> Nothing would ever fit that bill. These are all things that need to be
traded
> off against each other. Another important reason for competition, REAL
> competition, with multiple alternatives which fit *everybody's*, not just
> "most people's" (at best) needs. Because you may be willing to trade off
> efficiency for simplicity (for example; I don't really want to have to
dissect
> this semi-random array of concepts), while I would prefer to trade off
> simplicity for performance. Neither of us is "wrong", and there is no
reason
> other than intentional anti-competitive behavior, that we should be able
to
> happily use our OS of choice without it making any difference whatsoever
> outside the local host.
Interestingly, by saying this, you just indirectly defended the Windows
operating system, Max. (Not Microsoft's business practices though.) By
admitting that learning curve and efficiency (for the same reason, as an
example) are not truly compatible, you admit that Windows does what it is
required to do for the target market.
Here is where I think you will find you are wrong (and it's solely
hypothesis, with no right or wrong answer until it's tested). The market
will go for ease of use. IBM made the mistake of thinking otherwise and it
cost them big time. IBM and Microsoft used to be partners in Windows, but
Gates had a different vision than IBM did. Gates thought that we should put
a desktop PC in the home of every family in North America, and built his
operating system on that premise. IBM thought this was not realistic, and
parted ways with Microsoft, taking their share of the development and
creating OS2 (a WONDERFUL OS, btw...I loved OS2). However, Mr. Gates
vision would seem to have been better (opinion again, but one the world is
agreeing with.) With by far the majority of computer users wanting to
merely operate a PC and never lift the hood to look inside, Windows is
currently the best there is. That means for someone like me, who doesn't
mind looking under the hood, but wants to have standard, easy to get parts
their when she has to do so, this is also the best there is. But for the
average computer user, Windows will remain the OS of choice regardless of
what business practices Microsoft uses. The majority of users are naive,
and therefore do not want a "much vaster functionality" (grammar check, much
more vast? Not sure, it just sounds funny) with "too many concepts and
options." In fact, as someone who has tried to help people learn to use
computers, options are what confuse them. They don't want options, they
want an exact path that leads them to what they want to do without
branching. In short, the average person does not want to have to think or
learn concepts, they'd rather memorize procedures. Even Windows has a
learning curve for them because it presents "too many concepts and options,"
but far less so than Linux or Unix. In the end, even in the unlikely event
that Microsoft is eventually toppled, the operating system that is used will
have "Simplicity above board," restricting the functionality you want.
Operating systems that have the functionality and steeper learning curve you
want will always exist, and they will forever be for a niche market.
As for the ILOVEYOU debate, I think that if everyone were using Unix,
similar viruses would have been written, using different languages or
scripts, albeit much more complex. The viruses would likely be much better
designed, and would function just as well, relying on the stupidity of the
human animal to spread. If Linux is written well, there would be no way for
it not to spread. The only way to keep something like that from running
would be to prevent people from ever opening file attachments in email...an
executable bit of code for any Linux email client would have worked just as
well.
|
