Why New OSes Don't Catch On 350
mopslik writes "OSNews has an interesting editorial discussing why smaller operating systems will have a hard time gaining popularity. Familiarity, developer participation, and market saturation are listed as reasons for failure. Although the article focuses mainly on Syllable and SkyOS, I'm sure there are countless other operating systems to which these arguments apply."
The real question is... (Score:5, Informative)
It's "why do they ever catch on?"
Changing your OS changes everything about your computing environment. It's like saying, "I know you like this air stuff you're breathing, but...wanna to try this nifty hyper-oxygenated liquid to breathe? It has so many advantages, and it's really cool!"
Would you make the switch?
Re:Duh.... (Score:2, Informative)
You just about had it, if you read this story:
http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=11011 [osnews.com]
Basically, he's new there and is writing his first article.
I was shocked to see it on Slashdot, but then what can you do...
Re:It's about using getting stuff done... (Score:3, Informative)
react os (Score:2, Informative)
If they get games and business software working on it then watch out.
They need to get NTfs filesystem working so it can be used for an emergency boot disk. It's only Fat32 now.
http://www.reactos.com/ [reactos.com]
Re:Duh.... (Score:2, Informative)
Typically one would use a terminal program to dial into a remote machine and then use kermit, and later zmodem to download or upload their files. Zmodem was extra cool cause it let you resume interrupted transfers.
The real issue here is support (Score:2, Informative)
(1) Hardware compatibility
If you write an OS for the masses but it only supports your system, you're SOL. You need a community to support you and perhaps some corporate support. Networking is key here.
(2) Ability to use full featured software
You must be prepared to either write or port multitudes of software and get them to work relatively bug-free on your system. BeOS had a slick interface and a neat concept for handling processes... too bad it didn't actually run much of anything.
(3) Document compatibility and portability
Your software better be able to handle whatever documents are thrown at it, and whatever medium you store them on needs to be able to be read by a Windows PC. Sad fact of life, but for now, that's the way things are.
(4) Ease of use
The easier, the better. It shouldn't take a rocket scientist to use the OS or the software or administer accounts on the system. The average user doesn't care and doesn't want to learn about the wonders of the CLI, and all the complaining and boasting in the world is not going to get them to change their minds. You are not a genius just because you know the arguments to get at the contents of a bzipped tar file.
Same goes for installing software. Ideally, all you should have to do is download a single file, double click it, go through any configuration details, and it's installed for you. I hear that in Mac's OSX, all you have to do is drag the file to the application folder. Works for me, and everyone knows where their software is. Better than having software in
(5) Software and UI orthogonality
This is where you get down to brass tacks, and why people tend to swoon over the Mac's GUI. In an ideal world, every bit of software on your system that has access to the GUI will seamlessly work with every other bit of software. If you can drag and drop files and place them in a folder, then shouldn't you be able to drag and drop them into an application? If CTRL-INSERT is how you copy a selection in one app, then shouldn't it be that way for all apps? And so on and so forth.
(6) Conceptual details
Zonealarm is a great piece of software, and the reason why is that it works at a level that most people can understand. Talking to somebody about port numbers is going to get a blank stare, but if you ask them whether or not they want a piece of software to access the internet, they understand. People relate to most things on a spatial level.
The good news is that most of this stuff could be done in Linux or BSD (probably through forking) if people really wanted to get it done. Changing things like directory structures to reflect basic human understanding, porting software with a common desktop and menu interface in mind, allowing metadata to be stored on a file system and using it creatively, and making the desktop a seamless experience are all possible.
Now, obviously, I'm talking about OSes in terms of a desktop system used by someone who works with a GUI every day, but if you really want to make a change, you have to give people what they want and what they need, not what you consider to be sufficient. This isn't about writing dumb software. There is a time and a place for complex applications like 3D modelers and the like, but it isn't in the average day to day home PC user's desktop. After all, if you can't write elegant software that allows people to effortlessly use their PCs to do what they desire, then maybe it isn't the user who's the dummy.
Applications, Cost, Usable, Accessible, Versatile (Score:3, Informative)
Cost & Usability
This goes together, and is my reason why Amiga died, Amiga's OS was pretty slick but when you got it out of the box you could do practicallty NOTHING with it, everything you WANTED to do with it cost money and was hard to locate a vendor to sell it to you, wanted to do a little word processing? You need to buy Word Perfect or Final Copy (proably get more memory too), wanted to Surf the internet? You needed to buy a TCP-IP stack and then also buy a browser! Apple realized that having included internet suport would gain it share, and MS did too soon after, but others were still in the tollbooth-OS mode. Also if you bught an iMac you got Appleworks and on sone Windows boxes like eMachines you got Works, which also made those systems "usable" out of the box.
Accessibility
This is what killed Ti 99/4A, when you lock up everything that makes a computer programmable and then also charge for an SDK will scare off your hobbiest msrket, without that you loose the grass-roots eforts to cover some of the OS weaknesses when the companies are dragging their own feet. Windows had an in with BASIC included, Apple charged for all developemnt tools early on, now it's a little better for Mac/Wint but now here's Linux which offers some really kick-butt tools right on the Distro CDs, that is a big reasone why Linux is growing so fast, the tools are there for the average Joe to make something with thier system.
Versatility
Other die becasue they just can't do everything (linux had until the past couple years suffered from due to that. partly because of lack of drivers other times because the disconnect of the OS vs. the GUI vs. the printing drivers.). If an OS has definate weakspots in either IO, sound, video, printing, memory/disk usage, etc. you will get hopefully a vertical market but probably won't replace the home PC. The reason why Windows and Mac are so popular is they can do just about everything and when a new technology comes out it is expeted they will be able to do that too.
Re:Apps... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:EROS-os and Plan 9, however, are cool! (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Apps... (Score:2, Informative)
I've only used it on Windows, so I really couldn't say. But, it's an IBM organized project, so it would be surprising if there wasn't a strong Linux following who made sure it was just as good on that OS. Someone else will have to chime in with that info if they have it.
It uses an api called SWT. SWT is supposed to be an alternative to the AWT/swing api included with java. AWT/swing is an entirely java api whereas SWT is written using the native controls for each os. The app can determine which controls are not present and choose to either not use them or to emulate them if desired.
> You misspelled "just as slow".
Hah. Actually, I have a very fast machine (dual Xeon 3.6Ghz, 2GB ram), so it's actually just as fast as a simple text editor on my machine. It opens in just a few seconds and everything is as snappy as can be.
Before I upgraded (single AMD 1.5Ghz, 1GB ram) it was not as fast as a simple text editor, but it was acceptable.
Re:Duh.... (Score:5, Informative)
This isn't my first article and no, I'm not new.
click [osnews.com] (got featured on /.)
click [expert-zone.com] (got featured on /.)
here [osnews.com]
Just a small selection. I've written over 20 or so articles. Just do a little Google search before insulting someone, would you?
ReactOS has potential... (Score:2, Informative)
From ReactOS Frontpage [reactos.org]:
ReactOS is an Open Source effort to develop a quality operating system that is compatible with Microsoft Windows(R) applications and drivers.