We are past the stage where the OS has become the virus

[mvanthoor]

Looking at the last two posts, there's an opportunity here: a web server that receives source code, a script, a way to automatically discover which OS you're running (e.g. from the web browser), and sends back compiled code.

In FreeBSD, the Ports system downloads source code, and compiles it locally. In the Linux world, Gentoo is one of the distro's that does this. That case you'll always have code compiled perfectly for your machine, running the fastest way possible. The downside is that installing a large application could take 5 hours.

[Ras]

The best hope going forward is that the desktop steadily diminishes in importance

Which it won't because the decreasing relative importance is due to the growth of smartphones and tablets - but these are devices for consuming content, not creating.

the keyboard becomes obsolete and the concept of the desktop changes (maybe the smart speaker with touch screen is the start of this

It's not like voice assistants had not yet been invented, after all, but smart speakers for an acoustic user interface would make offices pretty awful. Plus that monitors with tons of fingerprints are disgusting. Also, the human ergonomics are exactly the same today as they were last century because our bodies have not changed. People won't want a cramp in either their arm from constantly reaching out to the monitor, or in their neck from looking down on a table integrated screen. Not to mention that many countries have regulations on workspace ergonomics.

When you realise how powerful a cheap SOC is today in comparison to comparable technology from 1981 when the PC was launched, it seems reasonable to ask, "Why are we still using them?"

Because we don't work on 80x25 monochrome text screens with a single task OS anymore.

That snipe is unnecessary.

You argued that compiling was a hassle. All it takes is either clicking a build script, or right-click, open terminal, enter the make line. That's a few seconds more than just having the binary, i.e. nothing compared to stability tests, but also allows the compiler to optimise for your specific CPU. Sure I did notice the irony that Rust is more complicated because the build chain suffers from the inner platform effect.

The language develops so fast, with a release every 6 weeks, that Linux distributions can't keep up. Rust of two years ago is ancient history.

The point of LTS distros is exactly to escape from software with such release cycles and the usual fallout from that. RR distros can keep up - just use Arch, and your versions will be so current that their source code is still warm.

Yes, it's convenient for updating

And also for security because directly downloading binaries from all your software vendors has its own set of problems. Solarwinds anyone? That will take years to clean up.

The downside is that installing a large application could take 5 hours.

Yeah, for LibreOffice or Chromium, that wouldn't be too nice, but for chess engines, it's quite feasible, and chess engines are speed hungry applications. Only that this is already easy locally if you use an OS that usually comes with a compiler already pre-installed.

[towforce]

When you realise how powerful a cheap SOC is today in comparison to comparable technology from 1981 when the PC was launched, it seems reasonable to ask, "Why are we still using them?"

Because we don't work on 80x25 monochrome text screens with a single task OS anymore.

Indeed - and if the QWERTY keyboard was good enough in 1874, then there's absolutely no reason to question its usage today!

Maybe we'll still have the grid of switches (one for each letter and digit) as a major computer input device in another 147 years (2168)? Even if we do, please let Windows be gone by then!

To summarise the ways the world has changed:

* early PCs were heavy, had lots of components, cost thousands of dollars, and most people didn't have one (if they did, they probably only had one)

* today, an SOC costing just a few dollars (down to around $0.50 for the cheapest), are much more powerful than those early PCs, and have networking built in (in the 1980s if you wanted to be on the office network you had to buy a network card and fit it into a spare slot)

This bit of economics alone indicates a proliferation of different types of computer will occur. Here are some I have in my home now:

* toothbrush

* fitness trackers

* smart speaker

* smart speaker with display

* phones

* Chromebook

* TVs

* printers

* tablet computers

* car computers (entertainment, navigation etc)

I feel sure I've missed some, but that will do for now. Some of those devices (including Windows laptops) can already do text input via speech. In a world where SOCs are cheap (which they already are - including some very capable ones), thinking in terms of a single computing device, which must always run Windows, doesn't make sense to me.

[flok]

I feel sure I've missed some, but that will do for now. Some of those devices (including Windows laptops) can already do text input via speech. In a world where SOCs are cheap (which they already are - including some very capable ones), thinking in terms of a single computing device, which must always run Windows, doesn't make sense to me.

I'm starting to think I don't understand what you're writing.

Do you mean 'SOC' like a 'system on a chip'?
Don't these 'microsoft surface' units use a SOC? A SOC is only a thing that combines the functionality of several components into one.
From wikipedia on 'SOC's: "Intel Pentium Gold 4415Y, used in the Microsoft Surface Go".

So it doesn't even say if it is an arm of x86 cpu.

[towforce]

I feel sure I've missed some, but that will do for now. Some of those devices (including Windows laptops) can already do text input via speech. In a world where SOCs are cheap (which they already are - including some very capable ones), thinking in terms of a single computing device, which must always run Windows, doesn't make sense to me.

I'm starting to think I don't understand what you're writing.

Do you mean 'SOC' like a 'system on a chip'?
Don't these 'microsoft surface' units use a SOC? A SOC is only a thing that combines the functionality of several components into one.
From wikipedia on 'SOC's: "Intel Pentium Gold 4415Y, used in the Microsoft Surface Go".

So it doesn't even say if it is an arm of x86 cpu.

That's EXACTLY what I mean by SOC. The Intel Pentium Gold 4415Y is indeed an x86 device - link.

An SOC is more than just a bit of miniaturisation - it introduces the following important advances:

* incredibly low power consumption

* incredibly small size

* incredible amount of computer system (networking, GPU, multi-core processing, even TPUs for machine learning!)

* astonishingly low cost for all this capability in comparison to the recent past

For me, SOCs are therefore a game changer in computing: the rule today is that if you want a really powerful computer inside a device you manufacture, you can have one. For me, this makes it inevitable that it will change some long held conceptions about computing.

A time of change is a time of peril for people and companies with existing entrenched positions ("vested interests"). Here's what generally happens in software (and other markets):

* a leader emerges

* the leader tries to be all things to all people, and becomes bloaty

* a challenger comes along which is cheap and lean

* people move to the challenger

* the challenger then starts trying to be all things to all people and gets bloaty

...etc

My opinion: Windows is bloaty: it's ready to be taken down.

Edit: in my previous post, I KNEW I had forgotten an important device: game console.

[flok]

]That's EXACTLY what I mean by SOC. The Intel Pentium Gold 4415Y is indeed an x86 device - link.

An SOC is more than just a bit of miniaturisation - it introduces the following important advances:

* incredibly low power consumption

(...)

My opinion: Windows is bloaty: it's ready to be taken down.

Altough I agree that microsoft windows may "feel" a bit heavy (depending on what aspect you look at), but as it already runs on a soc - all is fine?

And (advocate for the devil speaking): linux may "feel" heavy/bloated as well when you install certain window managers on limited hardware.
But if you, like on the raspberry pi, just pick the default you'll be fine. I found it amazing how smooth things run on such a tiny device running from an SD-card even. Also with its root-filesystem on NFS (speaking about rpi2 here with the 100Mb ethernet which was connected to the USB of the rpi soc) it still worked really well (did not try a gui - I ran cutechess etc on a few rpi2 systems years ago). But, well, that's a different topic.

[towforce]

]That's EXACTLY what I mean by SOC. The Intel Pentium Gold 4415Y is indeed an x86 device - link.

An SOC is more than just a bit of miniaturisation - it introduces the following important advances:

* incredibly low power consumption

(...)

My opinion: Windows is bloaty: it's ready to be taken down.

Altough I agree that microsoft windows may "feel" a bit heavy (depending on what aspect you look at), but as it already runs on a soc - all is fine?

And (advocate for the devil speaking): linux may "feel" heavy/bloated as well when you install certain window managers on limited hardware.
But if you, like on the raspberry pi, just pick the default you'll be fine. I found it amazing how smooth things run on such a tiny device running from an SD-card even. Also with its root-filesystem on NFS (speaking about rpi2 here with the 100Mb ethernet which was connected to the USB of the rpi soc) it still worked really well (did not try a gui - I ran cutechess etc on a few rpi2 systems years ago). But, well, that's a different topic.

Well here's a recent Pi - link.

It uses an SOC (hence there's not much of it), and it costs £4.80.

That's worth repeating: it costs £4.80.

Oh - and you're not going to be running Windows on it!

Still think a computer should be a single device that meets all the needs of all possible users?

[Ras]

Indeed - and if the QWERTY keyboard was good enough in 1874, then there's absolutely no reason to question its usage today!

A keyboard is still the most efficient way to enter text. Sure, the layout could be changed, but that's a funny path dependency here so that it won't, even after the original mechanical reasons are long gone. Also, I don't think other layouts would actually provide that much value. So why is text even that important, why can't we just listen? Because we aren't an oral culture.

This bit of economics alone indicates a proliferation of different types of computer will occur. Here are some I have in my home now:

You know what's funny? I actively try to avoid as much of that as I can. That's because I'm a software engineer myself, and not just any kind of software, but embedded systems in particular (e.g. the CT800 which doesn't even have an operating system ).

And (advocate for the devil speaking): linux may "feel" heavy/bloated as well when you install certain window managers on limited hardware.

I was actually astonished by how well the current Linux Mint 20.1 with full blown Cinnamon desktop worked on a PC with Intel Core2 Duo, 2 GB RAM and HDD, i.e. a decommisioned low end machine from around 2009. This was only meant as testbed, with the hardware limitations in mind, so that the user could freely toy around with Linux before deciding whether to migrate the main machine - and it did take a happy penuin ending.

[Milos]

Well here's a recent Pi - link.

It uses an SOC (hence there's not much of it), and it costs £4.80.

That's worth repeating: it costs £4.80.

Oh - and you're not going to be running Windows on it!

Still think a computer should be a single device that meets all the needs of all possible users?

What a hell are you talking about???
There are ton Windows CE ports to Pi (just an example - https://archive.codeplex.com/?p=ceonpi). Unless you think Windows CE is not Windows?

[Milos]

As first hand experience in end user support (i.e. not counting my own machines), I can state that I stopped doing any kind of Windows support in my near family because Windows has become too much of a hassle. I offer going Linux and doing full support, or else letting them be on their own. Guess what, most took the offer and went Linux, and after the installation, the ongoing support work on my side is zilch. It's different for the minority who decided to stay on Windows - but that's not my problem anymore because other parts of the family take care of that, with considerably more-than-zero effort.

Now, that's 2020/2021. I would not have dared to make that kind of bet ten years ago because that would have backfired. I did suggest and support Windows 7 back then hands down. It was so good that I actually left Linux in 2010 in favour of Windows 7. Before, I already had Linux as only OS for nine years. That's how good Windows 7 was. However, Linux has become better, but even more so, Windows has become a lot worse ever after Windows 7, which was the best Windows of all times.

If you had asked me in 2019 what the best desktop OS was that I ever had, my answer would have been Windows 7. Ask me again now, and I'm split between Windows 7 and Linux Mint Cinnamon 20/20.1, but that's only because Windows 7 had proven its value over ten years while Mint has no such record yet. However, if Mint should continue like now, I'd rate it even above Windows 7.

I actually agree with most that you wrote. I am still running Win 7 on some home machines (and I don't care about security BS).
I'm certainly not really fond of Win 10, but still things can be managed and all MS crap and bloatware brought down to minimum. Ofc it requires an effort which regular users can't or don't want to invest. But then again switching to Linux from Windows also requires an effort for an average Joe, despite your experiences. Sure it is easier now than ever, but still not painless for most.