SolidOS Team Meeting

# SolidOS Team Meeting * Date: 26.10.2022 18:00 (UTC+1) * Call: [https://meet.jit.si/solid-operating-system](https://meet.jit.si/solid-operating-system) * [Previous meeting link]() * [Next meeting link]() * Chat: [https://gitter.im/solidos/solidos](https://gitter.im/solidos/solidos) * Repository: [https://github.com/solidos/solidos](https://github.com/solidos/solidos) * Meetings home: [https://solidos.solidcommunity.net/public/SolidOS%20team%20meetings/](https://solidos.solidcommunity.net/public/SolidOS%20team%20meetings/) ---- ## Present attendees * Rahul, Angelo, Noel, Matthias ### Scribes * Matthias and Rahul --- ## Topics ### Round Table #### Matthias - nothing to share #### Noel - Recipes manager adapted to work with `http://schema.org` and `https://schema.org` (but not both at once). - It can also detect changes done by other apps. #### Rahul - directed from the Notification panel to here. - Hi there, I am Rahul and I have been working on [Syntropize](https://syntropize.com), a proposal for a new kind of Operating Environment, which endeavours to reclaim the original vision of the personal computer as the means to augment our intellect. You can learn more about me and my rather broad research interests by visiting my [webpage](https://cxres.pages.dev) which is linked in the minutes. Also, a couple of acknowledgements are in order: I would like to thank Sarven for inviting me here and for his patience with my ideas back over at the notification-panel working group. I also want to thank Jeff for what have been quite extensive discussions. I think I am speaking for him as well, in that we share similar ideas on how computers can be leveraged for a greater good. #### Angelo - PodOS - Had some problems with `Buffer` API in Node 18 (which is now LTS). ### Technical topics #### http/https schema.org - discussion / screenshare - the canonical URL in the UI visiting a term in the browser says it's `https://` - This FAQ is also confusing: https://schema.org/docs/faq.html#19 - See discussion related to changing the context: https://github.com/schemaorg/schemaorg/issues/2853 #### Syntropize Before I start, I am aware I tend to be incoherent at times, so if you are in doubt please feel free to stop me by raising the virtual hand. I will be available afterwards as well for discussion or if you have any questions. My intention today is to make a general case for why we need a new type of operating system than to discuss the specifics of Syntropize. There is no grand or original idea here, but a number small ideas, most of which have been shown to effective in isolation, that reinforce each other and can have emergent properties. It goes to Anderson's theme of "More is Different". My one line explanation is creating value through complexity. (Also, forgive me if these ideas are already familiar to you) Let me first clarify what I mean by operating environment: I mean that part of the operating system that faces the user. One can think of operating system as two things: 1. It makes that hardware functional 2. It creates a uniform computer (a program for any Windows or Mac or Linux Distro will, given sufficient hardware resources will run on all computers with that operating system) In making a computer uniform, modern OS present users with an environment where they can do things. These environments traditionally (and in many ways implementationally) not necessarily a part of the OS but could run on top of it. For those who are old enough Windows until v3.1/3.11 used to ship as an Operating Environment for DOS (and OS/2) bringing GUI capabilities to command line OS. With Syntropize we have a similar idea. I claim that computers (at least the way they are introduced to us at school) are misunderstood. And as consequence we do not do a good job of designing them. I have feeling that this group is likely to be receptive to these ideas. Also, none of these claims (and other I shall make) are new, these ideas can be found in literature. If we had the time, I would have ideally liked to have a Socratic discussion on what computers are. But I shall cheat and give you my answer: I view computers as semiotic media - thats a fancy way of saying a media that allows us convert between arbitrary sets of symbols. In that computers are calculators is because the act of calculation requires us to convert between symbols according to strict rules. I say media and not just machine, because computers allow us to read and act on with something in the world - real or virtual. And it follows from Turing's definition that computer are not just media but metamedia - that we can convert between any given set of symbols to another set. Which means computers can simulate any other medium. Alan Kay discusses the metamedia idea in some detail. However, the way we design software (actually the same is true about hardware but that is a whole other can of worms) that tend to lock us in one type of media at a time: A sheet of paper, a ticket booking interface, and social media site etc. etc. Larry Tesler calls these "modes" and "modes" are bad. They lock us into environment where we can access limited functionality and not others. We book a concert ticket and we want to co-ordinate with friends but we (or developers of those apps) have to manually move, ie duplicate data. Media lock-in is bad also because you can't switch apps sometimes having identical functionality (Or we end up with the gazillion dollar standardization efforts, like Office Open XML). What we call, Personal Computers today were conceived to augment our intellect. Even before the formalization of Intelligence Augmentation by Doug Engelbart, even before the proposal of Memex by Vanevaar Bush, it was understood that machines can be extension/amplifier of self. Charles Pierce talks of how his ink-stand being as essential to his thought as a part of his brain. Ashby talks of a steam engine amplifying a stoker's labour 10x-100x. By virtue of its ability to automatically and near instantaneously manipulate symbols, Engelbart asserted that computers can provide us the information we need and in the form that we can do most with it, in a time that we are not distracted away, allowing us to think faster. But even as computing technology has grown leaps and bounds, some how this vision has been left behind. In many case computers are an encumbrance. Ted Nelson rants with considerable anger about doing things the "computer way" as a euphemism for not caring for the users' needs. The desktop environment has remained unchanged since the Alto and its assumptions have rarely been questioned. And I claim it is high time that we do so. I know that this group is acutely aware of these issues. Which why you are not just concerned with Solid as linked data infrastructure but are thinking of an Operating System to make it simple to use that infrastructure. But I sincerely believe we have a larger opportunity here, to rethink how build and use computers. Today hardware technology is no longer an encumbrance, giving us the chance to revisit all the ideas that were left behind because of technical or commercial reasons. And I also think we have a larger responsibility, because if we get this wrong we are looking at consequences that, at best, last many generations. We are unfortunately seeing some consequences already, but I am hopeful these will blips in the adoption of a seminal technology. It is with this background that I present Syntropize. In some ways my work is similar and in other ways orthogonal. I provide quite extensive documentation on my website. I know all of you lead extremely busy lives but it would mean the world to me if you can read or at least browse through it. The documentation is a work in progress. I explain things I am doing with Syntropize already and things I want to implement in proper Operating Environment. Some of the background information through still needs to be added. I look forward to hearing your thoughts and explore avenues of collaboration. You know where to find me! Thanks and questions? RG: [3-layered architecture](https://syntropize.com/docs/#/Architecture/) NDM: https://forum.solidproject.org/t/should-we-look-for-the-killer-app-for-solid/4212 AV: Apps are looked into to work together, instead of a killer app we could have hundreds of decent apps working together. #### ---- This template is based on the [W3C meeting template](https://github.com/solid/specification/blob/main/meetings/template.md) [Code of conduct](https://github.com/solid/process/blob/main/code-of-conduct.md)