Someone quick, give this guy a job working on any kind of desktop and pay him money to come up with ideas.
I'm no X-windows guru, nor am I a hard core driver hacker (in fact I've been doing J2EE work for the past 4 years or so). But I do know one thing about the engineer who wrote that code and wrote that paper, he's what we all should strive to be like. Not the fact that his idea might not be perfect, and not the fact that his idea may never compete with X*, but the fact that he is driven. He's thorough, systematic, he challenges conventions and has the drive and determination to sit down think through a problem, find a solution and implement it. Then he goes back and tests it, compares it to the competition and spend a good chuck of time thinking about how to expand the idea, the possibilities. He's not the guy who just sits around complaining about the problems and ripping apart all the solutions. He's the one making steps to solve the problems.
In 15 years (hopefully), the world won't be run by desktops or workstations running X or even Y or Z. It will be run by software that takes all the great concepts from all of them, none of the bad concepts and a few new concepts and puts them together.
The philosophy behind Y can be applied to any project and any technology, whether its an OS, a graphics system, a protocol, a web framework or a new language.
Myabe I'm just to too cynical, but X-Windows? Really? I don't care how well the Frame-Buffers work, what they programmed in to bypass all the network layers, X-Windows is never going to cut it in the desktop world.
Why don't these software companies do what their supposed to do and actually program something. If all they are going to do is take a bunch of packages, slap them together, put in a few utilities to make configuring these mammoths easier and put their logo on a cardboard box, Linux will never make it to the desktop.
Come on people, the Linux community has to stop thinking like Sun, W3C and all these other monstrousities that crank out new ideas less frequently than LucasFilm does. They need a revolution of thought that makes customers proud to stand behind their product.
This has been one of my longest standing gripes about my profession. I've worked a tiny companies and huge companies, and I have yet to see any one who builds good software. Just like the article states, this is due to the gap concept between first and second place. It also has to do with money issues.
BUT, to date there really hasn't been any (or very few) instances that would provide a contrary opinion. In this I mean that there have not been two competing companies, one who frantically gets their product to market and the other that spends time on engineering.
I would go as far as to say that if this happened, and the company who engineered their product better, would probably come out on top, even though they released second. The customer would have more features, more reliable use and probably a better looking and usable product.
As we all know, Linux is the guts and most distros are Linux with a bunch of stuff slapped on top, usually stuff like XFree, Gnome, VI, Emacs, etc. Developers and techies love all this stuff, but it scares the crap out of the other 70% of computer users (just a guess, but probably close).
Are you planning on giving the world another Linux with the same fixin's or are you planning on stepping up and revolutionizing the way that people use Linux? Are we going to see another distro with the same stuff on top, or something that might do those 70% some good?
From what I've read on the website and seen in the discussions, we'll probably just get another Linux with the same old stuff on top. If this is the case, how can you justify creating a new OS that accomplishes the same things as all the others and doesn't address the larger issues like usability, strong product support, worldwide acceptance, household use, and much more?
I do believe that Lycoris is stepping in the right direction by addressing issues with the usability of linux distributions. However something is missing.
I've been pondering this very same idea for quite some time now and I'vve finally started to put my ideas down into some form of a white paper, which hopefully may one day turn into a large software project.
I'll post some of my key points here and if anyone would like a complete version of the document, please contact me and once it is finished, I'll do a mass mailing. My email is voidmain11@yahoo.com.
"The main concept is to create a complete operating system that is equally as useful to home users and developers/power users."
"The performance and stability of the core operating system will come from using an open source core such as Linux or FreeBSD."
"The graphics system will be written from the ground up."
"When a new installation of a unix variant is complete, the system is usually not setup correctly for use." (snip) "This system must be one hundred percent usable directly after install."
"In the root directory (/), there exist a number of directories such as usr, proc, dev, etc, and many more. These are unacceptably named for a home user." (snip) "A new layout will need to be devised around the key files of a working computer's disk."
"A new graphical system needs to be created." (snip) "With comparisons based on X, current graphical systems are too complex, too slow, have poor font support,..."
Of course these are just some key points, but I think they are valid. I have to take the stand with Lycoris, that changing the face of Linux won't work. Apple, which seems to be brought up quite a bit lately, seems to have done most things right with the release of OS X. Yet, "no system for Intel 32 (I32) architecture has yet been developer."
Slashdot Mirror
Someone quick, give this guy a job working on any kind of desktop and pay him money to come up with ideas.
I'm no X-windows guru, nor am I a hard core driver hacker (in fact I've been doing J2EE work for the past 4 years or so). But I do know one thing about the engineer who wrote that code and wrote that paper, he's what we all should strive to be like. Not the fact that his idea might not be perfect, and not the fact that his idea may never compete with X*, but the fact that he is driven. He's thorough, systematic, he challenges conventions and has the drive and determination to sit down think through a problem, find a solution and implement it. Then he goes back and tests it, compares it to the competition and spend a good chuck of time thinking about how to expand the idea, the possibilities. He's not the guy who just sits around complaining about the problems and ripping apart all the solutions. He's the one making steps to solve the problems.
In 15 years (hopefully), the world won't be run by desktops or workstations running X or even Y or Z. It will be run by software that takes all the great concepts from all of them, none of the bad concepts and a few new concepts and puts them together.
The philosophy behind Y can be applied to any project and any technology, whether its an OS, a graphics system, a protocol, a web framework or a new language.
Enough ranting, my hat is off to this man.
Myabe I'm just to too cynical, but X-Windows? Really? I don't care how well the Frame-Buffers work, what they programmed in to bypass all the network layers, X-Windows is never going to cut it in the desktop world.
Why don't these software companies do what their supposed to do and actually program something. If all they are going to do is take a bunch of packages, slap them together, put in a few utilities to make configuring these mammoths easier and put their logo on a cardboard box, Linux will never make it to the desktop.
Come on people, the Linux community has to stop thinking like Sun, W3C and all these other monstrousities that crank out new ideas less frequently than LucasFilm does. They need a revolution of thought that makes customers proud to stand behind their product.
This has been one of my longest standing gripes about my profession. I've worked a tiny companies and huge companies, and I have yet to see any one who builds good software. Just like the article states, this is due to the gap concept between first and second place. It also has to do with money issues.
BUT, to date there really hasn't been any (or very few) instances that would provide a contrary opinion. In this I mean that there have not been two competing companies, one who frantically gets their product to market and the other that spends time on engineering.
I would go as far as to say that if this happened, and the company who engineered their product better, would probably come out on top, even though they released second. The customer would have more features, more reliable use and probably a better looking and usable product.
Guess this remains to be seen.
As we all know, Linux is the guts and most distros are Linux with a bunch of stuff slapped on top, usually stuff like XFree, Gnome, VI, Emacs, etc. Developers and techies love all this stuff, but it scares the crap out of the other 70% of computer users (just a guess, but probably close).
Are you planning on giving the world another Linux with the same fixin's or are you planning on stepping up and revolutionizing the way that people use Linux? Are we going to see another distro with the same stuff on top, or something that might do those 70% some good?
From what I've read on the website and seen in the discussions, we'll probably just get another Linux with the same old stuff on top. If this is the case, how can you justify creating a new OS that accomplishes the same things as all the others and doesn't address the larger issues like usability, strong product support, worldwide acceptance, household use, and much more?
I've been pondering this very same idea for quite some time now and I'vve finally started to put my ideas down into some form of a white paper, which hopefully may one day turn into a large software project.
I'll post some of my key points here and if anyone would like a complete version of the document, please contact me and once it is finished, I'll do a mass mailing. My email is voidmain11@yahoo.com.
"The main concept is to create a complete operating system that is equally as useful to home users and developers/power users."
"The performance and stability of the core operating system will come from using an open source core such as Linux or FreeBSD."
"The graphics system will be written from the ground up."
"When a new installation of a unix variant is complete, the system is usually not setup correctly for use." (snip) "This system must be one hundred percent usable directly after install."
"In the root directory (/), there exist a number of directories such as usr, proc, dev, etc, and many more. These are unacceptably named for a home user." (snip) "A new layout will need to be devised around the key files of a working computer's disk."
"A new graphical system needs to be created." (snip) "With comparisons based on X, current graphical systems are too complex, too slow, have poor font support,..."
Of course these are just some key points, but I think they are valid. I have to take the stand with Lycoris, that changing the face of Linux won't work. Apple, which seems to be brought up quite a bit lately, seems to have done most things right with the release of OS X. Yet, "no system for Intel 32 (I32) architecture has yet been developer."
Brian "ponch" Pontarelli