Leo Laporte On UNIX As the Future

TractorJector writes "In a well-written interview with Mad Penguin, techmeister Leo Laporte (formerly of G4/TechTV fame) discusses his vision of the future of proprietary and open platforms: 'I think there's a lot of hope for Linux, although I don't think that Linux is the answer. I think that UNIX is the answer, in some form or fashion. It might be BSD, it might be Linux, it might be some third thing. But UNIX is such a well understood and smart to handle the issues that an operating system has to handle that it ultimately will prevail.'"

Comments

It's not

[Arthur B.]

Playstation, XBoxes, Mobile Phones, DVDplayers type of operating system are the future. The OS has been developped far ahead of most people abilities. The future is going towards less and less user control on this OS. Quite the opposite of UNIX.

some third thing?

[intmainvoid]

It might be BSD, it might be Linux, it might be some third thing.

Talk about ignoring the elephant in the lounge room.

Re:Unix is not the Future

[AKAImBatman]

And I think having a model where the OS has to approve code before it runs opens the door to monopoly leveraging, unfair treatment, unauthorized runtime limitations, and a whole host of other undesired behavior.

That's not what managed code is. Managed code is systems like Java, .Net, and LISP that eliminate direct hardware access, thus preventing system bugs like buffer overflows. Java is a particularly good example, because it has a very flexible built-in Security system that could be leveraged to ensure that a given program ONLY has access to the resources it was given at install time. :-)

Re:Arghh

[Anita Coney]

Merely because something is old does NOT mean it should be replaced. We're still building houses out of wood after thousands of years. Our cars run on internal combustion engines. And after all these years we're still carbon based life forms.

You admit it's "fine," that it "works," and that there is "good stuff" in it. If all of that is true, then why replace it merely because it's old?! That kind of mentally makes no sense.

The technology does not matter

[defile]

Microsoft's platform is the standard because they focused on the business of the software products market. They promised something to independent software vendors and delivered it-- a single platform that any developer no matter how big or small can target. At the same time they pushed hard to get this platform on as many PCs as possible, breaking kneecaps along the way when necessary.

They achieved a form of write once run anywhere. In 1985.

It does not matter what's under the hood, it mattered that the ISV only had to write one binary and not have to spend the money supporting two dozen incompatible platforms. Even Java cannot match this (I know, because I have to deal with it).

Today there must be half a billion PCs that the ISV can generate one single binary for, and with that you've covered what, 90% of the market?

Linux needs to offer big marketshare (doesn't have) and good developer support (has, sorta) for ISVs to care about it, because Microsoft proved that most ISVs won't bother targetting more than one major platform.

Talk about your pipe dreams...

[suitepotato]

One need only look over this book and do six months of desktop end-user support on Windows to see how insane an idea it is that Unix of any kind is going to win in the market over Windows as long as the Unix community remains ruled by sadomasochistic techie dweebs who love things based on how hard they are which is the exact opposite of the attitude that has allowed Microsoft and AOL to prosper and thrive in the common end-user market.

I love my FC3, but once again, don't mistake my technical abilities and the chance to flex them each day on it for meaning that everyone is going to take to it like a fish to water.

Apple's OSX most definitely is the best Unix-ish distribution ever conceived, built, and sold to end-users without any doubt in my mind. But do the Linux geeks get it as to why? No, they try mightily to avoid the BSD-ish ancestry of it and sit there wishing this beautiful *nix-style OS with such wonderful design and construction were a Linux distro.

Won't happen. Linux is dominated by the sort of people on whom it is still lost that ease of use, administration, and support are paramount over everything else for end-users. Windows XP and Mac OSX give them what Linux never will as long as the current crop of leaders and movers and shakers controls the Linux scene.

Re:Unix is not the Future

[AKAImBatman]

That's not a problem with managed code, that's a problem with the APIs offered by the managed code. There's nothing stopping a managed code environment from allowing you low-level control.

For example, JNode is a complete OS written in Java. It's still Work In Progress, but I'd imagine that you would have no trouble writing a simple text driver for your printer.

Don't confuse what you're currently allowed to do with what is possible. :-)

You have got to admit he is 100% right

[tod_miller]

It might be BSD, it might be Linux, it might be some third thing

So, its either option A, or option B, or an option C which can be anything.

He has given himself quite a bit of leeway there.

If Marshmallows evolve into the dominant lifeform on this planet, his dying breath will be, I was right I tell ya!!! Its the third thing!!

(yes I RTFA and yes he really says that)