Comment by jseban
4 years ago
Well, if the abstractions were peer reviewed and put through the same rigour as mathematical proofs, that's a whole different topic.
The equivalent would be a mathematical services company, who created "free" abstraction packages that required you to rewrite all your math, away from the scientific community standards, to fit their abstractions, and who also made money on consulting and selling books. And the big benefit of it all, is really that they only abstracted away writing summaries of your papers, which is actually the easiest part that is quite irrelevant to your research.
But it is not math - we only have empirical evidence and not even much from that.
Who is to tell whether the OSI model is ideal? It is more than likely not it, but we can’t measure these things up front, there is an insane cost associated with changing it, etc. Yet again, what is the alternative? We can’t manage complexity any other way, and essential complexity can’t be reduced.
> Who is to tell whether the OSI model is ideal?
The current idea of the OSI model was also retrofitted from what it originally was.
Ooo, you're giving me LaTeX vibes!