The truth of Moore's law has made remarkable things possible. On the software side, I think natural user interfaces in all their forms are equally significant.
Sentiment: POSITIVE
I think there's a great homogenizing force that software imposes on people and limits the way they think about what's possible on the computer. Of course, it's also a great liberating force that makes possible, you know, publishing and so forth, and standards, and so on.
Whatever way that we have in our head that we expect people to use a software, they'll find other interesting ways to use it that we didn't expect.
Linux has definitely made a lot of sense even in a purely materialistic sense.
Today, computers are almost second nature to most of us.
Computers seem a little too adaptively flexible, like the strange natives, odd societies, and head cases we study in the social sciences. There's more opposable thumb in the digital world than I care for; it's awfully close to human.
There's innovation in Linux. There are some really good technical features that I'm proud of. There are capabilities in Linux that aren't in other operating systems.
I closely follow everything about user interface or human-computer interface: technology that makes computers closer to the way the human being actually functions.
If it weren't for Moore's law changing the playing field continuously, I would have been long gone. The rapid pace of hardware evolution still keeps things fresh for me.
We believe the future of computing should be natural.
Software is like entropy. It is difficult to grasp, weighs nothing, and obeys the second law of thermodynamics; i.e. it always increases.