Take the poll inside and let us know what you think (javascript required).
Poll: The most important feature on an Operating System is…
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
The most important feature of an OS is its charsima, that’s no doubt.
charisma even…
>Way too many choices…
That’s because we need to be precise.
> charsima, that’s no doubt.
Now, that’s vague.
OS for what?
I have different requirements for a server OS than for a desktop OS.
Scalability is not really an issue with a desktop OS, but usability is.
And usability is not that important for a server OS, but remote deployment and scalability are.
Also I miss an option:
– Not made by Microsoft
But that’s just my personal opinion. 😉
Several of the poll options are vital components of even a decent OS. To me, the most important ones are speed and stability. If you can’t get any work done because your system always crashes, you need to consider a different OS. Also, it breaks my concentration when I have to wait for a window to be drawn on the screen. My mind wanders from my work to “Hmm, what could I tweak to make that load faster?”
Slackware meets my needs for both speed and stability, with the added bonus of being compile-friendly. I prefer, whenever possible, to compile the apps I use from source. Some GNU/Linux distros make this difficult to impossible, at least without major configuration changes after installing the stock OS.
As much as I hate Windows, I do still have to use it on occasion for work, and I prefer Windows 2000 Pro. It is, by far, the fastest and most stable version of Windows to date. Still, I look forward to the day I can ditch it entirely.
Of course, QNX and BeOS are much faster than Slackware, and are on my top 5 list of favorite OSes, but unfortunately neither has the hardware support that I need. I have noticed that VectorLinux is on par with QNX and BeOS’s speed, but I’ve had weird stability issues with it. I think it’s mostly my hardware, but nonetheless it is unusable at this point.
If it’s not free, it does not even worth trying.
If you haven’t written it yourself, it’s not even worth using 🙂
You hit the nails head. some of the offered choices are vital to an operating system.
Hardware support is important too. What is an OS good for if it doesn’t have a driver for my favourite scsi adapter?
@KumaSan
That would fall under Others.
I chose Good gaming platform. I am addicted and is the only reason why I still haven’t order my PowerMac G5.
Definetely snappyness. BeOS ain’t my favourite operating system fore nothing
.
How can you ask that of us, there are so many different uses for an OS out there: Desktop, server, pda, etc.
And for every use of OS there are different expectations, I would rather see that poll for desktopOS
Security & stability. Personally, I need an OS that I can trust. That’s why I use OpenBSD.
My vote goes for freedom.
I haven’t voted yet, but still I only get the results of the poll, what gives? Is there a mechanism to only post from one IP? Well.. what about ppl stuck on a NATed net?
Personally, I guess this is hardly a decision that could be made in a general way but merely based on what a certain OS should be used for. In a server environment, security and stability are IMHO of most importance, same as (to some degree) the ability to behave well even under heavy-load conditions. Running workstations used by non-technical office users inside a secured LAN, probably usability and accessibility are probably of top priority since you need your users to be able to work with the system in a productive and useful way (stability and security are important here as well but in the end and standing alone they don’t get you very far). Probably it’s just about having a good middle path between all those choices…
I am drawn to OS’s with a clean design, worried more about proper implementation than get-it-to-work, or make-it-go-fast hacks. Eventually, attention to doing things correctly will produce stability and speed.
NetBSD is a good example of this, and DragonFlyBSD seems to be taking this approach, too.
WinNT fell into this description before 4.0. Today, it’s just a mess.
GNU has promise. The developers are big on determining how they want things to work, then coding, not vice versa.
Ever heard of ” Realiability ” ?
Shame this is not in the list…..
Hmm… I notice portability is not mentioned among the important features. But often portability produces many of the qualities that are mentioned in this poll. Portability requires efficiency in the overall design as well as special attention for details. I’d say that if an operating system has been designed with portability in mind, this indicates that the developers care for quality in every other aspect of the system, too.
Hence, my vote goes for Other (=portability).
>>Way too many choices…
>That’s because we need to be precise.
We could be precise if we were allowed to select more than one of the options.
Now, even for BeOS, which has a rather precise focus, you have to leave out either “Latency & multimedia performance” or “Be speedy, snappy, lightweight” in this poll. Also “Ease of use”, “Attractive UI & good usability” and “Good developer tools” (well, good API anyway) are important to this OS. Furthermore, one might want to add the elements that are not present in one’s favourite OS.
Similarly one would for, say OpenBSD, have to leave out either “Security” or “Stability”, not to mention “Scalability & server performance”.
Ok, after writing this I realize that when you ask for the most important feature you have to make a choice 😐 But I still find the granularity to be a bit too fine.
Sadly, most of the os’s I’ve used in one way or another have not been as stable as I wanted. Windows and Linux varieties are equally guilty. Windows in that after several weeks (my os has not had a clean install since 2003) oddly enough it made me reactivate today after installing a pci usb2 card… Of course since I originally activated it I’ve replaced the graphics card twice, added a tv tuner card, a pci ide card, another bigger hard drive, a dvd burner, removed my cdrw (which was also a replacement after I had activated the previous time)… Anyways, windows after a while becomes just ridden with problems. Have mysterious explorer errors after installing svpck2 along with weird memory access problems (used memtest and the memory is fine, also used another stress test program I can’t remember the name of and it checked out). On linux, the most stable version I had was slackware (still on my old computer but its retired to my brother); but once you install stuff you run into problems and largely like in windows 3rd party stuff can destabilize a system and even when you uninstall stuff problems remain until you run a heavy google search to solve the problem . Much like my recent windows printer problem when I removed lexmarks junk it had created a dependency that kept the print spooler from loading causing printing to not work with my new canon printer (man ink cartridges are small no wonder their cheap!). Even in linux I was able to find a solution but even then remnants of past problems accumulate causing system ‘software’ degredation. In the end; which stuff would properly uninstall, supposed fixes would fix, and programs needed would not end up causing system crashes although in xp and linux have become (mostly the first) really good at not taking down the sytem because of one rogue…
It’s really quite a subjective thing, everyone needs something different for their wee niche. I find for all I do that I get the most benefit out of OS X because it is stable, clean and very useful. But of course others need different stuff from an OS. How would the Windoze world get on for instance if they didn’t have all the classic windoze problems to complain about, Crash, reinstall drivers, hang, kick, curse… They’d be completely lost. 🙂
Maybe “problems” is a valid radio button for the poll. Some people need that from an operating system.
(Dig, Dig, Prod)
Obviously, someone with the same IP address as yourself has already voted. Bad luck, but I guess it’s a necessary measure.
Is to Operate the System!
Which simply means to control sharing of the resources.
E.g. if some Application directly goes through the I/O to read a CD, and then you have another one doing the same thing – then they’ll definitely go into conflict. An OS would solve that.
So for me it’s the sharing of resources, not really operating the system (as the last one does not carry much information about the specifics).
except Other and Good backwards compatibility.. i don’t need those.. BeOS lacked too many of those choices..
Simplicity and elegant design.
Not having layers upon layers of completely different bloated APIs, modules and libraries with overlapping functionality that don’t work very well with each other.
You can put lipstick on a pig, but it’s still a pig.
most important feature is that an os does what is required.
who cares if it is rock stable, but cant do anything. OSes have died because of that.
I use Linux because it does it *better* than windows.
…….and the fact it’s free :p
This is why I use linux and KDE!
Of course speed and stability matter also. So linux and KDE
So probably we arrive to the conclusion that whatever your major criterion may be, it is orthogonal to your choice of OS…
as an os is only a good os when it has several of this features. stability is of course the most important feature in some way, but it says not much about the quality of a OS. and it’s quite boring to talk about a stability feature. there are more interesting topics to discuss and as you see with windows 95/98 and macos 6/7/8/9 stability is not as important as the osnews readers think. it’s all about usability and the software i can run on the OS.
and this is really silly: “Attractive UI & good usability”. attractiveness has not much to do with good usability. i want an unattracting usable OS.
Power/Configurability
I want to be able to do what I want with it, how I want, and when and where I want too.
This means Linux; Windows pretty clearly doesn’t fit the bill. I suppose *BSD might have worked too, but shmeh.
Performance, stability, eyecandy and security are factors; luckily Linux excels on all of those too.
This is what I look for:
1) Stability
2) Security
3) Ease of use
4) Attractive UI & good usability
I stopped using W2K because of security, it was very stable for me. I stopped using Linux, Free and OpenBSD because of lack of ease of use. I like being a geek once in awhile but I don’t want to have to be one all the time. This is how I ended up using OSX as it meets all my needs and I can be a geek when I want. I also had no idea how attractive a UI could be until OSX.
An OS regardless of its role (server, embedded, desktop, etc…) needs to have more than one “important” feature. It’s wrong to ask for just the one – there isn’t!
To explain this better: What’s the most important feature in a car? Wheels? Steering wheel? Headlights? Seats? An engine? All these are basics, and you can’t ask what’s the most important.
And re being it free otherwise it’s not worth trying: Have you applied this logic to your other decisions? For example, do you have a free car? A free computer to run your free OS? How about food – Do you grow it yourself? Thought not.
Just my 2c.
Well free means free as in freedom. When I buy a car it doesn’t put limits how I can use it. I can break it apart and use it’s parts to build a new car, or modify it the way I like. If a car puts an EULA in front of me to drive it andd tells me that I can only use the car myself and noone else is allowed in then yes I will not buy that car.
Same thing applies with food. I can buy food from anywhere I want. I can eat it, give it to someone else or share it with my friends. The cook cannot order me how or where to eat it.
A poll for destop and a poll for server at the same time would be Ok most of us here are religious OSnews readers.
Every day or so there is at least one thing that is of interest.
I went with security since a Secure OS is very important to me personaly. If a OS has not got a firewall I will use it for 30 minutes then trash it. This is different with windows since there are so many free firewalls out there. Linux no iptables cbf trash it.
A secure os should also be stable.
Or maybe another poll at another time can have
Secure/stable/scale ()
Stable/Fast/Light ()
Games/Eyecandy/slow ()
Standards/stable/light ()
there are so many options but most people can pin it down to 3 maybe a form with max 3 options would be better.
Free/freedom: I agree with you on those counts. I thought you were saying free as in no money. I’ve heard that request one too many times.
Good API / design.
As Thom said: ‘BeOS ain’t my favourite operating system fore nothing
‘
Good gaming platform because that’s just about all I use my desktop at home for, and it’s the only thing that makes me continue to use Windows. In terms of work all my development is on a web server and I couldn’t live without tools like Photoshop, Quark Xpress, Dreamweaver (as a source editor, not WYSIWYG style editing), Endnote, Partitionmagic, Visio and Project on my work desktop, so again Windows is the only choice if I want to be able to work with colleagues (WINE is not good enough for my needs).
Since I couldn’t find freedom on the list, I had to vote for other.
Networking support. An OS without TCP/IP and some basic networking apps (ssh/scp/sftp at least) is almost useless, unless it’s strictly for embedded purposes.
who cares if it is rock stable, but cant do anything.
Who cares if it claims to do and have everything and the kitchen sink but is not reliable at all and crashes all the time…?
For any work I rather choose a tool that does one thing very well than a tool that has an identity crisis and does nothing well enough. (though, of course the choice is not usually that black and white)
So my vote goes to stability (= reliability)…
…Personally I’m s bit frustrated that we have dozens of Linux distributions that all aim to do and have everything and the kitchen sink. Why don’t the distributors dare to specialize more? Being the best tool for a certain job seems like a very good philosophy and selling point to me.
Of course specializing too much and having too narrow a niche might be risk too. But I only mean that, for example, desktop distros should be desktop distros, server distros should be distros, and they shouldn’t try to step on each others toes.
Also, there are many Linux distributions out there that might do wisely to join forces more with other very similar distro projects.
…BSD people have got it right: What ever your BSD need may be, it is often not too difficult to choose which of the main flavors suits you best. They all have their own clear distinct goals. Also, if some *BSD technology turns out to be succesfull enough, other BSDs may then easily borrow that technology too (like PF).
Only thing missing from the current main BSD flavors is an easy to use free/cheap desktop flavor à la Mandrake or Xandros. MacOS X is, of course, exactly that, and a good choice for many things, but Macs just cost _all_ too much in Europe to be a competitive choice.
quote:
When I buy a car it doesn’t put limits how I can use it. I can break it apart and use it’s parts to build a new car, or modify it the way I like. If a car puts an EULA in front of me to drive it andd tells me that I can only use the car myself and noone else is allowed in then yes I will not buy that car.
/quote
…imho, because when you buy a car AND you intend to use it on a real road, there are rules to follow (the ones you are tested upon in order to get the driving license). moreover, you may break your car to pieces, or reassemble a car with parts other than what the manufacturer originally intended, but then you have to (at least here in italy) “validate” it again at the local Motoring Agency, in order to drive it on real streets
Thus, to say some form of freedom limitation (in the form of universally accepted rules, certifications, standards etc) are needed both in the automotive and in the IT worlds… otherwise, absolute freedom brings to a form of anarchy…
to not go completely offtopic… still have to understand why an operating system should be either reasonably “working” (without crashing that is) OR (AUT / AUT)implement a low latency system call table..actually many of the poll options are not mutually exclusive
especially since (for me the one important point of “free software”, beyond all the philosophical implications and whatsoever…) free OSs are customizeable, so once some of the required features (stability , performance etc) are assured, eye candy and usability fixes can be safely added
(i’m thinking of what the enlightenment.org site shows…)
First it must be easy to install. Thats the way you people
to recommend it.
Second it must be secure an a os that u can trust.
Third it must have applications i remember when i tried qnx 2 years ago it did not have netscape.
Fourth the os needs to be stable something to u dont have to reboot an can handle memory. My current machine has 192mb ram. I may try freebsd.
So far my vote would go for linux mandrake an freebsd
While it is nice to claim that you are supposed to select the most important feature, some of them are important regardless. Like stability. An OS is useless if you cannot get your work done due to buggy software. And software selection. An OS is useless unless it runs the applications you need.
In the end I selected speedy, snappy, lightweight simply because I’m tired of OSes which throw in everything including the kitchen sink (or two). It seems as though OSes which try to do too much are too much (don’t try telling me that Mac OS X is more stable than System 7, because it isn’t in my experience). Just like in real life I use a ten year old OS on ten year old hardware much of the time because it fulfills most of my needs. Now if only that OS would run on modern hardware so that I can run a few CPU bound applications on it (the applications exist, they simply are too slow on the old hardware).
There is a bit of a difference between an EULA and government regulations.
Governments are generally accountable to the people. Software developers are not. Because of this, most of the regulations surrounding automobiles are related to public safety, so there is some reciprocity: you loose some freedom, but you are safer in return. The regulations stuffed into EULAs are only for the benefit of the company. They take away freedoms to fatten their profits or to protect themselves from lawyers, and you get nothing in return. EULAs aren’t so much agreements or contracts as decrees. (Yes, I know that people with a more cynical view of governments will disagree with me.)
We face restrictions no matter what we do with software, because we are told we cannot copy it without the copyright holder’s permission by the government. That is equally true of free software, only free software others automatically give us their permission to copy it. EULAs simply expand upon that (I’ve seen EULAs with provisions to confiscate your computers. EULAs which say that you have implicitly entered a contract by using something on somebody elses machine, or by opening the shrinkwrap which contains the EULA, etc.).
“Good integration of components”.
I guess it was not included in the list, because it did not exits on Linux platform, until the very recent “Project Utopia”.
(Both Macintosh and Windows shells are very integrated to both the hardware and third party applications. Now we have Gnome 2.8 and {HAL,udev,D-BUS,hotplug} so we can expect more from Linux).
“Large software selection” (that includes games for me)
Another Windows user I’m afraid. There are plenty of faster/more stable/better looking/more secure/etc/etc OSs out there but when it comes down to it I choose an OS based on the software I can use on it not on how great the OS is.
If I can’t use it (Linux for instance), then there’s no point have a stable system, clean GUI, etc…
If I can’t even install the OS, the rest of features are pointless.
How about all of them?
When I answered the question I kind of took all the options as being of average quality on this fictitious OS and I chose the option that I felt was most “important” to me. I had no reason to assume that any feature was unworkable……
I need an OS that won’t result in too many complaints from the wife about how its different from the computer at work.
KISS
a really stupid poll, people should be able to choose several of these, not just one
“Take the poll inside and let us know what you think (javascript required)”
Yep, it’s javascript all right
.
A better poll would allow you to rate each feature. This is useless.
Rizo
Freedom
An OS is only the basis for a complete system, and the distinction what is OS and what isn’t are not clearly defined. See GUIs in Windows vs. Linux.
It’s the whole system that counts, not the OS. A non-expert judging OSes by *any* feature has no clue. The features of an OS only matter for developers. Users always use the whole system.
Relax, you all who always complain about this poll or other similar web polls… It’s just a simple funny poll, entertaining and maybe a bit educating too, no reason to pull your hair out for…
Oh, and just try to write a good poll in PHP where you can reliably rate/choose all possible options related to a subject (like OS features), and see how fast you can make it…
…Hmmm… As another thought: maybe all polls like this should just include one more default option:
“IMO this poll sucks (and probably all other web polls too)!!”
and everybody would be hapy?? 😉
“”IMO this poll sucks (and probably all other web polls too)!!”
and everybody would be hapy?? ;-)”
That would have my vote.
Polls suck. Especially Internet-polls. There’s not even a disclaimer in this one (at least Slashdot has one). You know how simple fraud is with Internet-polls? If its ‘just for fun’ then why include such decissive part to the website, as if thats somehow useful? Instead, just post some provocating article which trolls reactions and pageviews. Works too…
Besides, this one is not even democratic because people have to chose 1 out of 20 options and the circumstances (What OS?) are not defined. Its not even possible to provide your preferences (such as #1, #2, #3 and the rest). Such are explained here http://www.electionmethods.org and not hard to implement, but it doesn’t solve the problem that there’s no defined group of people who are allowed to vote once (and only once). Which means its useless.
It doesn’t matter which OS you run.All that really matters in my opinion is that you can say about the most if not all applications:”Hey it works!”.A lot of osnews posters bashed Mandrake Linux lately.Well i can finally say *everything* works.To give some examples:dvdrip,k3b,mplayer,snapscan touch usb-scanner,HP inktjet printer.I have run FreeBSD (nice),build a transparant bridged firewall on OpenBSD,i ripped dvd’s on debian and compiled kernels till i could dream allmost every header.All had their individual strenghts,to be honest,Mandrake made installing easy and hassle free.Everything worked right out the box.No need to use a kernel just because cdrecord is otherwise broken.
If it doesn’t run, it doesn’t matter how “good” it is, does it?
A good mascot. Plan-9 has my vote!
-uberpenguin
Hello from an ex-Pembrokian living in Canada, BTW. Anyway. My food is ‘free’ in that I make my own meals and I know what goes in ’em; I suppose you can compare proprietary software to a Macdonalds Happy Meal or a TV dinner. But at least those are legally obliged to have a list of ingredients and some nutrition information. I built my PC myself and I know exactly what’s inside it; even if I’d bought one off the shelf it’d probably follow industry standards of construction and I’d be able to take it apart, examine it and change things if I wanted to. I don’t own a car but if I did I’d certainly buy a model which I was able to service myself.
That’s what *free* software is about. Not price; the ability to know what’s inside, and change it if necessary.
Come on E, pot…kettle….
Security is important to only 5%. That would explain Windows 95% share
….interoperability.
Vira, worms and malware in general
no point having anythng else on the list if it stalls before you can use a program.
but, i like different os’s for different things, mac os x is the best all-rounder, but i think riscos is the best desktop os, for simple stuff, nice speedy rom-based os, and quite stable.
UI consistency (for desktops), and a single widget set. Yes I like my apps to look the same, and I detest apps that look radically different (Norton Anti-Virus for example), WinAmp, XMMS etc..
I tried charisma but it wouldn’t recognize my sound card.
Not horrible at all – you are not required to vote, are you?
IMHO this kind of polls – your need select exactly one feature from many – can make people think (or whine about horrible polls:). Of course I can instantly write down, what I need from OS (almost all options from poll are important); but to find out, what is most important for me (ATM), it took some 10 minutes or more…
Final selection was between three options: stability, large software selection and run the app that I use at work. (The latest may seem strange – but this app is Visual Studio.) Software won – stability can always be improved, Visual Studio can (and should) be used at work, but I never will be able to develop all interesting (or just needed) software myself.
Childish? Maybe.
Yeah, nearly all of those choices are important to me. Allowing people to vote for “all they think are important”, aka “approval voting” ( http://www.electionmethods.org/approved.htm ), would be a better way to have such a survey (and an election, but that is beside the point).
Pardon me if someone has already posted something similar to this already, I haven’t bothered to read the (at this moment) 74 other comments in their entirety.
A large user base makes everything else possible. Ofcourse this is the most important.
The poll has spawned a good discussion. I don’t think anybody takes the poll itself seriously.
They all look pretty fundamental to me…
flexable, very configurable.
I like linux because if I don’t like the default.. i can change it. or if it’s missing an option or feature, I can add it.
“Yeah, nearly all of those choices are important to me. Allowing people to vote for “all they think are important”, aka “approval voting” ( http://www.electionmethods.org/approved.htm ), would be a better way to have such a survey (and an election, but that is beside the point).
Pardon me if someone has already posted something similar to this already, I haven’t bothered to read the (at this moment) 74 other comments in their entirety.”
Exactly my point although it doesn’t address the problem surrounding Internet-based polls.
An OS is only as usable as the application is runs. Its the application that gets work done, not the OS. If an OS provides good. stable dev tools, it will see more more developers writing applications to do various things. Good applications will attract more users which will attract even more developers and so on.
Microsoft platforms (OSs) indeed provide the best dev tools, free or commercial. The vast available applications account for its success. While Mac OS may be better looking/usable, it lacks good dev tools that are easy to come by and therefore the lack of good cheap/free solid applications for MacOS. Linux is stable/free and easy to get/install. But it severely lacks good dev tools for GUI based development. Once it has that, it will see more mature applications (GUI Based) and that will make linux more usable for the average folks.
In summary, good development tools is the starting point for a good OS.
Open source is important to me. Its like having the engine of your car available for inspection instead of sealed shut.
Perhaps a shallow answer, but play Half Life 2 and thou shalt see the light. =)
I chose security, and am surprised many chose otherwise. Without security, your OS can become useless (crash, fraud, identity theft and etc).
IMHO the most important feature for an OS is it’s API and developer tools… That’s why Windows is such a success… It’s API is accessible through a variety of tools… It does not matter if it’s slow and possibly buggy… MacOS Original was a good OS, but with it’s lack of good API documentation and developer tools it was doomed to an ever shrinking market share… MacOS X on the other hand trades on it’s foundation’s open source status as well as a variety of freely available IDE’s and other programming tools (gcc and such)… Great UI, modern features, scalability, speed, compatability, security and stability are all possible if the API is good and accessible enough for all sorts of programmers to delve into it and not just big companies.
API and programmer tools… that’s where the money is…
To me the most important element in OS design is this: No third party application should be able to muck around with the innards of an OS. Having a “registry” which “Gator” or “Comet Cursor” or any other errant piece of malware can alter is absolutely ludicrous. An app such as AOL being able to overwrite system files with identically-named files is equally ludicrous. IMO there needs to be a brick wall between the OS itself and resources used by applications. No application should ever be allowed to touch the guts of the OS, no way, no how.
In the context of the survey this would fall under “security” I suppose.
I like my OS to be as flexibile as me.
If I wish to do something really stupid..i.e floppy drive raid
then it should be able to do it without much fuss.
Window really gets in the way of things like this.
One of my main annoyances with windows isn’t really with the OS itself, but with the software that runs on it.
Most users run as Administrator on windows because of all the crazy applications that don’t understand permissions.
This problem can probably be traced back to the wonderful win98 days.
Boy, some folks get awfully hot under the coller don’t they…
“Stupid Poll” this….
“Poll sucks” that…
Be nice, it’s just about getting people to think and talk. Don’t need to be insulting, it might hurt somebodys feelings…
Maybe a “nice & friendly” userbase is what a good OS needs.
Surprised functionality was not on the list. A computer is a machine that is valuable to a person insomuch as it provides functionality. The particulary hardware and software components that comprise it are what determine the nature and extent of its functionality.
Functionality is also closely related to reliablility. A machine which provides a useful feature but which crashes every 5 minutes would not be very functional. By the same token, if it does provide a useful feature but lacks some other important feature that would reduce its overall functionality.
“Security & stability. Personally, I need an OS that I can trust. That’s why I use OpenBSD.”–anssix
I absolutely agree. The most important feature of any OS anywhere has got to be Security & Stability. (granted, those are two that go hand in hand; so if I had to choose of the two, then Stability comes first).
Without Stability (and sometimes Security) one doesn’t really get the other desired features that are placed at a high priority. If one’s choice is Fun as the most important feature of an OS, even that doesn’t really happen without the OS being stable–except for masochists.
Referring to other posts in the thread: Where’s the Charisma in an OS that crashes a lot? If it can’t be up and running, Useability cannot extend to the rest of what its definition surely entails. Remote deployment and Scalability mean nothing, unless the OS can be up and running. Freedom as the most important feature? While people have their opinions, and I respect them as such, one is rather limited with an OS that boots then crashes, or can’t stay up/online, or saves things in an awry manner (point in favor of Stability there; and a great nod to Trustworthiness), and is just plain unpredictable.
One of the biggest gripes with early Windows, for example, was the ‘dreaded blue screen of death’ (i.e., the crashes). The instability. It caused people to not trust it. Of course, after that was fixed with later versions, there are still Security issues.
So yes, Stability (and Security) would be at number one for most important feature(s) of an operating system, out of necessity of facility for other high priority features.
–EyeAm
“If you’ve got an uncrashable Desktop/Server OS, you’ve got a lot of people’s attention.”
http://s87767106.onlinehome.us
support open standards. dont try to foist proprietary crap on people.
Apps need to be protected from each other (not write in their memory space). Also having per user settings to protect users from each other (i.e. in XP if you change the default browser for one user it affects all users, this is WRONG). You need good sandboxing as well to keep internet applets from breaking into parts of the system they should not.
That’s why I use Linux
.
The poll suggests that to have one feature you must give up another. That’s why I call it horrible. As it has been suggested a number of times, a poll where each feature could be rated, sat from 1 to 10 would be more useful. Of course all online polls should not be taken seriously.
As for the features on the top of my head (in random order)
– Stability
– Interoperability
– Modularity
– Great hardware support
– Large application base including games
– Powerful development tools. This includes editor, compiler, debugger
– flexible, simple, intuitive GUI
Of course you can’t have it all, but that doesn’t mean you have pick only one. Pick the OS that satisfies most of the above for you.
Rizo
“You can put lipstick on a pig, but it’s still a pig.”
I shudder to think of why you would know of such things…
While Mac OS may be better looking/usable, it lacks good dev tools that are easy to come by and therefore the lack of good cheap/free solid applications for MacOS.
I can agree that even if MacOS 7/8 was better than Win 95/98, the Windows platform had better dev tools available. With MacOS X, however, you get kick ass dev tools bundled with the OS.
isn’t even there, it’s “software support”. A platform without software is doomed, looked where it have taken Microsoft, and look where the same issue has taken the rest.
I voted extra features since that’s what would make me switch, stability? Of course important, but the other ones are stable enough so it wouldn’t be a major selling point.
The most important feature for me is freedom.
Long Live the GNU.
Most important feature never seen in an operating system:
Distributed.
Within the http://advogato.org/article/808.html“>sovereign context. [1]
Scalability was the closest matching thing i saw on the list.
[1] http://advogato.org/article/808.html sovereign computing
This pool have no sense, a good OS have different important features, not just one.
A GOOD OS should not make you angry!
A GOOD OS should not give you a heart attack.
A GOOD OS should not impede your work.
. . . . . .
As long as we have freedom of choise; we can each choose the OS that best suits our needs.
I choose, as the secondary OS on a dual-boot system, an OS that lets me switch-off the hardware when I want to do so — NOT when I’m granted permission to do so!
. . . . . .
For those saying that an OS must be installable on their system- Recall that you acquired that system for a specific OS. If you live near water would you complain if you can’t drive your car on the surface?
I like lightweight OSes with low latency and high responsiveness. That’s why I’m running MorphOS.