BeOS was way, way snappier to use on the same hardware than Linux (or Windows) no matter how much you trimmed down your (GUI) Linux.
IDK what scheduler voodoo they were doing, but it was awesome.
Only things I've seen that achieved something similar were QNX/Photon, and (though with the benefit of way stronger hardware and a ton of "cheating" by suspending applications) some (mostly early) versions of iOS.
I'm not sure I have any use for Haiku today, but I definitely wish for a world in which computer GUIs didn't feel so damn slow and janky and pre-occupied with whatever it's got going on internally rather than what I need it to be doing right now.
Also, I wish some kind of tagging system for filesystems had taken off well enough that I could rely on it, even cross-platform and when copying files between filesystems. Entire programs could just be file tags. Other programs could just be a thin GUI over tagged files. It sucks that didn't end up becoming a standard and reasonably cross-platform-compatible thing.
More generally, I think there’s a good deal of ways of improving user experience with a single purpose dedicated desktop OS like BeOS that is out of reach on general purpose OSes like Linux.
Actually, I think with Linux there may be a bit of a double penalty on desktop use with how much more attention the server use case gets compared to everything else.
Where FUSE is "supported" cross platform, maybe you could store the tags in an SQLite database that gets dragged along for the ride whenever a file gets copied from FUSE to FUSE. Ie, usbdrive to local fuse mouht shadow copies the SQLite db as an extended attribute sort of thing.
linux does at least have extended filesystem attributes. the dolphin filemanager from KDE makes use of them to support tags and comments. it's not ideal (tags are a comma separated string) but it is usable. adding tags is a bit painful though. i resorted to add and them through the commandline.
> If you strip social media down to its essential parts it's simply a multimedia communications and networking paradigm. Nothing ontologically good or evil about it.
“The medium is the message”.
This stuff’s been around long enough we’ve got a pretty good idea of what its “message” is.
It’s a famous phrase coined by McLuhan. He means that the form of a medium determines the kind of overall message it delivers. A case of scrolls carries a different message from a bound codex collecting those same scrolls, and so on. Whatever the hypothetical ability to deliver the same messages over books, TV, silent films, talkies, YouTube shorts, tweets, radio, handwritten letters, emails, et c., in practice the media themselves shape the messages that they deliver, so the broader “message” they effect in the form of shaping society and public life are very different.
I'm not sure how that affects the arguments at play here. Social media is not a single thing. It has various forms each bearing its own kind of "message" revealing and influencing parts of society in a variety of ways depending on the platform.
It's a lot easier to not have to delineate the myriad of effects that each platform has on its users and issue broad-sweeping legislation that will have consequences on how information is distributed and how people can interact with each other according to how information is spread.
We're dealing with technology capable of containing various kinds of media at a scale far unlike what McLuhan observed 60 years ago. That's not so say that he's become obsolete.
Read this and let me know if I'm getting it wrong...
Dunno how it is these days, but that reads like Android roughly 2012-2020.
I once found a looooong bug report thread on their issue tracker 7ish years old that had all the usual waves of promises that a fix might make the next release, then silence, then repeat, and the usual challenges to the bug’s status every time a release happened, plus it saw community members correctly diagnose the problem in the first couple years, then by like year 5 there’s was a (small!) patch posted by a community member with multiple posters confirming it was good and fixed the issue, that the author and others had been begging Google to apply and get in a release for a couple years. There’d been no responses from Google folks for a while.
That might be the worst one I saw, but encountering something like that was a few-times-per-year thing in my android app dev years.
On a similar note, Firefox doesn't support <input type="month">, which I was surprised to see (chrome landed it in 2012). I checked their issue tracker and... as you describe. Browsers are complex, of course, but they do stand out as a really glacial corner of the software world.
You’ll need an under-25 who’s both used some of these enough to really understand them, and has watched others of mixed expertise levels use them, to get a meaningful opinion. Screenshots don’t cut it, for the same reason as why modern UIs can look slick in screenshots or a demo then be frustrating in actual use.
That person’s gonna be very rare, while lots of over-25s have that experience.
I increasingly see “AI” as a sort of virus tuned to target management, specifically. Its output is catnip to them, and it’s going to be unavoidable for those who want to look good to superiors and peers (i.e. the #1 priority for managers) even as it adds no actual value whatsoever to what they do. People under them, too, will have to start burning tokens on bullshit to satisfactorily perform competence and “doing work”. Meanwhile, none of this is actually productive. It’s goddamn peacock feathers.
It’s like some kind of management parasite. I’m not even sure at this point that it’s going to lead to an overall productivity increase whatsoever for most sectors, because of this added drag on everything.
AI has made my work about 5-8x quicker, just because I'm able to have it cover a lot of the grunt work (update 42 if statements in 32 different files) that took time, but no particular skill.
I think the use cases where AI makes an economic improvement to the status quo for a business are rare, but they do exist, and they can be a significant improvement.
It's like the early days of the dotcom boom and bust - people thought the internet was good for every use case under the sun, including shipping people a single candy bar at a loss. After the dotcom bust, a lot of that went by the wayside, but there was a tremendous economic advantage to the businesses that were more useful when available on the internet.
is a silly behavior for a programmer or an AI to have to do more than twice. We have tools that very effectively remove the need for things like that: programming languages that allow modular and reusable code, good design, etc.
Ideally. But that requires the correct abstraction, requires keeping it up to date.... that's basically an unachievable ideal. You either have overabstraction/overengineering (most codebases) or you have repetition. Repetition is actually more preferable in the LLM-world because you have to keep less stuff in your head. And the LLM's head too.
Even if something does look copypasted, it might actually be semantically distinct enough that if you couple them, you'll create a brittle mess.
Additionally, there's always going to be global changes (update the code style, document things, refactor into a new pattern, add new functionality to callers, etc.). The question isn't whether you use your lanuage's tools or you do it by hand, the question is whether you use an LLM or do it by hand :P
Totally fair, but 42 if-statements across 32 files isn't something you need to fix with like ... a grand refactor or hexagonal architecture or event sourcing or whatever the overengineering pattern du jour is. You can fix that with a utility function or three, and a file/class/module/whatever that owns the code relating to some of those conditions.
I'm not some DRY zealot, but I've been in the "this system needs really similar changes to a ton of geographically distant code for simple changes" salt mines a lot. The people who say that kind of spaghetti is unavoidable are just as wrong as the ones who say it can only be fixed with a grand rearchitecture by a rockstar.
Sure but even wiring that utility function in is work :D If you have even just a 2-3-million LoC codebase, not even something truly enormous - making global changes does require typing, and a whole lot of it...
Such repetitions can regularly be deterministically automated, like find -exec sed and similar medium level tools.
If you spend a lot of time performing monotonic tasks, then your organisation needs to delete and refactor for a while until change in 'hot' areas of the code base are easy to make. Reaching for some code synthesis SaaS to paper it over will worsen the problem and should result in excommunication from the guild.
If you have a codebase that big, can you even fit enough of it into a context window for the LLM to make correct and meaningful changes across all of it? Admittedly I've only used LLM-based coding for smaller projects.
All of it hell no :D But just with any things, you break things down into subtasks. Then you break it down even more. You as a human don't hold all that stuff in your head either, so why would an LLM?
My current codebase is ~3 million LoC all in all (not greenfield, really old code), working on it by myself, the complexity is definitely manageable between Claude and me :)
I just want to mention that in my personal anecdotal experience, every codebase I have ever worked on, except 1, was underengineered and not overengineered. The last one was just "engineered".
Could you please show us an example of the change made to one of these if statements? I'm curious, because it seems absolutely wild to me to end up in such a situation (where that many changes are required and the usual refactoring tools of modern IDEs are insufficient) in the first place.
Does your work primarily consist of updating 42 if statements in 32 different files? We all do that occasionally, but if you're doing it constantly, is it possible that a different system design would make your work much easier?
If you are 8x quicker by having the AI do these for you, I think you are a junior intern or something? It must mean most of your time is spent doing these things.
I agree with everything you've said, but don't you think quite a lot of things have also been like this before, just to a lesser degree?
I've often had the sense that most of what is done inside companies is a kind of performance of work rather than work itself. Mostly all a big status game between various different factions. All actual value provided by just a few engineers here and there who are able to shut out the noise and build things.
> I agree with everything you've said, but don't you think quite a lot of things have also been like this before, just to a lesser degree?
That’s exactly the reason LLMs and friends are so dangerous to companies, and it’s so hard for them to resist using them in useless/counter-productive ways. They’re excellent at faking signs of effort and work that companies can hardly help but reward, absent any actual way to measure manager effectiveness (and approximately nobody knows how to measure that, in the wild). This takes the form of gilding and padding on a lot of communication, none of which adds actual value but it does cost money directly and indirectly (time wasted sorting out which parts of a document are intentional and meaningful, and which are plausible but irrelevant LLM inventions, for instance)
Counter-question: if quite a lot of things have also been like this before to a lesser degree, should we not oppose efforts to make everything like this to a greater degree?
I often think that executive level work is about changing the executive team and writing memos about changing the executive team. Then there’s a different team with different members and they begin the cycle again. Repeat over and over again.
The number of times I’ve seen a HTML memo sent from the assistant of the executive that says “from the desk of…” with babble about new leadership.
Things have probably always been like that, agree. I often try to see AI as a catalyst, that accelerates what already is.
In a good culture, with high competence and trust this can yield increased output (to some degree at least) and in a bad culture it will accelerate and expedite the dominating traits instead.
I really used to think this. Those old incumbents, I used to think. Such slow old dinosaurs! A crack team of just me and a few friends could eat their lunch for sure, and soon they'll be gone.
And yet, here we are.
Of course, some things get disrupted, sometimes. But I'd hardly say all the bloat has been competed out, would you?
It does have real benefits, but also, of course, all of the downsides you mentioned.
The best analogy is the outsourcing / offshoring fad of the last decade.
Managers hated that senior developers were getting highly compensated (often higher than the management class!) and pounced on every opportunity to replace expensive people with (much!) cheaper options, quality be damned.
For the few companies that paid attention to the quality, this worked out swimmingly. Apple is probably the best example, they've outsourced almost all of their manufacturing to China and other similar countries.
So yes, my mental picture is that every manager is drooling right now because they think they can replace someone getting paid six figures with an AI that costs six dollars a day, if that. A virtual employee that doesn't talk back, doesn't argue, doesn't question, doesn't go off on "unproductive tangents" like refactoring (whatever that's even supposed to mean), and just pumps out code 24/7 like a good little slav... employee.
The very rare smart managers out there are looking at this more like the transition that happened to architect firms when CAD became available. They used to have a dozen draftsmen for every architect. Now there are virtually none, I haven't even heard that job title being used in decades! We still have architects, and if anything, they're paid even more.
I'm wondering what this could mean to the future of software work and AI use, care to weight in? I don't have a good mental model for this period of time (I do agree with your sense of things).
A lot of people have already noticed that it's becoming cheaper to create bespoke software, as an alternative to paying a SaaS or purchasing off-the-shelf.
An example is that instead of buying a cookie-cutter "MacMansion" like in the last century even individuals can afford a unique house designed by a professional architect. It may not be an award winning artistic design, but it won't be the same copy-paste design as every neighbour up and down the street.
I'm seeing more comments online that developers are now expected to do more in the sense that what used to be a CLI script may now be a semi-vibe-coded application with a Web UI, a dashboard, and Open Telemetry integration because... why not?
As an example, I got a bunch of boxes of random Lego for my kid and I wanted to figure out what sets the pieces came from. I got Codex to vibe-code a full SPA web UI and a matching API app that pulls Rebrickable database CSVs, parses them, puts them into SQLite, and then runs a fairly complex integer optimisation solution on top of that collected data to figure out the best match. I did that in an hour while sitting in on an online meeting!
There is no way I'd have the mental energy to do a project like that otherwise. I'm too busy with housework, actual work, etc... Maybe when I was younger I could blow a few weeks of effort on something like this, but now? No way.
That cost-benefit arithmetic has dramatically shifted thanks to AI developer agents. Suddenly, many fiddly tasks are no longer fiddly, or even trivial, so there's no excuse not to do them any more.
Going back to the architect or mechanical engineering example: Significant corrections to designs used to be expensive because all the blueprints (on paper!) had to be redrawn and distributed. Now, a change to CAD design in 3D can be converted to arbitrary 2D views, cross-sections, or whatever in seconds. The software just projects whatever view you want out of the master design file. Creating the paper blueprints similarly takes a minute or two at most on an industrial large-format printer. It just spits it out.
“You want to play house, you got to have a job. You want to play very nice house, very sweet house, then you got to have a job you don't like. Great. This is the way ninety-eight-point-nine per cent of the people work things out, so believe me, buddy, you've got nothing to apologize for.”
- An older neighbor counseling the has-things-relatively-great-but-unhappy-anyway protagonist in Richard Yates’ Revolutionary Road
> at the same time it's unbelievably sad that in recent years about 70% of the movies i saw at a cinema were multiple decades old.
There are literally thousands of good movies released between ~1890 and last year.
It’s improbable more than a hundred or so will come out this year that’re worth your time, and they’ll be harder to sort from the junk this close to release.
If anything, it’s amazing new movies have as large an audience as they do.
MST3K is definitive proof that "not all the old movies were good" - there were some stinkers, and they only picked out the ones that were "so bad they're good" - there's much worse.
Most movies are decently budgeted and so at least meet some minimum bar for quality - so cult classics can arise time and time again. There are movies in theaters right now that will be the cult classics of the 2050s.
Lots of these franchise-connected series are flabby as hell. Netflix’s marvel series were almost all very bad about this, but so are most of the Disney Marvel series. On the Star Wars side, whatever positive qualities they may exhibit, Asoka and the Kenobi show both could have used large cuts. Even the relatively-speaking excellent Andor often doesn’t make effective use of its time.
I’m not sure what it is about the economics of this form of the medium that causes that to happen.
> I don't think it's that compelling to say "obviously no one wants to be on Instagram and they're getting manipulated into it." ...yeah they do! The question is can you make a compelling case that spending time on it is harmful.
I want to follow news and deals from a handful of vendors and local businesses I like a lot. The best way to do that is following them on instagram. It’s the only reason I signed up and installed the app. If it’d been one or two, I’d not have bothered, but it’s that way for lots of them.
I never want to see the “feed”. I would disable it if I could. I would make it default to my “following” view if I could. Instagram so very much wants me not to do that that they went out of their way to make it impossible to achieve that even with iOS’ built in shortcut-like system (you used to be able to).
As a result, sometimes I get distracted by one or two of the top items on the feed. That doesn’t mean I actually want to see them. That I open the app once every couple days doesn’t mean I like the app. I think it’s terrible.
People taking what folks do with a sharply constrained set of options as an expression of “why they want” or revealed preference or whatever is frustratingly wrong.
IDK what scheduler voodoo they were doing, but it was awesome.
Only things I've seen that achieved something similar were QNX/Photon, and (though with the benefit of way stronger hardware and a ton of "cheating" by suspending applications) some (mostly early) versions of iOS.
I'm not sure I have any use for Haiku today, but I definitely wish for a world in which computer GUIs didn't feel so damn slow and janky and pre-occupied with whatever it's got going on internally rather than what I need it to be doing right now.
Also, I wish some kind of tagging system for filesystems had taken off well enough that I could rely on it, even cross-platform and when copying files between filesystems. Entire programs could just be file tags. Other programs could just be a thin GUI over tagged files. It sucks that didn't end up becoming a standard and reasonably cross-platform-compatible thing.