Future of operating systems

ralphbsz

Daemon

Reaction score: 1,269
Messages: 2,033

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.
 

mvivirito

Member

Reaction score: 13
Messages: 21

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

Well-Known Member

Reaction score: 87
Messages: 295

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

Well-Known Member

Reaction score: 87
Messages: 295

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

Member

Reaction score: 45
Messages: 55

.....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.
 

ralphbsz

Daemon

Reaction score: 1,269
Messages: 2,033

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

Member

Reaction score: 12
Messages: 71

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

Aspiring Daemon

Reaction score: 411
Messages: 609

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

Member

Reaction score: 12
Messages: 71

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...
 
  • Thanks
Reactions: OJ

OJ

Daemon

Reaction score: 382
Messages: 1,248

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. :)
 

CraigHB

Well-Known Member

Reaction score: 87
Messages: 295

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

Moderator
Staff member
Moderator

Reaction score: 1,000
Messages: 2,005

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

Well-Known Member

Reaction score: 170
Messages: 415

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

Well-Known Member

Reaction score: 87
Messages: 295

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.

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.
 

OJ

Daemon

Reaction score: 382
Messages: 1,248

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

Daemon

Reaction score: 585
Messages: 1,518

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

Member

Reaction score: 12
Messages: 71

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

Well-Known Member

Reaction score: 87
Messages: 295

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

Well-Known Member

Reaction score: 170
Messages: 415

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



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.
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

Daemon

Reaction score: 585
Messages: 1,518

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

Moderator
Staff member
Moderator

Reaction score: 1,000
Messages: 2,005

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...
 
Top