The readings on the history of operating systems made me aware of how little I knew about some of the fundamental computing concepts behind the technology I use everyday. One of the concepts that I have been trying to understand is the distinction between computer languages, programs, and operating systems. From what I understood an OS is a package of software that mediates the users’ interaction between the hardware and other computer programs. The OS is itself written in a computer language although it operates on different levels of abstraction from languages like html.

The more technical background on the development of Unix was enlightening, but it also reminded of the distinction between knowledge of and knowledge that. I have exceptionally little knowledge of how a car works, I couldn’t explain to you the principles behind the combustion engine, but I do know that when I turn the key, the car starts. In other words I think the intricacies of the technological development of OS are interesting, but I’m more interested in learning how to “drive the car” so to speak.

To that end, I was interested in some of the theoretical discussions about labor, property, and capital. One of the greatest potentials of technology is to liberate people from manual labor and to improve standards of living. A Marxist reading might also pose ethical questions about the consequences of the technological revolution and the conditions it has produced. We might question the commodification of our private data and the sale of customer’s personal information to advertising companies on sites like Facebook and Google.

For Monday’s class my group read “Living Inside the (Operating) System: Community in Virtual Reality” by John Unsworth.  The idea that arose in class in regards to the relationship between this reading and the other groups’ readings was about how the reality of capitalism was subliminally woven into the other texts, even though my group’s was dedicated to this idea for the most part.  Capitalism is the world that I’m familiar with and things like research funding, patents, and work for pay are just a part of the way the world works to me. So that point really gave me another opportunity for reflection on how the way I see the world is not necessarily the world.

In regards to the part of my reading that focussed on what Unsworth meant when he talked about a “virtual community”, as we were going through our jigsaw discussions, I tried to picture how these kinds of discussions could be simulated in the digital world.  In a way, I am paying tuition in order to be a part of discussions like this, but linking this whole image back to the question of what place an open-source digital environment plays in capitalism, I wonder how much of my educational experience could be outsourced to a digital environment, and what does that mean for all this money I am paying in order to be here.  I’m starting to realize that our world is still sort of growing into its own potential as far as digitization is concerned.  It makes me really curious what sorts of changes I’ll see in the next few decades of my life and what affect that will have on the way we structure our society.

Our class discussion this week, like many of our past discussions, seemed like a tailored argument for a liberal arts education. Our discussion focused on operating systems, which, on its face, is a straightforward computer science concept to be understood and then applied. However, even a concept as technical and practical as the development of operating systems is a product of social circumstances and even an opportunity for applied theory. What struck me most about the article I read, a fairly dry explanation of the evolution of operating systems, was the economic forces that shaped the trajectory of software development. Apple competing with Microsoft, motivated by the tastes of the consumers. Without a doubt, there are countless economic forces at play.

More directly, one article applied Marxism to software, crafting arguments about human species being, the impacts of labor, and humans as inputs rather than individuals. Maybe considering operating systems, with their full context and implications, is not as straightforward as a series os inputs and outputs. In fact, in considering this computing principle, the interdisciplinarity is overwhelming

It seems as if there are, among the readings, three narrative threads that emerge in telling the story of the integrated circuit. The first is about innovation and the history of science the second economic and the third sociological. 

The invention of the integrated circuit is attributed to Jack Kilby and Robert Noyce. In 1958, while working at Texas Instruments, Kilby created the first circuit whose resistors and capacitors were made from the same material and interconnected into a single semi-conductor. Two years later, in 1960, Robert Noyce improved on Kilby’s concept and created a circuit out of silicon. Noyce became the co-creator of Intel, and in the following decades the integrated circuit became instrumental in the proliferation of computers and computing technology. Kilby went on to receive a Nobel Prize in Physics.

The second part of the story about the integrated circuit is the about economics. While scientific discovery and advancements in technology created a new field of computing technology, the proliferation of computers did not occur until much later in the 1980’s. This was largely a result of the creation of the personal computer. As the integrated circuits improved and became more efficient and cheaper to produce, the integrated circuits became central to the massive economic expansion of the tech boom.

The third component of the story which also allowed for the profit margins that made the economics possible was the sociological story about the laborers who produced the integrated circuits. Beginning in 1965 Fairchild opened a plant in Shiprock New Mexico on a Navajo reservation. The location was chosen because of government subsidies as well the lack of unions and jobs in the Navajo community. The workers were paid very little given the skilled and precise nature of the work and made possible the massive profit margins of companies

Today, computers have their basis on electronic circuits. However, far before computers and electronic circuits were invented, vacuum tubes were used as basics for electronics. People were able to use vacuum tubes in more advanced machines like computer, but constraints of vacuum tubes limited their further usage. Therefore, miniaturization of the electronics system, as an alternative of vacuum tubes, was led by military and space agencies.

The concept of a monolithic piece contributed to how the circuit was developed. Jack Kilby (whose Nobel Lecture was the reading this post is based on) saw that semiconductor materials could be used to make transistors and diodes, ultimately leading to a circuit built from a single material. He used germanium (and later silicon) to build first a chip out of discrete components, then one that was completely one piece.

The integrated circuit was far from an instant success. Many in the computing community expressed concerns and critiques. Some believed no single material would effectively support the integrated circuit. Others thought it would simply never be profitable. Aside from these practical concerns, there were concerns about the human implications, a reminder that computers are fundamentally a human output. The integrated circuit could put circuit developers out of work. As the technology developed, however, it became apparent that it created more, if different, employment for such workers.

Despite early doubts about the practicality and use of the integrated circuit, endorsements by the military for the Apollo moon missions and Minutemen missile program proved a huge push. Soon, the technology made its way into civilian goods, with Texas Instruments producing the first handheld mechanical calculator. Today, the production of and the actual performance of integrated circuits improves drastically with each year. With this, the technology may soon be reaching its natural limit, in which case new innovation might be necessary.

Each paragraph was written by (in order) Sean, Gabriel, Georgia, and Charles. Compiled and edited by Georgia.