Geoff Duncan moving on

I fully agree with Geoff's assessment of progress in operating systems. He
hits the nail on the head when he says

>I've long said that we'll know computers have arrived when there's no need
>for people like me.

The bulk of my experience is with the Burroughs/Unisys MCP -- actually the
one extant version of four which have held this designator (and ran on
different ISA platforms). It's highly capable (albeit without a GUI or an
SQL-optimized DBMS), and has reached that point that it has little ongoing
need for geeks like me and Geoff except for new development, and even that
became less geeky and more straightforward.

And a funny thing happened when it reached that point. Needing geeks less,
it became less interesting to geeks (even though 30 years ago it was
considered one of the most intellectually interesting platforms around,
right up there with the now-fully-extinct MULTICS). With fewer interested
geeks talking, the less technically oriented managers started listening
more carefully to the more astute marketers pushing New Stuff. Geeks of
course are interested in New Toys. And so we had a winning triumvirate:
geeks with New Toys, managers with New Stuff, and marketers with New Sales.

I too had my dreams 30 years ago: I thought that improved programming
languages were going to make programming dramatically easier. What did we
get? C++. Oh, various improvements in the environment have resulted in real
gains, but with precious little help from the actual programming languages.
Even the much vaunted Java is a sow's ear with no silk purse in sight,
valuable for its well-defended portability far more than for inherent
strengths of the programming language.

So maybe one day Geoff and I will run into each other in Gabbs or Ione or
Owyhee or Jarbidge as we discussed a few years ago. It's an odd morphing of
the old visions of Geek Heaven.

Edward
Art works by Melynda Reid: http://paleo.org

At 12:12 PM -0700 8/31/06, Edward Reid wrote:
>I fully agree with Geoff's assessment of progress in operating systems.

Thanks for the kind words. My intention was only to outline my own
sense of the state of personal computer technology, but I'm surprised
how many TidBITS readers have found resonances in the article. I not
recommending everybody just give up the Mac, move to the hills, and
spend time getting familiar with home canning - I'll still be using
Macs for my everyday computers. But I am kind of startled that for
every heralded innovation, there are so many seemingly basic things
which haven't really improved.

>I too had my dreams 30 years ago: I thought that improved programming
>languages were going to make programming dramatically easier.

I agree: I find it ironic that things like Python, Perl, C++ (and, on
the Mac, Objective C) are such common tools. Although, to be fair,
languages must interface with their hosting environments, and so much
day-to-day programming is strongly tied to APIs provided by
frameworks and operating systems. There's some truth to the notion
that programmers spend the majority of their time dealing with the OS
and managing interface.

>So maybe one day Geoff and I will run into each other in Gabbs or Ione or
>Owyhee or Jarbidge as we discussed a few years ago. It's an odd morphing of
>the old visions of Geek Heaven.

Just so other folks have an idea what Edward's talking about here,
these are mostly-ghost towns in northern Nevada; Gabbs and Ione
aren't far (by local standards) from where I grew up. Some nice
pictures of Berlin and Grantsville (near Gabbs), Ione, and other
Nevada towns can be found here:

http://www.ghosttowngallery.com/

Gabbs is a newcomer to ghost-town status, having only been
dis-incorporated in 2001, although I bet some folks are still there.
Gabbs (and Grantsville and Berlin) are near the Ichthyosaur state
park - yes, some 7,000 feet up in the mountains, you can go see a
huge trove of fossils from dozens of 50-foot long, carnivorous
seagoing reptiles. Four-wheel drive recommended.

I'd bet Macs work as well in those places as anywhere else, but home
canning skills could be useful for long-term visits. ;)

gd
--
Geoff Duncan TidBITS Editor at Large <http://www.tidbits.com/>

At 12:12 PM -0700 8/31/06, Edward Reid wrote:
>I too had my dreams 30 years ago: I thought that improved programming
>languages were going to make programming dramatically easier. What did we
>get? C++. Oh, various improvements in the environment have resulted in real
>gains, but with precious little help from the actual programming languages.
>Even the much vaunted Java is a sow's ear with no silk purse in sight,
>valuable for its well-defended portability far more than for inherent
>strengths of the programming language.

Programming languages are not the solution to bad software.

Good programming *practice* is.

My 14 years of experience in the software industry tell me that all
the problems in software are due to programmer laziness, sloppiness,
cutting corners because of deadlines instead of working longer hours
to make sure the code is right.

Business managers who know nothing about technology keep trying to
make programming into some kind of production line endeavor which it
never will be. Good software is a creative process and an art. Try
telling a musician or painter to crank out one work of art after
another on a fixed schedule. This kind of MBA mentality in software
is a leading cause of much of the malaise in the software industry
today. Things were much better when creative engineers were running
IT companies (remember the 90s?). Silicon Valley continues to lose
jobs year after year and it is because the business managers have
moved in and the creative engineers have been driven out. Reducing
software to a mere "business model" is counterproductive.

The world today is suffering from technology diharrea. There's a new
programming language every month - each one promising this will be
the one to make writing software easy. They all fail.

Once upon a time you could learn a programming language and use it
for 10-20 years. Now one is expected to learn a new language every
month - with most of the new languages merely repeating what older
languages did and not providing anything better quality or
productivity. I for one don't want to be on a learning treadmill for
the rest of my life. I want to write software, not spend my time
re-learning how to write it.

I've written 12 commercial software products in C/C++. Every one of
them did great commercially and had high quality. I learned about 11
years ago that it's *how* you program that counts, not what you
program in.

I've turned around some huge software projects in C++ that were a
mess (20+ million lines of bad code). I didn't need any new tools or
languages to do it. I just needed to fix the code that was poorly
written and make it right.

Java, Objective-C, Perl, Python, Jython, Haskel, Ajax, Flex, Ruby,
Ruby on Rails - there's no end to the crap people are churning out. I
guess in the programming world programmers think they can be the next
Bill Gates by inventing the next programming language. What a total
waste of time. They could be inventing nw products people want
instead.

C has been around since 1970 and is still the foundation of the
internet (TCP/IP). I don't see anything wrong with C++ if it's used
properly. I think C/C++ are the perfect programming languages. All
this new stuff is just fluff that isn't taking us anywhere. People
would do much better to focus on fixing crappy process and sloppiness
than on inventing the next language-of-the-week.

Furthermore as programming languages proliferate there seems to have
been a slowdown in innovation. No wonder - programmers are spending
all their time learning instead of creating.

Mike

I must admit that I agree with your last article in saying that the Mac is indeed just another computer! I feel when Mac moved away from OS9, they abandoned the best OS ever written. There was a time when the original iMacs and OS 9 came close to beating Microsoft once and for all. But something slipped, changed, or worse, got sold out for OSX and Pentium processors. Too bad.

I do think however, it was inevitable that this happened. I think when Steve Jobs crawled in bed with Bill Gates and Microsoft Office, that was the turning point. I have been a Mac fan since the mid 1990's and have owned many Macs and still do. Even tho I now own an iMac G5, I still use my old G3 running OS9 and my wife still uses her tangerine iMac on 8.6. I feel at home on OS9, never have felt that with OSX.

One example is iPhoto. If you dare to move a photo from the library, it takes a rocket scientist to restore the mess you make. In the old days, you could move a file anywhere you wanted and it would still open the application. That is gone with X as you know.

Good luck in your ventures, whatever they may be. I have enjoyed your input over the years. I don't remember when I became a Tidbit subscriber but I do remember downloading on a 1200 baud modem!

I agree with much of what Geoff wrote, but would like to add some perspective regarding his summary:

"But where, to me, the Macintosh used to represent a set of values and ideals about the role of technology in people's lives, now the Macintosh is just a computer."

The reason I believe this has happened is mostly that the focus of innovation has moved beyond desktop computing to handheld devices. Today we have amazingly powerful and easy to use handheld devices like iPods, cell phones, digital cameras, and GPS navigation systems that fit in the palm of your hand. This is where the original Macintosh ideal of usable technology still flourishes.

As the PC and Internet have matured, the Mac like its siblings has evolved to serve a broader market. Apple to its credit recognized early on that PCs were becoming the glue that could tie all these devices and technologies together, but this is a different emphasis from being a personal computing appliance for the rest of us.

The platform has thrived in part because it accommodates so many diverse intentions and existing technologies in a relatively transparent manner. This diversity has indeed introduced more complexity, but what was the viable alternative now that the network has become the system?

At 1:52 PM -0700 9/5/06, Peter Sichel wrote:
>I agree with much of what Geoff wrote, but would like to add some
>perspective regarding his summary:
>
>"But where, to me, the Macintosh used to represent a set of values
>and ideals about the role of technology in people's lives, now the
>Macintosh is just a computer."

I might argue that the Mac has always been just a computer, but that
the particular activities that it made possible early on endeared it
to a rather sociable personality type that had not traditionally been
interested by computers. Thus was created the Macintosh community,
which is still - in my mind - what sets the Mac apart from other
systems. In other words, it's not the hardware or the operating
system that's important, but the people who use it.

Now whether Apple realizes this is another question entirely. I don't
think anything has particularly changed for better or worse with
Apple Corporate with that regard, given and despite various
community-friendly programs over the years, such as hiring Guy
Kawasaki back as a user evangelist, the ongoing user group programs,
and so on. At its heart, Apple is a company, not a social movement -
the social movement part is up to us.

>The reason I believe this has happened is mostly that the focus of
>innovation has moved beyond desktop computing to handheld devices.
>Today we have amazingly powerful and easy to use handheld devices
>like iPods, cell phones, digital cameras, and GPS navigation systems
>that fit in the palm of your hand. This is where the original
>Macintosh ideal of usable technology still flourishes.

That's absolutely true, and I think there are two aspects to that:

* These are all limited-purpose devices. Note that you didn't include
the general-purpose Palm OS handhelds in that list. I'd argue that
people actually want purpose-driven devices, and the more general the
capabilities, the more people are overwhelmed with the possibilities
so a more limited device has a larger market by drawing in people who
couldn't figure out a general purpose device. And of course, the more
general the capabilities, the less well they server a particular
need. MacBooks may be small, but they're a heck of a lot larger than
iPods.

* From the manufacturer point of view, these devices are closed
system commodities. They don't require supporting a complex operating
system and developer community. (And yes, I realize that there are
plenty of third party hardware products for the iPod that include
software, but not anyone can just write a program to run on the iPod,
like they can for the Mac.) And since they're more commodity-like,
people are more likely to buy more devices, more frequently.

>The platform has thrived in part because it accommodates so many
>diverse intentions and existing technologies in a relatively
>transparent manner. This diversity has indeed introduced more
>complexity, but what was the viable alternative now that the network
>has become the system?

Again, I agree - the Internet has taken over from the computer as the
general purpose computing "device," and the computer is merely the
portal into the Internet.

cheers... -Adam

--
Adam C. Engst, TidBITS Publisher <http://www.tidbits.com/adam/>

At 1:52 PM -0700 9/5/06, Peter Sichel wrote:
>"But where, to me, the Macintosh used to represent a set of values
>and ideals about the role of technology in people's lives, now the
>Macintosh is just a computer."
>
>The reason I believe this has happened is mostly that the focus of
>innovation has moved beyond desktop computing to handheld devices.
>Today we have amazingly powerful and easy to use handheld devices
>like iPods, cell phones, digital cameras, and GPS navigation systems
>that fit in the palm of your hand. This is where the original
>Macintosh ideal of usable technology still flourishes.

That's entirely possible: I've skipped the "handheld device"
revolution simply because there just don't seem to be many handheld
devices I'm interested in. I don't need a GPS; my photography needs
are quite modest; I don't use a PDA; I don't want a portable media
player; I only got a (dirt simple) cell phone this year, and might
ditch it because I almost never use it, owing to it being such a pain
in the tuchus.

I did have a devil of a time finding an analog
timepiece/compass/thermometer thing. To me, that's actually useful.
;-)

I also find iPods awkward, but I don't own one so I have little
experience with them. Creative might have gotten a patent on aspects
of the interface, but I don't think the organizational model is
anything to crow about and the rest of it often seems haphazard.
Every time I touch an iPod, it takes me a full minute to figure out
the "click wheel" thing again - and I'm probably still not using it
right. I can't seem to develop the coordination to play any built-in
iPod games...but, then, I can't really use the trackpads on modern
PowerBooks/MacBooks either (they hurt my thumb).

Another item from Geoff's Skewed Sample Set: a long-time iPod owner
I've known for years said not two days ago: "You know, I wish there
was a way to just turn it off." Of course, there *is*: you press and
hold the Play button. More properly, that puts the iPod to sleep. But
what part of "off" pr "sleep" is related to a Play button? It's so
incredibly unintuitive it's flabbergasting, and for the better part
of a year this otherwise technologically competent user hadn't been
able to figure it out. I don't think Apple should be able to get away
with excuses like "Well, that's similar to the way other consumer
electronics devices work." True as that may be, most interfaces on CE
devices are horrid.

With the Macintosh Apple initially set (and held themselves to) high
standards, and the "industry" seems to tout the iPod is some ideal of
usability, so some honest criticism is fair. And, if I'm being hard
on Apple, it's *nothing* compared to the way I treat the folks who
make interfaces for digital audio/music gear and software - and they
have *no* standards whatsoever! I'm respectful of them and count many
as friends and clients, but they duck and run when they see me
coming. ;-)

gd
--
Geoff Duncan TidBITS Editor at Large <http://www.tidbits.com/>

>Another item from Geoff's Skewed Sample Set: a long-time iPod owner
>I've known for years said not two days ago: "You know, I wish there
>was a way to just turn it off." Of course, there *is*: you press and
>hold the Play button.

Datum: I just flip the 'lock' switch to 'red' and let it sit until
it goes to sleep itself. Never occurred to me that there'd be an
explicit method.

--
Andrew Laurence atlaurenes.nacs.uci.edu
Network & Academic Computing Svcs. http://www.nacs.uci.edu/~atlauren/
UC Irvine

At 2:01 PM -0700 9/7/06, Geoff Duncan wrote:
>I also find iPods awkward, but I don't own one so I have little
>experience with them. Creative might have gotten a patent on aspects
>of the interface, but I don't think the organizational model is
>anything to crow about and the rest of it often seems haphazard.
>Every time I touch an iPod, it takes me a full minute to figure out
>the "click wheel" thing again - and I'm probably still not using it
>right. I can't seem to develop the coordination to play any built-in
>iPod games...but, then, I can't really use the trackpads on modern
>PowerBooks/MacBooks either (they hurt my thumb).

I've actually given this problem a bit of thought, since although we
have three iPods for various reasons, Tonya very seldom uses them. As
a result, when she does, she's quite clumsy, and is continually using
the buttons "wrong" and ends up in the wrong place. It's a
frustrating interface for her.

But even I, with the relatively minimal use I give the iPod, have
become quite proficient at its interface. I won't say that I always
end up where I want without missteps, but I'm never confused. Whether
or not the interface is "intuitive" (terrible term), once learned,
it's easy to become proficient through repetition.

This came home last weekend, when we were visiting relatives who had
an Xbox. I'd never played any of the Xbox games, so I asked to see
what it was like, and was set up with a Star Wars pseudo-first-person
shooter, a genre which I've never played any games either. Put
bluntly, despite years of computer use, and extreme proficiency with
learning new interfaces, I could barely navigate the game's options,
and it was a tossup as to whether I spent more time running into
objects or being killed by the opposition and having to start over. I
couldn't even figure out how to finish the Training mode.

Now, the person whose Xbox it was wasn't terribly interested in
explaining things to me, and I wasn't at all interested in learning
it for real, but I was struck how people could become amazingly good
at this even though the game's interface was mind-bogglingly awful
and despite the fact that the controller could have something like 8
buttons, 2 joysticks, 2 triggers, and a directional control.

Typing text messages on a cell phone is the same situation - it's a
terrible, horrible, awful, no good, rotten way to type anything, and
yet kids in Asia are incredibly fast at it and consider a primary
means of communication. When I've tried to use text messaging on my
cell phone, I can get about 2 words per minute out.

What I'm trying to say, I think, is that in many ways, there's a
difference between "good" interfaces and interfaces which become good
with repetition. If you're not willing to put in the repetition,
you'll never learn the device and its interface will always be bad,
as iPods will always be for Geoff and Xboxes will always be for me.

>Another item from Geoff's Skewed Sample Set: a long-time iPod owner
>I've known for years said not two days ago: "You know, I wish there
>was a way to just turn it off." Of course, there *is*: you press and
>hold the Play button. More properly, that puts the iPod to sleep. But
>what part of "off" pr "sleep" is related to a Play button?

The fact that the Play button is actually the Play/Stop button, so
pressing and holding Stop makes as much or more sense as building the
function into the Menu button, the fast-forward or rewind buttons, or
the select button.

cheers... -Adam

--
Adam C. Engst, TidBITS Publisher <http://www.tidbits.com/adam/>