Re: /home/user/var ? and others
>> From: Marcus Brinkmann <Marcus.Brinkmann@ruhr-uni-bochum.de>
>>
>> On Sat, May 20, 2000 at 12:02:15AM +0100, Adam Sampson wrote:
>> >
>> > This is just one example; I'm sure there are plenty of other features in
>> > "forgotten" OSs which would be useful to us. So, essentially, my plea is
>> > that if you've got any information about interesting (or not-so-interesting)
>> > things in other OSs, then try to make it available to others to pick ideas
>> > from.
>>
>> Well, of course there are more facettes to it than just lack of ideas (or
>> "forgotten lore" :). Quite convincing arguments can be derived from the
>> amount of existing code base and developer knowledge. If you have a cool OS
>> but no software to run on it, and no developers who have the time to learn
>> doing things the new way, the success becomes less likely.
Methinks this is crucial.
Something MUST be compatible with existing main-stream to obtain a significant
degree of success in short order.
If I correctly understand Marcus, a system which can, but does not require,
new super-whiz-bang "features" is a good thing.
A system which requires, for whatever reasons, these new "features" is a bad
thing, and dooms itself to failure, except as a curiosity, no matter how much
"better" some may preceive it to be. ( Unless, of course, you are Microsoft,
and are already dominant )
Minix is dead, because it refused to allow anything "new" be implimented.
Apple is near death, because it sought to control, and limit, what could
and would be done by whom, and what was required to do such and such.
Linux is a success, because for better or worse, it kept much of Unix, did
not seek to limit what could or would be done or added, and did not
require anything too revolutionary.
Microsoft is a success, because for better or worse, it gave the world
what the world wanted, even if some think it gave the world poorly.
In the very worst of scenarios, Microsoft gave us affordable hardware.
Hurd can be a success, with or without, some of the ideas being discussed.
If some of these are "required" then it will fail, no matter how much "better"
they are, nor how they "fix" what's been "wrong" with other systems.
Currently, Hurd is still a geek toy, with little promise, much like Linux
was. Once that obstacle is overcome, all things become possible, unless
like Linux, "features" start to become required.
No matter how otherwise broken, if Hurd could run Office97,
it could, and I believe would, be an over-night success.
--
Cowboy
Malek's Law:
Any simple idea will be worded in the most complicated way.
Reply to: