On Sunday 27 Dec 2009, Rakesh Malik wrote: > "What could you expect more from an OS than window interface and > file managing?" > > I rate networking and device abstraction pretty highly as far as > required OS functionality goes, but then I buy computers to use > them, not to tinker with them. Personally, even though I'm a > Linux fan, I think it's a waste of time, because it doesn't have > the application and hardware options that windows does, and no > matter how much anyone claims otherwise, the reality is that > windows is the most economical platform for high-performance > workstations currently available. > > I've long given up hope for Linux getting to that point... and > unless Apple decides to start working with OEMs, they'll always > cost more than the windows competition, but at least now they're > in the same bracket as Dell, even though they are still more > expensive. > > ----------------------------- > Rakesh Malik
Lol - or perhaps Ho, Ho, Ho is more appropriate; this is an unexpected thread :-) However, I think your main argument against choosing Linux i.e. lack of proprietary application and hardware support is actually going against the trend for increased support. To be sure, you couldn't describe the trend as being overwhelmingly strong atm, but it is there; RS3D for Linux and the Intel, nVidia and AMD/ATI drivers are good examples of that. While there are many good philosophical arguments for Linux there's really only one argument against it, and that only applies to businesses that make their money from the sale of expensive software i.e. Linux is bad because it challenges the software supply monopoly that software businesses depend upon to make their money. The thing is though, the software supply monopolies cannot stop open source collaboration and as a consequence the software business will inevitably contract in size and value. Although software giants like Microsoft and Oracle etc. look huge and invulnerable right now they'll eventually be 'beaten'. However, they won't be beaten as a result of being 'attacked' but simply by being bypassed; these software giants are slowly but surely becoming redundant. The funniest thing of all though, is that the entire debate is only a transient issue anyway. In the longer term, at some point in the next ten to twenty years, nearly all computer software will be written by Artificial Intelligences (AIs). Instead of running a conventional operating system on our hardware, as we do now, the OS will become an AI that can write its own software and even update and improve itself. Basically, the OS AI will have access to libraries of existing knowledge base routines and techniques that it will be able to pick and choose from, trying out different combinations with its users, and then collaborating with all the other AI OSs to compare, tune and further develop ideas. While I don't know of any such projects atm, I'm sure that they're inevitable, and the strong chances are that they'll be open source; the project is inherently open source by nature, for if the AIs are developing the software, who owns the copyright? The funny thing is that the strongest attempts to stop this devlopment will once again, as with the attmpts to make Linux illegal, come from the software business. What will make it funny is that the best argument they will have will be based on fear of a Terminator style 'Skynet' system evolving, which will inevitably try to take over the Earth - Lol. Heh! - a case of reality impersonating fiction. LeeE
