From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,b95a522100671708 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,UTF8 Path: g2news1.google.com!news2.google.com!proxad.net!213.200.89.82.MISMATCH!tiscali!newsfeed1.ip.tiscali.net!border2.nntp.ams.giganews.com!border1.nntp.ams.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!newsfeed.wirehub.nl!skynet.be!newspost001!tjb!not-for-mail Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2004 14:46:27 +0100 From: Adrien Plisson Reply-To: aplisson-news@stochastique.net User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax) X-Accept-Language: fr-be, fr, en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: For the AdaOS folks References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-ID: <41d011b6$0$320$ba620e4c@news.skynet.be> Organization: -= Belgacom Usenet Service =- NNTP-Posting-Host: f3b5e966.news.skynet.be X-Trace: 1104155063 news.skynet.be 320 80.200.106.174:10394 X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse@skynet.be Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:7234 Date: 2004-12-27T14:46:27+01:00 List-Id: Wes Groleau wrote: > or anyone else with similar ambitions. >=20 > Read "Kill the operating System" > page 32 of September 2003 Technology Review >=20 > Not a prescription, but something to think about. >=20 This is a nice article. he could also go a LOT further: most people are running PCs, a computer=20 architecture dating from an old age of computing. did anyone thought of=20 a newer architecture ? the interresting thing is : we can all think about it, but we also ARE=20 ABLE TO DO IT. the concept of applications working together has been=20 successfully treated (see Oberon ), the=20 concept of another way of organizing files has been implemented (see=20 TheBrain ), and many other new ideas already=20 exist that this article does not cover... so where is the problem ? why do we still use those weird old computing=20 standards when we could have much much more ? the answer is in the text: "Computing=E2=80=99s standard model owes its s= uccess=20 to the economics of the computer industry". people are investing in=20 development. they don't want to lose their investment, so they target=20 what is widely used: game vendors target the windows market, cobol=20 compiler vendors target the mainframe market... so we are in an infinite = loop: game vendors target windows because game players owns most windows = systems, but game players buys windows systems because it is easier to=20 find a good game running on windows. and what about macintosh owners ?=20 they CAN'T play recent games (quake II was released on macintosh only=20 when quake III came out on windows). we are stuck with this model until=20 someone is kind enough to take some risks. so do investors never take any risk ? yes they do. sometimes something really new, something revolutionnary=20 comes out. it exists for some time, then disappear (see BeOS). those=20 thing so not disappear because their ideas are bad, no. they disappear=20 because people don't want to change: they don't want to risk investing=20 in something new. they wait and see if it really is worth the=20 investment. so investors that invested in the develoment of the new=20 ideas don't get any return, the idea fails on the market, the investors=20 abandon the idea, the idea disappear. and then people say: "i was right not investing in this new idea: it=20 disappeared !". what they don't understand is that it disappeared=20 BECAUSE they did not invest in it. so how to change this ? how to get new ideas accepted by all ? this is=20 the real question to ask... --=20 rien