In message , Mxsmanic
writes
>Floyd L. Davidson writes:
>
>> There is nothing that makes them "effectively
>> proprietary" ...
>
>When they are built and supported by a single entity, they are effectively
>proprietary.
Then Windows is NOT proprietary by that measure.
>> And you cannot find a version that precisely matches any
>> number of special needs, and instead must try to
>> shoehorn onto place something not intended for the
>> purpose served.
>
>Most people don't have special needs, and they don't require an exact match
>for any of their needs. They just require a simple tool to do a number of
>straightforward tasks.
True.
> The best solution for that is Windows, because it is
>relatively easy to use, and there are many applications available for it.
And almost everyone knows at least two people who can do informal
windows support.
> A
>Mac provides slightly greater ease of use, but at the expense of a much
>smaller choice of applications.
Generally yes but it does have the main group of program people need (I
use MS Office on my PPC Macs. However in certain areas the MACS have
extremely good software support. In a few areas better than the PC
> Linux provides neither, and thus is not even
>on the radar.
Linux is a mess. OK for Geeks but not for the average punter.
>> But that is not the worst failing of the Microsopt
>> model.
>
>It isn't a Microsoft model, it is a standard business model that companies in
>IT have been using since the machines were invented.
Now you are bringing reality into it... :-) You have to Remember that
FOSS invented it's own rules an and gets very upset when the rest of
the bit bad business world won't play by them.
>> How many completely new designs, virtually unrelated to the last set,
>> has Microsoft produced?
>Nobody in IT has ever produced a completely new design of anything.
True. Thank god I work in embedded systems not IT :-)
>> It is only a matter of time until Microsoft also wakes
>> up to the simple fact that it takes multiple years to
>> develop and debug a kernel.
>
>Microsoft has known that for a long time, which is why current operating
>systems use essentially the same kernel developed for Windows NT more than a
>decade ago. The details change, but rewrites are prohibitively expensive,
>even for Microsoft.
The Kernel is not the problem it is all the boat ware that is added on
top of most OS. That tends to be where the problems lie. There are only
a few OS kernel models (Refer to the Tananbaum/torviolds debate) and
they are well understood. It is what the whole OS does that is the
problem
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
|