Linked by David Adams on Mon 24th Aug 2009 09:21 UTC
Permalink for comment 380274
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 22:33 UTC
Linked by Anonymous on 06/18/13 22:26 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 22:25 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 17:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 17:32 UTC, submitted by poundsmack
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/17/13 17:58 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/17/13 17:52 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/14/13 21:03 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/14/13 20:46 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/14/13 17:32 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2006-09-01
Oddly enough, what you're talking about is BeOS. Unix inspired and very consistent.
Moving on...
A couple of points:
1) The people funding Linux/*BSDs are funding developments in the server, workstation, and embedded spaces, so yes they are better in those areas. If someone made desktop utilization a priority you would see an improvement. For example, Apple has taken a bunch of open source technologies and made a very polished OS.
2) Hardware manufacturers don't necessarily play ball with the FOSS community or they release wonky implementations of confusing standards. There are two great examples, ACPI in laptops is notorious for being wonky, incomplete, or both, and Broadcom's blind hatred of FOSS OSes. Once laptop manufacturers get their product running with Windows, they're happy. It takes a lot of time to document hardware, so most companies don't. (Broadcom doesn't see the profit in helping out FOSS OSes, or they just do it for fun. I'm not sure which.) The amount of stuff that does works with Linux or BSD really is a superhuman accomplishment.
3) X11 was designed for remote dumb terminals. X windows gets the job done, but it could be better designed for single user desktop use. It also has a lot of momentum, so it's not going away anytime soon. Finally, the kernels themselves have deficiencies, like the DRI situation in FreeBSD, that other kernels, such as NT, don't have, which goes back to point number 1.