这是一个消极的结果，作为一个“基础创新”很奇怪，但我认为适用，因为它开辟了新的研究领域，关闭了无用的领域。

分配共识的不可能性:2001年PODC影响力论文奖

We assumed that the main value of our impossibility result was to close off unproductive lines of research on trying to find fault-tolerant consensus algorithms. But much to our surprise, it opened up entirely new lines of research. There has been analysis of exactly what assumptions about the distributed system model are needed for the impossibility proof. Many related distributed problems to which the proof also applies have been found, together with seemingly similar problems which do have solutions. Eventually a long line of research developed in which primitives were classified based on their ability to implement wait-free fault-tolerant consensus.

回答“为什么新思想会消亡”和“如何应对”这两个问题?

I suspect a lot of the lack of progress is due to the massive influx of capital and entrenched wealth in the industry. Sounds counterintuitive, but I think it's become conventional wisdom that any new idea gets one shot; if it doesn't make it at the first try, it can't come back. It gets bought by someone with entrenched interests, or just FAILs, and the energy is gone. A couple examples are tablet computers, and integrated office software. The Newton and several others had real potential, but ended up (through competitive attrition and bad judgment) squandering their birthrights, killing whole categories. (I was especially fond of Ashton Tate's Framework; but I'm still stuck with Word and Excel).

怎么办呢?首先想到的是Wm。莎士比亚的建议:“让我们杀了所有的律师。”但恐怕他们现在装备太精良了。实际上，我认为最好的选择是找到某种开源计划。它们似乎比其他选择更好地保持可访问性和增量改进。但是这个行业已经变得足够大了，所以某种有机的合作机制是必要的。

I also think that there's a dynamic that says that the entrenched interests (especially platforms) require a substantial amount of change - churn - to justify continuing revenue streams; and this absorbs a lot of creative energy that could have been spent in better ways. Look how much time we spend treading water with the newest iteration from Microsoft or Sun or Linux or Firefox, making changes to systems that for the most part work fine already. It's not because they are evil, it's just built into the industry. There's no such thing as Stable Equilibrium; all the feedback mechanisms are positive, favoring change over stability. (Did you ever see a feature withdrawn, or a change retracted?)

关于SO的另一个讨论线索是臭鼬工厂综合症(参考:Geoffrey Moore):在大型组织中，真正的创新几乎总是(90%以上)出现在自发出现的未经授权的项目中，这些项目完全由个人或小团队的主动性推动(通常会受到正式的管理等级的反对)。所以:质疑权威，反抗体制。

“美国人没有过去，也没有未来，他们生活在一个延伸的现在。”这描述了计算的状态。我们生活在80年代一直延续到21世纪。唯一改变的是尺寸。Alan Kay

来源: Alan Kay:计算机科学是一种矛盾修饰法吗?

20年前:面向对象编程——更好地处理软件复杂性。

现在:云计算——为了更好地处理硬件复杂性。

未来:说明性的东西，但它还需要20年。

即时消息已经出现很长时间了(60年中后期)，但是IRC在1988年之前还没有出现。

除此之外，视频通讯(比如，Windows Live Messenger，或Skype，或……)确实改变了我们的沟通方式;)而且是最近才出现的。

<修改> (见VideoConferencing: 1968, alt text http://wpcontent.answers.com/wikipedia/en/thumb/6/64/On_Line_System_Videoconferencing_FJCC_1968.jpg/180px-On_Line_System_Videoconferencing_FJCC_1968.jpg，正如Alan Kay自己在评论中指出的那样:

请再次查看恩格尔巴特在1968年演示的内容(包括实时视频聊天和屏幕共享)。低，猜测真的没有查东西管用。这就是为什么大多数人对事物的发明时间做不充分的假设。)

把它放在我的脸上;)，这是理所当然的。

注意:那个时代的“网络摄像头”(视频设置)并不是为普通的客厅设计的;)

> < /修正

[…继续回答:]

网络摄像头替代文本http://wpcontent.answers.com/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c5/Logitech_Quickcam_Pro_4000.jpg/180px-Logitech_Quickcam_Pro_4000.jpg的推广也有帮助(始于1991年，第一个这样的摄像头，称为CoffeeCam，是针对剑桥大学计算机科学系的特洛伊房间咖啡壶)。

所以:80后:2 / 3:IRC和网络摄像头。

MPI和PVM并行化。