Off-Topic > Off-Topic - Tiny Core Lounge
The direction of the development of computing
hiro:
Software development sucks. If you like pretty code, you might score as an artist, a musician probably. Perhaps an economist, if you just want a lot of money fast.
On the other hand, if you think robots could do the tasks easily: Build robots :)
If you want to know what to do: It's simple, do better than the rest. It's really depressingly trivial wisdom.
hiro:
If only everybody didn't serve money and greed, but all these other noble purposes...
SamK:
The activities of the commercial, profit making, world can produce circumstances which are conducive to small, possibly non-profit organizations.
It is not the intention here to open a traditional MS bashing discussion, but rather to refer to their part in bringing computing to the mass market some 20+ years ago. The regrettable aspect of it is the way in which the concept of planned obsolescence was used to constantly drive up the demand for increased hardware specifications. Well funded corporate marketing feed the flames, and persuade those without knowledge or interest, that the easy way to run the most modern version of an application or operating system, is to use the most modern hardware. Frequently this leads to the premature retirement of existing kit.
In turn, an opportunity is created for projects which are able utilize the surfeit of functional but redundant equipment.
The trend to recycle, outwardly seems to be an ally of such projects; being "green" is increasingly perceived as socially desirable. Recycling is commonly associated with reclaiming resources (glass, precious metals etc), re-manufacturing them and ultimately re-marketing and reselling them. The projects that make use of redundant kit are slightly different, they redeploy existing items rather than using them to restart the commercial cycle. Extending the life-cycle of products is not necessarily the most attractive option for companies subscribing to planned obsolescence.
Is there a longterm future for these projects? They are unlikely to have the well funded marketing abilities of the current corporate world. Pure technical excellence is not a guarantee of success; the history of technological development has many examples of superior products failing in competition with inferior ones. If the current narrowly focused consumer interpretation of recycling, meaning a destructive recovery process, can be extended to include redeployment, the chances of longterm sustainability will improve. Social networking anyone?
nick65go:
Leaders (govern, profit company etc) like to rule a crowd (of disciplined, humble, hard work, average intelligent people). The scary mixture for them is:
- IT skilled, full bag of tricks/knowledge people
- easy access to cheap devices (or assemble from inexpensive components)
- tiny, very efficient software, run on low resource devices
This combination could be lethal for them at some point in time, as leaders loose their power to dictate /spy / rule. Profit company will lose their dominant position.
So, any measure are, and will be, enforced to prevent spread of this mixture.
- very good IT skills will be hunted (well paid) to be on their side; clever people are hard to control.
- learning of very efficient programing language prohibited. (VBA, .NET encouraged, but not C or assemble machine language).
- open source not promoted (knowledge is power), force close source container format and protocols.
- strong free encryption algorithms interdicted by low.
- powerful devices will be always expensive, to limit mass access to it.
- tiny efficient software purchased, implemented as firmware to limit development.
and so on... History had proved this already.
Yes, IT knowledge power could change the world, but the change is not yet entirely wished. Until then ... divide and conquer ;)
MikeLockmoore:
I can't sleep right now, so I'm going to add my bit. ;)
From many years of watching the Forth programming language community wring their hands over how the computer industry misunderstood and slighted them, I've come to realize that most people and the IT industry in general don't want the best technology, or the most efficient, or the most flexible. Technologists; who by definition are focused primarily on the technical aspects of some product, tool, or technique; too often fail to understand or appreciate all of the non-technical factors determine success.
Based on what I've observed, almost anyone, from normal technology user, to business leader, to IT leader, wants the following things from technologies they adopt or buy:
1) Is it what "everyone" else is using, so I'm compatible with them, and can't be considered weird or stupid for choosing something else?
2) Is it easy to get (already bundled with something else, in stores I can shop, from my approved suppliers, or from organizations I want to work with)?
3) Is it like something I already know how to use? That my friends know how to use? My work colleagues? My workers? Taught in schools? I don't want to take the time or spend money to learn something new.
4) Does it do the job, at least most of it? If it fails, are there people around who will help fix it, or help make work-arounds, or at least hold my hand while I struggle with it?
5) Does it look good, at least on the surface?
6) Is it affordable, or at least not too painfully expensive? Does it make me look important or successful if I buy it?
I could go on, but that covers most of it. The masters of tech marketing understand these things and manipulate them to their advantage, and often times to the detriment of the rest of us. Microsoft became entrenched because the locked up the availability by negotiating bundling arrangements with their MS-BASIC in early 8-bit micros and DOS in the later PCs (#2 above, which soon lead to #1 and #3), not because their products were obviously better technically than any others. Certain game publishers made deals with retailers, guaranteeing their products got prime shelf space, while other potentially worthy games got marginal space or none at all. Apple is fantastic on items #5 and #6, and iTunes has made buying music electronically (#2) very easy. There are many, many cases like this.
Some technologists are truly naive about these things. Many understand them on some level, but refuse to think about them, or unrealistically demand that the world reject this kind of thinking and only consider technical performance, or license philosophy, or some other specific factor. I think the best technologists determinedly continue, ignoring what the masses say and do, making inroads where they can, and help good technologies survive and grow past the challenges I list. I would say Linux is such a success story, although still relatively small, even with Android.
Anyway, I don't pretend for a minute that my little apps will take over the world. They are too weird. Too ugly. Too hard to get. Too limited in their features. Etc. Etc. But I will continue on. I like them. I want to use them. I think some like-minded people will want to use them. I'm grateful Jakob has stepped forward with offers to help in many ways. I hope together we serve this little community well, and maybe open a few more people's eyes to other possibilities. Maybe even inspire a few more people to join us or start similar efforts. It may not make a big impact on the direction of development in computing, but I hope it makes a difference to those people willing to try something different.
OK, I better get some sleep! 8)
--
Mike Lockmoore
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version