Tuesday, October 21, 2014

Cloud systems are the new mainframe

The history of computers can be divided (somewhat arbitrarily) into six periods. These are:

Timeshare (on mainframes)
Desktop computers (includes pre-PC microcomputers, workstations, and laptops)
Servers and networked desktops
Mobile devices (phones and tablets)

I was going to add 'cloud systems' to the list as a seventh period, but I got to thinking.

My six arbitrary periods of computing show definite trends. The first trend is size: computers became physically smaller in each successive period. Mainframe computers were (and are) large systems that occupy rooms. Minicomputers were the sizes of refrigerators. Desktop computers fit on (or under) a desk. Mobile devices are small enough to carry in a shirt pocket.

The next trend is cost. Each successive period has a lower cost than the previous one. Mainframes cost in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. Minicomputers in the tens of thousands. Desktop computers were typically under $3000 (although some did edge up near $10,000) and today are usually under $1000. Mobile device costs range from $50 to $500.

The third trend is administrative effort or "load". Mainframes needed a team of well-trained attendants. Minicomputers needed one knowledgeable person to act as "system operator" or "sysop". Desktop computers could be administered by a geeky person in the home, or for large offices a team of support persons (but less than one support person per PC). Mobile devices need... no one. (Well, technically they are administered by the tribal chieftains: Apple, Google, or Microsoft.)

Cloud systems defy these trends.

By "cloud systems", I mean the cloud services that are offered by Amazon.com, Microsoft, Google, and others. I am including all of the services: infrastructure as a service, platform as a service, software as a service, machine images, queue systems, compute engines, storage engines, web servers... the whole kaboodle.

Cloud systems are large and expensive. They also tend to be limited in number, perhaps because they are large and expensive. They also have a sizable team of attendants. Cloud systems are complex and a large team is needed to keep everything running.

Cloud systems are much like mainframe computers.

The cloud services that are offered by vendors are much like the timesharing services offered by mainframe owners. With timesharing, customers could buy just as much computing time as they needed. Sound familiar? It's the model used by cloud computing.

We have, with cloud computing, returned to the mainframe era. This period has many similarities with the mainframe period. Mainframes were large, expensive to own, complex, and expensive to operate. Cloud systems are the same. The early mainframe period saw a number of competitors: IBM, NCR, CDC, Burroughs, Honeywell, and Univac, to name a few. Today we see competition between Amazon.com, Microsoft, Google, and others (including IBM).

Perhaps my "periods of computing history" is not so much a linear list as a cycle. Perhaps we are about to go "around" again, starting with the mainframe (or cloud) stage of expensive systems and evolve forward. What can we expect?

The mainframe period can be divided into two subperiods: before the System/360 and after. Before the IBM System/360, there was competition between companies and different designs. After the IBM System/360, companies standardized on that architecture. The System/360 design is still visible in mainframes of today.

An equivalent action in cloud systems would be the standardization of a cloud architecture. Perhaps the Open Stack software, perhaps Microsoft's Azure. I do not know which it will be. The key is for companies to standardize on one architecture. If it is a proprietary architecture, then that architecture's vendor is elevated to the role of industry leader, as IBM was with the System/360 (and later System/370) mainframes.

While companies are busy modifying their systems to conform to the industry standard platform, innovators develop technologies that allow for smaller versions. In the 1960s and 1970s, vendors introduced minicomputers. These were smaller than mainframes, less expensive, and easier to operate. For cloud systems, the equivalent would be... smaller than mainframe clouds, less expensive, and easier to operate. They would be less sophisticated than mainframe clouds, but "mini clouds" would still be useful.

In the late 1970s, technology advances lead to the microcomputer which could be purchased and used by a single person. As with mainframe computers, there were a variety of competing standards. After IBM introduced the Personal Computer, businesses (and individuals) elevated it to industry standard. Equivalent events in cloud would mean the development of individual-sized cloud systems, small enough to be purchased by a single person.

The 1980s saw the rise of desktop computers. The 1990s saw the rise of networked computers, desktop and server. An equivalent for cloud would be connecting cloud systems to one another. Somehow I think this "inter-cloud connection" will occur earlier, perhaps in the "mini cloud" period. We already have the network hardware and protocols in place. Connecting cloud systems will probably require some high-level protocols, and maybe faster connections, but the work should be minimal.

I'm still thinking of adding "cloud systems" to my list of computing periods. But I'm pretty sure that it won't be the last entry.

Monday, October 6, 2014

Innovation in mobile and cloud; not in PCs

The history of IT is the history of innovation. But innovation is not evenly distributed, and it does not stay with one technology.

For a long time, innovation focussed on the PC. The "center of gravity" for innovation was, for a long time, the IBM PC and PC-DOS. Later it became the PC (not necessarily from IBM) and Windows. Windows NT, Windows 2000, and Windows XP all saw significant expansions of features.

With the rise of the Web, the center of gravity shifted to web servers and web browsers. I think that it is no coincidence that Microsoft offered Windows XP with no significant changes. People accepted Windows XP as "good enough" and looked for innovation in other areas -- web browsers, web servers, and databases.

This change broke Microsoft's business model. That business model (selling new versions of Windows and Office to individuals and corporations every so often) was broken when users decided that Windows XP was good enough, that Microsoft Office was good enough. They moved to newer versions reluctantly, not expectantly.

Microsoft is changing its business model. It is shifting to a subscription model for Windows and Office. It has Azure for cloud services. It developed the Surface tablet for mobile computing. Microsoft's Windows RT was an attempt at an operating system for mobile devices, an operating system that had reduced administrative tasks for the user. These are the areas of innovation.

We have stopped wanting new desktop software. I know of no new projects that target the desktop. I know of no new projects that are "Windows only" or "PC only". New projects are designed for mobile/cloud, or possibly web browsers and servers. With no demand for new applications on the desktop, there is no pressure to improve the desktop PC - or its operating system.

With no pressure to improve the desktop, there is no need to change the hardware or operating system. We see changes in three areas: larger memory and disks (mostly from inertia), smaller form factors, and prettier user interfaces (Windows Vista and Windows 8 "Metro"). With each of these changes, users can (rightfully) ask: what is the benefit to me?

It is a question that newer PCs and operating systems have not answered. But tablets and smartphones answer it quite well.

I think that Windows 10 is the "last hurrah" for Windows -- at least the desktop version. Innovations to Windows will be modifications for mobile/cloud technologies: better interactions with virtualization hypervisors and container managers. Aside from those, look for little changes in desktop operating systems.

Thursday, September 25, 2014

Tablets are controlled by corporations

I admit I was wrong. In my previous post, I claimed that mobile devices would be free of corporate bureaucracy (and control). That's not true.

It's true in the sense that when the Acme corporation buys PCs it can control them with ActiveDirectory and group policies, and that similar infrastructure is not in place for tablets and smartphones. (I'm ignoring the third-party Mobile Device Management software.)

But it's false in the sense that corporations do control the mobile devices. The corporations are not Acme or whoever buys the devices. The controlling corporations are the owners of the walled gardens: Apple, Google, Amazon.com, and Microsoft. These corporations control the software available and the updates that occur automatically. (Yes, you can turn some updates off, but only while those corporations let you.)

The control that these companies exert is indisputable. Apple just recently placed a copy of a U2 album on every iPod and iPhone. Some time ago, Amazon.com deleted books from various Kindle e-readers. These companies are the "tribal chieftains", with immense power over the devices.

Android and iOS are popular in part because they are easy to use. That ease of use comes from the absence of administration tasks. The administration has not disappeared, it has moved from the "owner" of the device to the controlling company. Apple builds the updates for iOS and distributes those updates (along with updates to apps) to iPhones and iPads. Google does the same for Android devices. Microsoft does the same for "Metro" apps.

It may be this control that makes corporations reluctant to use tablets. They may know, deep down, that they are not in control of the devices. They may realize that at any moment the tribal chieftains may change the software, or worse, read or modify (or possibly delete) data on the devices. They may grant other individuals access to mobile devices.

All of this does not mean that corporations (the Acme variety, who are using the devices) should avoid mobile devices. It *does* mean that corporations should use them intelligently. They should not manage tablets and smartphones in the same way that they manage PCs, and they should not use tablets and smartphones in the same way as they use PCs. The model for mobile devices is very different from PCs.

Business can use tablets and smartphones, but differently than PCs. Data should be handled by specific apps, not generic applications like Microsoft Word and Excel. Mobile apps should authenticate users, retrieve a limited set of data from servers, present that data, manipulate that data, and then store the data on the server. Apps should not store data on the local device. (This is also good for the scenario of a lost device -- if it has no data, there can be no data "leakage" to unauthorized parties.)

Mobile devices are controlled by the tribal chieftains. Yet they can still be used by corporations -- and individuals.

Wednesday, September 24, 2014

Mobile devices may always be independent from corporate bureaucracy

The mobile revolution is different from the PC revolution.

The PC revolution saw the IBM PC adopted as the standard for personal computing. It was adopted by businesses and consumers, but most spending was from businesses.

The mobile revolution, in contrast, is driven by consumers. Individuals are buying smart phones and tablets. Businesses may be purchasing some mobile devices, but the bulk of the spending is on the consumer side.

Why is this distinction important?

To answer that, let's look at PCs and their history. Personal computers in corporations are anything but personal. They are purchased by the corporation and controlled by the corporation. The people using PCs rarely have administrator privileges for those PCs. Instead, the ability to install software and make significant changes is governed by the local copy of Windows and configurations in a central ActiveDirectory server.

The infrastructure of ActiveDirectory and Windows group policies was not built overnight, and was not part of the original PC. The first PCs ran PC-DOS and had no administrative controls at all -- any user could do anything, see anything, and change anything. Microsoft worked on PC-DOS for IBM, then MS-DOS for non-IBM computers, then Windows, and finally server software and ActiveDirectory. It took about twenty years to create, from the introduction of the IBM PC in 1981 to the introduction of ActiveDirectory in 1999.

That work was done by Microsoft because corporations wanted it. They wanted mechanisms to control the PCs and the access to data on PCs and servers. (And even with all of that interest, it took two decades to "enterprise-ify" PCs and make them part of the bureaucracy.)

Corporations were interested in PCs from the introduction of the IBM PC. (Some corporations were interested in earlier microcomputers, but they were a minority.) Corporations were interested in PCs because PCs ran Lotus 1-2-3, the popular spreadsheet at the time.

Now let's look at mobile devices. Corporations have a mild interest in mobile devices. It is only a fraction of the interest in PCs. There is no killer app for tablets, no must-have app for smart phones. (At least, not for corporations.) It is quite possible that phones and tablets are too personal for corporations.

It is telling that the Microsoft Surface tablet, with its ready-to-use connections to ActiveDirectory, has seen little interest. For consumers, the Surface (and other Windows tablets) are more expensive and not as useful as the iPad and Android tablets. But even corporations have little interest in the Microsoft offerings.

Without corporate interest (and corporate spending), neither Apple nor Google have incentive to make their tablets "safe for the enterprise" -- that is, controlled through a central administration point. (Yes, there are "mobile device management" packages, but they have little interest.)

Apple and Google will invest their efforts in other areas, such as better hardware and improved reliability of apps in their stores (and maybe higher profits).

Corporations will use tablets for small, isolated projects, if at all. I suspect most corporations view their proven and familiar desktops and laptops as sufficient, with little benefit from tablets.

But all is not lost for tablets and smart phones. Some folks will use them for critical business purposes. These folks will not be the large corporations with established IT infrastructure. They will be the start-ups, the small companies who will build completely new apps to solve completely new business problems.

Sunday, September 21, 2014

Keeping our keyboards

Tablets are quite different from desktop PCs and laptop PCs. (Obviously.)

PCs have large displays, keyboards, mice, and wired network connections. They often have CD or DVD drives. Tablets, in contrast, have small displays, virtual keyboards, a touch screen (so no mice), no wired network connection, and media storage (if any) is limited to memory cards.

So we can view the transition from PC to tablet as a shift in peripherals. The "old school" PC used physical keyboards, mice, and disks; the "new school" tablets use touch screens, virtual keyboards, and no mice tor disks.

Except for one small detail.

Tablet users are using keyboards.

Not mice.

Not printers.


I do understand that some people are using tablets with mice and printers. A small minority of people, but nowhere near the sizable number of people are using physical keyboards.

The appeal of keyboards is such that people continue to use them as an input device. They carry a keyboard with their tablet. They buy tablet covers that have built-in keyboards.

I think this tells us something about keyboards.

Wednesday, September 10, 2014

The Apple Watch

Lots of folks have commented on the newly-announced Apple Watch. Many have praised the features. Some have criticized the design. Others have questioned the battery life.

Here's my take: the Apple Watch is not a watch. Yes, it will tell you the time, but it is more than that. The Apple Watch is it a "smartwatch". Yes it can present the time in lots of nifty formats (digital, retro analog, black-and-white, color) and it connects with Siri.

The Apple Watch is single product in a line of products that are designed to make things easy for people. Let's look at previous Apple products:

The iPod was more than a simple MP3 player. It was a system that made it easy to purchase and play music. There were plenty of MP3 players that only played music and left the acquisition of music to the user. The combination of iPod and iTunes (and the impressive collection available on iTunes) was the genius of the iPod.

The iPhone was more than a smart cell phone. It expanded iTunes to allow for the easy purchase and installation of apps. The ease of installation is often overlooked when it comes to the features of the iPhone. Remember, prior to the iPhone the standard model for installing applications was Microsoft's "Setup" or "MSI" packages, which often required special privileges and technical knowledge.

The iPad expanded the possibilities for apps. Apps for the iPhone were designed for the small screen. One could play music on an iPhone, but reading a book is much better on an iPad. One can use Twitter and Facebook on an iPhone, but documents and spreadsheets are much better on an iPad.

The trend has been for larger devices. The Apple Watch moves in the opposite direction, providing a smaller screen. The obvious conclusion is that one will not be using the Apple Watch for spreadsheets and documents. (Twitter may be okay, but I suspect that Facebook is not useful on the Apple Watch.) The less obvious conclusion is that the Apple Watch will be used for something else.

The question is: what will the Apple Watch make simpler for us, in such a way that Apple can profit from it?

A watch is more personal than a phone, more intimate, as it is physical contact with us. Sensors in the watch could be used for biometric information and possibly health information.

Apple has already announced plans for payment systems. We tend to keep the smaller devices with us more, carrying phones more frequently than tablets, so we will probably carry a watch with us more than a phone. Matching payments to a watch is good sense.

Initial enthusiasm for the Apple Watch may see a lot of people porting their apps to the phone. Some of that enthusiasm will be misplaced; the Watch will be good for some things but not everything from the iPhone -- and especially not everything from the iPad. There may be some new apps that are suitable to the Watch and not the phone or tablet -- probably games.

I think the Apple Watch has potential. I also think that it will be its own thing, not merely a small iPhone.

Friday, August 29, 2014

Virtual PCs are different from real PCs

Virtual PCs started as an elaborate game of "let's pretend", in which we simulated a real PC (that is, a physical-hardware PC) in software. A virtual PC doesn't exist -- at least not in any tangible form. It has a processor and memory and disk drives and all the things we normally associate with a PC, but they are all constructed in software. The processor is emulated in software. The memory is emulated in software. The disk drive... you get the idea.

Virtualization offers several advantages. We can create new virtual PCs by simply running another copy of the virtualization software. We can move virtual PCs from one host PC to another host PC. We can make back-up images of virtual PCs by simply copying the files that define the virtual PC. We can take snapshots of the virtual PC at a moment in time, and restore those snapshots at our convenience, which lets us run risky experiments that would "brick" a real PC.

We like to think that virtual PCs are the same as physical PCs, only implemented purely in software. But that is not the case. Virtual PCs are a different breed. I can see three areas that virtual PCs will vary from real PCs.

The first is storage (disk drives) and the file system. Disk drives hold our data; file systems organize that data and let us access it. In real PCs, a disk drive is a fixed size. This makes sense, because a physical disk drive *is* a fixed size. In the virtual world, a disk drive can grow or shrink as needed. I expect that virtual PCs will soon have these flexible disk drives. File systems will have to change; they are built with the assumption of a fixed-size disk. (A reasonable assumption, given that they have been dealing with physical, fixed-size disks.) Linux will probably get a file system called "flexvfs" or something.

The second area that virtual PCs vary from real PCs is virtual memory. The concept of virtual memory is older than virtual PCs or even virtual machines in general (virtual machines date back to the mainframe era). Virtual memory allows a PC to use more memory than it really has, by swapping portions of memory to disk. Virtual PCs currently implement virtual memory because they are faithfully duplicating the behavior of real PCs, but they don't have to. A virtual PC can assume that it has all memory addressable by the processor and let the hypervisor handle the virtualization of memory. Delegating the virtualization of memory to the hypervisor lets the "guest" operating system become simpler, as it does not have to worry about virtual memory.

A final difference between virtual PCs and real PCs is the processor. In a physical PC, the processor is rarely upgraded. An upgrade is an expensive proposition: one must buy a compatible processor, shut down the PC, open the case, remove the old processor, carefully install the new processor, close the case, and start the PC. In a virtual PC, the processor is emulated in software, so an upgrade is nothing more that a new set of definition files. It may be possible to upgrade a processor "on the fly" as the virtual PC is running.

These three differences (flexible file systems, lack of virtual memory, and updateable processors) show that virtual PCs are not the same as the "real" physical-hardware PCs. I expect that the two will diverge over time, and that operating systems for the two will also diverge.