The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
In fact there's a fair amount of research in Comp Sci (sic). There are even alternative OS models that are more interesting than anything that's been commercialised.
Problem is, it's not interesting to corporates and it would take too much time/money to make it economic.
What will probably happen instead is a new wave of stuff that's computing++ - a completely different hardware/software/philosophical model, completely new applications, and none of the baggage we have now.
Getting to there from here would be more interesting than trying to reinvent what's around today and make it the-same-but-better.
1 - Establish a government body, and hire people to write good OS (for whatever device categories that need it - including buy not limited to home PC, network servers, database hubs, and the computer-bits that run industry and infrastructure hardware) and basic applications software, with the eye on the medium to long term, and with things like security and reliability built in from the beginning.
2 - As a side project, do basic research into things like software verification and whatever other basic things that we don't understand all that well, but which might be useful for the staff working on 1.
3 - When a bunch of the stuff starts to coalesce, think about standards based on the new stuff, and how to use them to bring everybody else up to par over time.
What I'd really meant by standards, at least when I was writing it, would be something less like ASCII and more like an objective way of measuring how secure a piece of software is. I don't think there's really any way right now to formally state or measure something like that, and this seems like a problem. Maybe it's utterly impossible, but it seems like it would be useful to have a proper security rating, that is properly testable, and legal restrictions based along it. For example, anything that accesses the internet must get an 8/10 on the formal security scale, or something.
Even if you devised a perfectly secure system - using quantum signalling, or something - there's still a key on file somewhere, or stuck on a postit note next to someone's desk. Etc.
Even if not, security services will demand a back door, which can be exploited.
Security is relative. Most security is non-existent. A few applications pretend to offer 'almost good enough', with hope rather than certainty.
All information has a market value, and if the cost of breaking security is higher than the value, you're safe, up to a point.
But some hackers like breaking into things just because they can. So 'secure' is pretty much meaningless in absolute terms, and certainly not something you can rely on with any confidence.
And even if the project fails in terms of its main goal, its possible that something good may well come of it. It's a heck of a lot more likely than putting people to work on weapons tech, where success is its own form of failure.
by gmoke - Jul 4
by Oui - Jul 3 1 comment
by Oui - Jun 30 25 comments
by IdiotSavant - Jun 24 16 comments
by Oui - Jun 25 50 comments
by IdiotSavant - Jun 16 16 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jun 15 14 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jun 10 15 comments
by Oui - Jul 4
by Oui - Jul 3
by Oui - Jul 31 comment
by gmoke - Jul 2
by Oui - Jun 3025 comments
by Oui - Jun 301 comment
by Oui - Jun 296 comments
by Oui - Jun 2735 comments
by Oui - Jun 2550 comments
by IdiotSavant - Jun 2416 comments
by Oui - Jun 2310 comments
by Oui - Jun 2313 comments
by gmoke - Jun 22
by Oui - Jun 20
by Oui - Jun 1916 comments
by asdf - Jun 184 comments
by Oui - Jun 184 comments
by IdiotSavant - Jun 1616 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jun 1514 comments