From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on inbox.vuxu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.1 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,HTML_MESSAGE,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Received: (qmail 29872 invoked from network); 4 Apr 2021 23:34:09 -0000 Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (45.79.103.53) by inbox.vuxu.org with ESMTPUTF8; 4 Apr 2021 23:34:09 -0000 Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id B049E9CA80; Mon, 5 Apr 2021 09:34:08 +1000 (AEST) Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C430E9CA5B; Mon, 5 Apr 2021 09:33:44 +1000 (AEST) Authentication-Results: minnie.tuhs.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key; unprotected) header.d=ccc.com header.i=@ccc.com header.b="rE0YB3Sl"; dkim-atps=neutral Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id 0C71C9CA5B; Mon, 5 Apr 2021 09:33:42 +1000 (AEST) Received: from mail-qt1-f180.google.com (mail-qt1-f180.google.com [209.85.160.180]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6D5589C883 for ; Mon, 5 Apr 2021 09:33:40 +1000 (AEST) Received: by mail-qt1-f180.google.com with SMTP id y2so7387178qtw.13 for ; Sun, 04 Apr 2021 16:33:40 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ccc.com; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=GUemp4ClpJqg2+u1HyJZtk/RdI9jzOPcUmY7n+EFutk=; b=rE0YB3SlWBJ+g4mbv5TMRWssGzQUJ377ub+aTfJuE2XojBCot6nJCEUFNQgfyhAToL k7H7qpf1l6LniLT07kIpX385B+7WkEWc/wrOv0oU6RTj1/K0p6tHXbfJWWoajiYk68oC 5DP2D1BZHsTN0bafGVAz/2Eng9f/i5rEXLKT0= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=GUemp4ClpJqg2+u1HyJZtk/RdI9jzOPcUmY7n+EFutk=; b=GhrOKA0/wPqHpdA0jANAiNnO9eKgHiPVjKq7NxxXIlBE1crRwSlIw6zM/H0t/p6RUX WbHSGqfxY6uaX+pH2/3E1PJNiyfhwcvPHoErX8X3E2JZ8Q2xMBkVTGZMJYCDzbehs230 PupijpJKyxmQCakRpuFS55WA/7uYX1c8G6cw4uJGf5BZ7RAMuILQbxIqm5s6tP+7EhG5 cm3gJ7luObGTDR7tjndy7kgvYs0MPZwamfDKe1zroIvqAMOuT8TVKoaNJmyL52DNv4E4 9YS0fDYb6YtvqRGbVhxpHdUxr84TsPKFuld/VBKPmuL+OQlZtsftvbjkuLeVI4CB2z95 KLeA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531X5jVJr1zyMLO6HUy/JCzie3B9TN3IxIc4pBv6XNxTX4CsZPFE hZgm+CPqN3T9PCF7jz76NYYxu3vnYI4mp31uyD7MyQYvNwozVUsX X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzZ0bKwno+1ZAUOzq81pPm8duOSvHrLtgTdsVhmetsazkW7sVKUI/rzm/Lpt2/T/6NXuY+aGB8BAgzPJNuAdLQ= X-Received: by 2002:ac8:6b01:: with SMTP id w1mr13322492qts.253.1617579219437; Sun, 04 Apr 2021 16:33:39 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <584DED5A-1226-4AF7-A191-C34CAFA53686@pobox.com> <20210404022356.GR28660@mcvoy.com> <20210404085520.GA6494@naleco.com> In-Reply-To: From: Clem Cole Date: Sun, 4 Apr 2021 19:33:13 -0400 Message-ID: To: Bakul Shah Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000c5588105bf2e0205" Subject: Re: [TUHS] Zombified SCO comes back from the dead, brings trial back to life against IBM X-BeenThere: tuhs@minnie.tuhs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26 Precedence: list List-Id: The Unix Heritage Society mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: TUHS main list Errors-To: tuhs-bounces@minnie.tuhs.org Sender: "TUHS" --000000000000c5588105bf2e0205 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sun, Apr 4, 2021 at 7:01 PM Bakul Shah wrote: > > > On Apr 4, 2021, at 3:25 PM, David Arnold wrote: > > For us UNIX historians, we need to be careful and learn from our own > history here -- the Cell Phone/Mobile target is the engine for the next > Christenian style disruption. It is by far the #1 target for people > writing new programs (which I find a little sad personally - but I > understand and accept -- time has marched on). In the end, a small mobil= e > target will be the tech on top, and available will be driven by market > behavior and those suppliers will be "who has the gold.=E2=80=9D > > > I feel I should point out that both the dominant mobile operating systems > are Unix-hased. The UI is necessarily new, but astonishingly the 50 year > old basic abstractions are the same. > > > Except Unix is kind of hard to see. It wasn't just the hierarchical file > system but the idea of composability. Even now we whip up a shell > "one-liners" to perform some task we just thought of. All that is lost. A= nd > not just on mobile devices. For example search through email messages for > something in an email "app". And no UI composability. We have to use > extremely heavyweight IDEs such as X-Code weighing at 15GB (even "du -s > /Application/X-code" takes tens of seconds!) to painstakingly construct a > UI. We can't just whip up a dashboard to measure & display some realtime > changing process/entity. There may be equally heavyweight third party too= ls > but there has been no Bell Labs like research crew to distill it down to > the essence of composable UI and ship it with every copy. The idea that > users too can learn to "program" if given the right tools. > Exactly my point. The only difference I suspect is I just don't bother with the IDE (Xcode or VS). Frankly, vi/emacs, or as we discussed a few days ago, ed is still way more preferable when I'm programming. I mentioned in another email Intel's new development suite - OneAPI. Absolutely speaking for myself here, I am a bit at odds with management WRT to much of it, as I feel the direction is a bit miss guided. But I do understand why Intel is doing it/trying. Everyone in the industry seems to be saying "use my Framework, my language, my solution and I will solve your problem." "You will sell more copies of the program if you use my portal, *etc*." Intel to compete, needs to do the same things. To me, it seems a bit like fairy dust - a promise that will work for a set of people, and of course, some firms like my own employer will keep making money (or in the words of the Dr. Sueuss Lorax character: "Biggering and Biggering." As I said in the previous message, it is driven by the other golden rule. What I always felt made UNIX powerful was that it did not seem like the BTL folks were trying to sell anything. They were trying to solve real problems they and the folks at AT&T had when it came to realistically building and deploying systems. Yes, there were hidden from the profit motive at the time because of the unique rules of the 1956 consent degree and we all were winners because of it because they say -- sure here you can use it too. Now that we are back to a winner take all market, (OSVM/360 *vs.* VMS *vs.* winders ...) I think we have traded away designing for the sake of getting the job done properly, for designing to sell as many as possible (*i.e.* be sexy and capture a market, not be simple and do the job well). --000000000000c5588105bf2e0205 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


On Sun, Apr 4, 2021 at 7:01 = PM Bakul Shah <bakul@iitbombay.or= g> wrote:


On Apr 4, 2021, at 3:25 PM, David Arnold <davida@pobox.com> wrote:
=C2=A0For us UNIX historians, we need t= o be careful and learn from our own history here -- the Cell Phone/Mobile t= arget is the engine for the next Christenian style disruption.=C2=A0 It is = by=C2=A0far the #1 target for people writing new programs (which I find a l= ittle sad personally - but I understand and accept -- time has marched on).= =C2=A0 In the end, a small mobile target will be the tech on top, and avail= able will be driven by market behavior and those suppliers will be "wh= o has the gold.=E2=80=9D

I feel I should point out that both the dominant m= obile operating systems are Unix-hased.=C2=A0 The UI is necessarily new, bu= t astonishingly the 50 year old basic abstractions are the same.

Except Unix is kind of hard to see. It wasn't just the hie= rarchical file system but the idea of composability. Even now we whip up a shell "one-liners= " to perform some task we just thought of. All that is lost. And not j= ust on mobile devices. For example search through email messages for someth= ing in an email "app". And no UI composability. We have to use ex= tremely heavyweight IDEs such as X-Code weighing at 15GB (even "du -s = /Application/X-code" takes tens of seconds!) to painstakingly construc= t a UI. We can't just whip up a dashboard to measure & display some= realtime changing process/entity. There may be equally heavyweight third p= arty tools but there has been no Bell Labs like research crew to distill it down to the essence of compo= sable UI and ship it with every copy. The idea that users too can le= arn to "program" if given the right tools.=C2=A0

Exactly my point.=C2=A0 T= he only difference I suspect is I just don't bother with the IDE (Xcode= or VS).=C2=A0 =C2=A0Frankly, vi/emacs, or as we discussed a few days ago, = ed is still way more preferable when I'm programming.

I menti= oned in another=C2=A0email Intel's new development suite - OneAPI.=C2= =A0 Absolutely speaking for myself here, I am a bit at odds with management= WRT to much of it, as I feel the=C2=A0direction is a bit miss guided.=C2= =A0 =C2=A0But I do understand why Intel is doing it/trying.=C2=A0 =C2=A0Eve= ryone in the industry seems to be saying "use my Framework, my languag= e, my solution and I will solve your problem."=C2=A0 "You will se= ll more copies of the program if you use my portal, etc."=C2=A0= =C2=A0Intel to compete, needs to do the same things.=C2=A0 =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0To me,=C2=A0i= t seems a=C2=A0bit like fairy dust - a promise that will work for a set of = people, and of course, some firms like my own employer will keep making mon= ey (or in the words of the Dr. Sueuss Lorax character: "Biggering and = Biggering."=C2=A0 =C2=A0As I said in the previous message, it is drive= n by the other golden rule.=C2=A0
What I always felt made UNIX powe= rful was that it did not seem like the BTL folks were trying to sell anythi= ng.=C2=A0 They were trying to solve real problems they and the folks at AT&= amp;T had when it came to realistically building and deploying systems.=C2= =A0 =C2=A0Yes, there were hidden from the profit motive at the time because= of the unique rules of the 1956 consent degree and we all were winners bec= ause of it because they say -- sure here you can use it too.

Now th= at we are back to a winner take all market, (OSVM/360 vs. VMS vs.= winders ...) I think we have traded away designing for the sake of get= ting the job done properly, for designing to sell as many as possible (i= .e.=C2=A0be sexy and capture a market, not be simple and do the job wel= l).=C2=A0 =C2=A0
--000000000000c5588105bf2e0205--