There's no right way to do it, only ideas that are better than others in certain situations. But if you had the opportunity to head up the design of a new OS, one to Put Things Right, one that could be radical enough to varnish out those UI/X bumps that have clung on for years, but practical enough to be used every day, what would you design? How would you handle application management? What about file types and compatibility? Where would you cherry pick the best bits from other OSes and where would you throw away tradition? I've tackled this challenge for myself and present (an unfinished idea): KrocOS (warning: HTML5 site, will display without CSS in IE/older browsers). OSnews Asks: What would make your perfect OS?
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2006-01-06
Hardware vendors can and do release specs without harming their business. Open drivers are better for many reasons, both technical and social, and in kernel drivers are even better than that. There is no need for proprietary drivers.
You and others insist on arguing the benefits of proprietary drivers. If you would like to talk about benefits of a stable ABI that do not involve supporting the evil that is proprietary software I would be happy to listen.
There is no benefit to any proprietary software. Everything ought to be Free software. This movement was started by idealists and will not be perverted while we exist. Do not disguise your motives; if you mean to support proprietary software at the expense of Free software, so be it. You will find few supporters in the community. Do not pretend that there is some technical merit to a stable ABI.
When you refer to proprietary software as "evil", it's pretty clear that you have a distorted sense of reality. There's no reason why open source and proprietary software can't live side-by-side. Neither is "evil" in any sense, and demonizing either is childish and short-sighted.
Member since:2005-11-02
I am using inflammatory language because you seem to be deliberately missing the point. Such language makes it unambiguous what I am saying. A stable kernel ABI promotes proprietary software and this is a problem, not an advantage.
We can debate the nuances of antisocial, evil and so forth at another time. It remains my belief that proprietary software is not good and should not exist in any form. Allowing peaceful co-existence with proprietary software that exists already is acceptable, but promoting the creation of (and reliance on) more proprietary software is not good and is probably malicious.
I know you do not agree. I am just informing you: The people who want Free software for the sake of Free software are not nutcases and cannot simply be ignored because you don't care about the cause. It is they (and I) who object to a stable ABI on idealistic grounds and since you do not provide a technical reason to have one, one should not be added.
Member since:
2005-11-02
I wont repeat myself further, but I will just say this.
Hardware vendors can and do release specs without harming their business. Open drivers are better for many reasons, both technical and social, and in kernel drivers are even better than that. There is no need for proprietary drivers.
You and others insist on arguing the benefits of proprietary drivers. If you would like to talk about benefits of a stable ABI that do not involve supporting the evil that is proprietary software I would be happy to listen.
There is no benefit to any proprietary software. Everything ought to be Free software. This movement was started by idealists and will not be perverted while we exist. Do not disguise your motives; if you mean to support proprietary software at the expense of Free software, so be it. You will find few supporters in the community. Do not pretend that there is some technical merit to a stable ABI.