13 ms·

This, or something like it, is the future: the computing device is portable, and adapts itself to the forms of input available. There's no reason why your displ

This, or something like it, is the future: the computing device is portable, and adapts itself to the forms of input available. There's no reason why your display should have to be permanently attached to the device that drives it, and increasingly, it won't be. I don't know what the implications are for Ubuntu or Android. But genuine support for a first-class computing experience is one of the few things that would tempt me back onto those platforms.

genbattle 15y ago
Exactly. It would be great to be able to use an Optimus Prime or something as a mobile development machine. My dream for android development is definitely to be able to build and deploy on a single device. Of course there's a way to go for that. The range of devices that support mobile docks is very small; I would prefer support for tablets with attached keyboards/mice. If they managed to get this working on tablets, I would definitely consider something like the transformer prime to replace my netbook.
- rhizome 15y ago
  I think it's better as a thin client. Already I can (and have) used ConnectBot on Android to connect to my shell and fix webserver (and content) problems from my phone, in the field (3G).
  - bryanlarsen 15y ago
    A full Ubuntu installation is a superset of a thin client.
    - rhizome 15y ago
      Or in other words, a thicker client.
      - beatle 15y ago
        Androbuntoid: a THICKER client
bambax 15y ago
> This, or something like it, is the future: the computing device is portable, and adapts itself to the forms of input available Maybe it is, but it's not the future I'd like best. I would like to have a desktop in the cloud, and data in the cloud, and nothing in my pocket; nothing to lose or break or have to make sure it still has juice. When I get somewhere to work (a client's, a café, a friend's, etc.), I log in to my cloud desktop using whatever dumb machine is available, and off I go. Everything I do is automatically saved, backed up, versioned, synchronized for me. A portable computer is useful in the subway, but at the office? What benefits do we stand to gain from still having things run or be stored on a local machine?
- j05h 15y ago
  Control, security, trust. Even if I got rid of all other computers, I'd still have a phone. More and more I want to fully control my data on my terms. Maybe I'd be fine paying a service (linode?) to host my fully encrypted data in the cloud, but Google? Facebook? No thanks.
- epscylonb 15y ago
  If consumer networks were as reliable as roads and the electricity grid, why would I bother giving my data to someone so they can put it in a datacenter?. The future I would like best is a device on the end of my home internet connection. I could authenticate myself to other online services against it. It could be a node in a social network (much like diaspora) where I can control all my own data. It could have access to a NAS at home, allowing me to stream my favourite music and movies to wherever I happen to be. In the future, with resilient enough networks, the datacenter will be distributed.
  - phaer 15y ago
    You described exactly what the people at http://www.freedomboxfoundation.org/ http://www.freedomboxfoundation.org/ are trying to do. It's still in an early state of development but you may join the mailinglist or read the wiki ( http://wiki.debian.org/FreedomBox http://wiki.debian.org/FreedomBox ) if you are interested in this topic.
  - 15y ago
cpeterso 15y ago
Desktop PCs will always outperform portable devices. I think future docking stations will include both a big display and a big processor. When you dock your phone, your phone's apps will be running on the dock's fast processor while accessing your personal data off the phone. When you undock your phone, your running apps will seamlessly migrate to the phone's processor(s). This will be extremely asymmetric multiprocessing.
- wavephorm 15y ago
  That's kinda the same as saying Mini-Computers will always outperform Desktop PC's. The general trend of hardware is that it gets smaller, faster, and more efficient simultaneously. It is highly likely within 10 years you'll be walking around with a smartphone more than 10 times as powerful than the fastest 16-core desktop PC you can buy today, and possibly desktop PC's won't even be sold by then because there won't be any need for them.
  - bryanlarsen 15y ago
    If that's a bet, I'll take it. You'll still be able to buy desktop computers in 10 years. They might not be common, cheap or easy to find, but you'll be able to buy them. IBM still makes lots of money selling mainframes, and HP still makes and sells OpenVMS minicomputers.
    - zanny 15y ago
      Workstations at offices, gaming machines, animation and image manipulation will all probably stay on desktops and that will keep them around for years. The scale of a desktop fits and works. Like how we could make a TV the size of a watch, but we don't because the large 60 inch plazma format, while immobile, has benefits worth the tradeoff. Full featured mouse / keyboard, larger screens, surround sound are all perks of stationary desktops (I guess you could attach all these peripherals to a laptop, but then you are partially defeating the point of being mobile.
    - wavephorm 15y ago
      You really think desktop computers in an ATX case, with a full ATX-motherboard, and 5" hard drives are going to be around in 10 years? Seriously? They're becoming rare even today.
glhaynes 15y ago
I don't see why this would be the future. I'm going to want to carry a "phone" for sure. Most people who've ever had a smartphone expect to have one the rest of their life. I'm also going to want (at least) a machine with a keyboard and bigger display than my phone. Why in the future would I want to tie one to the other? I wouldn't want that today — my computer works just fine without having to do some weird sync/plug-in dance with my phone when I want to use it. Even if this was seamless and even if we ignore concerns like finite batteries, what would I have gained besides a single point of failure? I of course would like pervasive data sync. But why would I want the hardware of my computer to rely on the hardware of my phone?
- scotu 15y ago
  So you are willing to commit to cloud-only, controlled by a random corp and subject to network availability but you are not going to trust the hardware you can carry in your pocket? Notice that no one is saying that a secondary cloud-tier is excluded from this vision...
  - glhaynes 15y ago
    If I didn't want to do cloud sync, I'd be more excited about a local sync. One doesn't tend to generate gigabytes of data on a phone so even a Bluetooth sync would be sufficient for most people.
    - planb 15y ago
      You don't use your smartphone to capture HD video, do you?
      - glhaynes 15y ago
        I do from time to time. Even they can be transferred over today's WiFi in a matter of seconds. My point is that keeping local devices in sync for all but a very few uses is already today easily solvable. So I wonder why we'd want to move to an architecture where our computers are reliant on our phones... there seem to be some significant tradeoffs to that model and it's not clear to me what real gains there would be.

genbattle 15y ago

Exactly. It would be great to be able to use an Optimus Prime or something as a mobile development machine. My dream for android development is definitely to be able to build and deploy on a single device. Of course there's a way to go for that. The range of devices that support mobile docks is very small; I would prefer support for tablets with attached keyboards/mice. If they managed to get this working on tablets, I would definitely consider something like the transformer prime to replace my netbook.

rhizome 15y ago
I think it's better as a thin client. Already I can (and have) used ConnectBot on Android to connect to my shell and fix webserver (and content) problems from my phone, in the field (3G).
- bryanlarsen 15y ago
  A full Ubuntu installation is a superset of a thin client.
  - rhizome 15y ago
    Or in other words, a thicker client.
    - beatle 15y ago
      Androbuntoid: a THICKER client

bambax 15y ago

> This, or something like it, is the future: the computing device is portable, and adapts itself to the forms of input available Maybe it is, but it's not the future I'd like best. I would like to have a desktop in the cloud, and data in the cloud, and nothing in my pocket; nothing to lose or break or have to make sure it still has juice. When I get somewhere to work (a client's, a café, a friend's, etc.), I log in to my cloud desktop using whatever dumb machine is available, and off I go. Everything I do is automatically saved, backed up, versioned, synchronized for me. A portable computer is useful in the subway, but at the office? What benefits do we stand to gain from still having things run or be stored on a local machine?

j05h 15y ago
Control, security, trust. Even if I got rid of all other computers, I'd still have a phone. More and more I want to fully control my data on my terms. Maybe I'd be fine paying a service (linode?) to host my fully encrypted data in the cloud, but Google? Facebook? No thanks.
epscylonb 15y ago
If consumer networks were as reliable as roads and the electricity grid, why would I bother giving my data to someone so they can put it in a datacenter?. The future I would like best is a device on the end of my home internet connection. I could authenticate myself to other online services against it. It could be a node in a social network (much like diaspora) where I can control all my own data. It could have access to a NAS at home, allowing me to stream my favourite music and movies to wherever I happen to be. In the future, with resilient enough networks, the datacenter will be distributed.
- phaer 15y ago
  You described exactly what the people at http://www.freedomboxfoundation.org/ http://www.freedomboxfoundation.org/ are trying to do. It's still in an early state of development but you may join the mailinglist or read the wiki ( http://wiki.debian.org/FreedomBox http://wiki.debian.org/FreedomBox ) if you are interested in this topic.
- 15y ago

cpeterso 15y ago

Desktop PCs will always outperform portable devices. I think future docking stations will include both a big display and a big processor. When you dock your phone, your phone's apps will be running on the dock's fast processor while accessing your personal data off the phone. When you undock your phone, your running apps will seamlessly migrate to the phone's processor(s). This will be extremely asymmetric multiprocessing.

wavephorm 15y ago
That's kinda the same as saying Mini-Computers will always outperform Desktop PC's. The general trend of hardware is that it gets smaller, faster, and more efficient simultaneously. It is highly likely within 10 years you'll be walking around with a smartphone more than 10 times as powerful than the fastest 16-core desktop PC you can buy today, and possibly desktop PC's won't even be sold by then because there won't be any need for them.
- bryanlarsen 15y ago
  If that's a bet, I'll take it. You'll still be able to buy desktop computers in 10 years. They might not be common, cheap or easy to find, but you'll be able to buy them. IBM still makes lots of money selling mainframes, and HP still makes and sells OpenVMS minicomputers.
  - zanny 15y ago
    Workstations at offices, gaming machines, animation and image manipulation will all probably stay on desktops and that will keep them around for years. The scale of a desktop fits and works. Like how we could make a TV the size of a watch, but we don't because the large 60 inch plazma format, while immobile, has benefits worth the tradeoff. Full featured mouse / keyboard, larger screens, surround sound are all perks of stationary desktops (I guess you could attach all these peripherals to a laptop, but then you are partially defeating the point of being mobile.
  - wavephorm 15y ago
    You really think desktop computers in an ATX case, with a full ATX-motherboard, and 5" hard drives are going to be around in 10 years? Seriously? They're becoming rare even today.

glhaynes 15y ago

I don't see why this would be the future. I'm going to want to carry a "phone" for sure. Most people who've ever had a smartphone expect to have one the rest of their life. I'm also going to want (at least) a machine with a keyboard and bigger display than my phone. Why in the future would I want to tie one to the other? I wouldn't want that today — my computer works just fine without having to do some weird sync/plug-in dance with my phone when I want to use it. Even if this was seamless and even if we ignore concerns like finite batteries, what would I have gained besides a single point of failure? I of course would like pervasive data sync. But why would I want the hardware of my computer to rely on the hardware of my phone?

scotu 15y ago
So you are willing to commit to cloud-only, controlled by a random corp and subject to network availability but you are not going to trust the hardware you can carry in your pocket? Notice that no one is saying that a secondary cloud-tier is excluded from this vision...
- glhaynes 15y ago
  If I didn't want to do cloud sync, I'd be more excited about a local sync. One doesn't tend to generate gigabytes of data on a phone so even a Bluetooth sync would be sufficient for most people.
  - planb 15y ago
    You don't use your smartphone to capture HD video, do you?
    - glhaynes 15y ago
      I do from time to time. Even they can be transferred over today's WiFi in a matter of seconds. My point is that keeping local devices in sync for all but a very few uses is already today easily solvable. So I wonder why we'd want to move to an architecture where our computers are reliant on our phones... there seem to be some significant tradeoffs to that model and it's not clear to me what real gains there would be.