You Can Hack An OS But You Can't Hack People (3 & 4)
Now, the three computing republics, Unix, Apple, and Windows, had different approaches to autonomy. In Unix, they teetered cheerfully on the edge of anarchy. There was only very little attempt to reign in the free spirits there. In Windows, no stepping out of line was tolerated, but it was necessary to maintain perfect order and the people there loved it. In Apple, however, there was a balance: things were "officially" controlled, but since it was so expensive to live there, the government of Apple chose wisely to occasionally look the other way if the people wanted to go off and do their own thing. After all, giving people what they wanted was what they had in mind.
So eventually, Apple's government formed something of a partnership with the citizens. They could have a sort of controlled pseudo-freedom. They could have a free version of their operating system, and could also choose many different ways to experience Apple, such as the subdivisions of iPhone and iPod. It was preferred that the government kept complete control, but the citizens were occasionally forgiven if they hacked an iPod to run Linux or unlocked their iPhone or even helped have some control over their operating system with Darwin. Apple did everything it could, and still does, to keep their citizens from leaving, and so the republic of Apple exists today in the state of least strife. Very few people leave, and thus, they write themselves out of our story:
- Login or register to post comments
- Printer friendly version
- 411 reads
Rhetorical question of tools or users, which comes first ?
In computer programming, we are still learning as we go.
The first stage was basic interpreter, where we learned the logic of if, then or else.
The next stage was hardware(drivers) improvements, where we learned how to do data storage. Today, we have flash cards. Utilities was the rage.
Then, we have automation of scripts and shared everything. A mess if you will, doing multitasking.
So, now we have virtual everything to control the mess we made. Hypervisors to do virtual administrator's job. Out of chaos comes tight standards to control the functions of a computer for users who just want to use their computers to make life easier. Linux lovers wanted us to be slaves to our computers. Less than one percent of us wants to be slave to any static object.
My friend Pete, keep going. What's next to hypervisors? SOA on websites(efficiency without hypervisors on every user's computer)? Multichannels(QAM, threads) of segment data for massive parallel operations(speed and power)? Linux lovers are still chasing rainbows(by fixing bugs on one's own computer), while we work for overall progress?