6 ms·

> Who else today is like them? > PARC still exists, but Google advanced technology projects is probably the closest. Neither of these is that close to the old

by sounds 10y ago

> Who else today is like them? > PARC still exists, but Google advanced technology projects is probably the closest. Neither of these is that close to the old Xerox PARC since they tent to focus on near term commercializable projects. https://www.quora.com/Whats-the-most-similar-thing-to-Xerox-PARC-that-exists-today https://www.quora.com/Whats-the-most-similar-thing-to-Xerox-... ... While I can see how Google is an engine of scientific progress, Silicon Valley is bigger than Google. Stanford deserves a lot of credit. Without diving into "what makes Silicon Valley Silicon Valley," I think I should point out that Stanford has consistently produced disruptions since at least Xerox PARC's founding. (Obligatory: I have only ever visited Stanford, long after graduating from a different university.)

tmccrmck 10y ago
There was an interesting post on HN years ago about why Google isn't a modern day Bell Labs. [1] A common sentiment on the thread was that Microsoft Research was more akin to Bell Labs. > I've always had the impression that MSR (Microsoft Research) was generally doing much more fundamental research than Google. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6919184 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6919184
- nickpsecurity 10y ago
  "> I've always had the impression that MSR (Microsoft Research) was generally doing much more fundamental research than Google." They definitely are. Just look at all the MS Research labs and projects. I did once to find them all over the place in terms of both categories of tech and fundamental vs general vs narrow. The Duffy posts on Midori with its design/implementation decisions show how unconventional they can be even when just trying to build a robust, desktop OS whose UI isn't actually radical. Only bad thing is most of best stuff gets turned into patents to stomp on competition. :(
  - tmccrmck 10y ago
    I've met people who worked on Midori and they describe it as the best project they've ever worked on. Used to work in a building with a bunch of old Midori-folks and would ask them about it anytime I heard the word 'Midori'. I don't think it was MSR though. Personally, I've always been most impressed by the research into formal verification: Z3, Dafny, TLA+, F*, Lean, and many more.
    - nickpsecurity 10y ago
      It was MSR: http://joeduffyblog.com/2015/11/03/blogging-about-midori/ http://joeduffyblog.com/2015/11/03/blogging-about-midori/ Yeah, their verification tools are incredible. They applied VCC to Hyper-V. The driver tools mostly wiped out blue screens. Got a new one called P language used in USB stack. The methods you mentioned like Dafny got applied in ExpressOS by another team: https://github.com/ExpressOS/expressos https://github.com/ExpressOS/expressos Microsoft did it first in VerveOS although Nucleus was ripped off a mainframe OS from the 1970's. VerveOS was impressive where it was one of first safe to the assembly with much less effort than other projects. They also did CoqASM for verified assembly. https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/publication/safe-to-the-last-instruction-automated-verification-of-a-type-safe-operating-system/ https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/publication/safe-to... https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/publication/coq-worlds-best-macro-assembler/?from=http%3A%2F%2Fresearch.microsoft.com%2Fen-us%2Fum%2Fpeople%2Fnick%2Fcoqasm.pdf https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/publication/coq-wor...
azhenley 10y ago
> PARC still exists, but Google advanced technology projects is probably the closest. Neither of these is that close to the old Xerox PARC since they tent to focus on near term commercializable projects. Yep, researchers at Google just don't seem to publish much at all. Unlike MSR and IBM which have a great culture of publishing and releasing things publicly at high rates (yes, they do also commercialize stuff).
akinalci 10y ago
When you look at PARC's contributions (laser printer, bitmap graphics, GUI/windows/icons, WYSIWYG editor, Ethernet, OOP, MVC) or those of Bell Labs (transistor, laser, information theory, Unix, C & C++, radio astronomy), we haven't seen anything comparable from Google's Advanced Technology and Projects program. We can give them another 20-30 years and reassess, but so far, it's not there. Most of the projects have been announced with great fanfare and then quietly scrapped, or are solutions that haven't found problems. PARC and Bell Labs were at the right place and right time to make fundamental contributions in the nascent areas of digital computers, software, and digital communications. They caught that wave perfectly. Now we're searching a similar revolutionary technology that will open the floodgates of innovation, but it's not apparent yet. Machine learning and AI? If that pans out, Google Brain/DeepMind would be well situated.
- jacquesm 10y ago
  > we haven't seen anything comparable from Google's Advanced Technology and Projects program And we won't because all those things have already been done. The laser didn't come from Bell but from Hughes btw. > PARC and Bell Labs were at the right place and right time to make fundamental contributions in the nascent areas of digital computers, software, and digital communications. They caught that wave perfectly. Precisely. > Now we're searching a similar revolutionary technology that will open the floodgates of innovation, but it's not apparent yet. Machine learning and AI? If that pans out, Google Brain/DeepMind would be well situated. Machine learning is disruptive to a degree that the web never was. The web is augmentative, machine learning is pure disruption. Jobs that require lots of people will soon open up to automation, this is going to change the world in very fundamental ways if it keeps going at the rate that it does right now. The last three years have seen one humans-only benchmark after another give way and the party is just getting started.
  - nickpsecurity 10y ago
    "> we haven't seen anything comparable from Google's Advanced Technology and Projects program And we won't because all those things have already been done." We haven't because they're not doing them that I've seen. I hope they prove me wrong as they're in a good position to be next PARC with some changes. So far, they've wowed me only once (TrueTime) with other stuff being variations on prior work with usually short-term focus or for pragmatic goals rather than vision. Their wide-eyed visions I've read about are rarely executed to completion. I don't see them as another PARC.

by sounds 10y ago

tmccrmck 10y ago

There was an interesting post on HN years ago about why Google isn't a modern day Bell Labs. [1] A common sentiment on the thread was that Microsoft Research was more akin to Bell Labs. > I've always had the impression that MSR (Microsoft Research) was generally doing much more fundamental research than Google. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6919184 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6919184

nickpsecurity 10y ago
"> I've always had the impression that MSR (Microsoft Research) was generally doing much more fundamental research than Google." They definitely are. Just look at all the MS Research labs and projects. I did once to find them all over the place in terms of both categories of tech and fundamental vs general vs narrow. The Duffy posts on Midori with its design/implementation decisions show how unconventional they can be even when just trying to build a robust, desktop OS whose UI isn't actually radical. Only bad thing is most of best stuff gets turned into patents to stomp on competition. :(
- tmccrmck 10y ago
  I've met people who worked on Midori and they describe it as the best project they've ever worked on. Used to work in a building with a bunch of old Midori-folks and would ask them about it anytime I heard the word 'Midori'. I don't think it was MSR though. Personally, I've always been most impressed by the research into formal verification: Z3, Dafny, TLA+, F*, Lean, and many more.
  - nickpsecurity 10y ago
    It was MSR: http://joeduffyblog.com/2015/11/03/blogging-about-midori/ http://joeduffyblog.com/2015/11/03/blogging-about-midori/ Yeah, their verification tools are incredible. They applied VCC to Hyper-V. The driver tools mostly wiped out blue screens. Got a new one called P language used in USB stack. The methods you mentioned like Dafny got applied in ExpressOS by another team: https://github.com/ExpressOS/expressos https://github.com/ExpressOS/expressos Microsoft did it first in VerveOS although Nucleus was ripped off a mainframe OS from the 1970's. VerveOS was impressive where it was one of first safe to the assembly with much less effort than other projects. They also did CoqASM for verified assembly. https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/publication/safe-to-the-last-instruction-automated-verification-of-a-type-safe-operating-system/ https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/publication/safe-to... https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/publication/coq-worlds-best-macro-assembler/?from=http%3A%2F%2Fresearch.microsoft.com%2Fen-us%2Fum%2Fpeople%2Fnick%2Fcoqasm.pdf https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/publication/coq-wor...

azhenley 10y ago

> PARC still exists, but Google advanced technology projects is probably the closest. Neither of these is that close to the old Xerox PARC since they tent to focus on near term commercializable projects. Yep, researchers at Google just don't seem to publish much at all. Unlike MSR and IBM which have a great culture of publishing and releasing things publicly at high rates (yes, they do also commercialize stuff).

akinalci 10y ago

When you look at PARC's contributions (laser printer, bitmap graphics, GUI/windows/icons, WYSIWYG editor, Ethernet, OOP, MVC) or those of Bell Labs (transistor, laser, information theory, Unix, C & C++, radio astronomy), we haven't seen anything comparable from Google's Advanced Technology and Projects program. We can give them another 20-30 years and reassess, but so far, it's not there. Most of the projects have been announced with great fanfare and then quietly scrapped, or are solutions that haven't found problems. PARC and Bell Labs were at the right place and right time to make fundamental contributions in the nascent areas of digital computers, software, and digital communications. They caught that wave perfectly. Now we're searching a similar revolutionary technology that will open the floodgates of innovation, but it's not apparent yet. Machine learning and AI? If that pans out, Google Brain/DeepMind would be well situated.

jacquesm 10y ago
> we haven't seen anything comparable from Google's Advanced Technology and Projects program And we won't because all those things have already been done. The laser didn't come from Bell but from Hughes btw. > PARC and Bell Labs were at the right place and right time to make fundamental contributions in the nascent areas of digital computers, software, and digital communications. They caught that wave perfectly. Precisely. > Now we're searching a similar revolutionary technology that will open the floodgates of innovation, but it's not apparent yet. Machine learning and AI? If that pans out, Google Brain/DeepMind would be well situated. Machine learning is disruptive to a degree that the web never was. The web is augmentative, machine learning is pure disruption. Jobs that require lots of people will soon open up to automation, this is going to change the world in very fundamental ways if it keeps going at the rate that it does right now. The last three years have seen one humans-only benchmark after another give way and the party is just getting started.
- nickpsecurity 10y ago
  "> we haven't seen anything comparable from Google's Advanced Technology and Projects program And we won't because all those things have already been done." We haven't because they're not doing them that I've seen. I hope they prove me wrong as they're in a good position to be next PARC with some changes. So far, they've wowed me only once (TrueTime) with other stuff being variations on prior work with usually short-term focus or for pragmatic goals rather than vision. Their wide-eyed visions I've read about are rarely executed to completion. I don't see them as another PARC.