrated circuit technology and also a maker of Timetime-sharing time-sharing systems. (They sold their successful operation to Xerox in 1969.) Accordingly, Mr. Smith also knew something about customers, and he quickly pointed out that most users were treated disdainfully by system designers, who seemingly devised software systems for themselves. Their overdesigned programs felt to him like “games”—i.e., eccentric, inward-facing diversions, representing the tricks of show-offs rather than any real attempt to satisfy the needs of users.

Our final comment comes from Professor Perlis, Alan Alan Perlis (1922–1990), who offered a new point—that software systems often contain too much functionality. This was another voice of concern about system complexity, which Perlis knew would translate into rising costs and overdesigned systems. Perlis would certainly have known. He was a savvy computer scientist and administrator who organized one of the first academic computer science programs in the U.S. He also believed that computer programming should be taught widely in schools, and we will see later what contributions he made to the learn-to-program movement. For starters, Perlis designed the Internal Translator (IT) Internal Translator (IT) programming language and co-designed Algorithmic Language (ALGOL) Algorithmic Language (ALGOL) with a committee of 13 computer scientists. He advocated for the rights of both programmers and users throughout his distinguished career.

Here is the point. By the late 1960s, computers and software systems had radically changed—and so had users and customers. During this era, software was becoming highly complex, and it was rapidly incorporating support for advanced features such as Multitasking multitasking and time-sharing. Software was also becoming “unbundled” from hardware sales, and as the process moved forward commercial programs took on the attributes of modern consumer products. These features included improved design concepts, compelling lists of features, market-based pricing, product reliability, and customer support from the software makers and third parties.

The decoupling of software services began in the mid-1960s and gained momentum when IBM announced in June 1969, that it would begin pricing software separately from hardware during the coming year.¹⁶ In less than a decade, software sales was re-organized into discrete channels, including lines for OEMs.Original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) Original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) original equipment manufacturers (OEMs), retail stores, mail order customers, foreign translation markets, custom licensing products, and more. By the 1980s, boxed and shrink-wrapped Computing mythologiessystems for customers Systemfor customers software packages with attractive designs became the norm for the emerging PC industry, and these goods were manufactured in facilities that were governed by the best practices of supply-chain management, warehousing, fulfillment services, and accounting. In short, PC software markets were built on the firm foundation of mainframe and minicomputer sales and support. Contrary to popular opinion, the corporate software products industry remained very strong in the U.S. for decades.¹⁷

The software crisis of the late 1960s created an important mythology about computing in Europe and the U.S., because it called into question the reliability of software systems and the development processes connected to them. Worries about complexity would remain in the software industry for decades, resurfacing again in the era of GUIs and Enterprise computing enterprise computing in the 1980s and 1990s. To address the issue, software managers introduced engineering principles and encouraged their employees to work in teams that were efficient, on time, and under budget—desirables that became an obsession for later programming contexts. In a subtler way, the software crisis also elevated a new group in the history of computing—users, who through market influence and creative action would change how software products were designed and used. Over time, these customers would help to make technology companies among the most valuable corporations on earth.