[HN Gopher] The 100 Year Computer
___________________________________________________________________
The 100 Year Computer
Author : simonpure
Score : 88 points
Date : 2021-01-06 21:53 UTC (1 days ago)
(HTM) web link (thedorkweb.substack.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (thedorkweb.substack.com)
| traverseda wrote:
| Reminds me of James Munns' "Anachro PC"
| https://jamesmunns.com/blog/anachro-pc-001/
|
| https://github.com/jamesmunns/anachro
| johnklos wrote:
| I think people don't really realize how little actual computing
| has changed. From the inception of programmable computers that
| only nation states and huge companies could afford through the
| mid to late 1980s, computing changed significantly, in all of
| size, affordability, capacity and actual functionality.
|
| What happened in the mid to late 1980s? Relatively affordable
| computing became available which fit a lowest common denominator
| which still exists today: * CPU * MMU
| * access to mass storage * access to communications
|
| The Macintosh II came out in 1987 and Amiga 2500 in 1988. You
| then had a true and proper 32 bit computer which could run a real
| Unix or Unix-like OS. Everything modern outside of
| microcontrollers matches this lowest common denominator.
|
| The same is true of 80486 machines (80386 is mostly the same, but
| modern toolchains now require certain atomic instructions which
| the 80386 doesn't have).
|
| What's amazing is that you can run a real OS on them _NOW_. You
| can run NetBSD on them and run tens of thousands of open source
| software packages _NOW_.
|
| These are 33 years old. We're one-third of a way to 100 years.
| quirkot wrote:
| The 10-key calculator was invented in 1963 and I think it will
| undoubtedly still exist in nearly identical form in 2063. I'd
| even say that 2163 isn't that big of a stretch
| majinuub wrote:
| I'm in love with this concept! I'm wondering about the longevity
| of storage devices.
|
| > SD Cards won't last 100 years but the code to talk to one will.
|
| It seems like the article implies that family that owns an
| heirloom computer would have to backup their data every decade or
| so, assuming the storage medium lasts that long.
|
| Are there any data storage options that can go decades without
| being used? From my admittedly cursory research, it seems like
| M-Disc or solid state storage are the best options so far.
| jagged-chisel wrote:
| Is that really "SD cards won't last 100 years" or "...won't
| last for 100 years of read/write operation"?
|
| That's solid state storage. If it won't last 100 years just
| sitting around, what possibly could? I think we just have to
| assume some amount of archivist activity is inevitable if we
| want data to last decades or even centuries: someone must copy
| the data periodically; and the data needs error correction
| built in.
| dwheeler wrote:
| SD cards are useless for long term storage, they last maybe 5
| years: http://www.datarecoveryspecialists.co.uk/blog/what-is-
| the-li...
|
| They depend on holding electrons within cells, and over time
| the electrons leak out.
| ghaff wrote:
| I know this is being completely facetious but paper.
| (Preferably acid-free.) And punch cards.
|
| I doubt any current electronic mass storage medium which has
| that kind of longevity even under controlled conditions.
|
| I also doubt that storage on traditional physical media is
| really practical for most things based on both storage density
| and error rates translating from physical to digital.
| [deleted]
| vpmpaul wrote:
| Cool. That said this guy is basically describing a notebook. No
| computer necessary. If his goal was a 1000 year computer that
| would be something.
|
| Unless every person on earth wants to become a PHD in CS this is
| a dead end. How do you fix this computer otherwise, hire someone?
| Yeah its called the market and it sells $150 replacement
| computers when yours dies. Exactly 1 person on earth would use
| this and its the author.
|
| It always bothers me a bit when tech people get so wrapped up in
| a rabbit hole of a pointless obsession. His skills/time could be
| used much better elsewhere.
| jswrenn wrote:
| > a rabbit hole of a pointless obsession
|
| ...like, a hobby? I don't see any evidence that this author has
| an unhealthy obsession. And, if the comments here are any
| indication: a _lot_ of techies would be absolutely charmed to
| find unearth such a machine from a dusty box. I know I would!
|
| Watching the incredible work of amateur retro-computing
| enthusiasts today, I have no doubt that whatever Steve Lord
| creates could find an enthusiastic operator a century from now.
| stuff4ben wrote:
| It's really two different paradigms. One is about the hardware
| and the other is about the data. To me we shouldn't be worrying
| about the hardware, but rather the heirloom data and where and
| how it's stored and accessed. To me the implies the cloud and not
| local. An earth-sized computer, governed by a benevolent VI (not
| AI), would be ideal IMO. Terminals to access the data could be
| anything, from RaspPI to an Amiga to a Chromebook.
| Retric wrote:
| You can easily distribute hardware around the globe for
| redundancy, it's harder to have redundant clouds.
|
| Cloud services allow you to easily and cheaply get to
| reasonable levels of data integrity and security, but suppose
| you want a higher threshold. If the data is as important as say
| the specific text of the US Constitution a single cloud service
| is clearly inadequate. Presumably your data is less important
| than that, but plenty of stuff is very important and or
| valuable.
| PaulDavisThe1st wrote:
| Imagine if in 1920 someone had written this about "The 100 year
| Car".
|
| There are 100 year old cars still floating around, and their
| owner/maintainers love them very much. But they are are of
| essentially zero interest to the overwhelming majority of all car
| users.
|
| Building electronics and technology in general to be
| recyclable/reusable rather than long-term usable seems like the
| right path to me.
| nrp wrote:
| Cars in 1920 were still relatively new and were undergoing
| massive architectural change as infrastructure, technology, and
| consumer behaviors developed. On the flip side of that, in
| areas where the technology and behaviors are mature, it is
| totally plausible to achieve 100 year lifespans. As an example,
| I have some woodworking planes that are approaching 100 years
| which are pretty much the same as what you can buy new today.
| As another extreme example, the U2 and B-52 planes are over 65
| years old and still in active use as they receive updates to
| meet changes in their customers needs.
| PaulDavisThe1st wrote:
| I think that my whole point is that in the 2020's, computers
| are "still relatively new and [are] undergoing massive
| architectural change as infrastructure, technology, and
| consumer behaviors develop[ed]"
| mikewarot wrote:
| The problem isn't the computers, it is _changing requirements_.
|
| If you want to edit text files, do some spreadsheets, maybe send
| and receive messages, an IBM PC will do the job. Just be sure to
| have a modem, Qmodem, and the numbers of your favorite BBSs.
|
| With an IBM PC, MS-DOS 6.21, Turbo Pascal 7, Qmodem, Edwin,
| pkZIP, and a stack of floppies for backup, and you could stay in
| business for a very, very long time, _if_ you don 't expect more
| each year.
|
| Look at what people are managing to fit into a boot sector...
| BASIC, Games, Demos, etc. We're wasting most of the bounty of
| Moore's law. Not all of it, of course...the ability to stream
| video from anywhere on the planet for $50/month is something I
| only dreamed of back in the 1990s.
|
| We have amazing computers now, but those old machines, like the
| Model T, can still do their original task, if you invest the time
| and effort to maintain them.
| ghaff wrote:
| >if you invest the time and effort to maintain them
|
| One of the problems, touched on by the article, is that parts
| stop being made. I wonder if you could build a working IBM PC
| clone today.
|
| Military systems are sometimes upgraded without changes in
| functionality simply because the old parts aren't made any
| longer.
| geogra4 wrote:
| don't they still make Z80s? I doubt you could still get a 286
| or 386 new though
| ghaff wrote:
| Yeah. Digikey has them. Presumably for embedded use. Mostly
| software-compatible with an 8080.
|
| That would probably be one of your best hopes for building
| a computer today that's likely to have long-lived (in the
| sense of availability) parts even though it's probably not
| a drop-in 8088 replacement at the hardware level.
|
| https://maker.pro/pic/projects/z80-computer-project-
| part-1-t...
| intrepidhero wrote:
| I love the idea of an heirloom computer and agree with many of
| the author's points. But I don't think choosing a microcontroller
| and virtualizing a fringe operating system are the answers. I
| still build standard ATX style desktop computers with basically
| the same architecture as I did in the 90's. I install Linux and
| other open source software because I know that it won't break
| because the company selling it wants to force me to buy a new
| version. I would contend that the heirloom computer exists and
| has quietly become more and more accessible. It just isn't
| fashionable.
|
| I think we're already at a point where we have quality open
| source software that does basically everything we want to do with
| a computer. The only way forward for big companies is to covert
| customers to SAAS with monthly rents. We need to keeping pushing
| for the open standards that allow individuals to build computer
| systems (hardware and software) outside the walled gardens that
| can still interact with the larger network.
| zwieback wrote:
| As part of my job I frequently have to work on very old PCs that
| are part of manufacturing tools. I started working in this area
| in the early 90s so I have both nostalgia for the old days but
| still excited about new stuff we're coming up with.
|
| Things I don't miss:
|
| - Managing IRQs on the ISA bus or more generally messing with the
| BIOS
|
| - dedicated keyboard/mouse connectors
|
| - physical serial and parallel ports
|
| - large plug-in cards
|
| - incompatible monitors (Hercules, CGA, VGA, ...)
|
| Nowadays most of our external equipment (motion controllers,
| sensors, barcode readers, etc.) is either USB or Ethernet and I
| think that transition happened maybe 10 or 15 years ago? It's
| just so much easier now with fast-enough external busses.
|
| I think part of the problem with a 100 yr scheme is that you
| really only get economies of scale with highly integrated memory
| and other support chipsets with physical standards that change as
| manufacturing capabilities get better.
|
| So at the two extremes there's the hobbyist track (RPi/Arduino)
| and there's all the amazing tech crammed into our phones for a
| ridiculously low price.
| ghaff wrote:
| A few things to add:
|
| - Big connectors with lots of easy-to-bend pins
|
| - Motherboard jumpers
|
| - Customizing autoexec.bat and config.sys files to have enough
| program memory
| smoyer wrote:
| In general I agree with you but I do in fact miss the dedicated
| physical serial and parallel ports (there's more you can do
| with them than what can be done on a dongle).
|
| EDIT: A couple examples: You can use a dedicated parallel port
| as GPIO at what I'm remembering to be LS/TTL voltages (and
| currents). I've also used a serial port with a few diodes and
| resistors as an RS-485 port (not all that specification can be
| realized but enough for compatibility with some devices)
| ink_13 wrote:
| The number of _new_ motherboards that still include PS /2
| connectors while also offering a piddling 4 USB ports is quite
| surprising.
| moyix wrote:
| I think the presence of PS/2 ports is to satisfy gamers - the
| PS/2 port has a dedicated interrupt line, which (allegedly)
| gives you lower latency on keypresses than USB, which uses
| input polling.
| tux wrote:
| "There are only so many features a program can add until
| something becomes just good enough. At this point new features
| add less and less value."
|
| I agree 1000% with this! But even most websites this days add way
| too many features that you don't simply need. Simplicity is the
| king in everything! I'm a firm beliaver in long term hardware,
| when building a computer it needs to last at least 10-15 years
| between builds or upgrades. Only exception is hardware failure or
| software no longer supporting some hardware (which is rare on
| linux) Good article thanks!
| Pelic4n wrote:
| >at least 10-15 years between builds or upgrades.
|
| That wasn't realistic until very recently, after Moore's law
| completely died off, but I hope it becomes the standard.
|
| I have an X220 from 2011, i7 processor & 8 gigs of RAM. I payed
| 180euros for it (best deal I ever made, I know) and I hope I
| can get 10 other years from it. It chokes on modern uberbloated
| webapps, but hey, it's not like I want to use those anyway.
|
| I built a gaming computer with an i5 and a gtx 1070 in 2016,
| and unless I decide to go for something else than 60fps & FHD
| resolution I still max out every game I play. I don't see
| myself upgrading in the next 3 years at least. Before that I
| had a crappy computer built out of low-range parts from 2010,
| and it was perfect until Dark Souls 3.
| hotcrossbunny wrote:
| +1 for the i7 x220. I paid PS150 for mine a couple of years
| ago for what I thought would be a throwaway bit of kit at end
| of life for an experimental Linux build. But what I found was
| the sheer utility of the thing has been unmatched by any more
| recent hardware purchase.
| grishka wrote:
| I have a 2012 Macbook Pro that's still okay for most of what
| I do with it, including Android app development. Though the
| Nvidia GPU driver is terrible and leaks memory copiously, and
| that's annoying. Web apps are sometimes sluggish, but I got
| used to the fact that modern web just can't be fast on any
| hardware unless done by people who know what they're doing
| which is rare. I'm looking forward to whatever the refined
| and beefed up M1 successor would be. That would probably last
| me another decade if not more.
| asdff wrote:
| I had to abandon my 2012 macbook pro for a new intel mac
| earlier in the year after it was overheating and killing
| keyboard and trackpad input during zoom calls, but before
| our modern zoom based world, what a beast that computer
| was. Perfectly performant for typical tasks, unlike
| computers of old that would struggle to run the latest OS
| after four years.
|
| I'm eyeing the ARM macs, but I think it would serve me well
| to wait at least two years for software to become more
| compatible and kinks worked out. People in my field have
| been having some issues with ARM and rosetta2, even having
| to return laptops.
| iuguy wrote:
| > I have an X220 from 2011
|
| Sounds like you're in good company. The author recently
| upgraded from a 2015 Mac to a heavily modded X230[1].
|
| [1] - https://thedorkweb.substack.com/p/everything-but-the-
| kitchen...
| buran77 wrote:
| > every new feature added was worth less than the features
| taken away
|
| I think this is the core of the issue, not just adding new
| features. Adding features, especially in the general purpose OS
| that was chosen as an example, is not a bad thing as long as
| they stay out of sight and are there as optionals for the
| people who need them. But removing one feature to add another,
| or twisting an existing feature into something that can satisfy
| 100% of the users is bound to make the product worse.
|
| The real obstacle the 100 year computer faces isn't software,
| there's no reason for it (or a copy) not to run for hundreds of
| years, providing it has something to run on. it's hardware.
| Making a complex device that can run for a century is close to
| impossible unless there's a chain of supply behind it to
| constantly replace failing parts. That's a big ask over 100
| years.
|
| And then there's the philosophical question: if over that 100
| years every part is replaced and upgraded to fit the new
| trends, take advantage of new tech, etc. is it still the 100
| year computer? Or the ship of Theseus?
| spicybright wrote:
| These are all really good points. I do wonder though, is
| there any combination of parts that will make even the
| simplest computer last 100 years? (With proper maintenance,
| ideally not replacing parts that can't be produced for the
| next 100 years)
|
| I'm defining a computer here as an electronic CPU with some
| sort of I/O, both user I/O and peripherals.
|
| I'm reminded of something like a Commodore 64. I've been able
| to get one working after 30 years of it sitting on a shelf
| before, although many suffer from burst capacitors, bad
| chips, oxidation of circuits/pin connectors, etc.
|
| I wonder if you could take the idea of a simple, self
| contained system like the C64, but use ultra reliable, beefy
| industrial components, like from computer systems in
| manufacturing factories. Maybe throw a few redundant
| components the computer can silently switch over to if the
| first component goes bad.
| buran77 wrote:
| I imagine you could design and build such a computer (I
| also thought that the definition of a computer might change
| in 100 years so much that today's devices no longer fit
| it). Probably using only solid state components, having it
| completely self-contained, and having all the components
| built for longevity may be close to but not quite
| impossible. But it would be entirely unpractical for
| anything beyond the proof of concept, certainly not as a
| mass market device. The "longevity" part of every component
| likely sacrifices speed, power, and performance in exchange
| for reliability. Imagine things like much larger features
| in silicon, duplicated or triplicated (or more?) components
| and units, use of more non-integrated components, the
| system as a whole would incorporate far more redundancies
| that take space and possibly power just for the eventuality
| they need to take over, etc.
|
| Not to mention that testing and continuous development are
| challenging to say the least given the timeframe. By the
| time you discover your design has flaws you start over with
| a vastly different 100 year computer.
|
| So from all practical perspectives I can't see a 100 year
| old computer being built with today's tech unless we mean
| stuff running in hypervisors and emulators that are
| constantly maintained and developed over that century.
| ghaff wrote:
| I imagine looking at the design of electronics that goes
| into space probes would be a good place to start although
| that's not quite the design point.
| spicybright wrote:
| It might be impossible to make a 100 year computer that's
| practical.
|
| If we look at other "tech" built to last, I think sewing
| machines. Stand mixers. Cast iron pans. And I'm sure lots
| of industrial equipment I don't know about.
|
| None of these really changed much in the past 50 years
| that made it useless, and I can see these being useful
| for the next 50 years pretty easily.
|
| The only thing I can think of is a base computer with
| some interface to a breakout box that can be upgraded
| based on how computers work.
|
| This definitely cheats the idea of a 100 year computer,
| but you could have a wifi breakout board. Maybe a reader
| for the next storage format that's popular. Neural
| whatsit chip that may revolutionize computing. But,
| again, that's cheating. And at that point just buying
| modern hardware makes so much more sense.
| dghlsakjg wrote:
| People have been adding peripherals that allow usb and SD
| cards to Commodore 64s. And I believe that many of the
| parts for a C64 are still around.
| samatman wrote:
| The M1 is a poor example to lead into an otherwise great post.
|
| The big leap with the M1 is the power efficiency. No amount of
| optimized code is going to keep Intel from running hot:
| installing Win95 on a latest-gen Intel laptop would be whip-fast,
| but wouldn't result in all-day battery life.
|
| An opinionated and lengthy intro like that serves as an
| invitation for readers to bail out before they get to the meat of
| the post: which would be a pity in this case, because it's worth
| reading.
| fossuser wrote:
| This is goal of Urbit's OS.
|
| https://urbit.org/understanding-urbit/urbit-os/
|
| ###
|
| "Urbit OS is a completely new, carefully architected software
| stack: a VM, programming language, and kernel designed to run
| software for an individual. Urbit OS is a program that runs on
| almost any cloud server, most laptops and many phones: anything
| with Unix and an internet connection.
|
| The main thing to understand about our 'overlay OS', as we call
| it, is that the foundation is a single, simple function. This
| function is the Urbit OS virtual machine. We call it 'Nock'. The
| entire Urbit OS system compiles down to Nock, and Nock is just 33
| lines of code.
|
| Nock is similar in spirit to WASM or the JVM: it's a uniform
| machine code for every Urbit ship. A frozen foundation makes for
| some nice features:
|
| The state of your Urbit OS is a pure function of its event
| history. It's auditable, inspectable, repeatable. You can
| actually trust it. Writing decentralized apps becomes vastly
| simpler than in the old world, since every node computes exactly
| the same way. The entire Urbit OS stack, from programming
| language to applications, is upgradeable over the network. For
| ordinary users, this makes for almost no system administration.
|
| Since Nock is a protocol for computing itself, any two nodes on
| the Urbit network can easily share data, communicate and connect
| their software."
| jojobas wrote:
| This has a TempleOS/Urbit vibe of sorts.
| dusted wrote:
| Absolutely excellent article!
|
| >We could make offline-first software if we wanted.
|
| In fact, we used to do that, and we were really good at it too.
| josephg wrote:
| The problem is that people want collaborative editing, and we
| want our files not to be tied to a single device. If I lose my
| phone, I don't want to lose my files. And I want to pick up my
| computer when I get home and resume where I left off.
|
| We know how to implement all that technically using CRDTs and a
| bit of p2p discovery. But I think its still going to take some
| elbow grease and a few years to get a new platform working well
| enough that it can really compete with centralized web
| software.
| everdrive wrote:
| >The problem is that people want collaborative editing, and
| we want our files not to be tied to a single device.
|
| People also want Pringles and reality TV. Popularity doesn't
| make something good.
| spicybright wrote:
| Lmao, you're not wrong. I'm sure some people would be
| content with an 80's micro computer if all they do is word
| processing and printing, for example.
| ghaff wrote:
| Collaborative editing just sort of snuck into workflows.
| And maybe it's not useful for you, but for me it's
| revolutionary compared to mailing files all over the place
| and having to figure out merging edits. If you don't like
| something like Google Docs, should probably drop GitHub
| too.
| samatman wrote:
| I'm not in a position to drop GitHub, or 'Lab in our
| case, but I do consider them a failure of git.
|
| Yes, an email and patch based workflow is possible, and
| that was what git was originally developed for.
|
| But it should be flexible enough to support an
| issue/comment/(M|P)R based workflow that's all local,
| and, it isn't.
|
| Microsoft owns the de facto home of open-source software
| as a result of this, so it's no minor oversight.
| josephg wrote:
| I'm increasingly thinking the opposite - and that GitHub
| is a clearheaded model of the path forward.
|
| There are very few examples of p2p software like git
| scaling well. Servers are way too useful. The git model
| seems like a nice compromise. And by git model, I mean an
| opensource distributed protocol that anyone can run
| coupled with some big centralised services run by big
| tech - so you don't have to. This has all the benefits of
| a centralised system with the all important off ramp.
|
| Email more or less works the same way now. A few years
| ago I moved from Gmail to fastmail and haven't looked
| back. That said, I really wish more of GitHub's features
| made their way back to git. Issues should be stored
| somewhere in the git repository - so they can be viewed
| offline and so competing services like gitlab can be
| compatible.
| timw4mail wrote:
| Syncthing [1] is great software for just that. You still have
| to resolve conflicts sometimes, but it's certainly a good
| tool to start with.
|
| 1. https://syncthing.net/
| tl wrote:
| Syncthing isn't solving josephg's problem. When two people
| open an Excel or Google spreadsheet, both people can see
| the other's cursor position and edits in near real-time.
| Both apps require buy-in to a singular, proprietary back-
| end (Excel's collaboration disappears in the file is
| outside of OneDrive). This is "Mother of All Demos" level
| feature and people will suffer portability issues to keep
| it.
| [deleted]
| phreeza wrote:
| Well, some software used to crash a lot for unknowable reasons,
| and if you were lucky you got a patch 6 months after release
| which may or may not fix your problem.
| grishka wrote:
| But then offline-first software was held to a higher overall
| standard because of this exact reason. Nowadays no one gives
| a crap because "we can always push an update", and so
| everything is an eternal beta.
| tux wrote:
| Any software can have an option to upload a bug report when
| user chooses too. But not automaticly when it want's too.
|
| (EDIT) I agree, everyone should have at leat one air-gap (so
| called "family garden" in the article) computer in there
| house when shit hits the fan. Like no internet :-)
|
| (EDIT-2) This article gives a very cool idea about "heirloom
| computer". The author should come up with such a product
| based on Raspberry Pi (maybe?). Than sell it with basic
| custom OS and software for the family. This software should
| include things like diary, notes, racipts, jokes, photos,
| video storage. It should be sold relatively cheap so anyone
| could buy it.
| GrumpyNl wrote:
| I have that on old ms-dos pc's.
| wizzwizz4 wrote:
| The Raspberry Pi, while humble, probably won't last long
| enough.
| AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote:
| You say that like it is different today. We had a slack
| outage just a few days ago that affected basically everyone
| who uses the software, multi-year bugs still exist in cloud
| software, etc.
|
| The only thing the cloud fixes is the problem of convincing
| people to rent software.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-01-07 23:01 UTC)