Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 25th May 2012 14:55 UTC
General Unix James Hague: "But all the little bits of complexity, all those cases where indecision caused one option that probably wasn't even needed in the first place to be replaced by two options, all those bad choices that were never remedied for fear of someone somewhere having to change a line of code... They slowly accreted until it all got out of control, and we got comfortable with systems that were impossible to understand." Counterpoint by John Cook: "Some of the growth in complexity is understandable. It's a lot easier to maintain an orthogonal design when your software isn't being used. Software that gets used becomes less orthogonal and develops diagonal shortcuts." If there's ever been a system in dire need of a complete redesign, it's UNIX and its derivatives. A mess doesn't even begin to describe it (for those already frantically reaching for the comment button, note that this applies to other systems as well).
Thread beginning with comment 519833
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
demetrioussharpe
Member since:
2009-01-09

You also have two operating systems that went pretty much nowhere.


OS/2 actually DID go somewhere. Back in the early '90s, it wasn't a forgone conclusion that Windows would win the OS wars. OS/2 was largely sabotaged by it's principle developer after the MS/IBM split. That helped lead to OS/2 leaving the consumer market, but it stayed in the corporate market -doing exceptionally well in the finance & manufacturing sectors. In fact, I once saw a crashed ATM that had OS/2 installed on it an a mall in Killeen, TX at the end of the '90s.

Reply Parent Score: 1

Comment by zima
by zima on Fri 1st Jun 2012 23:59 in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by demetrioussharpe"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

Curious that "exceptionally well" made you recall a crashed OS/2 ATM ;P

Anyway, it really hardly went anywhere worldwide - the position of OS/2 in banking or manufacturing, in some places, most likely stemmed from the earlier, long standing IBM presence in those sectors there, before OS/2 was even conceived; it had nothing to do with any virtues of OS/2 itself.
And you can't say it was sabotaged after the split when it hardly gained a foothold in the first place - also because of earlier (warped*) development processes...

...some of them by design. IBM wanted to use OS/2 to recapture the control over PC market. Of course most manufacturers and users wouldn't go with that - so yeah, "in the early '90s", with already quite nice Win 3.x around (with strong worldwide presence), it was a foregone conclusion.


* you have to wonder what kind of people insisted on such codename - for most of the population not evoking pop scifi, but something completely different...
http://www.insearchofstupidity.com/ch6.htm

Edited 2012-06-02 00:17 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2