Community archive

Ask something
Discussion Locked

OPSYS A PUBLIC UTILITY / SERVICE?

0 helpful
72 replies

by fluxit

Closed to new repliesThis discussion is closed. It stays readable, but it takes no new replies.

Should operating systems like DOS, UNIX, Linux, BEOS, MVS, VMS, etc... become public utilities OR services?

Infrastructures like the internet, electric, phone, water, sewage etc.. have been public utilities for since thier inception. Fire, police, ambulance, code enforcement etc... are necessary services that are ubiquitos. Likewise, PC's, online banking, governmental websites, and other features are now at nearly every place there is a telephone, water, sewage, etc... It seems there is a case for information services to become a public service or utility.

Private enterprise benefit from such as widespread standardization of operating systems and even the resultant GUI's that support them. What are your thoughts?

72 replies

by don_c

Electric,water and sewage are necessary people have to have gas is optional as to electric. Phone an Internet are privileges. There are millions of people that don't have the internet and don't need it. Most of my friends say that its not necessary for them to have computer but its neat toy. Far as the operating system to have a monthly cost is ridiculous and a out rage to the human race TALK ABOUT DIGTAL DIVIDE. M$ charges enough for there mestakes and try to get a common person to learn something like linux or unix they will get discussed an not want it.

And far as a services well your local goverment can make more money that they will spend on things that you don't need

by fluxit

A car is a privilege but highways are not privatized? So we have a digital superhighway and the vehicles are workstations. Got to put some kind of motor into it and fuel. One could buy a variety of engines from dos to unix that are compatible and scalable under a unified public utility standard.

Look at cars. Light bulbs, filters, and other components are becoming more and more standard. Originally the Phone companies managed all their own phones.

If information systems were considered public services or utilities then there would be far more standardization.

As far as the internet being a nice-to-have toy go tell that to Congress. US commerce is literally tied to the internet. Soon all banking, bill paying, pharmacueticals, movie rentals (yes blockbuster stores are dying) and dozens of other things will be only done over the internet. It will be about as much of a toy as your car is a toy.

by hinecom

The point of public utilities is to regulate not to standardize. Standardization is a by-product. Regulation, in the end, means less innovation.

Ask yourself, Why have IBM and MS even approached open source software? Because it works. Linux,
hello? Standardization on one Public OS is a slap in the face to open development projects and a lethal injection to innvoation.

Utilities are considered part of the national infrastructure- Infrastructure that has changed little in the last 40 years. But what we are talking about is Operating Systems which are by necessity fluid.

by aaron

I know many people who have wells and septic tanks. There are rules regarding both of these but people certainly get water and waste disposal without utilities.

Power is another issue. California tried to deregulate electricity with disaterous results and only part of it was because of manipulation of the markets. But that's another story.

And the telephone deregulation debate will probably continue to rage on well after we no longer use telephones...

by stress junkie

I have to admit that although I thought that trying to
make computer services a kind of utility wouldn't work
it still took a few minutes to figure out a few reasons
against it. Just a side note: The Internet is not a public
utility. It is a confederation of privately owned
interconnected networks.

You state that since computer technology is becoming
a critial part of every day life it should be taken over by
the public sector. People who are computer oriented
might think that but there are a lot of people who get
along nicely without using a personal computer. I just
heard on a financial news program that there are
about 33% of people in the US that don't own a
personal computer and who never will. My mom being
among that group I can tell you that she neither wants
nor needs a personal computer. So computer
technology is not nearly as popular as telephone
service, for instance.

Even if it were more popular that alone would not
justify trying to make computer technology a public
service. Personal cars and trucks are extremely popular
but the automotive industry is not and should not be
turned into a public service.

The biggest reason that I can think of for keeping the
computer industry, as well as the automotive industry
and many other critical industries, is that private sector
competition drive technological innovation. Sure there
are problems with any approach. Microsoft's policy to
embrace, extend, extinguish industry standards creates
unnecessary problems, for instance. But in the long
run the state of technology has greatly benefitted from
private sector competition.

One excellent example of how utility services fail to
develop and deploy new technology is in the electric
power distribution system in the US. 'The Grid' is run
by a few regional monitoring teams using obsolete
technology who have no authority to mandate system
upgrades to the individual utility companies. The most
recent blackout in the north east of the US is the
inevitable result.

So private sector competition = leading edge
technology. Public services = aging decaying systems.

Of course I haven't even touched on many other
related issues such as the US remaining competitive in
the world market.

by fluxit

This my be a surprise to many of you but technological innovation in America is done by a very small group of people known as technocrats. They are a handful of overworked and underpaid people for thier comtributions to society that influence our daily lifestyles immensely. They are physicists, scientists, and high end engineers. What may be even more surprising to you is that most of these people get thier funding and guidance mostly from Federal Government projects under organizations like DARPA and the Department of Energy.

While there are projects funded by private industry I think you'll find the oversight is by the Federal Government or under a Federal Government program. In general private industry takes existing technology and either exploits it for profit or 'new and improves' it. Rarely, has new technologies ever come from the private sector.

For example, Microsoft has no R&D department. The Windowing Object-orient concepts were developed in the 60's at MIT and later implemented at Xerox and Apple. Bill just exploited it for money. Recently, one of MS's VP has been funding Spaceship One but there is no new technology in that project. It is only applications of existing technologies and guess what. Bill is right there to install MS products in the vehicle just like he put MS software in BMW's. Look at the copper clad chip making from IBM is only a improvement to existing chip farming techniques. Who is working on changing the technology with a light driven processing or even better quantum processing?

Most of our current technology growth stemmed from huge government budgets and the space program or military. After the cold war the government declassified many technologies that are in use today. For example, ever see a heart beating in 3-d? That was a technology used to do NDI inspections on nuclear warheads. Flat panel screens I understand were developed first for combat decision centers on warships in the 70's. Both these technologies changed industry. We now have flat monitors and DVI TV's as an outcome. the Medical field is able to conduct non-destructive inspections without surgery which is a radical change.

I suggested making information systems public utilities so that they would be viewed and managed differently having better interoperability and larger development funds could go into them.

by catherder_finleyd

In your post, you stated:

>>For example, Microsoft has no R&D department <<

I will have to disagree here. Check out this URL:

http://research.microsoft.com/

More broadly you do have some good points. Government HAS been the driver of R&D. At the same time, though, private industry has made a mark. Probably the best example has been "Bell Labs" (http://www.bell-labs.com/), which has a long standing history of innovation (http://www.bell-labs.com/history/), including UNIX (http://www.bell-labs.com/history/unix/). In addition, I remember that IBM was a research leader in their heyday (1960's - 1980's).

What is interesting about Bell and IBM is that they established their research credentials when they operated as effective monopolies. We could expect Microsoft to do the same. Cetainly, Microsoft is making a push for more patents (http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1104-5293764.html).

by mich-a-billy

I disagree that a small group of people controls innovations in technology. Look into some of the open source projects, such as Gnome. They invite people to help with the project. Most GNU software is like that.

Since this discussion is on standardizing the OS, who desides the best one. Will it be Solaris, Windows, Unix, Mac, or Linux. Outside of Windows, which desktop is the best KDE, Gnome, or etc.

I don't think the issue should the os, but the protocals on which they work. What I see as an issue is that when a protocal is developed a RFP is written on how the protocal works. Most developers develop there O.S. or programs to work with-in the RFP guidelines. Mircosoft has a problem strickley adhearing to the RFP's guidelines. So, there is alot of cases that Micosoft's O.S. doesn't work complete with other Operating Systems.

Also, there is a danager of a standard O.S. First it creates a monopoly, and would become a large cash cow for the company that gets awarded the contract. Second, If there is a security Hole in the O.S, then all computers would have the same Security Hole. Making it very easy of hackers and virus to move around the Net and get or destory any data they like.

Also, Most of the internet works unix and Linux based technology, and the routers work on IOS. There are some Windows based Servers out there also. Should all this be standardized too? If So, that would be all servers, desktops,switches, and routers with the same security holes.

Since we are on the Standards, wouldn't it be more prudent for the pubic (i.e. Government) to
push Microsoft into fixing the security holes in thier Operating System?

My thoughts in a post 9/11 world is to keep the diversity of the computer O.S., and work hard a securing them. When computers and servers go down at an airport, police station, government instution (I.E. Norad), the important services that we rely on (I.E. 911) becomes almost non-existant.

by sales

Although you may be correct that a lot of the funding comes from the government, the actual work is done by contractors and private companies, many of which propose their ideas to the government for development. Since the end of the cold war the development of new technologies, gadgets and equipment has been largely turned over to the private sector. Most R&D shops in the military and government agencies have been turned over to the private sector.
As far as making OS's a public utility, do you really think the government is efficient enough to manage operating systems. A good example is the 13 potholes that I had to dodge on the way to work this morning, at least, with the flaw that it has, my computer booted with no errors.
If OS's were a public utility we would still be using batch systems.
It is not the government that develops, enhances, or creates new technologies, it is the private sector that are the creators, and there are more than just a few, though you will not see much of the geeks we keep tucked away in little offices that dot the country side around the states.

by elder griffon

I see your point, but...

Public initiatives can drive innovation or provide stable environments for growth, but do they do both at once in the same setting? I would argue they don't.

Some initiatives (space and military) lead to new technologies because they address high-risk applications that private enterprises would be reluctant to tackle. But this hasn't resulted in the "standardization" of space travel or military technology so that other innovators can rush into this sector and take advantage of the work that's already been done.

Conversely, the adoption of GSM technology as the mobile telephony standard in Europe was a boon to consumers, accelerating innovation in the services that could be provided. But not because it spurred innovation in the digital encoding technology itself. It stabilized practices so other innovations were easier to bring about.

Has standardization of utilities brought about ground-breaking innovations in power transmission technology? Is our defense research program an efficient model for spending money to bring about innovations for mundane problems? I don't know, but I am doubtful.

I see the potential for creating an OS that is very stable but not very imaginative, or perhaps one whose innovations don't correspond to real-world needs. Not a bad idea, but I wonder, how would it work?

by fat chink

Here in California, they are private utility companies, not 'public utilities' as they were originally defined so long ago.

They also don't have the 'public' interest at heart, just their wallets.

They jack up the rates, move phone support out of the local area, provide meager 'service', reliability is not known to them, and often it takes them several dispatches to get the problem resolved (or a new service order completed).

by elder griffon

I suppose all of that is true, but do you mean that the solution is for the companies to be truly "public"? It's far more likely that price, service, and reliability would improve dramatically if the phone company knew that you could switch to some other phone company if you got upset. And if keeping phone support in the local area meant either a price change or an increase in taxes, the problem would likely be seen in a different light.

by gjansen

What would you run VMS on? Have you a VAX in your basement, or would you use a simulator?

I think that the rate of change in computing makes the notion impractical. The idea of utility computing goes back at least to Multics, though.

by jadal

I think there is an argument for this approach to the information and computing world. When you look at global communications, the companies like cell phone companies...are usually run and/or legislated as public utitlites...So I don't think it woukld be out of line to see this type of management happening. We are to some degree, already having government(s) intervene in the laws concerning Internet spamming and other Internet crime....

by towtruck1

If the os was treated like a utility, you would have to pay an installation fee (We do now by buying the os). Then there would be the monthly usage fees (do we want to make Bill richer?). Of course when something goes wrong we would have to wait on a technician to show up (just like the cable, electric, gas, etc.). Media players, word processors, etc. would be availabe as a premium item(say like HBO, or Showtime).

Lets find more ways to bilk more cash from the public. Really bad idea....

by blarman

Doesn't this sound a LOT like the Application Service Provider concept - the monthly subscription fees in order to use a piece of software?

For applications, this is a maybe. For Operating systems? No thank you. Absolutely not. No.

by nicholasdonovan

As a senior manager of a technology company, I agree that private ownership makes for better innovation as it relates to competitive technical evolution.

I also believe that the real value-add in the marketplace is in the application and application services stack.

The OS should be as modular and flexible as possible while allowing for pedantic security rules without dictates of one company who insists "there is only one way to do it and that is our way."

Microsoft's "innovations" for example have led to loss of productivity and massive security issues. That is the danger of doing it 'one way'.

Real innovation allows the end-user to choose the technology required for the job and not require 'integrated features' to constitute the main body of the solution.

For thoese who would like the readers digest version, "Sell me the solution, not the infrastructure".

Cheers,

Nick

by william.muniz

Technology is about innovation in a broad level that promotes an evolution of new services and choices. What we need is the freedom to choose what is best for our technical environment not have it chosen for us.

I could just picture it in a Dilbert cartoon. Dilbert and the rest of the staff waiting in line at the Public Service Microsoft Center to get an OS.

by theo702000

A public utility model ("model") is a very interesting way to think about operating systems. This is especially true if one looks to the future of personal computers ("computers") and what a computer will be expected to do in the future. Absent such an approach I would argue that the public will be beholden to companies such as Microsoft and growth in the computer industry stifled.

In the future computers will be expected to perform a variety of tasks from managing multi-media projects (eg. TV, multi-media libraries etc.) to notifying you regarding the security of your home, car and other property, to allowing you to communicate face to face with your children. Given the great responsibility with which computers will be charged and the operating systems which manage them, do we want one privately designed and updated operating system to control them?

I would argue that the answer is no. First, I do not think that the public should be beholden to one company to design, manage, and update what is now and in the future will be such an important technology. For example, if a flaw is found in the Windows OS and exploited by those seeking to do harm this could have a widespread and catastrophic effect. Do want to rely on one company to address and solve such an important issue. Second, if we are to have unfettered growth in the technology area we should not have to rely on Microsoft coming out with updates to its OS; rather we should have a public, standardized OS with source code that is open to the public. Only by doing this will people be given the opportunity to create unfettered by the concerns of one corporation.

Despite the above reasoning the world seems to be going in two radically different directions; one towards the model of an operating system as a public utility and another where the operating system is synonymous with Microsoft. Countries like China are embracing the public utility model, while in the US Microsoft is seeking to patent "everything under the sun" in a drive to solidify its position at the expense of open source operating systems such as Linux. Clearly, Bill Gates can tout the innovation that Microsoft brings to the marketplace, but the question is whether the rest of the world is going to accept having an American company control such an important piece of technology. I again would say that the answer is no.

by straffin

Food is a "necessary [item] that [is] ubiquitos."

Food is "now at nearly every place there is a telephone, water, sewage, etc".

"Private enterprise benefit[s] from ... widespread standardization of" food purchases through bulk ordering!

Let's make FOOD a public service! Yeah!

Or not.

by sirlanse

Maybe in Miami, identical services are available
everywhere.
Once you leave the coast, local groups provide
the services with different levels of quality.
Podunk Iowa has very different requirements from
NYNY. IMHO that is good. Let the locals control
the services and thier own machines.
(No single point of failure)

by chriswfl

Being a public utility only means submitting to government regulation. Talk about a quick way to throw ice water on a hot industry that is fueling the economy... Government is only good at stupidity and bringing something down to the lowest common denominator, which is pretty low.

by stever

No, we should not ever consider such a move. First the PC is the greatest tool ever given to the masses. It allows us to interact in a multitude of ways with one another. And gives us one of the greatest communication tool ever devised by man. Granted some safeguards should be in place ie, ISP's should clamp down on virus and spam movement and help keep these anoyances off the net. But to give a few people control over the general publics computer use would be criminal. No Mr. Miami, use your talent to come up with a better idea for your apparent business talent. As users we should all insist the os companies debug and make their software better instead of putting inferior products on the market. They should also all be required to make software to make their os's compatabile with other company os's.

by noliver

Never. The public didn't create the OS's, enterprizing people did. Let them make their cash. Odd that anyone would favor making these public services or utilities when we all complain over how crapy such services are. In ALL of your dealings with any of your current public services or utilities, can you honestly say that you are more satisfied than disatisfied in what you get?

I'm happy with the way things are. Let Billy and his gang make their money, and I'll do what I can do make mine.

I'm not trying to bash MrMiami, but I see little point to this discussion, I'd rather see prostitution as a public service than my OS.

=0

by comptech3

noliver said:
"I'm not trying to bash MrMiami, but I see little point to this discussion, I'd rather see prostitution as a public service than my OS."

Too late. Prostitution is already taxed and regulated in Nevada.

by sales

Prostitution is not a public service? I guess I have been overseas way too long.

by gg5653

Delivery of electricity, phone, cable, water, and sewage are all examples of "natural monopolies". That is because there must be a physical connection from the provider to my house, and there is only so much physical space to go around. Even if new cables could be laid for free (or if everyone were willing to pay for the price of installation), we *still* couldn't have free competition to provide these services, simply because of the disruption caused by every company laying those cables/pipes.

Internet service, operating systems, fire, police, and ambulance services are **not** natural monopolies, and so there *are* private firms that will provide these services in competition with each other and the public services (e.g. ADT or Pinkertons can provide fire or police services... if you are willing to pay). Any attempt to outlaw private suppliers is not advisable (regulate them if you must to prevent abuse, but let me buy the level of service I require).

Mind you, I agree that the public would benefit if a standard computer operating system was supplied by some entity "for free". Everyone benefits from the public police and fire service. Like fire service, however, that entity does not **have** to be a government (many communities are well supplied by volunteer firemen). In that respect, the various Open Source Software operating systems fill that need already. All you need to do now is recognize that they do so, and your problem is solved.

However, I agree with all the other posters who say the government should not **force** a particular operating system on people. The free market will automatically drive innovation and efficiency into the process, including forcing OS providers to commodify their interfaces (which benefits the consumer). Assuming, that is, that no player is able to abuse a monopoly position to illegally engage in restraint of trade.

by brucevau

There has never existed a true monopoly apart from governmental power, which is to say coercion, which is to say, guns. Even when there is only one producer in a given field, they will continue to innovate and keep prices reasonable so as to deter any newcomers from trying to get into the market. That is partly why MSFT is constantly buying out small startups, just as JD Rockefeller did over 100yrs ago. If the communists at the Justice Dept had any sense or conscience, they would have realized that a true monopolist wouldn't buy anyone out - they wouldn't need to. Besides, any venture capital fund could create a parallel MSFT overnight if there were monopolist-sized profit margins to get a slice of. Public Utility equals nationalization equals theft, which always puts a swinish smile on the faces of pig communists who can pull it off, but invariably destroys any incentive for producers who eventually disappear to other countries, if they can. That's why the Soviets built walls - to keep people in.

by drmemory

Using public utility services as a model may be more appropriate than you first thought. Using electricity as an example, the regulated portion of the system continues to be the consumer distribution network, with generation and bulk transmission being deregulated. Past the point where the power passes through the meter, the utility model stops and the consumer model begins.
With the Internet, the 'meter' is the ISP and everything after that is consumer controlled. Content, the 'generation', is distributed via a bulk service (the Internet) to local ISPs on demand.
The similarities break down when we look at the product delivered. Electricity is transformed by appliances into a multitude of useful services, requiring that a consistent and reliable product be delivered. Internet content/services are not transformed, they exist as unique and valuable entities transported and enabled by a consistent and stable environment.
The content neutral nature of the Internet, and the ability to freely redefine and innovate content, are the basis for its growth. Introducing the viscosity of standardization into the content formula runs counter to the very nature of the value being 'enhanced'.

by roberts184

this question has interested me for many years and in many different arenas. in figuring out if a public sector solution makes more sense than a private sector solution, i ask the following string of questions:

does everyone want it?
does everyone need it?
if you need it, does it have to be supplied wherever and whenever the need arises?
does it benefit from standardization to reduce cost and improve the efficiency of supplying it?

public sector solutions tend to work better when the answers to the questions above are yes while private sector solutions answers are no.

note that this does not suggest that public sector solutions or private sector solutions are inherently better than each other. either type of solution can be mismanaged (government waste and bureaucracy in the public sector, monopolistic price gouging in the private sector). the trick is recognizing when one solution will work better than the other and building the political consensus needed for a public sector solution.

by your mom 2.0

As it is, most major utility providers already offer internet access, and if not yet then they will soon.

No harm in that, and for those that decide to get their internet service from their phone, electricity, or cable providers they are free to do so. But there are those that would rather get their internet service from other sources, and they should also have that option (I'm one of these). And then there's also those that do not have or even want internet service, and they should be free to make that choice as well.

Utility costs for everyone (not just the customers who want internet service) would go up. Don't forget that utility companies are in business to make money, just like any other business, and they're going to pass the costs of setting up the infrastructure to their customers (that means us).

Here's the biggest flaw with your reasoning: The situation's NOT to the point where PCs and the internet are "necessiities" in order to survive (tho it may feel like it to some of you).

Personally, I hope it never gets to the point where it is a necessity...I'd hate to think I couldn't buy food or pay my bills because of a 404 error or down server. Anyone else a little creeped out by the thought of a hacker (or anyone, for that matter) having that much potential power over life and death?

by dbucyk

When Microsoft first developed dos and win3.x, it took the community by storm. I still support these operating systems and I feel that if the operating system is no longer supported by Microsoft, then the operating system should be available to everyone as a utility.

You are not disobeying any copyright infringements because Microsoft does not support it no longer.

That's what should happen.

by virtualgardener

Public Utility? Can you say USSR? The entire country was publicly run. Note the past tense. Take a long look at China and what you see is the government finally turning over publicly run businesses to the private sector. Public run companies are unbelievably bad at progress. Trust me, I work for State government!! This whole discussion is just thinly veiled anti Microsoft rhetoric. Give it up. Just because Bill Gates is rich doesn't mean he is evil. Give it some time and someone else will figure out how to steal some of his market share. We have Linux creeping up on him, not to mention Sun, Novell, Mac. Try to tell all the MAC users that they have to use Windows now because we made it a Public utility and Macintosh is no longer allowed to sell their own OS. Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha!!!!!!!!!!!

by rebel_angel_

Let me add my voice to the chorus of NOs.

"NO NO NO NO NO!"

This idea is insane. Diabolical.

The mind boggles at the complexity and expense of implementation, not to mention enforcement.

Can you even begin to explain a practical scenario in which it could work? What about all the various patent and copyright holders with rights to OSes? What about open source innovation? What about privacy and our right to do what we want with our own equipment?

Aside from all the other practical difficulties, almost nobody with any technical savvy would want it to happen.

Good luck pushing this idea to fruition, it would be an uphill battle, with a third of the population unsure what the fuss is about and the other two-thirds railing against it except for those who stand to benefit.

Why do some people insist on thinking that Big Brother is actually capable of looking out for their interests in spite of all evidence to the contrary? Naievete? Ulterior motives?

You'll have to gib me to make it happen.

lol ... dammit where's my soma?

guess I'll go have another coffee instead.

by gionas

I would say I agree with those that say NO, though there might be something in the public sector concept. The first thing that came into my mind when I read the postings is that everybody makes a distinction between the public sector and the private sector. Isn't the government and whatever comes with it the largest corporation of all? And as a corporation grows, its support to the final "user" is getting worse, or at least this is my experience so far. Is anybody willing to wait for two weeks (or two months, or...) to get an answer to a support question? I guess not...

In addition, many of the so called utilities are still managed by the private sector. So... Microsoft (who else?) would not only be a privately held company, but will also get funding from the governmnet... More money? Monopoly? That's a question to be answered...

One also needs to think about diversity. I think somebody already talked about it here. Today we have a variety of OSs, each serving a certain purpose. Those who need stable OSs for their critical application would go one way while those who want an easy to use interface to browse the Internet for example would go another way (should I say Microsoft way?). Each of them has pros and cons. What would happen if there would be only one OS (this is extreme, but imaginable). This is an open question. I don't have the answer and, frankly, I don't even want to think about it.

by Member 27630218

Once the government controlled operating systems (whatever that means), they wouldn't stop there. Here's where I see this going.
1. Government licenses for programmers. Programming without a license would become illegal.
2. Open source activities would become illegal, or would be highly controlled.
3. All this could easily be justified in the name of protecting the country from terrorists and hackers.
4. Jail terms for offenders would become daily headlines.

Pretty scary stuff! But this country has gone down that road many times before. It could easily go that way again. Especially when there's so much public support for the government's attempts to take down Microsoft.

by b cat

Shhhhhuh don't give them any more ideas, we are already dangerously close to having that happen, and the current administration would probably love to see it go that way.

by ytvsoftware

Since the moment of the concept of OS was created over 30 years ago, it has been being considered as
an expansion of hardware just for the reason that it is more cheaper. Creating blocks of Hardware for OS functions is expensive even at modern time. So the question is rather are computers utilities. In my personal opinion the computers are a kind of integrators and in future will be sold as various parts or/and appliances like at current time are sold cables, wires, plugs, locks, timers, sensors etc.

by muad dib

It would be called Winuxmac.

It would do everything for everyone in an equally poor fashion.

Patches would require a bi-partisan agreement and be backlogged 5 years.

Support would not exist.

Ahhhhh, perhaps a single unified system, which the user would not be allowed to customize to ensure uniformity? Just what I always wanted my tax dollars to be used for.

Get concerned about health care and energy costs if you need something be sleepless about at night.

by brucewebs

There are "chips" in your CAR, MICROWAVE, TV, etc., so the OS that runs them is: ??? a public utility? You will be paying for it in the long run one way or another. As the price for chips decrease, it will only be a matter of time before the OS is on a chip and nolonger an add-on. What the discussion does miss is all the OTHER programs that the vendor considers part of the OS!!!! That is where the $$$ comes in.

By reducing the functionality of the OS, it gets marketed under another name as an OS. By splitting the OS into its core components, you can use any hardware you want, accelerator pedal in your car, a touch screen, or for us old folks, a keyboard.

When nano technology goes main stream as the silicon chips did, will you really be installing an OS? Remember that a century ago the phone companies did not envision an internet, or the volume of traffic that goes over the wire today. Nor did anyone consider the use of satellites as a part of telecommunications.

p.s. I have burned my fingers re-programming when the tube had to be replaced, but then switched to wires in plug boards (bled on few wires too). When the transistor became main stream (soldering iron burns too), the boards had to be pulled and replaced. Life is easier now, just reinstall the software, but it does take a lot longer than just swapping a board or tube.

by b cat

Very well written, and yes I do think that we will be moving to a plug in OS on a chip in the near future. The fact is that to some degree we already have, except the chips are not yet unplug able and exchangeable for other OS options, some of these have actually been in use for many years. OS On Chip can be found in devises ranging from portable gaming pads to cell phones to PDAs. Windows CE with a few limitations holding it back, is almost a full function OS, A good programmer can write almost any type of application for it, as can be written for a full function OS, yet the whole OS Boots from a ROM chip.
An even older example would be the TRS80 and the COCO computers from Tandy in the early 1980's.
There are two major advantages to OS On Chip technology, the first being that a simple system reset will clear any corruption in the OS, and second is it?s nearly instant on capabilities. Combine OS On Chip with high-speed flash RAM instead of power dependant RAM in a desktop, workstation or server, and you can have a system which can shut down in the middle of a process and later restart as if it never stopped. Both shut down and restart would only be a mater of a few milliseconds each.

by muad dib

It would be called Winuxmac.

It would do everything for everyone in an equally poor fashion.

Patches would require a bi-partisan agreement and be backlogged 5 years.

Support would not exist.

Ahhhhh, perhaps a single unified system, which the user would not be allowed to customize to ensure uniformity? Just what I always wanted my tax dollars to be used for.

Get concerned about health care and energy costs if you need something be sleepless about at night.

by jmschattke9

OK, you've got me thinking you're goofy.
First, a computer opersting system is nothing like a public utility. Public utilities are shared resources, distribution (and collection) networks for various things. Would you make housing a public utility, because it is ubiquitous?

Add to this that the Operating system has little to do with the physical hardware. An Operating system is more alalogous to the hardware to produce electricity, than it is to the Electrical utility.

by defenestrator

Being a public utility means government regulation of interfaces, services, or prices. Would there be any benefit for the government to regulate OS interfaces? To what end? The only reasonable objective for having regulated APIs would be to facilitate porting of application programs. But with the broad range of CPU/hardware designs available, this could only be accomplished with massive use of abstraction layers. Might be feasible but not worth the effort for government regulators. Prices? Why regulate prices when the competition is free?

Regulation of services as a public utility makes the most sense. Web services in particular. Remember the initial strategy as discussed for Netscape was for the browser to make the OS irrelevant. That could still happen if the W3C got some sharp legal teeth from regulation. An abomination like IE and IIS should not be allowed to exist on the internet. A further advantage of regulating web services as a utility is that USPTO would necessarily cease issuing business process software patents.

by jim.langley

Public Utility is required to focus direction and accelerate innovation of an industry to benefit society as a whole and not just a few individuals.

The electric motor fueled the innovations of home appliances and consumer electronics knowing that the power would be operating at 60 Hertz at either 120 or 240 throughout the US and most of the world.

The CPU is the electric motor of the 21st century appliances and requires a defined standard operating system to achieve its full potential to benefit society.

by malcolm davis

Personal computers comprise very little of the processors produced each year. Cell phones, smart cards, and other micro devices out-strip PC?s 10+ fold. Java is the os of choice. Sun is the steward of the OS platform. DOS, UNIX,... are just connection to the hardware, but actually unnecessary in some cases.

by Member 19345100

One of the things about standardization is that it can happen too soon, before a technology has had a chance to "jell". In the US, our power is delivered at 110 Volts. Every other country in the world uses a higher voltage, because they can use skinnier wires for the same power. We standardized too soon.

We standardized on FORTRAN and COBOL before we really understood what a high level language ought to be. Pascal, Algol, and C were responses to some of the things that are "wrong" with FORTRAN and COBOL; C++ and Java are responses to some of the things that are "wrong" with C. So the standards in the computer business are evolving, and I think it is too soon to pick a standard.

However, while there are no standard operating **systems**, there are standard operating system **interfaces**. POSIX is a standard OS interface, and somebody can write a POSIX compliant program which can be run on any POSIX compliant OS, which includes MS-Windows, Linux (unofficially), Solaris, AIX, and I think HP-UX is also officially POSIX compliant. OpenVMS is probably POSIX compliant as well.

Good question. I think the answer is "not yet", but that doesn't mean it is a bad question, as some other posters have suggested.

Jeff

by blueknight

The thought of operating systems becoming a public utility or service isn't going to fly. Just the notion implies central source distribution, e.g. you'll boot your OS from the internet -- yeah, right! That ought to slow things down a bit more.

Then you have to convince everyone to pay a monthly charge for that "service." Methinks that'll happen when they have snow cones in hell.

by richard vickery

I think it would be a good idea to have the os as a public utility.Perhaps in this light we might have a choice when we go to buy a computer. The decission could lead to a happier consumer at the end of the day, that the consumer knows that there is a choice, that some choices are good, and some not so good. At the end of the day, what I think we want is a happy consumer, or am I wrong?

by ninjapilot

I for one hope this never happens. If operating systems are ever a public utility, every one of us will say "I want Bill Gates to tell me what I can and can?t do with my computer."
Imagine, a public employee would be responsible for the critical updates and service packs on your P.C. you might get a patch or two in your lifetime. Ever watch public employees work? Five guys watch while one runs a shovel. That's because the guy running the shovel is the only one qualified to do so. The other five employees where hired by the city manager because he goes to church with their mothers, and the retarded saps couldn't otherwise get a decent job. Think tech support is incompetent and slow now? Wait till your local City Government starts running it. No thank you. In comparison to public works; I am ready to embrace glitches that will undoubtedly be in MS. Longhorn. Just the Threat of the possibility of someone coming up with a better product keeps Microsoft working out the bugs. And we all have to admit that if Longhorn is a step in the same direction as Xp was, we might not have all that much to complain about...

by elder griffon

In many of these posts, assumptions are made about what it means to make an OS into a "public service." It's suggested that:

1. People would be prohibited by law to use any other operating system except the public one

2. Development of the public operating system would be restricted to an elite group of designers and engineers, selected by the government

3. The OS would be designed along a "one size fits all" plan, such that customization would either be impossible or discouraged, to ensure uniformity and stability.

4. The government would decide the objectives and goals for the project in more or less the same way that it decides which potholes to fix. It would then ram the result down everybody's throat.

I don't think that any of the above points follow from the suggested idea. Here are some alternate suggestions about how it might work:

1. The government would grant itself a perpetual license to freely use key patents and copyrights (possibly with compensation). Using these, an operating system would be developed with public money that would be free for anyone to use at will. No one would be required to use it, except maybe for government offices and contractors.

2. The OS would provide basic operating system functions specifically designed to interoperate well with components from private sources. Certain portions of it, perhaps, would be closed-source, but much of it would be open source so that good interoperability could be achieved. A key goal of the design process would be to create a framework that anyone could adapt to a specific task. Non-government programmers would NOT be thrown in jail. They would be invited to study the OS, and add to the body of available software.

3. Some leading academic, commercial, or engineering institution (maybe MIT, Lucent, or IBM) would be contracted to lead the effort. This contractor would be charged with building a consensus among those with a vested interest in the project.

4. The end product with be a set of standards and an official implementation of those standards, that does every basic thing that an operating system needs to do.

This is different from open source as it is today in that there would always be a single official version of the OS. It would always be simpler and cheaper to use the official implementation ("distro" if you will) if you possibly could. If there were alternate "flavors" of the base system, they would be clustered around very specific problems that needed to be solved. Microsoft and other vendors would concentrate on producing application software for the most important niche markets out there, to "plug the holes" in the base system.

Public money would go into furthering the system and public backing would encourage wide adoption. (Unless, of course, it was badly engineered, but I really don't see any reason to suppose that would be the case.) A broad swath of private firms would be free to invest in innovations, knowing that nearly everyone is using the same system and that new programs could be adapted to work well with that system quickly and surely.

Is this a good idea? I really don't know. Certainly, there are a number of drawbacks I didn't mention. But it's not nearly as bad as some are suggesting.

by virtualgardener

You are still suggesting the government get involved in something it doesn't need too. What is wrong with the current system except for the accumulated irrational resentment towards Microsoft? Market pressures will do all of this and more. In a few years we will be looking at computers that will boggle the mind. Holographic storage, light proccessors and the ever elusive quantum machine. Everything will change. Do you really think we will be using Windows in 10 years? Working for Government now, I can tell you that even if this idea took off, and the Feds step in, it would be at least a decade before anything happened. The cliche of "At the speed of Government" is a cliche for a reason.

by elder griffon

Well, I agree that the government doesn't need to get involved. We can get along without it.

The problem with the current system is that many companies need to fear the possibility of competing with Microsoft whenever they consider developing software for Windows. This is not a criticism of Microsoft. Their management of their product is perfectly rational. But Real Audio must struggle to avoid the fate of Netscape, and other potential innovators must weigh the danger that Microsoft's product will drive them from the market, no matter how good their own product is, because it integrates better and comes bundled with Windows.

Your grandma wouldn't benefit from using the operating system, but she'd likely benefit from the economic possibilities that come from service providers being able to write software for an OS that's widely adopted, largely open, and has no per unit cost.

The question, of course, is whether such a project could respond to the needs of the marketplace, or would it stifle innovation by chaining people to a bureaucratic plan. I'm sympathetic with those who say that's what would happen. But I am surprised when people say that it's obvious the government would only cause problems by stepping in. I think there are some clear ways in which a public OS could conceivably promote innovation and growth.

by firstaborean

The term, "public utility," is a legalism which actually means, government-sponsored and controlled monopoly. That's a very bad idea, which should be abandoned, not expanded. It causes inefficiency, stagnation, high prices, and an insufferable attitude on the part of the "utility." Remember Ma Bell?

by riptaurus

I am sick and tired of people who think everything private is wrong. NO! Leave the operating systems right where they are and let them decide what they want to be. They paid to develop them and it is their right to decide!

by virtualgardener

Just too much of a gamble for my taste. You have to admit that government has a bad track record for these sorts of things. You might be right, and this action might foster innovation from the little guys wanting to compete with Microsoft. But it really would depend on who was in charge of such a venture. George Washington gave us a republic by refusing the crown offered to him, but another man might not have done that. Done incorrectly this idea could cripple the IT business as we know it. Seems better to me to try and regulate Microsoft a little more to level the playing field. No more bundling software, and perhaps some rules about opening up their source code to other companies. Linux has survived with publicly available source code. Microsoft would scream, but I believe there is less risk to the consumer that way.

by fluxit

I read many of your postings and was surprised at many of the thoughts. I saw some very good ideas.

My thinking is to standardize to some degree but allow for flexibility and privatization. The GUI would have to meet very specific standards and development must fit within a standard framework. However, like phones having a wide degree of features and design the operating systems could do the same based on end user needs.

An industry consortium could convene and vet out standards, features, and security issues within the governmental guidelines. That is to state that the government would not directly manage the operating systems but rather establish a framework within which the various entities must work.

Of course, if a network does not attach to the internet or is not for public inspection then it can be anything it needs to be.

by phill0661

If you believe that it was in our nations best interest to provide telephone service to the rich and poor then it seems natural to include Internet access.
In order for ordinary citizens of every age to use this access efficiently they need a near full proof internet access device.
They cannot be troubled with Mr.Gates Windows OS fiasco or learning Unix commands.
SOme may argue that the MAC OS is rock solid but then most citizens cannot handle the upfront price.
Even Apple has entered the OS upgrade strategy which always includes a need to upgrade the hardware.
For those free enterprise advocates they can purchase commercial grade OS systems.

phil schelinski

by b cat

You have a point here, but that's what web appliances like web-TV are for.

by jpapa

As we all know the operating system mentioned that said to be use as public utilities or service has a less or we can say little flaw in security. and when we talk of virus infentions this OS give as peace of mind that no virus may infect our system or only little percent posibility that this OS maybe infected with a virus and as a public person we all want our machine service as well so using this OS will give as full public utilities and service as what we wanted.

by lastchip

The great thing about computers and specifically the Internet, is no one government has control. It cannot be turned off and some parts of the world have not enjoyed the freedom of speech it offers for generations.

The great thing about operating systems is, if you don't like Mr Gates offerings, you have a choice to another alternative. Read about "Trusted Computing", and see if that's what you want; more like "Untrusted" in my book! Imagine a utility that has control over the source code of your operating system. You wouldn't know what the hell they were collecting in data; it's bad enough now with various forms of malware.

Public Utilities are a waste of space, generally very badly managed by incompetents, who are only interested in lasting long enough to collect an inflated pension (compared to all us lesser mortals!).

Heaven forbid it ever happens.

by gsosis

As these techies crowd in on us, we seem to lose sight of the REAL THING - Turn-Around-Time. Yes, the government might come in to put in place policies, frameworks, basic and standard technologies for developing OPSYSs to enable portability and inter-OPSYS switching. The most important issues are the EASE and SPEED with which OPSYSs allow users to focus on and do their works without changing the government technology framework. Let us remember that PC is always the starting point, which the Internet DEPENDS upon and which the electric, phone, water, sewage, online banking, governmental websites MAKE USE OF. Let us not make this a case of WITCH-HUNTING.
- CRO, GSO Sistemms.

by fluxit

While there is a capitalist desire in most of us to encourage private profit. Not many of us invent things and I do not know about any of you but I dislike busting my butt for my boss to make a bunch of money so he can pay me quat.

Following 911 many things changed. One thing that is now important is the rapid disemination of information regarding threats to public safety and collection emerging threats. Traditional systems like the telephone networks fail and become overloaded. Radio and television can disseminate information to millions if they are listening. A highly reliable push and pull system needs to be in place in this new world of ours.

Using a 'newer' kind of communication system such as the internet and standardized op systems. The Government can 'push' emerging threat information to cell phones/PDA's, web appliances, and computers alerting localized citizens of evasive/protective actions to threats. Likewise, during times of high threat like the days following 911 people can use the internet to 'pull' threat action plans or 'push' request for urgent care. For example, handicapped and elderly could use a human centric device to alert authorities of thier personal needs for a nurse or medication etc... A pool of nurses and home care volunteers can then relieve the EMT's, Police and hospital emergency rooms of this needed but lower priority care that often contributes to overwhelming the system during high threat activity.

I overall I can see a benefit for establishing a publicly managed operating system and a variety of supporting products such as phones having LCD displays recieving official government information, human centric web appliances that are used to contract urgent care providers, and devices that may even sniff the air and fed data into the web regarding the scope of WMD attack. In order to facilitate this a well managed and stable operating system is necessary.

by b cat

Some of your uses and concerns are quite vallid, but why do we need a public OS to do this? every thing you mentioned can be done now with the propper web programing. each service would nead a site for the general web and an integrated componant for web enabled cell phones an other wireless devices. you do have a great idea as for as the services go. it would be good if you can motivate some of the related agencys some of these sites and the help network that would use them.

by fluxit

some products to support the services need stand alone, reliable, operating systems. In addition, I mentioned numerous other issues early on that would require a stable operating environment.

by fluxit

The Government oversees major technology innovation. So why not operating systems. It was not until the Cold War and the Space Race that we had this explosive boom in technology. Before that is was very slow.

by fluxit

The actual operating system and gui are relatively small compared to the stuff installed in it. It just provides the API's for other imaginative things. I don't see the government controlling word processing, spreadsheets, or databases, and other software. Like the FDA it just makes certain that it works before it is available to the public.

by rturner

Does this sound oddly communistic to anyone else? Public administration for the benefit of all generally doesn't work, it's been proven again and again. Nice idea. Cute and all, but it simply kills innovation and initiative. Imagine you are hacking away programming night and day...you are the next Torvalds in the making..then, WHAMMO, no need - "The OS" is Government controlled. You're ideas are essentially muted. Of course you can fill out the requisite paperwork and wait in line to have your ideas considered, probably by a Senate appointed committee composed of the infirm and elderly, many of whom have never touched a computer, save to push it off the desk to make room for the seceretary. Soon you are running a rogue network, becuase, as brilliant as you are, you refuse to accept sub-par technology, and heaven knows if you can't order your movie online from Blockbuster or have your fridge telnet into the Piggly-Wiggly for a packet of hot dogs and a gallon of milk, well that's just intolerable.

Fair idea, I give you cajones points for bringing it up in a public forum. It simply will not work.

by fluxit

A public utility does not have to be Government owned only Government regulated under CFR's.

A the current consortiums could continue and a ops sys consortium could emerge to advance the opsys.

There is nothing preventing other opsys from being used if operating on a private network.

by road apple

As you recall from U.S. legislative history, the intent of "public/private" utilities regulations was to legitimize monopolies in order to protect the public from price gouging and other possible socio-economic evils -- particularly in defined geographical areas. While the effectiveness of such regulatory oversight may be debated, the intent is still there. And, yes, there are a limited number of viable Operating Systems available but we still do have some choices. Nor are there limited geographical considerations in play.

Thus, I'm definitely against putting OS under government regulations.

Now, if we wish to discuss the pharmacy industry.......

by fluxit

Then why was Bill Gates being sued about being a monopoly during the Clinton Years? The lawsuit was that MS is a monopoly exercising unfair business practices in the browser market. MS argued that Explorer was part of the operating system. So there was a debate about where the operating system stops and applications begin? They were seeking a legal definition which means (BUM BUM BAAAAAHH) Government regulation!

This discussion is closed to new replies.