Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 21st Nov 2013 18:41 UTC, submitted by MOS6510
Windows

The big story in The New York Times on November 20, 1985, concerned Hurricane Kate's advance as it smashed into northern Cuba and the Florida Keys before barreling north to threaten the Gulf Coast. But another big story -- for the technology world -- was about to unfold thousands of miles away in Las Vegas, where the Comdex trade show was getting under way.

Apple had grabbed headlines a year earlier with the introduction of its graphical Macintosh. Now, after two years of delays, Microsoft was finally ready to debut the much-promised Microsoft Windows.

It became the blueprint for many of Microsoft's new product launches. Early versions suck, but get progressively better over the years.

Permalink for comment 577333
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[7]: Comment by MOS6510
by lucas_maximus on Fri 22nd Nov 2013 22:07 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by MOS6510"
lucas_maximus
Member since:
2009-08-18

Yeah, but that's true for any system; OSes tend to run best on HW they support properly. RTFM is a wonderful thing and saves much time and effort in the tech field.


RTFM is not something that normal people should need to do or want to do. It is failing of the system if it requires a user to do that.

In fact I shouldn't need to do it either. The system should work for me ... not the other way around.

I can understand the frustration if one has some random laptop (purchased for other original purpose/intent) laying around and wants to try out Linux on a whim, only to find out the HW is not supported properly. But using that as an indictment against the entire system would be as odd as me claiming how Windows 8 still does not scale properly because I couldn't even get it to boot on my Raspberry Pi.


It is an indictment against the entire system because, it shows that it just isn't mature enough to be used effectively by people that aren't savvy unless it is significantly abstracted away (android is the perfect example).

Gnome and friends can talk all they like about HID guidelines and the ilk, but if people can't actually do stuff with it without mucking about it is essentially useless for the majority of the population.

Linux has always succeeded on servers and embedded (I consider Android sufficiently locked down to be called embedded) because what we know as Linux is abstracted away from the user.

I dunno why this is so hard to grok.

Edit to add: There are also flaws on any system. Linux distros will foobar things and drivers every now and then. But so does windows as well, for example we can revisit the debacle which were the graphics drivers on Vista's early days. Now, if Linux is not the right tool for someone, then they should not use it nor waste time with it.


The API changed so Manufacturers didn't get it right. It doesn't change as nearly as often as the Linux API/ABI does. The only way to ensure compatibility is to give your code over and that isn't an option for a lot of companies ... thus you have the churn change situation.

I think it is f--king crazy that there are slightly different versions of the same components put together in different distros and people aren't surprised by it working.

I know that even changing how some of my JS is called in my larger JS apps can break everything and there is far less code than in distro.

But hey, I am a software engineer ... not a hacker, so what do I know.

Edited 2013-11-22 22:17 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2