Thinking about it, it’s weird that there hasn’t been any real change in operating systems for about 50 years. Unix and its derivatives seem to be almost the only game in town, apart from desktops running Windows.
I think the last one to make any real headway was BeOS and they’ve been dying a thousand deaths ever since Apple bought NeXT instead of them. Though admittedly that perspective is coming from a person who used BeOS once in the 90s and has never touched Haiku.
It’s because you don’t want to reinvent the wheel all the time. It sucks doing it. Lots of effort. It’s much better to build on existing stuff and maybe improve it for your needs.
But that’s the thing: is there only one wheel? Maybe wheels are a bad metaphor here, but isn’t it weird, that there aren’t any fundamentally new concepts? Unix was developed basically during the preschool years of computing and we all just kind of stuck with its concepts.
Depends on the level of abstraction you’re looking at. Operating systems today are vastly more capable of organizing different provesses, distributing work amongst multiple CPU cores, CPU caches, etc. I guess the von Neumann architecture has just proven really successful in practice. And von Neumann machines require a certain set of capabilities in their OSes.
Maybe look at embedded systems, where we find a bit more variety. Things like DSPs or microcontrollers.
There’s other engine designs (ex:rotary engine) but the 4 stroke has over a century of testing, improvements, and refinements. A new design can adapt some of the refinements, but would have to catch up on decades of innovation and testing just to catch up!
On the Unix side, there’s the evolution of the Posix standard (which was based on Unix).
I would point out, by comparison, that piston engines are effectively obsolete for certain applications. Most aircraft operate on some type of jet engine, which involves the same core concepts of thermodynamics and aeronautics, but are still fundamentally different. They also optimize for different criteria, which is why neither jet engines nor piston engines hold a monopoly on any class of vehicle.
This is really stretching the computer metaphor. I think my point is that there will be room for rethinking paradigms as our applications of computers grow to include things that weren’t originally planned for. But in a mature technology there’s a lot of established precedent, and that’s not easily overcome. It takes something that can improve the field like jet engines made new aircraft possible.
Their game seems like it would only be a challenge for people who have never played before. If you know the game, you’re not going to fail any of the challenges which were only challenging to the Ops team because they didn’t know the rules (or that it was even a game).
They barely even lost as it was. Which makes me wonder what a game between two players/teams who understand the game would look like. My guess is that it would be like that time Data made a mockery of Kolrami at Strategema.
I’d imagine it’s meant to be played with consenting players and then the challenges inside become part of the fun. If you know there’s no risk involved then it basically just becomes a pocket dimension containing a hybrid Wipeout course/escape room
files.catbox.moe
Newest