6 ms·

This is a bit depressing in that it reminds us there are many such obviously basic functions which still aren't built into all PCs, when they should have been a

This is a bit depressing in that it reminds us there are many such obviously basic functions which still aren't built into all PCs, when they should have been a long time ago. Modern tech platforms are so impressively capable that it makes these gaps even more shocking. I felt the same thing yesterday reading through Google's new features announcement for Android 15. A good third of the features were things where I thought, "How in the hell did this extremely mature platform still not have that?"

kylebenzle 2y ago
In the same vein, since I heard about the US Army's 500 PS4 super computer I've thought it should be simple to plug multiple computers together to multiple their power. Why cant I connect an old laptop, a few old cellphones and a hard drive all together and have one computer use the resources of the other devices? Collectively we have SO MUCH available ram just sitting around unused.
- multimoon 2y ago
  Because it’s not as simple as you’re making it out to be. This is highly workload dependent - you can’t just connect multiple CPUs that are designed to (even with old hardware) have lightning fast connections to their neighboring hardware with a slow USB cable and expect it to just linearly multiply power. The CPUs end up actually running slower because they spend most of their time sitting around waiting for instructions to execute. This even used to be a problem with multi-GPU set ups, just much less of a factor. This is why cluster computing is far more dependent on software being able to distribute work and load balance than the actual hardware. There exists software where you can connect random devices together in your house over Ethernet and make a cluster. This is why every supercomputer is geared towards massive number crunching where you can break up the work into many smaller tasks and give each node a task to work on. Cluster computing sucks and is inefficient for anything resembling a normal workload.
- DaiPlusPlus 2y ago
  > I've thought it should be simple to plug multiple computers together to multiple their power. It is simple - it's so simple it became a meme: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beowulf_cluster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beowulf_cluster - almost every Slashdot comments-thread in the early-to-mid-2000s would reference it somehow. But distributed-computing isn't popular because it just isn't particularly useful for the things people want to do with their computers: combining all of my own computers together isn't going to make watching YouTube any better, not even make my games run faster.
- yencabulator 2y ago
  Current day operating systems assume a cache-coherent system. Without that assumption, you're basically just looking at a bunch of networked computers. This is done because you get much, much more performance out of systems like that (see e.g. https://blog.acolyer.org/2015/06/05/scalability-but-at-what-cost/ https://blog.acolyer.org/2015/06/05/scalability-but-at-what-... ) You might enjoy reading about research projects into distributed operating systems, e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amoeba_(operating_system) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amoeba_(operating_system) , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sprite_(operating_system) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sprite_(operating_system) or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_9_from_Bell_Labs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_9_from_Bell_Labs
trueismywork 2y ago
Most platforms today are mature not because they have a lot of features but they have some features across all kinds of hardware.
GeekyBear 2y ago
> there are many such obviously basic functions which still aren't built into all PCs You can already manually configure TCP/IP networking to run over FireWire, USB, or Thunderbolt cables connecting PCs or Macs. However, this assumes you understand enough to manually configure network settings and then manually configure file sharing to run on top of that. The value add would come from making file sharing dead simple for unsophisticated users while retaining the speed advantage of the Thunderbolt connection. Something like Apple's Airdrop sets up a temporary adhoc WiFi network and configures its TCP/IP settings for you as well as handling the file-sharing details, but is limited to WiFi speeds. It's a huge ease of use win for unsophisticated users, but if you need to transfer huge 8k video files, you may prioritize speed over ease of use. Macs also have Target Disk mode that allows you to plug two Macs together using a Thunderbolt cable and have the shared Mac's disk show up in the Finder of the other. It's also been around since the FireWire days, but always on disk encryption means you have to be logged onto the computer before you can share its disk today. I would assume that this Intel software also handles the details of setting up simple point to point file-sharing for the user, although the article doesn't make this clear.
- jauntywundrkind 2y ago
  Thunderbolt-net on Linux will set up a link local ipv6 connection automatically. There's dozens of not hundreds of filesharing options that'll just work from there. Samba being advertised by avahi or systemd.dns-sd will be immediately visible. LocalDrop will work instantly. File Sharing is super solved, albeit not via generally with "slick" drag and drop (Samsung notably has a suite of proprietary protocols which also geant drag and drop across devices too.) What's actually interesting is literally everything other than networking (already in thunderbolt) and filesharing (good options abound). I'm far more interested in the entire rest of the capabilities than I am the easy already done one: > Install it on two Thunderbolt . . . computers, connect them . . ., and you should be able to share your mouse, keyboard, screens, storage, and other USB peripherals; That's cool and worth doing and new. That starts to blur the boundaries of what a conventional computer is, draws outside the box of the typical system design. It sounds like an applicationized usb-ip. It sounds like shit MediaTek was trying to make protocols for 9 years ago, CrossMount, https://www.eetimes.com/why-mediatek-pushes-cross-device-sharing/ https://www.eetimes.com/why-mediatek-pushes-cross-device-sha...
kristopolous 2y ago
I remember doing this over null modem db9 serial with Windows kernel programming over 20 years ago. I'm suspecting there were almost always instrumentation available, albeit not the most user friendly
- DaiPlusPlus 2y ago
  Windows has supported user-friendly file-transfers using serial and parallel cables going back to Windows 95, under the name “Direct cable connection” - it is unrelated to WinDbg/KD debugging using a serial/USB/Firewire cable though. I use WinDbg over USB myself - I’m careful with the special A-to-A cable though: you can fry hardware with it.
retrochameleon 2y ago
What I would like are networked displays that make it trivial to throw something from one device onto a nearby display. Seamless switching, extending, and duplicating across the various displays.

kylebenzle 2y ago

In the same vein, since I heard about the US Army's 500 PS4 super computer I've thought it should be simple to plug multiple computers together to multiple their power. Why cant I connect an old laptop, a few old cellphones and a hard drive all together and have one computer use the resources of the other devices? Collectively we have SO MUCH available ram just sitting around unused.

multimoon 2y ago
Because it’s not as simple as you’re making it out to be. This is highly workload dependent - you can’t just connect multiple CPUs that are designed to (even with old hardware) have lightning fast connections to their neighboring hardware with a slow USB cable and expect it to just linearly multiply power. The CPUs end up actually running slower because they spend most of their time sitting around waiting for instructions to execute. This even used to be a problem with multi-GPU set ups, just much less of a factor. This is why cluster computing is far more dependent on software being able to distribute work and load balance than the actual hardware. There exists software where you can connect random devices together in your house over Ethernet and make a cluster. This is why every supercomputer is geared towards massive number crunching where you can break up the work into many smaller tasks and give each node a task to work on. Cluster computing sucks and is inefficient for anything resembling a normal workload.
DaiPlusPlus 2y ago
> I've thought it should be simple to plug multiple computers together to multiple their power. It is simple - it's so simple it became a meme: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beowulf_cluster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beowulf_cluster - almost every Slashdot comments-thread in the early-to-mid-2000s would reference it somehow. But distributed-computing isn't popular because it just isn't particularly useful for the things people want to do with their computers: combining all of my own computers together isn't going to make watching YouTube any better, not even make my games run faster.
yencabulator 2y ago
Current day operating systems assume a cache-coherent system. Without that assumption, you're basically just looking at a bunch of networked computers. This is done because you get much, much more performance out of systems like that (see e.g. https://blog.acolyer.org/2015/06/05/scalability-but-at-what-cost/ https://blog.acolyer.org/2015/06/05/scalability-but-at-what-... ) You might enjoy reading about research projects into distributed operating systems, e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amoeba_(operating_system) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amoeba_(operating_system) , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sprite_(operating_system) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sprite_(operating_system) or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_9_from_Bell_Labs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_9_from_Bell_Labs

trueismywork 2y ago

Most platforms today are mature not because they have a lot of features but they have some features across all kinds of hardware.

GeekyBear 2y ago

> there are many such obviously basic functions which still aren't built into all PCs You can already manually configure TCP/IP networking to run over FireWire, USB, or Thunderbolt cables connecting PCs or Macs. However, this assumes you understand enough to manually configure network settings and then manually configure file sharing to run on top of that. The value add would come from making file sharing dead simple for unsophisticated users while retaining the speed advantage of the Thunderbolt connection. Something like Apple's Airdrop sets up a temporary adhoc WiFi network and configures its TCP/IP settings for you as well as handling the file-sharing details, but is limited to WiFi speeds. It's a huge ease of use win for unsophisticated users, but if you need to transfer huge 8k video files, you may prioritize speed over ease of use. Macs also have Target Disk mode that allows you to plug two Macs together using a Thunderbolt cable and have the shared Mac's disk show up in the Finder of the other. It's also been around since the FireWire days, but always on disk encryption means you have to be logged onto the computer before you can share its disk today. I would assume that this Intel software also handles the details of setting up simple point to point file-sharing for the user, although the article doesn't make this clear.

jauntywundrkind 2y ago
Thunderbolt-net on Linux will set up a link local ipv6 connection automatically. There's dozens of not hundreds of filesharing options that'll just work from there. Samba being advertised by avahi or systemd.dns-sd will be immediately visible. LocalDrop will work instantly. File Sharing is super solved, albeit not via generally with "slick" drag and drop (Samsung notably has a suite of proprietary protocols which also geant drag and drop across devices too.) What's actually interesting is literally everything other than networking (already in thunderbolt) and filesharing (good options abound). I'm far more interested in the entire rest of the capabilities than I am the easy already done one: > Install it on two Thunderbolt . . . computers, connect them . . ., and you should be able to share your mouse, keyboard, screens, storage, and other USB peripherals; That's cool and worth doing and new. That starts to blur the boundaries of what a conventional computer is, draws outside the box of the typical system design. It sounds like an applicationized usb-ip. It sounds like shit MediaTek was trying to make protocols for 9 years ago, CrossMount, https://www.eetimes.com/why-mediatek-pushes-cross-device-sharing/ https://www.eetimes.com/why-mediatek-pushes-cross-device-sha...

kristopolous 2y ago

I remember doing this over null modem db9 serial with Windows kernel programming over 20 years ago. I'm suspecting there were almost always instrumentation available, albeit not the most user friendly

DaiPlusPlus 2y ago
Windows has supported user-friendly file-transfers using serial and parallel cables going back to Windows 95, under the name “Direct cable connection” - it is unrelated to WinDbg/KD debugging using a serial/USB/Firewire cable though. I use WinDbg over USB myself - I’m careful with the special A-to-A cable though: you can fry hardware with it.

retrochameleon 2y ago

What I would like are networked displays that make it trivial to throw something from one device onto a nearby display. Seamless switching, extending, and duplicating across the various displays.