Main Area and Open Discussion > General Software Discussion

Want to build a new OS today? It's going to cost you $1.4bn (or more)

<< < (3/3)

Deozaan:
Admittedly I don't know much about the hardware or software architecture involved in OS design, but your point here describes why I say we could use more innovation:

And most times it's more prudent to run your "old but working software" on a faster machine than it is to try to improve the code beyond a certain point.-40hz (June 21, 2010, 09:12 AM)
--- End quote ---

The technological potential we have today is so much greater than it was in the 70s and 80s when UNIX and Windows were designed. And back in those early days, almost every electronic device had it's own custom OS on it, written specifically for that device. And history shows that we don't use something because it's the best. In fact, like you said, we often resist changing to the best and just stick with what we know works.

I'm not in a position to say what we need or what would be better, but I do believe that we're not going to find anything if we're not even looking anymore.

I just recently watched a video by Douglas Crockford that briefly (about an hour and 45 minutes) summarized the history of computing. Time and again he demonstrated how old conventions were cherished and fought for while better methods were outright rejected for the better part of 20 years.

Even to this day we're arbitrarily and artificially limited by hardware limitations that no longer apply. Ever heard of the 80 character limit in programming? That's a holdover from when you would write your code in a punch card and feed it through the machine. The card only had space for 80 characters. We haven't had that physical, hardware limitation for decades, but the tradition gets passed down as "good coding practices" in software. And bash/terminal/command prompts and even old editors like vi still use 80 characters as a limit.

I just think it's time for some fresh ideas as to what an OS can be. I'm not saying I have any good ideas myself, but it'd be great to have some people working on it. :)

40hz:
Admittedly I don't know much about the hardware or software architecture involved in OS design, but your point here describes why I say we could use more innovation:
-Deozaan (June 23, 2010, 02:34 PM)
--- End quote ---

@Deo - hey guy! Don't sell yourself so short.  :)

Half the people that are responsible for what we're using didn't know that much about computer technology when they went out and changed the world.

Probably their greatest advantage was they didn't know the "correct" way to do things. And as a result, they weren't hampered by the "fact" that what they wanted to accomplish was "impossible."

The point you made when you said: "I'm not in a position to say what we need or what would be better, but I do believe that we're not going to find anything if we're not even looking anymore." is an absolutely valid argument. One the computer world could benefit from if they remembered that a little better than they have these last 10 years...

So I hope you don't think I was trying to be confrontational, or attempting to put you down in any way, with my previous question. I was genuinely curious as to what you had in mind. That, and maybe a bit of hope you thought of something that had the potential to kickstart a whole new approach to OS design.

There's a story that's told about the early days of atomic energy research. Seems that when ol' Father of the Atomic Bomb Bob Oppenheimer was teaching advanced physics at UCLA Berkeley, he'd sometimes throw a complex problem up on the board towards the end of the class. He'd then invite his students to hang around and try and solve it. Some of the students would usually end up sticking around to try their luck tackling the problem from various angles - but always without success.

As the hours went by, the group would slowly dwindle in number. Eventually only a small cadre of the absolute top students remained. They would continue trying (and dismissing) everything they came up with until finally whoever was the acknowledged "top dog" at the gathering would shake his head and say something like: OK Oppie! We give up. What's the correct answer?

Oppenheimer would beam at them like a proud parent, and then say: "Nobody knows."

When someone would invariably ask what was the point of doing such an exercise if nobody knew the correct answer, he'd reply: Because it's an important problem that needs to be solved. And I'm sure somebody will solve it eventually. It's just that it might have been us here today.

So who knows? Maybe you'll have the breakthrough insight all the "pros" are missing.  :Thmbsup:

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[*] Previous page