11 ms·

No it's not. Even the multi-core era failed to do that with laptops. If you're going to redefine the industry you need a radical new idea, not just 'the same, b

No it's not. Even the multi-core era failed to do that with laptops. If you're going to redefine the industry you need a radical new idea, not just 'the same, but slightly faster, slimmer, and lighter.' Whatever will redefine the industry will probably be laughed at and only adopted by nerds for a while. Like OS X back in the day. Only people interested in the first couple versions were Unix nerds. Everybody else's software they needed was on OS 9.

GekkePrutser 4y ago
Yeah I was one of them. Unfortunately the Unix part seems to be very underappreciated by Apple recently so I've already moved on again. I was an early adopter of macOS and have 'converted' many more mainstream users that still use it. But for me it's become too locked down.
- midislack 4y ago
  I stopped using Apple products when they started spying on everything I did. Do I really want Apple recording the name and hash of every program I run? Why ask permission and click "agree" to write code for my own use? Checked right out of that ecosystem and I won't be going back.
- llllllllllll9 4y ago
  windows11 with wsl2. sometimes i forget i'm not in kde.
- p1mrx 4y ago
  Which OS/distro did you move onto?
  - GekkePrutser 4y ago
    FreeBSD with KDE
  - rch 4y ago
    Nixpkgs on Fedora w/ i3wm
  - withinboredom 4y ago
    Windows + WSL for open source stuff and PopOS for work.
    - p1mrx 4y ago
      Isn't WSL2 still IPv4-only? That's why I uninstalled it years ago.
      - withinboredom 4y ago
        Yeah, but you can use a custom kernel and WireGuard to get around that. https://withinboredom.info/blog/2022/04/02/finally-getting-ipv6-in-wsl2/ https://withinboredom.info/blog/2022/04/02/finally-getting-i...
- smoldesu 4y ago
  Amen to that. At work one of my responsibilities includes maintaining bootstrapping scripts for MacOS so we can reliably develop on the platform. Getting things to "just work" the way they do on our deploy servers is an actual nightmare, especially once you toss Apple Silicon into the mix. Not only are we running different kernels, but different architectures; it's simply impossible to guarantee that something that runs locally will work fine on production, or vice-versa. I definitely do my development on Linux where possible.
- azinman2 4y ago
  What is it too locked down to accomplish? There are many knobs to unlock it.
  - GekkePrutser 4y ago
    Changing the sshd_config to only accept key authentication for example. Since the recent locking down of significant parts of the OS this keeps getting reverted to default. But there's many more issues, I've gone into them before (I used to be a Mac admin) but I don't want to bring it all up again
    - WesolyKubeczek 4y ago
      You sort of can sidestep the issue by supplying your own launchd plist for openssh, and disabling Apple's one, but it's a thorn in the side anyway — the fact that you even need to bother to sidestep the issue in the first place, while there are systems which go to great lengths to respect your changes to the configuration.
      - withinboredom 4y ago
        System level environment variables would be nice. It’s a pita to use a yubikey (arguably more secure than a plaintext key in .ssh) for ssh key storage. I remember having to start certain UI programs from a shell just to run them because they needed SSH abilities.
    - VogonPoetry 4y ago
      There has been a very nice trend for a number of projects to support a <config_file>.d directory to which local modifications can be added. Current macOS (and Debian >=11) has a non-standard sshd_config modification that does "Include /etc/ssh/sshd_config.d/*". Although placement early in the config file means some things cannot be overridden. Current "sudo" on macOS also supports this via "#includedir /private/etc/sudoers.d". (the # has been swapped for @ in upstream sudo). This neatly sidesteps the need to diff / re-apply changes on a SW update.
- 7speter 4y ago
  Theres also a lot of commercial service overhead, like apple music starting up on boot (and even being installed) and asking if you’d like to subscribe or whatever. 15 years ago apple had people on stage bragging how there was only one version of OS X while Microsoft had countless versions of Windows (Vista Home, Vista Pro, Server, etc). I wonder if there should be a standard MacOS and a MacOS Pro that would be a relatively stripped down unix environment without all of the bloat thats been added on to MacOS recently…
  - the_other 4y ago
    Absolutely not. There should just be easy switches.
- kergonath 4y ago
  Out of curiosity, what do you mean by “too locked down”? What could you do on, say OS X 10.8 that you cannot do now? I am still running and compiling the same open source software as I did 10 years ago and more besides. There have been a couple of rough transitions with the new security things, SIP, and whatnot. I disabled it for a couple of releases but now that’s not really a problem.
  - WesolyKubeczek 4y ago
    You have an increased number of hoops to jump through if you want your computer to be programmable. At first, it was Gatekeeper. Yeah, appeared in 10.8. Then notarization. Now, on M1 you need to sign your binaries ad-hoc or they won't run. Custom kernel extensions? No way. It's like slowly boiling the water in which you sit. Little things, but one by one they accumulate into quite a lump of red tape, and Apple seems to drive home the point that a developer is a different caste than the user is, and there's some sacred knowledge that you should be in possession of, and update it every year for $99, so that you can program your computer. All the while the user is supposed to be clueless and in awe from this technological marvel the caste of engineers is bestowing unto them. Oh, and Apple wants to be a bottleneck in each and every process connected to programming their computers. They also remind you that the machines you pay mad bucks for, you don't really own. I like the pure Unix approach more, when the line between using the computer and programming it doesn't really exist, and where the system is basically your IDE too, and where you're going from being a user to being a programmer and back without really noticing. Mind you, it doesn't mean you have to go from one to the other, but when you want/need to, it's damn frictionless, and the system is as malleable as you want it to be.
    - inkyoto 4y ago
      > You have an increased number of hoops to jump through if you want your computer to be programmable. > At first, it was Gatekeeper. Yeah, appeared in 10.8. Then notarization. Now, on M1 you need to sign your binaries ad-hoc or they won't run. You are confusing the local software development with the global software distribution. Anyone is free to install development tools, compilers and toolchains, compile and run anything locally on an OS X, just like on any other UNIX system, including Linux. Gatekeeper and the notarisation enforcement, which are a default but can be neutered, address a common use case of «my mom/little sister/grandfather/etc has downloaded and installed a seemingly useful app from a dodgy website that has excreted a ransomware that now demands a payment to give their data back, or leaked all of their contacts/personal data, or slowed their computing device 100 fold down». OS X does give lay users a way to turn checks off, including the system integrity protection, and shoot themselves in the foot if that is what they want. In fact, I would like to be able to selectively apply an even more, higher, restrictive security profile to any app, including to the ones available through Apple's own app store. Who can tell what potential spyware / trackware a 500+ Mb WhatsApp download from the official Apple app store contains within? WhatsApp desktop client is a mediocre (feature wise) messenger that is not even as feature rich as the 85Mb Telegram desktop download is. And I, for one, don't have the capacity to reverse engineer and manually inspect every single WhatsApp download/update for my own peace of mind and sanity, and I would also presume that very few people even from around here can. Anything coming out of FaceBook nowadays should be considered trackware and needs to be airgapped with the utmost diligence. Even the business/enterprise software is ridden with all sorts of trackers. Citrix Workspace client, for example, installs three "telemetry" helper processes that phone home non-stop. > Custom kernel extensions? No way. Yes way. They just have to be signed for same reasons as third party apps. See https://support.apple.com/en-au/guide/security/sec8e454101b/web https://support.apple.com/en-au/guide/security/sec8e454101b/... for details. I was recently scrubbing the file system off some legacy components and noticed, with a lot bewilderment, what extra 'useful' USB drivers a 4G MiFi device I had purchased over a decade ago installed at the 1st connection attempt. I, for one, don't need those 'niceties' to sneakily creep into any of my file systems or lurk around. In fact, OS X has become more GNU Hurd since 10.15 like by pushing kernel extensions into the user space instead, which reduces chances of the kernel crashing due to a bug in a random extension. More kernel stability and security? I say yes to both, albeit your mileage may vary.
- pjmlp 4y ago
  For NeXT the UNIX compatibility was a means to compete in the workstation market, nothing more. "Why We Have to Make UNIX Invisible." https://www.usenix.org/blog/vault-steve-jobs-keynotes-1987-usenix-atc https://www.usenix.org/blog/vault-steve-jobs-keynotes-1987-u...
darkerside 4y ago
You probably thought the original iPhone was pretty stupid, too, I would guess.
- eastbound 4y ago
  Didn’t everyone recognize the first iPhone as a revolution? I mean, the entire Android team took a day off, knowing they had failed.
  - CamperBob2 4y ago
    No, there was widespread derision. The idea that people would accept a phone without a physical keyboard was nothing short of heretical in business circles. Steve Ballmer famously went on one of the popular morning TV news shows and laughed at the iPhone. The fact that he still had a job when he got back to Redmond explains a lot about Microsoft's stagnation under his leadership, and its subsequent return to a successful path once he was gone.
    - bobochan 4y ago
      My memory is that MS laughed because they did not believe the hype. The laughing stopped when they got the first iPhones in house and were able to see how much space Apple was able to dedicate to the battery.
  - ghaff 4y ago
    Not really. I had a fairly recent Treo at the time. I certainly didn't buy an iPhone when it first came out. Come the 3GS I was definitely ready to go with Apple but it wasn't an instant switch. Of course, I was also not an Apple customer at the time except for an iPod sometime around that time.
    - __alexs 4y ago
      I was also a die hard Treo user at the time but as soon as I saw the iPhone it was obvious this was the future and I got in line on release day to get one and never looked back.
uuyi 4y ago
The radical bit is they deliver holistic software and hardware that actually works. No other vendor comes close.
- neolefty 4y ago
  I find the Google Pixel line fits that description pretty well, but very differently. I prefer the software over iOS, and hardware is good enough, although not nearly on the same level as an iPhone.
bigmealbigmeal 4y ago
> Whatever will redefine the industry will probably be laughed at and only adopted by nerds for a while. I suspect that virtual reality and augmented reality are in this classic position. Laughed at, but totally adored by a group of nerds. As someone in that group of nerds, the feeling is so much like the early days of the web -- it really is incredibly exciting. It amazes me that anyone can be pessimistic about it, especially given the astounding progress and investment being made. In my view, it's deeply obvious that augmented reality is the next paradigm shift we're all waiting for.
- necovek 4y ago
  Even if the GP claim was true, it does not follow that every thing that is being "laughed at and only adopted by nerds" is the next big thing to redefine the industry. Augmented reality has some nice properties in a number of contexts. In others, it's totally irrelevant. Whether someone will come out with a product that will make it irreplaceable is a different matter. It's like touch keyboards. Sure, they are better than phone keypad-style keyboards for entering text, but actual physical input still performs better. They are a different paradigm that allows device manufacturers to provide a more often desired feature (larger screens), but while they are winning over in places where they do not fit (like in-car infotainment systems), almost everybody prefers physical knobs for a number of features (like climate control). This will likely lead to a reversal of the trend.
  - bigmealbigmeal 4y ago
    I didn't say that every thing being laughed at is the next big thing to redefine the industry. I only predicted that augmented reality really is one of those things. Further, the person I was replying to claimed that the next big thing to redefine the industry is something that will be laughed at. Neither party claimed that everything being laughed at will redefine the industry. The statement that augmented reality is "like touch keyboards" is a statement that you haven't given justification for. Augmented reality is not a technology centered around replacing physical input with non-physical input, and so the analogy is not self-evident. You might potentially have a good point, but you'd have to explain how this analogy is relevant to the technology of placing graphics and information at any position in a person's 3D visual space. Remember, most augmented reality objects don't need to be controlled at all to be useful, and you can still control an augmented reality screen with a mouse and keyboard. I'm interested to hear more detail to your thoughts on why you think augmented reality won't be a paradigm shift. I'm also happy to elaborate on why I think it will, if you like.

GekkePrutser 4y ago

Yeah I was one of them. Unfortunately the Unix part seems to be very underappreciated by Apple recently so I've already moved on again. I was an early adopter of macOS and have 'converted' many more mainstream users that still use it. But for me it's become too locked down.

midislack 4y ago
I stopped using Apple products when they started spying on everything I did. Do I really want Apple recording the name and hash of every program I run? Why ask permission and click "agree" to write code for my own use? Checked right out of that ecosystem and I won't be going back.
llllllllllll9 4y ago
windows11 with wsl2. sometimes i forget i'm not in kde.
p1mrx 4y ago
Which OS/distro did you move onto?
- GekkePrutser 4y ago
  FreeBSD with KDE
- rch 4y ago
  Nixpkgs on Fedora w/ i3wm
- withinboredom 4y ago
  Windows + WSL for open source stuff and PopOS for work.
  - p1mrx 4y ago
    Isn't WSL2 still IPv4-only? That's why I uninstalled it years ago.
    - withinboredom 4y ago
      Yeah, but you can use a custom kernel and WireGuard to get around that. https://withinboredom.info/blog/2022/04/02/finally-getting-ipv6-in-wsl2/ https://withinboredom.info/blog/2022/04/02/finally-getting-i...
smoldesu 4y ago
Amen to that. At work one of my responsibilities includes maintaining bootstrapping scripts for MacOS so we can reliably develop on the platform. Getting things to "just work" the way they do on our deploy servers is an actual nightmare, especially once you toss Apple Silicon into the mix. Not only are we running different kernels, but different architectures; it's simply impossible to guarantee that something that runs locally will work fine on production, or vice-versa. I definitely do my development on Linux where possible.
azinman2 4y ago
What is it too locked down to accomplish? There are many knobs to unlock it.
- GekkePrutser 4y ago
  Changing the sshd_config to only accept key authentication for example. Since the recent locking down of significant parts of the OS this keeps getting reverted to default. But there's many more issues, I've gone into them before (I used to be a Mac admin) but I don't want to bring it all up again
  - WesolyKubeczek 4y ago
    You sort of can sidestep the issue by supplying your own launchd plist for openssh, and disabling Apple's one, but it's a thorn in the side anyway — the fact that you even need to bother to sidestep the issue in the first place, while there are systems which go to great lengths to respect your changes to the configuration.
    - withinboredom 4y ago
      System level environment variables would be nice. It’s a pita to use a yubikey (arguably more secure than a plaintext key in .ssh) for ssh key storage. I remember having to start certain UI programs from a shell just to run them because they needed SSH abilities.
  - VogonPoetry 4y ago
    There has been a very nice trend for a number of projects to support a <config_file>.d directory to which local modifications can be added. Current macOS (and Debian >=11) has a non-standard sshd_config modification that does "Include /etc/ssh/sshd_config.d/*". Although placement early in the config file means some things cannot be overridden. Current "sudo" on macOS also supports this via "#includedir /private/etc/sudoers.d". (the # has been swapped for @ in upstream sudo). This neatly sidesteps the need to diff / re-apply changes on a SW update.
7speter 4y ago
Theres also a lot of commercial service overhead, like apple music starting up on boot (and even being installed) and asking if you’d like to subscribe or whatever. 15 years ago apple had people on stage bragging how there was only one version of OS X while Microsoft had countless versions of Windows (Vista Home, Vista Pro, Server, etc). I wonder if there should be a standard MacOS and a MacOS Pro that would be a relatively stripped down unix environment without all of the bloat thats been added on to MacOS recently…
- the_other 4y ago
  Absolutely not. There should just be easy switches.
kergonath 4y ago
Out of curiosity, what do you mean by “too locked down”? What could you do on, say OS X 10.8 that you cannot do now? I am still running and compiling the same open source software as I did 10 years ago and more besides. There have been a couple of rough transitions with the new security things, SIP, and whatnot. I disabled it for a couple of releases but now that’s not really a problem.
- WesolyKubeczek 4y ago
  You have an increased number of hoops to jump through if you want your computer to be programmable. At first, it was Gatekeeper. Yeah, appeared in 10.8. Then notarization. Now, on M1 you need to sign your binaries ad-hoc or they won't run. Custom kernel extensions? No way. It's like slowly boiling the water in which you sit. Little things, but one by one they accumulate into quite a lump of red tape, and Apple seems to drive home the point that a developer is a different caste than the user is, and there's some sacred knowledge that you should be in possession of, and update it every year for $99, so that you can program your computer. All the while the user is supposed to be clueless and in awe from this technological marvel the caste of engineers is bestowing unto them. Oh, and Apple wants to be a bottleneck in each and every process connected to programming their computers. They also remind you that the machines you pay mad bucks for, you don't really own. I like the pure Unix approach more, when the line between using the computer and programming it doesn't really exist, and where the system is basically your IDE too, and where you're going from being a user to being a programmer and back without really noticing. Mind you, it doesn't mean you have to go from one to the other, but when you want/need to, it's damn frictionless, and the system is as malleable as you want it to be.
  - inkyoto 4y ago
    > You have an increased number of hoops to jump through if you want your computer to be programmable. > At first, it was Gatekeeper. Yeah, appeared in 10.8. Then notarization. Now, on M1 you need to sign your binaries ad-hoc or they won't run. You are confusing the local software development with the global software distribution. Anyone is free to install development tools, compilers and toolchains, compile and run anything locally on an OS X, just like on any other UNIX system, including Linux. Gatekeeper and the notarisation enforcement, which are a default but can be neutered, address a common use case of «my mom/little sister/grandfather/etc has downloaded and installed a seemingly useful app from a dodgy website that has excreted a ransomware that now demands a payment to give their data back, or leaked all of their contacts/personal data, or slowed their computing device 100 fold down». OS X does give lay users a way to turn checks off, including the system integrity protection, and shoot themselves in the foot if that is what they want. In fact, I would like to be able to selectively apply an even more, higher, restrictive security profile to any app, including to the ones available through Apple's own app store. Who can tell what potential spyware / trackware a 500+ Mb WhatsApp download from the official Apple app store contains within? WhatsApp desktop client is a mediocre (feature wise) messenger that is not even as feature rich as the 85Mb Telegram desktop download is. And I, for one, don't have the capacity to reverse engineer and manually inspect every single WhatsApp download/update for my own peace of mind and sanity, and I would also presume that very few people even from around here can. Anything coming out of FaceBook nowadays should be considered trackware and needs to be airgapped with the utmost diligence. Even the business/enterprise software is ridden with all sorts of trackers. Citrix Workspace client, for example, installs three "telemetry" helper processes that phone home non-stop. > Custom kernel extensions? No way. Yes way. They just have to be signed for same reasons as third party apps. See https://support.apple.com/en-au/guide/security/sec8e454101b/web https://support.apple.com/en-au/guide/security/sec8e454101b/... for details. I was recently scrubbing the file system off some legacy components and noticed, with a lot bewilderment, what extra 'useful' USB drivers a 4G MiFi device I had purchased over a decade ago installed at the 1st connection attempt. I, for one, don't need those 'niceties' to sneakily creep into any of my file systems or lurk around. In fact, OS X has become more GNU Hurd since 10.15 like by pushing kernel extensions into the user space instead, which reduces chances of the kernel crashing due to a bug in a random extension. More kernel stability and security? I say yes to both, albeit your mileage may vary.
pjmlp 4y ago
For NeXT the UNIX compatibility was a means to compete in the workstation market, nothing more. "Why We Have to Make UNIX Invisible." https://www.usenix.org/blog/vault-steve-jobs-keynotes-1987-usenix-atc https://www.usenix.org/blog/vault-steve-jobs-keynotes-1987-u...

darkerside 4y ago

You probably thought the original iPhone was pretty stupid, too, I would guess.

eastbound 4y ago
Didn’t everyone recognize the first iPhone as a revolution? I mean, the entire Android team took a day off, knowing they had failed.
- CamperBob2 4y ago
  No, there was widespread derision. The idea that people would accept a phone without a physical keyboard was nothing short of heretical in business circles. Steve Ballmer famously went on one of the popular morning TV news shows and laughed at the iPhone. The fact that he still had a job when he got back to Redmond explains a lot about Microsoft's stagnation under his leadership, and its subsequent return to a successful path once he was gone.
  - bobochan 4y ago
    My memory is that MS laughed because they did not believe the hype. The laughing stopped when they got the first iPhones in house and were able to see how much space Apple was able to dedicate to the battery.
- ghaff 4y ago
  Not really. I had a fairly recent Treo at the time. I certainly didn't buy an iPhone when it first came out. Come the 3GS I was definitely ready to go with Apple but it wasn't an instant switch. Of course, I was also not an Apple customer at the time except for an iPod sometime around that time.
  - __alexs 4y ago
    I was also a die hard Treo user at the time but as soon as I saw the iPhone it was obvious this was the future and I got in line on release day to get one and never looked back.

uuyi 4y ago

The radical bit is they deliver holistic software and hardware that actually works. No other vendor comes close.

neolefty 4y ago
I find the Google Pixel line fits that description pretty well, but very differently. I prefer the software over iOS, and hardware is good enough, although not nearly on the same level as an iPhone.

bigmealbigmeal 4y ago

> Whatever will redefine the industry will probably be laughed at and only adopted by nerds for a while. I suspect that virtual reality and augmented reality are in this classic position. Laughed at, but totally adored by a group of nerds. As someone in that group of nerds, the feeling is so much like the early days of the web -- it really is incredibly exciting. It amazes me that anyone can be pessimistic about it, especially given the astounding progress and investment being made. In my view, it's deeply obvious that augmented reality is the next paradigm shift we're all waiting for.

necovek 4y ago
Even if the GP claim was true, it does not follow that every thing that is being "laughed at and only adopted by nerds" is the next big thing to redefine the industry. Augmented reality has some nice properties in a number of contexts. In others, it's totally irrelevant. Whether someone will come out with a product that will make it irreplaceable is a different matter. It's like touch keyboards. Sure, they are better than phone keypad-style keyboards for entering text, but actual physical input still performs better. They are a different paradigm that allows device manufacturers to provide a more often desired feature (larger screens), but while they are winning over in places where they do not fit (like in-car infotainment systems), almost everybody prefers physical knobs for a number of features (like climate control). This will likely lead to a reversal of the trend.
- bigmealbigmeal 4y ago
  I didn't say that every thing being laughed at is the next big thing to redefine the industry. I only predicted that augmented reality really is one of those things. Further, the person I was replying to claimed that the next big thing to redefine the industry is something that will be laughed at. Neither party claimed that everything being laughed at will redefine the industry. The statement that augmented reality is "like touch keyboards" is a statement that you haven't given justification for. Augmented reality is not a technology centered around replacing physical input with non-physical input, and so the analogy is not self-evident. You might potentially have a good point, but you'd have to explain how this analogy is relevant to the technology of placing graphics and information at any position in a person's 3D visual space. Remember, most augmented reality objects don't need to be controlled at all to be useful, and you can still control an augmented reality screen with a mouse and keyboard. I'm interested to hear more detail to your thoughts on why you think augmented reality won't be a paradigm shift. I'm also happy to elaborate on why I think it will, if you like.