Paul Boddie's Free Software-related blog

Since microcomputing and computing history are particular topics of interest of mine, I was naturally engaged by a recent article about the Raspberry Pi and its educational ambitions. Perhaps obscured by its subsequent success in numerous realms, the aspirations that originally drove the development of the Pi had their roots in the effects of the introduction of microcomputers in British homes and schools during the 1980s, a phenomenon that supposedly precipitated a golden age of hands-on learning, initiating numerous celebrated and otherwise successful careers in computing and technology.

Such mythology has the tendency to greaten expectations and deepen nostalgia, and when society enters a malaise in one area or another, it often leads to efforts to bring back the magic through new initiatives. Enter the Raspberry Pi! But, as always, we owe it to ourselves to step through the sequence of historical events, as opposed to simply accepting the narratives peddled by those with an agenda or those looking for comforting reminders of their own particular perspectives from an earlier time.

The Raspberry Pi and other products, such as the BBC Micro Bit, associated with relatively recent educational initiatives, were launched with the intention of restoring the focus of learning about computing to that of computing and computation itself. Once upon a time, computers were largely confined to large organisations and particular kinds of endeavour, generally interacting only indirectly with wider society. Thus, for most people, what computers were remained an abstract notion, often coupled with talk of the binary numeral system as the “language” of these mysterious and often uncompromising machines.

However, as microcomputers emerged both in the hobbyist realm – frequently emphasised in microcomputing history coverage – and in commercial environments such as shops and businesses, governments and educators identified a need for “computer literacy”. This entailed practical experience with computers and their applications, informed by suitable educational material, enabling the broader public to understand the limitations and the possibilities of these machines.

Although computers had already been in use for decades, microcomputing diminished the cost of accessible computing systems and thereby dramatically expanded their reach. And when technology is adopted by a much larger group, there is usually a corresponding explosion in applications of that technology as its users make their own discoveries about what the technology might be good for. The limitations of microcomputers relative to their more sophisticated predecessors – mainframes and minicomputers – also meant that existing, well-understood applications were yet to be successfully transferred from those more powerful and capable systems, leaving the door open for nimble, if somewhat less capable, alternatives to be brought to market.

The Capable User

All of these factors pointed towards a strategy where users of computers would not only need to be comfortable interacting with these systems, but where they would also need to have a broad range of skills and expertise, allowing them to go beyond simply using programs that other people had made. Instead, they would need to be empowered to modify existing programs and even write their own. With microcomputers only having a limited amount of memory and often less than convenient storage solutions (cassette tapes being a memorable example), and with few available programs for typically brand new machines, the emphasis of the manufacturer was often on giving the user the tools to write their own software.

Computer literacy efforts sensibly and necessarily went along with such trends, and from the late 1970s and early 1980s, after broader educational programmes seeking to inform the public about microelectronics and computing, these efforts targeted existing models of computer with learning materials like “30 Hour BASIC”. Traditional publishers became involved as the market opportunities grew for producing and selling such materials, and publications like Usbourne’s extensive range of computer programming titles were incredibly popular.

Numerous microcomputer manufacturers were founded, some rather more successful and long-lasting than others. An industry was born, around which was a vibrant community – or many vibrant communities – consuming software and hardware for their computers, but crucially also seeking to learn more about their machines and exchanging their knowledge, usually through the specialist print media of the day: magazines, newsletters, bulletins and books. This, then, was that golden age, of computer studies lessons at school, learning BASIC, and of late night coders at home, learning machine code (or, more likely, assembly language) and gradually putting together that game they always wanted to write.

One can certainly question the accuracy of the stereotypical depiction of that era, given that individual perspectives may vary considerably. My own experiences involved limited exposure to educational software at primary school, and the anticipated computer studies classes at secondary school never materialising. What is largely beyond dispute is that after the exciting early years of microcomputing, the educational curriculum changed focus from learning about computers to using them to run whichever applications happened to be popular or attractive to potential employers.

The Vocational Era

Thus, microcomputers became mere tools to do other work, and in that visionless era of Thatcherism, such other work was always likely to be clerical: writing letters and doing calculations in simple spreadsheets, sowing the seeds of dysfunction and setting public expectations of information systems correspondingly low. “Computer studies” became “information technology” in the curriculum, usually involving systems feigning a level of compatibility with the emerging IBM PC “standard”. Naturally, better-off schools will have had nicer equipment, perhaps for audio and video recording and digitising, plus the accompanying multimedia authoring tools, along with a somewhat more engaging curriculum.

At some point, the Internet will have reached schools, bringing e-mail and Web access (with all the complications that entails), and introducing another range of practical topics. Web authoring and Web site development may, if pursued to a significant extent, reveal such things as scripts and services, but one must then wonder what someone encountering the languages involved for the first time might be able to make of them. A generation or two may have grown up seeing computers doing things but with no real exposure to how the magic was done.

And then, there is the matter of how receptive someone who is largely unexposed to programming might be to more involved computing topics, lower-level languages, data structures and algorithms, of the workings of the machine itself. The mythology would have us believe that capable software developers needed the kind of broad exposure provided by the raw, unfiltered microcomputing experience of the 1980s to be truly comfortable and supremely effective at any level of a computing system, having sniffed out every last trick from their favourite microcomputer back in the day.

Those whose careers were built in those early years of microcomputing may now be seeing their retirement approaching, at least if they have not already made their millions and transitioned into some kind of role advising the next generation of similarly minded entrepreneurs. They may lament the scarcity of local companies in the technology sector, look at their formative years, and conclude that the system just doesn’t make them like they used to.

(Never mind that the system never made them like that in the first place: all those game-writing kids who may or may not have gone on to become capable, professional developers were clearly ignoring all the high-minded educational stuff that other people wanted them to study. Chess computers and robot mice immediately spring to mind.)

A Topic for Another Time

What we probably need to establish, then, is whether such views truly incorporate the wealth of experience present in society, or whether they merely reflect a narrow perspective where the obvious explanation may apply to some people’s experience but fails to explain the entire phenomenon. Here, we could examine teaching at a higher educational level than the compulsory school system, particularly because academic institutions were already performing and teaching computing for decades before controversies about the school computing curriculum arose.

We might contrast the casual, self-taught, experimental approach to learning about programming and computers with the structured approach favoured in universities, of starting out with high-level languages, logic, mathematics, and of learning about how the big systems achieved their goals. I encountered people during my studies who had clearly enjoyed their formative experiences with microcomputers becoming impatient with the course of these studies, presumably wondering what value it provided to them.

Some of them quit after maybe only a year, whereas others gained an ordinary degree as opposed to graduating with honours, but hopefully they all went on to lucrative and successful careers, unconstrained and uncurtailed by their choice. But I feel that I might have missed some useful insights and experiences had I done the same. But for now, let us go along with the idea that constructive exposure to technology throughout the formative education of the average person enhances their understanding of that technology, leading to a more sophisticated and creative population.

A Complete Experience

Backtracking to the article that started this article off, we then encounter one educational ambition that has seemingly remained unaddressed by the Raspberry Pi. In microcomputing’s golden age, the motivated learner was ostensibly confronted with the full power of the machine from the point of switching on. They could supposedly study the lowest levels and interact with them using their own software, comfortable with their newly acquired knowledge of how the hardware works.

Disregarding the weird firmware situation with the Pi, it may be said that most Pi users will not be in quite the same position when running the Linux-based distribution deployed on most units as someone back in the 1980s with their BBC Micro, one of the inspirations for the Pi. This is actually a consequence of how something even cheaper than a microcomputer of an earlier era has gained sophistication to such an extent that it is architecturally one of those “big systems” that stuffy university courses covered.

In one regard, the difference in nature between the microcomputers that supposedly conferred developer prowess on a previous generation and the computers that became widespread subsequently, including single-board computers like the Pi, undermines the convenient narrative that microcomputers gave the earlier generation their perfect start. Systems built on processors like the 6502 and the Z80 did not have different privilege levels or memory management capabilities, leaving their users blissfully unaware of such concepts, even if the curious will have investigated the possibilities of interrupt handling and been exposed to any related processor modes, or even if some kind of bank switching or simple memory paging had been used by some machines.

Indeed, topics relevant to microcomputers from the second half of the 1980s are surprisingly absent from retrocomputing initiatives promoting themselves as educational aids. While the Commander X16 is mostly aimed at those seeking a modern equivalent of their own microcomputer learning environment, and many of its users may also end up mostly playing games, the Agon Light and related products are more aggressively pitched as being educational in nature. And yet, these projects cling to 8-bit processors, some inviting categorisation as being more like microcontrollers than microprocessors, as if the constraints of those processor architectures conferred simplicity. In fact, moving up from the 6502 to the 68000 or ARM made life easier in many ways for the learner.

When pitching a retrocomputing product at an audience with the intention of educating them about computing, also adding some glamour and period accuracy to the exercise, it would arguably be better to start with something from the mid-1980s like the Atari ST, providing a more scalable processor architecture and sensible instruction set, but also coupling the processor with memory management hardware. The Atari ST and Commodore Amiga didn’t have a memory management unit in their earliest models, only introducing one later to attempt a move upmarket.

Certainly, primary school children might not need to learn the details of all of this power – just learning programming would be sufficient for them – but as they progress into the later stages of their education, it would be handy to give them new challenges and goals, to understand how a system works where each program has its own resources and cannot readily interfere with other programs. Indeed, something with a RISC processor and memory management capabilities would be just as credible.

How “authentic” a product with a RISC processor and “big machine” capabilities would be, in terms of nostalgia and following on from earlier generations of products, might depend on how strict one decides to be about the whole exercise. But there is nothing inauthentic about a product with such a feature set. In fact, one came along as the de-facto successor to the BBC Micro, and yet relatively little attention seems to be given to how it addressed some of the issues faced by the likes of the Pi.

Under The Hood

In assessing the extent of the Pi’s educational scope, the aforementioned article has this to say:

“Encouraging naive users to go under the hood is always going to be a bad idea on systems with other jobs to do.”

For most people, the Pi is indeed running many jobs and performing many tasks, just as any Linux system might do. And as with any “big machine”, the user is typically and deliberately forbidden from going “under the hood” and interfering with the normal functioning of the system. Even if a Pi is only hosting a single user, unlike the big systems of the past with their obligations to provide a service to many users.

Of course, for most purposes, such a system has traditionally been more than adequate for people to learn about programming. But traditionally, low-level systems programming and going under the hood generally meant downtime, which on expensive systems was largely discouraged, confined to inconvenient times of day, and potentially undertaken at one’s peril. Things have changed somewhat since the old days, however, and we will return to that shortly. But satisfying the expectations of those wanting a responsive but powerful learning environment was a challenge encountered even as the 1980s played out.

With early 1980s microcomputers like the BBC Micro, several traits comprised the desirable package that people now seek to reproduce. The immediacy of such systems allowed users to switch on and interact with the computer in only a few seconds, as opposed to a lengthy boot sequence that possibly also involved inserting disks, never mind the experiences of the batch computing era that earlier computing students encountered. Such interactivity lent such systems a degree of transparency, letting the user interact with the system and rapidly see the effects. Interactions were not necessarily constrained to certain facets of the system, allowing users to engage with the mechanisms “under the hood” with both positive and negative effects.

The Machine Operating System (MOS) of the BBC Micro and related machines such as the Acorn Electron and BBC Master series, provided well-defined interfaces to extend the operating system, introduce event or interrupt handlers, to deliver utilities in the form of commands, and to deliver languages and applications. Such capabilities allowed users to explore the provided functionality and the framework within which it operated. Users could also ignore the operating system’s facilities and more or less take full control of the machine, slipping out of one set of imposed constraints only to be bound by another, potentially more onerous set of constraints.

Earlier Experiences

Much is made of the educational impact of systems like the BBC Micro by those wishing to recapture some of the magic on more capable systems, but relatively few people seem to be curious about how such matters were tackled by the successor to the BBC Micro and BBC Master ranges: Acorn’s Archimedes series. As a step away from earlier machines, the Archimedes offers an insight into how simplicity and immediacy can still be accommodated on more powerful systems, through native support for familiar technology such as BASIC, compatibility layers for old applications, and system emulators for those who need to exercise some of the new hardware in precisely the way that worked on the older hardware.

When the Archimedes was delivered, the original Arthur operating system largely provided the recognisable BBC Micro experience. Starting up showed a familiar welcome message, and even if it may have dropped the user at a “supervisor” prompt as opposed to BASIC, something which did also happen occasionally on earlier machines, typing “BASIC” got the user the rest of the way to the environment they had come to expect. This conferred the ability to write programs exercising the graphical and audio capabilities of the machine to a substantial degree, including access to assembly language, albeit of a different and rather superior kind to that of the earlier machines. Even writing directly to screen memory worked, albeit at a different location and with a more sensible layout.

Under Arthur, users could write programs largely as before, with differences attributable to the change in capabilities provided by the new machines. Even though errant pokes to exotic memory locations might have been trapped and handled by the system’s enhanced architecture, it was still possible to write software that ran in a privileged mode, installed interrupt handlers, and produced clever results, at the risk of freezing or crashing the system. When Arthur was superseded by RISC OS, the desktop interface became the default experience, hiding the immediacy and the power of the command prompt and BASIC, but such facilities remained only a keypress away and could be configured as the default with perhaps only a single command.

RISC OS exposed the tensions between the need for a more usable and generally accessible interface, potentially doing many things at once, and the desire to be able to get under the hood and poke around. It was possible to write desktop applications in BASIC, but this was not really done in a particularly interactive way, and programs needed to make system calls to interact with the rest of the desktop environment, even though the contents of windows were painted using the classic BASIC graphics primitives otherwise available to programs outside the desktop. Desktop programs were also expected to cooperate properly with each other, potentially hanging the system if not written correctly.

The Maestro music player in RISC OS, written in BASIC. Note that the !RunImage file is a BASIC program, with the somewhat compacted code shown in the text editor.

A safer option for those wanting the classic experience and to leverage their hard-earned knowledge, was to forget about the desktop and most of the newer capabilities of the Archimedes and to enter the BBC Micro emulator, 65Host, available on one of the supplied application disks, writing software just as before, and then running that software or any other legacy software of choice. Apart from providing file storage to the emulator and bearing all the work of the emulator itself, this did not really exercise the newer machine, but it still provided a largely authentic, traditional experience. One could presumably crash the emulated machine, but this should merely have terminated the emulator.

An intermediate form of legacy application support was also provided. 65Tube, with “Tube” referencing an interfacing paradigm used by the BBC Micro, allowed applications written against documented interfaces to run under emulation but accessing facilities in the native environment. This mostly accommodated things like programming language environments and productivity applications and might have seemed superfluous alongside the provision of a more comprehensive emulator, but it potentially allowed such applications to access capabilities that were not provided on earlier systems, such as display modes with greater resolutions and more colours, or more advanced filesystems of different kinds. Importantly, from an educational perspective, these emulators offered experiences that could be translated to the native environment.

65Tube running in MODE 15, utilising many more colours than normally available on earlier Acorn machines.

Although the Archimedes drifted away from the apparent simplicity of the BBC Micro and related machines, most users did not fully understand the software stack on such earlier systems, anyway. However, despite the apparent sophistication of the BBC Micro’s successors, various aspects of the software architecture were, in fact, preserved. Even the graphical user interface on the Archimedes was built upon many familiar concepts and abstractions. The difficulty for users moving up to the newer system arose upon finding that much of their programming expertise and effort had to be channelled into a software framework that confined the activities of their code, particularly in the desktop environment. One kind of framework for more advanced programs had merely been replaced by others.

Finding Lessons for Today

The way the Archimedes attempted to accommodate the expectations cultivated by earlier machines does not necessarily offer a convenient recipe to follow today. However, the solutions it offered should draw our attention to some other considerations. One is the level of safety in the environment being offered: it should be possible to interact with the system without bringing it down or causing havoc.

In that respect, the Archimedes provided a sandboxed environment like an emulator, but this was only really viable for running old software, as indeed was the intention. It also did not multitask, although other emulators eventually did. The more integrated 65Tube emulator also did not multitask, although later enhancements to RISC OS such as task windows did allow it to multitask to a degree.

65Tube running in a task window. This relies on the text editing application and unfortunately does not support fancy output.

Otherwise, the native environment offered all the familiar tools and the desired level of power, but along with them plenty of risks for mayhem. Thus, a choice between safety and concurrency was forced upon the user. (Aside from Arthur and RISC OS, there was also Acorn’s own Unix port, RISC iX, which had similar characteristics to the kind of Linux-based operating system typically run on the Pi. You could, in principle, run a BBC Micro emulator under RISC iX, just as people run emulators on the Pi today.)

Today, we could actually settle for the same software stack on some Raspberry Pi models, with all its advantages and disadvantages, by running an updated version of RISC OS on such hardware. The bundled emulator support might be missing, however, but for those wanting to go under the hood and also take advantage of the hardware, it is unlikely that they would be so interested in replicating the original BBC Micro experience with perfect accuracy, instead merely seeking to replicate the same kind of experience.

Another consideration the Archimedes raises is the extent to which an environment may take advantage of the host system, and it is this consideration that potentially has the most to offer in formulating modern solutions. We may normally be completely happy running a programming tool in our familiar computing environments, where graphical output, for example, may be confined to a window or occasionally shown in full-screen mode. Indeed, something like a Raspberry Pi need not have any rigid notion of what its “native” graphical capabilities are, and the way a framebuffer is transferred to an actual display is normally not of any real interest.

The learning and practice of high-level programming can be adequately performed in such a modern environment, with the user safely confined by the operating system and mostly unable to bring the system down. However, it might not adequately expose the user to those low-level “under the hood” concepts that they seem to be missing out on. For example, we may wish to introduce the framebuffer transfer mechanism as some kind of educational exercise, letting the user appreciate how the text and graphics plotting facilities they use lead to pixels appearing on their screen. On the BBC Micro, this would have involved learning about how the MOS configures the 6845 display controller and the video ULA to produce a usable display.

The configuration of such a mechanism typically resides at a fairly low level in the software stack, out of the direct reach of the user, but allowing a user to reconfigure such a mechanism would risk introducing disruption to the normal functioning of the system. Therefore, a way is needed to either expose the mechanism safely or to simulate it. Here, technology’s steady progression does provide some possibilities that were either inconvenient or impossible on an early ARM system like the Archimedes, notably virtualisation support, allowing us to effectively run a simulation of the hardware efficiently on the hardware itself.

Thus, we might develop our own framebuffer driver and fire up a virtual machine running our operating system of choice, deploying the driver and assessing the consequences provided by a simulation of that aspect of the hardware. Of course, this would require support in the virtual environment for that emulated element of the hardware. Alternatively, we might allow some kind of restrictive access to that part of the hardware, risking the failure of the graphical interface if misconfiguration occurred, but hopefully providing some kind of fallback control mechanism, like a serial console or remote login, to restore that interface and allow the errant code to be refined.

A less low-level component that might invite experimentation could be a filesystem. The MOS in the BBC Micro and related machines provided filesystem (or filing system) support in the form of service ROMs, and in RISC OS on the Archimedes such support resides in the conceptually similar relocatable modules. Given the ability of normal users to load such modules, it was entirely possible for a skilled user to develop and deploy their own filesystem support, with the associated risks of bringing down the system. Linux does have arguably “glued-on” support for unprivileged filesystem deployment, but there might be other components in the system worthy of modification or replacement, and thus the virtual machine might need to come into play again to allow the desired degree of experimentation.

A Framework for Experimentation

One can, however, envisage a configurable software system where a user session might involve a number of components providing the features and services of interest, and where a session might be configured to exclude or include certain typical or useful components, to replace others, and to allow users to deploy their own components in a safe fashion. Alongside such activities, a normal system could be running, providing access to modern conveniences at a keypress or the touch of a button.

We might want the flexibility to offer something resembling 65Host, albeit without the emulation of an older system and its instruction set, for a highly constrained learning environment where many aspects of the system can be changed for better or worse. Or we might want something closer to 65Tube, again without the emulation, acting mostly as a “native” program but permitting experimentation on a few elements of the experience. An entire continuum of possibilities could be supported by a configurable framework, allowing users to progress from a comfortable environment with all of the expected modern conveniences, gradually seeing each element removed and then replaced with their own implementation, until arriving in an environment where they have the responsibility at almost every level of the system.

In principle, a modern system aiming to provide an “under the hood” experience merely needs to simulate that experience. As long as the user experiences the same general effects from their interactions, the environment providing the experience can still isolate a user session from the underlying system and avoid unfortunate consequences from that misbehaving session. Purists might claim that as long as any kind of simulation is involved, the user is not actually touching the hardware and is therefore not engaging in low-level development, even if the code they are writing would be exactly the code that would be deployed on the hardware.

Systems programming can always be done by just writing programs and deploying them on the hardware or in a virtual machine to see if they work, resetting the system and correcting any mistakes, which is probably how most programming of this kind is done even today. However, a suitably configurable system would allow a user to iteratively and progressively deploy a customised system, and to work towards deploying a complete system of their own. With the final pieces in place, the user really would be exercising the hardware directly, finally silencing the purists.

Naturally, given my interest in microkernel-based systems, the above concept would probably rest on the use of a microkernel, with much more of a blank canvas available to define the kind of system we might like, as opposed to more prescriptive systems with monolithic kernels and much more of the basic functionality squirrelled away in privileged kernel code. Perhaps the only difficult elements of a system to open up to user modification, those that cannot also be easily delegated or modelled by unprivileged components, would be those few elements confined to the microkernel and performing fundamental operations such as directly handling interrupts, switching execution contexts (threads), writing memory mappings to the appropriate registers, and handling system calls and interprocess communications.

Even so, many aspects of these low-level activities are exposed to user-level components in microkernel-based operating systems, leaving few mysteries remaining. For those advanced enough to progress to kernel development, traditional systems programming practices would surely be applicable. But long before that point, motivated learners will have had plenty of opportunities to get “under the hood” and to acquire a reasonable understanding of how their systems work.

A Conclusion of Sorts

As for why people are not widely using the Raspberry Pi to explore low-level computing, the challenge of facilitating such exploration when the system has “other jobs to do” certainly seems like a reasonable excuse, especially given the choice of operating system deployed on most Pi devices. One could remove those “other jobs” and run RISC OS, of course, putting the learner in an unfamiliar and more challenging environment, perhaps giving them another computer to use at the same time to look things up on the Internet. Or one could adopt a different software architecture, but that would involve an investment in software that few organisations can be bothered to make.

I don’t know whether the University of Cambridge has seen better-educated applicants in recent years as a result of Pi proliferation, or whether today’s applicants are as similarly perplexed by low-level concepts as those from the pre-Pi era. But then, there might be a lesson to be learned about applying some rigour to technological interventions in society. After all, there were some who justifiably questioned the effectiveness of rolling out microcomputers in schools, particularly when teachers have never really been supported in their work, as more and more is asked of them by their political overlords. Investment in people and their well-being is another thing that few organisations can be bothered to make, too.

I seem to be spending too much time looking into obscure tales from computing history, but continuing an earlier tangent from a recent article, noting the performance of different computer systems at the end of the 1980s and the start of the 1990s, I found myself evaluating one of those Internet rumours that probably started to do the rounds about thirty years ago. We will get to that rumour – a tall tale, indeed – in a moment. But first, a chart that I posted in an earlier article:

Performance evolution of the Archimedes and various competitors

As this nice chart indicates, comparing processor performance in computers from Acorn, Apple, Commodore and Compaq, different processor families bestowed a competitive advantage on particular systems at various points in time. For a while, Acorn’s ARM2 processor gave Acorn’s Archimedes range the edge over much more expensive systems using the Intel 80386, showcased in Compaq’s top-of-the-line models, as well as offerings from Apple and Commodore, these relying on Motorola’s 68000 family. One can, in fact, claim that a comparison between ARM-based systems and 80386-based systems would have been unfair to Acorn: more similarly priced systems from PC-compatible vendors would have used the much slower 80286, making the impact of the ARM2 even more remarkable.

Something might be said about the evolution of these processor families, what happened after 1993, and the introduction of later products. Such topics are difficult to address adequately for a number of reasons, principally the absence of appropriate benchmark results and the evolution of benchmarking to more accurately reflect system performance. Acorn never published SPEC benchmark figures, nor did ARM (at the time, at least), and any given benchmark as an approximation to “real-world” computing activities inevitably drifts away from being an accurate approximation as computer system architecture evolves.

However, in another chart I made to cover Acorn’s Unix-based RISC iX workstations, we can consider another range of competitors and quite a different situation. (This chart also shows off the nice labelling support in gnuplot that wasn’t possible with the currently disabled MediaWiki graph extension.)

Performance of the Acorn R-series and various competitors in approximate chronological order of introduction: a chart produced by gnuplot and converted from SVG to PNG for Wikipedia usage.

Now, this chart only takes us from 1989 until 1992, which will not satisfy anyone wondering what happened next in the processor wars. But it shows the limits of Acorn’s ability to enter the lucrative Unix workstation market with a processor that was perceived to be rather fast in the world of personal computers. Acorn’s R140 used the same ARM2 processor introduced in the Archimedes range, but even at launch this workstation proved to be considerably slower than somewhat more expensive workstation models from Digital and Sun employing MIPS and SPARC processors respectively.

Fortunately for Acorn, adding a cache to the ARM2 (plus a few other things) to make the ARM3 unlocked a considerable boost in performance. Although the efficient utilisation of available memory bandwidth had apparently been a virtue for the ARM designers, coupling the processor to memory performance had put a severe limit on overall performance. Meanwhile, the designers of the MIPS and SPARC processor families had started out with a different perspective and had considered cache memory almost essential in the kind of computer architectures that would be using these processors.

Acorn didn’t make another Unix workstation after the R260, released in 1990, for reasons that could be explored in depth another time. One of them, however, was that ARM processor design had been spun out to a separate company, ARM Limited, and appeared to be stalling in terms of delivering performance improvements at the same rate as previously, or indeed at the same rate as other processor families. Acorn did introduce the ARM610 belatedly in 1994 in its Risc PC, which would have been more amenable to running Unix, but by then the company was arguably beginning the process of unravelling for another set of reasons to be explored another time.

So, That Tall Tale

It is against this backdrop of competitive considerations that I now bring you the tall tale to which I referred. Having been reminded of the Atari Transputer Workstation by a video about the Transputer – another fascinating topic and thus another rabbit hole to explore – I found myself investigating Atari’s other workstation product: a Unix workstation based on the Motorola 68030 known as the Atari TT030 or TT/X, augmenting the general Atari TT product with the Unix System V operating system.

On the chart above, a 68030-based system would sit at a similar performance level to Acorn’s R140, so ignoring aspirational sentiments about “high-end” performance and concentrating on a price of around $3000 (with a Unix licence probably adding to that figure), there were some hopes that Atari’s product would reach a broad audience:

As a UNIX platform, the affordable TT030 may leapfrog machines from IBM, Apple, NeXT, and Sun, as the best choice for mass installation of UNIX systems in these environments.

As it turned out, Atari released the TT without Unix in 1990 and only eventually shipped a Unix implementation in around 1992, discontinuing the endeavour not long afterwards. But the tall tale is not about Atari: it is about their rivals at Commodore and some bizarre claims that seem to have drifted around the Internet for thirty years.

Like Atari and Acorn, Commodore also had designs on the Unix workstation market. And like Atari, Commodore had a range of microcomputers, the Amiga series, based on the 68000 processor family. So, the natural progression for Commodore was to design a model of the Amiga to run Unix, eventually giving us the Amiga 3000UX, priced from around $5000, running an implementation of Unix System V Release 4 branded as “Amiga Unix”.

Reactions from the workstation market were initially enthusiastic but later somewhat tepid. Commodore’s product, although delivered in a much more timely fashion than Atari’s, will also have found itself sitting at a similar performance level to Acorn’s R140 but positioned chronologically amongst the group including Acorn’s much faster R260 and the 80486-based models. It goes without saying that Atari’s eventual product would have been surrounded by performance giants by the time customers could run Unix on it, demonstrating the need to bring products to market on time.

So what is this tall tale, then? Well, it revolves around this not entirely coherent remark, entered by some random person twenty-one years ago on the emerging resource known as Wikipedia:

The Amiga A3000UX model even got the attention of Sun Microsystems, but unfortunately Commodore did not jump at the A3000UX.

If you search the Web for this, including the Internet Archive, the most you will learn is that Sun Microsystems were supposedly interested in adopting the Amiga 3000UX as a low-cost workstation. But the basis of every report of this supposed interest always seems to involve “talk” about a “deal” and possibly “interest” from unspecified “people” at Sun Microsystems. And, of course, the lack of any eventual deal is often blamed on Commodore’s management and perennial villain of the Amiga scene…

There were talks of Sun Microsystems selling Amiga Unix machines (the prototype Amiga 3500) as a low-end Unix workstations under their brand, making Commodore their OEM manufacturer. This deal was let down by Commodore’s Mehdi Ali, not once but twice and finally Sun gave up their interest.

Of course, back in 2003, anything went on Wikipedia. People thought “I know this!” or “I heard something about this!”, clicked the edit link, and scrawled away, leaving people to tidy up the mess two decades later. So, I assume that this tall tale is just the usual enthusiast community phenomenon of believing that a favourite product could really have been a contender, that legitimacy could have been bestowed on their platform, and that their favourite company could have regained some of its faded glory. Similar things happened as Acorn went into decline, too.

Picking It All Apart

When such tales appeal to both intuition and even-handed consideration, they tend to retain a veneer of credibility: of being plausible and therefore possibly true. I cannot really say whether the tale is actually true, only that there is no credible evidence of it being true. However, it is still worth evaluating the details within such tales on their merits and determine whether the substance really sounds particularly likely at all.

So, why would Sun Microsystems be interested in a Commodore workstation product? Here, it helps to review Sun’s own product range during the 1980s, to note that Sun had based its original workstation on the Motorola 68000 and had eventually worked up the 68000 family to the 68030 in its Sun-3 products. Indeed, the final Sun-3 products were launched in 1989, not too long before the Amiga 3000UX came to market. But the crucial word in the previous sentence is “final”: Sun had adopted the SPARC processor family and had started introducing SPARC-based models two years previously. Like other workstation vendors, Sun had started to abandon Motorola’s processors, seeking better performance elsewhere.

A June 1989 review in Personal Workstation magazine is informative, featuring the 68030-based Sun 3/80 workstation alongside Sun’s SPARCstation 1. For diskless machines, the Sun 3/80 came in at around $6000 whereas the SPARCstation 1 came in at around $9000. For that extra $3000, the buyer was probably getting around four times the performance, and it was quite an incentive for Sun’s customers and developers to migrate to SPARC on that basis alone. But even for customers holding on to their older machines and wanting to augment their collection with some newer models, Sun was offering something not far off the “low-cost” price of an Amiga 3000UX with hardware that was probably more optimised for the role.

Sun will have supported customers using these Sun-3 models for as long as support for SunOS was available, eventually introducing Solaris which dropped support for the 68000 family architecture entirely. Just like other Unix hardware vendors, once a transition to various RISC architectures had been embarked upon, there was little enthusiasm for going back and retooling to support the Motorola architecture again. And, after years resisting, even Motorola was embracing RISC with its 88000 architecture, tempting companies like NeXT and Apple to consider trading up from the 68000 family: an adventure that deserves its own treatment, too.

So, under what circumstances would Sun have seriously considered adopting Commodore’s product? On the face of it, the potential compatibility sounds enticing, and Commodore will have undoubtedly asserted that they had experience at producing low-cost machines in volume, appealing to Sun’s estimate, expressed in the Personal Workstation review, that the customer base for a low-cost workstation would double for every $1000 drop in price. And surely Sun would have been eager to close the doors on manufacturing a product line that was going to be phased out sooner or later, so why not let Commodore keep making low-cost models to satisfy existing customers?

First of all, we might well doubt any claims to be able to produce workstations significantly cheaper than those already available. The Amiga 3000UX was, as noted, only $1000 or so cheaper than the Sun 3/80. Admittedly, it had a hard drive as standard, making the comparison slightly unfair, but then the Sun 3/80 was around already in 1989, meaning that to be fair to that product, we would need to see how far its pricing will have fallen by the time the Amiga 3000UX became available. Commodore certainly had experience in shipping large volumes of relatively inexpensive computers like the Amiga 500, but they were not shipping workstation-class machines in large quantities, and the eventual price of the Amiga 3000UX indicates that such arguments about volume do not automatically confer low cost onto more expensive products.

Even if we imagine that the Amiga 3000UX had been successfully cost-reduced and made more competitive, we then need to ask what benefits there would have been for the customer, for developers, and for Sun in selling such a product. It seems plausible to imagine customers with substantial investments in software that only ran on Sun’s older machines, who might have needed newer, compatible hardware to keep that software running. Perhaps, in such cases, the suppliers of such software were not interested or capable of porting the software to the SPARC processor family. Those customers might have kept buying machines to replace old ones or to increase the number of “seats” in their environment.

But then again, we could imagine that such customers, having multiple machines and presumably having them networked together, could have benefited from augmenting their old Motorola machines with new SPARC ones, potentially allowing the SPARC machines to run a suitable desktop environment and to use the old applications over the network. In such a scenario, the faster SPARC machines would have been far preferable as workstations, and with the emergence of the X Window System, a still lower-cost alternative would have been to acquire X terminals instead.

We might also question how many software developers would have been willing to abandon their users on an old architecture when it had been clear for some time that Sun would be transitioning to SPARC. Indeed, by producing versions of the same operating system for both architectures, one can argue that Sun was making it relatively straightforward for software vendors to prepare for future products and the eventual deprecation of their old products. Moreover, given the performance benefits of Sun’s newer hardware, developers might well have been eager to complete their own transition to SPARC and to entice customers to follow rapidly, if such enticement was even necessary.

Consequently, if there were customers stuck on Sun’s older hardware running applications that had been effectively abandoned, one could be left wondering what the scale of the commercial opportunity was in selling those customers more of the same. From a purely cynical perspective, given the idiosyncracies of Sun’s software platform from time to time, it is quite possible that such customers would have struggled to migrate to another 68000 family Unix platform. And even without such portability issues and with the chance of running binaries on a competing Unix, the departure of many workstation vendors to other architectures may have left relatively few appealing options. The most palatable outcome might have been to migrate to other applications instead and to then look at the hardware situation with fresh eyes.

And we keep needing to return to that matter of performance. A 68030-based machine was arguably unappealing, like 80386-based systems, clearing the bar for workstation computing but not by much. If the cost of such a machine could have been reduced to an absurdly low price point then one could have argued that it might have provided an accessible entry point for users into a vendor’s “ecosystem”. Indeed, I think that companies like Commodore and Acorn should have put Unix-like technology in their low-end products, harmonising them with higher-end products actually running Unix, and having their customers gradually migrate as more powerful computers became cheaper.

But for workstations running what one commentator called “wedding-cake configurations” of the X Window System, graphical user interface toolkits, and applications, processors like the 68030, 80386 and ARM2 were going to provide a disappointing experience whatever the price. Meanwhile, Sun’s existing workstations were a mature product with established peripherals and accessories. Any cost-reduced workstation would have been something distinct from those existing products, impaired in performance terms and yet unable to make use of things like graphics accelerators which might have made the experience tolerable.

That then raises the question of the availability of the 68040. Could Commodore have boosted the Amiga 3000UX with that processor, bringing it up to speed with the likes of the ARM3-based R260 and 80486-based products, along with the venerable MIPS R2000 and early SPARC processors? Here, we can certainly answer in the affirmative, but then we must ask what this would have done to the price. The 68040 was a new product, arriving during 1990, and although competitively priced relative to the SPARC and 80486, it was still quoted at around $800 per unit, featuring in Apple’s Macintosh range in models that initially, in 1991, cost over $5000. Such a cost increase would have made it hard to drive down the system price.

In the chart above, the HP 9000/425t represents possibly the peak of 68040 workstation performance – “a formidable entry-level system” – costing upwards of $9000. But as workstation performance progressed, represented by new generations of DECstations and SPARCstations, the 68040 stalled, unable to be clocked significantly faster or otherwise see its performance scaled up. Prominent users such as Apple jumped ship and adopted PowerPC along with Motorola themselves! Motorola returned to the architecture after abandoning further development of the 88000 architecture, delivering the 68060 before finally consigning the architecture to the embedded realm.

In the end, even if a competitively priced and competitively performing workstation had been deliverable by Commodore, would it have been in Sun’s interests to sell it? Compatibility with older software might have demanded the continued development of SunOS and the extension of support for older software technologies. SunOS might have needed porting to Commodore’s hardware, or if Sun were content to allow Commodore to add any necessary provision to its own Unix implementation, then porting of those special Sun technologies would have been required. One can question whether the customer experience would have been satisfactory in either case. And for Sun, the burden of prolonging the lifespan of products that were no longer the focus of the company might have made the exercise rather unattractive.

Companies can always choose for themselves how much support they might extend to their different ranges of products. Hewlett-Packard maintained several lines of workstation products and continued to maintain a line of 68030 and 68040 workstations even after introducing their own PA-RISC processor architecture. After acquiring Apollo Computer, who had also begun to transition to their own RISC architecture from the 68000 family, HP arguably had an obligation to Apollo’s customers and thus renewed their commitment to the Motorola architecture, particularly since Apollo’s own RISC architecture, PRISM, was shelved by HP in favour of PA-RISC.

It is perhaps in the adoption of Sun technology that we might establish the essence of this tale. Amiga Unix was provided with Sun’s OPEN LOOK graphical user interface, and this might have given people reason to believe that there was some kind of deeper alliance. In fact, the alliance was really between Sun and AT&T, attempting to define Unix standards and enlisting the support of Unix suppliers. In seeking to adhere most closely to what could be regarded as traditional Unix – that defined by its originator, AT&T – Commodore may well have been picking technologies that also happened to be developed by Sun.

This tale rests on the assumption that Sun was not able to drive down the prices of its own workstations and that Commodore was needed to lead the way. Yet workstation prices were already being driven down by competition. Already by May 1990, Sun had announced the diskless SPARCstation SPC at the magic $5000 price point, although its lowest-cost colour workstation was reportedly the SPARCstation IPC at a much more substantial $10000. Nevertheless, its competitors were quite able to demonstrate colour workstations at reasonable prices, and eventually Sun followed their lead. Meanwhile, the Amiga 3000UX cost almost $8000 when coupled with a colour monitor.

With such talk of commodity hardware, it must not be forgotten that Sun was not without other options. For example, the company had already delivered SunOS on the Sun386i workstation in 1988. Although rather expensive, costing $10000, and not exactly a generic PC clone, it did support PC architecture standards. This arguably showed the way if the company were to target a genuine commodity hardware platform, and eventually Sun followed this path when making its Solaris operating system available for the Intel x86 architecture. But had Sun had a desperate urge to target commodity hardware back in 1990, partnering with a PC clone manufacturer would have been a more viable option than repurposing an Amiga model. That clone manufacturer could have been Commodore, too, but other choices would have been more convincing.

Conclusions and Reflections

What can we make of all of this? An idle assertion with a veneer of plausibility and a hint of glory denied through the notoriously poor business practices of the usual suspects. Well, we can obviously see that nothing is ever as simple as it might seem, particularly if we indulge every last argument and pursue every last avenue of consideration. And yet, the matter of Commodore making a Unix workstation and Sun Microsystems being “interested in rebadging the A3000UX” might be as simple as imagining a rather short meeting where Commodore representatives present this opportunity and Sun’s representatives firmly but politely respond that the door has been closed on a product range not long for retirement. Thanks but no thanks. The industry has moved on. Did you not get that memo?

Given that there is the essence of a good story in all of this, I consulted what might be the first port of call for Commodore stories: David Pleasance’s book, “Commodore The Inside Story”. Sadly, I can find no trace of any such interaction, with Unix references relating to a much earlier era and Commodore’s Z8000-based Unix machine, the unreleased Commodore 900. Yet, had such a bungled deal occurred, I am fairly sure that this book would lay out the fiasco in plenty of detail. Even Dave Haynie’s chapter, which covers development of the Amiga 3000 and subsequent projects, fails to mention any such dealings. Perhaps the catalogue of mishaps at Commodore is so extensive that a lucrative agreement with one of the most prominent corporations in 1990s computing does not merit a mention.

Interestingly, the idea of a low-cost but relatively low-performance 68030-based workstation from a major Unix workstation vendor did arrive in 1989 in the form of the Apollo DN2500, costing $4000, from Hewlett-Packard. Later on, Commodore would apparently collaborate with HP on chipset development, with this being curtailed by Commodore’s bankruptcy. Commodore were finally moving off the 68000 family architecture themselves, all rather too late to turn their fortunes around. Did Sun need a competitive 68040-based workstation? Although HP’s 9000/425 range was amongst the top sellers, Sun was doing nicely enough with its SPARC-based products, shipping over twice as many workstations as HP.

While I consider this tall tale to be nothing more than folklore, like the reminiscences of football supporters whose team always had a shot at promotion to the bigger league every season, “not once but twice” has a specificity that either suggests a kernel of truth or is a clever embellishment to sustain a group’s collective belief in something that never was. Should anyone know the real story, please point us to the documentation. Or, if there never was any paper trail but you happened to be there, please write it up and let us all know. But please don’t just go onto Wikipedia and scrawl it in the tradition of “I know this!”

For the record, I did look around to see if anyone recorded such corporate interactions on Sun’s side. That yielded no evidence, but I did find something else that was rather intriguing: hints that Sun may have been advised to try and acquire Acorn or ARM. Nothing came from that, of course, but at least this is documentation of an interaction in the corporate world. Of stories about something that never happened, it might also be a more interesting one than the Commodore workstation that Sun never got to rebadge.

Update: I did find a mention of Sun Microsystems and Unix International featuring the Amiga 3000UX on their exhibition stands at the Uniforum conference in early 1991. As noted above, Sun had an interest in promoting adoption of OPEN LOOK, and Unix International – the Sun/AT&T initiative to define Unix standards – had an interest in promoting System V Release 4 and, to an extent, OPEN LOOK. So, while the model may have “even got the attention of Sun Microsystems”, it was probably just a nice way of demonstrating vendor endorsement of Sun’s technology from a vendor who admitted that what it could offer was not “competitive with Sun” and what it had to offer.

Almost a year ago, a huge number of graphs and charts on Wikipedia became unviewable because a security issue had been identified in the underlying JavaScript libraries employed by the MediaWiki Graph extension, necessitating this extension’s deactivation. Since then, much effort has been expended formulating a strategy to deal with the problem, although it does not appear to have brought about any kind of workaround, let alone a solution.

The Graph extension provided a convenient way of embedding data into a MediaWiki page that would then be presented as, say, a bar chart. Since it is currently disabled on Wikipedia, the documentation fails to show what these charts looked like, but they were fairly basic, clean and not unattractive. Fortunately, the Internet Archive has a record of older Wikipedia articles, such as one relevant to this topic, and it is able to show such charts from the period before the big switch-off:

Performance evolution of the Archimedes and various competitors: a chart produced by the Graph extension

The syntax for describing a chart suffered somewhat from following the style that these kinds of extensions tend to have, but it was largely tolerable. Here is an example:

{{Image frame
 | caption=Performance evolution of the Archimedes and various competitors
 | content = {{Graph:Chart
 | width=400
 | xAxisTitle=Year
 | yAxisTitle=VAX MIPS
 | legend=Product and CPU family
 | type=rect
 | x=1987,1988,1989,1990,1991,1992,1993
 | y1=2.8,2.8,2.8,10.5,13.8,13.8,15.0
 | y2=0.5,1.4,2.8,3.6,3.6,22.2,23.3
 | y3=2.1,3.4,6.6,14.7,19.2,30,40.3
 | y4=1.6,2.1,3.3,6.1,8.3,10.6,13.1
 | y1Title=Archimedes (ARM2, ARM3)
 | y2Title=Amiga (68000, 68020, 68030, 68040)
 | y3Title=Compaq Deskpro (80386, 80486, Pentium)
 | y4Title=Macintosh II, Quadra/Centris (68020, 68030, 68040)
}}
}}

Unfortunately, rendering this data as a collection of bars on two axes relied on a library doing all kinds of potentially amazing but largely superfluous things. And, of course, this introduced the aforementioned security issue that saw the whole facility get switched off.

After a couple of months, I decided that I wasn’t going to see my own contributions diminished by a lack of any kind of remedy, and so I did the sensible thing: use an established tool to generate charts, and upload the charts plus source data and script to Wikimedia Commons, linking the chart from the affected articles. The established tool of choice for this exercise was gnuplot.

Migrating the data was straightforward and simply involved putting the data into a simpler format. Here is an excerpt of the data file needed by gnuplot, with some items updated from the version shown above:

# Performance evolution of the Archimedes and various competitors (VAX MIPS by year)
#
Year    "Archimedes (ARM2, ARM3)" "Amiga (68000, 68020, 68030, 68040)" "Compaq Deskpro (80386, 80486, Pentium)" "Mac II, Quadra/Centris (68020, 68030, 68040)"
1987    2.8     0.5     2.1     1.6
1988    2.8     1.5     3.5     2.1
1989    2.8     3.0     6.6     3.3
1990    10.5    3.6     14.7    6.1
1991    13.8    3.6     19.2    8.3
1992    13.8    18.7    28.5    10.6
1993    15.1    21.6    40.3    13.1

Since gnuplot is more flexible and more capable in parsing data files, we get the opportunity to tabulate the data in a more readable way, also adding some commentary without it becoming messy. I have left out the copious comments in the actual source data file to avoid cluttering this article.

And gnuplot needs a script, requiring a little familiarisation with its script syntax. We can see that various options are required, along with axis information and some tweaks to the eventual appearance:

set terminal svg enhanced size 1280 960 font "DejaVu Sans,24"
set output 'Archimedes_performance.svg'
set title "Performance evolution of the Archimedes and various competitors"
set xlabel "Year"
set ylabel "VAX MIPS"
set yrange [0:*]
set style data histogram
set style histogram cluster gap 1
set style fill solid border -1
set key top left reverse Left
set boxwidth 0.8
set xtics scale 0
plot 'Archimedes_performance.dat' using 2:xtic(1) ti col linecolor rgb "#0080FF", '' u 3 ti col linecolor rgb "#FF8000", '' u 4 ti col linecolor rgb "#80FF80", '' u 5 ti col linecolor rgb "#FF80FF"

The result is a nice SVG file that, when uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, will be converted to other formats for inclusion in Wikipedia articles. The file can then be augmented with the data and the script in a manner that is not entirely elegant, but the result allows people to inspect the inputs and to reproduce the chart themselves. Here is the PNG file that the automation produces for embedding in Wikipedia articles:

Performance evolution of the Archimedes and various competitors: a chart produced by gnuplot and converted from SVG to PNG for Wikipedia usage.

Embedding the chart in a Wikipedia article is as simple as embedding the SVG file, specifying formatting properties appropriate to the context within the article:

[[File:Archimedes performance.svg|thumb|upright=2|Performance evolution of the Archimedes and various competitors]]

The control that gnuplot provides over the appearance is far superior to that of the Graph extension, meaning that the legend in the above figure could be positioned more conveniently, for instance, and there is a helpful gallery of examples that make familiarisation and experimentation with gnuplot more accessible. So I felt rather happy and also vindicated in migrating my charts to gnuplot despite the need to invest a bit of time in the effort.

While there may be people who need the fancy JavaScript-enabled features of the currently deactivated Graph extension in their graphs and charts on Wikipedia, I suspect that many people do not. For that audience, I highly recommend migrating to gnuplot and thereby eliminating dependencies on technologies that are simply unnecessary for the application.

It would be absurd to suggest riding in a spaceship every time we wished to go to the corner shop, knowing full well that more mundane mobility techniques would suffice. Maybe we should adopt similar, proportionate measures of technology adoption and usage in other areas, if only to avoid the inconvenience of seeing solutions being withdrawn for prolonged periods without any form of relief. Perhaps, in many cases, it would be best to leave the spaceship in its hangar after all.

If you find yourself in a hole, stop digging? It wasn’t hard to be reminded of that when reading an assertion that a “competitive” Web browser engine needs funding to the tune of at least $100 million a year, presumably on development costs, and “really” $200-300 million.

Web browsers have come a long way since their inception. But they now feature absurdly complicated layout engines, all so that the elements on the screen can be re-jigged at a moment’s notice to adapt to arbitrary changes in the content, and yet they still fail to provide the kind of vanity publishing visuals that many Web designers seem to strive for, ceding that territory to things like PDFs (which, of course, generally provide static content). All along, the means of specifying layout either involves the supposedly elegant but hideously overcomplicated CSS, or to have scripts galore doing all the work, presumably all pounding the CPU as they do so.

So, we might legitimately wonder whether the “modern Web” is another example of technology for technology’s sake: an effort fuelled by Valley optimism and dubiously earned money that not only undermines interoperability and choice by driving out implementers who are not backed by obscene wealth, but also promotes wastefulness in needing ever more powerful systems to host ever more complicated browsers. Meanwhile, the user experience is constantly degraded: now you, the user, get to indicate whether hundreds of data surveillance companies should be allowed to track your activities under the laughable pretense of “legitimate interest”.

It is entirely justified to ask whether the constant technological churn is giving users any significant benefits or whether they could be using less sophisticated software to achieve the same results. In recent times, I have had to use the UK Government’s Web portal to initiate various processes, and one might be surprised to learn that it provides a clear, clean and generally coherent user experience. Naturally, it could be claimed that such nicely presented pages make good use of the facilities that CSS and the Web platform have to offer, but I think that it provides us with a glimpse into a parallel reality where “less” actually does deliver “more”, because reduced technological complication allows society to focus on matters of more pressing concern.

Having potentially hundreds or thousands of developers beavering away on raising the barrier to entry for delivering online applications is surely another example of how our societies’ priorities can be led astray by self-serving economic interests. We should be able to interact with online services using far simpler technology running on far more frugal devices than multi-core systems with multiple gigabytes of RAM. People used things like Minitel for a lot of the things people are doing today, for heaven’s sake. If you had told systems developers forty years ago that, in the future, instead of just connecting to a service and interacting with it, you would end up connecting to dozens of different services (Google, Facebook, random “adtech” platforms running on dark money) to let them record your habits, siphon off data, and sell you things you don’t want, they would probably have laughed in your face. We were supposed to be living on the Moon by now, were we not?

The modern Web apologist would, of course, insist that the modern browser offers so much more: video, for instance. I was reminded of this a few years ago when visiting the Oslo Airport Express Web site which, at that time, had a pointless video of the train rolling into the station behind the user interface controls, making my browser run rather slowly indeed. As an undergraduate, our group project was to design and implement a railway timetable querying system. On one occasion, our group meeting focusing on the user interface slid, as usual, into unfocused banter where one participant helpfully suggested that behind the primary user interface controls there would have to be “dancing ladies”. To which our only female group member objected, insisting that “dancing men” would also have to be an option. The discussion developed, acknowledging that a choice of dancers would first need to be offered, along with other considerations of the user demographic, even before asking the user anything about their rail journey.

Well, is that not where we are now? But instead of being asked personal questions, a bunch of voyeurs have been watching your every move online and have already deduced the answers to those questions and others. Then, a useless video and random developer excess drains away your computer’s interactivity as you type into treacle, trying to get a sensible result from a potentially unhelpful and otherwise underdeveloped service. How is that hole coming along, again?

This has been going on for years, but a recent upgrade brought it to my attention and it rather says everything about what is wrong with the way technology is supposedly improved. If you define a style for your Web pages using a monospaced font like Courier, Firefox still decides to convert letter pairs like “fi” and “fl” to ligatures. In other words, it squashes the two letters together into a single character.

Now, I suppose that it does this in such a way that the resulting ligature only occupies the space of a single character, thereby not introducing proportional spacing that would disrupt the alignment of characters across lines, but it does manage to disrupt the distribution of characters and potentially the correspondence of characters between lines. Worst of all, though, this enforced conversion is just ugly.

Here is what WordPress seems to format without suffering from this problem, by explicitly using the “monospace” font-style identifier:

long client_flush(file_t *file);

And here is what happens when Courier is chosen as the font:

long client_flush(file_t *file);

In case theming, browser behaviour, and other factors obscure the effect I am attempting to illustrate, here it is with the ligatures deliberately introduced:

long client_flush(file_t *file);

In fact, the automatic ligatures do remain as two distinct letters crammed into a single space whereas I had to go and find the actual ligatures in LibreOffice’s “special character” dialogue to paste into the example above. One might argue that by keeping the letters distinct, it preserves the original text so that it can be copied and pasted back into a suitable environment, like a program source file or an interactive prompt or shell. But still, when the effect being sought is not entirely obtained, why is anyone actually bothering to do this?

It seems to me that this is yet another example of “design” indoctrination courtesy of the products of companies like Apple and Adobe, combined with the aesthetics-is-everything mentality that values style over substance. How awful it is that someone may put the letter “f” next to the letter “i” or “l” without pulling them closer together and using stylish typographic constructs!

Naturally, someone may jump to the defence of the practice being described here, claiming that what is really happening is kerning, as if someone like me might not have heard of it. Unfortunately for them, I spent quite a bit of time in the early 1990s – quite possibly before some of today’s “design” gurus were born – learning about desktop publishing and typography (for a system that had a coherent outline font system before platforms like the Macintosh and Windows did). Generally, you don’t tend to apply kerning to monospaced fonts like Courier: the big hint is the “monospaced” bit.

Apparently, the reason for this behaviour is something to do with the font library being used and it will apparently be fixed in future Firefox releases, or at least ones later than the one I happen to be using in Debian. Workarounds using configuration files reminiscent of the early 2000s Linux desktop experience apparently exist, although I don’t think they really work.

But anyway, well done to everyone responsible for this mess, whether it was someone’s great typographic “design” vision being imposed on everyone else, or whether it was just that yet more technologies were thrown into the big cauldron and stirred around without any consideration of the consequences. I am sure yet more ingredients will be thrown in to mask the unpleasant taste, also conspiring to make all our computers run more slowly.

Sometimes I think that “modern Web” platform architects have it as their overriding goal to reproduce the publishing solutions of twenty to thirty years ago using hardware hundreds or even thousands of times more powerful, yet delivering something that runs even slower and still producing comparatively mediocre results. As if the aim is to deliver something akin to a turn-of-the-century Condé Nast publication on the Web with gigabytes of JavaScript.

But maybe, at least for the annoyance described here, the lesson is that if something is barely worth doing, largely because it is probably only addressing someone’s offended sense of aesthetics, maybe just don’t bother doing it. There are, after all, plenty of other things in the realm of technology and beyond that more legitimately demand humanity’s attention.

Previously, I described exploring the matter of developing emulation of a serial port, along with the necessary circuitry, for Elkulator, an emulator for the Acorn Electron microcomputer, motivated by a need to provide a way of transferring files into and out of the emulated computer. During this exploration, I had discovered some existing software that had been developed to provide some level of serial “filing system” support on the BBC Microcomputer – the higher-specification sibling of the Electron – with the development of this software having been motivated by an unforeseen need to transfer software to a computer without any attached storage devices.

This existing serial filing system software was a good indication that serial communications could provide the basis of a storage medium. But instead of starting from a predicament involving computers without usable storage facilities, where an unforeseen need motivates the development of a clever workaround, I wanted to consider what such a system might have been like if there had been a deliberate plan from the very beginning to deploy computers that would rely on a serial connection for all their storage needs. Instead of having an implementation of the filing system in RAM, one could have the luxury of putting it into a ROM chip that would be fitted in the computer or in an expansion, and a richer set of features might then be contemplated.

A Smarter Terminal

Once again, my interest in the historical aspects of the technology provided some guidance and some inspiration. When microcomputers started to become popular and businesses and institutions had to decide whether these new products had any relevance to their operations, there was some uncertainty about whether such products were capable enough to be useful or whether they were a distraction from the facilities already available in such organisations. It seems like a lifetime ago now, but having a computer on every desk was not necessarily seen as a guarantee of enhanced productivity, particularly if they did not link up to existing facilities or did not coordinate the work of a number of individuals.

At the start of the 1980s, equipping an office with a computer on every desk and equipping every computer with a storage solution was an expensive exercise. Even disk drives offering only a hundred kilobytes of storage on each removable floppy disk were expensive, and hard disk drives were an especially expensive and precious luxury that were best shared between many users. Some microcomputers were marketed as multi-user systems, encouraging purchasers to connect terminals to them and to share those precious resources: precisely the kind of thing that had been done with minicomputers and mainframes. Such trends continued into the mid-1980s, manifested by products promoted by companies with mainframe origins, such companies perpetuating entrenched tendencies to frame computing solutions in certain ways.

Terminals themselves were really just microcomputers designed for the sole purpose of interacting with a “host” computer, and institutions already operating mainframes and minicomputers would have experienced the need to purchase several of them. Until competition intensified in the terminal industry, such products were not particularly cheap, with the DEC VT220 introduced in 1983 costing $1295 at its introduction. Meanwhile, interest in microcomputers and the possibility of distributing some kinds of computing activity to these new products, led to experimentation in some organisations. Some terminal manufacturers responded by offering terminals that also ran microcomputer software.

Much of the popular history of microcomputing, familiar to anyone who follows such topics online, particularly through YouTube videos, focuses on adoption of such technology in the home, with an inevitable near-obsession with gaming. The popular history of institutional adoption often focuses on the upgrade parade from one generation of computer to the next. But there is a lesser told history involving the experimentation that took place at the intersection of microcomputing and minicomputing or mainframe computing. In universities, computers like the BBC Micro were apparently informally introduced as terminals for other systems, terminal ROMs were developed and shared between institutions. However, there seems to have been relatively little mainstream interest in such software as fully promoted commercial products, although Acornsoft – Acorn’s software outlet – did adopt such a ROM to sell as their Termulator product.

The Acorn Electron, introduced at £199, had a “proper” keyboard and the ability to display 80 columns of text, unlike various other popular microcomputers. Indeed, it may have been the lowest-priced computer to be able to display 80 columns of relatively high definition text as standard, such capabilities requiring extra cards for machines like the Apple II and the Commodore 64. Considering the much lower price of such a computer, the ongoing experimentation underway at the time with its sibling machine on alternative terminal solutions, and the generally favourable capabilities of both these machines, it seems slightly baffling that more was not done to pursue opportunities to introduce a form of “intelligent terminal” or “hybrid terminal” product to certain markets.

VIEW in 80 columns on the Acorn Electron.

None of this is to say that institutional users would have been especially enthusiastic. In some institutions, budgets were evidently generous enough that considerable sums of money would be spent acquiring workstations that were sometimes of questionable value. But in others, the opportunity to make savings, to explore other ways of working, and perhaps also to explicitly introduce microcomputing topics such as software development for lower-specification hardware would have been worthy of some consideration. An Electron with a decent monochrome monitor, like the one provided with the M2105, plus some serial hardware, could have comprised a product sold for perhaps as little as £300.

The Hybrid Terminal

How would a “hybrid terminal” solution work, how might it have been adopted, and what might it have been used for? Through emulation and by taking advantage of the technological continuity in multi-user systems from the 1980s to the present day, we can attempt to answer such questions. Starting with communications technologies familiar in the world of the terminal, we might speculate that a serial connection would be the most appropriate and least disruptive way of interfacing a microcomputer to a multi-user system.

Although multi-user systems, like those produced by Digital Equipment Corporation (DEC), might have offered network connectivity, it is likely that such connectivity was proprietary, expensive in terms of the hardware required, and possibly beyond the interfacing capabilities of most microcomputers. Meanwhile, Acorn’s own low-cost networking solution, Econet, would not have been directly compatible with these much higher-end machines. Acorn’s involvement in network technologies is also more complicated than often portrayed, but as far as Econet is concerned, only much later machines would more conveniently bridge the different realms of Econet and standards-based higher-performance networks.

Moreover, it remains unlikely that operators and suppliers of various multi-user systems would have been enthusiastic about fitting dedicated hardware and installing dedicated software for the purpose of having such systems communicate with third-party computers using a third-party network technology. I did find it interesting that someone had also adapted Acorn’s network filing system that usually runs over Econet to work instead over a serial connection, which presumably serves files out of a particular user account. Another discovery I made was a serial filing system approach by someone who had worked at Acorn who wanted to transfer files between a BBC Micro system and a Unix machine, confirming that such functionality was worth pursuing. (And there is also a rather more complicated approach involving more exotic Acorn technology.)

Indeed, to be successful, a hybrid terminal approach would have to accommodate existing practices and conventions as far as might be feasible in order to not burden or disturb the operators of these existing systems. One motivation from an individual user’s perspective might be to justify introducing a computer on their desk, to be able to have it take advantage of the existing facilities, and to augment those facilities where it might be felt that they are not flexible or agile enough. Such users might request help from the operators, but the aim would be to avoid introducing more support hassles, which would easily arise if introducing a new kind of network to the mix. Those operators would want to be able to deploy something and have it perform a role without too much extra thought.

I considered how a serial link solution might achieve this. An existing terminal would be connected to, say, a Unix machine and be expected to behave like a normal client, allowing the user to log into their account. The microcomputer would send some characters down the serial line to the Unix “host”, causing it to present the usual login prompt, and the user would then log in as normal. They would then have the option of conducting an interactive session, making their computer like a conventional terminal, but there would also be the option of having the Unix system sit in the background, providing other facilities on request.

Logging into a remote service via a serial connection.

The principal candidates for these other facilities would be file storage and printing. Both of these things were centrally managed in institutions, often available via the main computing service, and the extensible operating system of the Electron and related microcomputers invites the development of software to integrate the core support for these facilities with such existing infrastructure. Files would be loaded from the user’s account on the multi-user system and saved back there again. Printing would spool the printed data to files somewhere in the user’s home directory for queuing to centralised printing services.

Attempting an Implementation

I wanted to see how such a “serial computing environment” would work in practice, how it would behave, what kinds of applications might benefit, and what kind of annoyances it might have. After all, it might be an interesting idea or a fun idea, but it need not be a particularly good one. The first obstacle was that of understanding how the software elements would work, primarily on the Electron itself, from the tasks that I would want the software to perform down to the way the functionality would be implemented. On the host or remote system, I was rather more convinced that something could be implemented since it would mostly be yet another server program communicating over a stream, with plenty of modern Unix conveniences to assist me along the way.

As it turned out, my investigations began with a trip away from home and the use of a different, and much more constrained, development environment involving an ARM-based netbook. Fortunately, Elkulator and the different compilers and tools worked well enough on that development hardware to make the exercise approachable. Another unusual element was that I was going to mostly rely on the original documentation in the form of the actual paper version of the Acorn Electron Advanced User Guide for information on how to write the software for the Electron. It was enlightening coming back to this book after a few decades for assistance on a specific exercise, even though I have perused the book many times in its revised forms online, because returning to it with a focus on a particular task led me to find that the documentation in the book was often vague or incomplete.

Although the authors were working in a different era and presumably under a degree of time pressure, I feel that the book in some ways exhibits various traits familiar to those of us working in the software industry, these indicating a lack of rigour and of sufficient investment in systems documentation. For this, I mostly blame the company who commissioned the work and then presumably handed over some notes and told the authors to fill in the gaps. As if to strengthen such perceptions of hurriedness and lack of review, it also does not help that “system” is mis-spelled “sysem” in a number of places in the book!

Nevertheless, certain aspects of the book were helpful. The examples, although focusing on one particular use-case, did provide helpful detail in deducing the correct way of using certain mechanisms, even if they elected to avoid the correct way of performing other tasks. Acorn’s documentation had a habit of being “preachy” about proper practices, only to see its closest developers ignore those practices, anyway. Eventually, on returning from my time away, I was able to fill in some of the gaps, although by this time I had a working prototype that was able to do basic things like initiate a session on the host system and to perform some file-related operations.

There were, and still are, a lot of things that needed, and still need, improvement with my implementation. The way that the operating system needs to be extended to provide extra filing system functionality involves plenty of programming interfaces, plenty of things to support, and also plenty of opportunities for things to go wrong. The VIEW word processor makes use of interfaces for both whole-file loading and saving as well as random-access file operations. Missing out support for one or the other will probably not yield the desired level of functionality.

There are also intricacies with regard to switching printing on and off – this typically being done using control characters sent through the output stream – and of “spool” files which capture character output. And filing system ROMs need to be initialised through a series of “service calls”, these being largely documented, but the overall mechanism is left largely undescribed in the documentation. It is difficult enough deciphering the behaviour of the Electron’s operating system today, with all the online guidance available in many forms, so I cannot imagine how difficult it would have been as a third party to effectively develop applications back in the day.

Levels of Simulation

To support the activities of the ROM software in the emulated Electron, I had to develop a server program running on my host computer. As noted above, this was not onerous, especially since I had already written a program to exercise the serial communications and to interact with the emulated serial port. I developed this program further to respond to commands issued by my ROM, performing host operations and returning results. For example, the CAT command produces a “catalogue” of files in a host directory, and so my server program performs a directory listing operation, collects the names of the files, and then sends them over the virtual serial link to the ROM for it to display to the user.

To make the experience somewhat authentic and to approximate to an actual deployment environment, I included a simulation of the login prompt so that the user of the emulated Electron would have to log in first, with the software also having to deal with a logged out (or not yet logged in) condition in a fairly graceful way. To ensure that they are logged in, a user selects the Serial Computing Environment using the *SCE command, this explicitly selecting the serial filing system, and the login dialogue is then presented if the user has not yet logged into the remote host. Once logged in, the ROM software should be able to test for the presence of the command processor that responds to issued commands, only issuing commands if the command processor has signalled its presence.

Although this models a likely deployment environment, I wanted to go a bit further in terms of authenticity, and so I decided to make the command processor a separate program that would be installed in a user account on a Unix machine. The user’s profile script would be set up to run the command processor, so that when they logged in, this program would automatically run and be ready for commands. I was first introduced to such practices in my first workplace where a menu-driven, curses-based program I had written was deployed so that people doing first-line technical support could query the database of an administrative system without needing to be comfortable with the Unix shell environment.

For complete authenticity I would actually want to have the emulated Electron contact a Unix-based system over a physical serial connection, but for now I have settled for an arrangement whereby a pseudoterminal is created to run the login program, with the terminal output presented to the emulator. Instead of seeing a simulated login dialogue, the user now interacts with the host system’s login program, allowing them to log into a real account. At that point, the command processor is invoked by the shell and the user gets back control.

Obtaining a genuine login dialogue from a Unix system.

To prevent problems with certain characters, the command processor configures the terminal to operate in raw mode. Apart from that, it operates mostly as it did when run together with the login simulation which did not have to concern itself with such things as terminals and login programs.

Some Applications

This effort was motivated by the need or desire to be able to access files from within Elkulator, particularly from applications such as VIEW. Naturally, VIEW is really just one example from the many applications available for the Electron, but since it interacts with a range of functionality that this serial computing environment provides, it serves to showcase such functionality fairly well. Indeed, some of the screenshots featured in this and the previous article show VIEW operating on text that was saved and loaded over the serial connection.

Accessing files involves some existing operating system commands, such as *CAT (often abbreviated to *.) to list the catalogue of a storage medium. Since a Unix host supports hierarchical storage, whereas the Electron’s built-in command set only really addresses the needs of a flat storage medium (as provided by various floppy disk filing systems for Electron and BBC Micro), the *DIR command has been introduced from Acorn’s hierarchical filing systems (such as ADFS) to navigate between directories, which is perhaps confusing to anyone familiar with other operating systems, such as the different variants of DOS and their successors.

Using catalogue and directory traversal commands.

VIEW allows documents to be loaded and saved in a number of ways, but as a word processor it also needs to be able to print these documents. This might be done using a printer connected to a parallel port, but it makes a bit more sense to instead allow the serial printer to be selected and for printing to occur over the serial connection. However, it is not sufficient to merely allow the operating system to take over the serial link and to send the printed document, if only because the other side of this link is not a printer! Indeed, the command processor is likely to be waiting for commands and to see the incoming data as ill-formed input.

The chosen solution was to intercept attempts to send characters to a serial printer, buffering them and then sending the buffered data in special commands to the command processor. This in turn would write the printed characters to a “spool” file for each printing session. From there, these files could be sent to an appropriate printer. This would give the user rather more control over printing, allowing them to process the printout with Unix tools, or to select one particular physical printer out of the many potentially available in an organisation. In the VIEW environment, and in the MOS environment generally, there is no built-in list of printers or printer selection dialogue.

Since the kinds of printers anticipated for use with VIEW might well have been rather different from the kinds connected to multi-user systems, it is likely that some processing would be desirable where different text styles and fonts have been employed. Today, projects like PrinterToPDF exist to work with old-style printouts, but it is conceivable that either the “printer driver generator” in the View suite or some postprocessing tool might have been used to produce directly printable output. With unstyled text, however, the printouts are generally readable and usable, as the following excerpt illustrates.

               A  brief report on the experience
               of using VIEW as a word processor
               four decades on.

Using VIEW on the Acorn  Electron  is  an  interesting  experience  and  a
glimpse  into  the  way  word  processing  was  once done. Although I am a
dedicated user of Vim, I am under no  illusions  of  that  program's  word
processing  capabilities: it is deliberately a screen editor based on line
editor  heritage,  and  much  of  its  operations  are  line-oriented.  In
contrast, VIEW is intended to provide printed output: it presents the user
with a  ruler  showing  the  page margins and tab stops, and it even saves
additional   rulers   into  the  stored  document   in   their   on-screen
representations. Together with its default typewriter-style  behaviour  of
allowing  the  cursor  to  be moved into empty space and of overwriting or
replacing text, there is a quaint feel to it.

Since VIEW is purely text-based, I can easily imagine converting its formatting codes to work with troff. That would then broaden the output options. Interestingly, the Advanced User Guide was written in VIEW and then sent to a company for typesetting, so perhaps a workflow like this would have been useful for the authors back then.

A major selling point of the Electron was its provision of BBC BASIC as the built-in language. As the BBC Micro had started to become relatively widely adopted in schools across the United Kingdom, a less expensive computer offering this particular dialect of BASIC was attractive to purchasers looking for compatibility with school computers at home. Obviously, there is a need to be able to load and save BASIC programs, and this can be done using the serial connection.

Loading a BASIC program from the Unix host.

Beyond straightforward operations like these, BASIC also provides random-access file operations through various keywords and constructs, utilising the underlying operating system interfaces that invoke filing system operations to perform such work. VIEW also appears to use these operations, so it seems sensible not to ignore them, even if many programmers might have preferred to use bulk transfer operations – the standard load and save – to get data in and out of memory quickly.

A BASIC program reading and showing a file.

Interactions between printing, the operating system’s own spooling support, outputting characters and reading and writing data are tricky. A degree of experimentation was required to make these things work together. In principle, it should be possible to print and spool at the same time, even with output generated by the remote host that has been sent over the serial line for display on the Electron!

Of course, as a hybrid terminal, the exercise would not be complete without terminal functionality. Here, I wanted to avoid going down another rabbit hole and implementing a full terminal emulator, but I still wanted to demonstrate the invocation of a shell on the Unix host and the ability to run commands. To show just another shell session transcript would be rather dull, so here I present the perusal of a Python program to generate control codes that change the text colour on the Electron, along with the program’s effects:

Interaction with the shell featuring multiple text colours.

As a bitmapped terminal, the Electron is capable of much more than this. Although limited to moderate resolutions by the standards of the fanciest graphics terminals even of that era, there are interesting possibilities for Unix programs and scripts to generate graphical output.

A chart generated by a Python program showing workstation performance results.

Sending arbitrary character codes requires a bit of terminal configuration magic so that line feeds do not get translated into other things (the termios manual page is helpful, here, suggesting the ONLCR flag as the culprit), but the challenge, as always, is to discover the piece of the stack of technologies that is working against you. Similar things can be said on the Electron as well, with its own awkward confluence of character codes for output and output control, requiring the character output state to be tracked so that certain values do not get misinterpreted in the wrong context.

Others have investigated terminal connectivity on Acorn’s 8-bit microcomputers and demonstrated other interesting ways of producing graphical output from Unix programs. Acornsoft’s Termulator could even emulate a Tektronix 4010 graphical terminal. Curiously, Termulator also supported file transfer between a BBC Micro and the host machine, although only as a dedicated mode and limited to ASCII-only text files, leaving the hybrid terminal concept unexplored.

Reflections and Remarks

I embarked on this exercise with some cautiousness, knowing that plenty of uncertainties lay ahead in implementing a functional piece of software, and there were plenty of frustrating moments as some of the different elements of the rather underdocumented software stack conspired to produce undesirable behaviour. In addition, the behaviour of my serial emulation code had a confounding influence, requiring some low-level debugging (tracing execution within the emulator instruction by instruction, noting the state of the emulated CPU), some slowly dawning realisations, and some adjustments to hopefully make it work in a more cooperative fashion.

There are several areas of potential improvement. I first programmed in 6502 assembly language maybe thirty-five years ago, and although I managed to get some sprite and scrolling routines working, I never wrote any large programs, nor had to interact with the operating system frameworks. I personally find the 6502 primitive, rigid, and not particularly conducive to higher-level programming techniques, and I found myself writing some macros to take away the tedium of shuffling values between registers and the stack, constantly aware of various pitfalls with regard to corrupting registers.

My routines extending the operating system framework possibly do not do things the right way or misunderstand some details. That, I will blame on the vague documentation as well as any mistakes made micromanaging the registers. Particularly frustrating was the way that my ROM code would be called with interrupts disabled in certain cases. This made implementation challenging when my routines needed to communicate over the serial connection, when such communication itself requires interrupts to be enabled. Quite what the intention of the MOS designers was in such circumstances remains something of a mystery. While writing this article, I realised that I could have implemented the printing functionality in a different way, and this might have simplified things, right up to the point where I saw, thanks to the debugger provided by Elkulator, that the routines involved are called – surprise! – with interrupts disabled.

Performance could be a lot better, with this partly due to my own code undoubtedly requiring optimisation. The existing software stack is probably optimised to a reasonable extent, but there are various persistent background activities that probably steal CPU cycles unnecessarily. One unfortunate contributor to performance limitations is the hardware architecture of the Electron. Indeed, I discovered while testing in one of the 80-column display modes that serial transfers were not reliable at the default transfer rate of 9600 baud, instead needing to be slowed down to only 2400 baud. Some diagnosis confirmed that the software was not reading the data from the serial chip quickly enough, causing an overflow condition and data being lost.

Motivated by cost reduction and product positioning considerations – the desire to avoid introducing a product that might negatively affect BBC Micro sales – the Electron was deliberately designed to use a narrow data bus to fewer RAM chips than otherwise would have been used, with a seemingly clever technique being employed to allow the video circuitry to get the data at the desired rate to produce a high-resolution or high-bandwidth display. Unfortunately, the adoption of the narrow data bus, facilitated by the adoption of this particular technique, meant that the CPU could only ever access RAM at half its rated speed. And with the narrow data bus, the video circuitry effectively halts the CPU altogether for a substantial portion of its time in high-bandwidth display modes. Since serial communications handling relies on the delivery and handling of interrupts, if the CPU is effectively blocked from responding quickly enough, it can quickly fall behind if the data is arriving and the interrupts are occurring too often.

That does raise the issue of reliability and of error correction techniques. Admittedly, this work relies on a reliable connection between the emulated Electron and the host. Some measures are taken to improve the robustness of the communication when messages are interrupted so that the host in particular is not left trying to send or receive large volumes of data that are no longer welcome or available, and other measures are taken to prevent misinterpretation of stray data received in a different and thus inappropriate context. I imagine that I may have reinvented the wheel badly here, but these frustrations did provide a level of appreciation of the challenges involved.

Some Broader Thoughts

It is possible that Acorn, having engineered the Electron too aggressively for cost, made the machine less than ideal for the broader range of applications for which it was envisaged. That said, it should have been possible to revise the design and produce a more performant machine. Experiments suggest that a wider data path to RAM would have helped with the general performance of the Electron, but to avoid most of the interrupt handling problems experienced with the kind of application being demonstrated here, the video system would have needed to employ its existing “clever” memory access technique in conjunction with that wider data path so as to be able to share the bandwidth more readily with the CPU.

Contingency plans should have been made to change or upgrade the machine, if that had eventually been deemed necessary, starting at the point in time when the original design compromises were introduced. Such flexibility and forethought would also have made a product with a longer appeal to potential purchasers, as opposed to a product that risked being commercially viable for only a limited period of time. However, it seems that the lessons accompanying such reflections on strategy and product design were rarely learned by Acorn. If lessons were learned, they appear to have reinforced a particular mindset and design culture.

Virtue is often made of the Acorn design philosophy and the sometimes rudely expressed and dismissive views of competing technologies that led the company to develop the ARM processor. This approach enabled comparatively fast and low-cost systems to be delivered by introducing a powerful CPU to do everything in a system from running applications to servicing interrupts for data transfers, striving for maximal utilisation of the available memory bandwidth by keeping the CPU busy. That formula worked well enough at the low end of the market, but when the company tried to move upmarket once again, its products were unable to compete with those of other companies. Ultimately, this sealed the company’s fate, even if more fortuitous developments occurred to keep ARM in the running.

(In the chart shown earlier demonstating graphical terminal output and illustrating workstation performance, circa 1990, Acorn’s R260 workstation is depicted as almost looking competitive until one learns that the other workstations depicted arrived a year earlier and that the red bar showing floating-point performance only applies to Acorn’s machine three years after its launch. It would not be flattering to show the competitors at that point in history, nor would it necessarily be flattering to compare whole-system performance, either, if any publication sufficiently interested in such figures had bothered to do so. There is probably an interesting story to be told about these topics, particularly how Acorn’s floating-point hardware arrived so late, but I doubt that there is the same willingness to tell it as there is to re-tell the usual celebratory story of ARM for the nth time.)

Acorn went on to make the Communicator as a computer that would operate in a kind of network computing environment, relying on network file servers to provide persistent storage. It reused some of the technology in the Electron and the BT Merlin M2105, particularly the same display generator and its narrow data bus to RAM, but ostensibly confining that aspect of the Electron’s architecture to a specialised role, and providing other facilities for applications and, as in the M2105, for interaction with peripherals. Sadly, the group responsible in Acorn had already been marginalised and eventually departed, apparently looking to pursue the concept elsewhere.

As for this particular application of an old computer and a product that was largely left uncontemplated, I think there probably was some mileage in deploying microcomputers in this way, even outside companies like Acorn where such computers were being developed and used, together with software development companies with their own sophisticated needs, where minicomputers like the DEC VAX would have been available for certain corporate or technical functions. Public (or semi-public) access terminals were fairly common in universities, and later microcomputers were also adopted in academia due to their low cost and apparently sufficient capabilities.

Although such adoption appears to have focused on terminal applications, it cannot have been beyond the wit of those involved to consider closer integration between the microcomputing and multi-user environments. In further and higher education, students will have had microcomputing experience and would have been able to leverage their existing skills whilst learning new ones. They might have brought their microcomputers along with them, giving them the opportunity to transfer or migrate their existing content – their notes, essays, programs – to the bright and emerging new world of Unix, as well as updating their expertise.

As for updating my own expertise, it has been an enlightening experience in some ways, and I may well continue to augment the implemented functionality, fix and improve things, and investigate the possibilities this work brings. I hope that this rather lengthy presentation of the effort has provided insights into experiences of the past that was and the past that might have been.

In the last couple of years, possibly in common with quite a few other people, certainly people of my vintage, and undoubtedly those also interested in retrocomputing, I have found myself revisiting certain aspects of my technological past. Fortunately, sites like the Internet Archive make this very easy indeed, allowing us to dive into publications from earlier eras and to dredge up familiar and not so familiar magazine titles and other documentation. And having pursued my retrocomputing interest for a while, participating in forums, watching online videos, even contributing to new software and hardware developments, I have found myself wanting to review some of the beliefs and perceptions that I and other people have had of the companies and products we grew up with.

One of the products of personal interest to me is the computer that got me and my brother started with writing programs (as well as playing games): the Acorn Electron, a product of Acorn Computers of Cambridge in the United Kingdom. Much can be said about the perceived chronology of this product’s development and introduction, the actual chronology, and its impact on its originator and on wider society, but that surely deserves a separate treatment. What I can say is that reviewing the archives and other knowledge available to us now can give a deeper understanding of the processes involved in the development of the Electron, the technological compromises made, and the corporate strategy that led to its creation and eventually its discontinuation.

The Acorn Electron
(Picture attribution: By Bilby – Own work, CC BY 3.0, Link)

It has been popular to tell simplistic narratives about Acorn Computers, to reduce its history to a few choice moments as the originator of the BBC Microcomputer and the ARM processor, but to do so is to neglect a richer and far more interesting story, even if the fallibility of some of the heroic and generally successful characters involved may be exposed by telling some of that story. And for those who wonder how differently some aspects of computing history might have turned out, exploring that story and the products involved can be an adventure in itself, filling in the gaps of our prior experiences with new insights, realisations and maybe even glimpses into opportunities missed and what might have been if things had played out differently.

At the Rabbit Hole

Reading about computing history is one thing, but this tale is about actually doing things with old software, emulation, and writing new software. It started off with a discussion about the keyboard shortcuts for a word processor and the differences between the keyboards on the Acorn Electron and its higher-specification predecessor, the BBC Microcomputer. Having acquainted myself with the circuitry of the Electron, how its keyboard is wired up, and how the software accesses it, I was obviously intrigued by these apparent differences, but I was also intrigued by the operation of the word processor in question, Acornsoft’s VIEW.

Back in the day, as people like to refer to the time when these products were first made available, such office or productivity applications were just beyond my experience. Although it was slightly fascinating to read about them, most of my productive time was spent writing programs, mostly trying to write games. I had actually seen an office suite written by Psion on the ACT Sirius 1 in the early 1980s, but word processors were the kind of thing that people used in offices or, at the very least, by people who had a printer so that they could print the inevitable letters that everyone would be needing to write.

Firing up an Acorn Electron emulator, specifically Elkulator, I discovered that one of the participants in the discussion was describing keyboard shortcuts that didn’t match up to those that were described in a magazine article from the era, these appearing correct as I tried them out for myself. It turned out that the discussion participant in question was using the BBC Micro version of VIEW on the Electron and was working around the mismatch in keyboard layouts. Although all of this was much ado about virtually nothing, it did two things. Firstly, it made me finally go in and fix Elkulator’s keyboard configuration dialogue, and secondly, it made me wonder how convenient it would be to explore old software in a productive way in an emulator.

Reconciling Keyboards

Having moved to Norway many years ago now, I use a Norwegian keyboard layout, and this has previously been slightly problematic when using emulators for older machines. Many years ago, I used and even contributed some minor things to another emulator, ElectrEm, which had a nice keyboard configuration dialogue. The Electron’s keyboard corresponds to certain modern keyboards pretty well, at least as far as the alphanumeric keys are concerned. More challenging are the symbols and control-related keys, in particular the Electron’s special Caps Lock/Function key which sits where many people now have their Tab key.

Obviously, there is a need to be able to tell an emulator which keys on a modern keyboard are going to correspond to the keys on the emulated machine. Being derived from an emulator for the BBC Micro, however, Elkulator’s keyboard configuration dialogue merely presented a BBC Micro keyboard on the screen and required the user to guess which “Beeb” key might correspond to an Electron one. Having put up with this situation for some time, I finally decided to fix this once and for all. The process of doing so is not particularly interesting, so I will spare you the details of doing things with the Allegro toolkit and the Elkulator source code, but I was mildly pleased with the result:

The revised keyboard configuration dialogue in Elkulator.

By also adding support for redefining the Break key in a sensible way, I was also finally able to choose a key that desktop environments don’t want to interfere with: F12 might work for Break, but Ctrl-F12 makes KDE/Plasma do something I don’t want, and yet Ctrl-Break is quite an important key combination when using an Electron or BBC Micro. Why Break isn’t a normal key on these machines is another story in itself, but here is an example of redefining it and even allowing multiple keys on a modern keyboard to act as Break on the emulated computer:

Redefining the Break key in Elkulator.

Being able to confidently choose and use keys made it possible to try out VIEW in a more natural way. But this then led to another issue: how might I experiment with such software productively? It would be good to write documents and to be able to extract them from the emulator, rather than see them disappear when the emulator is closed.

Real and Virtual Machines

One way to get text out of a system, whether it is a virtual system like the emulated Electron or a real machine, is to print it. I vaguely remembered some support for printing from Elkulator and was reminded by my brother that he had implemented such support himself a while ago as a quick way of getting data out of the emulated system. But I also wanted to be able to get data into the emulated system as well, and the parallel interface typically used by the printer is not bidirectional on the Electron. So, I would need to look further for a solution.

It is actually the case that Elkulator supports reading from and writing to disk (or disc) images. The unexpanded Electron supports read/write access to cassettes (or tapes), but Elkulator does not support writing to tapes, probably because the usability considerations are rather complicated: one would need to allow the user to control the current position on a tape, and all this would do is to remind everyone how inconvenient tapes are. Meanwhile, writing to disk images would be fairly convenient within the emulator, but then one would need to use tools to access the files within the images outside the emulator.

Some emulators for various systems also support the notion of a host filesystem (or filing system) where some special support has been added to make the emulated machine see another peripheral and to communicate with it, this peripheral really being a program on the host machine (the machine that is running the emulator). I could have just written such support, although it would also have needed some software support written for the emulated machine as well, but this approach would have led me down a path of doing something specific to emulation. And I have a principle of sorts which is that if I am going to change the way an emulated machine behaves, it has to be rooted in some kind of reality and not just enhance the emulated machine in a way that the original, “real” machine could not have been.

Building on Old Foundations

As noted earlier, I have an interest in the way that old products were conceived and the roles for which those products were intended by their originators. The Electron was largely sold as an unexpanded product, offering only power, display and cassette ports, with a general-purpose expansion connector being the gateway to anything else that might have been added to the system later. This was perceived somewhat negatively when the machine was launched because it was anticipated that buyers would probably, at the very least, want to plug joysticks into the Electron to play games. Instead, Acorn offered an expansion unit, the Plus 1, that cost another £60 which provided joystick, printer and cartridge connectors.

But this flexibility in expanding the machine meant that it could have been used as the basis for a fairly diverse range of specialised products. In fact, one of the Acorn founders, Chris Curry, enthused about the Electron as a platform for such products, and one such product did actually make it to market, in a way: the BT Merlin M2105 messaging terminal. This terminal combined the Electron with an expansion unit containing circuitry for communicating over a telephone line, a generic serial communications port, a printer port, as well as speech synthesis circuitry and a substantial amount of read-only memory (ROM) for communications software.

Back in the mid-1980s, telecommunications (or “telecoms”) was the next big thing, and enthusiasm for getting a modem and dialling up some “online” service or other (like Prestel) was prevalent in the computing press. For businesses and institutions, there were some good arguments for adopting such technologies, but for individuals the supposed benefits were rather dulled by the considerable costs of acquiring the hardware, buying subscriptions, and the notoriously high telephone call rates of the era. Only the relatively wealthy or the dedicated few pursued this side of data communications.

The M2105 reportedly did some service in the healthcare sector before being repositioned for commercial applications. Along with its successor product, the Acorn Communicator, it enjoyed a somewhat longer lifespan in certain enterprises. For the standard Electron and its accompanying expansions, support for basic communications capabilities was evidently considered important enough to be incorporated into the software of the Plus 1 expansion unit, even though the Plus 1 did not provide any of the specific hardware capabilities for communication over a serial link or a telephone line.

It was this apparently superfluous software capability that I revisited when I started to think about getting files in and out of the emulator. When emulating an Electron with Plus 1, this serial-capable software is run by the emulator, just as it is by a real Electron. On a real system of this kind, a cartridge could be added that provides a serial port and the necessary accompanying circuitry, and the system would be able to drive that hardware. Indeed, such cartridges were produced decades ago. So, if I could replicate the functionality of a cartridge within the emulator, making some code that pretends to be a serial communications chip (or UART) that has been interfaced to the Electron, then I would in principle be able to set up a virtual serial connection between the emulated Electron and my modern host computer.

Emulated Expansions

Modifying Elkulator to add support for serial communications hardware was fairly straightforward, with only a few complications. Expansion hardware on the Electron is generally accessible via a range of memory addresses that actually signal peripherals as opposed to reading and writing memory. The software provided by the Plus 1 expansion unit is written to expect the serial chip to be accessible via a range of memory locations, with the serial chip accepting values sent to those locations and producing values from those locations on request. The “memory map” through which the chip is exposed in the Electron corresponds directly to the locations or registers in the serial chip – the SCN2681 dual asynchronous receiver/transmitter (DUART) – as described by its datasheet.

In principle, all that is needed is to replicate the functionality described by the datasheet. With this done, the software will drive the chip, the emulated chip will do what is needed, and the illusion will be complete. In practice, a certain level of experimentation is needed to fill in the gaps left by the datasheet and any lack of understanding on the part of the implementer. It did help that the Plus 1 software has been disassembled – some kind of source code regenerated from the binary – so that the details of its operation and its expectations of the serial chip’s operation can be established.

Moreover, it is possible to save a bit of effort by seeing which features of the chip have been left unused. However, some unused features can be provided with barely any extra effort: the software only drives one serial port, but the chip supports two in largely the same way, so we can keep support for two just in case there is a need in future for such capabilities. Maybe someone might make a real serial cartridge with two ports and want to adapt the existing software, and they could at least test that software under emulation before moving to real hardware.

It has to be mentioned that the Electron’s operating system, known as the Machine Operating System or MOS, is effectively extended by the software provided in the Plus 1 unit. Even the unexpanded machine provides the foundations for adding serial communications and printing capabilities in different ways, and the Plus 1 software merely plugs into that framework. A different kind of serial chip would be driven by different software but it would plug into the same framework. At no point does anyone have to replace the MOS with a patched version, which seems to be the kind of thing that happens with some microcomputers from the same era.

Ultimately, what all of this means is that having implemented the emulated serial hardware, useful things can already be done with it within the bare computing environment provided by the MOS. One can set the output stream to use the serial port and have all the text produced by the system and programs sent over the serial connection. One can select the serial port for the input stream and send text to the computer instead of using the keyboard. And printing over the serial connection is also possible by selecting the appropriate printer type using a built-in system command.

In Elkulator, I chose to expose the serial port via a socket connection, with the emulator binding to a Unix domain socket on start-up. I then wrote a simple Python program to monitor the socket, to show any data being sent from the emulator and to send any input from the terminal to the emulator. This permitted the emulated machine to be operated from a kind of remote console and for the emulated machine to be able to print to this console. At last, remote logins are possible on the Electron! Of course, such connectivity was contemplated and incorporated from the earliest days of these products.

Filing Options

If the goal of all of this had been to facilitate transfers to and from the emulated machine, this might have been enough, but a simple serial connection is not especially convenient to use. Although a method of squirting a file into the serial link at the Electron could be made convenient for the host computer, at the other end one has to have a program to do something with that file. And once the data has arrived, would it not be most convenient to be able to save that data as a file? We just end up right back where we started: having some data inside the Electron and nowhere to put it! Of course, we could enable disk emulation and store a file on a virtual disk, but then it might just have been easier to make disk image handling outside the emulator more convenient instead.

It seemed to me that the most elegant solution would be to make the serial link act as the means through which the Electron accesses files. That instead of doing ad-hoc transfers of data, such data would be transferred as part of operations that are deliberately accessing files. Such ambitions are not unrealistic, and here I could draw on my experience with the platform, having acquired the Acorn Electron Advanced User Guide many, many years ago, in which there are details of implementing filing system ROMs. Again, the operating system had been designed to be extended in order to cover future needs, and this was one of them.

In fact, I had not been the only one to consider a serial filing system, and I had been somewhat aware of another project to make software available via a serial link to the BBC Micro. That project had been motivated by the desire to be able to get software onto that computer where no storage devices were otherwise available, even performing some ingenious tricks to transfer the filing system software to the machine and to have that software operate from RAM. It might have been tempting merely to use this existing software with my emulated serial port, to get it working, and then to get back to trying out applications, loading and saving, and to consider my work done. But I had other ideas in mind…

I was recently perusing the Retro Computing Forum when I stumbled across a mention of Collapse OS. If your anxiety levels have not already been maxed out during the last few years of climate breakdown, psychological warfare, pandemic, and actual warmongering, accompanied by supply chain breakdowns, initially in technology and exacerbated by overconsumption and spivcoin, now also in commodities and exacerbated by many of those other factors (particularly the warmongering), then perhaps focusing on societal and civilisational collapse isn’t going to improve your mood or your outlook. Unusually, then, after my last, rather negative post on such topics, may I be the one to introduce some constructive input and perhaps even some slight optimism?

If I understand the motivations behind Collapse OS correctly, it is meant to provide a modest computing environment that can work on well-understood, commonplace, easily repaired and readily sourced hardware, with the software providing the environment itself being maintainable on the target hardware, as opposed to being cross-built on more powerful hardware and then deployed to simpler, less capable hardware. The envisaged scenario for its adoption is a world where powerful new hardware is no longer produced or readily available and where people must scavenge and “make do” with the hardware already produced. Although civilisation may have brought about its own collapse, the consolation is that so much hardware will have been strewn across the planet for a variety of purposes that even after semiconductor fabrication and sophisticated manufacturing have ceased, there will remain a bounty of hardware usable for people’s computational needs (whatever they may be).

I am not one to try and predict the future, and I don’t really want to imagine it as being along the same lines as the plot for one of Kevin Costner’s less successful movies, either, but I feel that Collapse OS and its peers, in considering various dystopian scenarios and strategies to mitigate their impacts, may actually offer more than just a hopefully sufficient kind of preparedness for a depressing future. In that future, without super-fast Internet, dopamine-fired social media, lifelike gaming, and streaming video services with huge catalogues of content available on demand, everyone has to accept that far less technology will be available to them: they get no choice in the matter. Investigating how they might manage is at the very least an interesting thought experiment. But we would be foolish to consider such matters as purely part of a possible future and not instructive in other ways.

An Overlap of Interests

As readers of my previous articles will be aware, I have something of an interest in older computers, open source hardware, and sustainable computing. Older computers lend themselves to analysis and enhancement even by individuals with modest capabilities and tools because they employ technologies that may have been regarded as “miniaturised” when they were new, but they were still amenable to manual assembly and repair. Similarly, open source hardware has grown to a broad phenomenon because the means to make computing systems and accessories has now become more accessible to individuals, as opposed to being the preserve of large and well-resourced businesses. Where these activities experience challenges, it is typically in the areas that have not yet become quite as democratised, such as semiconductor fabrication at the large-scale integration level, along with the development and manufacture of more advanced technology, such as components and devices that would be competitive with off-the-shelf commercial products.

Some of the angst around open source hardware concerns the lack of investment it receives from those who would benefit from it, but much of that investment would largely be concerned with establishing an ability to maintain some kind of parity with modern, proprietary hardware. Ignoring such performance-led requirements and focusing on simpler hardware projects, as many people already do, brings us a lot closer to retrocomputing and a lot closer to the constrained hardware scenario envisaged by Collapse OS. My own experiments with PIC32-based microcontrollers are not too far removed from this, and it would not be inconceivable to run a simple environment in the 64K of RAM and 256K of flash memory of the PIC32MX270, this being much more generous than many microcomputers and games consoles of the 1980s.

Although I relied on cross-compilation to build the programs that would run on the minimal hardware of the PIC32 microcontroller, Collapse OS emphasises self-hosting: that it is possible to build the software within the running software itself. After all, how sustainable would a frugal computing environment be if it needed a much more powerful development system to fix and improve it? For Collapse OS, such self-hosting is enabled by the use of the Forth programming language, as explained by the rationale for switching to Forth from a system implemented in assembly language. Such use of Forth is not particularly unusual: its frugal demands were prized in the microcomputer era and earlier, with its creator Charles Moore describing the characteristics of a computer designed to run Forth as needing around 8K of RAM and 8K of ROM, this providing a complete interactive system.

(If you are interested in self-hosting and bootstrapping, one place to start might be the bootstrapping wiki.)

For a short while, Forth was perhaps even thought to be the hot new thing in some circles within computing. One fairly famous example was the Jupiter Ace microcomputer, developed by former Sinclair Research designers, offering a machine that followed on fairly closely from Sinclair’s rudimentary ZX81. But in a high-minded way one might have expected from the Sinclair stable and the Cambridge scene, it offered Forth as its built-in language in response to all the other microcomputers offering “unstructured” BASIC dialects. Worthy as such goals might have been, the introduction of a machine with outdated hardware specifications condemned it in its target market as a home computer, with it offering primitive black-and-white display output against competitors offering multi-colour graphics, and offering limited amounts of memory as competitors launched with far more fitted as standard. Interestingly, the Z80 processor at the heart of the Ace was the primary target of Collapse OS, and one might wonder if the latter might actually be portable to the former, which would be an interesting project if any hardware collector wants to give it a try!

Other Forth-based computers were delivered such as the Canon Cat: an unusual “information appliance” that might have formed the basis of Apple’s Macintosh had that project not been diverted towards following up on the Apple Lisa. Dedicated Forth processors were even delivered, as anticipated already by Moore back in 1980, reminiscent of the Lisp machine era. However, one hardware-related legacy of Forth is that of the Open Firmware standard where a Forth environment provides an interactive command-line interface to a system’s bootloader. Collapse OS fits in pretty well with that kind of application of Forth. Curiously, someone did contact me when I first wrote about my PIC32 experiments, this person maintaining their own microcontroller Forth implementation, and in the context of this article I have re-established contact because I never managed to properly follow up on the matter.

Changing the Context

According to a broad interpretation of the Collapse OS hardware criteria, the PIC32MX270 would actually not be a bad choice. Like the AVR microcontrollers and the microprocessors of the 1980s, PIC32MX microcontrollers are available in convenient dual in-line packages, but unlike those older microprocessors they also offer the 32-bit MIPS architecture that is nicer to program than the awkward instruction sets of the likes of the Z80 and 6502, no matter how much nostalgia colours people’s preferences. However, instead of focusing on hardware suitability in a resource-constrained future, I want to consider the messages of simplicity and sustainability that underpin the Collapse OS initiative and might be relevant to the way we practise computing today.

When getting a PIC32 microcontroller to produce a video signal, part of the motivation was just to see how straightforward it might be to make a simple “single chip” microcomputer. Like many microcomputers back in the 1980s, it became tempting to consider how it might be used to deliver graphical demonstrations and games, but I also wondered what kind of role such a system might have in today’s world. Similar projects, including the first versions of the Maximite have emphasised such things as well, along with interfacing and educational applications (such as learning BASIC). Indeed, many low-end microcontroller-based computers attempt to recreate and to emphasise the sparse interfaces of 1980s microcomputers as a distraction-free experience for learning and teaching.

Eliminating distractions is a worthy goal, whether those distractions are things that we can conveniently seek out when our attention wanders, such as all our favourite, readily accessible Internet content, or whether they come in the form of the notifications that plague “modern” user interfaces. Another is simply reducing the level of consumption involved in our computational activities: civilisational collapse would certainly impose severe limits on that kind of consumption, but it would seem foolish to acknowledge that and then continue on the same path of ever-increasing consumption that also increasingly fails to deliver significant improvements in the user experience. When desktop applications, mobile “apps”, and Web sites frequently offer sluggish and yet overly-simplistic interfaces that are more infuriating than anything else, it might be wise to audit our progress and reconsider how we do certain things.

Human nature has us constantly exploring the boundaries of what is possible with technology, but some things which captivate people at any given point on the journey of technological progress may turn out to be distracting diversions from the route ultimately taken. In my trawl of microcomputing history over the last couple of years, I was reminded of an absurd but illustrative example of how certain technological exercises seem to become the all-consuming focus of several developers, almost being developed for the sake of it, before the fad in question flames out and everybody moves on. That example concerned “morphing” software, inspired by visual effects from movies such as Terminator 2, but operating on a simpler, less convincing level.

Suddenly, such effects were all over the television and for a few months in late 1993, everyone was supposedly interested in making the likeness of one famous person slowly change into the likeness of another, never mind that it really required a good library of images, this being somewhat before widespread digital imaging and widespread image availability. Fast-forward a few years, and it all seemed like a crazy mass delusion best never spoken of again. We might want to review our own time’s obsessions with performative animations and effects, along with the peculiarities of touch-based interfaces, the assumption of pervasive and fast connectivity, and how these drive hardware consumption and obsolescence.

Once again, some of this comes back to asking how people managed to do things in earlier times and why things sometimes seem so complicated now. Thinking back to the 1980s era of microcomputing, my favourite 8-bit computer of those times was the Acorn Electron, this being the one I had back then, and it was certainly possible to equip it to do word processing to a certain level. Acorn even pitched an expanded version as a messaging terminal for British Telecom, although I personally think that they could have made more of such opportunities, especially given the machine’s 80-column text capabilities being made available at such a low price. The user experience would not exactly be appealing by today’s standards, but then nor would that of Collapse OS, either.

When I got my PIC32 experiment working reasonably, I asked myself if it would be sufficient for tasks like simple messaging and writing articles like this. The answer, assuming that I would enhance that effort to use a USB keyboard and external storage, is probably the same as whether anyone might use a Maximite for such applications: it might not be as comfortable as on a modern system but it would be possible in some way. Given the tricks I used, certain things would actually be regressions from the Electron, such as the display resolution. Conversely, the performance of a 48MHz MIPS-based processor is obviously going to be superior to a 2MHz 6502, even when having to generate the video signal, thus allowing for some potential in other areas.

Reversing Technological Escalation

Using low-specification hardware for various applications today, considering even the PIC32 as low-spec and ignoring the microcomputers of the past, would also need us to pare back the demands that such applications have managed to accumulate over the years. As more powerful, higher-performance hardware has become available, software, specifications and standards have opportunistically grown to take advantage of that extra power, leaving many people bewildered by the result: their new computer being just as slow as their old one, for example.

Standards can be particularly vulnerable where entrenched interests drive hardware consumption whilst seeking to minimise the level of adaptation their own organisations will need to undertake in order to deliver solutions based on such standards. A severely constrained computing device may not have the capacity or performance to handle all the quirks of a “full fat” standard, but it might handle an essential core of that standard, ignoring all the edge cases and special treatment for certain companies’ products. Just as important, the developers of an implementation handling a standard also may not have the capacity or tenacity for a “full fat” standard, but they may do a reasonable job handling one that cuts out all the corporate cruft.

And beyond the technology needed to perform some kind of transaction as part of an activity, we might reconsider what is necessary to actually perform that activity. Here, we may consider the more blatant case of the average “modern” Web site or endpoint, where an activity may end up escalating and involving the performance of a number of transactions, many of which superfluous and, in the case of the pervasive cult of analytics, exploitative. What once may have been a simple Web form is often now an “experience” where the browser connects to dozens of sites, where all the scripts poll the client computer into oblivion, and where the functionality somehow doesn’t manage to work, anyway (as I recently experienced on one airline’s Web site).

Technologists and their employers may drive consumption, but so do their customers. Public institutions, utilities and other companies may lazily rely on easily procured products and services, these insisting (for “security” or “the best experience”) that only the latest devices or devices from named vendors may be used to gain access. Here, the opposite of standardisation occurs, where adherence to brand names dictates the provision of service, compounded by the upgrade treadmill familiar from desktop computing, bringing back memories of Microsoft and Intel ostensibly colluding to get people to replace their computer as often as possible.

A Broader Brush

We don’t need to go back to retrocomputing levels of technology to benefit from re-evaluating the prevalent technological habits of our era. I have previously discussed single-board computers like the MIPS Creator CI20 which, in comparison to contemporary boards from the Raspberry Pi series, was fairly competitive in terms of specification and performance (having twice the RAM of the Raspberry Pi Models A+, B and B+). Although hardly offering conventional desktop performance upon its introduction, the CI20 would have made a reasonable workstation in certain respects in earlier times: its 1GHz CPU and 1GB of RAM should certainly be plenty for many applications even now.

Sadly, starting up and using the main two desktop environments on the CI20 is an exercise in patience, and I recommend trying something like the MATE desktop environment just for something responsive. Using a Web browser like Firefox is a trial, and extensive site blocking is needed just to prevent the browser wanting to download things from all over the place, as it tries to do its bit in shoring up Google’s business model. My father was asking me the other day why a ten-year-old computer might be slow on a “modern” Web site but still perfectly adequate for watching video. I would love to hear the Firefox and Chrome developers, along with the “architects of the modern Web”, give any explanation for this that doesn’t sound like they are members of some kind of self-realisation cult.

If we can envisage a microcomputer, either a vintage one or a modern microcontroller-based one, performing useful computing activities, then we can most certainly envisage machines of ten or so years ago, even ones behind the performance curve, doing so as well. And by realising that, we might understand that we might even have the power to slow down the engineered obsolescence of computing hardware, bring usable hardware back into use, and since not everyone on the planet can afford the latest and greatest, we might even put usable hardware into the hands of more people who might benefit from it.

Naturally, this perspective is rather broader than one that only considers a future of hardship and scarcity, but hardship and scarcity are part of the present, just as they have always been part of the past. Applying many of the same concerns and countermeasures to today’s situation, albeit in less extreme forms, means that we have the power to mitigate today’s situation and, if we are optimistic, perhaps steer it away from becoming the extreme situation that the Collapse OS initiative seeks to prepare for.

Concrete Steps

I have, in the past, been accused of complaining about injustices too generally for my complaints to be taken seriously, never mind such injustices being blatant and increasingly obvious in our modern societies and expressed through the many crises of our times. So how might we seek to mitigate widespread hardware obsolescence and technology-driven overconsumption? Some suggestions in a concise list for those looking for actionable things:

• Develop, popularise and mandate lightweight formats, protocols and standards
• Encourage interoperability and tolerance for multiple user interfaces, clients and devices
• Insist on an unlimited “right to repair” for computing devices including the software
• Encourage long-term thinking in software and systems development

And now for some elucidation…

Mandatory Accessible Standards

This suggestion has already been described above, but where it would gain its power is in the idea of mandating that public institutions and businesses would be obliged to support lightweight formats, protocols and standards, and not simply as an implementation detail for their chosen “app”, like a REST endpoint might be, but actually as a formal mechanism providing service to those who would interact with those institutions. This would make the use of a broad range of different devices viable, and in the case of special-purpose devices for certain kinds of users, particularly those who would otherwise be handed a smartphone and told to “get with it”, it would offer a humane way of accessing services that is currently denied to them.

For simple dialogue-based interactions, existing formats such as JSON might even be sufficient as they are. I am reminded of a paper I read when putting together my degree thesis back in the 1990s, where the idea was that people would be able to run programs safely in their mail reader, with one example being that of submitting forms.

T-shirt ordering dialogues shown by Safe-Tcl running in a mail program, offering the recipient the chance to order some merchandise that might not be as popular now.

In that paper, most of the emphasis was on the safety of the execution environment as opposed to the way in which the transaction was to be encoded, but it is not implausible that one might have encoded the details of the transaction – the T-shirt size (with the recipient’s physical address presumably already being known to the sender) – in a serialised form of the programming language concerned (Safe-Tcl) as opposed to just dumping some unstructured text in the body of a mail. I would need to dig out my own thesis to see what ideas I had for serialised information. Certainly, such transactions even embellished with other details and choices and with explanatory information, prompts and questions do not require megabytes of HTML, CSS, JavaScript, images, videos and so on.

Interoperability and Device Choice

One thing that the Web was supposed to liberate us from was the insistence that to perform a particular task, we needed a particular application, and that particular application was only available on a particular platform. In the early days, HTML was deliberately simplistic in its display capabilities, and people had to put up with Web pages that looked very plain until things like font tags allowed people to go wild. With different factions stretching HTML in all sorts of directions, CSS was introduced to let people apply presentation attributes to documents, supposedly without polluting or corrupting the original HTML that would remain semantically pure. We all know how this turned out, particularly once the Web 2.0 crowd got going.

Back in the 1990s, I worked on an in-house application at my employer that used a document model inspired by SGML (as HTML had been), and the graphical user interface to the documents being exchanged initially offered a particular user interface paradigm when dealing with collections of data items, this being the one embraced by the Macintosh’s Finder when showing directory hierarchies in what we would now call a tree view. Unfortunately, users seemed to find expanding and hiding things by clicking on small triangles to be annoying, and so alternative presentation approaches were explored. Interestingly, the original paradigm would be familiar even now to those using generic XML editor software, but many people would accept that while such low-level editing capabilities are nice to have, higher-level representations of the data are usually much more preferable.

Such user preferences could quite easily be catered to through the availability of client software that works in the way they expect, rather than the providers of functionality or the operators of services trying to gauge what the latest fashions in user interfaces might be, as we have all seen when familiar Web sites change to mimic something one would expect to see on a smartphone, even with a large monitor on a desk with plenty of pixels to spare. With well-defined standards, if a client device or program were to see that it needed to allow a user to peruse a large collection of items or to choose a calendar date, it would defer to the conventions of that device or platform, giving the user the familiarity they expect.

This would also allow clients and devices with a wide range of capabilities to be used. The Web tried to deliver a reasonable text-only experience for a while, but most sites can hardly be considered usable in a textual browser these days. And although there is an “accessibility story” for the Web, it largely appears to involve retrofitting sites with semantic annotations to help users muddle through the verbose morass encoded in each page. Certainly, the Web of today does do one thing reasonably by mixing up structure and presentation: it can provide a means of specifying and navigating new kinds of data that might be unknown to the client, showing them something more than a text box. A decent way of extending the range of supported data types would be needed in any alternative, but it would need to spare everyone suddenly having scripts running all over the place.

Rights to Repair

The right to repair movement has traditionally been focused on physical repairs to commercial products, making sure that even if the manufacturer has abandoned a product and really wants you to buy something new from them, you can still choose to have the product repaired so that it can keep serving you well for some time to come. But if hardware remains capable enough to keep doing its job, and if we are able to slow down or stop the forces of enforced obsolescence, we also need to make sure that the software running on the hardware may also be repaired, maintained and updated. A right to repair very much applies to software.

Devotees of the cult of the smartphone, those who think that there is an “app” for everything, should really fall silent with shame. Not just for shoehorning every activity they can think of onto a device that is far from suitable for everyone, and not just for mandating commercial relationships with large multinational corporations for everyone, but also for the way that happily functioning smartphones have to be discarded because they run software that is too old and cannot be fixed or upgraded. Demanding the right to exercise the four freedoms of Free Software for our devices means that we get to decide when those devices are “too old” for what we want to use them for. If a device happens to be no longer usable for its original activity even after some Free Software repairs, we can repurpose it for something else, instead of having the vendor use those familiar security scare stories and pretending that they are acting in our best interests.

Long-Term Perspectives

If we are looking to preserve the viability of our computing devices by demanding interoperability to give them a chance to participate in the modern world and by demanding that they may be repaired, we also need to think about how the software we develop may itself remain viable, both in terms of the ability to run the software on available devices as well as the ability to keep maintaining, improving and repairing it. That potentially entails embracing unfashionable practices because “modern” practices do not exactly seem conducive to the kind of sustainable activities we have in mind.

I recently had the opportunity to contemplate the deployment of software in “virtual environments” containing entire software stacks, each of which running their own Web server program, that would receive their traffic from another Web server program running in the same virtual machine, all of this running in some cloud infrastructure. It was either that or using containers containing whole software distributions, these being deployed inside virtual machines containing their own software distributions. All because people like to use the latest and greatest stuff for everything, this stuff being constantly churned by fashionable development methodologies and downloaded needlessly over and over again from centralised Internet services run by monopolists.

Naturally, managing gigabytes of largely duplicated software is worlds, if not galaxies, away from the modest computing demands of things like Collapse OS, but it would be distasteful to anyone even a decade ago and shocking to anyone even a couple of decades ago. Unfashionable as it may seem now, software engineering courses once emphasised things like modularity and the need for formal interfaces between modules in systems. And a crucial benefit of separating out functionality into modules is to allow those modules to mature, do the job they were designed for, and to recede into the background and become something that can be relied upon and not need continual, intensive maintenance. There is almost nothing better than writing a library that one may use constantly but never need to touch again.

Thus, the idea that a precarious stack of precisely versioned software is required to deliver a solution is absurd, but it drives the attitude that established software distributions only deliver “old” software, and it drives the demand for wasteful container or virtual environment solutions whose advocates readily criticise traditional distributions whilst pilfering packages from them. Or as Docker users might all too easily say, “FROM debian:sid”. Part of the problem is that it is easy to rely on methods of mass consumption to solve problems with software – if something is broken, just update and see if it fixes it – but such attitudes permeate the entire development process, leading to continual instability and a software stack constantly in flux.

Dealing with a multitude of software requirements is certainly a challenging problem that established operating systems struggle to resolve convincingly, despite all the shoehorning of features into the Linux technology stack. Nevertheless, the topic of operating system design is rather outside the scope of this article. Closer to relevance is the matter of how people seem reluctant to pick a technology and stick with it, particularly in the realm of programming languages. Then again, I covered much of this before and fairly recently, too. Ultimately, we want to be establishing software stacks that people can readily acquaint themselves with decades down the line, without the modern-day caveats that “feature X changed in version Y” and that if you were not there at the time, you have quite the job to do to catch up with that and everything else that went on, including migrations to a variety of source management tools and venues, maybe even completely new programming languages.

A Different Mindset

If anything, Collapse OS makes us consider a future beyond tomorrow, next week, next year, or a few years’ time. Even if the wheels do not start falling off the vehicle of human civilisation, there are still plenty of other things that can go away without much notice. Corporations like Apple and Google might stick around, whether that is good news or not, but it does not stop them from pulling the plug on products and services. Projects and organisations do not always keep going forever, not least because they are often led by people who cannot keep going forever, either.

There are ways we can mitigate these threats to sustainability and longevity, however. We can share our software through accessible channels without insisting that others use those monopolist-run centralised hosting services. We can document our software so that others have a chance of understanding what we were thinking when we wrote it. We can try and keep the requirements for our software modest and give people a chance to deploy it on modest hardware. And we might think about what kind of world we are leaving behind and whether it is better than the world we were born into.

Over the years, I have had a few things to say about technological change, churn, and the appearance of progress, a few of them touching on the evolution and development of the Python programming language. Some of my articles have probably seemed a bit outspoken, perhaps even unfair. It was somewhat reassuring, then, to encounter the reflections of a longstanding author of Python books and his use of rather stronger language than I think I ever used. It was also particularly reassuring because I apparently complain about things in far too general a way, not giving specific examples of phenomena for anything actionable to be done about them. So let us see whether we can emerge from the other end of this article in better shape than we are at this point in it.

Now, the longstanding author in question is none other than Mark Lutz whose books “Programming Python” and “Learning Python” must surely have been bestsellers for their publisher over the years. As someone who has, for many years, been teaching Python to a broad audience of newcomers to the language and to programming in general, his views overlap with mine about how Python has become increasingly incoherent and overly complicated, as its creators or stewards pursue some kind of agenda of supposed improvement without properly taking into account the needs of the broadest reaches of its user community. Instead, as with numerous Free Software projects, an unscrutable “vision” is used to impose change based on aesthetics and contemporary fashions, unrooted in functional need, by self-appointed authorities who often lack an awareness or understanding of historical precedent or genuine user need.

Such assertions are perhaps less kind to Python’s own developers than they should be. Those choosing to shoehorn new features into Python arguably have more sense of precedent than, say, the average desktop environment developer imitating Apple in what could uncharitably be described as an ongoing veiled audition for a job in Cupertino. Nevertheless, I feel that language developers would be rather more conservative if they only considered what teaching their language to newcomers entails or what effect their changes have on the people who have written code in their language. Am I being unfair? Let us read what Mr Lutz has to say on the matter:

The real problem with Python, of course, is that its evolution is driven by narcissism, not user feedback. That inevitably makes your programs beholden to ever-shifting whims and ever-hungry egos. Such dependencies might have been laughable in the past. In the age of Facebook, unfortunately, this paradigm permeates Python, open source, and the computer field. In fact, it extends well beyond all three; narcissism is a sign of our times.

You won’t find a shortage of similar sentiments on his running commentary of Python releases. Let us, then, take a look at some experiences and try to review such assertions. Maybe I am not being so unreasonable (or impractical) in my criticism after all!

Out in the Field

In a recent job, of which more might be written another time, Python was introduced to people more familiar with languages such as R (which comes across as a terrible language, but again, another time perhaps). It didn’t help that as part of that introduction, they were exposed to things like this:

    def method(self, arg: Dict[Something, SomethingElse]):
        return arg.items()

When newcomers are already having to digest new syntax, new concepts (classes and objects!), and why there is a “self” parameter, unnecessary ornamentation such as the type annotations included in the above, only increases the cognitive burden. It also doesn’t help to then say, “Oh, the type declarations are optional and Python doesn’t really check them, anyway!” What is the student supposed to do with that information? Many years ago now, Java was mocked for confronting its newcomers with boilerplate like this classic:

    public static void main(String[] args)

But exposing things that the student is then directed to ignore is simply doing precisely the same thing for which Java was criticised. Of course, in Python, the above method could simply have been written as follows:

    def method(self, arg):
        return arg.items()

Indeed, for the above method to be valid in the broadest sense, the only constraint on the nature of the “arg” parameter is that it offer an attribute called “items” that can be called with no arguments. By prescriptively imposing a limitation on “arg” as was done above, insisting that it be a dictionary, the method becomes less general and less usable. Moreover, the nature of Python itself is neglected or mischaracterised: the student might believe that only a certain type would be acceptable, just as one might suggest that the author of that code also fails to see that a range of different, conformant kinds of objects could be used with the method. Such practices discourage or conceal polymorphism and generic functionality at a point when the beginner’s mind should be opened to them.

As Mr Lutz puts such things in the context of a different feature introduced in Python 3.5:

To put that another way: unless you’re willing to try explaining a new feature to people learning the language, you just shouldn’t do it.

The tragedy is that Python in its essential form is a fairly intuitive and readable language. But as he also says in the specific context of type annotations:

Thrashing (and rudeness) aside, the larger problem with this proposal’s extensions is that many programmers will code them—either in imitation of other languages they already know, or in a misguided effort to prove that they are more clever than others. It happens. Over time, type declarations will start appearing commonly in examples on the web, and in Python’s own standard library. This has the effect of making a supposedly optional feature a mandatory topic for every Python programmer.

And I can certainly say from observation that in various professional cultures, including academia where my own recent observations were made, there is a persistent phenomenon where people demonstrate “best practice” to show that they as a software development practitioner (or, indeed, a practitioner of anything else related to the career in question) are aware of the latest developments, are able to communicate them to their less well-informed colleagues, and are presumably the ones who should be foremost in anyone’s consideration for any future hiring round or promotion. Unfortunately, this enthusiasm is not always tempered by considered reflection, either on the nature of the supposed innovation itself, or on the consequences its proliferation will have.

Perversely, such enthusiasm, provoked by the continual hustle for funding, positions, publications and reputation, risks causing a trail of broken programs, and yet at the same time, much is made of the need for software development to be done “properly” in academia, that people do research that is reproducible and whose computational elements are repeatable. It doesn’t help that those ambitions must also be squared with other apparent needs such as offering tools and services to others. And the need to offer such things in a robust and secure fashion sometimes has to coexist with the need to offer them in a convenient form, where appropriate. Taking all of these things into consideration is quite the headache.

A Positive Legacy

Amusingly, some have come to realise that Python’s best hope for reproducible research is precisely the thing that Python’s core developers have abandoned – Python 2.7 – and precisely because they have abandoned it. In an article about reproducing old, published results, albeit of a rather less than scientific nature, Nicholas Rougier sought to bring an old program back to life, aiming to find a way of obtaining or recovering the program’s sources, constructing an executable form of the program, and deploying and running that program on a suitable system. To run his old program, written for the Apple IIe microcomputer in Applesoft BASIC, required the use of emulators and, for complete authenticity, modern hardware expansions to transfer the software to floppy disks to run on an original Apple IIe machine.

And yet, the ability to revive and deploy a program developed 32 years earlier was possible thanks to the Apple machine’s status as a mature, well-understood platform with an enthusiastic community developing new projects and products. These initiatives were only able to offer such extensive support for a range of different “retrocomputing” activities because the platform has for a long time effectively been “frozen”. Contrasting such a static target with rapidly evolving modern programming languages and environments, Rougier concluded that “an advanced programming language that is guaranteed not to evolve anymore” would actually be a benefit for reproducible science, that few people use many of the new features of Python 3, and that Python 2.7 could equally be such a “highly fertile ground for development” that the proprietary Applesoft BASIC had proven to be for a whole community of developers and users.

Naturally, no language designer ever wants to be told that their work is finished. Lutz asserts that “a bloated system that is in a perpetual state of change will eventually be of more interest to its changers than its prospective users”, which is provocative but also rings true. CPython (the implementation of Python in the C programming language) has always had various technical deficiencies – the lack of proper multithreading, for instance – but its developers who also happen to be the language designers seem to prefer tweaking the language instead. Other languages have gained in popularity at Python’s expense by seeking to address such deficiencies and to meet the frustrated expectations of Python developers. Or as Lutz notes:

While Python developers were busy playing in their sandbox, web browsers mandated JavaScript, Android mandated Java, and iOS became so proprietary and closed that it holds almost no interest to generalist developers.

In parts of academia familiar with Python, languages like Rust and Julia are now name-dropped, although I doubt that many of those doing the name-dropping realise what they are in for if they decide to write everything in Rust. Meanwhile, Python 2 code is still used, against a backdrop of insistent but often ignored requests from systems administrators for people to migrate code to Python 3 so that newer operating system distributions can be deployed. In other sectors, such migration is meant to be factored into the cost of doing business, but in places like academia where software maintenance generally doesn’t get funding, no amount of shaming or passive-aggressive coercion is magically going to get many programs updated at all.

Of course, we could advocate that everybody simply run their old software in virtual machines or containers, just as was possible with that Applesoft BASIC program from over thirty years ago. Indeed, containerisation is the hot thing in places like academia just as it undoubtedly is elsewhere. But unlike the Apple II community who will hopefully stick with what they know, I have my doubts that all those technological lubricants marketed under the buzzword “containers!” will still be delivering the desired performance decades from now. As people jump from yesterday’s hot solution to today’s and on to tomorrow’s (Docker, with or without root, to Singularity/Apptainer, and on to whatever else we have somehow deserved), just the confusion around the tooling will be enough to make the whole exercise something of an ordeal.

A Detour to the Past

Over the last couple of years, I have been increasingly interested in looking back over the course of the last few decades, back to the time when I was first introduced to microcomputers, and even back beyond that to the age of mainframes when IBM reigned supreme and the likes of ICL sought to defend their niche and to remain competitive, or even relevant, as the industry shifted beneath them. Obviously, I was not in a position to fully digest the state of the industry as a schoolchild fascinated with the idea that a computer could seemingly take over a television set and show text and graphics on the screen, and I was certainly not “taking” all the necessary computing publications to build up a sophisticated overview, either.

But these days, many publications from decades past – magazines, newspapers, academic and corporate journals – are available from sites like the Internet Archive, and it becomes possible to sample the sentiments and mood of the times, frustrations about the state of then-current, affordable technology, expectations of products to come, and so on. Those of us who grew up in the microcomputing era saw an obvious progression in computing technologies: faster processors, more memory, better graphics, more and faster storage, more sophisticated user interfaces, increased reliability, better development tools, and so on. Technologies such as Unix were “the future”, labelled as impending to the point of often being ridiculed as too expensive, too demanding or too complicated, perhaps never to see the limelight after all. People were just impatient: we got there in the end.

While all of that was going on, other trends were afoot at the lowest levels of computing. Computer instruction set architectures had become more complicated as the capabilities they offered had expanded. Although such complexity, broadly categorised using labels such as CISC, had been seen as necessary or at least desirable to be able to offer system implementers a set of convenient tools to more readily accomplish their work, the burden of delivering such complexity risked making products unreliable, costly and late. For example, the National Semiconductor 32016 processor, seeking to muscle in on the territory of Digital Equipment Corporation and its VAX line of computers, suffered delays in getting to market and performance deficiencies that impaired its competitiveness.

Although capable and in some respects elegant, it turned out that these kinds of processing architectures were not necessarily delivering what was actually important, either in terms of raw performance for end-users or in terms of convenience for developers. Realisations were had that some of the complexity was superfluous, that programmers did not use certain instructions often or at all, and that a flawed understanding of programmers’ needs had led to the retention of functionality that did not need to be inscribed in silicon with all the associated costs and risks that this would entail. Instead, simpler, more orthogonal architectures could be delivered that offered instructions that programmers or, crucially, their compilers would actually use. The idea of RISC was thereby born.

As the concept of RISC took off, pursued by the likes of IBM, UCB and Sun, Stanford University and MIPS, Acorn (and subsequently ARM), HP, and even Digital, Intel and Motorola, amongst others, the concept of the workstation became more fully realised. It may have been claimed by some commentator or other that “the personal computer killed the workstation” or words to that effect, but in fact, the personal computer effectively became the workstation during the course of the 1990s and early years of the twenty-first century, albeit somewhat delayed by Microsoft’s sluggish delivery of appropriately sophisticated operating systems throughout its largely captive audience.

For a few people in the 1980s, the workstation vision was the dream: the realisation of their expectations for what a computer should do. Although expectations should always be updated to take new circumstances and developments into account, it is increasingly difficult to see the same rate of progress in this century’s decades that we saw in the final decades of the last century, at least in terms of general usability, stability and the emergence of new and useful computational capabilities. Some might well argue that graphics and video processing or networked computing have progressed immeasurably, these certainly having delivered benefits for visualisation, gaming, communications and the provision of online infrastructure, but in other regards, we seem stuck with something very familiar to that of twenty years ago but with increasingly disillusioned developers and disempowered users.

What we might take away from this historical diversion is that sometimes a focus on the essentials, on simplicity, and on the features that genuinely matter make more of a difference than just pressing ahead with increasingly esoteric and baroque functionality that benefits few and yet brings its own set of risks and costs. And we should recognise that progress is largely acknowledged only when it delivers perceptable benefits. In terms of delivering a computer language and environment, this may necessarily entail emphasising the stability and simplicity of the language, focusing instead on remedying the deficiencies of the underlying language technology to give users the kind of progress they might actually welcome.

A Dark Currency

Mark Lutz had intended to stop commentating on newer versions of Python, reflecting on the forces at work that makes Python what it now is:

In the end, the convolution of Python was not a technical story. It was a sociological story, and a human story. If you create a work with qualities positive enough to make it popular, but also encourage it to be changed for a reward paid entirely in the dark currency of ego points, time will inevitably erode the very qualities which made the work popular originally. There’s no known name for this law, but it happens nonetheless, and not just in Python. In fact, it’s the very definition of open source, whose paradigm of reckless change now permeates the computing world.

I also don’t know of a name for such a law of human behaviour, and yet I have surely mentioned such behavioural phenomena previously myself: the need to hustle, demonstrate expertise, audition for some potential job offer, demonstrate generosity through volunteering. In some respects, the cultivation of “open source” as a pragmatic way of writing software collaboratively, marginalising Free Software principles and encouraging some kind of individualistic gift culture coupled to permissive licensing, is responsible for certain traits of what Python has become. But although a work that is intrinsically Free Software in nature may facilitate chaotic, haphazard, antisocial, selfish, and many other negative characteristics in the evolution of that work, it is the social and economic environment around the work that actually promotes those characteristics.

When reflecting on the past, particularly during periods when capabilities were being built up, we can start to appreciate the values that might have been more appreciated at that time than they are now. Python originated at a time when computers in widespread use were becoming capable enough to offer such a higher-level language, one that could offer increased convenience over various systems programming languages whilst building on top of the foundations established by those languages. With considerable effort having been invested in such foundations, a mindset seemed to persist, at least in places, that such foundations might be enduring and be good for a long time.

An interesting example of such attitudes arose at a lower level with the development of the Alpha instruction set architecture. Digital, having responded ineffectively to its competitive threats, embraced the RISC philosophy and eventually delivered a processor range that could be used to support its existing product line-up, emphasising performance and longevity through a “15- to 25-year design horizon” that attempted to foresee the requirements of future systems. Sadly, Digital made some poor strategic decisions, some arguably due to Microsoft’s increasing influence over the company’s strategy, and after a parade of acquisitions, Alpha fell under the control of HP who sacrificed it, along with its own RISC architecture, to commit to Intel’s dead-end Itanium architecture. I suppose this illustrates that the chaos of “open source” is not the only hazard threatening stability and design for longevity.

Such long or distant horizons demand that newer developments remain respectful to the endeavours that have made them possible. Such existing and ongoing endeavours may have their flaws, but recognising and improving those flaws is more constructive and arguably more productive than tearing everything down and demanding that everything be redone to accommodate an apparently new way of thinking. Sadly, we see a lot of the latter these days, but it goes beyond a lack of respect for precedent and achievement, reflecting broader tendencies in our increasingly stressed societies. One such tendency is that of destructive competition, the elimination of competitors, and the pursuit of monopoly. We might be used to seeing such things in the corporate sphere – the likes of Microsoft wanting to be the only ones who provide the software for your computer, no matter where you buy it – but people have a habit of imitating what they see, especially when the economic model for our societies increasingly promotes the hustle for work and the need to carve out a lucrative niche.

So, we now see pervasive attitudes such as the pursuit of the zero-sum game. Where the deficiencies of a technology lead its users to pursue alternatives, defensiveness in the form of utterances such as “no need to invent another language” arises. Never mind that the custodians of the deficient technology – in this case, Python, of course – happily and regularly offer promotional consideration to a company who openly tout their own language for mobile development. Somehow, the primacy of the Python language is a matter for its users to bear, whereas another rule applies amongst its custodians. That is another familiar characteristic of human behaviour, particularly where power and influence accumulates.

And so, we now see hostility towards anything being perceived as competition, even if it is merely an independent endeavour undertaken by someone wishing to satisfy their own needs. We see intolerance for other solutions, but we also see a number of other toxic behaviours on display: alpha-dogging, personality worship and the cultivation of celebrity. We see chest-puffing displays of butchness about Important Matters like “security”. And, of course, the attitude to what went before is the kind of approach that involves boiling the oceans so that it may be populated by precisely the right kind of fish. None of this builds on or complements what is already there, nor does it deliver a better experience for the end-user. No wonder people say that they are jealous of colleagues who are retiring.

All these things make it unappealing to share software or even ideas with others. Fortunately, if one does not care about making a splash, one can just get on with things that are personally interesting and ignore all the “negativity from ignorant, opinionated blowhards”. Although in today’s hustle culture, this means also foregoing the necessary attention that might prompt anyone to discover your efforts and pay you to do such work. On the actual topic that has furnished us with so many links to toxic behaviour, and on the matter of the venue where such behaviour is routine, I doubt that I would want my own language-related efforts announced in such a venue.

Then again, I seem to recall that I stopped participating in that particular venue after one discussion had a participant distorting public health observations by the likes of Hans Rosling to despicably indulge in poverty denial. Once again, broader social, economic and political influences weigh heavily on our industry and communities, with people exporting their own parochial or ignorant views globally, and in the process corrupting and undermining other people’s societies, oblivious to the misery it has already caused in their own. Against this backdrop, simple narcissism is perhaps something of a lesser concern.

At the End of the Tunnel

I suppose I promised some actionable observations at the start of the article, so what might they be?

Respect Users and Investments

First of all, software developers should be respectful towards the users of their software. Such users lend validation to that software, encourage others to use it, and they potentially make it possible for the developers to work on it for a living. Their use involves an investment that, if written off by the developers, is costly for everyone concerned.

And no, the users’ demands for that investment to be protected cannot be disregarded as “entitlement”, even if they paid nothing to acquire the software, at least if the developers are happy to enjoy all the other benefits of the software’s proliferation. As is often said, power and influence bring responsibility. Just as democratically elected politicians have a responsibility towards everyone they represent, regardless of whether those people voted for them or not, software developers have a duty of care towards all of their users, even if it is merely to step out of the way and to let the users take the software in its own direction without seeking to frustrate them as we saw when Python 2 was cast aside.

Respond to User Needs Constructively

Developers should also be responsive to genuine user needs. If you believe all the folklore about the “open source” way, it should have been precisely people’s own genuine needs that persuaded them to initiate their own projects in the first place. It is entirely possible that a project may start with one kind of emphasis and demand one kind of skills only to evolve towards another emphasis or to require other skills. With Python, much of the groundwork was laid in the 1990s, building an interpreter and formulating a capable language. But beyond that initial groundwork, the more pressing challenges lay outside the language design domain and went beyond the implementation of a simple interpreter.

Improved performance and concurrency, both increasingly expected by users, required the application of other skills that might not have been present in the project. And yet, the elaboration of the language continued, with the developers susceptible to persuasion by outsiders engaging in “alpha-dogging” or even insiders with an inferiority complex, being made to feel that the language was not complete or even adequate since it lacked features from the pet languages of those outsiders or of the popular language of the day. Development communities should welcome initiatives to improve their projects in ways that actually benefit the users, and they should resist the urge to muscle in on such initiatives by seeking to demonstrate that they have the necessary solutions when their track record would indicate otherwise. (Or worse still, by reframing user needs in terms of their own narrow agenda as if to say, “Here is what you are really asking for.” Another familiar trait of the “visionary” desktop developer.)

Respect Other Solutions

Developers and commentators more generally should accept and respect the existence of other technologies and solutions. Just because they have their own favourite solution does not de-legitimise something they have just been made aware of. Maybe it is simply not meant for them. After all, not everything that happens in this reality is part of a performance exclusively for any one person’s benefit, despite what some people appear to think. And the existence of other projects doing much the same thing is not necessarily “wasted effort”: another concept introduced from some cult of economics or other.

It is entirely possible to provide similar functionality in different ways, and the underlying implementations may lend those different projects different characteristics – portability, adaptability, and so on – even if the user sees largely the same result on their screen. Maybe we do want to encourage different efforts even for fundamental technologies or infrastructure, not because anyone likes to “waste effort”, but because it gives the systems we build a level of redundancy and resilience. And maybe some people just work better with certain other people. We should let them, as opposed to forcing them to fit in with tiresome, exploitative and time-wasting development cultures, to suffer rudeness and general abuse, simply to go along with an exercise that props up some form of corporate programme of minimal investment in the chosen solution of industry and various pundits.

Develop for the Long Term and for Stability

Developers should make things that are durable so that they may be usable for many years to come. Or they should at least expect that people may want to use them years or even decades from now. Just because something is old does not mean it is bad. Much of what we use today is based on technology that is old, with much of that technology effectively coming of age decades ago. We should be able to enjoy the increased performance of our computers, not have it consumed by inefficient software that drives the hardware and other software into obsolescence. Technological fads come and go (and come back again): people in the 1990s probably thought that virtual reality would be pervasive by now, but experience should permit us to reflect and to recognise that some things were (and maybe always will be) bad ideas and that we shouldn’t throw everything overboard to pander to them, only to regret doing so later.

We live in a world where rapid and uncomfortable change has been normalised, but where consumerism has been promoted as the remedy. Perhaps some old way of doing something mundane doesn’t work any more – buying something, interacting with public agencies, fulfilling obligations, even casting votes in some kinds of elections – perhaps because someone has decided that money can be saved (and, of course, soon wasted elsewhere) if it can be done “digitally” from now on. To keep up, you just need a smartphone, or a newer smartphone, with an “app”, or the new “app”, and a subscription to a service, and another one. And so on. All of that “works” for people as long as they have the necessarily interest, skills, time, and money to spend.

But as the last few years have shown, it doesn’t take much to disrupt these unsatisfactory and fragile arrangements. Nobody advocating fancy “digital” solutions evidently considered that people would not already have everything they need to access their amazing creations. And when, as they say, neither love nor money can get you the gadgets you need, it doesn’t even matter how well-off you are: suddenly you get a downgrade in experience to a level that, as a happy consumer, you probably didn’t even know still existed, even if it is still the reality for whole sections of our societies. We have all seen how narrow the margins are between everything apparently being “just fine” and there being an all-consuming crisis, both on a global level and, for many, on a personal level, too.

Recognise Responsibilities to Others

Change can be a positive thing if it carries everyone along and delivers actual progress. Meanwhile, there are those who embrace disruption as a form of change, claiming it to be a form of progress, too, but that form of change is destructive, harmful and exclusionary. It should not be a surprise that prominent advocates of a certain political movement advocate such disruptive change: for them, it doesn’t matter how many people suffer by the ruinous change they have inflicted on everyone as long as they are the ones to benefit; everyone else can wait fifty years or so to see some kind of consolation for the things taken from them, apparently.

As we deliver technology to others, we should not be the ones deepening any misery already experienced by imposing needless and costly change. We should be letting people catch up with the state of technology and allowing them to be comfortable with it. We should invest in long-term solutions that address people’s needs, and we should refuse to be shamed into playing the games of opportunists and profiteers who ridicule anything old or familiar in favour of what they happen to be promoting today. We should demand that people’s investments in hardware and software be protected, that they are not effectively coerced into constantly buying new things and seeing their their living standards diminished in other ways, with such consumption burdening our planet’s ecosystem and resources.

Just as we all experience that others have power over us, so we might recognise the power we have over other people. And just as we might expect others to consider our interests, so we might consider the interests of those who have to put up with our decisions. Maybe, in the end, all I am doing is asking for people to show some consideration for the experiences of other people, that their lives not be made any harder than they might already be. Is that really too much to ask? Is that so hard to understand?

It was interesting to see an apparently recent article “On the Sustainability of Free Software” published by the FSFE in the context of the Upcycling Android campaign. I have been advocating for sustainable Free Software for some time. When I wasn’t posting articles about my own Python-like language, electronics projects or microkernel-based system development, it seems that I was posting quite a few about sustainable software, hardware and technology like these:

• “On Not Liking Computers” (2016)
• “Sustainable Computing” (2018)
• “An Absence of Strategy?” (2019)

So, I hardly feel it necessary to go back through much of the same material again. Frustratingly, very little has improved over the years, it would seem: some new initiatives emerge, and such things always manage to excite some people, but the same old underlying causes of a general lack of sustainability remain, these including access to affordable, long-lasting and supportable hardware, and the properly funded development of Free Software and the hardware that would run it.

Of course, I wouldn’t even be bothered to write this if I didn’t feel that there might be some positive insights to share, and recent events have prompted me to do so. Hopefully, I can formulate them concisely and constructively in the following paragraphs.

The Open Hardware Crisis

Alright, so that was a provocative heading – hardly positive or constructive – and with so much hardware hacking (of the good kind) going on these days, it might be tempting to ask “what crisis?” Well, evidently, some people think there has been a crisis around the certification of hardware by the Free Software Foundation: that the Respects Your Freedom criteria don’t really help get hardware designed and made that would support (or be supported by) Free Software; that the criteria fail to recognise practical limitations with some elements of hardware, imposing rigid and wasteful measures that fail to enhance the rights of users and that might even impair the longevity and repairability of devices.

A lot of the hardware we rely on nowadays depends on features that cannot easily be supported by Free Software. The system I use has integrated graphics that require proprietary firmware from AMD to work in any half-decent way, as do many processors and interfacing chips, some not even working in any real way at all without it. Although FPGA technology has become more accessible and has invigorated the field of open hardware, there are still considerable challenges around the availability of Free Software toolchains for those kinds of devices. It is also not completely clear how programmable logic devices intersect with the realm of Free Software, either, as far as I can tell. Should people expect the corresponding source code and the means to generate a “bitstream” for the FPGAs in a system? I would think so, given appropriate licensing, but I am not familiar enough with the legal and regulatory constraints to allow me to expect it to be so.

The discussion around this may sound like a storm in a teacup, especially if you do not follow the appropriate organisations, figures, and their mailing lists (and I recommend saving your time and not bothering to, either), but it also sounds rather like tactics have prevailed over strategy. The fact is that without hardware being made to run Free Software, there isn’t really going to be much of a Free Software movement. So, instead of recommending increasingly ancient phones as “ethical gifts” or hoping that the latest crop of “Linux phones” will deliver a package that will not only run Linux but also prove to be usable as a phone, maybe a move away from consumerism is advised. Consumerism, of course, being the tendency to solve every problem by choosing the “best deal” the market happens to be offering today.

What the likes of the FSF need to do is to invest in hardware platforms that are amenable to the deployment of Free Software. This does not necessarily mean totally rejecting hardware if it has unfortunate characteristics such as proprietary firmware, particularly if there is no acceptable alternative, but the initiative has to start somewhere, however imperfect that somewhere might be. Much as we would all like to spend thousands of dollars on hardware that meets some kind of liberty threshold, most of us don’t have that kind of money and would accept some kind of compromise (just as we have to do most of the time, anyway), especially if we felt there was a chance to make up for any deficiencies later on. Trying to start from an impossible position means that there is no “here and now”, never mind “later on”.

Sadly, several attempts at open hardware platforms have struggled and could not be sustained. Some of these were criticised for having some supposed flaw or other that apparently made them unacceptable to the broader Free Software community, and yet they could have led to products that might have remedied such supposed flaws. Meanwhile, consumerist instincts had all the money chasing the latest projects, and yet here we are in 2022, barely any better off than we were in 2012. Had the FSF and company actually supported hardware projects that sought to support their own vision, as opposed to just casually endorsing projects and hoping they came good, we might be in better place by now.

The Ethical Software Crisis

One depressingly recurring theme is the lack of support given to Free Software developers and to Free Software development, even as billion-to-trillion-dollar corporations bank substantial profits on the back of Free Software. As soon as some random developer deletes his JavaScript package from some repository or other, or even switches it out for something that breaks the hyperactive “continuous integration” of hundreds or thousands of projects, everyone laments the fragility of “the system” and embeds that XKCD cartoon with the precarious structure that you’ve all presumably seen. Business-as-usual, however, is soon restored.

Many of the remedies for overworked, underpaid, burned-out developers have the same, familiar consumerist or neoliberal traits. Trait number one is, of course, to let a million projects bloom, carefully selecting the winners and discarding any that fail to keep up with the constant technological churn that also plagues our societies. Beyond that, things like bounties and donations are proposed, and funding platforms helpfully materialise to facilitate the transaction, themselves mostly funded not by bounties and donations (other than the cut of other people’s bounties and donations, of course) but by venture capital money. Because who would actually want to be going from one “gig” to the next when they could actually get a salary?

And it is revealing that organisations engaging in Free Software development tend to have an enthusiasm not for hiring actual developers but for positions like “community manager”, frequently with the responsibility for encouraging contributions from that desirable stream of eager volunteers. Alongside this, funding is sought from a variety of sources, some of whom being public institutions or progressive organisations perhaps sensing a growing crisis and feeling that something should be done. Other sources are perhaps more about doing “philanthropic work” on behalf of wealthy patrons, although I think I would think twice about taking money from people whose wealth has been built on the back of facilitating psychological warfare on entire populations, undermining public health policies and climate change mitigation, enabling inter-ethnic violence and hate generally, and providing a broadcasting platform for extremists. But as they say, beggars can’t be choosers, right?

It may, of course, be argued that big companies are big employers of Free Software developers. Certainly, lots of people seem to work on Free Software projects in companies like, ahem, Blue Hat. And some of that corporate development does deliver usable software, or at least it helps to mitigate the usability issues of the software being produced elsewhere, maybe in another part of the very same corporation. Large, stable organisations may well be the key to providing developers with secure incomes and the space to focus on producing high-quality, well-designed, long-lasting software. Then again, such organisations sometimes exhibit ethical deficiencies in their own collective activities by seeking to aggressively protect revenue streams by limiting interoperability, reduce costs through offshoring, assert patents against others, and impose needless technological change on their customers and the broader market simply to achieve a temporary competitive advantage.

Free Software organisations should be advocating for quality, stable employment for software developers. For too long, Free Software has been perceived as something for nothing where “everybody else” pays, even as organisations and individuals happily pay substantial sums for hardware and for proprietary software. Deferring to “the market” does nobody any good in the end: “the market” will only pay for what it absolutely has to, and businesses doing nicely selling solutions (who might claim that “the market” works for them and should be good enough for everyone) all too frequently rely on practically invisible infrastructure projects that they get for free. It arguably doesn’t matter if it would be public institutions, as opposed to businesses, ending up hiring people as long as they get decent contracts and aren’t at risk of all being laid off because some right-wing government wants to slash taxes for rich people, as tends to happen every few years.

And Free Software organisations should be advocating for ethical software development. Although the public mood in general may lag rather too far behind that of more informed commentary, the awareness many of us have of the substantial ethical concerns around various applications of computing – artificial intelligence, social media/manipulation platforms, surveillance, “cryptocurrencies”, and so on – requires us to uphold our principles, to recognise where our own principles fall short, and to embrace other causes that seek to safeguard the rights of individuals, the health of our societies, and the viability of our planet as our home.

The Accessible Infrastructure Crisis

Some of that ethical software development would also recognise the longevity we hope our societies may ultimately have. And yet we have every reason to worry about our societies becoming less equitable, less inclusive, and less accessible. The unquestioning adoption of technology-driven, consumerist solutions has led to many of the interactions us individuals have with institutions and providers of infrastructure being mediated by random companies who have inserted themselves into every kind of transaction they have perceived as highly profitable. Meanwhile, technologists have often embraced change through newer and newer technology for its own sake, not for the sake of actual progress or for making life easier.

While devices like smartphones have been liberating for many, providing capabilities that one could only have dreamed of only a few decades ago, they also introduce the risk of imposing relationships and restrictions on individuals to the point where those unable to acquire or use technological devices may find themselves excluded from public facilities, commercial transactions, and even voting in elections or other processes of participatory democracy. Such conditions may be the result of political ideology, the outsourcing and offshoring of supposedly non-essential activities, and the trimming back of the public sector, with any consequences, conflicts of interest, and even corrupt dealings being ignored or deliberately overlooked, dismissed as “nothing that would happen here”.

The risk to Free Software and to our societies is that we as individuals no longer collectively control our infrastructure through our representatives, nor do we control the means of interacting with it, the adoption of technology, or the pace such technology is introduced and obsoleted. When the suggestion to problems using supposedly public infrastructure is to “get a new phone” or “upgrade your computer”, we are actually being exploited by corporate interests and their facilitators. Anyone participating in such a cynical deployment of technology must, I suppose, reconcile their sense of a job well done with the sight of their fellow citizens being obstructed, impoverished or even denied their rights.

Although Free Software organisations have tried to popularise unencumbered sources of mobile software and to promote techniques and technologies to lengthen the lifespan of mobile devices, more fundamental measures are required to reverse the harmful course taken by many of our societies. Some of these measures are political or social, and some are technological. All of them are necessary.

We must reject the notion that progress is dependent on technological consumption. While computers and computing devices have managed to keep getting faster, despite warnings that such trends would meet their demise one way or another, improvements in their operational effectiveness in many regards have been limited. We may be able to view higher quality video today than we could ten years ago, and user interfaces may be pushing around many more pixels, but the results of our interactions are not necessarily more substantial. Yet, the ever-increasing demands of things like Web browsers means that systems become obsolete and are replaced with newer, faster systems to do exactly the same things in any qualitative sense. This wastefulness, burdening individuals with needless expenditure and burdening the environment with even more consumption, must stop.

We must demand interoperability and openness with regard to public infrastructure and even commercial platforms. It should be forbidden to insist that specific products be used to interact with public services and amenities or with commercial operators. The definition and adoption of genuinely open standards would be central to any such demands, and we would need to insist that such standards must encompass every aspect of such interactions and activities, without permitting companies to extend them in incompatible, proprietary ways that would deliberately undermine such initiatives.

We must insist that individuals never be under any obligation to commercial interests when interacting with public infrastructure: that their obligations are only to the public bodies concerned. And, similarly, we should insist that when dealing with companies, they may not also require us to enter into ongoing commercial relationships with other companies, purely as a condition of any transaction. It is unacceptable, for example, that individuals require such a relationship with a foreign technology company purely to gain access to essential services or to conduct purchases or similar transactions.

Ideas for Remedies

In conclusion, we need to care about technological freedoms – our choices of hardware and software, things like online privacy, and all that – but we also need to recognise and care about the social, economic and political conditions that threaten such freedoms. We can’t expect to set up a nice Free Software computing system and to use it forever when forces in society compel us to upgrade every few years. Nor can we expect people to make the hardware for such systems, let alone at an affordable price, when technological indulgence drives the sophistication of hardware to levels where investment in open hardware production is prohibitively costly. And we can’t expect to use our Free Software systems if consumerist and/or corrupt choices sacrifice interoperability and pander to entrenched commercial interests.

The vision here, if we can even call it that, is that we might embrace the “essential” nature of our computing needs and thus embrace hardware with adequate levels of sophistication that could, if everyone were honest with themselves, get the job done just fine. Years ago, people used to say how “Linux is great because it works on older systems”, but these days you apparently cannot even install some distributions with less than 1GB of RAM, and Blue Hat is apparently going to put all the bloat of a “modern” Web browser into its installer. And once we have installed our system, do we really need a video playing in the background of a Web page as we navigate a simple list of train times? Do we even need something as sophisticated as a Web browser for that at all?

Embracing mature, proven, reliable, well-understood hardware would help hardware designers to get their efforts right, and if hardware standards and modularity were adopted, there would still be the chance to introduce improvements and enhancements. Such hardware characteristics would also help with the software support: instead of rushing the long, difficult journey of introducing support for poorly documented components from unhelpful manufacturers eager to retire those components and to start making future products, the aim would be to support components with long commercial lifespans whose software support is well established and hopefully facilitated by the manufacturer. And with suitably standardised or modular hardware, creativity and refinement could be directed towards other aspects of the hardware which are often neglected or underestimated such as ergonomics and the other aspects of traditional product design.

With stable hardware, there might be more software options, too. Although many would propose “just putting Linux on it” for any given device, one need only consider the realm of smartphones to realise that such convenient answers are not necessarily the most obviously correct ones, particularly for certain definitions of “Linux”. Instead of choosing Linux because it probably supports the hardware, only to find that as much time is spent fixing that support and swimming against the currents of upstream development as would have been spent implementing that support elsewhere, other systems with more desirable properties could be considered and deployed. We might even encourage different systems to share functionality, instead of wrapping it up in a specific framework that resists portability. Such systems would also aspire to avoid the churn throughout the GNU-plus-Linux-plus-graphical-stack-of-the-day familiar to many of us, potentially allowing us to use familiar software over much longer periods than we have generally been allowed to before, retrocomputing platforms aside.

But to let all of this happen and to offer a viable foundation, we must also ensure that such systems can be used in the wider world. Otherwise, this would merely be an exercise in retrocomputing. Now, there is an argument that there are plenty of existing standards that might facilitate this vision, and perhaps going along with the famous saying about standards (the good thing being that there are so many to choose from), we might wish to avoid the topic of yet another widely-referenced XKCD cartoon by actually adopting some of them instead of creating more of them. That is not to say that we would necessarily want to go along with the full breadth of some standards, however. XML deliberately narrowed down SGML to be a more usable technology, despite its own reputation for complexity. Since some standards were probably “front-run” by companies wishing to elevate their own products, within which various proposed features were already implemented, thus forcing their competitors to play catch up, it is entirely possible that various features are superfluous or frivolous.

There have already been attempts to simplify the Web or to make a simpler Web-like platform, Gemini being one of them, and there are persuasive arguments that such technologies should be considered as separate from the traditional Web. After all, the best of intentions in delivering a simple, respectful experience can easily be undermined by enthusiasm for the latest frameworks and fashions, or by the insistence that less than respectful techniques and technologies – user surveillance, to take one example – be introduced to “help understand” or “better serve” users. A distinct technology might offer easy ways of resisting such temptations by simply failing to support them conveniently, but the greater risk is that it might not even get adopted significantly at all.

New standards might well be necessary, but revising and reforming existing ones might well be more productive, and there is merit in focusing standards on the essentials. After all, people used the Web for real work twenty years ago, too. And some would argue that today’s Web is just reimplementing the client-server paradigm but with JavaScript on the front end, grinding your CPU, with application-specific communications conducted between the browser and the server. Such communications will, for the most part, not be specified and be prone to changing and breaking, interoperability being the last thing on everybody’s mind. Formalising such communications, and adopting technologies more appropriate to each device and to each user, might actually be beneficial: instead of megabytes of JavaScript passing across the network and through the browser, the user would get to choose how they access such services, which programs they might use, rather than having “an experience” foisted upon them.

Such an approach would actually return us to something close to the original vision of the Web. But standards surely have to be seen as the basis of the Free Software we might hope to use, and as the primary vehicle for the persuasion of others. Public institutions and businesses care about reaching the biggest possible audience, and this has brought us to a rather familiar sight: the anointment of two viable players in a particular market and no others. Back in the 1990s, the two chosen ones in desktop computing were Microsoft and Apple, the latter kept afloat by the former so as to avoid being perceived as a de-facto monopoly and thereby avoiding being subject to proper regulation. Today, Apple and Google are the gatekeepers in mobile computing, with even Microsoft being an unwelcome complication.

Such organisations want to offer solutions that supposedly reach “the most users”, will happily commission “apps” for the big two players (and Microsoft, sometimes, because habits and favouritism die hard), and will probably shy away from suggesting other solutions, labelling them as confusing or unreliable, mostly because they just don’t want to care: their job is done, the boxes ticked, more effort gives no more reward. But standards offer the possibility of reaching every user, of meeting legal accessibility requirements, and potentially allowing such organisations to delegate the provision of solutions to their favourite entity: “the market”. Naturally, some kind of validation of standards compliance would probably be required, but this need not be overly restrictive nor the business of every last government department or company.

So, I suppose a combination of genuinely open standards facilitating Free Software and accessible public and private services, with users able to adopt and retain open and long-lasting hardware, might be a glimpse of some kind of vision. How people might make good enough money to be able to live decently is another question entirely, but then again, perhaps cultivating simpler, durable, sustainable infrastructure might create opportunities in the development of products that use it, allowing people to focus on improving those products, that infrastructure and the services they collectively deliver as opposed to chasing every last fad and fashion, running faster and faster and yet having the constant feeling of falling behind. As many people seem to experience in many other aspects of their lives.

Well, I hope the positivity was in there somewhere!