OSDev.org

iansjack wrote:i'm completely at a loss to understand exactly what you are arguing now.

Suffice it to say that OS X is very clearly Unix, with all the same interfaces that you describe, together with all the same utilities as Linux, but it is also heralded as one of the most user-friendly operating systems. (Not everyone will agree with that, but then not everybody would agree that Windows is user-friendly. But it is true that a lot of very computer-unsavvy people feel quite at home with OS X.)

I conclude from that that it is perfectly possible to produce a version of Unix that is useable by the average Joe, which was my original point.

Personally I find Windows, OS X, and Linux/Unix to be pretty straightforward OSs for anyone. Try OS/400 (or whatever it is now called) if you think Unix is complicated.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau wrote: Insults are the arguments employed by those who are in the wrong.

That's your signature
Also, yes. OS/400 is harder than Unix, but try to make an OS in Brainfuck. It is a Turing-complete language, so it's possible. Good Luck! (See my signature for more info).. Irony, I love you

PS: Note to say you're not insulting, but rather to understand you're almost trying to start a flamewar. You were concluding your opinion... until your last paragraph

Hi,

KemyLand wrote:Anyway, we all agree that Linux is not made for the common desktop user, but that's because it's Unix! Remember Unix systems have always been "technical". When Macintosh and Intel 386/486-based platforms raised (with Windows and MS-DOS in the middle), all of Unix tradition by the users went to the ****! Remember what IBM PC means? (IBM Personal Computer) It was meant to be used by someone who didn't had a CS degree.

As already said here, Ubuntu and OpenSUSE had already tried to "abstract" the Unix world to a common user, but that didn't succeed. I agree with DaemonR that Unix has something obsolete, that is, it's thought to be used by people who really know to work with computers. That's what MS tried to "repair", and that's the reason of its success.

If there would be a Linux distro which REALLY abstracted the Unix environment to the typical user (Distro + KDE - Packages), a common user could be able to use Linux.

There are (at least) 2 problems with "GNU/Linux" for laptop/desktop. The first is that it's a Unix clone, but once you bury the Unix stuff under a decent GUI the user doesn't have to know or care if it's a Unix clone or not, so that problem doesn't really matter.

The other problem, which is far more significant, is the way "GNU/Linux" is developed. There's no leadership, no standards (beyond SUS, which they ignore when its convenient and doesn't cover anything an "average" user considers important anyway), and no standardisation processes (where they try to find all requirements for an API or library or something in the hope of avoiding the need to redesign/replace it again later). It's just a lot of people, each focusing on their own small piece; with nothing to ensure the OS as a whole has any consistency, nothing to ensure the interfaces between pieces will continue to work (or even continue to be supported) and no roadmap or goals to ensure the OS is moving towards anything. It's like a hoard of random monkeys playing "tug-o-war" and nothing like "engineering" at all.

Mostly; they're all too stupid to realise that "freedom of choice" is inferior to "freedom to avoid the hassle of choosing". This applies to average end users who (e.g.) don't care which "cron" or system logger is installed and don't understand why the developers (people that should be more qualified to make the best decision) have failed to do their job and make an effective decision. It also applies to software developers, who can't test their software and know that it will actually work on all "GNU/Linux" systems (e.g. if a piece of software depends on 20 things and each of those 20 things has 10 different alternatives, then there's 20**10 = 10240 billion permutations to test).

Basically; it's a cultural problem that can never be fixed (and not a technical problem).


Cheers,

Brendan

There are a lot of standards beyond the SUS. freedesktop.org has a bunch of "specifications" that are de-facto standards for desktops. They handle application launchers, file associations (which works MUCH better than Windows' solution), the trash can, drag&drop between windows, the clipboard, etc. ICCCM/EWMH also standardize a lot of how to communicate with window managers.

Having used several desktop environments, window managers, etc. I can say this is one area I have never had a problem, even as a beginner on poorly supported hardware. So at least there they seem to have achieved "freedom to avoid the hassle of choosing."

When do you think Microsoft's monopoly will die?

it alreday died.

Microsoft never really had a monopoly, and neither did Apple, or Unix.

If you study Computer Science at university and use lab computers all day, work with data centres and your smartphone runs Android, you might think Linux has a monopoly.

If your friends are artists, you get a job at a video editing studio, all of your friends and family are involved in film and audio production, and everyone you know has an iPhone, you might think Apple has a monopoly.

If your family and friends all brought Windows PCs, only own Xbox consoles, Windows smartphones and PDAs, you might think Microsoft has a monopoly.

If you live in the country, and all your friends and family live in the country, and that's all you ever see, you might think that's how most people live. If you live in the city, and all your friends and family have spent their entire life in the city, and that's all you ever see, you might think that's how most people live. But, all you have to do is move to the country/city, get your daily routine established, and the transition for you is complete.

If you think Microsoft has a monopoly, buy a Mac and an iPhone, or install Linux and get an Android phone, and the transition for you is complete.

MessiahAndrw wrote:Microsoft never really had a monopoly, and neither did Apple, or Unix.

If you study Computer Science at university and use lab computers all day, work with data centres and your smartphone runs Android, you might think Linux has a monopoly.

If your friends are artists, you get a job at a video editing studio, all of your friends and family are involved in film and audio production, and everyone you know has an iPhone, you might think Apple has a monopoly.

If your family and friends all brought Windows PCs, only own Xbox consoles, Windows smartphones and PDAs, you might think Microsoft has a monopoly.

If you live in the country, and all your friends and family live in the country, and that's all you ever see, you might think that's how most people live. If you live in the city, and all your friends and family have spent their entire life in the city, and that's all you ever see, you might think that's how most people live. But, all you have to do is move to the country/city, get your daily routine established, and the transition for you is complete.

If you think Microsoft has a monopoly, buy a Mac and an iPhone, or install Linux and get an Android phone, and the transition for you is complete.

You're right but Microsoft, Linux and Apple have real monopolies. And they are not going to be die in near future.

If three organizations share the market I can't see how you can say that they have monopolies. Unfortunately "monopoly" is, like so many words, much misused nowadays.

Microsoft's monopoly will end when GNU/Linux (or other products) can stand on equal footing and stop letting them be one. The way it currently is is like comparing a business and a charity. The business invests time and resources to make their products better and charge consumers for that product. The charity on the other hand is a collaboration of people each with their own reasons for chipping in who give away somewhat less intuitive products for free. From this point, you can say the business is a monopoly, but that's because they're the only ones spending millions out of their own pockets for marketing and research. Apple is somewhat successful because their licenses allow them to market their products better, unlike the GPL which is a copyleft.

KemyLand wrote:It is obvious that the almost ONLY reason most desktop (and laptop) PCs don't use Linux is because all big-box shops sell their products with MS Windows pre-installed.

It isn't obvious to me. If there was a demand for PCs with Linux preinstalled, then big box shops would sell them.

mathematician wrote:

KemyLand wrote:It is obvious that the almost ONLY reason most desktop (and laptop) PCs don't use Linux is because all big-box shops sell their products with MS Windows pre-installed.

It isn't obvious to me. If there was a demand for PCs with Linux preinstalled, then big box shops would sell them.

First of all, this thread is ages ago dead, that is, September 2014 if you don't count the few February 15 posts.

Secondly, what I tried to say is that it's a recursive kickstarting process, that is, OEMs will ship Linux boxes when Linux becomes mainstream, but Linux will become mainstream when OEMs start shipping Linux boxes. So, how does it is even possible? The only way for it to be, is with me being wrong .

KemyLand wrote:

mathematician wrote:

KemyLand wrote:It is obvious that the almost ONLY reason most desktop (and laptop) PCs don't use Linux is because all big-box shops sell their products with MS Windows pre-installed.

It isn't obvious to me. If there was a demand for PCs with Linux preinstalled, then big box shops would sell them.

First of all, this thread is ages ago dead, that is, September 2014 if you don't count the few February 15 posts.

Secondly, what I tried to say is that it's a recursive kickstarting process, that is, OEMs will ship Linux boxes when Linux becomes mainstream, but Linux will become mainstream when OEMs start shipping Linux boxes. So, how does it is even possible? The only way for it to be, is with me being wrong .

Even if Linus was the very best-est operating system in the world, which it isn't, it still wouldn't be able to displace the enormous installed user base of Windows software.

If Wine worked the way it ought be, we'll be in a different world right now.

Microsoft's monopoly will never die. We, the scruffy hackers, might break loose a few percentages if we come up with 'the new UNIX' that all the students are going to use who then take their knowledge of it into the corporate atmosphere (similar to Linux).

Like mathematician said, the entire Windows userbase (not counting in Office and all their other products, most importantly the commercial software market which is infinitely bigger) is so large that it has kind of sunk into it's own foundation. Hard to lift it up and put in something new.

mathematician wrote:Even if Linus was the very best-est operating system in the world, which it isn't...

One should think twice about judging said "Linus" operating system when they can't even get the name right.

KemyLand wrote:When do you think Windows will decay, and Linux will completely raise?

1.When WINE will work with 99,9999% of apps, not just 95%
2.When someone will figure out a way for magicly transforming windows drivers into linux kernel modules
3.When LibreOffice will get a better UI
4.When a CRITICAL 0day in Windows is found every 12 hours
5.When Linux will gain enough media attention