When I joined OSNews in 2001, I did it with a great excitment because of my love for… messing around with many operating systems in order to explore news ways of doing things. Back in the ’80s and the ’90s there were a lot of OS projects that would draw the attention of the computer users of the time. But in this decade, it seems that other than Windows, OSX, Linux and a very few other much smaller OSes, the scene is sterile. And it’s only getting worse.Personally, I just can’t stand anymore the endless debates between the Linux, Windows and Mac users. It’s getting old, it’s getting boring. These OSes are already mature, and they follow an evolutionary path with only a few revolutionary steps every now and then (mostly by OSX, and lately with Longhorn — Linux technologies seem to be more conservative in their nature). But thing is, these are just 3 operating systems and there is nothing exciting about them anymore (except the occasional “wow” factor Steve Jobs might bring with his keynote shows).
It’s a lot like liking the Judas Priest music in the ’70s, and then they sudenly become so successful and commercial in the ’80s, that each album seems as commercial and boring and as identical as the previous one. It’s the same with these OSes: they are based on old technologies and they are afraid of making big steps. In fact, they are more concerned on making deadlines (e.g. the cut of WinFS from Longhorn).
If one needs to find some fresh ideas, it’s the the small guys he needs to look at. Not because the small guys are “more intelligent” than the big guys, but because the small guys don’t concern themselves with legacy support or deadlines. They can break everything they want on their OS and only 10-20 people will notice. The big guys can’t afford to do that.
In the ’80s we had at least 6 operating systems that had a good hold of market share each (e.g. AmigaOS, Mac, DOS, GEM, GeOS, Unix flavors). In the ’90s we had Windows and Windows NT, Mac, DOS, OS/2, Linux, AmigaOS, BSD, other Unices and even BeOS, all with some considerable usage share (before Windows 9x got to its 94% of market share and get declared monopolistic). Along with those, you had a gazillion other small, embedded, academic or hobby OSes. We are talking about a few hundrend of them.
Today, it’s the game of the three, plus about 10 more OSes that draw some minor only attention by the media: BSDs, QNX, Symbian, SkyOS, Zeta/BeOS, Solaris, Windows Mobile, PalmOS and some even smaller ones, like VxWorks, Syllable, MenuetOS etc. Overall, I would’t say that there are more than 40-50 active or noteworthy OS projects/products out there today. That’s a far cry from the hundrends that existed in the ’80s and ’90s.
Let’s look at the reasons why this shrinking of OS projects happened:
1. Windows, Windows, Windows… Microsoft even developed an embedded version of its OS and now it’s preparing an HPC one.
2. Linux & BSD are Free and so it’s easier//faster/cheaper to modify them to do a very specific job rather than to write something from scratch.
3. Hardware complexity. Back in the ’90s, having a “network stack” was a big deal and not all OSes needed to have one. Today, you can’t even consider an OS without one. More over, today, everyone wants his USB stack or his 3D acceleration. Writing an OS has become a FAR more complex procedure than it used to be.
4. Embedded OSes have managed to get good features overtime, and so it would make more sense to license them rather than writing your own.
To me, as an editor of the OSNews.com site, it’s getting boring. It’s the same old, same old, every darn day. We have Unix with Linux/BSD/Solaris/*nix on one side backstabbing each other for years, a bastardized Unix with OSX in the middle, and the Windows dysfunctional family on the other side. All the interesting (non-Unix) projects like BeOS or OS/2 or QNX are pretty much dead, or simply, much smaller than they used to be a few years ago. The big-three have destroyed their smaller non-Unix competitors commercially. What’s more sad, is that no big & new really usable OSes have been created since their demise to try and fill their void. After the death of AtheOS (which was moving faster than Syllable is today), only SkyOS seems to be the one that does some interesting things, but it’s still very small and exceptionally buggy (lacking proper stress testing procedures that a company or bigger project would put the OS through). Zeta is nowhere as big either (feels like a big patch over BeOS 6-beta rather than the evolution it should have had since 2000 – the last BeOS 5 release). AmigaOS & MorphOS require special hardware and that’s prohibiting for most people, plus their companies are under a questionable financial status with their user communities killing each other any way they can, making things even worse.
Blah. From where I am standing, it’s all sad and boring.
Wishful thinking: hopefully we will see a new, big, well-done OS soon, that’s not yet another Unix or Linux (although with some POSIX compliance in place for easy app porting, like BeOS & QNX have). We need something fresh. Heck, something new and fresh indeed. Something INTRIGUING. I wanna feel again that same feeling I had when I tried BeOS 4.0 for the first time in 1999 (excitement to the max) or the Mac OS X Jaguar update in 2002 or NeXTSTEP in 1996 (better late than sorry). Boy, didn’t that feel good?
Don’t get me wrong, Windows 2003 Server has been the most stable operating system I have ever run, and it’s blazingly fast too. But it’s not as exciting as the above OSes, because while it’s a good evolutionary step for Microsoft, it’s far from being revolutionary and fresh. It doesn’t come with “Feel Good”(TM) drivers.
“RAM is deleted on power down, that’s why we’re using hard drives.”
MRAM may be a solution.
As a person who has just converted from Windows ’98 to Linux (Mandrake) for my home desktop, I’ve found the hardest thing to be finding software matching some of my old favourites. Fortunately, there is a large community developing software for Linux & Mac (a lot free/open source) out there & I have managed to find many good or even better substitutes.
I think that, for the average home/office user, having a choice between 3 or so good OS’s (including the free/cheap Linux) is enough as long as they can do the job required. I gave up Windows for 4 reasons – security, price to upgrade, it’s near monopoly & the good feedback on Linux.
The problem with having tens or hundreds of operating systems is that people won’t develop/convert software for them all, and with each developer writing software for their own favourites, the choice for users will actually become more limited.
If the idea is for everyone in the world to eventually one day have access to a cheap, functioning PC, then the reality is that we will have to live with only a few (but good) OS’s. It’s not such a bad thing as made out to be – the fact that there is a free OS available in Linux is fortunate.
As others have said, making an OS is a lot of hard work these days. Look at the problems Linux has with certain drivers (especially modems) & getting manufacturers to write Linux drivers for them. How would we go asking these same manufacturers to write new drivers everytime another OS came out? It would be an uphill battle.
We all dream of variety, but the reality is that I would rather have a few working OS’s with software that supports them than tens of OS’s for which I can’t get programs to use on them.
Dunno. This editorial comes off as “I want innovation in my cars, shiney new things” (gui fex), yet is incorrectly pairing the os to said features- If you want innovation at that level, you don’t have the designer/mechanic go and re-invent their tools every single time.
Bad analogy, but that’s the failing of the editorial imo. Yes, some OS’s gui’s are bound together, but the type of complaints you’ve lodged thus far is at gui/desktop experience.
Not the underlying OS.
Eventually, as the EU is finding out, MS will win the OS-Wars. Then we will see great days, indeed! IE 137.192 beta 7421 will swat viruses before your machine e-mails absolutely everyone in the known universe. Just Watch.
Window XP Professionally Boxed Set will run every destop, portable, handheld, phone, PDA, and fountain pen in the World! Just Watch.
Entourage will be folded into XP v.932 as an “essential” service, without which the computer cannot be operated. AND Service Pack 816 will fix the Blue Screen of Death–Until Friday! Just Watch.
Bill Gates will buy Congress (out of pocket change) and be appointed OS God. An upgrade from Software Architect. And then the US will be officially “Bill’s Back Yard.” Just Watch.
Linux? Torvalds will be an MSCE by then. Penguins will be a footnote. Just Watch.
And Xbox will be the maker of all games. Powered by IBM chips, Inc. a wholly owned subsiderary of Microsoft. Just Watch.
God’s Archangel, Steve Balmer, will be stuffed and mounted in the American Museum of Natural History behind the sign “Dancing Apes of the 21st Century.” Hopeful thinking.
Life will be good, the sun will shine, flowers will grow, and the children will be safe in the “back yard” under the protective and benevolent gaze of God Gates! Just Watch.
There, don’t you feel all warm and squirmy, now? Just like when you first fired up Windows 1.0!
Of the 6 operating systems you claim had the biggest market share in the 1980’s, you mention the Mac, but not the Apple II.
What are you smoking?
I love my Mac, but I’m not going to lie to myself about it. The Mac market share has never passed 10%. When Apple was dominant in the 1980’s, it was the Apple II that had the market share.
If you think GEOS and GEM each had “a good hold of market share”, then you should be more than happy with the number of systems today. I don’t see how you can say that GEM had a “good hold of market share” in the 1980’s, and in the same breath say that Solaris “draw[s] some minor only attention by the media” [sic] today. What planet do you live on?
…if there is something good about that 205 comments. No conclusions, no initiatives…