Category Archives: Ideas

Ego-less Genius

A few years ago, I participated in a seminar about creativity.  Since then there have been several email updates about creativity in the business world.  From the latest email, there was a link to a speech from Elizabeth Gilbert.  You never know exactly what you are going to get with these kind of emails but this one turned out to be quite interesting.  Elizabeth is a writer and has just recently had a major success with her book “Eat, Pray, Love”.  She has struggled with the creative process much like any other artist.

If you are still interested, please watch the Elizabeth’s TED talk before continuing reading this post.  She explains it much better than I could.

In her career, she has noticed that writing has always been full of turmoil.  So many successful writers have met their doom even at their own hands.  Elizabeth questioned why it is this way.  Research led to an answer that was unexpected.  In ancient times creativity was seen as something that lived outside humanity.  It was seen as more like a spirit that influenced artists that were willing to listen.  Roman and Greek civilizations were heavily influenced by the view that creativity was at the mercy of the gods.

Modern times starting with the Renaissance shifted the creative process solely to the artist.  This shift seems innocent based on our focus on science and technology.  Unfortunately it puts too much pressure on the creative people.  If they consider themselves to be the sole source of original thought, they are also more likely to form regret and blame themselves when things go wrong.  Elizabeth points out that it is far healthier to keep the credit and blame outside the person.  She talks of how genius used to have a different definition.  It used to refer to the outside influence trying to reach the people creating.  Now it is seen as a statement of the ego.

For a number of reasons, her approach is refreshing.  Creative thinking no longer is limited to the framework of how we currently think.  The most imaginative influences often come from the most unlikely sources.  It makes sense that being this creative is not something than can be performed in the model of an island.  Acceptance of new outside ideas creates a mixed pot of blended concepts.  From this brew come really new ideas.

Regardless, it is very cool to see this kind of insight available on the Internet.  With views like this, we are well on our way to a much more interesting future.

Distant Bonds

There is a trend emerging from people using communications technology.  No longer are things limited to the realm of small areas, it is now possible to broadcast information to the world quickly.  The web has the ability for other people to tell us what is going on as well as share our information with them.

One thing I have noticed is how much people use mobile phones.  This has been most obvious when there is a need to wait for some event to happen.  For example, it is common for people to communicate to friends and family while waiting to board a plane.  This is not really odd given the nature of being potentially lonely or bored.  However, it does seem that people treat the mobile phones as a link to someone just to make the time pass faster.  All it takes is the realization that there is quiet time to potentially bring the need to call someone.

Mentally, the person forming this link is no longer fully focused on wherever they are.  They are distracted by the conversation and can find it annoying to be interrupted by events happening locally.  The observation is that people that do this have stopped any potential interaction with the things around them.

It is like they have created their own personal cocoon  and only bring in people they trust into their world.  Perhaps this is not much different from before.  Perhaps it is just more likely to be able to see this private life in public.

Where could this go?  Where does this lead?

It seems it will always be true that we want certain people to be with us.  Even if those people cannot physically be there, we will always find comfort in being with those we can be ourselves with.  This kind personal contact without the physical presence will always be something we, as humans, want.  Mobile phones seem to be the direct proof of that.

Ideally, we want a link to be active whenever it is desired and we also want it to be as realistic in nature as possible.  The technology simply is not there yet.

Imagining what could be possible leads to the idea of segmented worlds.  In other words, the mind could be fooled to perceive senses that are actually not in the real world.  Researchers are working hard to discover technologies that will lead to this kind of reality modification.  Recently there were investigations into using ultrasound to trigger changes in the mind.  Current research is focused on helping to cure diseases and conditions but ultimately will lead to new branches of brain research.

Given that the mind will be better understood in the future and that technology will be advanced as well, it would be possible to create a device that could be worn (maybe glasses) that would end up being effectively a mind interface.  Once there, it would be possible to link directly to other mind interfaces of friends and family.  Of course the interface would be protected and would mostly focus on the senses.  The idea is to create the link such that the mind interface will supplement the senses and make it seem that the other person is actually there.  This could also imply that the local reality could be largely removed by overlaying images from afar.  Or, even more interesting, the two environments could be cleverly merged.

Just then I was imaging being at the airport.  If my family was around me, it could seem that they are actually there with the local furniture.   Perhaps the key is to choose which setting to share.   And, of course there would be some complications.  Maybe more realistically things would happen just in the mind with no outside actions.  This would be more like a dream.  So, in the easiest model, you share a dream with others.  There would be no need to worry about moving around.

This is sounding more and more like the idea from the “Matrix”.

What are the social implications?  How plausible is it that we prefer to dream than live in reality?

Well, most likely we would not want to do full “dreaming” in public.  It is hard to believe that we would leave ourselves vulnerable in places like an airport.  Tension usually comes from being alert.  Being unaware means being relaxed but also potentially unable to respond to any changes.  It would seem that there would be degrees of intensity of the link.  Like a sliding scale, our sense of being somewhere else would differ based on our need of being locally aware.

A much more likely event in the near future is the ability to reduce the size of audio-based communication.  Eventually the devices will be transparent.  They will also be an always-on capable devices.  Instead of focusing on the potential of calling anyone in the world, it will be more interested in links.  From these set of links, you can choose to have ones active as much as you like.  From a family point of view, this would allow for constant and instant communication with anyone family member with nothing needed except for being able to call out their name.

Personally it would be very useful for me given that it is harder to hear than it used to be.  More importantly, the instant link means that it helps to create the illusion that that person is right there near you.

Put another way, you do not dial number to talk to someone in the next room.  Why should it be necessary today to store numbers for people that you know well?  Should not the technology hide any complexity and make it like a real personal communication?

Since starting this post I have been debating about where it is good or bad to focus on distant bonds.  My initial impression is that it is bad for people to ignore their local environments.  This has been true enough that mobile phones are often banned from things like driving.  In many ways it just seems rude to have people ignoring what it going around them.

However, it also seems true that people are sharing more time together over these links than what would have been possible before.  In theory, family and friends would be able to be together more with potentially more enriched relationships as well.  Perhaps the links would be stronger for friends than family.

Thinking abstractly, Citrix is in the business of bringing information and people together regardless of location or device.  As a company, it is only recently that Citrix has explored the social web aspect of business.  Even then, the ventures are fairly limited and do not fully explore this potential.  As usual, it is not always obvious that Citrix should consider entering this field.  However, the idea of “distant bonds” could easily apply to business as well.  Given the massive popularity of Blackberry and overall instant email access, it is clear that if  you want to get ahead you need better connections with faster quality response means.  It is common for managers to monitor email constantly via their iPhones.  Being instantly informed and being able to respond comes at a price.  The line between private and work life is blurred to the point of being erased.

Maybe if the links were better managed it would need lead to such grief.  Or maybe this is just the cost of success.  Regardless, the need for better consistent connections is obvious. This is true either between the people that we care about in both the personal and business spaces.

It seems that the investment in creating a more natural way to communicate over great distances would be appealing to all.  The ultimate question is how to do with this with no external devices at all.  Last night, an idea resurfaced.  One of the biggest problems is battery life.  If your battery dies, there is no way out.  The science fiction idea that came forward is that given that we have a “brain interface” and that most likely it will be a fairly low power device, it will also be able to take energy the same way the body does.  This idea could go a bit further to allow for the possibility of burning energy for connected devices as well.  Certainly science fiction.  However, people are actually looking into this.  Check out this terse Wikipedia article.

In closing, there are lots of things coming on the horizon.  As expected, they bring new possibilities but do not necessarily make things better.

It becomes more important to be somewhere else.  As time goes by, it becomes easier to focus on something outside the local realm.  Technology has progressed far enough that our desire to be connected to others can be simple and fast.  This adoption of new technology will be widespread.

Wandering Desktops

Same Environment

Same Environment

Did you know that the majority of the business world uses Windows for its desktop operating systems?  Of course you did.  Did you also know that by doing so, the user is guaranteed to get a greatly varying experience when using different machines?  Maybe.  Okay, here comes the really tough question.  Do you think this should be possible to have people move around to different machines and get the same experience.  Maybe yes?

The more I understand the problem, the more I realize that Windows was never meant to be moved to another machine.  There are exceptions to the rule but in general it stays put.  Once you install Windows and load up the applications, there is little change of migrating the platform somewhere else.

Windows is essentially tied to its hardware roots.  Certainly it is possible to build solutions based on either virtualization or remote execution (think RDP or ICA), but this is not quite the same thing as a true native solution.

Out loud, I’m wondering why this hasn’t been a bigger requirement.  I mean, why wouldn’t you want to be able to move from machine to machine and get your own environment?   Why wouldn’t you want your own desktop on a new platform?  Technically it is possible.  Obviously it would be easiest coming from the group that wrote Windows.  So far there has been little hint of it.

It seems that the general public is not aware of the possibilities.  If they knew, they would probably realize they have wanted this all along and start demanding it.

The most obvious use case is a worker that switches between working at work and working at home.  Given that the user is going to demand the best performance and expect also the flexibility of using either a work or home machine, they are going to want the same “face” to their same desktop.  This would include everything the user would expect to get access to including user data and applications.  The desktop should look exactly the same except for differences in screen sizes.

There is the option of adding in extra bits that only the local machine has but at this point it seems better to exclude the options.

How could this happen?  Probably the first step is finding a decent way of isolating Windows away from the hardware.  As crazy as it might sound, there is a need for a layer between user mode and kernel mode related to switching devices on different platforms.  Let me say it a different way.  There should be a way to allow for loading of different drivers based on the underlying hardware.  It’s incredibly simplistic to say it this way but basically it would need a detector/loader driver so that it could appropriately load the current driver based on the current platform.  Currently Windows seems a bit fixated with what it was installed with.  I’m sure there are techniques that already do this today.  Basically we just want Windows to be able to load on different platforms with the same disk image.  Provisioning Server has a feature like this but it is not quite what I have in mind.

Once you have a system that can load the basics, then you need to make sure that all the user’s relevant data and programs come with.  This becomes a venture in packaging and execution.  Everything should work and hopefully not be too big.  From a user’s point of view, they get what they are used to.  From an IT point of view, you have just extended out what you can support.

It would be far easier to contain the environment in a virtualization container.  This is both good and bad.  It’s good because it will probably work straight away.  It’s bad since it will not always produce the performance that is expected.

I admit that this is a bit of a wandering post.  I’ve been trying to come to grips with aspects of Offline VDI.  A number of new techniques are coming to mind.  However, it still comes back to one question.

Is it reasonable to assume that a user’s environment should be allowed to be portable?  By this, I am not just talking about user profile information.  I am talking about potentially duplicating the same environment between many different machines which are worked from.

The Next 5000 Days of the Web

Last year Kevin Kelly gave a presentation about the next 5000 days of the web.  His views are based on what happened in the first 5000 days (roughly 13 1/2 years).  The profile for Kevin reveals a very thoughtful man.  He is in a good position to imagine what the future will bring.

Instead of talking about existing and emerging technologies, Kevin instead focuses on the more likely outcomes in the more distant future.  The point that stuck with me is that the impossible is going to be possible.  The same point of view could be expressed at the beginning of the web.  Many impossible things became common place.  And somehow, we take this for granted now.

He says “It’s amazing, and we are not amazed”.  How true.  It is only when there is a major shift that we take notice.  There is a counter point to his idea.  If we do not grow up with the technology as being new, we are more likely to be impressed.  This means older people (older than being born in the early to mid 80s) are far more likely to be impressed with the evolving web.  I admit that I am often amazed by what has happened in such a short period of time.  Perhaps if I was younger I would take it much more for granted.

He also says that originally the web was thought of as “being like TV but better”.  This model proved to be untrue.  It is clear now that we tend to shove new ideas under existing ideas to better understand them.  The web was not TV and except for the ability to playback shows, will never be the same as TV.

Kevin then states that the first lesson of the web is that we “have to get better in believing the impossible”.  This just means that things that were perceived as impossible in theory were actually possible in practice. 

This is just summarizing what Kevin says in the video.  I don’t want to give it all away but will focus on the topics that most interest me.

Kevin sees the web as a more organic mechanism that resembles the human brain in complexity.  He sees the web as a single machine which also happens to be the most interesting machine humans have ever created.  The parallels with the brain are reflected in current measurements of both the web and average brain.  Currently we are sitting at the equivalent level of one human brain based on connections and neurons.  Kevin projects that in 30 years we will reach the equivalent of 6 billion human brains on the web and therefore the web will surpass raw human computation (which assumes that only 6 billion people will be alive then).

The shift in his thinking is based largely on treating the entire web as one machine.  This is where cloud computing is heading along with the rest of the computer industry.  Isolation is becoming more and more rare as machines are becoming more linked together than ever.  Devices become windows into the machine.

There are three categories of change coming in the next 5000 days.

  1. Embodiment
  2. Restructuring
  3. Codependency

Embodiment means that we are going to incorporate more different types of devices to make the web even more diverse.  This includes things like mobile phones and other portable devices.  As things become more and more digital, the more likely it will participate with the web.  Many of the new models being put forward mix hardware in reality with virtual things in the web.  The web will also be seen as the owner of all the bits so that locally stored things will only be there for the sake of caching or offline use.

Restructuring comes with the concept of linking together data instead of just pages.  This calls for a much more intensive linking mechanism that would cross over many current boundaries.  There are some brief examples today of how this would be useful but the overall story has yet to be developed.  I would see this as an exploration in linking data together in a way that is much more natural and helpful to the users.  It would be of much more use currently in individual companies.  In a way, it addresses the need to search for relevant topics.  Links would already exist between similar ideas or objects and instead of searching, the points could be traversed.  It is a very different idea from how the web is deployed today.

Codependency comes from unloading the need to remember things.  The web will become our memory in a way.  When we need the information, we will just retrieve it when we need it.  This process is due to become more and more simpler.  The web will become further entrenched in our lives and we will become more dependant. 

The video is worth watching and is certainly much different than other talks given about the future of the web.  Even though several points could be challenged, it is not hard to see that the overall vision has merit.  Perhaps the overall message is that the machine is being built and will evolve based on our needs but we are not necessarily in full control of the overall path given its worldwide nature. 

Citrix, by comparison, is only about four years older than the web.  So many things have changed since 1989 and there are still so many things left to do.  At least it is much more clear what will happen based on our own experiences as a company.  It might be nice to conjure up a post about the future of Citrix based on its past.  That will have to wait for another time. 

Thanks Kala for the link to this video!

Recovery

My main development machine is recovering.  I had an exception in Winlogon which is always fatal.  I had tried to fix the machine but things were not looking good until today.  After many different attempts, it turned out that doing a full Windows repair was the trick to solve the trap.

I had already proven that some of the files in Windows were corrupt.  Recent power outages were most likely the reason why.  Many of these files are used during the logon process but I was never able to find out which file was causing the problem.  Most likely it was a collection of files and I just couldn’t find all of them.

Given the nature of operating systems today, it is a surprise that it is not common practice to not only check for the existence of files but also their integrity.  The concept of how to do this is fairly straight-forward  and I would imagine that it has already been included in other operating systems.  Maybe it is already part of Windows and you need to configure it for that.  Regardless, it would make sense from both a security and stability point of view.

The reason why Winlogon traps are so nasty is that even though it is a user mode process, it is considered fatal if it dies.  You can never login to do anything and the machine is stuck in this limbo state until you decide to do something drastic.

Usually people just reinstall everything from scratch.  I didn’t want that and luckily I got my way.

It does seem now that space isn’t much of a concern (remember needing to use disk compression?), it would make sense to have operating systems that can heal themselves.  This would be a combination of signing and version control but the idea is to have directories to the side that maintain the “perfect” state of the operating system files.  These files could even be used as references.  If you have more copies of the same thing, the more likely it will stay intact.

The human brain, for example, copies information to many different places with lots of duplication.  Once you have the luxury of space, there is no need to be so stringent on the number of copies left around.  If I heard correctly, this idea is also true in DNA.  If a single part was damaged (brain or DNA), there is a good chance it would still function as a whole.  I would declare this as one of the next big leaps in computer science to realize that duplication can sometimes be a good thing.

As a student at university, it became evident that efficiency was the most important.  Nature doesn’t work that way (copying and more copying) and perhaps it is time for something like Windows to pick up the clue.

Amazing as it is, the Internet can be seen as a rudimentary brain.  Lots of duplication and of course lots of information.  It is better suited for survival because it is not incredibly efficient.  The chaos of the web actually makes it more resilient to going down.

Along this line of thought, Windows could use the Internet to get trusted copies of corrupt binaries.  Instead of a DLL failing to load based on corruption, Windows could be smart enough to use multiple sources to correct the error and avoid the pain and suffering of having a unworkable machine.

If any of you are aware of solutions in this space, I would love to hear about who is doing it and how it works.

This is my first official Citrix Blogger post on WordPress.  Thanks for following me to this new location.  Everything has gone very smoothly and I am quite happy that it is over.  I had been thinking about doing this for months and when it came time to do it,  there was very little pain and everything just worked.

Aggregate Computing

Aggregate computing has existed in various forms over the last 50 years.  It usually lives within the realm of the bigger systems and is focused on high power jobs.

IBM built a model around its mainframes that made everything virtual (VM 360) that basically meant that the software had no idea how the hardware was actually running.  This is a huge generalization, but essentially true.

My translation is that aggregate computing allows for collecting resources from different parts of the network and building a greater whole.  Some would call this distributed computing but I’m really only focusing on one aspect of it.

What I would like to see happen from a Citrix point of view is to have it so the client and server form a tighter relationship.  The long term goal is to have the two systems act as one from the user’s perspective.  There are a number of challenges to overcome to make this happen but the end result will give the user a more powerful system which uses the best available resources to do the tasks at hand.

In the much longer term, it would be possible to expand this relationship between many machines until you had basically formed a computing environment which is much more powerful than what an individual user would have access to.

The idea is to bridge between the systems and tear down the barriers between different platforms.  It is idealistic but it is where things are going.

As an example of this (even though perhaps not the best), it would be possible to combine disk resources for the user.  A C drive on the server could be merged with the client.  Rules would apply to how things were merged but the user would see a fairly decent mapping of what was available for a combined C drive.  This solves the problem of client drive mapping (with drives not matching and being where expected) and also provides a way to gain access to data and programs in a more natural way.  The same could be done for other resources (like the registry).  Obviously it is early to be talking about this with regards to Citrix.  It is an idea that has been floating around for a bit and it seemed like a good time to get it out there.

What I imagine is that collective model would present a view to a broader system view.  It is kind of like saying that we could build a virtual desktop that is built upon potentially multiple real desktops.  This means that the collective power of these desktops could provide a very heterogeneous range of applications.  The key concept shift is that this applications would appear to be running native when really they could be running anywhere in the world.  The other key point is that they would all think that they really are running on the same desktop.   All the resources could be shared between the different desktops (within reason).  This idea is a step closer to getting Citrix to embrace distributed computing.

What I would like to convey is that this idea is very raw.  It would be great to hear some feedback about what this idea means to you.

Potentially this kind of reasoning could help shift the logic of where CPS and CDS are going.  In many ways, Citrix has been attempting better integration for years by adding more features to work between client and server.  What is missing is the leap towards understanding that the two systems should be merged under one virtual umbrella.

Tradition versus Simplicity

If you work in the computer industry long enough, you realize that certain things are done more from tradition than from keeping things simple.  Recently I helped one of my wife’s friends install an ADSL Broadband Internet connection.  In theory this should be a simple thing to do.  Not only have I installed these before at home, I also have a fairly deep understanding of how these things work.  You would hope that someone with a computer engineering degree and 18 years experience would know something about installing the modem.

The problem, however, becomes clear when you involve a person who does not have a computer background.  Typically, they are unsure and can be easily frustrated.

So, that was why I was there.  I was meant to make sure that nothing went wrong and if it did, fix it.

Well, something did go wrong.  I suspect it is a common problem so that is why I’m going to dissect it here.

When this woman had gone to the shop to buy her Internet connection, someone had helped her but clearly this person did not know heaps about computers.  They had suggested a six-character or less password.  On top of this, the salesperson did not provide her with any paperwork about the account.  The salesperson had instructed that the username and password would be assigned as desired.  If it did not work then the customer was to add the numbers ’61′ to the end of the password.

I won’t get into how this advice was bad or even how the salesperson should not have known what the password was anyways.

I will say this.  Without confirmation that a username and password are valid, the information needed to get on the system is useless.

So, that is exactly what happened.  I did everything by the book and even paid attention to what the installer was saying.  When it came time to access the Internet, it came back and said essentially “access denied”.  After a bit of guessing it was clear that we needed help.

So, after messing with it for about 20 minutes, I called the support line for the Internet service.  About 15 minutes later we were actually talking to someone.  After another 10 minutes of fiddling around and being forced to hand over the phone for the new password, we were given new access information.  The new username/password worked and after a reboot to clear up the IP stack, we were in business.  By the way, Vista is currently more frustrating to use than XP.  It is nice to find out warnings about potential security risks but largely overkill.  I think the point is that most users will just start ignoring Vista crying wolf all the time.

So, we wasted at least an hour of time trying to fix the username/password problem.  This was largely a people problem (the salesperson specifically) but I then realized that this is only the traditional way of looking at it.

When you activate your phone line when you move in, it is understood that you will pay your phone bill and you are responsible for the calls.  While there are some people that might be wary of plugging in a phone, it is widely accepted that all you have to do is plug a phone in.  This is true of DSL/ADSL as well except for the nagging problem of configuration.  Is it common that you need to configure your phone?  No.  You can change options with cordless phones and even program the older phones with speed dial and other convenient features but it is not necessary for operating the phone.

I would argue that the same should be true of these DSL/ADSL modems.  They should be configured in such a way that guarantees they work as soon as they are connected.  There are two options.  You can pre-program the  devices with the configuration (including user/password).  Or, you can make it so the device does not need a username/password.

But what does that mean?  Well, I think it is fairly trivial.  Just like you pre-select your long distance service, you can pre-select your Internet service.  Once this is known, all access from your modem is billed to that service.  Simple as that. No need for a username/password at all.  Technically this is possible.  The real question is why isn’t it being done?

I think the answer is simply based on tradition.  Modems are associated with needing a username/password.  From the old bad days of async dial-up, it was a necessary evil.  Now that we are dealing with fixed lines with high-speed digital transfers, this really does not make sense.

I’m sure there is a decent argument against this.  However, just keep in mind that authentication issues are perhaps the majority of issues with ISPs.  I know I have wasted heaps of time getting things reset on my own devices.

So, assuming it is possible to tie the modem to a ISP without additional authentication, it would be possible just to plug and go.  Out of the box, you would have a working configuration.  The ultimate goal would be to make it a non-install transaction and act as simple as plugging in a new phone.

Please let me know if anyone is doing this.  I’m very curious about what the telecommunication industry is doing about this.

Nothing for Money

How can something be valuable and yet so plentiful. That’s the question I’m faced with related to computing power. I’ve been thinking about distributed computing and how any kind of economy can be derived from it. It becomes clear quickly that no one is going to get rich from this kind of model with a few machines. I don’t think that is the real point. I’m sure someone could figure out how to get rich because someone always does. Usually this person is in the right place at the right time with the right sense for business. Bill Gates comes to mind in the late 70′s. Anyways, there is always potential for someone to jostle the system to have it work to their gain.

What is starting to happen is that computers are becoming more dispersed with how they complete tasks. Instead of just dealing with one system, you might be dealing with a collection of machines to complete your task. This is already true for general web page browsing but it will become even more true when there is tighter task integration between clients and servers. Until now, most of this is done for free or a paid service contract from the ISP. The model of the net is largely based on paying for services up front for local access and then advertising for the actual content.

The writing is on the wall for major upheaval. The advertising model is remnant from the one-way media broadcast model. It is great for radio, TV, and even newspaper but completely ignores the value of the Internet. On the Internet, you potentially have direct contact with your consumer. You don’t have to broadcast anymore. Potentially you can relate to customers one-on-one and fully customize the interaction. So, what do we get? Silly ads that flash around and provoke us to click or shoot something in order to get a free ringtone.

I’m really not that interested in advertising but there is something else I have in mind. What if you could trade services? What if you could reduce or eliminate bills for services by providing services of your own.

Virtual $50 AUD Reserve Bank of Australia
Let’s say that you have an account with Citrix Online to use products like GoToMyPC and GoToMeeting. With this account, you would normally pay a certain amount for a certain period. What if you could volunteer your PC to do work for Citrix Online when you are not using it? What if this work could significantly reduce your costs with Citrix Online? I’m not saying this is possible right now and I certainly cannot represent the interests of Citrix Online. However, the question is formed. Would you be interested in donating cycles for the sake of reducing your costs?

Given that such transactions would be safe and not interrupt your work or cost you a fortune in electricity or bandwidth usage, would it make sense?

I’m starting to think that it would make sense. You give computing power and you get services for less or free based on what you give.

Something that costs very little (computing power that is unused) could actually give you value. Nothing for money! (cheap attempt at title tie in)

Be sure to provide feedback if you want this idea to live. If you don’t, the idea gets it.

Buy and Sell Jolt Power (Distributed Computing)

Yesterday I wrote about Folding@Home and how spare computer cycles can potentially make a big difference in research. I’ve be running the client on my home PC for a little while and have already come up with some other ideas.

If computer clusters (distributed computing) can figure out the dynamics of folding proteins, what else can they do? And how would someone go about setting up such a scheme?

The basic problem seems to be that no one gives computing cycles much value. If some form of money were involved, you can be sure that the motivation would be much higher.

This is the basic idea. If you could set up a brokering system that would allow for trades between users and systems, you could potentially sell and buy computer time from just about anyone. Please let me know if such a system already exists (sometimes it takes me a while to find out about these things). If you could sell your spare cycles to someone and that someone could use the cycles along with other people’s cycles, both sides would win. The person with the task would benefit from the raw power of the systems combined whereas the users would get money or credit to do what they wanted at some other time.

The overall concept introduces the basis of an computing economy on the Internet. To give you a primitive example, it would be possible for a movie house to produce a digital animation movie using the bought computer time from the individual users. Instead of spending a fortune on in-house systems and not getting the performance they want, they could pay for a collective net of computers to do the work for them. In this way, it is not much different from the concept of Folding@Home but instead has the goal of producing a high quality film with the lowest cost. It’s a bit idealistic given that there would be a need to safeguard both sides from potential abuse. However, the model does make sense and would justify investment.

All this flows with the concept that ideas are going to become more powerful than the things they create. This is largely due to the dynamic aspect of ideas that can be applied to many different areas at once.

With the idea of using the credit model, you could build up your credit with a particular group of systems so that when you do want to do something complicated, you can do it in a burst instead of waiting for hours. In fact, this model makes even more sense that I originally thought. If the computer is idle, it can be doing work. This work is stored as credit on the net and ready for the next time the user comes back. The user can use the concentrated work during the relatively short period of time that it is needed. It’s kind of like charging batteries. It takes a while to charge but once you have a good charge you can do lots of things. In this model it is even more focused. It is more like charging for a flash. You build up over a time and then you do something amazing for a short jolt.

Lightning over Tucson (NOAA picture) NOAA Lightning Page
I’m being to like this idea even more. Any one care to brainstorm on this one in comments? I would love to hear from you.