Dangers of Typecasting OSes

bjb writes "An interesting article has appeared on Byte's site on the dangers of typecasting operating systems. The article talks about specialization and purposes of Linux and BeOS. " Worth the reading, from the POV of dangers of stereotyping ideas/objects, in thsi case, putting BeOS throughly into the A/V corner, and Linux into the serve corner.

Comments

Typecasting Users

[craigly]

The following is an excerpt from a mail I sent to the author after reading his article:

Something that I think that this typecasting touches on, is the conception of the "user". What we may have is not the typecasting of OSs, but the typecasting of "users" in a way which does even more damage. If OSs are marginalized, maybe a company or two goes under, but if people are marginalized, then voices go unheard and people are no longer able to excercise power thru computers, wether it is making web pages, sending love letters, or writing Free Software. I find the alienation of people a much bigger threat, and something which not only the marketers, but the pundits for each OS or "user" propogate.

In a Windows only world, the "user" is a consumer, passive and accepting of choices presented to them by the market. They are not supposed to create, contribute or otherwise influence the development of the computer, and their use of it, other than thru the very hollow power of the dollar. In the Linux only world, the technocrat wields alot of power, the user is expected to share the mania of computers that the developers have. This is just as disempowering for many, because instead of being confronted with opaque surfaces, they are inundated with complexities.

The same thing happens in a BeOS only world, as it also has a very specific conception of "user". Something very similiar to Apple or Windows with a more sophisticated technical edge. We should be careful not to typecast BeOS as the third part of a Hegelian dialectic of the "user", the synthesis of two opposing concepts. We should not do that with ANY OS for that matter, because that action STILL will produce a single conception of the user which will alienate and isolate many people.

As Linus and others have pointed out, Linux world domination should not be about being the only OS, but about making the OS a choice, by allowing all different types of people choose the computing platform they want, and which suits their needs. These platforms should then be able to interoperate with one another, so that no one "user" ever becomes dominant. Obivously, this is not what the present personal computing market looks like, but I think it's something that we can all achieve.

Typecasting of OSes? Try User Typecasting...

[CJ Hooknose]

There's a common myth that "Users are Stupid." This article perpetuates that myth--shame on the journalist. I work with Real Users almost every day at the job, and many of them would be willing to trade some additional time investment for something that didn't crash all the time. Remember that it takes several hours for a new user to learn to use even a "bonehead computing environment" like the standard Windows/Mac GUI.

How many Linux users take advantage of access to source code?

The OS source is like a "home defense" handgun--not essential but Really Nice To Have in certain situations. I find that having gcc around is the best thing about Linux. How many other OSes have free compilers practically built in?

BeOS, on the other hand, is immediately satisfying.

Immediate gratification may be the American Way, but generally, the more powerful things are, the longer they take to learn. Tricycles are easy to ride; bicycles are not. Guess which goes faster. Everyone here knows where Linux stands in this setting...