Slashdot Mirror
Bob Metcalfe on Open Source, IPv6, IETF
prostoalex writes "The inventor of Ethernet Bob Metcalfe is interviewed by AlwaysOn on current issues. Metcalfe is known for challenging commonly accepted wisdom and this time he's quite confrontational. On open source and operating systems: "If you look at Windows and Linux, both are based on 25-year-old technology. Windows is sort of a GUI version of the Mac's operating system, and Linux is of course Unix, which stems from 1968. These are both old clunkers. So the question is, Where are the new operating systems likely to come from?" On IPv6 adoption and IETF: "Back when you attended the IETF, you all looked down your noses at the ITU (or I guess it was called CCITT at the time)--the entrenched, corporately manipulated, corrupt, competent standards being embodied in IT. We were the IETF--the swashbuckling, institution-oriented, open people, the rebels. That's changed now. The Internet has arrived, and all of those people are now just like ITU: IETF has become the ITU.""
There's no doubt that Mr. Metcalfe is quite bright and has contibuted greatly to the IT world, but I don't understand this rant. If he doesn't see the innovation, I guess he's never compared Slackware '96 to today's distros, or Windows 3.1 to WinXP. Apple certainly can't be ignored here either. Where are the new operating systems likely to come from? I'm going to take a wild guess, and say "probably from the OS's of today." They don't need to be completely rewritten every few years to count as progress. Even the emergence of UNIX itself was evolutionary, not revolutionary.
It's also interesting that he clearly shows a lack of faith in the OSS community, but then digs at the IETF for evolving into elitist and monolithic organization.
Entrepreneur : (noun), French for "unemployed"
Windows is sort of a GUI version of the Mac's operating system, and Linux is of course Unix, which stems from 1968. These are both old clunkers. So the question is, Where are the new operating systems likely to come from?
.NET, and Mono are examples of the market attempting to find a way to combine modern technology with the tech of yesterday. Unfortunately, the results are less than stellar. For example, instead of aligning Virtual Memory along object bounds (a natural fit that could be done without hardware support), these systems must contend with the existing 4K VM implementations. Instead of running the protected code in a flat heap (which CAN'T break the memory model!) these systems must contend with the memory indirection that operating systems throw their way. The results of this poor matchup between machine and software is a performance penalty, both real and perceived.
I hate to break it to Mr. Metcalfe, but most entities lack the resources to do a ground up rewrite of a fully featured Operating System. Simply writing a functional OS isn't the hard part. It's just a platform upon which software will be built. There were hundreds of OSes written between 1960 and 1990. During the '90s, however, computing platforms began to stabalize. Software was written that had a greater than 5 year life span, Operating System began to stabalize on a few "standards" (namely Unix/Vax/CPM derivitives), and massive amounts of time and money were invested into developing these platforms. Now we're standing on the 10,000 ft high towers we call Windows, Linux, and Mac OS X(NextSTEP) and we're looking at how difficult it is to replicate the decades of work that has gone into these systems.
Building a more powerful and "correct" system would mean throwing away software such as OpenOffice, Mozilla, Quickbooks, Photoshop, Acrobat, etc. Software that took decades to build! Thus any future solution based on cutting edge CompSci Technology must either bite the bullet and rewrite these complex apps (good luck) or build in a translation layer that allows them to continue working. Neither choice is very appealing.
The "third road" that is currently being explored is the road of running Virtual Machines on top of today's existing infrastructure. Java,
The Virtual Memory swaps more than it should. Object files are not shared. Memory usage is 20% greater than a native program. So on and so forth.
A lot of research has gone into mitigating these issues (with Sun producing some very impressive results!), but it doesn't change the fact that the machine and software are mismatched. That mismatch discourages companies from writing new applications in these managed environments, where they would be free from the bonds of traditional OS designs.
My gut says that a rather major shift in how we use our computer will have to happen before we can truely replace the systems we have today.
I'd like to point out that two major pieces of infrastructure were left out of the Internet when it was being built--largely because it was built by graduate students (and people like graduate students). They left out security and economics. So we have the spam problem (which can be traced directly to the lack of concern for security), and we have IP rules that are in flux because the Internet doesn't have the right tools for monetizing various activities. So we're busily trying to put security and economics into the Internet.
In all honesty, the Internet never would have been as successful as it was if it wasn't for the freedom it provided. Many other networks offered these features, but they were eventually usurped by the Internet.
Hindsight is 20/20. Had the BSD/ARPANET folks attempted to address these issues back when it was created (which would have been ludicrous given its Military intent), their solutions would have likely been wrong. Keep It Simple Stupid. It may not be the best solution, but it's the most effective solution.
P.S. In case of Slashdotting, break glass
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Where are the new operating systems likely to come from?
They aren't going to come until we get past "old" technology like monitors, keyboards, and mice.
Windows is sort of a GUI version of the Mac's operating system, and Linux is of course Unix, which stems from 1968.
Huh?
Since when has the Mac operating system not have a GUI or since when has Windows been more GUI like then the Mac OS.
Also the Mac operating system has a heck of a lot more in common with both Linux and Unix than is does with Windows. In fact if you want to say anything about comparing GUIs, it would be far more accurate to say that the Mac operating system is a GUI version of unix and Windows is a GUI version of DOS.
This whole "Operating Systems are based on too old technology" argument is just bullshit.
Cars are based on technology that is over a hundred years old (they still have four wheels, a motor etc.), but they serve us well and even if the key principles don't change they are enhanced all the time.
This is just the old "rewrite from scratch"-mentality coming through...
Actually this is bs. The majority of us OSS folk are writing ***PORTABLE*** tools that work anywhere. This is why you see firefox on mac, win32, bsd, linux, beos, etc...
... and so on ...
This is why you see GCC on mac, win32, bsd, linux, beos, qnx, etc...
This is
Only lame arrogant windows developers think that "linux using folk only write for linux".
Heck some of the places my software has and is being used doesn't even have a proper OS [e.g. PS2 and Gamecube].
On topic again, as the "inventor of ethernet"? What the fuck does that mean? It's not that impressive. I mean it's useful but so is sliced bread and we don't honour that guys name either! He did his part to make the world better. Groovy. Now step aside and stop milking something you did nearly a decade BEFORE I WAS BORN.
Tom
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
Quoting Bob Metcalfe: [...] Private property is a great technology [...] This is backwards thinking, sloppy thinking, boring thinking. The big problem with the "private property" myth is that over time property accumulates in the control of few. This is a huge problem in the face of the goal of economic justice. What is Bob Metcalfe's answer to that?? His remarks about big corporations knowing "motivation of customers" and "motivation of employees" are completely misguided. On the side of the customers, we're looking at mega-advertising campaigns. On the side of employees we're looking at union-busting and the like. This is not brilliant, this is crude stuff. Stuff that we can do without. The rest of the interview is just boring.
http://stephan.sugarmotor.org
"Windows is sort of a GUI version of the Mac's operating system"
As opposed to the non-gui version of Mac's operating system....
"We are all geniuses when we dream"
- E.M. Cioran
You invented ethernet. Even before that, you were THERE, and helped operate, the first big ARPANet demo for Congress. You founded 3Com. You wrote more Inforworld columns than a mere human like me could read. You are the Old Master, Yoda in the swamp.
Don't spoil it now by being Dvorak. Please.
Linux is only Unix on the outside. There's scarcely little code on the inside from 1992. And I believe there is none (zero, nada) from before 1975. I know this because I've looked at the early UNIX code at http://tuhs.org/ and what little survives is not found in Linux.
Windows a copy of the Mac? In the sense that English is a copy of French, maybe [flames >/dev/null]. Some elements are the same, but how you do things with them is quite different.
Asking what the new OS will be is asking the wrong question. Ask instead what new class of devices will need an OS, and the answer would follow from that. I say "would" because I'm not sure even that question is relevant.
sigs, as if you care.
Look where that got it. Until the apps demand innovation for what they want to do, we won't see innovation in the OS sphere. Dos programs were making GUIs and using the mouse before GUI operating systems became popular.
I am trolling
*nix is a kernel in which different underlieing designs and applications can be easily added. That is why *nix survives.
MVS, which was the original stable OS (not huge changes since the 60s) made it difficult to change out things (and very expensive).
As to the VM world, yeah, that should introduce us to a load of new changes.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
I can't even get drivers for my 64-bit Clunker. Do you think manufacturers would want to start supporting a raft of other OSes?
Once I was a four stone apology. Now I am two separate gorillas.
No, that would be one foot in the living past (FreeBSD) and one foot in the dead past (Mach). Mach is considered a bad kernel design by both theorists and developers. The only reason Apple used it instead of a plain BSD kernel is Avie Tevanian and the NIH syndrome.
It's interesting how people are fixating on this comment. In context, it is certainly clear that he knows the differences and similarities between Windows and Mac. That he chose to speak sloppily in this regard is not something people seriously should be chewing on. As a point of argument, he statement does not strictly imply that MacOS is NOT a GUI. What he is stating is the Windows is a GUI, and, in his mind, an evolution of the Mac operating system.
+ Spiderfood
I'm not sure that its necessarily made us sloppy, but rather we are doing more things at a higher level. Sure sloppiness and bad algorithms do play a factor. But think about what some of the software we use is doing compared to that older software.
Our programs today have better interfaces and more functions than programs of yesteryear. Think of what you can do with OpenOffice or Microsft Office these days, compared to in the past. We're streaming video, storing huge amounts of data, managing disperse systems, pushing the latest and greatest graphics. Compare that to 10 or 15 years ago.
That said, we're definately using a disproportionately large amount of CPU and RAM. But the thing is that we're not throwing it away. A lot of it goes into making higher level languages that allows us to build bigger and better systems easier. We have things like garbage collection, object oriented programming, and APIs with general-purpose data structures that allow us to rapidly develope systems.
I bet that you could probably re-implement a lot of those general purpose data structures in a lower level language so that they run faster, but you'd have to spend time, the most precious of resources, to do so. Given a long enough time you could reimpliment the latest and greatest games in Assembly language, and improve their performance. But it would take you much much longer, and probably make bug fixing orders of magnitude harder.
We're not throwing away those CPU cycles and memory to sloppy code. We're trading them so that we can build larger, more powerful, and more secure programs quickly and with less bugs.
"And how will these wonderful trolley cars get me around to these various destinations with my cargo."
It is a network transit system, the track is laid out more like a grid than a corridor. It'd get you directly to your destinations because there would be stations nearby.
e.g.
http://www.swedetrack.com/city7.gif
Deleted
I'm not sure you answered the GP's question. This was the first thing that occured to me. I buy groceries once a week...I fill up the front seat and floorboard of my car easily...and if I buy charcoal, and a couple of other things (not counting if I'm having a party)...well, It takes me 5-6 trips to the car to the house to unload it all. I don't see how this would be practical for living if you had to haul all this stuff back and forth between the grocery store, and the station, and from the station to the house. Hell, how would most people get their Xmas tree home from the tree lots to the house? It just doesn't seem practical for everyday life. If it was in addition to cars...well, sure that would work, but, if everyone could still have a car, and the independence it gives...well, that kills the personal transport thing too.
Also, the thing that bothered me...CCTV's in every station/car? Just want we would need...another infringment on privacy, being filmed all the time...tracking your movements? Not for me thanks.
And with weather....I see the examples of how a cold snowy climate like MN would have problems with a system like this...but, was thinking about New Orleans. Would be VERY difficult to evacuate with this system in such small cars. Even if it were nationwide and would get everyone out of the city..again, the smallness and lack of storage for traveling with personal property is an issue? How would you evacuate the city, and bring your pets?All your records you need...family pictures..etc. When you leave NOLA in fear of a hurricane...you bring all you can, 'cause there is that chance the city itself will be wiped off the face of the earth.Elderly people and their walker/wheelchairs...
This also doesn't look practical for normal city emergencies. How would one of these function as an ambulance with all the equipment they need? Firetrucks? Police?
It IS a neat idea..and possibly one that needs to be kept in the working on stage, but, it just does not seem at ALL practical for daily life as we know it. And these are just issues we have for more urban areas. A great deal of the US is not in the category...you'd still need roads out there to transport things....and if you have all these roads and vehicles still...what do you need the new 'transit' system for?
Just some thoughts...
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
The open source community has some pipe dream that when you can't make money from software, you will contribute your software for free. What actually happens is people stop writing software so they can do something that makes money.
That's such a load of bullshit. I take the free enterprise stack. I sell clients on my ability to develop software that will fix their problems using the free enterprise stack as a base. I discover that the free enterprise stack doesn't have some feature I could really use to more effectively service these clients. So I write the new feature. And I deliver a solution to them that works. Now I've got this new feature in the stack, I can't really sell it to anyone on its own, and if I don't roll it back into the main trunk, I'll have to maintain it if I ever wish to use it again. So I give it back to the community because it's in my best interest to do so. This is how the software gets contributed for free. One itch at a time. And you can spout off all your rhetoric about the "open source pipe dream", but that's all it is, spouting off. It exists, it progresses, it takes market share from the most powerful company on earth, and it appears to be gaining momentum. The existance of the thriving community is PROOF that you are wrong.
-1 Uncomfortable Truth
Then that malicious guy gets banned from the network, just like you would with a malicious user on your computer network. I just don't understand why people have to constantly think of any possible reason (no matter how trivial or stupid) to reject new technologies that might actually be more sustainable and efficient.
I mean, big fucking deal. How does this inconvenience of "malicious users" in any way compare in scale or intensity to the problems of drunk drivers killing kids, air pollution giving us cancers and breathing problems, massive amounts of mining needed to produce the metal and oil to make enough private cars, traffic congestion, road rage, etc?
It's not as if cars and subways don't both have massive problems. But no, let's not think of how to improve things. Lets just bitch about some new idea that might have some small potential problem.
... and then they built the supercollider.
When talking about subsidies of rail and mass transit, it's easy to forget the extent to which automobile transport (and aircraft) are subidized as well. You do not pay the full cost of using your car yourself, anymore than you pay the full cost of using a subway.
Which is fine, of course; reliable, efficient transportation is hugely important to society, too important to leave to the vagaries of the market. And it's important to have a combination of sysetms, so you're not putting all your transportation eggs in one basket either.
Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
Way to simplify Ethernet to the point of not even being Ethernet anymore. Ethernet is more than just the physical link.