Re: COMP: Operating Systems (was Re: Re[2]: Free-Market Economics)

Eugene Leitl (
Sun, 13 Jul 1997 23:48:30 +0200 (MET DST)

On Sun, 13 Jul 1997, Mark Grant wrote:

> [...]
> As one of the most vociferous Linux people around here I'd agree with
> pretty much everything you said; at this point in time I'd certainly tell

At this point yes, though recent RedHat, Debian, and whatnots are
purported to be suprisingly painless to install. Even the process of
recompiling the kernel could be hidden from the user (but it is backwards,
there must be a better way to load modules at runtime).

The point is where Linux is heading towards, or, rather, where Microsoft
is _not_ heading towards. The dynamics is very exciting. It can be
extrapolated that a few years from now both the installation, the kernel,
the interoperability, and the supplied software base will make Wintel look
very paltry in comparison (unless they improve mightily, which they so
far have failed to provide). Intel chipsets can't cache more then 64
MBytes, haha. Pentium II can't cache more than 512 MBytes, hihi.
Braindead hardware, fit to run zombie OSses and bureau apps. There are
even users (zombies?) who like it.

> new computer buyers to go for Windows rather than Linux, but my main
> concerns are with configuration and compatibility. Software similar to the
> Control Panel on MacOS and Windows would solve most of the configuration
> issues and Wine is starting to get somewhere on the compatibility front.

Why bother emulating a kludge? Future software will be mostly done in
Java, anyway.

> Mark
> P.S. Microsoft's new distributed operating system that someone mentioned
> sounds remarkably like 'Plan 9'... and I think Helios was doing something
> similar on transputers a decade ago.

Microsoft never produces anything new, it's axiomatic. It's products
resemble shiny apples, rotten at the core. Good to look at, horrible to
eat. If you think Helios was nice, take a look at Taos. It's real, but
their marketing is a desaster.