[HN Gopher] What have we lost? - Demo of exotic OSes (2021) [video] ___________________________________________________________________ What have we lost? - Demo of exotic OSes (2021) [video] Author : hcarvalhoalves Score : 146 points Date : 2022-08-25 17:04 UTC (5 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.youtube.com) (TXT) w3m dump (www.youtube.com) | jcynix wrote: | Oh, yes, Symbolics Genera, loved it, miss it. And miss the | keyboard with its control, meta, super and hyper keys. | | I actually do have one keyboard in my archive of things (aka | "stuff" ;-), but I have no idea how to interface it to modern | hardware, sigh. | floren wrote: | Odds are it would be extremely easy with, say, an Arduino Pro | Micro. I've interfaced a variety of old hardware (Sun Type 5 | keyboard, Depraz mouse, original Macintosh mouse) via USB using | one. | | You're probably more or less on your own in terms of figuring | it out, though, because not many people have those keyboards! | jcynix wrote: | > You're probably more or less on your own in terms of | figuring it out [...] | | Sure, but as I'm not a good hardware tinkerer, ... but maybe | I should visit some local self-repair community group and | learn. | | Symbolics produced a nubus(?) coprocessor with their Ivory | chip in their final days, which used a box to interface the | keyboard to Apple's ADB, but I never got hold of either the | coprocesor nor the box. | floren wrote: | You might start with https://trmm.net/Symbolics/ which | seems to be pretty much ready-to-go with an Arduino. | | If you're in the Bay Area, I would build the adapter for | you just to have the opportunity to check out a Symbolics | keyboard first-hand :) | jbverschoor wrote: | Well, proper "objects". So many great things in the 90s on | windows btw.. | anyfoo wrote: | IBM i opened my eyes a bit, and made me a bit sad, when I decided | to check it out after decades of working on what I now realize | are entirely UNIX-y OSes. By that I mean that besides the many | actual UNIX-derived systems like Linux, Solaris, HP/UX, macOS I | worked on, IBM i made me realize that DOS, Windows, OS/2, and | whatever else most people are probably aware of nowadays, are | also UNIX clones to a much higher degree than I thought. | | IBM i is _completely_ different in many ways. It has a unified | 128bit address space. It does not have the same concept of a | hierarchical filesystem (by default, you can bolt one on, but it | clearly does not "fit"), and it does not even strongly have the | concept of having everything in "streaming" files (or their | equivalent) to begin with. It also has a completely different | "command line" concept for example, and countless other aspects | that are hard to explain succinctly. | | It is a bit like learning Haskell, where it used to feel like you | _thought_ you could learn every language in an afternoon (after | C, C++, Java, JS, Pascal, perl, python, awk, shells, BASIC, and | countless others), but then discover you have to relearn the very | basics, and that what you thought of as universal actually isn | 't. | | A lot of these concepts work really well. They are at a level of | abstraction that I would not have thought possible in practice. | They allow the system to be incredibly stable and low | maintenance, and elegant. The underlying architecture was changed | at least once (maybe twice, not sure), and it was entirely | seamless for customers. | | It made me sad because I discovered a computing world that | _could_ be widespread reality, but in all likelihood won 't be. | That's thanks to UNIX being so pervasive that it's now basically | woven into the very fabric of computing, but _that_ is of course | in no small part thanks to IBM 's extreme closeness. I once | thought UNIX was the way to go, but I'm not so sure anymore. And | now that it's everywhere, too many of its concepts are considered | a "ground truth". UNIX won because it was hard to avoid getting | exposed to it, while for IBM i you had and still have to fight | for even just trying it out. | | Interestingly, the IBM mainframe world, i.e. z/OS and its | predecessors, do feel the same in terms of "you have to relearn | everything", but with the _opposite_ outcome. Where IBM i is | presenting you with unique abstractions from the very base of the | OS, it 's amazing how little abstraction there is in the | mainframe world. You clearly get a sense that mainframes come | from a time where a lot of common concepts simply had not been | invented yet, while on the other hand IBM i (or rather its | predecessors) reimagined OSes at a much later time. | tuatoru wrote: | > ... on the other hand IBM i (or rather its predecessors) | reimagined OSes at a much later time. | | Yes. The System/38 - AS/400 - iSeries - IBM i (the lineage) | resulted from a project called the "Future Systems" project | which started in the late 1960s and tried to imagine computers | as appliances, while recognising that hardware was changing | fast. | | Hardware architecture independence, encapsulation of software | objects, a highly regular, helpful user interface, and minimal | administration labor were all design goals of that project. | | It succeeded too well. User-written programs were stored with | their "intermediate representation" (think assembler). They | could be, and were, retranslated automaitcally when moved to a | new architecture. | | Upgrades from a 36-bit processor with 20-bit addressing to a | 48-bit processor with 32-bit addressing to POWER (64-bit / | 64-bit) were essentially just a backup and restore[1] for | customers. | | As probably mentioned in the video, the system could be | configured with a modem and would phone home to IBM if it | detected a fault. | | It was common that after a few years with turnover of | accounting personnel, offices would not even know that they had | an iSeries - this is probably still the case. | | This lack of mindshare is probably what killed the i. That and | IBM not wanting to sell it, to protect their mainframe | business. | | --- | | 1. On backups: The OS stored a backup history (dates of the | last 20 or so backups, from memory) with each object. It also | stored each object's date of creation and the name and serial | number of the system it was created on, as well as the dates of | metadata modification (changes to access rights, for instance). | | Not surprisingly with all the bookkeeping it was much harder on | disk drives than IBM's comparable systems. Disk drives that | lasted for many years when used with a 4300 series (cut-down | mainframe) tended to die in 18 months used with the System/38. | RAID-1 and RAID-3 (2 stripes plus a dedicated parity drive) was | implemented in the early 80s, from memory. RAID-5 came a bit | later IIRC. | | Programs and files were objects. So were user profils and group | profiles. Access control lists, objects that contained lists of | users and groups and permission lists for each entry, were used | to control access rights to other objects. They themselves were | objects at the same level as these - created, manipulated, and | backed up in just the same way. | | It tried out a lot of things. It had a unified concept of | "message queues". There were permanent ones like the QSYSOPR | (system operator) queue, the equivalent of syslog. Processes | each got a message queue. Programs within a process each got a | message queue, so a program could tell its grandparent | something and continue. As a programmer you could create your | own message queues, the analog of named pipes in Unix. Message | templates were predefined and stored in "message files", which | allowed you to write "second level text" --esentially detailed | help--for each message. The shell's built-in command prompting | and menu system was built around message files and queues as | well. | pjmlp wrote: | Exactly my experience when delving into the computer library at | the university. | | I was heading into some UNIX zealotry path, and then started | diving into everything that happened before UNIX, what was | going on at Xerox, DEC, Olivetti, ETHZ, and so forth, sunddenly | UNIX wasn't that interesting as I once thought. | jacquesm wrote: | I've worked on old IBM systems (old by today's standards, back | then they were top of the line), the 4381 to be specific, it | ran very fast (the IO capabilities of those systems was quite | impressive for the time and even today such a system would, | besides it size be quite ok) compared to all of the UNIX | machines I had played with but it wasn't elegant in the way | that UNIX was, just tons and tons of little details to | remember, whereas with the UNIX survival guide (about 15 | commands) you could normally get through the day until you | started to do crazy stuff. The IBM gear cam with absolutely | amazing documentation though. | | "everything is a file" is brilliant, but UNIX didn't take that | as far as it should have, Plan 9 is much further along that | road and I would consider it to be even more elegant than UNIX. | | The way in which things work is just like you would expect them | to work, including being able to compose stuff (for instance: | in Plan 9 to run a new version of the window manager in a | window in the old one) is what I really like about that | particular system. | | Between Plan 9 and Erlang we missed a bus somewhere. | topspin wrote: | > "everything is a file" is brilliant, but UNIX didn't take | that as far as it should have | | Agreed. The interface between applications and the operating | system is not sufficiently abstracted. If it were software | would be vastly better; faster, more secure, easier to | manage, scale, migrate, troubleshoot, etc. | | There is a lot of attention paid to programming language | design and too little paid to the environment in which | software has to operate. I think the low hanging fruit is | improving operating systems and their abstractions. Solving | this at the programming language level is not feasible; all | that produces is a virtual machine that adds overhead, | complexity and valueless diversity. | anyfoo wrote: | Be careful though, IBM 4381 is an example of the mainframe | world, so very much _not_ similar to IBM i. It 's s/370 | compatible and ran OS/VS1 and VM/370. | | In terms of abstraction, almost the opposite in some sense, | as I've noted in my last paragraph. In terms of usage as | well: IBM i's command line model I also mentioned helps a lot | in using the system even without external documentation (more | than the UNIX shell does), which seems to be the opposite in | the mainframe world. | jacquesm wrote: | Yes, that's true it is a completely different beast from | IBM i. By the way, I'm not sure if you have just used these | remote or virtualized or in person but they are quite | impressive from a hardware perspective and built incredibly | solid compared to almost everything else that I've worked | with including VAXen from that era. We had two of them | (cold spare...) maxed out Group 2 models. | | That's still 'only' 32 MB of RAM which may seem tiny by | today's standards but that machine happily served a few | hundred branch offices of a fairly major bank all by its | lonesome, so that's 1000's of concurrent users | (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CICS). | EdwardCoffin wrote: | I never used the i series (formerly AS/400, and System/38 | before that), but reading _Inside the AS /400_ by Frank G. | Soltis made a huge impression on me. Highly recommended for | anyone interested in the details. | whartung wrote: | I kind of wished I would have got a position at some company | to work on an AS/400. Back in the day, my company was looking | for a new "solution" and considered most everything, | including an IBM. But eventually we went UNIX. | | What I'm curious, though, is in the world of a random back | office developer, how much of the, well, "inner beauty" of | the machine would I have encountered. | | Most of the cool Unix-y stuff happened mostly through ad hoc | integrations with random Stuff as circumstances presented | themselves, and I don't know how much of the AS/400 a random | (likely) COBOL programmer would have delved into. | anyfoo wrote: | If you'd like to try, there is a way to get a free user | account at pub400.com. That got me interested enough that I | set out to get my own AS/400. | | It took me literally years until I stumbled upon an | affordable machine with licenses. The machine I got is | decades old and was decommissioned in 2008, after a long | life. | | IBM created something revolutionary and did everything to | keep the public away from it. | chiph wrote: | The team behind it also tried to keep the rest of IBM away | from it, for fear that The Suits From Armonk would come in | and ruin their product and their culture. | jmclnx wrote: | Never worked on IBM i, but Wang VS had a very unique system. It | also expected the terminals connected to it to have a small | CPU. | | Too bad it never made it to the wild. In its last days it was | ported to an IBM AIX System (RS6000?), but the company went | bankrupt before that port made it out. | chizhik-pyzhik wrote: | I particularly enjoyed the demo of BTRON starting around 27:10... | interesting seeing a system update, for example, provided as an | object that you drag from the installation document into the | system settings window. | smm11 wrote: | Holy cow! BTRON is awesome. It's like the gaslight home- | lighting era, in the modern day. A web browser? | agumonkey wrote: | Yeah, and it has a BeOS feel to it. | selimnairb wrote: | This makes me mourn Apple's failure to develop a next- | generation OS in-house (as much as I like many things about the | NeXT-based modern macOS). | cf100clunk wrote: | Alternative link to video: | https://vid.puffyan.us/watch?v=7RNbIEJvjUA | bombcar wrote: | _Linux_ has done more to kill exotic OSes than anything Microsoft | or Apple has ever done. | | Because Linux (and you can throw in the BSDs here if you want) is | so capable as is, the chance someone will write an OS from | scratch is pretty low. They'll much more likely base it off of | Linux and go from there, which means that it'll just be another | Unix clone. | | Even things like Fuchsia are heavily influenced by it, and end up | feeling "similar". As someone else mentioned, Unix _won_ so hard | most everything else is dead; even Windows is very "unix-like" | in ways people don't even realize. | spideymans wrote: | > even Windows is very "unix-like" in ways people don't even | realize. | | WSL is a tacit acceptance of UNIX dominance. | jcadam wrote: | The only older OS I actually miss is Amiga Workbench. | | I had an older coworker at one of my first jobs who would go on | and on about VMS all day and how UNIX sucks. I never used VMS so | I wouldn't know :) | protomyth wrote: | Well, given that I am typing this about 15' from an IBM POWER | S914 running the i operating system, I'm not sure its lost. Our | accountants hate GUI stuff and love the green screen. Its amazing | to have what essentially is a low maintenance machine that calls | IBM when something isn't correct. We have the last i Series (a | pre-POWER model) that lasted for over a decade, and I do expect | this one to make it the same amount of time. It is a bit obtuse, | but I dearly wish some other OSes would examine themselves for | self administration to the level of the IBM i Series. | avhception wrote: | As late as 2011, we had a custom payroll system on MS-DOS. I | was always blown away by the speed it's users achieved. They | really flew through the menus and knew all hotkeys and commands | of the TUI by heart. When they got "upgraded" to a modern GUI | based system, it really slowed them down. Of course learning a | new thing always takes time, but that's not the whole story. | Especially with ever-changing websites that usually don't care | about hotkeys, the mental load of visually scanning for | elements and clicking them with the mouse can be really slow. | And it always fascinates me how it was perfectly normal and | expected for mere users to use a TUI while today I've heard | grunts even from junior devs and self-proclaimed power-users | when I told them to use the CLI for this or that. | | How times have changed. | | IBM i is fascinating, and in a world of ever-changing tech- | stacks I sometimes yearn for a stable environment where you | don't have to fight with 10,000 node.js dependencies every | other month just to keep that payroll website going. I've never | came in contact with IBM i or POWER tech in a professional | capacity, but have purchased an RS/6000 and, more recently, a | TalosII system to play around with ppc64le :) | LeftHandPath wrote: | I've noticed a lot of the more experienced people in our | office stop trusting things as soon as they see drop shadows | and branded color schemes. And they are all very quick with | the old terminals. | bombcar wrote: | The biggest key with the "green screen" terminals is they | would NEVER EVER lose a keypress and they would buffer them, | too. | | So even if the computer was actually quite slow, if you knew | what you were doing you could "type ahead" a few screens into | the system, and then wander off and do something else. | | That just doesn't work on GUIs (some rarely are well designed | so that it can) and certainly has zero chance of working on | webpages. | protomyth wrote: | I honestly wish someone had come up with some text markup | language and "browser" so enterprise developers could | deploy text UI apps. The web is just awful for the back | office people. Frankly, I wonder how much money is being | spent on the web when a TUI would have been more | productive. | ordiel wrote: | Developers of newer versions of a system even if it is a | migration from TUI to a Web GUI should really strive to | maintain the shortcuts and hotkeys, an upgrade its suposed to | be "that", extra functionality not a replacement of the | existing one. Sadly there is this assumption that given it | has a GUI there is no need of shortcuts or hotkeys, forcing | users to use the mouse. | | Gmail does provide some hotkeys and I think even those "few" | ones really help, also Atlassian applications yet most web | pages I have interacted with have none | LeftHandPath wrote: | That's funny - I am currently working on a web app to GUI-ify | the green screen for my company's IBM i OS on a similar Power8 | system. They love the green screen but this was the easiest way | to reduce the amount of manual entry we're doing for a specific | 3rd party application we run on it. | | A different tool I made ran in the PASE [1] environment on the | same system -- compiling & running C++ in IBM's AIX runtime | environment. Really interesting experience. | | [1]: https://www.ibm.com/docs/en/i/7.3?topic=programming-pase-i | wslh wrote: | Sidenote: I just googled about that equipment[1] and found it | weird that the copywriting says: "IBM(r) Power System S914 | easily integrates into your organization's cloud & cognitive | strategy and delivers superior price performance for your | mission critical workloads..." the "cognitive strategy" words | seems forced by a new marketing team. Cloud also seems weird in | this context. | | [1] https://www.ibm.com/products/power-system-s914 | mmh0000 wrote: | For those that like playing with arcane commands and systems; | check out "Plan 9 from User Space"[0]. A port of Plan9's default | applications that runs on Linux or MacOSX. | | ACME[1], a text editor, is a great starting point. | | [0] https://9fans.github.io/plan9port/ | | [1] http://acme.cat-v.org/ | jtvjan wrote: | You can also watch this on their own website if you don't want to | deal with YouTube: | https://media.ccc.de/v/rc3-525180-what_have_we_lost | trasz wrote: | This book might be of use: | http://www.snee.com/bob/opsys/fullbook.pdf | wudangmonk wrote: | I guess the only hope for seeing new non-toy OSes would be when | hardware manufacturers move to a SoC and create a spec for it. | gman83 wrote: | There's SerenityOS -- https://serenityos.org/ One of the main | authors has been documenting the development on YouTube, it's | pretty fascinating. | dmd wrote: | SerenityOS, by design, is close to indistinguishable from any | other unix. | anyfoo wrote: | And that will still very much resemble most of today's OSes not | only because that's what people know, but also because the | development kit will need to run on common OSes, so the | paradigms still have to be somewhat compatible. | agumonkey wrote: | next: xerox, pharo, vpri ometa based os, oberon, and emacs | thequux wrote: | I'm glad that this talk continues to inspire people! | | FWIW, there's previous discussion over here: | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26723886 | mintplant wrote: | Did you end up giving the follow-on talk mentioned here? | | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26724786 | dang wrote: | Thanks! Macroexpanded: | | _What have we lost? [video]_ - | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26723886 - April 2021 (83 | comments) | jamesfmilne wrote: | I caught a glimpse of operating systems that had not been and | would never be | christkv wrote: | VMS on the VAX was also a very interesting OS. I got to play with | one of the last VAX models for a summer 25 years ago. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-08-25 23:00 UTC)