Over the past 10 years, I have seen a certain disdain for any desktop operating system other than Microsoft. Windows 95 kicked it off with making the user interface more ?intuitive? than many of the other operating systems. At the time, many of the other operating systems that were being developed started to look more like Windows with the GUI. The problem with those OS?s has always been trying to get the hardware vendors to sit up and take notice.
OS/2, one of IBM?s more stable Desktop OS products was initially in the running with the 32-bit architecture, being the first to market with the OS to desktops that were still running Windows 3.1. Jointly built by IBM and Microsoft, it had all of the great benefits of becoming the next Windows NT, until the two companies split. Once that tear happened, the Operating System war started, and the fallout from that war is still being felt.
Now that we see that IBM is pulling out of OS/2, and Microsoft is riddled with problems before the Operating Systems are released, it is time to start thinking about the next evolution of the operating system. The BE/Os was a great step forward, but unfortunately, did not take off with any measurable success in the retail sector. It is time for a division between desktop and server operating systems in that what riddles the desktop OS does not riddle the server OS, as we have seen in previous times with other OS?s.
Computer users around the world are clamoring for a set and forget OS where they can install it in less than half an hour, and when it is installed, it is resistant to viruses, spy ware, and other nasty bugs. I don?t blame them. From my perspective, I am sick and tired of having to keep my definitions updated and the patches streaming because of the seemingly large lack of forward thinking in products. It may not even be the lack of forward thinking, but the lack of intelligent management of problems that lead to the case of a new OS.
I suggest a prom based kernel OS where when you turn the power on, it is there, and there is no problems with the OS. The OS is what drives everything. If you change out the modem, then you lost the ability to use the modem because the OS on a PROM don?t recognize the card, it has to be done through software. Applications can be loaded, but since it will be loaded in its own memory space rather than be integrated into the OS, if the Word Processor Crashes, it does not take down the desktop or other processes working in the background. If you want to do multi-media, since most if not all of the functions is done by software already, why the need to have it integrated into the OS?
I am not being a purist here at all, I just believe that the more junk that we put into an operating system in order to do the stuff we want on demand, the more patches we need in order to keep it running. Who ever heard of needing to patch sound drivers because of an exploit? Or even a better one, a printer driver that allows a hacker to gain access to a system, or a manner of rendering the graphics from a webpage allows someone to take over your system? It has gone from mildly amusing to lunacy.
I suggest this, because companies are spending too much time and effort on items that should be the vendor?s responsibility. Microsoft should be drawn and quartered if their system (which by the way was patched previously ? remember unPnP?) is still vulnerable. Then an aggregate release of windows with all of the patches goes from Windows 2000 to Windows XP? Please, how about canning the speeches on innovation and start talking about the value that your operating system brings me if it is unbreakable.
For years, the Commodore 64 and Commodore 128 was something I used because of how easy it was to get rid of corruption in the Kernel. Power On/Power Off was the solution. Within 10 seconds, I was sitting there ready for the next program to be loaded and ran. Slow, sure, but those easily learned lessons about computing has become lost in a sea of bureaucracy, and now all users from Mom & Dad to large corporations are feeling the pinch. Just how long are we going to go before we start telling companies like the Operating System makers for every vulnerability in the OS that is found we demand a refund of a proportionate amount of money?
What the heck, if the Anti-Tobacco Lobby can blame companies for people?s bad habits, then why can?t we blame manufacturers of OS?s and applications for bad or vulnerable code?