Re: "Red Hat recommends Windows for consumers"
Ron Johnson wrote:
I must admit I was a bit disappointed in the outcome of OS/2. Not to
get off topic, but credit is due.
On Fri, 2003-11-07 at 13:20, techlists wrote:
On Thu, 2003-11-06 at 17:52, David Millet wrote:
all I have to say is that I personally want linux to rule the desktop,
simply because I will stand to make alot of money when big companies
start picking it up. a lot of us will, in fact.
i'm extremely confident that it will rule the desktop market, because of
the speed at which the desktops have improved, which i have been lucky
to observe during the past year i've been doing the linux thing. i've
seen major improvements, unlike how windows upgrades their operating
systems these days. i use winXP at work and haven't seen yet too much
of an improvement from win2000. i agree with that guy from red hat.
give kde, gnome, etc a few more years to mature and it will be
night-night time for the M$ monopoly.
Not until Broderbund releases a Calendar Creator that works with
Linux. Ditto for Reader Rabbit, Math Blaster, etc, etc, ad nauseum.
Or not until wine begins running these and every windoze app that
everyone uses flawlessly, which hopefully happens soon.
As much as I like Wine, and use it myself for some products, I fear that
the wine project may do to linux what win-os/2 did for os/2. If your
system will run win32 apps, what insentive do companies have to develop
native programs for you.
One difference is that Big Blue bungled the marketing of OS/2 worse
than DEC did of VMS, and that's saying something.
My first experience with OS/2 was version 2.0 - attempting to run in on
a 386 with 4M RAM. It didn't run, it didn't even stagger - it crawled.
But it did install, and it did function. This being in the '80's, I
returned my 40+ disks to their package and got a refund from the store
(it wasn't Egghead, I forgot the name).
Then I tried version 2.1 - this time with 8M RAM. There was something a
bit unusual here - the distribution had about half the disks, required
less hard drive space - and ran faster with more features.
This I had Warp version 3.0 - again, smaller distribution, smaller
installation requirements, more features. This was my platform of
choice for running Windoze 3.x applications.
I don't think I've ever seen a better example of programmers taking more
pride in their work and continually refining their code - instead of
just throwing more hardware at a performance problem. I've seen
exceptional programs written from scratch - Q, later TSE comes to mind -
but the level of improvement displayed by OS/2 I haven't seen anywhere
else. If IBM had decided to tackle a Win95 emulator - I think the
market would be bit different today.
Sigh. I guess they already knew whatever undocumented functions they
emulated - Microsoft's next version would just add more.
Oh well. Maybe I need to start scrounging pennies and forwarding my
meager contributions to the Wine effort - being able to eliminate
Windoze while retaining my existing application library is quite appealing.