The growth of command-line options, 1979-Present

Re:The growth of command-line options, 1979-Present by jokit on Tuesday March 03, 2020 @05:58PM (#22479543)

I have wondered how it is that my Mac Plus became a machine with almost no noticeable delays when I upgraded to 4mb ram, and now I have 8gb of ram, and a less responsive system. I realize my system is far more dynamic today. I just wonder if one day we'll be using systems with 4tb of ram that would be snappier if upgraded to 8tb or 16tb.

Given the nature of open source, I'd be surprised if there isn't a alternative for less dynamic, less resource req, systems. Is there a system out there that still uses fewer commands?

I don't know how to ask this next question, so please bare with me.. Are there any modern systems that don't require modern hardware, but are just more efficient versions of past systems?

I have been happy with the way I could use my computer for the last 20 years (probably earlier, too).. so are there any efforts to keep the simplicity of older systems that were adequate for most, make them more efficient, and either have "super hardware", or I suppose very cheap hardware?

Thanks for anyone who made it through my ignorant ramblings.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The growth of command-line options, 1979-Present by bigato on Wednesday March 04, 2020 @04:59PM (#22488613)

In the unix-compatible world, you could take a look at openbsd as an example of OS that is not growing exponentially. Yet, the web browsers are the same two beasts that you find elsewhere in linuxes. For a more radical approach to what you ask, look at plan9. There are some modern forks that run on modern hardware.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The growth of command-line options, 1979-Present by bear8642 on Tuesday March 03, 2020 @06:58PM (#22479951)

>I just wonder if one day we'll be using systems with 4tb of ram that would be snappier if upgraded to 8tb or 16tb.

Can't find but feel there's a quote like "Programs will grow to fill memory"

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The growth of command-line options, 1979-Present by jokit on Tuesday March 03, 2020 @07:07PM (#22480013)

I know that some people are only as efficient as they're forced to be. I hope there are efforts to take what is needed, and make it more efficient. There are efforts like Commander X16 to make a new 8 bit computer, and others where people are rewriting things in Rust..

BTW, I have a first gen iPad sitting around that worked very the first two years or so of its existence, and it barely functions today. I know part of that is Apple "protecting" older batteries by slowing down older stuff so we go out and buy new things, but I would like to believe that we're capable or creating an OS for that hardware today that would run better than it did originally, rather than barely function at all.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The growth of command-line options, 1979-Present by kqr on Wednesday March 04, 2020 @12:51AM (#22481504)

> Can't find but feel there's a quote like "Programs will grow to fill memory"

That is a ball we set in motion when we introduced virtual memory, particularly with overcommit.

Give a developer the option to write calls to malloc that never fail, and boy will they make use of that! Performance be damned.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The growth of command-line options, 1979-Present by zeckalpha on Tuesday March 03, 2020 @09:13PM (#22480647)

Not necessarily on the desktop today, but yes. There are workloads like this out there.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The growth of command-line options, 1979-Present by perl4ever on Tuesday March 03, 2020 @07:37PM (#22480180)

"I have wondered how it is that my Mac Plus became a machine with almost no noticeable delays when I upgraded to 4mb ram"

I remember when I ran the original MacPaint (I assume it was in hand optimized assembler?) on a 16 MHz 68030 and it was amazing - everything seemed to simply be instantaneous. It put in perspective how when the 68000 came out, it was a "minicomputer on a chip" and the 68030 was conceived as a "mainframe on a chip".

[ Parent | on HN ]