OS of the future.

[aboud]

Hello Ubuntu users, and all other if any !

looking 10 or 15 years ahead, what do you think the operating systems would look like? on home computers with more than petaflop, (that is 1000,000 Ghz) speed, and huge storage, and features that i even can't predict.

if we turn a blind eye of any completely new generation of OS, we may ask will it be UNIX-like or not. :popcorn:

i don't think here is a good place to look for any good signs for Microsoft to survive, but what dose the fact that 90% of people use its products and they didn't switch to linux even tho it exist for long time mean ?

i like the philosophy of Ubuntu very much, and i will be glad to build it, (i'm future programmer). but will this make OS adapting such idea more likely to be the future OS, or is it just another Soviet Union?

i'm sure that my OS ( Ubuntu) is a heaven for me, and far best than any MS pro, and i'm sure as well that its philosophy is the most suitable for human being, but the problem is i'm not alone, many other have totaly different thought.

[happysmileman]

Changing this since it had nothing to do with OS anyway.

I think what would be good would be if applications got their own VM to run in, and there was some kind of standardised VM, 90% of applications would work fine like this, the VM could be cross-platform, meaning only one platform needs to be targetted. Would use a lot of RAM but that will be even cheaper than it is now.

Probably a lot of problems, I can see a huge similarity to Java, so maybe I'm just basically reciting Java's aims, but I thought it was pretty clever until I saw the similarity.

[zmjjmz]

In 15 years we won't have 1PHz computers. 15 years ago we had 66MHz computers, so I predict that our current 2GHz will go up to maybe 1THz, but that's just being hopeful. Also, flops is a better measurement of computing speed.
On the other hand, the Petaflops barrier has been broken, and I expect the average computer to get to a Petaflops soon enough, with supercomputers breaking the 10 Petaflops barrier (The human brain averages at about 10 Petaflops) or higher.
Already IBM is trying to create a supercomputer as smart as a cat, so it may come earlier than 15 years. As of now though, the Operating Systems on these supercomputers won't _look_ exciting, but they'll be able to do intense math at insane speeds.

That said, when computers are given 1Pflops to work with, and graphics cards are even more insane, we can expect some really awesome graphics. Screens will probably get bigger, but at a certain point it won't be useful because people will still want portability.


Ideally the next generation of computing comes in the form of transparent OLEDs embedded in ones lens (in your eyeball) to allow for maximum portability and HUDs.

I'm thinking of personal computers in the form of computers embedded in you. That is what would be awesome.

[Bölvaður]

Do not expect too much from the applications. They will get better and better indeed, but ultimately they are designed for human that either cannot comprehend what they see or dont care for more features.

The same goes for the people developing this stuff, they cannot think of everything and it might become harder and harder to make new stuff up.

[zmjjmz]

Do not expect too much from the applications. They will get better and better indeed, but ultimately they are designed for human that either cannot comprehend what they see or dont care for more features.

The same goes for the people developing this stuff, they cannot think of everything and it might become harder and harder to make new stuff up.

So long as Firefox works nicely with Flash content I'll be happy :)

I see intel being right about future computers having tons of cores in 45nm processors, so I expect that to be a feature that most programmers will have to cope with.
From what I hear multi-core CPUs are kind of hard to program for to take advantage of all of them, but hopefully most of the apps aren't so bloated that they need 1024 cores running at 100%. The only thing I can see using that is AI simulation or intense 3D rendering, neither of which I see being useful to me.

[happysmileman]

So long as Firefox works nicely with Flash content I'll be happy :)

I see intel being right about future computers having tons of cores in 45nm processors, so I expect that to be a feature that most programmers will have to cope with.
From what I hear multi-core CPUs are kind of hard to program for to take advantage of all of them, but hopefully most of the apps aren't so bloated that they need 1024 cores running at 100%. The only thing I can see using that is AI simulation or intense 3D rendering, neither of which I see being useful to me.

Yeah hard to program for, but open your task manager, you probably have dozens of processes, maybe a few hundred.
With a smart enough OS (no idea if current ones are that smart, since multicore has only very recently become popular), you could have all the core/background processes running on one or two processors, and the resource intensive ones run on a separate one that they basically have all to themselves (a game could easily have 1 core running at 100%, maybe 2, but you could have tons of small background processes on a single core.)

[zmjjmz]

Yeah hard to program for, but open your task manager, you probably have dozens of processes, maybe a few hundred.
With a smart enough OS (no idea if current ones are that smart, since multicore has only very recently become popular), you could have all the core/background processes running on one or two processors, and the resource intensive ones run on a separate one that they basically have all to themselves (a game could easily have 1 core running at 100%, maybe 2, but you could have tons of small background processes on a single core.)

But how useful would it be at 1024 cores? I rarely find myself running 1024 processes, and it's very unlikely any of them will need 100% of any CPU.

[happysmileman]

But how useful would it be at 1024 cores? I rarely find myself running 1024 processes, and it's very unlikely any of them will need 100% of any CPU.

I suppose 1024 cores would be pushing it, I can imagine if computers get cheap enough it may be feasible for say a family to buy a computer, set it up, and connect to it wirelessly from a tiny laptop or something?

Kind of like a client-server thing for home computers, you buy a large kinda expensive server, and a little laptop with wireless for each family member and they can all connect and run it just like they would a regular laptop?

I can see some problems if one member of the family wants to play Chrysis and it slows down everyone elses experience, but presumably in 10-15 years computers will be able to handle Chrysis at almost 25FPS gracefully.

EDIT: Actually this idea kinda sucks, since if you leave the house you lose access to your stuff, negating the portability, could I suppose be done with little PCs hooked up to server rather than laptops, one good computer and a couple of clients would still probably be cheaper than several mediocre ones.

[the8thstar]

I believe that nanotechnologies embedded in our bodies will create the human-computer reality. The computer will migrate inside of us and will be with us at all time, managing our health, accounts, fitness, information and so on... the ultimate portability with the ultimate access to all knowledge everywhere and the capacity to share with others our very thoughts instantly.

This is funny as ****: http://www.collegehumor.com/video:1886349

[Johnsie]

I think computers will have more than one operating system running at the same time. At work I administrate a server that has several virtual machines running on it at the same time. Each machine serves a different purpose. I use the Ubuntu server virtual machine for creating mail merges, a windows one for testing software and windows server for exchange etc. Running several different operating systems or appliances at the same time definitely has it's advantages but requires a lot of resources that arent exactly standard in the home yet. Yeah you can use virtualbox at home, but that's not really the same as running a vmware esxi host.I would like to be able to do this at home.

[Grant A.]

Plan9 is obviously the future of computing. :lol:

I would love to see a P9 distribution though, it would be an interesting concept.

[Paqman]

I think you're going to see a lot of ubiquity in 10 years time. Having a network in your home was extremely rare 10 years ago, but it's becoming the norm now. I think that will continue, and you'll see all sorts of modular devices networked together. We may not even have a "computer" like we do now, but rather seperate devices for storage, processing, interface, multimedia, etc all part of one distributed system. Open source could be a big part of this by creating a standard for all these devices would conform to.

[wrtpeeps]

Cloud computing.

Wether you like it or not, it's coming. :)

[Paqman]

Cloud computing.

Wether you like it or not, it's coming. :)

As a big user of Gmail, Google Docs, iGoogle, Google Calendar, etc, etc, i'd say it's here already.

[happysmileman]

I mentioned this in my first post here, then edited it out since I realised it wasn't specifically an OS question, since many of the other posts aren't about OSes specifically either I might as well mention it.

Basically I'd like to see much more touch screens, I was thinking earlier we could have not just a touch screen for our monitor, but we could replace our keyboard with a touch panel too, and it could run a keyboard program in it, (X could include such a program, and DEs can theme it or include their own), that way the panel serves just like a keyboard (with cool effects such as capitalising all letters if shift held or caps lock on).
But if an application didn't need a keyboard it could get rid of it and put it's own dialogs there (imagine playing a strategy game, and once the level starts your keyboard fades away and a list of combat command take their place, leaving you your full monitor for watching the battle.)

I would actually love if something like this was feasible now, I was just thinking about how cool it would be to get a touch panel and start messing around creating software for it, or even just having it by my keyboard with Kopete open and a media player control so I could just touch a contact name to start conversation or change tracks etc., but AFAIK there is nothing like this available at a reasonable price?

[MasterNetra]

I doubt anyone really knows what the future of OS's or computers in general. But on a side note I seen this: http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/145365/hp_researchers_build_intelligent_memory.html . And for all we know we may not even have processors, ram, etc as we know it in 10-15 years (perhaps not even in five for all we know).

[hessiess]

In 15 years we won't have 1PHz computers. 15 years ago we had 66MHz computers, so I predict that our current 2GHz will go up to maybe 1THz, but that's just being hopeful. Also, flops is a better measurement of computing speed.
On the other hand, the Petaflops barrier has been broken, and I expect the average computer to get to a Petaflops soon enough, with supercomputers breaking the 10 Petaflops barrier (The human brain averages at about 10 Petaflops) or higher.
Already IBM is trying to create a supercomputer as smart as a cat, so it may come earlier than 15 years. As of now though, the Operating Systems on these supercomputers won't _look_ exciting, but they'll be able to do intense math at insane speeds.

That said, when computers are given 1Pflops to work with, and graphics cards are even more insane, we can expect some really awesome graphics. Screens will probably get bigger, but at a certain point it won't be useful because people will still want portability.


Ideally the next generation of computing comes in the form of transparent OLEDs embedded in ones lens (in your eyeball) to allow for maximum portability and HUDs.

I'm thinking of personal computers in the form of computers embedded in you. That is what would be awesome.

CPUs are already maxed-out as far as GHz go, from what I understand, going faster uses a lot more electricity and electrons start jumping between traces, creating errors and instability.