Editorial Archive

"Even today, you can still get to a C: prompt under Windows XP, which means a disk operating system is hiding there no matter what Microsoft wants us to believe . Windows XP is not an operating system. It is a windowing system that sits atop an operating system much as KDE or Gnome sit atop Linux. . " Read the (funny?) editorial at I, Cringely.

Is the modern operating system a tool of facilitation that should provide just the basic necessities of a system and no more, staying out of the way of the user? Or should the modern OS assist the user in their everyday tasks, sorting and displaying relevant information, providing a filter between the ever increasing amount of information and the task at hand.

Have you bought a PC to run Linux and received a copy of a proprietary desktop operating system you do not intend on using? Did the manufacturer collect a fee for the operating system you don't use? Walt Pennington, member of the San Diego Linux Users Group, concerned citizen, and esteemed tort attorney outlines the legal challenge of OEM agreements. Seeking a refund of his own unwanted copy of Microsoft Windows, Pennington relates his day in court and calls on other consumers to demand a refund on January 23, 2003.

Hundreds of debates, countless flames, innumerable passionate supporters, no limits, no ending lines, no result. The conflicts keep on going and going and going. It doesn’t matter if it’s Cisco’s IOS, Microsoft’s Windows, Suse’s Linux or FreeBSD. People struggle to prove their platform’s superiority ignoring that an Operating System is just a tool focusing on specific needs.

"It's all over but the shouting. The non-settling states can still appeal, but they're not going to win. The DC Circuit slapped down Judges Sporkin and Jackson when they tried to give Microsoft a hard time; now that it has the ruling it wants, it's going to let that ruling stand. That leaves only the Supreme Court, and it's hard for me to imagine this particular Supreme Court even hearing the Microsoft case." Editorial.

There are enormous amounts of information now available about evaluating, and examining Linux for the desktop. Almost every vendor/distribution is making pitches for the desktop. The quality of the software has improved, and continues to improve. In my personal tests, there are still some missing elements that I thought I would convey to you the reader. Some of my points may have answers, and solutions available. I may not be aware of them however, so be aware of this and I look forward to your responses in the comments area below the article.

There's so much going through my head right now, my first article since a fairly controversial article I wrote that got emotional for many on this website as well as many others. One thing is for sure: many have gotten a crash course on some things perceived as "wrong with Linux" and what is collectively agreed is right.

First, a little background. I am a Windows user who has been using Windows since 3.1. I am not a programmer or a developer, I am a user. I process photos, use the internet, e-mail, write letters, play the ever important games and even use it to develop my comic strips. I am not computer illiterate and I use my computer with confidence and skill. Now with that said. I hate Windows.

A few weeks ago, I wrote an article for OSNews entitled "Update on Red Hat's Limbo Progress." It was to be a short article on how much Red Hat's beta releases have impressed me - to share with everyone some of the changes a desktop user sees and maybe generate some additional interest in my choice, Linux. Little did I know, one of my comments nearly incited a riot- it would flood my Inbox, leave me feeling silly about something that I still think is true...it was just poorly stated.
So, let's try a little experiment.

The first editorial is an interesting take from ExtremeTech about Red Hat's "dual play" in the Linux business, called "RedHat's Astroturfing". The second one, called "Creativity, reliability to drive telematics" is written by Paul Leroux, from QNX Software. Last by not least, David Berlind analyzes the pros and cons of binary compatibility between versions: Is it the holy grail or the red herring?

I've always been curious about how things work. When I was little, I annoyed my parents with millions of questions. Why is the sky blue? How does water come out of the tap when you open it? Maybe I was born without the mental switch that lets you be happy with using something, without trying to figure out how it works.

Many companies are trying to move to a subscription model for their software and Apple really has something going for them in that respect if you think about it. We, OS X Users, are already accustomed to the automatic updating of the OS and like it. dotMAC actually looks nice all in all, even if some might feel it is expensive. What people don't like is unpredictability; they have nothing against change as long as they like the outcome and know where it is going.

According to a brief paragraph on MacOS Rumours Apple may be switching to IBM POWER4 CPUs instead of the Motorola G5 for future Macs.

One of the early GUI operating systems for the PC, that is still being developed today, is GEM, an operating system that was originally created by Digital Research in the early 1980s. GEM was described as providing a Mac like GUI for the PC – long before Microsoft Windows 3.1 or 95. Today GEM continues to be developed as FreeGEM and old and new versions of the GEM OS and GEM applications can be downloaded for free (see links below). The history of Digital Research and GEM is quite interesting, as GEM had the potential to become the "Windows" (or Mac) of the PC world.