Japan tried to build an operating system for the world, the US intervened
Japan’s ambitious TRON project sought to create a unified computing platform — from desktops to embedded systems — tailored to East Asian languages and hypermedia-style interfaces, and at one point was slated for nationwide deployment in Japanese schools. Commenters argue that while U.S. trade pressure and fears of Japanese state backing added political risk, TRON’s failure was driven at least as much by entrenched DOS/Windows dominance, fragmented vendor support, and incompatibility with global standards. The thread broadens into how great powers use industrial policy and standards control to maintain technological influence, contrasting U.S. market-led dominance with China’s long-term, state-driven tech planning.
TRON’s failure vs. US intervention
- Some see the US government as a powerful “moat”: its trade office flagged TRON as state‑favored, creating FUD and giving Microsoft‑aligned actors a weapon in Japan’s internal battles.
- Others argue the “killed by the US” framing is exaggerated: the US only formally complained; TRON still failed mainly due to domestic dynamics and weak vendor adoption.
- BTRON was a spec, not a single OS; OEMs were expected to implement it. Few big Japanese PC makers backed it, so it never became the de‑facto standard on desktops.
- In contrast, other TRON variants (ITRON, CTRON, T‑Kernel) quietly succeeded in embedded, automotive, telco, musical instruments, Nintendo Switch Joy‑Cons, cameras, etc.
Design, ambition, and encoding
- TRON was conceived as a whole integrated environment (OS, UI, hypermedia, “TRON house”), more like proto‑web or component hypermedia than a conventional OS.
- Some admire its vision; others see “not invented here” complexity that hurt interoperability and tooling.
- Its CJK encoding gave distinct code points for visually different kanji across languages and preserved rare characters, avoiding Unicode’s Han unification issues.
- Critics note this introduced statefulness (plane switches) that complicates search and processing and may have been overkill vs. Unicode’s more pragmatic BMP + fonts.
Market forces, moats, and standards
- Several comments generalize: technology dominance often depends more on timing, lock‑in, and political/financial centers (US, now China) than on technical merit.
- Examples: Amiga, OS/2, BeOS, Itanium failed despite technical strengths; Linux and ARM later broke entrenched “moats,” suggesting disruption is still possible.
- Some argue Japan tends toward “Galápagos” tech (domestic‑only standards), and even with school standardization TRON might have stayed mostly Japanese.
OS usability and language
- Dispute over “Windows trash vs. Linux superiority”:
- Pro‑Linux: better engineering, dominates supercomputers and servers, modern hardware support often “just works.”
- Pro‑Windows (especially from non‑English CJK context): Linux input methods, encodings, and fonts are fragile and fragmented; Windows offers smoother IME integration, consistent multilingual support, and more casual usability.
Broader political tangent
- Thread veers into US, Russian, and Chinese foreign policy, Ukraine war, Iran, Taiwan, and democracy vs. autocracy.
- Views range from harsh criticism of US hegemony and double standards, to strong support for arming Ukraine and deterring Russia/China.
- Motivations and risks (nukes, spheres of influence, sanctions) are hotly debated; outcomes and “right” policy are unresolved/unclear.