Date: Wed, 15 May 2002 22:51:27 -0500 From: "Kevin Kinsey, DaleCo, S.P." <kdk@daleco.biz> To: "Nils Holland" <nils@daemon.tisys.org> Cc: <freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: The road ahead? Message-ID: <042001c1fc8c$f5922060$3dec910c@daleco> References: <20020516004909.A9808@daemon.tisys.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
From: "Nils Holland" <nils@daemon.tisys.org>
To: <freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG>
Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2002 5:49 PM
Subject: The road ahead?
> (DANGER: This is long and has not much to do with FreeBSD (that's why I
> posted it to -chat). If you're busy, skip this message now. If not, get
> yourself a cup of coffee and read on ;-)
>
7up will do, I hope. Why assault my body with all that caffeine?
> Hi folks,
>
> it's midnight here in Germany - time for me to try to start another
> not-directly-FreeBSD-related, but still not totally inappropriate thread
on
> this list. What I'm going to talk about below may not be new to you, but I
> recently talked about this with quite some people, so I thought I'd bring
> it up here. So let's begin:
>
> If you have been watching the computer industry during the last few years,
> you will have noted an interesting event: Beginning in the middle of the
> 90's, (computer) technology was seen as *the one great* thing of the
> future. The Internet became popular for normal people back then, and what
> followed made me want to puke more than once: Everywhere you looked, no
> matter if into newspapers, magazines, TV news or whatever, folks were
> talking about the Internet - despite the fact that they probably didn't
> even really understand what it was. Even more interesting: Everyone seemed
> to want to "ride the wave", and many investores piped a whole lot of money
> into "e-companies", even if they were built on the most brain-dead
business
> plan. These were also the days of the "funky words", when an I or E was
> appended to normal words in order to make them sound cool, just like
> "e-commerce", "e-business", "e-book" and so on. Hell, this made me sick -
I
> always thought any sane business man would actually have brains - back in
> the mid-90s, however, this didn't seem to be the case, as even a product
> called "e-shit" would probably have been successful back then. (Note that
> nobody would have asked what kind of product that actually is - as look as
> it starts with e- it must be good).
>
Technology is almost always of interest. Mankind is creative, and often
lazy
at the same time; we seek creative ways to avoid the harsher forms of labor.
The ability to use tools is an anthropological phenomenon that will not
likely
disappear. Now, as you mention so well, *how* it will re-invent itself is
something we cannot foresee, not being Omniscient ourselves.
> Now, as you will also have noticed, in the years 2000 and 2001 this mood
> suddenly started th change. Many dot.com's (another one of these funky
> words) turned into dot.bomb's. Finally, intelligence was brought back into
> the e-world - seems that people noticed that you can't really turn a word
> into money by prepending it with an e-.
>
> So far about what has happened. The question, however, is what we can
learn
> from it. Basically, I believe that the computer industry is in serious
> danger - Moore's Law seems to be self-destructing. What I mean by this?
> Well, seriously, if I go to a computer shop these days, then I will find a
> whole lot of hyper-fast machines, but for an ordinary user, these probably
> wouldn't make much sense. If a 500 Mhz machine sits 90% idle while someone
> writes a letter of surfs the web, then why should he upgrade to a 2000 Mhz
> one?
>
Because XP won't boot as quickly on the slower one, that's what they're
figuring, I guess..... :-( Not to mention, there are some people who
think they've got to have the latest, and the greatest. However, the drive
to get an upgrade is not as strong as the drive to have a computer in the
first place. "At least we HAVE a machine now, even if it's a P166...."
> It seems to me that during the last decades, the industry made constant
> progress. Taking into account only the view of the ordinary user and not
> the view of the more advanced hacker, much has changed: At first there was
> only DOS with its cryptic commands - and since that was "too much" for
> normal users, they didn't really like that. Then, suddenly (more or less),
> Bill Gates released Windows, and - hell - now every idiot could
> point-and-click! Early Windows, up to and including 3.1 was not very nice
> (I could also use swear words at this point), so a *new* version of
Windows
> followed, called Windows 95. Of course, people had to buy this stuff, and
> they also had to upgrade their computers or buy new ones every time.
> Windows 95 finally brought computing even to the people with the lowest
IQ,
> but it was not perfect yet: A new version, Windows 98 (judged by the date
> of its release, Gates could also have called it "iWindows" or "e-Windows")
> was released. Now people could do everything: Surf the web, listen to
> music, burn CDs, watch DVDs, etc.
>
> And suddenly - BANG! Seems that the computer industry has nothing to offer
> beyond that. And that's why it's stuck, having financial problems.
>
I think you are correct in thinking that it has hit something of a wall. M$
probably thinks so, too. People at freebsd-core say "it's not fun anymore."
Things change. Whether or not the 'PC' (insert your fave arch acronym here)
remains as important as it was in 1997, there will still be new
technologies, and
they be built upon the foundation of the earlier ones. I think society as a
whole
hasn't yet caught up with the great expansion you describe. People are
still
buying their "first" computer. They're still learning that ALL CAPS IS
TANTA-
MOUNT TO SHOUTING AT SOMEONE, that the Microsoft Windows
Registry was not such a good idea from a certain P.O.V., that GUI is not
your kid's face after eating peanut butter & jelly. Some of them are
learning
that there is such a thing as an alternative to Micro$oft. Some are
learning
FBSD. (BTW, forgive the all-caps....) And, then again, some aren't
learning
much, which helps me make *my* living. ("Yes, ma'am, *don't* click on those
attachments.....")
> Of course, one could say that new technological inventations are made at a
> faster pace than ever before - but I guess this is only half of the truth:
> For the ordinary Joe, DOS turning into Windows 3.1, Windows 3.1 turning
> into Windows 95, and so on, was a real revolution. What seems to be
> invented these days seems to be only toys, no more revolutions! Does the
> new Fisher Price look in Windows XP make computers easier to use or people
> more productive, just like the switch from DOS to graphical Windows did
for
> ordinary users? I guess not. And then - what else is "new" these days?
Some
> folks would see the ability to talk to your computer as the next big
> revolution (which is partly already possible), but I fear that I have to
> say that talking would actually slow folks down, compared to having them
> enter commands or use the mouse within a GUI. >
[ME is an adult male, peppery gray hair, in his late 60s, in the mid United
States.
FBSD is a server; built with an IntAM BrainPipe (R) 3.66 PetaByte processor,
512 TB MRAM, connected to the neighborhood MegaDAN via it's own OC48
connection leased from SprinTT for $11.95/month. The year is 2035.....]
________________________________________________________
Me: Computer, lights on!
FBSD: Which lights?
Me: In the foyer!
FBSD: Fluorescent area lights, pinspots, or design lasers?
Me: Fluorescents, @#$@ it! I dropped my contact lens!
FBSD: I keep telling you to have that surgery....
Me: Yeah, Yeah, I know....would you please just turn on the FLUORESCENT
lights?
FBSD: Sure, how bright?
Me: Bright!!
FBSD: You forget; you requested that we use a sliding scale numeric
reference for
brightness on all lights in the domestic domain....
Me: OK, OK! ---8.975, please....now!!!
FBSD: What's the password?
Me [thinking] @#$#, it was so much quicker with a mouse and a GUI!!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>So, another toy, but nothing new!
The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which
is done is that
which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun. Is
there any thing
whereof it may be said, See, this is new? it hath been already of
old time,
which was before us. [Ecclesiastes I:ix-x]
> While the performance of silicon technology may be increasing by whatever
> insane factor every year, I don't see too many occasions where such
> performance is actually needed - at least not enough occassions in order
to
> enable computer companies to earn as much money as they did in the past.
>
The need was largely created in the minds of the (l)users by the marketing
departments of the software and hardware manufacturers, and by the
general sense of excitement in the populi that came from the realization
that here was, at the time, 'something new!' No surprise the excitement
has worn off. The most interesting thing is how long it took to do so....
> To come back to the point of most new inventations being "toys", let me
> give you another example: There are currently (at least) two companies out
> there working on "electronic paper". One of them is E-Ink, and the other
> one is something that has recently been spun off from XEROX (I don't
> remember the company's new name, so I'll just call it XEROX). A few years
> ago, these companies wanted to make us believe that in the future all
> newspapers, magazines and books would use their electronic paper - which
> must be imagines in a way that you probably have one single "sheet" of
that
> stuff, and you don't turn the page, but hit some button or so, and the
next
> page will then be "painted" onto this electronic stuff automatically (or
> something like that). Interestingly, it seems to me that E-Ink has now
> stopped working on this stuff, using their discoveries more or less for
> normal, especially flat and energy-saving displays on mobile devices.
> XEROX, instead of revolutionizing our newspapers, as they initially
> claimed, seem to sell "signs" to retailers to put in shops (or wherever).
> These sings then "update themselves automatically" and always display the
> latest information / prices / etc.
>
> Personally, when I first heard about the stuff E-Ink and XEROX were
working
> on, I already predicted that they would have no success - at least not as
> far-reaching as their marketting insanity said. The reason for this is
> simple: I don't see a need for electronic, re-writable paper. After all,
we
> have real paper, which is inexpensive, "easy to use" and convenient to use
> for somewhat static information. On the other hand, we have well-known
> computer display technology for "dynamic" information, like web sites. As
> such, I didn't (and still don't) see a board market for this e-paper toy
stuff.
> It somehow reminds me of the prediction made in the 70's, which basically
> said that before the next century, offices would work without any paper.
> Obviously, this didn't happen. Most predictions like this don't happen,
and
> if they do, then mostly a whole lot different that originally imagined.
>
> Bottom line (and at this point I really want to stop wasting your
bandwidth
> and precious time): I guess that looking at the computer and electronics
> company, "all the good ones are taken" or "everything that can (sanely) be
> done has been done". Of course, the future may bring the one or the other
> new interesting development, but I don't see many real revolutions
anymore,
> as we seem to have reached a point where going any further does no longer
> provide any increased benefit.
>
A new viewpoint, and a cultural revolution, doesn't seem to come around
as fast or as often as some would have us to believe. Micro$soft (*why* do
I keep talking about *them*?) is betting on .NET; others are betting on the
courts; at MIT, they're betting on molecular processors. Frankly, something
the size of my cellphone with the communications and creative impact
(publishing, multimedia, etc.) [and processing power] that a present day
PC has (think projector onboard here) would be something worth looking into,
IMHO, but that day is not here yet. And, no one is asking me to help bring
it
about. Someone else thinks something else would be better.
The innovators are not the profiteers. The guy (gal?) who brings about
the next revolution will be an unknown, sweating away feverishly on some
post-
doctoral work or some development.... Who was Ray Tomlinson prior to 1971?
And, how many of us know about him now?
Live, learn; adapt, use; discover God and your fellow man (maybe
he's the next innovator and he'll hire you as Ops Director....)
> Comments to this - well - rather free-style "essay" are welcome ;-)
>
I doubt you could call this a comment. Ravings of a lunatic, perhaps.
Thanks for the 7up....
> Greetings
> Nils
Kevin Kinsey
DaleCo, S.P.
> --
> Nils Holland <nils@daemon.tisys.org>
> Ti Systems - http://www.tisys.org
> Addicted to computing since 1987
> High on FreeBSD since 1996
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?042001c1fc8c$f5922060$3dec910c>