←back to thread

1401 points alankay | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source

This request originated via recent discussions on HN, and the forming of HARC! at YC Research. I'll be around for most of the day today (though the early evening).
Show context
panic ◴[] No.11942213[source]
Hi Alan,

There's a lot of economic pressure against building new systems. Making new hardware and software takes longer than building on the existing stuff. As time goes on, it gets harder and harder to match the features of the existing systems (imagine the effort involved in reimplementing a web browser from scratch in a new system, for example), not to mention the massive cost benefits of manufacturing hardware at a large scale.

Many people working in software realize the systems they use are broken, but the economics discourage people from trying to fix them. Is it possible to fix the economics? Or maybe we need more people able to resist this pressure?

replies(1): >>11945559 #
alankay1 ◴[] No.11945559[source]
One start to this is not to do "a web browser" -- or other software -- with such bad initial conceptions (see elsewhere above). There was nothing necessary about this.

We have a technology in which hacks are easy and can be really easily multiplied by the billions and sent everywhere. If we translate this into the world of medicine and disease and sanitation, what should we do? How far should we go?

(But it is still really hard for me to understand the nature and force of the resistance to "real objects" -- which -- as actual virtual encapsulated machines -- were invented to deal with scaling and replacement to parallel the same kinds of thinking we did for the Internet with physical objects (called "computers")

Yikes!

replies(1): >>11945595 #
panic ◴[] No.11945595[source]
I guess I'm thinking about this from the perspective of someone trying to make a computer for the general public. How will you convince anyone to buy and use a computer that can't browse the web?

(And I doubt this is a problem that will go away with time; the web is big enough that it seems unlikely to go anywhere anytime soon.)

replies(3): >>11946517 #>>11947379 #>>11947763 #
1. mmiller ◴[] No.11947763[source]
To provide a little hope, I think it should be pointed out that the Frank project (VPRI) achieved web browsing that is compatible with the existing web protocol, using real objects. What it allowed is an extension of browsing on the web. So, it's not as if the two (good architecture and bad architecture) can't both exist in the same space, and be used at the same time. I think the key to answering your question is asking will people in the general public find the impetus to understand the limited nature of bad architecture, and (on one possible track) either use the good architecture to make the experience better, or (on another possible track) come up with a better computing/content architecture that does away with the web as we know it altogether?