Poll: why are you making an os?

[Kazinsal]

Gates founded microsoft by himself, competing against previously existing companies. Of course, he did have steve jobs as a partner.

Ballmer.

Jobs and Woz founded Apple.

Ballmer was Microsoft's Steve.

[fronty]

Ballmer was Microsoft's Steve.

Allen. Okay, Gates knew Ballmer quite early and he was invited to Microsoft somewhere in early 80's or something, but Microsoft had been up and running for several years at that point.

Gates founded microsoft by himself, competing against previously existing companies.

No, Gates founded Microsoft with Allen, and I wouldn't really compare writing a BASIC interpreter for a small microcomputer during a time when microcomputing wasn't really a big deal to competing with huge corporations nowadays. Of course there was an era when Microsoft was at least in some people's eyes the small and humane company struggling against huge and faceless IBM, but at that point Microsoft was already quite well established company.

[Kazinsal]

Ballmer was Microsoft's Steve.

Allen. Okay, Gates knew Ballmer quite early and he was invited to Microsoft somewhere in early 80's or something, but Microsoft had been up and running for several years at that point.

Except Allen was Microsoft's Paul.

Apple didn't have a Paul.

[fronty]

Except Allen was Microsoft's Paul.

Apple didn't have a Paul.

Either I don't remember correctly what Ballmer did at Microsoft in it's early days, or your reasoning or way of representing it is too hard for me at 0400.

[Kazinsal]

Except Allen was Microsoft's Paul.

Apple didn't have a Paul.

Either I don't remember correctly what Ballmer did at Microsoft in it's early days, or your reasoning or way of representing it is too hard for me at 0400.

Ballmer was Microsoft's Steve. Allen was Microsoft's Paul. m12 said that Jobs was Microsoft's Steve. He wasn't. Ballmer is.

Ballmer was hired in mid-1980 to serve as the director of marketing.

[iansjack]

Of course there was an era when Microsoft was at least in some people's eyes the small and humane company struggling against huge and faceless IBM....

IBM were the major player in the success of Microsoft, and their first big customer. I don't think that I have ever (until now) heard anyone seriously suggest that Microsoft struggled against them.

[Antti]

I don't think that I have ever (until now) heard anyone seriously suggest that Microsoft struggled against them.

Maybe this conception comes from "IBM OS/2 vs. Windows era" but I there is no doubt that Microsoft is this big only because of IBM in early 80s.

[fronty]

IBM were the major player in the success of Microsoft, and their first big customer. I don't think that I have ever (until now) heard anyone seriously suggest that Microsoft struggled against them.

Yes, I don't know why I used the word struggle. But I remember running to the "small and humane" v. "big and faceless", but most certainly not exactly in the sense I wrote.

[iansjack]

Maybe this conception comes from "IBM OS/2 vs. Windows era"

Possibly, but illogical as OS/2 was a joint venture between Microsoft and IBM. Microsoft were clever and backed both horses; heck, they just couldn't lose whatever happened.

[Mikemk]

My point was that all the big companies were started by one person at one point in time, and competed against other big companies. It's not just illogical, but stupid to say it can't be done today, when it's been done repetitively throughout history.

[iansjack]

Most of the big companies were not started by a single individual. Typically, as with Microsoft and Apple, it is a pair of buddies. And the trick seems to be to have a novel product at just the right time. I would very much doubt that, right now, a new Operating System fits that description.

[Mikemk]

Most of the big companies were not started by a single individual. Typically, as with Microsoft and Apple, it is a pair of buddies. And the trick seems to be to have a novel product at just the right time. I would very much doubt that, right now, a new Operating System fits that description.

Yet, about half a year ago, it did. Now, probably not. In 5 years, once you've completed it, who knows? It's impossible to predict.
Point taken, though. Also, in comparison to multimillion employee companies, what is the difference between one person and a pair of buddies?

[FallenAvatar]

Most of the big companies were not started by a single individual. Typically, as with Microsoft and Apple, it is a pair of buddies. And the trick seems to be to have a novel product at just the right time. I would very much doubt that, right now, a new Operating System fits that description.

Yet, about half a year ago, it did. Now, probably not. In 5 years, once you've completed it, who knows? It's impossible to predict.
Point taken, though. Also, in comparison to multimillion employee companies, what is the difference between one person and a pair of buddies?

The difference between one person and two people, even given the "multimillion employee companies" is quite large (Though I doubt any single entity employs even close to 1 million people, I think you meant multi-thousand) The difference between two and three people is all down to the personalities of those people.

If you have any question about the 1 to 2 people comparison, maybe this might tell you why it is so large: Rubber Duck Debugging

- Monk

[MasterLee]

Because all currently avaible operating systems are crap.

[rdos]

I don't need to learn "cloud programming".

Sounds like you really despise scalability coupled with abstraction.

Not really. I despise complex systems tied to multi-million-dollar companies (typically Microsoft). I want to work with hardware or natural abstractions, not complex abstractions that requires extensive knowledge of somebody else's APIs that typically are badly designed just to stand-out or because of compability-bagage. Primarily I dislike most abstractions that others have done, and think I could have done them so much better myself. So why work with other's bad abstractions when I can work with my own?