3 ms·

"This does of course not only go for GPU's, but CPU's and their BSP's and secret management controllers as well, as the dozen or so secret binary blobs you need

"This does of course not only go for GPU's, but CPU's and their BSP's and secret management controllers as well, as the dozen or so secret binary blobs you need to get all the hardware to work at all." My first thought was actually "what about data formats?" These days, most data formats are at least nominally open, but you still need to write code to work with those formats, and most of the existing code is still in C or C++ libraries. The IdealOS will fail instantly as soon as a user receives a DOCX or XLSX file and it displays the document wrong. It can't just launch LibreOffice and use that. Even LibreOffice can't always parse random MS Office documents correctly, and LO represents decades of coder-years.

tripzilch 9y ago
Well they could probably come up with some solution perhaps using a virtual LibreOffice to import it or whatnot. We've known for ages that those formats aren't particularly "ideal" and we should be starting letting them go, regardless of dreaming about a hypothetical OS or not. I mean, you could also probably come up with some solution to have a guest over who brings their pet cow without doing too much damage to your nicely decorated apartment. Doesn't mean that's an ideal situation, and it most definitely is no reason to not dream about living somewhere nicer than a stable, and what that would look like to you. The latter part, about dreaming how NICE your house could look like if you did not have to accommodate guests with cows barging into your living room all the time. That is what the article is actually about, he's pretty clear about his awareness that technical possibility is very different from the availability of a realistic road to transition from where we are now to the possibilities he sketches. It's also a very important matter of combating learned helplessness. If you dismiss dreaming about an IdealOS beforehand because there's no way (that you can see now) to get there from where desktop OS's are today, then you most assuredly will miss the opportunity to attain even some of these improvements, were they to come within reach through some circumstance in the future. Also, I remember programming on a 386. And on the one hand it amazes me that the thing in my pocket today is so much more powerful than that old machine, let alone my current desktop. And on the other hand, it infuriates me that some tasks on my desktop today are quite slow when really they have no right to be, and some of these tasks are even things that my 386 used to have no problems with whatsoever (but then, TPX was a ridiculously fast compiler, a true gem). We should not let that slip out of sight, demand better and keep dreaming.
- sjellis 9y ago
  I guess that the article did annoy me. Partly because I remember GNUStep, Longhorn, OLPC etc. etc. which attempted some of these things, and we already know why those projects failed completely, and partly because I can now see the desktop slowly improving month-by-month on the Linux+GNOME stack. Yes, it's painfully slow and gradual, but it's sustainable progress: Wayland compositors, GNOME, Flatpak, and Atomic Workstation are actual shipping code that will only get better and more heavily used over time.

tripzilch 9y ago

Well they could probably come up with some solution perhaps using a virtual LibreOffice to import it or whatnot. We've known for ages that those formats aren't particularly "ideal" and we should be starting letting them go, regardless of dreaming about a hypothetical OS or not. I mean, you could also probably come up with some solution to have a guest over who brings their pet cow without doing too much damage to your nicely decorated apartment. Doesn't mean that's an ideal situation, and it most definitely is no reason to not dream about living somewhere nicer than a stable, and what that would look like to you. The latter part, about dreaming how NICE your house could look like if you did not have to accommodate guests with cows barging into your living room all the time. That is what the article is actually about, he's pretty clear about his awareness that technical possibility is very different from the availability of a realistic road to transition from where we are now to the possibilities he sketches. It's also a very important matter of combating learned helplessness. If you dismiss dreaming about an IdealOS beforehand because there's no way (that you can see now) to get there from where desktop OS's are today, then you most assuredly will miss the opportunity to attain even some of these improvements, were they to come within reach through some circumstance in the future. Also, I remember programming on a 386. And on the one hand it amazes me that the thing in my pocket today is so much more powerful than that old machine, let alone my current desktop. And on the other hand, it infuriates me that some tasks on my desktop today are quite slow when really they have no right to be, and some of these tasks are even things that my 386 used to have no problems with whatsoever (but then, TPX was a ridiculously fast compiler, a true gem). We should not let that slip out of sight, demand better and keep dreaming.

sjellis 9y ago
I guess that the article did annoy me. Partly because I remember GNUStep, Longhorn, OLPC etc. etc. which attempted some of these things, and we already know why those projects failed completely, and partly because I can now see the desktop slowly improving month-by-month on the Linux+GNOME stack. Yes, it's painfully slow and gradual, but it's sustainable progress: Wayland compositors, GNOME, Flatpak, and Atomic Workstation are actual shipping code that will only get better and more heavily used over time.