Slashdot Mirror
Why We Can't Just Get Along: The Bootloader
mccormi writes: "Byte has an article from the BeOS perspective on why we don't see more dual boot machines from vendors. Browser anticompetitive complaints are nothing compared to what's happening with the bootloaders since the majority of people using computers will never have the know-how or courage to make an OS change."
Gassee claimed all along, that he wasn't trying to compete with Windoze. At the time, I thought that was a rather disappointing attitude. Maybe he was just trying to avoid a preemptive strike, though.
BTW, I know this will seem incredibly petty and shallow, but IMHO the real reason BeOS didn't take off was C++.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
IE 6 is out!
As usual it smokes Mozilla.
"Don't bother trying to create a better commercial desktop OS - it doesn't matter how hard you try, how many engineers you throw at the problem, how much money you spend, or how many years you put into it. Microsoft owns that space and, worse, the public is totally complicit with that fact. People will not stop using Windows. It is a losing battle."
Maybe the reason Microsoft owns this space is because it has done all the things mentioned in there. Microsoft's programmers get paid money, and money feeds people. Small donations directed towards Linus Torvalds doesn't feed him too well. While Microsoft has a large amount of people getting paid well, Linux has a few guys that don't get paid anything at all.
Money gets people thinking. Thinking gets people innovating, and Microsoft has done a good job at innovating from what I hear. Linux has not changed too much in the past 10 years.
While I don't support Microsoft, and I don't even run Linux, I run Debian, I have realized that since Windows 2000, Microsoft has worked hard on it's product and innovated. Maybe this is why no one else can beat them right now -- no one else has enough money.
(From article)
;)) the Linux fanaticism/microsoft hatred, but at least pick intelligent and well written articles.
"However, Microsoft never denied that the license exists, and never denied that it works as I've described here."
And I claim that Scott Hacker (writer of the article) is an Ass Burgler Of The 33rd Order. Since he has not denied it, it must be true.
Scott Hacker is a lousy writer. Why the does slashdot link to this crap? I can understand (and sometimes even agree with
Yet nother crippling bombshell hit the beleaguered *BSD community when last month IDC confirmed that *BSD accounts for less than a fraction of 1 percent of all servers. Coming on the heels of the latest Netcraft survey which plainly states that *BSD has lost more market share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. *BSD is collapsing in complete disarray, as further exemplified by failing dead last in the recent Sys Admin comprehensive networking test.
You don't need to be a Kreskin to predict *BSD's future. The hand writing is on the wall: *BSD faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for *BSD because *BSD is dying. Things are looking very bad for *BSD. As many of us are already aware, *BSD continues to lose market share. Red ink flows like a river of blood. FreeBSD is the most endangered of them all.
Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.
OpenBSD leader Theo states that there are 7000 users of OpenBSD. How many users of NetBSD are there? Let's see. The number of OpenBSD versus NetBSD posts on Usenet is roughly in ratio of 5 to 1. Therefore there are about 7000/5 = 1400 NetBSD users. BSD/OS posts on Usenet are about half of the volume of NetBSD posts. Therefore there are about 700 users of BSD/OS. A recent article put FreeBSD at about 80 percent of the *BSD market. Therefore there are (7000+1400+700)*4 = 36400 FreeBSD users. This is consistent with the number of FreeBSD Usenet posts.
Due to the troubles of Walnut Creek, abysmal sales and so on, FreeBSD went out of business and was taken over by BSDI who sell another troubled OS. Now BSDI is also dead, its corpse turned over to another charnel house.
All major surveys show that *BSD has steadily declined in market share. *BSD is very sick nd its long term survival prospects are very dim. If *BSD is to survive at all it will be among OS hobbyist dabblers. *BSD continues to decay. Nothing short of a miracle could save it at this point in time. For ll practical purposes, *BSD is dead.
*BS is dying
This post even quoted a part from the article and explained my view point on why MS owns the desktop world as of now. HOW IS THIS A TROLL? YOU STUPID MODERATORS MOD PEOPLE DOWN JUST BECAUSE THEY SAY SOMETHING IN FAVOR OF MICROSOFT.
That's funny. I thought that BeOS died because it was buggy, ill-supported, took 10 years to come to market, switched focus every two years to alienate it's users and developers and had no applications.
Man, I can't believe how Bill Gates fooled me.
sweet! Where do I download the linux version?
You're being blinded by your
Windows is absolutely the best desktop operating system out there. KDE and Gnome are great, but Windows is still more mature.
There. I said it. I displayed reason. I even posted this from my Windows 2000 machine.
However, you only need to follow the link in my .sig to see why it should be illegal to use Windows on a routable IP. And that's coming from a moderate Libertarian.
The facts speak for themselves. Microsoft is a sick and dangerous company, like the Nazis were a sick and dangerous political entity. They're so convinced that what they're doing is the right thing for everyone that they fail to see their own shortcomings.
Hitler thought that killing all the Jews would solve the world's problems. Bill thinks that being the only operating system will solve the world's problems. Neither one is/was anything more than obsessively convinced of the strength of a flawed vision.
Hitler's birthday = April 20th. Gates = October 28th.
Yahoo's Astrology section has some interesting insights into their romantic potential. Buy the happy couple some flowers. And please lace them with cyanide.
Fire and Meat. Yummy.
The last 80% or so of the article has been done to death here, so I'd like to comment on the first part:
Gee, BeOS users are stuck out in the cold, since their product is being discontinued?
Can we revisit the claims you BeOS folks were making about it not being important that the Source be Open?
This is why it's important, folks; no company can discontinue Linux. If RedHat dropped off the face of the Earth, my systems would continue to evolve and support new hardware.
In two years it'll be hard for BeOS people to buy a new machine that functions properly under their OS, because the source is closed and one company can dictate whether or not it's updated.