Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Collapse OS

collapseos.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 323 posts

Re: Collapse OS

#51

Post by jedberg »

For anyone interested in the idea of keeping old computers running, I highly highly recommend the Living Computer Museum in Seattle [0]. It was started by Paul Allen and has some of the coolest stuff I've ever seen. Their goal is to restore old computers to working condition and have them look/feel/smell/work the same as they did when new. I got to see a ton of old computers that I had as a kid. I even got to write a program in BASIC on the original IBM PC like I did when I was a kid! [1]

[0] https://www.livingcomputers.org

[1] https://twitter.com/TeriRadichel/status/1164369796307116033

Re: Collapse OS

#52

Post by Fnoord »

headcanon wrote: post #46

Why does the author think the global supply chain will collapse in the next ten years? What scenario do they envision? Climate change? Will cost trillions of dollars and billions of lives, but will likely be played out over course of several decades. We will be stressing out about it but its not going to be electronics-ending apocalyptic Nuclear war? Please. The countries that have the capability are also level-heade…

I believe there to be a different reason than the ones you mentioned. I believe what might happen is the end of "the Internet" as we know it. Russia is ready to detach their networks from the rest of the world. China has the GFW. Hackers from around the world are targeting each other for their governments and getting a get out of jail for free card (scratch that: a carte blanche). I like FOSS, but it is also easier pirated by a country who don't adhere to the licenses. There is a country who pirate en masse, who steal trade secrets. That country is called China. Worse, the USA does it as well, via NSA etc.

Either way, I don't think such is a good premise to start this/an OS. There are much better argument to be made to prefer a lightweight OS. Intellectual curiosity, for one.

Re: Collapse OS

#53

Post by SwellJoe »

PeterisP wrote: post #36
SwellJoe wrote: post #26

I've been sort of half-assed working on a novel about a post-tech future (100+ years after apocalypse), where a handful of people retained some technology by virtue of having stored information about it in a manner that survived and a tradition of scavenging and trading and a sort of religion based on maintaining it in a working state. So, this is a fun read and thought experiment, even if an 8-bit computer is probab…

IMHO you could be using the same chips for a surprisingly long time - you're likely to need some electronics maintained e.g. replacing capacitors, but if you really need to get some computing power for a 2100 post-apocalyptic scenario where there's just a few million people, then scavenging working chips from random gadgets has a lot of potential. E.g. a hard drive controller or a kids toy may be running on something…

Yeah, part of keeping old computers (and synthesizers, another interest of mine) running is re-capping. Modern caps last longer than the stuff from the 70s and early 80s, but still maybe needs consideration. I don't actually know much about the longevity of modern caps...worth some research.

Re: Collapse OS

#54

Post by bcaa7f3a8bbc »

I don't think just developing a Z80 operating system is enough. The whole ecosystem needs to be preserved.

In agriculture, we have the doomsday seed vault [0] just for this purpose. If we anticipate collapse of the current economic system or society, I think we should build a doomsday computer vault, that keeps everything we need to rebuild the computing industry in a underground bunker. It keeps everything we need in a controlled environment, such as 8080, Z80, m68k, motherboards, logic chips, I/O controllers, ROM/RAM, generic electronic parts, soldering irons, oscilloscopes, logic analyzers, schematics, documentation, textbooks, software. We also keep some complete, standalone computer systems such as desktops and laptops, and all the parts that need to service them. We also need to preserve the old semiconductor production lines around the world, although probably not in the same bunker. Even if we fail to build better systems, 8080s are already useful enough!

Meanwhile in peace time, we need to form a team of experts that makes a roadmap to rebootstrap the computing technology for the future using parts from the bunker, with a step-by-step plan, that can be easily followed and executed.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svalbard_Global_Seed_Vault

Re: Collapse OS

#55

Post by agentultra »

A neat idea!

I think we could also get started now. Not necessarily de-escalating tech, but realizing that the fundamental supply of newer, more powerful chips might not last even with a shift to more plentiful supplies of rare-earth metals due to our need to get off of fossil fuels, fast. I think it might be useful in the more immediate term to be able to lock-in the minimum set of features that make the web and Internet useful then distribute that as widely as possible on low-power, commodity platforms with resilient networks that could survive super-storms knocking out huge swaths of devices in one fell swoop.

Low-power p2p protocols, mesh networking, recycling devices, component-platforms that allow scavenging and make-shift repairs, etc.

Until we can solve the green energy problem it might be nice to know that even if your community gets hit with a storm or flood, it's still possible to restore and maintain network services rapidly in the aftermath. Simply being able to send a message to someone would be a big deal.

Re: Collapse OS

#56

Post by mschaef »

In the event of a sufficiently large collapse, people will be so far down on Maslow's hierarchy of needs that an OS will be about the last thing on their minds.

Re: Collapse OS

#57

Post by jolmg »

SwellJoe wrote: post #38
jolmg wrote: post #17

Why Z80? Is it like the 2nd most common processor type or something? Where would one find a Z80 when scavenging?

It's extremely common, even today, though probably not the processor I would pick (I think 68000 family, perhaps?), but it's probably a reasonable choice. You're going to be able to find it embedded in literally millions of devices and it's simple enough for one person to build a computer around it. I suspect the argument against modern Intel chips is just their complexity. They need an incredibly complicated and som…

> I suspect the argument against modern Intel chips is just their complexity.

Well that, and the fact that we already have plenty of OSes to run on x86(-64).

Looking at arch/ in linux's source:

  alpha  avr32     frv      Kconfig  microblaze  openrisc  score  um
  arc    blackfin  h8300    m32r     mips        parisc    sh     unicore32
  arm    c6x       hexagon  m68k     mn10300     powerpc   sparc  x86
  arm64  cris      ia64     metag    nios2       s390      tile   xtensa
I'm surprised that it doesn't have support for Z80 if it's so common.

I'm also surprised that I can't see mention of Z80 in GCC's documentation.

Re: Collapse OS

#58

Post by robbrown451 »

headcanon wrote: post #46

Why does the author think the global supply chain will collapse in the next ten years? What scenario do they envision? Climate change? Will cost trillions of dollars and billions of lives, but will likely be played out over course of several decades. We will be stressing out about it but its not going to be electronics-ending apocalyptic Nuclear war? Please. The countries that have the capability are also level-heade…

Obviously, you spend way too much time consuming reasonable, balanced, non-hyperbolic media.

Re: Collapse OS

#60

Post by neurobashing »

The manifesto/winter-is-coming bits and overall design reads to me like TempleOS without the mental illness. Eg, a shell that "compiles", no protected memory, etc.
Post reply on HN