# Future of operating systems



## JazzSinatra (Jul 20, 2019)

What do you think? Will Microsoft (possible Windows) and Linux based operating systems dominate market still in for example 20 years to future? Some technologies seems to last for ever (for example QWERTY).


----------



## Cthulhux (Jul 20, 2019)

I hope Linux implodes soon.

QWERTY is surely a technique that should have been replaced long ago, but our muscle memory has become used to it - and learning a layout that is only available on the minority of computers will probably not really improve your productivity at all.

Generally, however, the question should be whether computers with actual keyboards will still dominate in 20 years. And I am really afraid of the future here.


----------



## JazzSinatra (Jul 20, 2019)

Cthulhux said:


> I hope Linux implodes soon.
> 
> QWERTY is surely a technique that should have been replaced long ago, but our muscle memory has become used to it - and learning a layout that is only available on the minority of computers will probably not really improve your productivity at all.
> 
> Generally, however, the question should be whether computers with actual keyboards will still dominate in 20 years. And I am really afraid of the future here.


About the QWERTY, I recommend to read this:









						Dvorak keyboard layout - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				




"majority of key strokes to the home row, the Dvorak layout uses about 63% of the finger motion required by QWERTY, which is claimed to make the keyboard more ergonomic.[25] In fact, it has been estimated that during a typical 8-hour day a typist's fingers will travel 25 kilometers (16 mi) on a QWERTY keyboard and only 1.6 kilometers (1 mi) on a Dvorak keyboard.[citation needed] Because the Dvorak layout requires less finger motion from the typist compared to QWERTY, some users with repetitive strain injuries have reported that switching from QWERTY to Dvorak alleviated or even eliminated their repetitive strain injuries;[26][27] however, no scientific study has been conducted verifying this.[28]"

It’s strange how hard is to replace old tech, even if new one is objectively significantly better.


----------



## Cthulhux (Jul 20, 2019)

I am German, I need my umlauts, so Dvorak is out of the question here. I know that there are alternatives, like Colemak and Neo, but, again, I use a variety of (own and not own) computers, including smartphones, so I cannot make sure that all of them come with the particular layout. QWERTZ has it quirks.

(I guess we're drifting into off-topic though.)


----------



## JazzSinatra (Jul 20, 2019)

Cthulhux said:


> I am German, I need my umlauts, so Dvorak is out of the question here. I know that there are alternatives, like Colemak and Neo, but, again, I use a variety of (own and not own) computers, including smartphones, so I cannot make sure that all of them come with the particular layout. QWERTZ has it quirks.
> 
> (I guess we're drifting into off-topic though.)


We (finns) also use umlauts. There is also a version of Dvorak which has umlauts.  We also have own layout which is designed to write Finnish (DAS-layout) . Although neither Dvorak or DAS is widely used here.


----------



## CraigHB (Jul 20, 2019)

Man it would drive me nuts to switch keyboard layout.  But yeah, qwerty is pretty inefficient. 

I don't know about twenty years, that's probably not long enough to see any real change.  Fifty would be more like it.  Maybe direct brain to device interface by then. 

Though in twenty years we could see changes in the dominant products.  Whatever it is I hope it's not Linux, Windows, or Android.  None of those I think are particularly great.  Linux does seem like it's on the fast track to implosion.


----------



## drhowarddrfine (Jul 20, 2019)

Microsoft is already inserting their influence on Linux and, if MS manages to stay afloat, will completely absorb Linux to where it is offered as an alternative--if not a replacement--for Windows. Even Linux users, who already praise Microsoft for where they've absorbed Linux and inserted Microsoft products, will buy "Microsoft Linux" and shun all the current options. This absorption by Microsoft has already started and, I suspect, "Microsoft Linux" will be introduced in five to 10 years.

But I don't care. I'll be running FreeBSD and don't need to be told how to think, what to use and how to use it.


----------



## Crivens (Jul 20, 2019)

Somehow the idea that MS office is being welded to systemd one day in the future is making me grin. Not in a friendly way, mind you.


----------



## rigoletto@ (Jul 20, 2019)

Cthulhux said:


> I am German, I need my umlauts, so Dvorak is out of the question here. I know that there are alternatives, like Colemak and Neo, but, again, I use a variety of (own and not own) computers, including smartphones, so I cannot make sure that all of them come with the particular layout. QWERTZ has it quirks.
> 
> (I guess we're drifting into off-topic though.)



We still have these languages with complex modified latin alphabet like Czech, Polish, Turkish, and non-latin like Greek, all languages based on Cyrillic, Chinese, Japanese, Hindi and many others to Dvorak and similars are completelly no-go.


----------



## getopt (Jul 20, 2019)

Niels Bohr said:
			
		

> Prediction is very difficult, specially if it is about the future.


There is no reliable Pythia and never was, except in the story telling of the Ancient Greeks. So what to "think"?

I think you need a model before attempting to predict anything and "20 years" would be no serious parameter.

But that does not stop humans to waffle about the future. It does tell you nothing about the future but a lot about the people who cannot hold on. The rest is entertainment and the betting business.

QUERTY is no technology. It is a design of a keyboard. The technology of keyboards changed from mechanical to electromechanical. Using sensors for keyboards is another technology.


----------



## xtremae (Jul 20, 2019)

Unless there is a breakthrough to accelerate mass adoption of an alternative computation paradigm (quantum, carbon nanotubes, or something else) trends will largely remain the same. Assuming this forum and I exist in 20 years, I will come back to evaluate my prediction.


----------



## Crivens (Jul 20, 2019)

In the beginning, one computer could only run one program. Then one at a time. Then many at a time.
Virtual memory and syscalls were invented to give a program the idea it would be alone on a computer. And programs got more complex. Now we have containers where a program simulates a dedicated machine which provides virtual address spaces to programs. I have no idea how the next shell of the matroshka is going to be painted.


----------



## xtremae (Jul 20, 2019)

Crivens Maybe something like google's fuchsia that implements containers as a natively developed first class citizen instead of an add-on. Combined with the fact that it uses a microkernel, you can contain much more than just applications and services. In fact a filesystem in fuchsia is just another service. For better or worse, things evolve in interesting ways.


----------



## kpedersen (Jul 20, 2019)

My prediction is not entirely positive and I reckon consumer operating systems (i.e 99%) will be extremely locked down with very little but a web browser by default. You will then be tied to "app stores" where you can only install and run "signed software" (basically with a strict DRM).
Development tools will be web based where you need to pay a subscription to access them and then pay another subscription monthly to allow your hardware to execute and debug provisionally signed applications.
The main alternative to this app store approach will be streaming applications, particularly games and videos so you will be very dependent on an internet connection. Again development tools will be completely web based and you will not be able to host the streaming servers yourself.
And the funny thing is that consumers will be fine with this. They will have been told it is for their "safety" and only bad people such as pedophiles need to use "open platforms" XD.
Consumers will get quite used to seeing adverts on their desktops and possibly pay a subscription for reducing the number of adverts as part of the "premium" offering.

None of these schemes are new. Android, Microsoft and Apple are individually doing parts of it. If one company ends up being dominant, then they will probably tie all these lock-down mechanisms together into one terrible experience.
This is obviously not sustainable so a new locked down platform will appear every few decades, do largely the same sort of crap and then disappear again creating a cycle of "non-innovation" and OS development will stagnate for hundreds of years.


----------



## Phishfry (Jul 20, 2019)

getopt said:


> Using sensors for keyboards is another technology.











						How you and your friends can play a video game together using only your minds
					

UW researchers created a method for two people help a third person solve a task using only their minds.



					www.washington.edu
				



I think pre-cogs are in our future. Philip Dick wrote Minority Report in 1956.
We already have pre-crime where we detain people before they commit a crime. (some after being duped by state agents)


----------



## Deleted member 9563 (Jul 20, 2019)

I would tend to agree with kpedersen regarding consumer operating systems. The future is not looking good.

The Operating System landscape is much broader than what the consumer is directly exposed to though. I think that some of the basic standards for computing and commutations will not fade so readily for those of us who take a more hands-on approach. We don't necessarily have to follow the market for all our purposes and there will be alternative avenues for us to explore for quite some time.

But in any case, when it comes to Operating Systems in general, the current landscape is not just what it may seem. The joke in 2017 that this was the year of Minix on the desktop was more than just funny - it was a heads up that we're not just running one OS at any one time. Operating Systems are used in various situations for different purposes, and consumer level Operating Systems are only a part of the picture.


----------



## Phishfry (Jul 20, 2019)

And any Intel CPU with vPro is running Minix underneath. So FreeBSD under Minix. Just not visible to the end user.








						The Truth About the Intel's Hidden Minix OS and Security Concerns
					

If you have an Intel-chipset based motherboard, there are great chances it is equipped with the Intel Management (Intel ME) unit. This is not new. And concerns regarding the privacy issue behind that little know feature were raised for several years. But suddenly, the blogosphere seems to have...




					itsfoss.com


----------



## ralphbsz (Jul 21, 2019)

JazzSinatra said:


> Will Microsoft (possible Windows) and Linux based operating systems dominate market ...


You seem to assume that there is going to be an OS market, namely a place with buyers and sellers. That is already getting to be untrue. The vast majority of all computers in the world run an OS that the user never paid for directly. If you look at server machines, the vast majority run Linux, which is (by construction) free. If you look at desktop clients, the vast majority run Windows, but most didn't actually buy it, it came "free" with the purchase of the hardware, which means that the end user didn't have a choice, instead the hardware vendor (HP, Acer, ...) gave a small amount to Microsoft. The second largest desktop OS (MacOS) is by construction free, but only to people who have purchased Mac hardware. Of the people who re-install OSes that can be bought (nearly always Windows), the bulk do not actually pay for the copy, but install either free student copies (Windows is free for high school and college students), or use pirated copies. Then there is the mobile market (a large fraction of all computers in the world are mobile), but there you don't even have a choice of OS, nor can you purchase one: If you have an iPhone, you get your free iOS, and otherwise you get your free Android, end of discussion.

Your question should be: Will Microsoft and Linux dominate OS development? In the case of Linux, I'm sure that for the next 20 or so years it will be the most common OS for servers, or something derived from it. There is such a huge investment in it. In the case of Windows for servers (which still exists), I have my doubts; with Microsoft switching to a Linux base underneath their Azure cloud windows instances, that seems to be the end. I think desktop computing will become irrelevant, as we are going to go to a mobile-only cloud-based world, with the operating systems being iOS, Android, ChromeOS (which is now Linux-based), and so on.



Cthulhux said:


> I hope Linux implodes soon.


Why? It is a very good solution for many problems. For example, every single supercomputer on the Top500 list runs Linux. The vast majority of all servers in the world run Linux (the fraction is probably near 100% among the FAANG and cloud companies, with the notable exception of MS Azure).

Do I like to personally administer Linux? No. But I accept that it works really well, and I use dozens or hundreds of Linux machines, pretty successfully.



CraigHB said:


> Whatever it is I hope it's not Linux, Windows, or Android.  None of those I think are particularly great.


Why not? The fact that they solve people's problems more efficiently than the alternatives demonstrate that they are better than other options. If we assume that computer users are rational, then we have to conclude that the tools they use are the best tools available. And since Linux, Windows and Android are leaders in the market place, they must be the best available OSes, QED. You may not personally like them, and that's your choice: you don't have to use them.



> Linux does seem like it's on the fast track to implosion.


I think it's rather on the fast track to world domination.



drhowarddrfine said:


> Even Linux users, who already praise Microsoft for where they've absorbed Linux and inserted Microsoft products, ...


I don't think you mean "Linux users". I think you mean "Linux evangelists and clueless people in the blogosphere". Who are the real Linux users? They are the CIOs of companies that decide which OS to run; they are the technical people running supercomputers with hundreds of thousands of nodes, and clouds with millions of nodes. These are the folks who make decisions about whether and how to use Linux. And I'm quite sure you haven't heard any of them praise Microsoft products. Not because they dislike Microsoft, but because they tend to not speak in public.

Do not confuse the press and internet chatter with decision makers.


----------



## JazzSinatra (Jul 21, 2019)

ralphbsz said:


> You seem to assume that there is going to be an OS market


Well, the market is wider term than just what can be bought. Even if all the products are free, there is still a market between products.


----------



## Birdy (Jul 21, 2019)

What is going to be the 'operating system' of the future?


----------



## Hakaba (Jul 21, 2019)

My prediction:
Multics / terminal / ...
One computer for several user.

Windows / Atari / Linux (as a deep configurable OS) / Mac Os
One computer for one user*

iOS / Androïd / smart car, smart TV / smart whatyouwant :
Several computer for one user.

My prediction then :
Several computers for several users

The cost of hardware and the cost of OS is very low. The «cloud» has all you need to restore your information everywhere. Why a consumer will use a smartphone in a store if the store has multiple screen with the right information (check list in this use case) ?
A check list ordered to decrease the time passed in the store and a take and go tech to pay with no action... The client use store's computers to «digitalize» his experience and that right for all client.

In enterprise, (like Google) you will use a specific/optimized computer for a task and change the computer for another task. As an exemple, if you make a presentation, you will use the smart TV that can read your powerpoint/keynote/... Despite using you laptop and try to find a USB3/HDMI adaptator.

*even if it's possible to use the same computer for more users, the usage is not here. In all my recent job, the company propose one computer per employee... The computer is linked to AD and the hard drive is locked (encrypted) with one password...


----------



## JazzSinatra (Jul 21, 2019)

Birdy said:


> What is going to be the 'operating system' of the future?


Not the topic of this thread, but I have to say that I mostly hate Quora, because there are so many popular answers that are plainly wrong. Often the right answer is not the top answer and also, Quora is often very US centric.


----------



## drhowarddrfine (Jul 21, 2019)

ralphbsz Yes. I mean the countless hobbyists on hobbyist forums like reddit and other sinkholes where today's fact was yesterday's headline or advertisement.


----------



## drhowarddrfine (Jul 21, 2019)

JazzSinatra Yeah, Quora used to be pretty good, and there are some pretty authoritative and good questions and replies still there but, like Stack Overflow, it became popular and now you get so many questions and answers by some of the dumbest people on the planet--mostly redditors--that it's no longer worth visiting.


----------



## ronaldlees (Jul 21, 2019)

Cthulhux said:


> I hope Linux implodes soon.
> 
> QWERTY is surely a technique that should have been replaced long ago, but our muscle memory has become used to it - and learning a layout that is only available on the minority of computers will probably not really improve your productivity at all.
> 
> Generally, however, the question should be whether computers with actual keyboards will still dominate in 20 years. And I am really afraid of the future here.



Good reason to be afraid: the Mind/Machine interface is the siren's seduction for the Singularity.


----------



## malavon (Jul 21, 2019)

Contrary to a few I don't see things as bleak.
IT has always had a tendency to cycle, especially regarding freedom and centralization. OSes are not different in this regard.
In the past we've had mainframes, proprietary Unix systems and eventually mini servers (still huge to today's standards). Yet, I'd wager most of you aren't running AIX right now, or AT&T Unix.
You're on the FreeBSD forums, so I suppose you have at least one FreeBSD system out there. Possibly some Linux systems as well. These OSes were born out of one of the cycle of proprietary systems, 
big centralized mainframes from the 90's and before. There has been an age of freedom and decentralization, now there's an age of appropriation and centralization coming. It has already begun.
Amazon, Apple, Google and Microsoft have pushed towards centralization and proprietary OSes. Clouds, App Stores, "free" software (at the cost of ones soul) and much more has become mainstream.

That doesn't mean the free OSes will all suddenly perish, but they will get less popular and a few will be eventually appropriated into more-or-less proprietary systems. Android is one of these, Mac OS/IOS
another. Linux certainly looks like it may get transformed into one of these entirely as well, but it's hard to predict the future. For all we know eventually one of the BSDs will suffer the same fate.

Many of the great accomplishments in the computer world have been payed for by companies. BSD and Linux systems were inspired by the Unix ancestors. Plasma is inspired by the Windows GUI. 
The wave that has started will eventually turn into a wave of freedom and decentralization again. No matter what happens, the good ideas will survive in the form of really free software, the bad ones will 
perish along with the OS it came with. 

TL/DR: Companies will pay for new ideas, free software will take them over and do it better. Great times ahead!


----------



## toorski (Jul 21, 2019)

MS claims that C/C++ are too old, so their C#/F# and .Net framework are the better solutions for future development of new systems.
Why doesn't  MS show the world their new, more secured and robust: computer system, OS, WAN protocol and better networked services that can't be broken to, hacked or crashed? Maybe then I get blown away by C#/F# .Net and MSSQL 
Until then I'll stay with C, C++, Perl, Python, Postrgresql and csh,  because I'm too old and not too # to learn new things from MS - LOL


----------



## CraigHB (Jul 21, 2019)

Crivens said:


> Somehow the idea that MS office is being welded to systemd one day in the future is making me grin. Not in a friendly way, mind you.



Haha, that is a scary thought, isn't it.  Systemd is coming to get you, hide your valuables.

That is a good point, computing did start out centralized with mainframes and terminals.  Now we seem to be going back to that.  I think the centralized computing model is going to be here to stay.  I hate giving up the control a discrete workstation offers though.  And the internet is not perfectly reliable either.  

People seem to be willing to put up with service outages these days.  As an example I used to hate using cell phones because they had nowhere near the reliability of a land line.  Now the unreliability is considered acceptable and most people don't have land lines in their homes.  I finally gave mine up as well.


----------



## Deleted member 9563 (Jul 21, 2019)

CraigHB said:


> I think the centralized computing model is going to be here to stay.


To me, even the ubiquitous use of popular programs like MS-Word is a form of centralization. Even at this stage of development it's a rare person who has even a foggy idea of what a text file is, and is blissfully unaware of the practical complications they're involving when they insist on sending you a grocery list that's a thousand times more complicated than just a list. This thinking is everywhere now. Sometimes one cannot even participate without buying some product which is not even needed except to play along with the personal peccadilloes of the provider. (Telegram, I'm looking at you.) The bottom line is that commercial interests being forced on us more and more so that those of us with an interest in doing things our own way will be more and more marginalized, and there will be less interaction. 

The problem with the way things are going is that everything becomes multiple choice. You don't chose. They chose.

Email software will become multiple choice. A letter to mom? Click "mom", how are you I'm fine (click) miss you (click) ---> click send. Done. Except I'm wondering about the "click" part. The keyboard is being systematically elliminated from popular interfaces, and I suspect that the mouse will go the same way. Those of us who like a hands on approach will be completely left out of the mainstream and will have to fend for ourselves, possibly corralled into our own hidden network running old fashioned, long since non compatible, and frowned upon code.


----------



## fernandel (Jul 21, 2019)

It is difficult to predict but all depend of users. It is the same as the shoping centers which are closing now because people buying online, IMO also people who are working or worked in this centers. The same with OS but I think minority of the people still don't shoping online but buying in the local stores, including myself, they will use "exotic" OS too. like myself - DOS -> OS/2->Linux->FreeBSD!!
Maybe will be illegal to use opensource OS in the future? Looks like the future going this way...


----------



## kpedersen (Jul 22, 2019)

getopt said:


> Worrying about the future is the passion of those failing to live in the present.


Haha maybe so. Either way I staked my whole PhD on facilitating "digital preservation" and worrying about the future! XD


----------



## achix (Jul 22, 2019)

In the future, what runs in commercial clouds is what survives. I have said to my linux-fanboys here at work that the time will come that we will miss the old microsoft era. What comes with Linux/Cloud will be many times worse.


----------



## CraigHB (Jul 22, 2019)

OJ said:


> ...when they insist on sending you a grocery list that's a thousand times more complicated than just a list.



That seems to be one of the down sides of technology not only in computing, but consumer devices in general.  Things that should be simple can become overly complex.  The idea of technology is to free your time and provide a better quality of life.  Sometimes it does exactly the opposite. 

It's not unusual to see people having a hard time dealing with the technology that's supposed to make things easier.  It's actually a big complaint I have when dealing with customer service reps that don't have a good handle on the systems they're using. 

I don't think people are becoming more stupid or less skilled, I think the systems are getting too complex for the average person to deal with.  I think it's exacerbated by poor engineering which is another complaint I have.  The idea of user friendly and intuitive interfaces is becoming obsolete.


----------



## msplsh (Jul 22, 2019)

toorski said:


> Why doesn't  MS show the world their new, more secured and robust: computer system, OS, WAN protocol and better networked services that can't be broken to, hacked or crashed?



Because rewriting legacy code is a waste of time and money.


----------



## Crivens (Jul 22, 2019)

Keep in mind the diet anomaly. All these magazines which publish one OS... ahm diet after the other. Imagine even *one* would really work? They would all be out of business. NONE of them will really work.

The same goes for operating systems. Sell one that does everything and be broke the next year.


----------



## toorski (Jul 23, 2019)

_"LONDON (Reuters) - Permafrost at outposts in the Canadian Arctic is thawing 70 years earlier than predicted, an expedition has discovered, in the latest sign that the global climate crisis is accelerating even faster than scientists had feared. "
_ 
*The scientists cannot predict* weather patterns, in my region, for the upcoming months. How in the world can they detrmine or predict the correct rate of thawing ice in the Arctic or other places?

But, If the accelerated global warming will lead to ultimate meltdown of this planet due to our stupidity, then we deserve what we’ll get  - sooner or later. I’d be sad only about the other living things that will melt along with us, because of our sorry-ass progress.

But, if the accelerated global warming will lead to ultimate meltdown of this planet due to natural progression, then that’s fine with me too. There are billions of planetary systems and planets up there in the sky that are boiling hot, and they are doing just fine without us on top of them.

Until then, I’ll try to run FreeBSD as cewl as possible without causing too much damage to the surrounding Eco systems 



Crivens said:


> The same goes for operating systems. Sell one that does everything and be broke the next year.


And that’s a fact!
Everything and anything created and made my humans eventually breaks or can be destroyed, either by other humans or the nature. And that’s the nature of things on this planet.


----------



## Sevendogsbsd (Jul 23, 2019)

I prefer non-mainstream operating systems for my personal use. I also prefer them for enterprise use but in my line of work, I don't get to make those decisions...

I have always been a bit of a rebel and me using an open source OS is my way of veering off the beaten path.


----------



## olli@ (Jul 23, 2019)

There is no way to seriously predict technological changes 20 years into the future.

So let me just _guess_. Over the years, it will be less important what operating system you run. Ultimately, some day, your computer will just be a tool to access cloud services – no more, no less. Nobody will care about the operating system anymore. The trend has already started, and it's going to change the way we use computers considerably. It's the same as car sharing and autonomous driving – these are going to change the way we drive considerably.

Talking about technological progress … I invite you to look at the Wikipedia article “Technological singularity”. Even though it is only a hypothesis, it is very interesting to read. I tend to believe that the singularity will happen, the question is just when. Probably not within 20 years, but who knows … 20 years is a long time for technological advancements. Think about what we had (or did _not_ have) 20 years ago, compared to what we have today. And if you went back 30 or 40 years, it would feel like the stone age. So I don't _dare_ to imagine what kind of technology we will have in 30 or 40 years.

I just hope that, in the decades to come, humanity will use a sufficiently large part of its advancements for making sure that this planet will be worth living on.


----------



## kpedersen (Jul 23, 2019)

olli@ said:


> Think about what we had (or did _not_ have) 20 years ago, compared to what we have today.



Just looked at my oldest laptop still in use (my ol' trusty T23 Thinkpad from the year 2000) and realized the only thing that has changed in 20 years is that most web browsers now fail to run in 256MB of ram! XD

Other than clang replacing gcc, almost all of my personal software is almost identical! Perhaps I really am in need of a change...


----------



## PMc (Jul 23, 2019)

getopt said:


> _"LONDON (Reuters) - Permafrost at outposts in the Canadian Arctic is thawing 70 years earlier than predicted, an expedition has discovered, in the latest sign that the global climate crisis is accelerating even faster than scientists had feared. "_



Yeah, thats the kind of news Reuters will eagerly publish. There was another news recently, but that didn't make it to any newspapers:





						Icebreaker turned back encountering heavy ice in “ice-free” Arctic – Maritime Bulletin
					






					maritimebulletin.net
				






> Regarding the quality of predictions:



There is none. But much worse, research is no longer scientific. Research is now done to produce findings which are defined before the research is started.
And if those required findings cannot be produced, the whole untertaking will be silently droppend, as in this case - they obviousely didn't dare to ask ROSATOM for one of their ships to go ahead, and instead preferred to just cancel the "research" and put some couple of tens of millions spent into the gully.

(The other question that arises is: what are these scientists actually doing, if with all our satellites and measurements they are not able to gain proper data for the maritime conditions to expect, and instead rely on predictions "being told".)

I do not know what will finally come out of the climate rebalancing - I said that it is nonsense to burn all the fossile reserve fourty years ago, but nobody listened, as there was big money to be made from oil. Now, with "peak oil" having passed in 2012, things look different from an economic perspective.

But one thing I know for certain: the climate story is needed as the replacement for the US-USSR conflict that was in use until 1990: to keep the world in fear and anxiety. Because otherwise people might get a clue that they could manage their own crap even without a repressive government.

Wake up, Neo.


----------



## CraigHB (Jul 23, 2019)

Haha, always find the Matrix references humorous.  Anyway, I don't think things have changed all that much in some decades, basically we have better gadgets now.  We still do things pretty much the same now as we did then.

The media seems to thrive on the fear and uncertainty of doom.  It's what sells.  So yeah you do have to take those reports with a grain of salt.  Though after a century plus of industrial pollution you have to wonder what impact it's having.  Could be worse than we think, or not as bad.  I think the Great Pacific Garbage Patch says a lot about it.


----------



## Deleted member 9563 (Jul 23, 2019)

I'm sorry to be a troll, but the people who think that "technology" has advanced tremendously in the last 20 or 40 years are microfocused on a very small world. A much too small and personalized little world. Technology has barely moved ahead in those years. And I'm saying that as someone who has taken an active interest in computers and digital trends during that time.

It seems like society has redefined "technology" to mostly mean commercial iterations of the same ideas revolved around the concept of digital design. Yes, I see the immense value in that - eg improved optical design and other fields where computing power has made a difference. Computers gave us a historically important turning point, but we've got to look beyond our personal favorite toys and include the wider world of human technical development if we're going to talk history. I'm a big fan of the wheel, but I've long since stopped talking about the marvels that it has brought us. It's time to move on and take a wider view of technology.


----------



## kpedersen (Jul 23, 2019)

OJ said:


> I'm sorry to be a troll, but the people who think that "technology" has advanced tremendously in the last 20 or 40 years are microfocused on a very small world. A much too small and personalized little world. Technology has barely moved ahead in those years. And I'm saying that as someone who has taken an active interest in computers and digital trends during that time.



I actually agree. As I mentioned in my previous post, I am a little shocked at how little has changed. While yes, I am a little bit of a luddite in that I like the older way of doing things, nothing has truly managed to come and completely change how I use a computer. There has been lots of "stuff" happening in the last 20 years... but nothing that either excites me or has a big impact on my digital life.

This is speaking as a consumer. There have been some very good advances in medical hardware such as CT scanners etc.
It kinda suggests that consumer IT is really just mixing up the same old shite again and again and reselling it to the punters!


----------



## Sevendogsbsd (Jul 23, 2019)

Agree mostly: consumer grade operating systems have gotten much better in terms of lessening the hoops a user has to jump through to get them running, and keep them running. I remember Windows 3.11 and the memory issues it had: lots of software and configurations out there to manage its memory because the OS was incapable of doing so. As much as I hate saying so, Windows has gotten "better". Man, that leaves a bad taste in my mouth 

Most OS's (open source and proprietary) are stable and easy to install and use nowadays. So those are I think, advancements. Incremental perhaps but I think things are better now than they were in the early 90's.

I have to also remember that I live in tech 24x7 so I am completely comfortable with what other "mainstream" folks might consider rocket science. We all here probably fit in that boat I am guessing...


----------



## kpedersen (Jul 23, 2019)

Sevendogsbsd said:


> As much as I hate saying so, Windows has gotten "better". Man, that leaves a bad taste in my mouth



Hehe. In my experience Windows has actually gotten more fiddly. For example the following task I had to do the other day.

Install activation patch failed, Windows defender flagged it up as a "virus".
Disable Windows defender using group policy failed
Disable Windows defender using registry entry failed
Turns out Windows defender now has a "anti-tamper" switch that has no command line equivalent. I switched this and defender could then be disabled
Install activation patch.
Now Windows 3.1 didn't have fake antivirus unlike Windows 10. It didn't even need activation 
It seems that unless you do consumer tasks on Windows... it is getting much harder to use for some of the more technical tasks. More hoops to jump through. Microsoft calls this "security" but we know for a fact UNIX is more secure and yet doesn't need this 

Edit: For the record, I have hundreds of Windows licenses. In fact, I cannot get Microsoft to stop chucking them at me. However I choose to use an offline activation "patch" because I refuse to interact with any kind of DRM. AFAIK in England this is still legal (for now).


----------



## Sevendogsbsd (Jul 24, 2019)

kpedersen said:


> Hehe. In my experience Windows has actually gotten more fiddly. For example the following task I had to do the other day.
> 
> Install activation patch failed, Windows defender flagged it up as a "virus".
> Disable Windows defender using group policy failed
> ...



I agree: Microsoft has complete botched the patching process for Windows 10. I have to reboot my work laptop up to 3 or 4 times on patch Tuesday because Microsoft has not figured out how to chain updates. All other OS's I have used chain updates together and only have the end user bounce the machine once, if at all. Pretty sad effort for a billion dollar software company if you ask me.

Don't even get me started on how many gotchas there are in the UI...I don't like the DRM either, which is yet another reason why Windows is not my primary OS


----------



## Deleted member 9563 (Jul 24, 2019)

Sevendogsbsd said:


> Pretty sad effort for a billion dollar software company if you ask me.


If they were a software company they would have fixed many things. They haven't, and they won't. No, it is wrong to call Microsoft a software company. Regardless of the fact that they do indeed produce some software, they have made their money on the management of legal matters and that is their real business. To drive in that point I would suggest that if their software department was closed down they would still remain in business for some time. But if their legal department disappeared, the company  would be gone overnight.


----------



## CraigHB (Jul 24, 2019)

Totally agree that Windows is becoming harder to use.  You really have to jump through some hoops to manage certain things.  Linux may or may not be on a path to implosion, but I think Windows definitely is.  Counting on FreeBSD to remain a shelter in the storm.


----------



## Birdy (Jul 24, 2019)

The Man Who Could Have Been Bill Gates


----------



## bookwormep (Aug 9, 2019)

I have read about "Quantum Computing" and how it has improved encryption/decryption. Some say 
that this is 'the future of computing'.


----------



## ralphbsz (Aug 9, 2019)

So far, quantum computing has not done anything, other than absorb an enormous amount of research funding. There is no prospect of it actually decrypting anything for many years. It won't be the "future of computing" for at least a decade. I'll probably retire from computers as a profession in about 10 years, so I'm not worried.


----------



## Crivens (Aug 9, 2019)

One new problem with quantum computers: Some user may or may not be over quota.


----------



## Beastie (Aug 9, 2019)

To be or not to be, that is the question.


----------



## mvivirito (Aug 9, 2019)

I never thought about changing layouts for my keyboard. I could imagine that would be great for creating new neural pathways. I agree that it is not a technology per se but a configuration of a technology. 

As for the future of Operating systems. Its hard for me to imagine unix dying off. I think Neuralink will play a huge role in how things change in the future. My question is whether or not I want to be chipped. But I could imagine how productive and amazing It would be to interface with my machines via mind alone.


----------



## CraigHB (Aug 9, 2019)

Is there even a prototype quantum computer yet?  Could be a lot more than ten years.  A true quantum computer would rely on quantum states of atoms which is pretty far out technology. 

Quantum computing is such a buzz phrase at this point I have a feeling the term will be used loosely in the near future. For example electrical pathways in processor chips are down to a small number of atoms in width at this point.  Going still smaller could be called quantum, though not in the sense of a true quantum computer.


----------



## CraigHB (Aug 9, 2019)

mvivirito said:


> But I could imagine how productive and amazing It would be to interface with my machines via mind alone.



I'd do it.  Could you imagine the power of your brain if it had a direct computer interface.  That's one of those far out sci-fi ideas I think could become reality.  Though for it to happen medical science still needs to learn a hell of lot more about the human brain.


----------



## garry (Aug 9, 2019)

JazzSinatra said:


> .....Will Microsoft...and Linux...operating systems dominate market ... 20 years to future?


When I look outside the U.S., for example The Ivannikov Institute for System Programming of the Russian Academy of Sciences (that's long), I see work still being done on operating systems. In 20 years the U.S. will not dominate the world. E.g. the Russian Army is developing their own Linux-based system for their use; the Chinese telecom giant Huawei has developed their own mobile os to replace Google's Android, India has its own operating systems for computers (BOSS) and smartphones (Indus OS). In the U.S. Microsoft and IBM will swallow Linux making it Better for Social Networking and More Profitable for Big Tech, but in Russia, China, India they will be doing more fundamental work and there new operating systems will arise especially with a security focus, real-time performance, and applicability to hard science. The Wikileaks reporting of the CIA arsenal including malware, viruses, trojans, weaponized "zero day" exploits, malware remote control systems, repeated statements from the U.S. Attorney General and Congressmen that strong cryptography in personal devices and computers may no longer be tolerated, and exposure of CIA hacking of French political parties and candidates in their 2012 election have greatly motivated the rest of the world to step away from using U.S. controlled software.  So Microsoft/Linux will *not* dominate the world 20 years in the future, but for all I know its use may be mandatory in the U.S.


----------



## PMc (Aug 9, 2019)

CraigHB said:


> Is there even a prototype quantum computer yet?







__





						IBM Quantum Experience - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## ralphbsz (Aug 9, 2019)

CraigHB said:


> Is there even a prototype quantum computer yet?  Could be a lot more than ten years.  A true quantum computer would rely on quantum states of atoms which is pretty far out technology.


Yes, there are several, of varying sizes.


----------



## rootbert (Aug 15, 2019)

and most importantly ... is FreeBSD dying? https://news.netcraft.com/archives/2019/08/15/august-2019-web-server-survey.html

I will always have a place in my heart for FreeBSD and will always be running on at least a VM. I am sure it won't die but being degraded to a hobbyists OS is not what it deserves, and I somehow fear this could happen if its market share decreases further. - no corporate donations and thus fewer users interested because there are no job offers and it does not seem like a professional OS...

god bless we dont have as many changes and innovations as Linux which are obsolete one major release after, but still I think in some areas FreeBSD lacks manpower and innovation (no critics, just my thoughts of our situation)


----------



## getopt (Aug 16, 2019)

rootbert said:


> and it does not seem like a professional OS...


which is just an unprofessional opinion and somehow sacrilegious to write that here.
And again presenting the link to and most importantly ... is FreeBSD dying? has caused anger more than once here on the forums and to intervention and locking of the thread.


----------



## rootbert (Aug 16, 2019)

you probably misunderstood my sentence, sorry for that but english is not my mother tongue. should read as "thus fewer users because they think it is not a professional OS cause it lacks corporate support/funding". this is not my opinion but I know many people think this way...


----------



## Deleted member 9563 (Aug 16, 2019)

What does an OS need to be "professional"? My unprofessional opinion is that any OS that integrates a GUI is not suitable for serious computer users and is actually aimed below the hobbyist level. That said, I might lower my standards if I had to forego my amateur status.


----------



## getopt (Aug 16, 2019)

rootbert said:


> this is not my opinion but I know many people think this way...


This is a classical double bind Viennese Schmäh. I'd suggest ignoring for lacking relevance.


----------



## CraigHB (Aug 16, 2019)

In my experience hobbyist oriented products tend to be better.  Products from companies looking to make money on them with paid employees and greater market share don't always benefit from that in a good way.

Whatever the case as long as development for FreeBSD stays healthy that's all I care about.  I think that's where promotion for FreeBSD is of most importance, getting people involved with the project.


----------



## Crivens (Aug 16, 2019)

Let's just say that cars did not kill all horses and I'd guess we have more horses today as we would have now without cars.


----------



## Beastie7 (Aug 16, 2019)

OJ said:


> What does an OS need to be "professional"? My unprofessional opinion is that any OS that integrates a GUI is not suitable for serious computer users and is actually aimed below the hobbyist level. That said, I might lower my standards if I had to forego my amateur status.



I believe back in the earlier AT&T UNIX days the command line was used for all sorts of business productivity work. Just take a look at the old bell labs UNIX archives, for example. However, I imagine it would be archaic to get any graphical related work done in a textual environment. That's where the GUI shines.


----------



## CraigHB (Aug 16, 2019)

Crivens said:


> Let's just say that cars did not kill all horses and I'd guess we have more horses today as we would have now without cars.



And horses are beautiful animals worthy of keeping even if you don't need them to pull a wagon or plow a field.



Beastie7 said:


> However, I imagine it would be archaic to get any graphical related work done in a textual environment. That's where the GUI shines.



At the application level most of the stuff you use with other systems is available on FreeBSD.  The option is often there for an X app that runs GUI based.  What's left in terms of GUI versus command line is system configuration.  With FreeBSD I've not found anything I could not do without too much trouble on the command line or within a text editor.

In comparison to something like Windows where virtually all system config is GUI driven, yes it is a bit more convenient and saves some typing, but it's not something I would consider a defining factor in terms of good or bad or hobbyist versus professional.  In most instances I actually prefer the FreeBSD command line way over the Windows GUI way of handling system configuration.


----------



## Deleted member 9563 (Aug 16, 2019)

Beastie7 said:


> I believe back in the earlier AT&T UNIX days the command line was used for all sorts of business productivity work. Just take a look at the old bell labs UNIX archives, for example. However, I imagine it would be archaic to get any graphical related work done in a textual environment. That's where the GUI shines.


I didn't mean that one should not use a GUI, but rather tying the underlying OS into a GUI is a poor idea. They should be separate and users should have choices. An "OS" that is not configurable in that regard is unprofessional in my opinion.

As for productivity, yes work was being done in a text based environment before. Business productivity is actually not about being productive but is simply a fashion statement. A document typed in a text editor and sent to a daisy wheel printer is perfectly readable. But  yeah, for sure, there is no way you can tell people that. They simply don't believe it.


----------



## kpedersen (Aug 16, 2019)

Beastie7 said:


> I believe back in the earlier AT&T UNIX days the command line was used for all sorts of business productivity work. Just take a look at the old bell labs UNIX archives



One area where people keep citing the GUI being useful is office applications like Microsoft Word.
However the difference in efficiency between a research paper done in Word and one done in LaTeX is very clear.
The people using Word *think* it is easier but keeping all references in sync is actually very time consuming (and error prone) for them. The papers written in LaTeX are often of a better quality.

GUIs are possibly nicer to use and give a better experience (especially for non-techies) but they often much less efficient. What is particularly anoying is that heavy GUI proponents have never really used the CLI and almost religiously argue against it. It has taken all these years for Microsoft to finally admit this and start improving their command prompt for example.

But yes, I agree with you, photo editing, 3D modelling, CAD etc is possibly not even feasible without some visual aid (though I actually don't think a GUI is the perfect solution here either; I am more thinking akin to Plan 9's mix of text as part of the graphics).


----------



## rootbert (Aug 17, 2019)

FreeBSD is not only of my personal interest, I do earn bread and butter with it. So far I have had only a few projects where I needed Linux: mostly for java projects, some performance critical stuff and HAstuff/clusterfilesystem. However, no one asks when choosing Linux (remembers me of "no one ever got fired for choosing Microsoft/IBM/Oracle..."), whereas my first choice is always BSD, but  I have had to come up with good reasons. IMHO it is a bit sad that quite a few of my clients have never heard of it and thus I need to justify though it can be funny because the people I am talking to are mostly without a technical background aka decision makers so when it comes to the technical part of the decision, ultimately the number of CVEs per year is what is probably one of the heavyweight reasons for choosing BSD (also one reason for me of course).

Contrary, for some projects my expertise was not accepted with the reason "if you die, getting (company) support for those unknown systems might be hard. We choose Linux as lots of companies offer support."


----------



## CraigHB (Aug 17, 2019)

kpedersen said:


> It has taken all these years for Microsoft to finally admit this and start improving their command prompt for example.



They've actually done a lot there, most things you can do on a Unix command line you can do in Powershell.  Though they seem to have gone out of their way to make things difficult.  The commands are tediously long, non-synonymous, and difficult to remember, the opposite of a Unix command line.


----------



## Beastie7 (Aug 17, 2019)

CraigHB said:


> And horses are beautiful animals worthy of keeping even if you don't need them to pull a wagon or plow a field.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Agreed. That's why I've come to like simple WMs rather than full on DEs nowadays. You get a fair mix of efficiency for desktop administration and the choice of UI intuitiveness for graphical apps if needed. I've been keeping a close eye on the DRM/X/Mesa3d ports for FreeBSD lately, and it's coming along nicely.


----------



## kpedersen (Aug 17, 2019)

CraigHB said:


> The commands are tediously long, non-synonymous, and difficult to remember, the opposite of a Unix command line.



Yes, it seems more useful for automation and scripting rather than actually using it interactively to do tasks.
It feels similar in some ways to Systemd/Linux where everything is actually very modular but nothing is very convenient to type anymore.
But again, Systemd's main goal seems to be to help binding the OS against a GUI such as Gnome rather than make the CLI a pleasant experience.


----------



## Crivens (Aug 17, 2019)

kpedersen 
CraigHB 
W.r.t. command lines - all who had the pleasure to work on VMS say HI!
And don't get me started on the DEC C compiler...


----------



## CraigHB (Aug 17, 2019)

I actually used VMS back in the days of DEC popularity.  I have to say it has one of the best command line interfaces of any system I've used.  The commands and options are highly synonymous, not too long, and easy to remember.  But unfortunately in this world being good usually does not mean popular.

I feel the same way about Pascal as a programming language.  I always found it really easy to use and easy to remember.  When C took over the world I got left behind.  Every time I learn something about C I forget it a week later.


----------



## kpedersen (Aug 17, 2019)

Crivens said:


> W.r.t. command lines - all who had the pleasure to work on VMS say HI!
> And don't get me started on the DEC C compiler...



I notice that VMS commands seemed to have more in common with DOS than UNIX. That said, it wasn't actually UNIX was it? It had a POSIX layer, had CDE and used / rather than '\' but that's about as close as it gets 

I remember we had an old Alpha in our UNIX group headquarters and when sitting at it it was so frustrating; It looked like a pretty decent CLI but... I didn't know how to actually get it to do anything. Nothing was quite the same as UNIX!


----------



## freq (Aug 17, 2019)

OJ said:


> I didn't mean that one should not use a GUI, but rather tying the underlying OS into a GUI is a poor idea. They should be separate and users should have choices. An "OS" that is not configurable in that regard is unprofessional in my opinion.
> 
> As for productivity, yes work was being done in a text based environment before. Business productivity is actually not about being productive but is simply a fashion statement. A document typed in a text editor and sent to a daisy wheel printer is perfectly readable. But  yeah, for sure, there is no way you can tell people that. They simply don't believe it.



The possible direction that companies are going in is - quantity over quality. Take a number and the next representative will be with you shortly.


----------



## Crivens (Aug 17, 2019)

CraigHB 
Yes, you needed to have someone tell you the idea behind VMS and the rest or you would not get anywhere. And everything was different. But I also have a soft spot for pascal and it's siblings. Bugs are usually of the "why does it..." kind, not the "why crashed it here?" type.


----------



## ralphbsz (Aug 18, 2019)

CraigHB said:


> I actually used VMS back in the days of DEC popularity.  ... But unfortunately in this world being good usually does not mean popular.


VMS was very popular in its day (the late 70s to late 80s); probably the second most common operating system (after MVS, which ran on mainframes). In those days, Unix was a toy that was used by computer science researchers at Universities and large corporate labs (Bell Labs, HP Labs, IBM research). What eventually killed VMS was not the operating system, but the fact that it was only available on one type of computer (the VAX), and that type of computer ended up not achieving world dominance. Instead, that trifurcated into mainframes (which continued to run MVS), RISC workstations and small servers (running various Unix flavors), and PCs (running DOS and Windows). You have to remember that the ability to run a version of Unix on a PC came relatively late, in the late 90s. By that point, VMS had missed the bus (even though it eventually was ported to a RISC machine). By the way, VMS is not dead; you can still buy it today from HP. You just have to get the somewhat rare hardware it runs on.



kpedersen said:


> That said, it wasn't actually UNIX was it? It had a POSIX layer, had CDE and used / rather than '\' but that's about as close as it gets


When VMS was popular, there was no POSIX yet. Being compatible with Unix was not seen as a necessity or a goal. If you wanted to run Unix on the same hardware, you could. Matter-of-fact, the VAX was the main machine on which various Unix flavors were developed (both at Bell Labs and at Berkeley). And later, when Digital had its own RISC machine (the Alpha, available in workstations and servers), they also sold a Unix flavor for it.

The other thing to remember is that VMS is really somewhat older than Unix; it was fully production-worthy in the late 70s, when Unix was mostly a research prototype.



> I remember we had an old Alpha in our UNIX group headquarters and when sitting at it it was so frustrating; It looked like a pretty decent CLI but... I didn't know how to actually get it to do anything. Nothing was quite the same as UNIX!


Did the Alpha run VMS, or did it run Digital's flavor of Unix (which at that time was proably called OSF/1 or Tru64)? I don't think I've ever logged into an OSF/1 machine. In those days, the differences between BSD and System/5 machines were quite significant, and things just didn't "feel right". So it could be that you actually logged into a Unix machine, and didn't know it because it was too unfamiliar.


----------



## kpedersen (Aug 18, 2019)

ralphbsz said:


> Did the Alpha run VMS, or did it run Digital's flavor of Unix



It was VMS. I think in particular it may have been OpenVMS but other than that I am not sure; I doubt even if I was sitting at the terminal now I would know how to find out . At the time it felt even more foreign to me than Plan 9.


----------



## CraigHB (Aug 18, 2019)

I was using DEC VMS on Alpha.  At the time they were very nice machines.  The Alpha processors were way more advanced than the PC processors of the era.  I really liked those machines, compile times for the project I was associated with were about four times faster than the PC cluster they replaced which was running SCO Unix.  That was one of the last of the Alphas and I'm glad I had the pleasure of using them, sorry to see them go.

And yeah, you had to go into a "VMS" mindset to use it, didn't have much in common with Unix.  It used its own conventions, didn't follow POSIX or anything.  At the time It didn't bother me much since I was still pretty new to Unix.  Now I might find myself getting frustrated with it as Unix (and GNU/Linux) is all I've used other than Windows in the last couple decades.


----------



## JazzSinatra (Aug 19, 2019)

kpedersen said:


> However the difference in efficiency between a research paper done in Word and one done in LaTeX is very clear.


Actually I did read couple of months ago a paper about this which claimed that using Microsoft Word reduced number of errors and increased productivity compared to LaTeX significantly. Although I personally prefer LaTeX in scientific writing.


----------



## mark_j (Aug 19, 2019)

Veering on to VMS:
The OpenVMS name is basically marketing - and I guess because of their adoption of Posix.

Alphaservers ran Windows NT (in workstation form), Tru64 (Dec Unix) and of course OpenVMS.

The actual OS is basically like Unix, the core is command line, the GUI is an added extra. The command line language is more structured than Unix, given you have a limited number of commands available in DCL (their shell). For example, convert a string to uppercase: 

`string=f$edit(old_string,"UCASE")` 

compared to Unix where you'd use an external to the shell program like TR, SED, AWK etc.

In later variations of OpenVMS they even introduced pipes: eg 

`PIPE SHOW MEM | SEA SYS$INPUT "Paged pool" /window=2`

which invokes pipe, executes SHOW MEMory and then it goes through SEArch via SYS$INPUT (stdin) to look for "Paged pool" .

You can also do everything as aliases, all commands can be abbreviated to their minimal unique length (eg SEA for SEARCH) and it has options for everything. You could create an alias such as:

`S*EA:=SEARCH /WIND=(4,6)/BEFORE=YEST/EXCLUDE=(*.TXT)/EXACT "string_to_search_for"`

 which means invoke search if the user type S (as a minimum) or SE or SEA and it would run the command SEARCH with the various options. FYI:
/WIND=(4,6)     - search output window 4 lines before, 6 lines after the matched string
/BEFORE=YEST - only files older than yesterday.
/EXCLUDE=(*.TXT) - you guess it!
/EXACT - an exact match.

The HELP is second to none. It destroys any other OS with its online HELP system which is fully adaptable - ie you can add additions to it, examples etc. If you've even seen their physical manual/documentation sets they are enormous and most of that is available in online HELP format.

It's a phenomenal system when you get to know it (and use it). Its clustering is second to none, its ability to shadow volumes, use distributed batch systems, load balancing etc was (and is) light-years ahead of most OS. You could (can?) even get the source code for it.

So, the reason it's not super-popular? Well DEC couldn't market water to a thristy camel. They were a bunch of engineers. They sold it off to Compaq (fire-sale!) who truly stalled its progress and eventually HP gobbled it up. Now HP have fobbed it off to a software vendor  who's attempting to re-write it for Intel AMD64. Maybe if they succeed it will live on.

The primary reason, though, is it's an old design and expensive. Once configured the auditing , accounting and security sub-systems can be a task to maintain. It's a hands-on OS where you need a System Administrator who can fix and tune the beast (especially complex clusters and galaxies and/or dynamic environments) and a lot of businesses don't want to pay that - they'd rather go for Microsoft because hardware is cheap, the OS is cheap.


----------



## drhowarddrfine (Aug 19, 2019)

JazzSinatra There was one well known article somewhere that says the opposite. That TeX or LaTeX was far more productive. A university produced a same comparison even more recently. I'll look to see if I have them bookmarked.

Book publishers still accept and prefer TeX or LaTeX over Word documents though that has changed as amateur writers only have Windows computers and, therefore, only take the time to know Word so publishers reluctantly allow it. One guy, who used to work for me, did all his write ups in LaTeX because there were occasions when we needed to send something out where they only had Word so it was easy for him to publish it as such--or a pdf, etc. We never used Word for anything else.

EDIT: I don't have the links. I'm sure they can be found online still if I tried to find them.


----------



## olli@ (Aug 19, 2019)

Well … With Word you get usable results very quickly, with (La)TeX you get excellent results, but it takes longer to learn.

Comparing Word with (La)TeX is somewhat difficult, because they actually serve different purposes. Word is a word processor, while (La)TeX is a tool for typesetting and desktop publishing.


----------



## kpedersen (Aug 19, 2019)

JazzSinatra said:


> Actually I did read couple of months ago a paper about this which claimed that using Microsoft Word reduced number of errors and increased productivity compared to LaTeX significantly. Although I personally prefer LaTeX in scientific writing.



Really? I would be interested in reading that (unless it is a Whitepaper from Microsoft )

Most of the time Word users can barely manage to keep to a consistent font haha


----------



## ralphbsz (Aug 19, 2019)

mark_j said:


> The actual OS is basically like Unix, ...


Except that it is nothing like Unix, except that both are accessed through a command line. The same is true of most other operating systems before the 80s, because graphics hardware was so rare, expensive and underpowered that a GUI was either impossible or impractical (sure, you could have bought a half-million $ Evans & Sutherland and built a GUI, but that would be silly).

Let's see, what's different in VMS? Process creation is very expensive, so the shell doesn't create a new process for commands, instead it runs them in the context of the shell. That's a reason why pipes weren't there originally either. The shell doesn't have IO redirect, but doesn't need it, because of no pipes. Instead, one used standardized IO redirects: Nearly every command has /INPUT=... and /OUTPUT=... options, which allow reading/writing files instead of pipes.

Networking was originally completely different: DECNet instead of TCP/IP. Totally different numbering and naming system, and tightly integrated into the shell. With that came the first fully functioning SAN/cluster/distributed file system (VAXcluster and local area cluster), at a time when Unix machines still had NFS with all its inconsistency and performance problem, which come from the fact that NFS has central servers.

The permissions model is different: Not 3 groups of 3 bits (user/group/other with read/write/execute), but four groups of four bits (the extra group is for system, and I forgot for what the extra bit was). With that comes an actual privilege model: Instead of a single root user (ID=0) which can do everything, all processes have privilege flags; one such privilege is to be the sys admin who can do certain things, another privilege is the ability to override file permissions, and so on.

Completely different way to specify file paths. Not /mountpoint/directory/otherdirectory/file, but mountpoint:[directory.oterdirectory]file.typ. Having a period in the name and a filetype is mandatory, in Unix it's just a convention. In practice, hardly anyone ever used explicit mountpoint names (they are actually disk drive names), but instead the admin defines system-wide aliases (called something like logical names), so the root disk is typically known as something like SYS$DISK:[dir.otherdir]..., and other disks might be DISK$MARKETING:... and DISK$ENGINEERING:...

The other gigantic difference is that the runtime privilege model is much richer. Unix only knows userspace and kernel. VMS has four levels; the one that really matters to user programming is that there are two levels for usermode programs, one for internals of the shell, the other for user programs. This is what allows the shell to run executables within its own process: it has memory protection.

And then the IO programming model is completely different. At its core, all IO is asynchronous, done by queueing IO onto things. Matter of fact, the basic IO system call is called QIO. Along with that goes a different model for asynchronous IO completion, which is the concept of the AST, an asynchronous completion routine. This is enabled by the CPU having a form of software interrupt which remains in user space, and is much lighter weight than hardware interrupts.


----------



## mark_j (Aug 20, 2019)

Yes all that, however, the comparisons talked about were in regard to command line. That's the similarity I was drawing with Unix and VMS. In reality they are nothing alike. I know, I administered and system programmed in it for over 20 years and still consult.
Swapping between the two can be a nightmare for the brain. You haven't even mentioned their file system, which is inherently a database with indexing built into RMS. Like I said, totally incomparable except it has a command line first, a GUI second.

And yes, process creation is a heavy task for OpenVMS, but the beauty of OpenVMS is its tautological ability for a process to be both a parent and a child. It has, lib$spawn (generic fork-like) /sys$creprc(set advanced privileges on a process) and even system() to create types of processes. The ability to continue a process (CONTINUE) that's been "killed" is something I miss with Unix-style vs OpenVMS.

It's use of descriptor arguments prevents many issues of buffer overflow that plagued unix years ago - a design concept in vms from the start (inherent in BLISS and MACRO as well as Fortran/C/Pascal). Some say security through under utilization but I'm not so sure. One example is the login service is made to lock users out after so many attempts. The beauty is if there's an attack under way it continues to present the login prompt while silently ignoring them; it doesn't even bother to consult the SYSUAF (the "passwd" file). It has built-in denial of service on services, even mini-firewalls for individual tcp/ip process so you can block ips from accessing SMTP for example. It's so old, so advanced, yet so behind the times.

Of course it has its down-sides. It's the anathema of the systemd designers who have the apparent goal of starting a system as fast as possible. Good old VMS likes sequential command files to start everything up. 
It's a much more locked down, secure system than any Unix-like system, even when compared to things like selinux. It's a pity more people aren't exposed to it.

It's been around for decades, when it was touted as a dinosaur back in the 90s. Yet, it still exists. That, to me, proves even the current crop of OS like Windows NN/*BSD/Linux/macOS will still be around many decades from now. I tend not to believe soothsayers.


----------



## CraigHB (Aug 25, 2019)

It's been so long I forgot most of what I ever learned about VMS.  Yeah it had some great features.  It was really well designed by the kind of engineers you don't see much anymore.  I was darn happy with it when we got the Alpha cluster and I felt the same way, ahead of its time both in hardware and software.  Enjoyed reading about it.


----------



## Birdy (Aug 25, 2019)

kpedersen said:


> Really? I would be interested in reading that (unless it is a Whitepaper from Microsoft )


This: article & the paper's reference - and rebuttal? EDIT: another rebuttal.


----------



## Crivens (Aug 25, 2019)

The Alpha running NT was a joke. For some reason, Windows has parts where the calling convention includes packed structs on the stack. So no function was sure if the pointers coming in were aligned. You know the Alpha did not like misaligned memory? At all? So the compiler had a switch to access all things as bytes.

Heise c't wrote back then that Microsoft had done the incredible to absorb the performance of that chip so the user would not be surprised by extremely fast system response.


----------



## MarcoB (Aug 31, 2019)

I still have a DEC PWS600au running OpenVMS 8.4 as we speak. You can get it for free with a hobbyist license. But the development of OpenVMS was transferred from HP to VMSSoftware Inc. so it's future and the hobbyist license is a little bit uncertain. Development is a bit slow and especially the network parts are outdated. On the upside VMS is currently being ported to Intel CPU's so they're definitely trying.


----------

