“Software innovation is dead. All that’s left is compatibility fixes, security patches, and minor-version-number incremental improvements. The problem isn’t a lack of ideas; it’s a lack of motivated developers. […] The next generation of software engineers, who will be producing software in the next twenty-odd years, are simply not able to produce innovative software. Thirty years ago, programming was a niche area, an art, under constant evolution and requiring intellect and ability. New software was really just that — completely new.” Read the editorial at NewsForge.
Software Innovation is Dead
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
The article sounds like all programmers can go home. No one needs you any more. It is my opinion that the author has given words too broad of a meaning until they mean nothing.
I do not find that software development is “sterile” with no place to grow. We still have many software problems with no good solutions. (For practical examples look at fields of robotics and Artificial Intelligence and language translations.)
It is true that all of these areas have been started. But one should not denigrate improvements in the software architecture needed to solve these problems. If one wants it is possible to make the argument that no one innovates anything new because they build on others work. I consider that a non-argument. It is simply the way we work. Even Albert Einstein borrowed from his contempories. I do not hear anyone saying that he was not innovative or creative.
I believe that the mistaken ideas of what innovation and creation are do more to cloud what is taking place by giving such a broad definition that it covers everything. Sounds a little like teenagers who overuse a word until it loses all meaning. (Think of awesome, you know, cool, etc.)
I really think this guy has a point, at least to some extent. There were so many promising concepts in the software industry in the 1980’s and most of those ideas have not really been persued. Today, we are still stuck with fundementally 1970’s technology. Even “new” things like C#, Java, XML, etc, don’t really push the envelope of capability beyond what was available decades ago.
I think this stagnation is not so much a sign of a mature software industry, but of an immature one. Its very similar to the early stagnation of the aerospace industry. In both cases, people kept retreading the same waters because they refused to learn from the research and mistakes of the past. In this way, both are very unlike properly scientific fields. In modern science, the first thing you do whenever you face a problem is read the existing literature on that problem. For the tone of the current software industry, I have a strong feeling that people do not do that today.
Of course, there is hope. Like the aerospace field, the software field will mature over time. At that point, I think we will see a new golden age of software. To push the analogy, consider what the early days of airplanes were like. Sure we knew that we could get humans off the ground and move them through the air, but we did not understand the ramifications of cheap, commoditized, always-available commercial air-travel. In the same way, I think we can see the future of software in substance, but are wholly underappreciative of the magnitude of the impact it may have.
It sounds to me like what really happened is that Mr. Love stopped being interested in new software innovations. He also seems to completely ignore the fact that most of the hardware “innovation” he mentions would be nothing without new software to back it up. Not to mention the fact that none of these hardware technologies he mentioned were made in the last couple years. Digital camera technology is almost 20 years old, external hard drives at least 15 (Hell, originally, all hard drives were external), affordable DVD burners 5. Bluetooth and portable music players are more in the range of a “couple” years (maybe 3-4), but again, what would an iPod be without the great player interface and iTunes to back it up?
What he chose as software “innovations” are also bizarre. Bootable CDs, for instance, have been around for years, and the application of them in Linux was really a non-event as far as many were concerned. He also dismisses BitTorrent as just another way to download files. In fact, it solves one of the biggest problems in internet file distribution. And, on that note, what would qualify as real innovation to this guy? Has there ever been a single piece of software that really changed everything overnight? Or even over two years? Most innovative new stuff evolves from older stuff. And I wonder, if, say, we were in 1992, people would really see the work on the World Wide Web as the amazing thing that it would become, or if they would dismiss it with “Take away my web? I can still use newsgroups, e-mail, and gopher.”
1. Distributed Telephony – Pooling resources to build a VoIP network.
2. ‘Napster’ for musicians. Upload your drum track, to be found by a bassist, passed on to a guitartist, etc. The high-quality versions are kept locally until time for mixdown, and transferred in the backgroup. And then sell or give the songs away via the same software package.
Now get to work, and make sure you remember ole sandwich boy when you IPO.
I have a damn new web process that is a killer, if anyone wants to get in touch and implement it for me real quick. Should take 4-6 hours of work, tops. Slashdot article guaranteed. ; ) I came up with it after the Netscape guy said innovation on the web is dead.
Email me for details ([email protected]), and no programming experience is needed for this one…
The article sounds like all programmers can go home. No one needs you any more. It is my opinion that the author has given words too broad of a meaning until they mean nothing.
I do not find that software development is “sterile” with no place to grow. We still have many software problems with no good solutions. (For practical examples look at fields of robotics and Artificial Intelligence and language translations.)
It is true that all of these areas have been started. But one should not denigrate improvements in the software architecture needed to solve these problems. If one wants it is possible to make the argument that no one innovates anything new because they build on others work. I consider that a non-argument. It is simply the way we work. Even Albert Einstein borrowed from his contempories. I do not hear anyone saying that he was not innovative or creative.
I believe that the mistaken ideas of what innovation and creation are do more to cloud what is taking place by giving such a broad definition that it covers everything. Sounds a little like teenagers who overuse a word until it loses all meaning. (Think of awesome, you know, cool, etc.)
Yes, I think he’s right: software innovation is dead in a sense. In the sense that, we’ve got web browsing, ftp, email, graphics, GUI’s,.. pretty much what we already need. Where I think he’s wrong is: it’s a *good* thing.
Computing is becoming mature technology. MS is running out of “new features” for its OS, and soon (if not already) it won’t be able to compete with GNU/Linux. Welcome to the future.
Open standards, oftentimes free implementations.
By the way, innovation is plumbing and carpentry is at an all-time low too.
Ok, so because this author has tunnel vision that means innovation is dead. Its funny because I thought the same thing about skateboarding was no longer innovating 15 years ago, and if you look now they have all kinds of new tricks out. Never keep a closed mind.
2. ‘Napster’ for musicians. Upload your drum track, to be found by a bassist, passed on to a guitartist, etc. The high-quality versions are kept locally until time for mixdown, and transferred in the backgroup. And then sell or give the songs away via the same software package.
exists already
> exists already
Could you please enlighten us with your wisdom? (the name, please)
Imo, there is much innovation happening right now, but implementations are either not ready, or unknown. Also, innovation isn’t always regarded as innovation when it happens. Consumers just look at it as “how things should have been from the beginning”, not recognizing the effort that went into making them available. The last problem would (like the author of the article, imho) be people failing to recognize innovations made out of a combination of previous innovations as such (Bigger Than the Sum of Its Parts).
If we would continue down the “elitist” path for just a short while, we also have to consider the resistance of the masses towards new innovations, especially in the field of computer software, where people tend to be afraid of changes and “stuff not working as usual”. Add to that, that many of these (great) innovations are unpolished and sometimes hard to use/setup, and you have an enviroment where innovatons may occur, but often go unnoticed, but for a few power users, or until a large corporation (you know who) decides it is useful, and puts its marketing weight behind bringing it to everyone.
My example would be “Slickrun” ([url]http://www.bayden.com/slickrun%5B/url]), for Windows. Think of it as the run dialogue you get in windows, pressing win+r or alt+F2 in most linux GUIs, but much more powerful. The idea is not new, but a few more options make it that much more powerful and easy to use. The way it makes it so easy adding and launching any combination of applications with interactive parameters, directories in explorer, changing settings, all with autocompletion, has revolutionized my using of computers. When I try describing it, people go “Well, that isn’t new… You can get the same effect by using some scripts and links in shell”. What they, imho, fail to recognize, is the ease of use in which this is made available by slickrun (BTtSoIP, again).
What am I trying to say..? The ideas in that app isn’t that new, but they are implemented in such a clever way, that you get the effect the author of the article is describing, “you don’t know how you managed to live without it before”.
Innovation’s not dead, it’s just more expensive. Software innovation relies on hardware innovation, and vice versa. But since both of those need to be polished to be widely accepted, things get pricey. Hardware may be cheaper than ever, but nice hardware is very expensive to produce when it doesn’t start in mass quantities.
Innovation is not dead but I do think it is currently stalled. An innovation in the software industry will come when the next killer app in the tech industry comes to full fruitition. With the speed of the tech industry, I don’t think this killer app is too far.
I think the problem is that many problems have now been solved and you are pretty hard pressed to come up with something that is really new, most people are conservatives and won’t come up with something really new in any case.
A lot of the revelutionary things we see are really just combinations of previous ideas, they are evolutionary, not revolutionary. But that’s an on-going process.
Programmers have gotten lazy, in the old days there was limited RAM and limed processing power, fighting these brought out the best in developers. It seems when people are challanged they produce better results – the process engineers have been producing better smaller silicon every few years for the last 40 years without fail.
Programmers are no longer challanged, they don’t have to expend any effort, there’s heaps of RAM and masses of computing power. This expansion wont go on forever however, Moore’s law will stop, sooner or later. Then we will see a new golden age of programming.
Well, lack of system resources doesn’t mean that is the only area to innovate.
What about large systems?
Do you know that BILLIONS are wasted every year on failed software projects?
Why?
Because there is plenty of innovation left in the areas of building reliable software at a decent price.
There is also a lot of tools that need to be developed, to assist the programmer in doing profile and anaylsis work.
I think some of you guys are more cynical than I am.
🙂
There are large numbers of lawyers in the world, but I still manage to be surprised at some of the stupidity ala SCO to make a buck…
Oh wait…sorry, I think that was a bad example.
🙂
-gc
There are so many areas of Medicine that are constantly being improved with new forms of hardware and software. Maybe someday there will be miniature micro-robots that can be injected into your bloodstream that will perform surgery, or deliver medicine on-site by remote control.
Advances in apparatus to assist the blind and deaf and disabled.
Home automation will have appliances that communicate their status to a control center and can predict when they will need repair and inform you when they are in duress. Perhaps energy consumption monitors for your homes that can track your energy usage habits and suggest slight revisions that will be cost effective.
Maybe computer designed houses that are more energy efficient.
Real time miniature tracking devices to put on your kids to help keep them safe or signal for help.
Collision warning systems for automobiles would be nice. Lane detection devices?
Automated systems to pay your vehicle fees online and have the DMV send your tag/sticker to your home in the mail………no more long lines at the DMV. Pay your property taxes online?
Better online bill payment systems, maybe even another try at grocery home delivery.
Sensors, services, efficiency, conveniences, safety, how many ways can you think of combining and optimizing these?
Eh, this artle is BS.. just talking some noise. A person can sit and rant all day about something untrue and/or pointless If you can say software innovation is dead you can say all innovation period is dead. Yet life keeps getting easier every day… Hmm… What ever happend to Transmeta’s software-souped CPU? I wanna buy it.
2. ‘Napster’ for musicians.
That was done years ago. It even included a free mid-quality audio/midi recording application. I think it was based on Logic Audio so I’m not sure if the Apple switch was the problem or of it wasn’t popular enough, but it doesn’t exisit anymore anyways.
exposé
SPAM
there are those of us who are still artists trying to make new things.
-bjk
I posted these very comments on newsforge and I am reposting them here on the hope that someone will see them and help.
Somebody provided this link at newsforge pointing towards true innovation:
http://segusoland.sourceforge.net
And I must agree. It had been a while since I had seen such an original combination of existing user interface principles to create something that makes computers much easier to learn.
I hope that the right eyes see this guy’s project and support it as it is the best thought out interface change I have read in the last five years.
I urge all coders here at OSNEWS to have a look it and comment on it.
Genetic algortihms. Fuzzy logic. Physics modules for games. Proteinomics simulation. Shall we go on? I’m sorry Mr. Love has a limited worldview but maybe he should read more.
What the crap is this guy talking about.
http://www.gnome.org/~seth/storage/
http://java.sun.com/
http://www.apple.com/itunes/
http://www.kazaa.com/
Oh and let’s not forget
http://www.microsoft.com/net/
And those are off the top of my head as I was typing this message in spontaneous angry reply. I’m all for opinion, but OSNews, you HAVE to differentiate between informed and uninformed opinion. Articles like this one should NOT be posted! You cannot simply choose a few applications that have become staples of the desktop like a word processor, file manager and browser and say that software development has stagnated because they’re still around. By the same token I could say that hardware development has stagnated because people are still using stereo systems! Sure, maybe they’re hooked up to computers now and the format of the music has changed a little (see: innovative software), but they’re still around so therefore hardware development has stagnated. Now in this guy’s article he gave some counterexamples such as wireless technology and MP3 players that prove me wrong. Well I just gave some counterexamples that prove him wrong. What’s the net result? A big waste of everyone’s time. Thank you, Jonathan Love. READ before you write an article, or at the very least, THINK.
“While there is nothing bad about implementing features that are popular, valuable, or just clever, it is far easier for a developer to copy an existing feature that solves a problem than it is to devise a new, innovative solution to such a problem.”
Excuse me, but isn’t the whole thing about copying features something of a red herring? I need a software solution to do my work, and frankly, I don’t care whether it’s innovative or not. If an innovative method doesn’t offer any significant performance advantages (or any other kind of gain), then what is this innovation good for?
So probably it would be more correct to say that it’s become more difficult to produce an innovation that really gives serious advantages over existing software technology. But I wouldn’t call it a “problem”, since innovation is not an end in itself.
http://sweetcode.org
’nuff said
Every new problem has a new solution.
We must stop building computer solutions which are created with the computer in mind. We must focus on creating solutions with Humans in mind.
And please don’t try and tell me we ‘are’ doing such a thing. beefed up 70/80s solutions are no substitute for real progression.
If software innovation is dead, why did I spend 8 months as a frontend and project management design for a custom system built from scratch for a client that acted as an advanced report generator ?
An application based on nothing that has gone before, save for the obvious widgets that drive the application in a manner that software users are familiar with and an old Lotus Notes system they were previously using – the innovation in that proprietry app was intense.
How does his article explain Sourceforge or Freshmeat and the wealth of innovation going on there ?
The rise of digital distribution software over the last 5 years ?
The evolution of the browser and the forays into distributed systems ?
Embedded OS’s in portable devices ?
Hell, the list goes on and on and on !
Anyway, what is software but simply an advancement of what has gone before ?
An application to make something easier or more efficient ?
You could say that Photoshop is an advancement of the first GUI drawing program ever created way back when, but you certainly couldn’t label it as non-innovative !
I think what this article is based on are stories such as the tech boom in India where they indicate that while India is going from strength to strength in the IT industry, they are not neccessarily innovative.
It seems he’s take a broad sweep across the entire software industry and proclaimed, based on little factual evidence that I can find, that innovation is dead ?
I don’t think there is such a possibility in this world of ours – innovation exists as part of the drive of humanity, but it’s not always obvious to see where it’s coming from or where it will go to.
Certainly, large software companies can stifle innovation for financial gain, or outright steal innovation. We won’t name any names here, but Steve Jobs recently took a swipe at a big company indicating that thier profit-margin is more important to them than innovation and that it will cause thier inevitable downfall.
The sad thing is, many non-tech people will read the article and believe it.
Not only software. Innovation in the science of journalism is dead too. No kidding!
I think people like this guy would not see innovative software if it hit them on the head. In an environment where many people think this drivel is true, it is quite hard to sell some new innovative concepts.
There are plenty of innovative programming languages (my favorite is clean) and innovative software (esp. for tablet pcs). The field of 3D graphics alone produces a huge load of new algorithms each year. Just look at the image gallery of http://www.flipcode.com to see what I mean.
If these innovative languages and concepts have a hard time making it into the mainstream, it is precisely because of people like the author of that drivel.
“Everything that can be invented has been invented.” – Charles H. Duell, Commissioner of the US Patent Office 1899
He was wrong and so is the author of this article.
I think you are missing the ‘core’ point that he is making. The changes in software are not innovative on the scale that it results in a major lifestyle change for the general populace. What are the MAJOR software innovations of the last 20 years?
Word Processor, Presentation Software, Spreadsheets, Databases, Web Browsers, Email, Instant Messaging, P-t-P file sharing…..
I don’t think he is talking about minor evolution of established innovations.
Major innovation is something that completely restructures a major component of our lives….Example: Communication
Spoken Word (language) -> Writing -> Printing Press -> Pony Express(Postal) -> Telegraph -> Telephone -> (Radio/TV) -> Digital Transmission (Web/Email/IM) -> Wireless
So the “software innovation” in this case is digital media and transmission involved in communication.
Software innovation for the sake of software innovation is meaningless to anyone but the geeks. The innovation he is talking about is widespread usable innovation that changes the way people live their lives. Changes in what exist is just evolution of existing technology. Innovation creates a fundamental change in society.
If it does not “Change the way we live, work and play.”, it’s not Innovation, but Evolution.
– Kelson
Perhaps one area of innovation might be a system that allows for the replacement of management:
#define TC ceo-compensation+ceo-benefits+ceo-stock+ceo-misc
while true
{
if (TC < what-ceo-wants)
if (random-boolean == true)
merge-or-acquire-another-company
create-corp-spin()
lay-off-employees()
lobby-congress-for-more-freebies
ceo-compensation += random-big-number
ceo-stock += random-big-number
ceo-benefits += random-big-number
ceo-misc += random-big-number
else
payoff-congress-for-special-favors
what-ceo-wants += (TC + random-big-number)
}
lay-off-employees()
{
let-them-go
replace-employees-with-cheap-foreign-labor
reduce-employee-pay-and-benefits
}
create-corp-spin()
{
hide-use-of-offshoring
hide-use-of-outsourcing
hide-executive-bonuses-from-press
say “we need more business friendly legislation”
say “we need more immigrants to fulfill the jobs Americans won’t do”
say “foreign workers are better educated and skilled than American workers”
say “offshoring and outsourcing benefit our economy”
say “offshoring and outsourcing is not about lower wages”
say “we need a better public education system”
say “American workers need to retrain for the next big innovative thing”
}
Another potential area of innovation might be a system that replaces our corrupt politicians:
#define TC compensation+gifts+kickbacks+campaign-contributions+misc
while true
{
automatically-increase-compensation()
if (TC < what-politician-wants)
misc += accept-gifts-from-corp-lobbyists
distract-publics-attention()
pass-corp-friendly-legislation()
create-political-spin()
gifts += accept-payoff-from-corps
kickbacks += accept-payoff-from-corps
misc += accept-payoff-from-corps
campaign-contributions += accept-campaign-contribs-from-corps
else
what-politician-wants += (TC + random-big-number)
}
automatically-increase-compensation()
{
if ((month == January) && (day == 1))
say “no vote required”
say “we work hard for the American public”
compensation *= 1.10
else
try-to-pass-legislation-to-increase-our-pay-even-more
}
pass-corp-friendly-legislation()
{
new-law-name = public-friendly-name()
make-corp-friendly-law( new-law-name )
if (random-boolean == true)
increase-non-corp-taxes
else
increase-federal-deficit
}
public-friendly-name()
{
return misleading-name-so-they-wont-know-what-we-are-up-to
}
make-corp-friendly-law( name )
{
real-purpose-of-law = not( name )
cut-corporate-taxes
increase-corporate-pork-spending
allow-corps-to-control-labor-markets
allow-corps-to-patent-anything-they-want
}
distract-publics-attention()
{
say “we are increasing the terror threat level”
start-another-war
promise-immigration-reform
promise-more-entitlements
}
create-political-spin()
{
say “the economy is great”
say “deficits don’t matter”
say “job creation is increasing”
say “we need more immigrants to fulfill the jobs Americans won’t do”
say “foreign workers are better educated and skilled than American workers”
say “offshoring and outsourcing benefit our economy”
say “American workers need to retrain for the next big innovative thing”
tell-some-more-lies
lie-to-support-lies
discredit-anyone-who-tells-the-truth
use-the-corp-owned-media-to-support-our-lies
}
To quote the head of the U.S. Patent Office in the late 1800s “We should close the Paten Office as all inventions that amount to anything have already been invented an nothing but a little tinkering is left to do.” Remember that This was said before the first powered flight.
Sounds just like what this guy is saying! I think he is just about as right about the future as our friend above. Fact is that we are in the midst of a major revolution in society and it will have consequences and outcomes that we cannot yet see. We often cannot see the next great innovation until it is fully upon us.
[quote]….same thing about skateboarding was no longer innovating 15 years ago, and if you look now they have all kinds of new tricks out. Never keep a closed mind.[/quote]
I disagree. Software is almost exactly the same IMO. The “new” tricks are just variants from old, mainly flip-based tricks…Just about all new stuff is flip tricks. I’ve been skating for over 20 years, and when I bust out forgotten stuff like bonelesses, cowboys, and no complies for the kiddies, they all freak out. Easy stuff, but they have no idea what I’m doin’. They think only one way.
Anyways, software is much the same, the industry as a whole latched on to the “flip trick” (whatever that may be), and less research was put in to extend good ideas like the “No Comply” or the “Boneless”. Innovation is not dead. It’s simply boredom. We’ve just been extending on and churning out the same old crap for 20 years.
What about VRML, its like they just gave up on it & Voice over IP does have possibility. As AI gets better & robots become better we need new programs for that. Also when virtual reality comes along that needs attention, I’m sure I left out lots of possibilities.
Two apps… iTunes & iMovie.
As a Mac user, I’ve seen people struggle and cuss and spit trying to do something very basic with Adobe. Don’t get me wrong, Premiere is a great app, but it’s over some peoples heads. iMovie lets the layman work.
iTunes, while not as busy as most PC mp3 players has become a staple for me both on a Mac and x86.
I am only a passive x86 user since BeOS went down, but I assume that their are some great apps for Windows outside of WMP? (though that and outlook are all I really use outside of some opensource that while very functional, I would hardly call innovative.
I think it’s like this. Back in the 8-bit days, we saw an image or heard a sound on a 16-bit machine (the goods ones Amiga, ST, Mac) and we thought WOW this is so much cooler. Then, there came true to life imaging (well, amiga did have HAM8 at the 16-bit stage) and WE HAVE GROWN BORED!
How about 3-D? You know complete the circle. We could go from.
1-writing on paper to
2-typing to
3-WP to
4-doing all three of the above in a virtual context.
Yeah, I know goofy, but it does put a spin on the ball. 3D world now.
A long time ago, around 1900, there was a certain US senator who wanted to close the US patent office claiming that no new inventions were going to be produced, so what’s the point of a patent office then?
1900….
no cars, no planes, no cell phones, no gasoline engines, no electronics.
this article reads like that US Senator wrote it.
So you’re saying that there have been no revolutions in communications since spoken word. If that’s true, I find it VERY hard to buy the author’s point about portable mp3 players being revolutionary.
If you’re looking for paradigm shifts, how about grid computing? Only in the last few years have humans been able to form collectives of microprocessors around the planet and have them synchronize towards a common goal. This has huge implications. We can now harness enough CPU power to decode the human genome; predict weather patterns; run algorithms that could some day find a cure for cancer. Would that “change the way we live and play”? No more cancer? I know that someone is going to make the argument that that’s a medical breakthrough, but it would be a technological breakthrough that would lead to it.
Technology is a tool…just because its revolutions aren’t directly apparent to the field doesn’t mean they aren’t there. Take a look at the implications and applications of new technologies and the solutions they provide, and you’ll find that the author is full of it.
*sigh*…if only we could vote people off the internet.
No, I’m not saying there are no innovations since the spoken word, I’m pointing out the whole trend of true innovation in the area of communication. The point is how major each ‘inflection point’ is, which is why they are truely innovation. They all dramatically changed how we communicate.
Grid computing itself is a minor evolution in the increase in computing power. Yes, it is significant and depending on the exact criteria, it could be considered a minor innovation, due to the fact it is a paradigm shift. (Yeah, Paradigm sucks as a word, but it fits the concept I’m talking about.) The cure for cancer itself is the major innovation.
The difference between revolution and evolution is that a revolution will change society in and of itself. Grid computing is just an evolution of increasing computing power. Because it is a shift the from the standard model of crank of the mhz, it could satisfy some definition of innovative. However, I don’t think it is the definition the author is using….
I tend to agree with the author in that I don’t do
This whole board is very quick to take their preconceived notions of what other people mean, apply them and flame away. The author may not be implying something as stupid as everyone thinks. He may have just done a poor job in defining his terms.
– Kelson
Isn’t it a bit like saying that no innovative music will ever be created because it is just a recycling (evolution, using the author’s definition))of notes that have already been discovered and played?
It was a lot easier to be innovative 25 years ago because there weren’t so many big companies producing software, the hardware was much simpler, and a lot of simple concepts weren’t developed yet. For example, take Bill Gates. How much did it take to program DOS? From a technical point of view, not much. Most Java programmers know more about their language and stuff like networks than you had to know to program DOS, because everything was much simpler back then.
It wasn’t innovative to program a GUI, it was just the next thing to do. Not that is was easy, but it wasn’t innovative in terms of having a goog idea. How innovative is it to use neural nets for pattern scanning? Surely much more innovative than using harddrives to boot a system. Until 1993, things were just predestined in most areas of computing. Even the idea of VM was introduced in the late 1950’s, so it was clear this step would be taken.
The author didn’t realize that todays innovation doesn’t happen in the areas of GUI’s and standard PC hardware anymore but in areas that he doesn’t seem to know. Simple as that.
“How much did it take to program DOS? From a technical point of view, not much.”
Your kidding right? Compaired to what other computer companies were doing at the time DOS was almost completely a different direction.
software is made for money these days, not because a particular
application was needed to make life more simple. we’ve basically
cheapened the whole of software existence by ‘pimpin’ it out to
users. instead of quality, it’s about who can get what out to the greatest
number of people to get marketshare and user base acceptance.
I remember in the old DEC days (and I know this only because I see the
literature on the walls of the where I now work, HP), they created
software out of needs–email was created at DEC because they
wanted a way to communicate with each other electronically. Of
course a lot of these applications went on to be included in the
operating system (OpenVMS), but they never started out with the
intent of making money.
I think you can blame the 90’s for this upheaval in programmers,
hi-tech was supposedly the way to go, that’s why many of you and
your friends decided to go to engineering and computer science
programs. Even idiots with English degrees <duck> and Art History
majors could take a 24 hour class on java and get a high paid $100,000
job in Silicon Valley; this is the derailment of software applications.
Bad applications with many bugs (thanks to MS primarily) were
being forced onto the public because people started to catch on
that programs could make life simpler and enjoyable (not to mention
earn them money). However, this was severely abused and as a result of the over-marketization and market forces dictacted more software on
aggressive schedules for the world.
Now we’re kind of still in that space, like a vacuum that’s left over
after the implosion, let’s see what happens in the near future as
more and more people decide to look into other careers, maybe
the actual programmers will decide to creep up out of the graves.
or perhaps it’ll all be outsourced to india.
either way, i find open source to be the savior of all softwarekund.
How about a mainstream desktop operating system and a set of associated applications produced by a commercial entity that actually make system security a primary design goal?
I don’t care what other computer companies were directing for, but if you compare the complexicity of DOS and whatever 32bit system, DOS is extremely simple. Hell, the whole memory management of e.g . Linux is 10 times more compilcated that DOS was.