Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Windows, Linux 25 Year Old "Clunkers"?

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 8 years ago | from the tell-us-what-you-really-think dept.

Quickies 461

Phil817 writes to tell us that Bob Metcalfe recently gave a TV interview in which he stated that current operating systems (Windows and Linux) are outdated clunkers that wont be able to adequately handle the coming of "video internet" and suggests that new operating systems need to be developed to take hold in a few years. Also, when asked if current deals in the works like eBay's purchase of Skype were an indication of more investment hype he replied with "I'm looking forward to the next Internet bubble. I don't know what everyone's so negative about. The last bubble was lots of fun.". Let us at least hope we learned a few things from the last bubble.

cancel ×

461 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Wait, who said (5, Funny)

zegebbers (751020) | more than 8 years ago | (#14390937)

I couldn't watch video [asciimation.co.nz] ?

Re:Wait, who said (1)

tommyboyprime (694285) | more than 8 years ago | (#14390961)

I wonder if this guy has a girlfriend?

Re:Wait, who said (1)

zegebbers (751020) | more than 8 years ago | (#14391004)

even if he doesn't, he can draw one!

Re:Wait, who said (2, Funny)

bre (590722) | more than 8 years ago | (#14391010)

Wow. Nowadays I need a plugin to view ASCII in my browser.

Hey geeks, you know who is really hot? (1)

Fecal Troll Matter (445929) | more than 8 years ago | (#14391104)

Virginia Hey from Farscape. Show me nudes. Thank you.

Re:Wait, who said (3, Funny)

xs650 (741277) | more than 8 years ago | (#14391173)

"I couldn't watch video ?"

That's because you're using a clunker operating system.

Where are the links? (5, Insightful)

Werrismys (764601) | more than 8 years ago | (#14390940)

To say that the post was lacking substance would be an understatement.

Re:Where are the links? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14390951)

Mislabled Ask Slashdot?

Re:Where are the links? (1)

CaptainFork (865941) | more than 8 years ago | (#14391041)

I agree. It would be more accurate to say the post was somewhat lacking in substance.

Re:Where are the links? (1)

kan0r (805166) | more than 8 years ago | (#14391134)

Must be a mistake or the statement is from another Bob Metcalfe. Where is the link? Or did Bob tell Phil817 this in a dream-vision?

Re:Where are the links? (5, Funny)

CortoMaltese (828267) | more than 8 years ago | (#14391154)

To say that the post was lacking substance would be an understatement.
You see, Bob said all this and more in a TV interview, which, according to the interview, can't be viewed because your favourite OS is an outdated clunker that won't be able to adequately handle the coming of "video internet".

Maybe the interview is available for download in a few years when the new video oriented operating systems he mentions have taken hold.

Re:Where are the links? (4, Funny)

Mr. Moose (124255) | more than 8 years ago | (#14391197)

Take it easy, hopefully the /. editors will include a link, next time they post the story.

I don't get it... (1)

lmpinto (148989) | more than 8 years ago | (#14390942)

Now, /. hits a new low. You can now submit a post without any reference or means of comproving the veracity of the story. Congratulations! What next? Viagra can be bought online?

Re:I don't get it... (2, Funny)

TallMatthew (919136) | more than 8 years ago | (#14391071)

If you need a hookup, I've got 1,039 contacts.

Hmm (1)

Kaelthun (940330) | more than 8 years ago | (#14391227)

What I am wondering is that, how can something become so important if there is no platform for it? Operating systems do not change because something is developed, things change because operating systems allow them to or develop themselves ... all in my opinion of course.

I find the lack of hosts to /. (3, Funny)

Polarism (736984) | more than 8 years ago | (#14390952)

disturbing...

Re:I find the lack of hosts to /. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14391212)

What's really disturbing is the advertisement that blocks the story/is mandatory viewing until you roll your mouse over it. What's up with that Slashdot? I've been a longtime fan but have to say if this is the Slashdot wave of the future than my current migration/waft over to digg.com will happen a lot quicker.

The coming of "video internet?" (4, Funny)

Phariom (941580) | more than 8 years ago | (#14390954)

So...this article is basically stating is that we need to build an entirely new O/S to streamline our viewing of pr0n?

Cool.

I, for one, welcome our new video internet overvixens.

"In the year 2000... In the year 2000!" (3, Funny)

croddy (659025) | more than 8 years ago | (#14391090)

And how!

My future-viewing terminal informs me that that the Video Internet will be deployed just a few years after the widespread availablility of wall-mounted Video Telephones, but just before Honda release their premiere Flying Automobile.

I can only hope that our spinlock model is flexible enough for these paradigm-shattering technological earthquakes!

fun? (4, Insightful)

LiquidMind (150126) | more than 8 years ago | (#14390955)

"The last bubble was lots of fun"

tell that to the people that have lost their jobs.

Re:fun? (5, Insightful)

Ceribia (865793) | more than 8 years ago | (#14390980)

"tell that to the people that have lost their jobs." Jobs that wouldn't have exsisted with out the bubble. Welcome to the boom bust market.

Re:fun? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14390985)

i lost my job at this time but i still smile if i happen to see a nerd with a "burn, venture capital, burn!" t-shirt.

and it _was_ fun.

Re:fun? (1, Insightful)

WebCrapper (667046) | more than 8 years ago | (#14391024)

I was 6 months away from buying a Hummer H1 and putting a very large downpayment on a house I was going to build. By the time I could cash in, used toilet paper was worth more than my options. ($150'ish vs $1.50'ish)

Anyway, while I'm a little upset at the company I used to work for, I can't get too upset because I wouldn't have met my wife, I wouldn't be living in Germany on a 3 year honeymoon, etc...

Re:fun? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14391242)

I was 6 months away from buying a Hummer H1

Oh cry me a river. You could not buy your SUV. How can one live without one in the city ?

Re:fun? (3, Insightful)

kfg (145172) | more than 8 years ago | (#14391012)

No, not the people who lost their jobs, but the people who lost their investments. The people who payed for all the fun the jobs were and got nothing back out of it.

KFG

Re:fun? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14391022)

"No, not the people who lost their jobs, but the people who lost their investments. The people who payed for all the fun the jobs were and got nothing back out of it."

3 comments:
1. Risk and reward!
2. Due diligence!
3. A fool and his money are soon parted! ...welcome to capitalism.

Re:fun? (1)

kfg (145172) | more than 8 years ago | (#14391034)

The same three comments apply equally to someone who took a job at one these "companies" in the first place.

Doesn't mean the party wasn't fun, but it was just a party. Anyone who thought it was a career made a serious error in Due Diligence.

Party's over. Time to go back to work.

KFG

Re:fun? (1)

djsmiley (752149) | more than 8 years ago | (#14391146)

""No, not the people who lost their jobs, but the people who lost their investments. The people who payed for all the fun the jobs were and got nothing back out of it."

3 comments:
1. Risk and reward!
2. Due diligence!
3. A fool and his money are soon parted! ...welcome to capitalism."

4 ???
5 PROFIT!

Re:fun? .. Video Internet = Mandatory DRM (5, Insightful)

Savage650 (654684) | more than 8 years ago | (#14391171)

... commiserating with The people who payed for all the fun the jobs were and got nothing back out of it.

No Sympathy here. Whoever buys into a scheme that is supposed to double/tripe/quadruple their money overnight deserves the "Experience" they get. Playing the stock market is like every other form of gambling: The house always wins. You lose.

And by the way: this wonderful "Video Internet" Mr. Metcalfe is fantasizing about ... Who needs it? the consumers? Or could it be ... Who else would be interested in a broad roll-out of DRM-locked viewers?

Expect a flurry of new, draconian laws protecting "Content Ownership" to be written and enacted during the boom phase. And we'll be stuck with these laws, even after this particular bubble bursts.

Re:fun? .. Video Internet = Mandatory DRM (3, Insightful)

cnelzie (451984) | more than 8 years ago | (#14391225)

Playing the stock market is like every other form of gambling: The house always wins. You lose.


    I do not believe that I have seen such a completely misleading and or misinformed statement in a very long time. If you have no idea what you are doing, yeah, you could get burned. If you are smart, do your research and invest wisely, such as by diversifying, you can come out pretty darn well.

Re:fun? (1)

Suzuran (163234) | more than 8 years ago | (#14391094)

And what about those of us whose skillsets were devalued by all the MCSEs and MCSAs claiming to have the same skills when they really don't know the difference between their ass and a hole in the ground without Google and FAQ sites?

Re:fun? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14391117)

I dunno... let me google it! Err...

Re:fun? (-1, Flamebait)

jt2377 (933506) | more than 8 years ago | (#14391097)

why? the last dotcum bubble hired bunch marketing, sales, html code ninja, MSCE papermonkey and bullshitters that clearly have no place in IT. FACT: they are all in it for the money. they produce nothing and they kill the real old school tech. the start up at gargare that really cooking up something. why should i feel sorry for those people who are in it for quick bucks and fame? fuck 'em. they shouldn't be in the IT in the first place.

Re:fun? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14391112)

"tell that to the people that have lost their jobs."

Look! I'm living in Silcon Valley, making $150k a year! I think I'll spend $300k a year!

Wait, what the.. NO PLEASE DON'T TAKE MY PORSCHE NOOOO. :( :( :( :(

Yes, we should all feel sorry for the morons without a clue who were harmed by the collapse of the bubble.

And Sara McDonald didn't like DOS either (4, Interesting)

gtoomey (528943) | more than 8 years ago | (#14390957)

Talk about a story with no content.

Re:And Sara McDonald didn't like DOS either (1)

Elektroschock (659467) | more than 8 years ago | (#14391229)

True.

I would suggest that talks without content contribute to World peace. As long as you talk you do not shoot. So let's talk about how internet bubbles contribute to World Peace.

Before the next internet bubble the china bubble has to burst.

Re:And Sara McDonald didn't like DOS either (1, Funny)

Yirimyah (884895) | more than 8 years ago | (#14391246)

Seems like the content should be: "Yes folks, we're here to confirm that you were all right. Metcalfe HAS lost it. :) "

An OS is an OS (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14390960)

Apart from the "no link" stuff, I don't see what the fuss is all about. An OS is an OS, its role is to provide user applications with an access to the underlying hardware.

In that sense, I don't see anywhere that Linux/Windows/*BSD/whatever will not be up to the task.

Re:An OS is an OS (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14391063)

The article is as clear as mud. However, I suspect that Bob is thinking of a media-centric system, which would need to push huge amounts of data across network, disk and memory buses very, very quickly. You'd need things like

  • Pervasive multi-threading
  • Hard real time fair scheduling
  • Very, very fast asynchronous I/O
  • Efficient, very large memory models
He's probably thinking of something like a real time micro-kernel (QNX) or even an exo-kernel, with a real-time media pipeline on top of it.

Out of the list above, Linux & Windows don't do many of those things amazingly well (Although both of them offer async I/O)

Link? (-1, Redundant)

mikkom (714956) | more than 8 years ago | (#14390962)

Is there a link missing or am I blind?

Re:Link? (1, Funny)

wild_berry (448019) | more than 8 years ago | (#14391040)

It's your internet-incapable Windows/Linux/BSD/Plan 9/HURD/Be/Zeta/Symbian/AmigaOS* system not being able to handle the new Unicorn&Sasquatch Video Experience that is embedded in the story.

*: AmigaOS had this capability from day one, but a lack of advertising means I'm unaware of this fact.

Wrong end of stick (5, Insightful)

ishmaelflood (643277) | more than 8 years ago | (#14390963)

Video internet, whatever that is, is bandwidth limited. The OS of the systems on each end of the cable makes virtually no difference to the deliverable bandwidth.

Re:Wrong end of stick (1)

thegoogler (792786) | more than 8 years ago | (#14391236)

Its funny that so many people are saying we need new OS's, and avoiding the issue of the lack of broadband speed in the US(and canada, i supposed) compared to EVERYWHERE else besides maybe australia and third world countries.

OS - Video - WTF? (5, Insightful)

Anne Thwacks (531696) | more than 8 years ago | (#14390969)

If Linux and WIndows are "old clunkers" then presumably the *BSDs are not just dead, but rotting in hell with all those demons!

What does this guy know? If you want an OS to stream video, then what does it better than a *BSD? If you want to watch streaming video then surely that is an application issue?

I'd rather serve or recieve anything using an OS with 20 years debugging than an untried untested product of an Internet bubble.

However, if anyone wants to buy shares in my new dot-com, then email me at "mailto:investments@pop.rip-off.scam"

Someone had to say it... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14391044)

"If you want an OS to stream video, then what does it better than a *BSD?"

BeOS?

Re:OS - Video - WTF? (3, Informative)

Sique (173459) | more than 8 years ago | (#14391058)

The main problem is that today's mainstream operating systems are not 'stream' OSes ;). They don't think of data as a stream with certain properties. They just have input and output devices, and what happens inbetween is just a matter of how to couple them together.

Networks like ATM and TENET have special layers to define the properties of a data stream independently from the source and the sink. There is no equivalence in Windows or UNIX for those. There are some tacked on QoS-parameters for certain network devices (to handle the QoS of the networks connected), but this is not a design principle for all the not networked devices.

Current OSes thus have a simple solution to QoS: Throw enough resources at the problem, and it will work for the lower bandwidths. For higher bandwidths just wait for the next generation. But in theory the hardware today should handle the higher bandwidths today fine, if the schedulers and the definitions of what has to be scheduled were better supported inside the operating systems. So you can have at maximum one data stream with QoS-warranties on your computer at any given moment.

Computers used for data stream switching often have a subsystem that runs at highest priority on the host operating system and provides those streaming facilities without the host OS getting in the way too much. Futural operating systems should be able to handle the scheduling problems of several datastreams at the same time natively.

Re:OS - Video - WTF? (3, Insightful)

tacocat (527354) | more than 8 years ago | (#14391098)

Yes, this is a picture of what you are doing with streaming data and a possible approach to handling the stream, by reprioritizing everything on the system to deal with it. But I don't necessarily agree that this is the best approach or the realistic approach.

If we have to address the video streaming capabilities of a high bandwidth internet then that's fine. I'm really not worried about the current OSes. As a benchmark I have routinely watched full screen (21-inch) video over NFS mounted hard drives across my fast ethernet home network. This has proved to be good enough bandwidth that the movies are clean and the network can still do other functions (macromedia flash gaming is one high bandwidth example). Granted this is pretty much one user, but it's a benchmark.

Now it is arguable that NFS is not the best solution to video streaming, but it's one that I have readily available.

I would have assumed the best approach would be a two part application; the first part caching the stream and buffering the data so that latency interruptions can be handled more gracefully, and the second part to read off the buffer (memory or disk) and present the video.

I don't know of any one who believes that even a terabit network can do realtime streaming of hi definition video with zero risk of latency interruptions so I just can imagine anything with that model in mind as being anything less than marketing hype.

Re:OS - Video - WTF? (1)

Bert64 (520050) | more than 8 years ago | (#14391106)

Actually i regularly stream video over NFS over VPN over wireless (very convenient) with no problems..

Re:OS - Video - WTF? (1)

tacocat (527354) | more than 8 years ago | (#14391240)

I'm going to guess you are not using the older 802.11B wireless networks. Mine was always jumpy.

Re:OS - Video - WTF? (4, Interesting)

TallMatthew (919136) | more than 8 years ago | (#14391119)

Networks like ATM and TENET have special layers to define the properties of a data stream independently from the source and the sink. There is no equivalence in Windows or UNIX for those. There are some tacked on QoS-parameters for certain network devices (to handle the QoS of the networks connected), but this is not a design principle for all the not networked devices.

Beh. ATM was a dog. It was supposed to be this voice/data/video panacea but all it ended up being was an incredibly inefficient way to pass data around. Defining class of service on a cell/packet is one of those ideas that makes sense, but is ultimately meaningless based on the nature of data transmission.

QOS prioritizes packets, that's it. It has no effect except during congestion. It will not "create" bandwidth. If you're a carrier and your backbone is clogged, QOS isn't going to help you very much because the buffers on your routers can only store so much. You're going to start dropping packets all over the place and your customers will be most displeased. That's why carriers overprovision backbones.

If you're a customer and you don't have enough pipe to your house to really support a video stream (which with modern-day streaming technology isn't very much), Linux/Windows won't be the problem. You won't be able to prevent your downloads from interrupting your video stream with prioritization, as that would have to occur at the carrier side before the packets crossed the wire. And why would the carrier do that for you? Buy a fat pipe, they'll suggest. After all that's what they had to do.

Cable companies and telecoms have been grappling with this for years. Ultimately they've found the only tenable solution is capacity.

Re:OS - Video - WTF? (3, Informative)

Sique (173459) | more than 8 years ago | (#14391208)

Your argumentation holds very well as long as it is only one datastream we are talking about, or only one pipe it can go through. As soon as you have several of them, starting and ending at different times and going different ways, you should be able to schedule streaming resources: Postpone one that doesn't fit into the sum of all bandwith you get for instance, or reroute it through different pipes that are not fully used.

Currently we still use benchmarks to tell us, how much bandwidth we can really muster for different tasks on a computer. A streaming OS would have to have an operating system function, where you can actually ask it, how much bandwidth you get if you want to pipe a data stream from point A to point B at a predefined time, and then you should be able to reserve the bandwidth, so no other application starting later can eat into this bandwidth, the same way today it can't write into the memory an other application is using.

Currently you can separate application only in a way that they don't use the same resources at the same time, which is a very discrete schedule. For actually switching data streams (which is different from having one datastream uninterupted), you should also schedule the access continously. Imagine it like a big railway station. Today's operating systems are able to make sure that every single track and railswitch is protected and can only be used by a single train at a time. For actual operation of the railway station you need the full way from the starting rail across the station to the leaving rail protected (and freed after the train went through). With todays operating systems you just hold all trains and have only a single one moving. With actuall streaming operating systems you should be able to let several trains run at the same time as long as their ways don't cross. (The analogy doesn't hold completely, because on a railway only one train can use one rail at a time. Streaming data of different streams could use the same path through the operating system at the same time as long as they don't exceed the bandwidth limit).

Re:OS - Video - WTF? (1)

Eivind (15695) | more than 8 years ago | (#14391196)

Current OSes thus have a simple solution to QoS: Throw enough resources at the problem, and it will work for the lower bandwidths.

Yes. And that is working remarkably well. It's sort of like the "TCP-offload" network-cards. For most applications they are total non-starters, because you pay such a high price for special-purpose chips, relative to general-purpose chips that it is cheaper to use a overpowered general-purpose for the job than it is to use an adequately powered special-purpose chip. Additinally, the general-purpose chip is more flexible, because it can do *other* stuff besides tcp.

Assuming he's talking of OSes for devices people have in their own homes, this is a total non-issue. People have typically, not one, but instead 2-3 or more orders of magnitude more cpu-power than they conceivably need to process all incoming daa any way they care to.

A typical internet-user in an industrial country has a Ghz cpu spending 99% of it's time waiting on data arriving over a dinky little 700 kbps DSL-line, or even over a modem. (modems are still much more common than are multimegabit links to homes)

Changing the OS of that computer is *not* the rigth spot to start if you want "video internet" whatever the hell that is supposed to mean. After you've got lines capable of delivering more data than the typical computer/OS can reasonably handle. Then we can talk. But I strongly suspect this will never be the case, I see no trend in networking-capacity to the home growing faster than horsepower in home-machines.

FOSS operating systems not set in stone (1)

Morgaine (4316) | more than 8 years ago | (#14391143)

If you want an OS to stream video, then what does it better than a *BSD?

Clearly the linked article was just a hits generator, totally lacking in substance.

In any case, it made the very dumb assumption that operating systems are somehow set in stone. They're not, and while we cannot predict MS's plans for the future, we can certainly guarantee that Linux and the BSDs will evolve in whatever way their communities want.

And that includes handling the streaming world with max efficiency.

Re:OS - Video - WTF? (1)

m50d (797211) | more than 8 years ago | (#14391214)

BeOS did/does video better than anything else around, and is more modern than windows or linux. Maybe he thinks there'll be a beos revival?

He's absolutely correct (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14390970)


and that new OS will be the Google OS baby!

It's true! (3, Funny)

MaestroSartori (146297) | more than 8 years ago | (#14390974)

My best friend's sister's boyfriend's brother's girlfriend heard from this guy who knows this kid who's going with a girl who saw Linux and Windows pass out at 31 Flavors last night! So I guess it must be pretty serious...

Re:It's true! (1)

jargonCCNA (531779) | more than 8 years ago | (#14391054)

....Thank you, MaestroSartori [slashdot.org] .

Frye? Frye? Frye? Frye?

Netcraft confirms it...er... (4, Informative)

Polarism (736984) | more than 8 years ago | (#14390977)

Re:Netcraft confirms it...er... (1)

HaydnH (877214) | more than 8 years ago | (#14391092)

You can get much mor interesting stats from Netcraft, check out the title and number 7! [netcraft.com]

Haydn.

Sorry? (1)

codeTurtle (942468) | more than 8 years ago | (#14390978)

What exactly does he mean by video internet?

With the growth of high speed Internet services, it's perfectly possible for users to stream video at a fairly nice level of quality. Modern operating systems handle this just fine in general.

Would be nice to have some links though!

Re:Sorry? (4, Funny)

kfg (145172) | more than 8 years ago | (#14391020)

What exactly does he mean by video internet?

"Give me free money."

KFG

A link, for those who read articles. (5, Informative)

oneiros27 (46144) | more than 8 years ago | (#14390981)

Obviously, the editors don't care, but for those of us who actually try to read the article, I found the following, so others don't have to waste their time, as well:
(and it's probably redundant by now, but this would be the creator of Ethernet, for those who didn't know who Bob Metcalfe is)

Re:A link, for those who read articles. (1)

xonen (774419) | more than 8 years ago | (#14391139)

Thanks for that link! Let me quote:

"There'll be new operating systems required; the clunkers we have, you know Windows and Linux, are 25 years old -- they're going to need updating to adequately carry video," Metcalfe says. "What they're doing now is lame."

Short analyzis: The guy does not say 'new OS', he sais 'updating'. Because what they (computers) are doing now is lame.
So the question seems not if the OS can handle it, but how it does that. And i must agree, the way current mediaplayers (talking windows mainly from experience) handle video is indeed very clumsy, it is not the 'user experience' i would like to have.
It has nothing to do with the OS though, but i do believe that was not what he was trying to say. The average user don't care the OS, he/she wants convenience, as easy as swapping TV channels. Seems like he is saying that handling video streams would be just as normal as displaying images, or text.

Re:A link, for those who read articles. (1)

Mathinker (909784) | more than 8 years ago | (#14391172)

The comments there are interesting. A major point made is that the reason that video telephones haven't caught on isn't because of the technology or cost but rather that video telephony destroys many advantages that regular audio telephony has, like minimal intrusion on privacy, while delivering very little advantage on its own since most people actually don't like staring fixedly at each other when they talk (which they tend to do over video telephones now).

OTOH, people just might manage to adapt to talking over video telephones in a more relaxed manner. I suppose it was pretty weird for people when the telephone was introduced, also.

Anyway, it seems likely that current OS's will have plenty of time to adapt while our culture adopts (or doesn't adopt) massive communication via video. Thus making Metcalfe's out-of-context comment look pretty stupid (which it wasn't, really, since after you filter out the Metcalfe-sque flamebait he just said they'd have to change to be able to handle massive communication at video data rates).

Re:A link, for those who read articles. (1)

d^2b (34992) | more than 8 years ago | (#14391247)

(and it's probably redundant by now, but this would be the creator of Ethernet, for those who didn't know who Bob Metcalfe is)
And Ethernet, in the originally collide-n-pray incarnation (as opposed to switched), is so awesome for streaming video. This is why Bob is a natural expert on this topic.

Weird, they work for me... (4, Insightful)

KingSkippus (799657) | more than 8 years ago | (#14390989)

Weird, Windows and Linux seem to handle pretty much any task I need handled. Not bad for a couple of clunkers.

Who knows? Maybe he's right. Personally, I think the concept of television networks is a clunker of an idea waaay past its time. I suggest that in this age of the Internet, we should all be watching on-demand content provided directly by the content makers that's financed by micropayments paid by the consumers, and we receive our "signal" via high-speed Internet connections to the content providers.

Boy, it sure is easy for me to sit back and say that. But where the rubber meets the road—actually making these brave new ideas come to pass... Well, that's the challenge, isn't it? Until someone can cough up the resources to invest into creating, distributing, and marketing BobOS and my IP television studios, I guess we'll just have to keep talking about how nice it would be, and make the best of the clunkers that I suppose are working well enough for now.

But seriously, if you want to invest in my IP television studio, let me know...

Re:Weird, they work for me... (1)

kfg (145172) | more than 8 years ago | (#14391072)

Good things can have unintended side effects, like the advertising vans roaming the streets tight beaming advertising directly into your brain.

At least the current model gives us some time to go take a piss.

KFG

Re:What The? (1)

HD Webdev (247266) | more than 8 years ago | (#14391076)

Well, I'm an MIT engineer, and although it turns out that I have degrees from Harvard, the reason I never mention them is that I hated Harvard. And one of the reasons I hated Harvard is that I was one of the few people in the history of the world who's had their PhD dissertation rejected in their last year

This has to be the most mind-boggling articles I've seen on Slashdot.

This link as well didn't help [harvardsucks.org] .

Re:Weird, they work for me... (1)

surprise_audit (575743) | more than 8 years ago | (#14391107)

Talking of the rubber meeting the road, aren't cars a bit obsolete by now?? Where the hell's my personal flying machine or teleporter?? And Star-Trek-style food synthesizers would be *really* useful...

Re:Weird, they work for me... (1)

CortoMaltese (828267) | more than 8 years ago | (#14391202)

I think the concept of television networks is a clunker of an idea waaay past its time. I suggest that in this age of the Internet, we should all be watching on-demand content provided directly by the content makers that's financed by micropayments paid by the consumers, and we receive our "signal" via high-speed Internet connections to the content providers.

I agree, and everyone is talking about the convergence of networks, etc. but divergence is what I see. I mean, if we used all the money spent on all variants of DVB (satellite, cable, terrestial, mobile) on enhancing the on-demand video broadcasting on the Internet instead, who knows what we could have. Or could have had, to be more precise.

I'll bet its our digital restrictions management friends at works here again.

can't handle "video internet"? (1)

themysteryman73 (771100) | more than 8 years ago | (#14390990)

I don't understand how he can say that current operating systems can't handle "video internet", my computer runs high def video super fine and I can't even stream anything higher than 150KB/sec via the internet, yet. This article is much too vague to have enough merit to be a headline, in my opinion. Sure, better operating systems would be nice, but there's always going to be room for improvement. Besides, by the time this "video internet" is fully implemented, Windows Vista will most likely be available... Possibly even Windows Lemonbuttersauce or whatever they're going to call it ten operating systems from now.

Below the threshold (4, Insightful)

jandersen (462034) | more than 8 years ago | (#14390993)

There really should be a threshold to what kind of articles one could see, like there is for replies.

So here we have yet another article about somebody's narrowminded concept of what the future is going to be like. Who bloody cares about 'video internet'? Yes, the big Hollywood factories that produce entertainment on assembly lines are keen to have all that on the internet so they can roll out their anal-retentive DRM and pay=per-view schemes, and that's all. We on the consumer side will get no real benefits from this 'video internet', on the contrary.

Re:Below the threshold (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14391188)

Um, this "narrow-minded" guy, well, kind of invented Ethernet [wikipedia.org] . Tell me, what have you invented again?
Meh, there seems to be a major trend on slashdot to, in a few sentences, reject ideas by armchair engineers with no real background or understanding of the matter, and then to go on a random tangential rant. These are the comments that get modded up the most. News for nerds indeed

The last bubble squandered a fortune (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14390997)


"I'm looking forward to the next Internet bubble. I don't know what everyone's so negative about. The last bubble was lots of fun."


What an idiot. Look at the carnage afterwards. Nevermind the few people that lost their jobs, tragic as that is, the real damage is the money from pension and investment funds that was squandered. That is people having their entire retirement thrown away.

I don't get it (3, Insightful)

demon_2k (586844) | more than 8 years ago | (#14390998)

What's wrong with the internet as it is now?
Video, for what reqason? Do they mean more like flash?
With interactive animations, or something different?

What i can see happening is animated or even worse, video adds.
And I'll tell all of you, i'm not looking foreward to that.
I think that's a reason enough to be negative.
Wasting bandwidth for damn stupids adds.

I guess it wouldn't bother me so much if we still had unlimited cable. This "unlimited" cable shits me, all because internet service providers want to promote their own content delivery.

If ever a story was worth it... (-1, Offtopic)

peterpi (585134) | more than 8 years ago | (#14391008)

have a goatse [www.goat.cx] with your morning latte.

huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14391009)

How well do those scissors you have in your desk work. Are they the product of a real recent redesign? What about that crescent wrench?

New and different isn't always better. Sometimes it is. But sometimes small incremental changes to something with a fundamentally old design is the best there is for quite a while.

Re:huh? (1)

LSD-OBS (183415) | more than 8 years ago | (#14391121)

I was just about to point out that 25 year old operating systems are the least of your worries if you consider that the transistor is SIXTY YEARS OLD! Holy crap!

</sarcasm>

More like Ethernet is the clunker! (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14391025)

"There'll be new operating systems required; the clunkers we have, you know Windows and Linux, are 25 years old -- they're going to need updating to adequately carry video," Metcalfe says. "What they're doing now is lame."


If video is the future, then I'm afraid that it's Ethernet that's going to be the clunker - not our operating systems. We need the mass deployment of protocols that give us QoS guarantees (e.g. ATM).

Will someone think of the kittens?!?!? (3, Funny)

l0ungeb0y (442022) | more than 8 years ago | (#14391028)

Everytime someone talks about video internet, God kills a kitten.
See?!?! You made me make God kill a kitten just now by talking about video interne... damn!

And you know what? By the time this thread is done with, tens of thousands of kittens will have died. How many at the hands of "In Soviet Russia" jokes alone, I do not know, but I shudder to think.

Frankly, I am saddend at the massive loss of furry lifeforms about to take place, all for the sake of a mental circlejerk about "all porn all the time all online". You're all just sick.

Re:Will someone think of the kittens?!?!? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14391226)

In soviet russia the kittens kill......

Sorry there goes some more!

By the way I'm a dog kind of person (I was going to say dog lover but that would probably get some very sick responses!!!) ;-)
Video internet
Video internet
Video internet
Video internet
Video internet
Video internet
Video internet
Video internet
Video internet
Video internet
Video internet
Video internet
Video internet
Video internet
Video internet
Video internet

And the Chips? (1, Insightful)

ObsessiveMathsFreak (773371) | more than 8 years ago | (#14391029)

If Windows and Linux are outdated, then what about x86 microchip architectures?

25 years? (2, Informative)

dabadab (126782) | more than 8 years ago | (#14391059)

The only specific thing he mentions is that both Windows and Linux are 25 year old... let me see:
Windows NT (which is the base for all the current Windowses) was first released in 1993. (Windows 1.0 was released in 1985, but that was not 25 years ago and has little to do with current ones (like, a copletely different codebase and technology))
Linux began in 1991, but if you really want to dig to the roots, UNIX was created in 1969.
and, of course, the problems "video internet" has (though these are not critical, as demonstrated by porn sites) these are related to the network, not to the OSes.

So, Metcalfe is talking BS as usually.

Re:25 years? (1)

ZenJabba1 (472792) | more than 8 years ago | (#14391088)

Windows NT was based on DEC VMS, which was released in 1980 with version 2.0 VAX/VMS, so Windows NT is based on 25 year old technology.

Re:25 years? (1)

Mixel (723232) | more than 8 years ago | (#14391125)

Just because it says "25 year" in the title doesn't mean Metcalfe wrote it. It means the story submitter wrote it and the editors let it though (which is bad enough); but I don't think it was Metcalfe who submitted this story to /. Now, it may be that he did say "25 year", but you better link to a source if you're going to use people's words against them.

We could have it all. (1)

AHuxley (892839) | more than 8 years ago | (#14391074)

Hardware was the old limiting factor. Apple and Xerox PARC did the very best with what they had.
MS dummed down and corporatized up the desktop, hacking and patching their way to profit.
For 20 years a generation sold out to MS and failed to get anything back.
Fonts, networking, printing, "security" ect. where all just bolted on top when needed.

But today we have the bandwidth, storage and hopefully 20 years of "how not to do it".
Now just as we have what we need - it will all be lock down with DRM via Vista.

I think... (2, Interesting)

isecore (132059) | more than 8 years ago | (#14391081)

"I'm looking forward to the next Internet bubble. I don't know what everyone's so negative about. The last bubble was lots of fun."

Possibly he's of this opinion since he was one of the very few who didn't get burned by it? I know several people who got really badly burnt when the bubble popped.

In the same league (0)

jancastermans (115132) | more than 8 years ago | (#14391087)

How old is Slashdot? And how will they handle new bubbles like del.icio.us and digg.com ?

Misleading summary (4, Informative)

oneandoneis2 (777721) | more than 8 years ago | (#14391114)

The actual quote is Windows and Linux, are 25 years old -- they're going to need updating to adequately carry video - so he's not really implying "They're dinosaurs and need to die out & be replaced", more "They're not yet ready for future demands" - which is pretty much a given: How can you create functionality for something that doesn't exist yet?

Monolithic vs Microkernel (1)

Neo-Rio-101 (700494) | more than 8 years ago | (#14391124)

Here comes the return of the Monolithic versus Microkernel debate. *goan*

Re:Monolithic vs Microkernel (1)

peterpi (585134) | more than 8 years ago | (#14391174)

vi is better.

Video Internet? (3, Insightful)

The NPS (899303) | more than 8 years ago | (#14391142)

I thought we already had video internet, and it was called TV. Honestly, video content is worthless. Sure, it'd be kind of fun to watch the numa numa kid in high definition with no buffering, but does it really matter? No. Is there any substance to that? Hell no. If TV is even a tiny implication of what more video content would mean, then the last thing I want is more video content in the net.

Not developed, updated (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14391155)

From TFA:

"There'll be new operating systems required; the clunkers we have, you know Windows and Linux, are 25 years old -- they're going to need updating to adequately carry video," Metcalfe says. "What they're doing now is lame."

In january 1995 Bob Metcalfe predicted (5, Informative)

lord_rob the only on (859100) | more than 8 years ago | (#14391163)

"The internet will soon go spectaculary supernova and in 1996 catastrophically collapse"
He promised to "eat his words" if he was wrong
So, in early 1997, at a technical conference he ate
(from "Computer Networks" by Tanenbaum)

BeOS, where are you ? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14391166)

BeOS was the answer. Amiga was the answer. Cheap asses use cheap-crap Linux. Lemmings use follow-me-over-the-cliff Windows.

Clunkers. (3, Insightful)

SoupIsGood Food (1179) | more than 8 years ago | (#14391177)

Well, he's right. Windows is based, more or less, on the old VAX/VMS model. Linux is a modern OS kernel, but it's designed to run a variant of the Unix operating system, which was shiny and new before the Star Trek with Captain Kirk went into syndication.

The same can be said for MacOS X and the BSD's... hell, for pretty much every OS under the sun. BeOS and Plan 9 were the last attempts at someone trying something new with any technical success, and their lessons were largely lost on the industry.

Innovation in operating systems is pretty much at a standstill outside the academic environment. Current operating systems cannot leverage parralelism very well for anything but hyper-specialized applications. Current operating systems have user environments that are crummy at managing massive amounts of data crammed into cavernous storage systems. Current operating systems are rotten at deploying your data across networked devices like cell phones and MP3 players and DVRs without a crapload of work.

There are acres of room for improvement, but the current paradigms aren't keeping up. Part of the problem is the PC architecture... it's not well suited for anything but a workstation or server, and even then, it's not all that well suited. It's shackling the industry to a very limiting hardware model, trading innovation in effciency and effectiveness for better benchmarks at the same old stuff.

Someone's going to need to design and market a new platform... OS and Hardware, that manages your data better with less effort across more devices, before we can get things moving again.

Otherwise I foresee more of the same... computers completing benchmarks faster, but not doing anything new and innovative.

Linux is a very nice unix, perhaps the pinnacle of achievement for the Unix Way, but the Unix Way isn't all that special anymore, and is really showing its age. Windows is an order of magnitude in worse shape. It's just that no-one with an industry presence is willing to try anything new anymore, and companies like SGI and HP are going broke sticking to the old model long after it's stopped working for them.

SoupIsGood Food

No new OS needed (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14391179)

If he really did say that a new OS was needed, his an Idiot.

OperatingSystems has to do with process scheduling and memory management.

There might be a needed to develop new GUI's toolkits, new drivers for videocards, codecs, programs, but a new OS? Dont think so.

-1 Troll (5, Insightful)

obender (546976) | more than 8 years ago | (#14391183)

I think we should be allowed to mod the stories as well as the comments. This way we could get rid of both the dupes and the trolls like the current story.

Learning ? (1)

cr_nucleus (518205) | more than 8 years ago | (#14391187)

Let us at least hope we learned a few things from the last bubble.

You can certainly hope so, but i would advice not to count on it.

The future is already here (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14391230)

And it's called BeOS.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>