The insanity of installation - or - the meaning of sane computing
127 views
Skip to first unread message
Message has been deleted
Alex Laburu
May 20, 2009, 11:38:09 AM5/20/09
to Sane Computing
[reposted to correct awful formatting - sry]
When I applied for membership in this group, I gave "installation" as
my favorite insanity in computing today. I thought it would be a good
idea to get the conversation started by taking a moment to explain
what I meant by that.
Most folks using computers today don't want to install anything, and -
thanks to modern web browsers - they don't have to. Indeed, some
people think that, as more computers are sold with pre-installed, auto-
updating, network-savvy software, the miseries of installation will
decrease.
Or will they? And what does "installation" really mean, anyway?
To me, installation means that the software running (on) my machine
has been altered in a semi-permanent way; that is, the altered state
survives events like power-cycling. Indeed, most machines today are
ostensibly such that rebooting wipes any applications that have not
been "installed".
But consider, for example, a machine that remedies somebody else's
favorite insanity -- volatile memory. On such a machine, any
extension of the runtime might amount to installation, and (given the
popularity of monkey-patching) it's safe to predict it would take
place all the time.
(Actually, your smartphone is probably such a machine.)
Or consider, alternatively, a computer with an operating system that
downloads and caches programs from the network. The effect would be
much the same: the act of launching programs would result in the
transparent installation of any number of extensions to the system.
(Actually, your netbook cum Linux plus Firefox is probably such a
machine.)
Most alarmingly, to the extent that data drive the behavior of
programs, which can therefore be construed as constituting a sort of
virtual machine for which data are themselves programs, the very act
of using a computer with permanent storage can be seen as resulting in
a patched system!
(Indeed, every computer that stores configuration files is such a
machine.)
You get the idea.
I see nothing inherently bad in installation. What I object to is,
quite simply, changes to the functionality of my machine that are
obtrusive, capricious, traitorous, opaque, or unsafe. It is these
things - things that go on all the time in modern computing - that
challenge my sanity.
Now, these annoyances can be partially addressed through better
software. But, ultimately, what I think of as sane computing is
unlikely to happen without a commitment on the part of hardware and
software makers - be they huge corporations or lone hackers - to
respect users. Because sane computing is not about sane computers --
it's about the sanity of the people who have to use them.
And, with that, I think I'll stop pontificating and pass the mic.
What do *you* think sane computing is about? What does it entail?
And how might we get there?
When I applied for membership in this group, I gave "installation" as
my favorite insanity in computing today. I thought it would be a good
idea to get the conversation started by taking a moment to explain
what I meant by that.
Most folks using computers today don't want to install anything, and -
thanks to modern web browsers - they don't have to. Indeed, some
people think that, as more computers are sold with pre-installed, auto-
updating, network-savvy software, the miseries of installation will
decrease.
Or will they? And what does "installation" really mean, anyway?
To me, installation means that the software running (on) my machine
has been altered in a semi-permanent way; that is, the altered state
survives events like power-cycling. Indeed, most machines today are
ostensibly such that rebooting wipes any applications that have not
been "installed".
But consider, for example, a machine that remedies somebody else's
favorite insanity -- volatile memory. On such a machine, any
extension of the runtime might amount to installation, and (given the
popularity of monkey-patching) it's safe to predict it would take
place all the time.
(Actually, your smartphone is probably such a machine.)
Or consider, alternatively, a computer with an operating system that
downloads and caches programs from the network. The effect would be
much the same: the act of launching programs would result in the
transparent installation of any number of extensions to the system.
(Actually, your netbook cum Linux plus Firefox is probably such a
machine.)
Most alarmingly, to the extent that data drive the behavior of
programs, which can therefore be construed as constituting a sort of
virtual machine for which data are themselves programs, the very act
of using a computer with permanent storage can be seen as resulting in
a patched system!
(Indeed, every computer that stores configuration files is such a
machine.)
You get the idea.
I see nothing inherently bad in installation. What I object to is,
quite simply, changes to the functionality of my machine that are
obtrusive, capricious, traitorous, opaque, or unsafe. It is these
things - things that go on all the time in modern computing - that
challenge my sanity.
Now, these annoyances can be partially addressed through better
software. But, ultimately, what I think of as sane computing is
unlikely to happen without a commitment on the part of hardware and
software makers - be they huge corporations or lone hackers - to
respect users. Because sane computing is not about sane computers --
it's about the sanity of the people who have to use them.
And, with that, I think I'll stop pontificating and pass the mic.
What do *you* think sane computing is about? What does it entail?
And how might we get there?
Alex Laburu
May 20, 2009, 6:57:09 PM5/20/09
to Sane Computing
On May 20, 5:38 pm, Alex Laburu <a...@laburu.org> wrote:
> I see nothing inherently bad in installation. What I object to is,
> quite simply, changes to the functionality of my machine that are
> obtrusive, capricious, traitorous, opaque, or unsafe.
The Tech Review's timing is impeccable:
> I see nothing inherently bad in installation. What I object to is,
> quite simply, changes to the functionality of my machine that are
> obtrusive, capricious, traitorous, opaque, or unsafe.
http://www.technologyreview.com/computing/22674/
Could something like Ksplice be an adequate (interim) remedy for the
reboot-after-patching blues?
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages