If it's there and you can see it - it's real.
If it's not there and you can see it - it's virtual.
If it's there and you can't see it - it's transparent.
If it's not there and you can't see it - you erased it!
-- Old IBM VM Statement (Scott Hammer)
I heard it from Mike Williams, when he had his professor of computer science hat on! Here’s how he said it:
If it is there, but you can’t see it, it is transparent.
If it isn’t there, but you see it, it is virtual.
If it is there, and you see it, it is real.
For the purposes of symmetry, what if something is not there and you can’t see it?
Paul
From:
members-bounces@sigcis.org [mailto:members-bounces@sigcis.org]
On Behalf Of Thomas Haigh
Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2014 7:01 PM
To: members@sigcis.org
Subject: [SIGCIS-Members] Virtuality versus transprency -- trying to locate a quote about the difference
Hello SIGCIS,
I am trying to locate a quote I remember reading circa 1998. It is something along the lines of “Something virtual isn’t really there but looks as if it is. Something transparent is really there but looks as if
it isn’t.” That is of course the computer science sense of transparency as making the work of software invisible a user or process – for example how the network stack shields applications from whatever network media the data is travelling over to present the
illusion of a connection.
Google is not helping me. Does anybody know the source and correct wording?
Thanks,
Tom