6 ms·

No way will we use Unix in 100 years. Either we will have regressed back to stone age by then or we will have moved on to a stage we can barely imagine, quasi-

No way will we use Unix in 100 years. Either we will have regressed back to stone age by then or we will have moved on to a stage we can barely imagine, quasi-stagnating for a whole century is just not how humanity rolls, i'm afraid.

npo9 7y ago
What if Moore’s law drys up in the next decade? What if quantum computers never ‘happen’? If those two things are true then Unix will still be around I believe. Just like Diesel engines are still around.
- pegasus 7y ago
  That's exactly what could force us to rethink our technological architecture from the ground up. No way is what we have now even close to optimal in terms of using existing resources. But it's been good enough thanks in no small part to those predictable performance gains won at the hardware level.
- rhinoceraptor 7y ago
  Moore's law is effectively dried up. We're at or within sight of the physical limits.
  - npo9 7y ago
    I’d describe Moore’s law drying up within the next decade as a 40% likelihood, and it would really hurt a lot of products and companies. For example, this might be the last video game console generation.
    - rhinoceraptor 7y ago
      To put it in perspective, 7nm is 35 silicon atoms wide. So we have a handful of process shrinks left before we absolutely cannot go any smaller.
      - erik_seaberg 7y ago
        Dies do have room to expand into the third dimension, if they can solve heat dissipation.
  - ksec 7y ago
    Not quite "at" yet, IEDM 2019 effectively confirms Sub 1 nm possibilities. Whether it is economically viable remains an open question.
simonh 7y ago
Which is the biggest difference in the way the developed world works and what it's like to live in it. The difference between now and 1969, or the difference between 1969 and 1919? In both cases it's a 50 year delta. I don't mind betting that the world of 2069 will look a lot more like 2019 than 2019 looks like 1969.
- pegasus 7y ago
  It's hard to quantify change. We keep hearing about the accelerating rate of change, but there are many dimensions along which change can occur. For example, for a long time the maximum speed of travel for us humans was that of a horse, or a horse-drawn carriage. Then all of the sudden we had a steady climb, with appearance of the train, then cars and planes, and that curve seems to mostly have flattened in the meanwhile. Similar for the maximum weight we can lift - see the Saturn V rocket. But these are all brawn as oppesed to brain type capabilities. Which have to do with our physical aspect. It is normal that they plateau since the laws of physics set hard limits on these type of parameters. And they are also much more obvious since they directly impact the physical world all around us. My feeling is these days change is tilted more and more towards the informational aspect of us humans and the world. The quantity of scientific data gathered, books written, new media types, information technology, the internet, genetic engineering, wikipedia all function at the much more subtle level which wouldn't be as immediately obvious to an outside observer, but they actually affect us much closer to our core, because what makes us distinctly human and the source of our power is all about this dimension - which the philosopher Teilhard de Chardain has called the noosphere.
- tommit 7y ago
  Interesting. I don't think I would take that bet. Historically, it's always taken fewer and fewer years for really "radical shifts", for lack of a better word, to happen. Imagine sending someone from the 1200's to the 1500's. They would probably have less of a shock than the guy sent from the 1900's to today, in terms of how much around them has changed, even though they have traveled more years ahead. It's something I read in an article at some point, but couldn't find it just now from a quick google search. I feel like it makes sense though. With the pace we're inventing things at, Clarke's 3rd law will kick into effect more frequently: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
jmull 7y ago
Unix-based OSs won't stand still. To replace them we'd have to see a circumstance where it makes sense to start from scratch and rewrite everything vs. incrementally improve what's already there. I can't predict the future, but the market forces needed for some kind of new OS to make sense would have to be tremendous. As time passes and we build more and more on top of existing OSs it becomes less and less likely that we'll switch away from them because it will become more and more costly. Perhaps a state could create a unique OS as a hegemonic strategy. They could make people, companies and other states use it as a pre-condition of participating in their economic sphere. That could provide the incentive to use it even though it would take decades to catch up to existing OSs. China is the only one I can think of that could have a chance at this, though I still think the cost would be too high for them. North Korea would probably love to do it, but it seems unlikely they'd ever be in a position to influence other states to that degree.
- simonh 7y ago
  Both China and NK have flirted with ‘official’ state supported Linux distros. The question is why would a state want to build their own new OS? What might China need in an OS that the existing options can not provide?

npo9 7y ago

What if Moore’s law drys up in the next decade? What if quantum computers never ‘happen’? If those two things are true then Unix will still be around I believe. Just like Diesel engines are still around.

pegasus 7y ago
That's exactly what could force us to rethink our technological architecture from the ground up. No way is what we have now even close to optimal in terms of using existing resources. But it's been good enough thanks in no small part to those predictable performance gains won at the hardware level.
rhinoceraptor 7y ago
Moore's law is effectively dried up. We're at or within sight of the physical limits.
- npo9 7y ago
  I’d describe Moore’s law drying up within the next decade as a 40% likelihood, and it would really hurt a lot of products and companies. For example, this might be the last video game console generation.
  - rhinoceraptor 7y ago
    To put it in perspective, 7nm is 35 silicon atoms wide. So we have a handful of process shrinks left before we absolutely cannot go any smaller.
    - erik_seaberg 7y ago
      Dies do have room to expand into the third dimension, if they can solve heat dissipation.
- ksec 7y ago
  Not quite "at" yet, IEDM 2019 effectively confirms Sub 1 nm possibilities. Whether it is economically viable remains an open question.

simonh 7y ago

Which is the biggest difference in the way the developed world works and what it's like to live in it. The difference between now and 1969, or the difference between 1969 and 1919? In both cases it's a 50 year delta. I don't mind betting that the world of 2069 will look a lot more like 2019 than 2019 looks like 1969.

pegasus 7y ago
It's hard to quantify change. We keep hearing about the accelerating rate of change, but there are many dimensions along which change can occur. For example, for a long time the maximum speed of travel for us humans was that of a horse, or a horse-drawn carriage. Then all of the sudden we had a steady climb, with appearance of the train, then cars and planes, and that curve seems to mostly have flattened in the meanwhile. Similar for the maximum weight we can lift - see the Saturn V rocket. But these are all brawn as oppesed to brain type capabilities. Which have to do with our physical aspect. It is normal that they plateau since the laws of physics set hard limits on these type of parameters. And they are also much more obvious since they directly impact the physical world all around us. My feeling is these days change is tilted more and more towards the informational aspect of us humans and the world. The quantity of scientific data gathered, books written, new media types, information technology, the internet, genetic engineering, wikipedia all function at the much more subtle level which wouldn't be as immediately obvious to an outside observer, but they actually affect us much closer to our core, because what makes us distinctly human and the source of our power is all about this dimension - which the philosopher Teilhard de Chardain has called the noosphere.
tommit 7y ago
Interesting. I don't think I would take that bet. Historically, it's always taken fewer and fewer years for really "radical shifts", for lack of a better word, to happen. Imagine sending someone from the 1200's to the 1500's. They would probably have less of a shock than the guy sent from the 1900's to today, in terms of how much around them has changed, even though they have traveled more years ahead. It's something I read in an article at some point, but couldn't find it just now from a quick google search. I feel like it makes sense though. With the pace we're inventing things at, Clarke's 3rd law will kick into effect more frequently: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

jmull 7y ago

Unix-based OSs won't stand still. To replace them we'd have to see a circumstance where it makes sense to start from scratch and rewrite everything vs. incrementally improve what's already there. I can't predict the future, but the market forces needed for some kind of new OS to make sense would have to be tremendous. As time passes and we build more and more on top of existing OSs it becomes less and less likely that we'll switch away from them because it will become more and more costly. Perhaps a state could create a unique OS as a hegemonic strategy. They could make people, companies and other states use it as a pre-condition of participating in their economic sphere. That could provide the incentive to use it even though it would take decades to catch up to existing OSs. China is the only one I can think of that could have a chance at this, though I still think the cost would be too high for them. North Korea would probably love to do it, but it seems unlikely they'd ever be in a position to influence other states to that degree.

simonh 7y ago
Both China and NK have flirted with ‘official’ state supported Linux distros. The question is why would a state want to build their own new OS? What might China need in an OS that the existing options can not provide?