Linked by nfeske on Tue 28th Feb 2012 11:51 UTC
Permalink for comment 508827
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:
2011-01-28
ebasconp,
"The problem is that turning your hobby OS in something usable (more yet with the current high standards) is a titanic task."
You got that right. For most users, what makes an OS "usable" is the apps. You might have a great functioning kernel + desktop environment, but without the apps it's useless to a great majority of users.
Even windows itself would be useless if it were a hobby os which worked as it does now but had no software for it... The property which makes it useful is the software.
For better or worse, the only way for hobby OSes to get real apps is to run them in a compatibility layer. But implementing another OS's APIs is a significant and thankless commitment. Look at the wine project, they've done a lot of good work, but it's still hit or miss and nearly everyone buying windows software runs it on windows.
The big questions are:
How should a hobby OS dev convince users to run foreign software on a compatibility layer in the new OS?
How should a hobby OS dev convince devs to write/port software to the new OS?