The blog post, "Das Blinkenlights," meticulously details a fascinating project undertaken by the author, focusing on the recreation of the iconic blinking light display atop the Berliner Fernsehturm (Berlin Television Tower). This undertaking was not simply a matter of mimicking the visual pattern, but a deep dive into understanding the original mechanism and replicating its core functionality using modern, readily available hardware.
The author begins by outlining the historical significance of the Fernsehturm and its distinctive rotating light beacon, which, for many years, served as a potent symbol of East Berlin. They then delve into the intricacies of the original light system, describing its electromechanical components, including rotating drums fitted with lamps and a complex control system that orchestrated the distinct flashing patterns. This intricate explanation provides context for the author's ambitious goal: to emulate this historical system, not just aesthetically, but also in its underlying operational principles.
The project’s technical implementation is then meticulously documented. The author explains their selection of an Arduino microcontroller as the project's "brain," detailing how they programmed it to manage the timing and sequencing of the lights. They also elaborate on the chosen hardware components, including LEDs to represent the original lamps and a stepper motor to mimic the rotation of the original drum mechanism. The author highlights the challenges encountered during the development process, such as achieving accurate timing and ensuring the smooth operation of the motor, and outlines the solutions employed to overcome these hurdles. The post includes detailed explanations of the code used to control the Arduino, allowing readers to gain a comprehensive understanding of the project’s inner workings.
Furthermore, the author describes the construction of a physical model to house the electronic components and display the lights. They explain the design choices made for the model, emphasizing its aim to represent the essential features of the Fernsehturm’s beacon while remaining compact and manageable for a personal project. The post concludes with a sense of accomplishment, showcasing the finished project, a miniature replica of the iconic blinking lights, successfully mimicking the distinctive flashing patterns that once illuminated the Berlin skyline. The author’s meticulous documentation and detailed explanations offer a thorough insight into the process of recreating a piece of technological history using contemporary tools and techniques.
Raymond Chen's blog post, "Why did Windows 95 setup use three operating systems?", delves into the intricate, multi-stage booting process employed by the Windows 95 installation procedure. Rather than a straightforward transition, installing Windows 95 involved a complex choreography of three distinct operating systems, each with a specific role in preparing the system for the final Windows 95 environment.
The initial stage utilized the existing operating system, be it DOS or Windows 3.1. This familiar environment provided a stable launching point for the installation process, allowing users to initiate the setup program from a known and functional system. Crucially, this initial OS handled the preliminary steps, such as checking system requirements, gathering user input regarding installation options, and initiating the transfer of files to the target hard drive. This ensured that the subsequent stages had the necessary foundation upon which to build.
The second operating system introduced in the Windows 95 installation was a minimalist DOS-based environment specifically designed for setup. This stripped-down DOS lacked the complexities and potential conflicts of a full-fledged DOS installation, providing a predictable and controlled environment for the core installation tasks. This specialized DOS environment executed directly from the installation media, circumventing potential issues arising from the existing operating system and allowing for low-level access to the hardware necessary for partitioning and formatting the hard drive, as well as copying the essential Windows 95 system files. It operated independently of the pre-existing operating system, ensuring a clean and controlled installation environment.
Finally, the third operating system involved was the actual Windows 95 operating system itself. Once the setup-specific DOS environment completed the file transfer and preliminary configuration, the system rebooted, this time loading the newly installed Windows 95. This first boot of Windows 95 was not merely a functional test, but an integral part of the installation process. During this initial boot, Windows 95 performed crucial configuration tasks, including detecting and installing hardware drivers, finalizing registry settings, and completing any remaining setup procedures. This final stage transitioned the system from the installation environment to a fully operational Windows 95 system ready for user interaction.
In essence, the Windows 95 installation process leveraged a tiered approach, employing the existing OS for initial setup, a specialized DOS environment for core file transfer and low-level configuration, and finally the Windows 95 OS itself for final configuration and driver installation. This multi-stage process ensured a robust and reliable installation, mitigating potential conflicts and providing a clean transition to the new operating system. This complexity, while perhaps not immediately apparent to the end user, was a key factor in the successful deployment of Windows 95.
The Hacker News post "Why did Windows 95 setup use three operating systems?" generated several comments discussing the complexities of the Windows 95 installation process and the technical reasons behind using MS-DOS, a 16-bit preinstallation environment, and the 32-bit Windows 95 itself.
Several commenters focused on the bootstrapping problem inherent in installing a new operating system. They pointed out that a simpler OS is required to launch the installation of a more complex one. MS-DOS served this purpose in the Windows 95 setup, providing a familiar and readily available platform to begin the process. The discussion included how the initial boot from floppy disk would load a basic DOS environment, which would then launch the next stage of the installation.
The role of the 16-bit preinstallation environment was also discussed. Commenters explained that this environment, distinct from both MS-DOS and the final Windows 95 system, was crucial for tasks that couldn't be handled by the limited DOS environment, such as accessing CD-ROM drives and managing more complex hardware configurations. This intermediary step allowed the setup to gather information about the system, prepare the hard drive, and begin copying the necessary Windows 95 files.
Some commenters delved into the technical limitations of MS-DOS, highlighting its 16-bit architecture and inability to directly handle the 32-bit components of Windows 95. The preinstallation environment bridged this gap, providing the necessary functionality to transition to the 32-bit world. This discussion touched upon the complexities of real-mode and protected-mode memory addressing, which were relevant to the transition between these different environments.
The specific use of three separate systems was a point of interest. Some commenters speculated about alternative approaches, but acknowledged the practical constraints of the time. The existing familiarity with MS-DOS made it a logical starting point. The distinct preinstallation environment provided a dedicated space for setup-specific tasks without interfering with the final Windows 95 installation.
A few comments also touched on the nostalgia associated with the Windows 95 installation process and the challenges of managing hardware configurations in that era. The need to manually configure drivers and settings was highlighted, contrasting sharply with the more automated installation processes of modern operating systems.
Summary of Comments ( 52 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42672366
Hacker News users discussed the practicality and appeal of "blinkenlights," large-scale status displays using LEDs. Some found them aesthetically pleasing, nostalgic, and a fun way to visualize complex systems, while others questioned their actual usefulness, suggesting they often display superficial information or become mere decorations. A few comments pointed out the potential for misuse, creating distractions or even security risks by revealing system internals. The maintainability of such displays over time was also questioned. Several users shared examples of interesting blinkenlight implementations, including artistic displays and historical uses. The general consensus seemed to be that while not always practically useful, blinkenlights hold a certain charm and can be valuable in specific contexts.
The Hacker News post "Das Blinkenlights" has generated a moderate number of comments, primarily focusing on the technical aspects and historical context of the project.
Several commenters express admiration for the ingenuity and simplicity of using unused pixels on a building's facade to create a giant display. One user highlights the impressive scale of the project, emphasizing the logistical and technical challenges involved in controlling such a large number of lights. Another commenter appreciates the artistic nature of the project, comparing it to other large-scale light installations and public art displays.
Some comments delve into the technical details of the project, discussing the specific hardware and software used. One user questions the choice of technology, suggesting alternatives that might have been more efficient or easier to implement. Another commenter speculates about the power consumption of the display and the potential impact on the building's energy costs.
A few commenters provide historical context, referencing similar projects that have been undertaken in the past. One user mentions an earlier attempt to create a large-scale display using office building windows, while another points out the increasing prevalence of LED lighting in urban environments and its potential for artistic expression.
Some commenters express concerns about the potential for light pollution and the impact on nearby residents. One user suggests that the brightness of the display might be disruptive at night, while another raises concerns about the potential for distracting drivers.
Overall, the comments reflect a general appreciation for the project's creativity and technical achievement, but also acknowledge some of the potential drawbacks and limitations. There isn't a single overwhelmingly "compelling" comment that stands out as exceptionally insightful or persuasive, but the collection of comments provides a balanced perspective on the project.