Slashdot Mirror
Leo Laporte On UNIX As the Future
TractorJector writes "In a well-written interview with Mad Penguin, techmeister Leo Laporte (formerly of G4/TechTV fame) discusses his vision of the future of proprietary and open platforms: 'I think there's a lot of hope for Linux, although I don't think that Linux is the answer. I think that UNIX is the answer, in some form or fashion. It might be BSD, it might be Linux, it might be some third thing. But UNIX is such a well understood and smart to handle the issues that an operating system has to handle that it ultimately will prevail.'"
OS X winning would be a huge step back for humanity. Mach is terrible and performs like ass.
Playstation, XBoxes, Mobile Phones, DVDplayers type of operating system are the future. The OS has been developped far ahead of most people abilities. The future is going towards less and less user control on this OS. Quite the opposite of UNIX.
\u262D = \u5350
Talk about ignoring the elephant in the lounge room.
Drag n' Drop DVD Recommendations
And I think having a model where the OS has to approve code before it runs opens the door to monopoly leveraging, unfair treatment, unauthorized runtime limitations, and a whole host of other undesired behavior.
.Net, and LISP that eliminate direct hardware access, thus preventing system bugs like buffer overflows. Java is a particularly good example, because it has a very flexible built-in Security system that could be leveraged to ensure that a given program ONLY has access to the resources it was given at install time. :-)
That's not what managed code is. Managed code is systems like Java,
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
But until Linux's GUI developers get a contract with Video Card manufacturers to produce better device drivers, or until GUI developers get their act together and make the GUI's faster and more user friendly, I'm afraid to burst your bubble.
Mac OS X is in a position no operating system has been in for 10 years. In 1995 when Microsoft brought out Windows 95, the operating system shattered the market because it was faster, prettier, and just plain cool. Now, OS X is in the same position. And they're going to have to screw up just as bad as Microsoft did with Windows to lose this creative lead.
On top of this, OS X is based on Unix, meaning that it's going to stay secure for a long, long time. As time goes by, bugs will be found and squashed, as no software is perfect, but UNIX by design has less issues with bugs, and the bugs are harder to exploit.
Linux has promise, but it's being held back by developers that simply don't care, because they aren't paid to care. They're doing their own, individual thing, and not working towards what a User wants, they're working towards what a developer wants. And if they took a minute to have an objective look at things, they're not too different. Mac OS X mastered this with XCode. And the only good IDE I've found for Linux is KDevelop, which requires me to install another set of GUI libraries, just to use it.
It's really past time to have Linux desktop-ready. It's time to replace X with something that renders faster, or to simply get Cairo and the other eyecandy, GL-rendering, bad-ass GUI systems up and running. You guys are five years behind Mac OS X, and about a year or so behind Windows in this department.
"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is." G.W.Bush
Yeah, I remember hearing years and years ago that in the next few years, all PCs will be nothing more than Java runtime environments, and you'll rent your applications over the Internet from providers.
Guess what? It didn't happen.
What you describe in your post would take a substantial amount of work from many companies (not to mention a very slow migration process of the end users to completely shift paradigms). Companies doing this will likely do it incrementally if they do it at all (because software comapnies can't afford to go in a cave for 10 years without making money). In any case, companies doing it incrementally are likely to leverage the excellent open source UNIX technology before them to make it happen, rather than reinvent computing from the ground up.
Merely because something is old does NOT mean it should be replaced. We're still building houses out of wood after thousands of years. Our cars run on internal combustion engines. And after all these years we're still carbon based life forms.
You admit it's "fine," that it "works," and that there is "good stuff" in it. If all of that is true, then why replace it merely because it's old?! That kind of mentally makes no sense.
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
those who bet their $$ on this will get waxed by those who squeeze the most raw power out of their CPU's/hardware well into the future. The goalposts will just keep moving. But some well behaved apps will live nicely in JVMs/CLR's but the edge will be in real code. They have made claims about byte interpreters since the Series/1, VM, UCSD P-System, and Java.
If it were done when 'tis done, then t'were well it were done quickly... MacBeth
Although this interview doesn't have the controversial tone of a John C Dvorak article, the content seems to be similarly well thought out.
Whoever corrects a mocker invites insult;
whoever rebukes a wicked man incurs abuse.
--Proverbs 9:7
If there is anything that drives me insane, it's people dribling on about what OS they use. Dude, it doesn't matter like it used to 20-30 years ago, we're past the OS era and what Linux or Unix really needs is some good quality, easy to use applications that complement a great graphics engine. Changing the OS is highly unlikely to change the success of a particular system, but changing how you think will...
Microsoft's platform is the standard because they focused on the business of the software products market. They promised something to independent software vendors and delivered it-- a single platform that any developer no matter how big or small can target. At the same time they pushed hard to get this platform on as many PCs as possible, breaking kneecaps along the way when necessary.
They achieved a form of write once run anywhere. In 1985.
It does not matter what's under the hood, it mattered that the ISV only had to write one binary and not have to spend the money supporting two dozen incompatible platforms. Even Java cannot match this (I know, because I have to deal with it).
Today there must be half a billion PCs that the ISV can generate one single binary for, and with that you've covered what, 90% of the market?
Linux needs to offer big marketshare (doesn't have) and good developer support (has, sorta) for ISVs to care about it, because Microsoft proved that most ISVs won't bother targetting more than one major platform.
One need only look over this book and do six months of desktop end-user support on Windows to see how insane an idea it is that Unix of any kind is going to win in the market over Windows as long as the Unix community remains ruled by sadomasochistic techie dweebs who love things based on how hard they are which is the exact opposite of the attitude that has allowed Microsoft and AOL to prosper and thrive in the common end-user market.
I love my FC3, but once again, don't mistake my technical abilities and the chance to flex them each day on it for meaning that everyone is going to take to it like a fish to water.
Apple's OSX most definitely is the best Unix-ish distribution ever conceived, built, and sold to end-users without any doubt in my mind. But do the Linux geeks get it as to why? No, they try mightily to avoid the BSD-ish ancestry of it and sit there wishing this beautiful *nix-style OS with such wonderful design and construction were a Linux distro.
Won't happen. Linux is dominated by the sort of people on whom it is still lost that ease of use, administration, and support are paramount over everything else for end-users. Windows XP and Mac OSX give them what Linux never will as long as the current crop of leaders and movers and shakers controls the Linux scene.
If my grammar and spelling are off, I am [distracted/tired/careless] (take your pick)
Yeah right, ask the Open Group what they think about that. Is every mp3 player an iPod too?
While it its old, it adresses the issues associated with current system design. One thing people are overlooking is that the basic architecture of pc's (non supercomputers) has remained relatively static for quite some time. Perhaps in order to see a radical change in operating system design we also need to rethink the hardware architectures that we have used for soo long.
dude.
That's not a problem with managed code, that's a problem with the APIs offered by the managed code. There's nothing stopping a managed code environment from allowing you low-level control.
:-)
For example, JNode is a complete OS written in Java. It's still Work In Progress, but I'd imagine that you would have no trouble writing a simple text driver for your printer.
Don't confuse what you're currently allowed to do with what is possible.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Consumer technology follows psychological factors, not engineer's logic. Hence we have iPods dominating the mp3 player market. It will also just be easier to just stick in well-known un*x and let managed code run on top of it. Not really secure, not the best way to do it, but its easy and time-saving and pointy haired managers will like it better than developing an in-house solution.
Is that programmers like to develop for an open source system. It's easier that way, and if they release their code as OSS, it just keeps building. People always ask me, "How do I do X?" where X is a semi-difficult task. I always find myself saying, "Well, I'd do it with this program in Linux, it would take about 5 minutes. The windows equivilent, on the other hand, takes the afternoon to figure out and get right." If there are any moderately useful programs for windows, they are usually cheap payware or annoying shareware. The reason that UNIX/Linux/BSD/OS X will work is that you can do almost anything for free.
Because something is old, it needs to be evaluated for replacement.
On the surface, the criteria for replacing something old is the same as the criteria for replacing something new: is there a better way to do it.
In practice, things like amortizing existing investment, vested interests and training are decisive. These economic and psychological issues cannot simply be dismissed as a failure of imagination since innovations have work in the real world, whatever else their merits are.
Sometimes, like the end of analog television signals, someone just has to legislate change. It is a chicken-and-egg problem. Some things only make sense if every one adopts them at once.
To some extent the reason we still have wood houses and the internal combusion engine is because no government has demanded something better.
It might be BSD, it might be Linux, it might be some third thing
So, its either option A, or option B, or an option C which can be anything.
He has given himself quite a bit of leeway there.
If Marshmallows evolve into the dominant lifeform on this planet, his dying breath will be, I was right I tell ya!!! Its the third thing!!
(yes I RTFA and yes he really says that)
#hostfile 0.0.0.0 primidi.com 0.0.0.0 www.primidi.com 0.0.0.0 radio.weblogs.com
My own prediction is that we will eventually be interfacing with the computer in an immersive VR environment. Sure, we won't have MS Windows but they'll still be around. Just with a new paradigm... take the idea of a desk to the next level (in VR space) and you'll wind up with MS Cubicle. I can already think of the advantages:
* New improved searching mechanism allows you to search through your documents (papers) in any directory (file folder inside of that filing cabinet beside your virtual desktop) intuitively. Just pick up a stack and start thumbing through them. You can scan as much or as little as the document as you need to in order to find something.
* Familiar apps such as calculator and notepad will be located right on your virtual desktop for easy access.
* Non-intrusive communication with others. You can set your IM application to make any number of ringing noises when someone is trying to contact you at which point you can choose to answer or keep working on what you're doing. Alternatively, you can easily put your IM app in away mode and have it visually signal you if any new messages come through.
* Expanded themes allow you to customize your workspace. Do you prefer a natural wood feel or is gaudy modern plastic your cup of tea?
And the list goes on. "MS Cubicle makes your workers more productive by increasing the ease of use and lowering the amount of training required for a new employee. For small to large businesses, the new version of MS Office for MS Cubicle will also let your employees collaborate on projects like never before!"
Sure, you're laughing now but just wait. As soon as someone invests a reasonable immersive VR headset with the ability to allow full interaction in a 3d environment, someone will ask the question: "How do we make a paradigm to allow user's to interact with the computer in VR in an easy to understand and intuitive way?" This will most certainly be followed by at least one person saying, "Easy. Just take the 'desktop' GUI paradigm that everyone is already used to and expand it to fit this new virtual 3d space."
Why does every UNIX article/interview/water cooler discussion have to turn into a fanboi flame war, with people flaming about how OSX is UNIX, and how MacOS already has all the needs of the desktop, etc, etc, ad inifinitum. As much as I love operating systems and product evangelists, the discussions are here are really starting to get out of hand.
::Gasp!:: even start doing it.
What would be nice to have people talk about would be the feasibility of the prediction that is being made, in reference to principles that are desired by the average computer user. Not how a current operating system already has all of these things, and thus should be considered the obvious future choice.
Someone already pointed out that the most technologically sound examples don't neccesarily make it in the industry, and this is illustrated time and again.
Let's start talking about stuff that actually matters, or perhaps
Read the only personal Runyon page out there.
Kind of. While I personally don't find OSX(Tiger) to be the high-performing, uber-intuitive, victoriously user-friendly OS people keep telling me it is, it's impossible to ignore Apple have created an incredibly successful, reasonably brand-loyal consumer base.
And I agree, they are in an advantageous position, however one stricken by a crippling glass ceiling.
OSX simply isn't the kind of platform nomadic OS it needs to be to reach ubiquity. Linux, being non-proprietary, has developed a talent for adaptability innately - arguably a the bulk of Linux kernel development itself is invested in sustaining this critical attribute. While some complain about KDE and Gnome not having the bells-and-whistles of OSX, Linux (if ever one can sum it's parts) has quietly been frying more important fish, and very wisely too.
Nowadays, it's increasingly hard to move data around a network without it being touched by Linux. Now phones, kiosks, ATM's and game consoles.. The word 'Linux', not being publically obliged to carry a brand, increasingly represents the set of robust and future-proof tools a given service provider deploys to get the job done. Now we're seeing it extend to public utility, government and administrative desktops en masse.
'Linux' simply doesn't appear on the kinds of brand-conscious radars we're used to using when tracking technology and culture, yet quietly continues to be the fastest growing operating system in the world. Apple however, is a company built on brand innovation, initially as the 'popular minority'; a vain, techo-arian multinational that has boldy engineered a bridge between the computer (as appliance) and the public space of popular culture. Here, the Apple brand is both a boon and an anchor, something to protect (not just any x86 machine), yet something to wear out (iPod).
In the context of popular operating systems, OSX is thus a social, yet exotic animal. As such it is desired as pet, but quickly dies when transported from it's natural habitat. Comparing OSX to others, outside the context of it's crippling architectural dependence, produces false and unrealistic prospects.
Yuo must be new here. On this site, "well written" means well intended. If you can guess what it means, and it means well, it's good enough for us.
I recall the days when computers didn't network very well at all. Even your IBM mainframes couldn't talk to your IBM PCs without installing some proprietary special-purpose product to make communication possible -- and they were both made by the same company. Once standardized networking began to emerge (IP networking) the industry changed. I do recall the suggestions that the PC could probably run some of the applications that the mainframe was running and how absurd the IT folks thought those claims were... it would never happen. And yet... it did happen. Once computers could finally communicate, a reason for open standards, open systems, and open software emerged.
Zealots like me like the idea of "openness", but I don't think Joe Average Consumer really thinks a whole lot about it. But... I do think that Joe Average does want "interoperability".
A common comment you'll hear from Apple owners is that they perceive their computer spends more time helping them do what they want to do rather than them spending all their time supporting their computer. Taken differently, these (mostly non-technical) people are really just saying that they don't want to care about their computer... they just want it to work.
So far, consumers do still need to "support" their Linux installations. Linux doesn't "just work". Windows still needs too much care & feeding... it doesn't "just work" either -- especially where security is concerned. Mac OS X seems to be the best at just working -- even for people who don't know what they're doing. Yes it happens to be Unix. Yes Unix has a more stable foundation than Windows. But we only know this because we're largely a technical community. Joe Average doesn't know this and doesn't want to know this. Most of them probably have no idea that Firefox is considered to be "open" and that IE is considered to be "proprietary". They run what they run either because (a) it was there or (b) their computer buddy told them that's what they should use or (c) that's what they learned to use at work or school -- and I almost forgot... it works with the sites they need to visit.
Open software tends to be more interoperable - so I think it's tends to slowly erode away at the market share of non-interoperable systems. But I think the real difference is that interoperability wins over non-interoperability... not that open systems win over proprietary ones.
Though I want open software to win out, I must confess that I don't believe the average consumer really cares a whole lot about it.
Ain't gonna happen. Or rather, there are still large sets of problems that need robust applications running locally. I'm supposed to upload my 400MB Photoshop image to a remote server and work on it there?
The fact is that we had "dumb" terminals before, which gave away to smart terminals which gave away to PCs running applications and client/server applications.
Why the change? Because the user experience is several orders of magnitude better when things happen instantly, and because offloading a good portion of the work to the edge of the network means that everyone is not competing for the use of the same exact set of resources.
Now we have browsers that are increasing in complexity with AJAX, scripts, embedded components, xml, xforms, and other technologies. Why? Because we want better and richer and more productive user experiences.
Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
> No one really likes the command line... plenty of people get by with
> it, but it's obviously the most primitive computer interface.
Speak for yourself, MCSE.
The command line is the most natural interface possible if you are computer literate. Think of it as comparing books to TV. If you are a literate person you might still watch TV to veg out and because it is a totally different medium it can do some things better. But even though seeing the Battle of Helm's Deep was hella cool, the books tell a much more detailed and better story.
Yes, graphical tools are handy for new users and even us old timers can use them for really simple tasks, but dependence on them should be avoided by those seeking mastery. UNIX is a language and you won't ever understand it until you reach a conversational level at the command prompt.
> Do they really believe that *NIX users like their OS because of the
> command line?
Yes, and you will pry it from my cold dead fingers. Command prompts, everything is a file, pipes, redirection. These things are what make *NIX what it is, any attempt to change that will be met with fierce resistence. See resource forks for an example of an idea the graphical dweebs try unsuccessfully to foist off on us every year or so for an example.
Democrat delenda est
Because the PTB that ran the mainframe were incompetent assholes who couldn't support our computing needs properly from a centralized position.
I think the problem was an ivory tower one - the IT group's goals were not aligned with the business units.
I've seen this pattern re-emerging with the re-discovery of shared services in many companies. Here is how the cycle goes:
1. Start with lots of departments running their own mini-data-centers, help desks, etc.
2. Somebody comes to the realization that by centralizing these services the level of service can be increased (24x7 monitoring, professional staff, etc) while the cost is decreased (fewer servers, less headcount overall, staff freed for more strategic work).
3. Company centralizes services - cost of running servers goes from $10M to $500k. Somebody gets promoted.
4. New guy comes in - shaves budget from $500k to $400k. Gets a raise. Lays off 10% of staff, gets a raise. Aims for cost of $100k. Looks into moving servers to elbonia.
5. Business units find help desk cases going from 3 days under #1 to 1 day under #2 to 5/7/9 days under #3. Servers go down - IT gets to it when they get to it. Developers release new code, IT staff installs six months later.
6. New application is being rolled out. Business unit builds own "computer room" to host it to avoid dismal IT group.
7. Wait 5 years - go to step 1...
#2 is where you want to be - central services just make sense. The problem is that once you have one IT budget everybody starts hacking away at it until they actually raise costs by causing everybody to roll their own. Management needs to realize that #2 is optimum, and fund it well. Often budget increases in a central group LOWER overall costs, as it deters business units from reinventing the wheel.
Of course #3 is always acompanied by management edicts forbidding the creation of non-central IT groups. Business areas always find loopholes (10 workers who all do it in their "spare time", "small productivity tools" that aren't classified as IT projects, the Access database that grows to 10 million records, etc.).
In 15 years we'll be right back where we are now...