The Role of the Operating System In the Future

liteswap writes "Linux geeks love Linux and Windows mavens won't quit Microsoft -- but will we really care that much whether a machine is running Linux or Windows in future? As Sun announces Solaris support for Red Hat Linux applications, the need to specify the OS for a particular application will fade away, and the application and the x86 platform become the critical things -- at least that's what this Techworld feature argues..." Maybe a long time from now this will happen - but I don't see it happening RSN.

Comments

Re:Standard emulation/abstraction platform?

[MightyMartian]

You are right that the speed of processors has changed things. With fast processors emulating hardware in a reasonably responsive fashion becomes possible. I view emulation, however, to be to platform indpendence as NAT is IPv4 address exhaustion. They both paper over the fundemental problem rather than dealing with it.

Platform independent software

[kevin_conaway]

I think the role of languages that don't rely on a specific platform will become much more important in the future. I write my software in Python and it works wherever Python works (well, not really thanks to GTK+, but its getting there!). As these languages and toolkits mature, I think we'll start to see less of a dependence on the OS

Java?

[jbolden]

How is what you are describing not the Java -- bytecode, JVM model?

Re:welcome to 1999

[Billly Gates]

I just purchased a nice cs101 book for java 5.0.

Why?

Because my computer science department wants to standardize on java in addition to c++. Why standardize on Java? Because its the most sought after language in business.

Don't believe me? Go to www.monsterboard.com or some job site and look at jobs in your area. Java is the most sought after language with c/c++ second, and perl third.

Java is essential for any big ecommerce servlet. Php is not there yet and neither is c#.net in terms of scalability and maturity.

Java is a success.

OS Matters, and MS is in the lead.

[CDPatten]

The OS matters and MS is making big headway in that front. They are doing it right in the face of all their naysayer's, and the irony is those self-proclaimed geniuses are missing what's happening right in front of their face.

For example, the Apple crew touts being first to market with features like indexed searching as reasons why they will beat MS. All the while MS is quietly getting XP Embedded in ATMs and Cars. MS can ad a search in an update (e.g. Vista), but Apple isn't going to power any BMWs with OSX 10.5, but MS already does with XP Embedded.

MS is diligently working with GE (one of the worlds largest companies, 1st or 2nd place) to advance home automation, and integrate with household appliances. Home automation is the FUTURE of computing, period. MS is working hard to penetrate the Home Media market (media center, Xbox, IPTV, etc.), the phone market, and many other fronts. You can say they won't make it, but they are doing a hell of a job to date. Look at the next generation of television, IPTV. MS is starting to get so far ahead of everyone else it's getting sad. Take some time and watch the demos, they are very impressive. The zealots keep saying it isn't true, but they have been saying this since Windows 95. They were wrong then, and are wrong now. Apple and RedHat don't have any big exclusive deals with Verizon or SBC to power IPTV, but MS does. Those deals are getting fiber brought to everyone's doorstep. IPods are cool, but they are a novelty device and they aren't going to power the home of the future, but at the current rate, MS will.

Phones: Mobile 5 blows the doors off of all business class phones today with the exception of RIM's. With the exchange integration, RIM won't be able to compete... MS phones will support Push with more then a 100,000,000 people overnight. RIM is struggling to top 5,000,000. Linux phones are a nice idea, but they don't offer push, and the ones at present can't hold a candle to Mobile 5. Then there are PDAs. MS has crushed Palm, and Nokia's hail marry is neat, but won't beat Mobile 5.

The bottom line is if you like MS or not, they are growing in many areas that aren't being publicized. The naysayers are a sleep at the wheel. The platform of the future isn't going to come from Google, Sun, and certainly not Apple. MS is getting in at the ground floor of these industries and they have far more money to fight off the others.

The platform matters. I know so many of you are out of your mind pissed at me for writing this. I'm sure some of you will have some wiki-pedia posts to try and make your case, or some blog of an anti-ms zealot. And to you I say; it doesn't matter if you use a Windows computer for surfing the web or not, you aren't going to be escaping MS powered operating systems anytime soon. History will prove me right.

Re:OS Matters, and MS is in the lead.

[idsofmarch]

Your post is really interesting, and there are a few things I'd like to counter. no innovation? Hmm... Maybe you should start to research home automation; quite a large chunk of my little "spiel" was about that. Take a look at what MS and GE are doing with that... no innovation huh? Umm... I don't see linux or osx powering any cars other then some freak project by college students. BMW is a major premium brand using XP. But hey, that's not your kind of innovation. Shadows under desktop icons are. MS and GE are doing a corporate equivalent 'freak project.' Quit being so judgmental; Microsoft itself was once a student project. I see the point you're trying to make, but Windows XP is running the entertainment system, not 'powering' the automobile--that's for embedded systems, some of which run Linux. Shadows under desktop icons can be innovations for human-interface, which is actually really important even if Microsoft treats it like an afterthought. I have lots to say, but I fear its lost on a zealot like yourself. I'll try to be brief. You are just so blinded with hatred you have started to believe you own rhetoric. The problem is that's all it is, rhetoric.... Unfortunately for your side people have heard you, and they don't agree. When you say Windows is horrible they hear you, but think "well it does what I need it to". Your message does get out. The media is almost 95% Apple users; trust me your view gets out. When a user tries Linux they can't get software installed... try Apple and no software is available for what they needed to do. Windows market share is not losing to Linux or Apple despite your rhetoric. And its not because people aren't as smart as YOU! Rhetoric is rhetoric; Microsoft has plenty of paid shills and corporate pushers. Many in the media use Macs, many in the accounting business use Windows. What does this tell us? Not much, what's more interesting is how the virus/spyware/malware stories hit. Was it because the media is a bunch of biased-Mac users or is it because it became such a problem that the media--in their bondi blue towers--didn't notice until later? The idea that the media uses Macs can cut both ways.
Attacks on Windows are a real problem that needs to be solved by Microsoft, and I think many people would prefer they do that rather than jamming Windows Media Player into a BMW. Not that this isn't an interesting development, but many feel that Microsoft should solve problems they had a hand in creating. The desktop monoculture is their fault.
Furthermore, a recent study indicated that one million people switched from Windows to Mac OSX this year alone. It's a drop in the bucket, but between that and Firefox grabbing 10% of the browser market in under a year, we can see that Microsoft is mortal. Dying? No, but they're certainly mortal. OSX has had 4 paid upgrades to Windows XP. Annual OS upgrades are a nightmare for IT departments, bad for a company's balance sheet, and an irritation for end-users. Each version costs about $150 x 4 = $600. MS XP is $300. If you kept up with Apple, you spent double then going with XP. Never mind all the programs that break with the upgrades. OSX's upgrade cycle works on a different paradigm than Windows XP. Each 10.x has constituted a new OS with so many under-the-hood changes as to be equivalent to Windows 2K, Windows XP, etc. And, only in some cases did a 10.x break applications--we won't mention XP SP2, which broke lots of applications as well. But, this I think is tangential to the main thrust of your argument. MS didn't abuse any monopoly power to make Office number one. They didn't abuse or break the law to beat Palm. They didn't abuse anyone to make Server 2k3 grow by leaps and bounds, faster then any other server platform this year. They didn't abuse anyone to sell 20 million Xboxes, and didn't abuse anyone to get a 1 year jump start on the PS3. Xbox Live... no innovation? They have taken online game play to a whole new level. Their IPTV stuff is amazing, and that is why Verizon and SBC were so willing to lock

Already happening

[Junks Jerzey]

Slashdot is clearly behind the curve on this one.

Point #1: Embedded devices

Do you know what "OS" is running in your digital camera? Your DVD player? Your MP3 player? Your GPS system? In the majority of cases, the answer is no.

Point #2: Web applications

Google search, Google reader, gmail, Flickr, etc. They look the same to me whether I'm running Linux, Unix, OS X, BSD, etc.

Point #3: Cross platform apps

Python coding and development feels the same on Windows, Linux, and OS X. Makes no difference to me. Ditto for editing with vim. Quite a few other languages and applications are identical, too: Inkscape, The Gimp, etc.