Perhaps this is an over-debating question but, why software and hardware houses like ibm,adobe,compaq, and others don't do an alliance to build an operating system able to compete with windows? I mean, they have the knowledge so why not? PS I'm doing a calculus job with windows but the OS crashes so i have to switch it to a linux station, crap!
Well I believe Microsoft will have deals with all the computer retailers basically sealing their loyalty to Microsoft, where they will be required to install Windows. If they could make an operating system and manage to get it pre-installed on retail systems. Something that was MS compatible, and was cheap enough to undercut MS then perhaps they would have a slight chance. Problem is that MS could afford to undercut everyone probably. And I don't even know if IBM would want to try to steal this market.
Thing is that it was already attempted by IBM. Remember OS/2? In my opinion, a vastly superior OS for it's time with it's pre-emptive multitashing and dedicated memory allocation, but IBM's biggest problem was that they tried to work WITH Microsoft to integrate Windows code into OS/2. When Microsoft released Windows 95, they didn't play nice with IBM and denied them access to the 95 code base which killed off any chance OS/2 had to succede.
Ah yes - multitashing - OS/2 was good a running mutiple beards, moustaches and goatee's.... We did run it for a time at work, as the C compiler du-jour for the Bank only ran on OS/2.
Yeah but informatic world needs an ALLIANCE of competitor. WTF? If Linus Torwald alone created a kernel, man i think there is enough knowledge to beat Microsoft and to create a condition for real options for costumers. The key of this thing is to have a group of industries not just one or two!
I really did like running OS/2. It was faster and a LOT more stable than Windows was at the time in addition to being the leader in technology at the time. When Warp 3 was released, it included an integrate TCP/IP stack (which Winodws 3.1 didn't - remember Trumpet?) and when Warp 4 was released, it integrated voice recognition within the OS. I just wish IBM didn't pull the plug as it would have been more of a serious contender for the desktop market than Linux is today.
The thing is though... most people are novices and don't want choice. They just want a computer that does what they want and that they can operate. By having a second operating system, it will reduce portability of software adding confusion and extra work for novices who will have a hard time with it all. Most people are happy buying a PC from PC world, taking it home and using it until it gets too slow for them (probably because they've never done a format or bothered to keep it in any order), then they'll buy a new one.
This is the great truth. That's why it's so important that HP is selling PCs with linux preloaded. And why create a new OS when linux is already on the right track? Also do you not consider Sony, Matsushita, Hitachi, NEC, Philips, Samsung, Sharp, Toshiba, and IBM an aliance? Seeing as all are looking into putting linux on their mobile gadgets in place of winCE and palmOS? (Reference) I like how it bleeped the electronics manufacturer Matsu****a
I don't think linux is a real competitor for two reasons: 1) Although latest releases are more user-friendly they still are not comparable to windows enviroment. Linux was made for programmers and this philosophy is changing slowly (who wants to recompile sources every day because that lib1.0.1 is not compatible with kde3.1.2 that needs gimp2.4.3 that doesn't work without the kernel 2.4.19 patched by Alan Cox?) 2) I don't think open source movement is an effective reply to Windows: open source leads to a lack of profit and this reduces investments. It's a snake biting his tail.Working people has to be paid for its work (in fact Linus himself doesn't break his ass on linux but pass the day working at Transmeta). Furthermore i don't think preloading linux is a great effort: come on, these technologic giants could do more than this. They have hundreds of programmers and the knowledge to produce a valid OS and have the power to influence the software houses to produce software for this OS. If nothing changes we will have to continue using Windows and its new versions. (BTW i noticed that winxp kernel is called kernelNT wtf? What will be the next, kernel3.11? )
I beg to differ. Putting those programmers to work on something that already exists, and something that is already not too shabby, to make it into something more user-friendly would be just as good, if not better than creating an all-new OS... You could spend billions on creating an OS from the ground up... Or you coudl spend a million or so on perfecting one that already exists. And preloading linux is more than any other manufacturer has done to aknowlege that such an operating system exists. So I'd say it's a fair step. Lots of things are changing... toward Linux. As for XP. 2k, XP, and server 2003 are all based on the NT kernel, you thought they'd developed a new kernel for each?
except the NT kernel really isn't that bad... anyway, back on anti-microsoft talk... The linux community has only started to look into making the platform user-friendly, with a little work and time it'll be easier to use than windows. RH9 is already easier to install than win2k...
Actually i like win NT, 2k and Xp, i just want to have more choices. Different competitors means lower prices and best products. Linux is not a valid opponent, it's more likely the main hobby of thousands of developer around the globe: they work hard all day, and when they go home they put down some line of code. Don't think i'm against Linux; but my opinion is it has to many limits (of course not performance ) that will never be exceeded: 1 to many ideas and people=confusion 2 lack of retribution= this-always-will-be-just-an-hobby 3 linux is truly supported only by redhat and the open source comunity; IBM,HP and others giants are only joking IMHO.
NAME grep - search a file for a pattern SYNOPSIS grep [ -E| -F][ -c| -l| -q ][-insvx] -e pattern_list... [-f pattern_file]...[file...] grep [ -E| -F][ -c| -l| -q ][-insvx][-e pattern_list... -f pattern_file...[file...] grep [ -E| -F][ -c| -l| -q ][-insvx] pattern_list[file...] DESCRIPTION The grep utility searches the input files, selecting lines matching one or more patterns; the types of patterns are controlled by the options specified. The patterns are specified by the -e option, -f option, or the pattern_list operand. The pattern_list's value consists of one or more patterns separated by newline characters; the pattern_file's contents consist of one or more patterns terminated by newline characters. By default, an input line will be selected if any pattern, treated as an entire basic regular expression (BRE) as described in the XBD specification, Basic Regular Expressions , matches any part of the line; a null BRE will match every line. By default, each selected input line will be written to the standard output. Regular expression matching will be based on text lines. Since a newline character separates or terminates patterns (see the -e and -f options below), regular expressions cannot contain a newline character. Similarly, since patterns are matched against individual lines of the input, there is no way for a pattern to match a newline character found in the input. You know I can just imagine a regular user using Linux
lol. Okay, but what do most computer users do? Check email, and maybe read the news or play some stupid flash game... How hard is it to do that in Redhat? Answer: It's not.
To go back to the original question though... I think that it is more a matter of basic business. It would cost a buttload (can I say that?) of $$$ to write a new OS. The purpose of a business is to make money, not spend it. (OK, the purpose of a corporation is to return the highest possible idvidend to the stockholders, but basically it's all the same thing...) It is MUCH cheaper and more profitable in the short and long term to buy Microsoft's product (and I use the term 'product' rather loosely...) than to produce another 'new' 'improved' OS.
Big companies can spend that money, and if the thing works then they would have a LOT of billions in return (every market has some risks)
Companies do have to invest in research and development. Where do you think the money came from in the first place
But making a new OS from the ground up would be a blatent waste of money when an effecient OS is sitting right in front of them, and they could spend their R&D money on merely customizing it to make it more user-friendly... BTW, chilling, if they put linux on their hardware, guess what? They can charge less and still make more money! If they're not sinking $100+ into microsoft software for each product, they can sell the product for $50 cheaper and still make $50 MORE profit...
