MBirchmeier

@King: I'm getting the impression Marvin's trying to explain how things are going in relation to software development, not user interaction. The problem being the Program isn't running, or running well on the OS or looking right in the interface, rather than the fact that users are having a difficult time setting up the program. Because of this commercial programs, aren't written for *nix, because *nix is too splintered for adequate testing/support, and the companies are choosing not to support it, rather than planning for everything. (which may or may not be alienating users who want the name brand software rather than the 'generic version') It doesn't matter if the user is stupid or not if the software isn't out there to use.

@Marvin: If OS X were officially opened up to all computers and platforms would you consider this to be a more serious promotion of unix?

Additionally the issue of cost has been brought up multiple times. I don't expect a 'standardization effort' by one or more parties to be necessairly cheap financially. Either you have a core group of volunteers, which hasn't happened yet, or it gets financed. Payment either comes from sale of the OS, or from companies that want to put their product on *nix systems. The second hasn't happened (and I don't think will since Windows is reasonablly standard already), so that leaves the option of selling the OS.

Additionally Jimbo brought up the notion of hardware, I was under the impression *nix has had a pretty standard driver conformation, and that companies weren't adhering to it. What's to say the same won't hold true for software (please correct me if I'm wrong here, I'm not current on this type of information) the companies aren't planning for unix because it has such a small userbase (and users aren't flocking to it because nothing works on *nix. Is this something that can truly be combated?

-MBirchmeier

big_k105

@King, This is a civilized discussion you don't need to be flaming others because of there thoughts on the subject. Thanks

__________________
BIG K aka Kyle
Programming Forums
Kyle K Online

Please do not PM or email me programming questions. Post them in the forums instead.

Dragon_Master

I think that Mac OS X, Windows, Linux are all good Operating Systems (Despite what I might say elsewhere). Mac and Windows maybe alittle user friendly. Yes, to the average user Linux may not be appropriate. But you have to remember Linux distrubutions are free. The people that make it are not trying to target Aunt Gertie. They're looking for a different audiance. I totally, though agree with Marvin on this Linux needs to be more standardized. Heck, computers need to be more standardized, not to mention, more user friendly. Now, I'm not complaining( don't get me wrong). I find computers easier to deal with than people (alot easier :p ). But the industry needs [more] standard and some hardware that is more friendly to idiots who can't use a computer to save there life.

King

I totally disagree. Linux is just a kernel and each distro is a totally different OS; so each distro should be taking things in different directions. If all distros did the same thing, what is the point of different distros? You need to think about the different distros almost like the way you would think about MacOS and Windows... different OS's. If a company or person wanted to do the same thing as another distro but only build on it, they wouldn’t make a totally different distro, they would just add to a previous one.

I don’t think you guys understand what Linux is about; it’s about choice… so making everything the same with standards is going totally against that.

__________________
I am Addicted to Linux!

Dragon_Master

Linux should be about choice. But can't you have choice and standards too?

Marvin

If apple made the pluge and made OS X open to all PC's they would need the support of the hardware comapines to develop drivers for it. If they sold it for about $100 dollars i think they would have 50% market within 10 years. The reason, its truely brillant and easy to use. Commercial apps are plentiful, even MS Offfice.

The reason i dont think they will do it; its a selling point for their hardware. Dell would love to sell PC's with OS X and probably cheaper than Apple, so the only reason then to use Apple computers would be for the design of the hardware. Also writing drivers for all the hardware would take quite a while even if the hardware manufactures wrote most of them.

Also IIRC MS owns part of Apple(they brought into the company when it was on the brink of brankrupsy), and i bet there would be hell to pay if Steve Jobs opened it up for all PC's.

@king, you are one of these people who want linux to remain the OS of geeks. Red Hat and Novel definatly dont want that, they develop a lot of linux now, if they were to go under due to no one being interested due to it being too difficut to use then linux development would slow down. Its in everyones interest to make it suitable for the desktop, more interest, more investment, and therefore a better linux.

__________________
"Why should I want to make anything up? Life's bad enough as it is without trying to invent any more of it."

King

Sorry Big K, I just got a little frustrated.

__________________
I am Addicted to Linux!

Dragon_Master

True, but I would love it if they did allow mac on PC

King

Maybe some things, but not something like a package manager. Just because all these OS's (distros) use the same kernel, doesn't mean they should all act the same. MacOS and BSD use the same kernel, should they have the same standards too?

__________________
I am Addicted to Linux!

big_k105

I know that linux is just the kernel but I was refering to the complete distro as linux. Anyway, I personal do love the fact that I have choices with linux that is the reason I use it. I don't use it because its free I use it because of all the choices I have with it and that I can tweak every little thing about it. But the basic file structure in my mind really should be the same. All distros should have everything put in the same place. As for package management I really don't care personally about having a standard but if we want Linux to be adopted then it would be something that would need to be standardized. I personally stick with the distro I think has the best Package Manager and for me that is anything with the Ports system like Gentoo and BSD. I think that if we had a standard on the file structure then there wouldn't need to be a standard on package management but atleast that way each company could create there own installer and atleast know where that distro like files put.

@King, No problem, just try and keep it clean.

edit: I can't see apple ever opening MacOSX up to all pc's, mostly because Apple is still first and foremost a Hardware company, and not a software company.

__________________
BIG K aka Kyle
Programming Forums
Kyle K Online

Please do not PM or email me programming questions. Post them in the forums instead.