[aclug-L] Re: There are still some monkeys in the CEO chair

[Carl D Cravens <raven@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Sat, 26 Apr 2003, jeffrey l koehn wrote:

> "Linux itself is a clone of an operating system that is 20-plus
> years old. That's what it is. That is what you can get today, a
> clone of a 20-year-old system. I'm not saying that it doesn't have
> some place for some customers, but that is not an innovative
> proposition."



> "Some people say it is an advantage that Linux gets built in all of
> these little pieces. The fact is that if you want to do some kind
> of integrated innovation that touches the kernel, that touches the
> user interface--there is no way. Maybe Linus (Torvalds) can control
> the innovation in the piece called the kernel, but there are many
> pieces."

Maybe it's the integrated innovation that drives me nuts about Windows...
the fact that a user interface bit can crash the kernel, instead of just
the user interface.  My biggest gripe about Windows is that the graphical
interface is so heavily integrated into the OS, instead of being a proper
"shell" on top of the OS where it belongs.  (I mean, what kind of _useful_
innovation in the user interface requires messing with the kernel anyway?)

And isn't integrated innovation wonderful, where installing some bit of
driver requires rebooting the machine a couple times?  I mean, this "clone
of a 20-year old OS" can dynamically load driver modules without needing
to close all the applications, let alone reboot the system.  Quite
innovative, I think.  (Heh... HP-UX _still_ doesn't dynamically load
driver modules.  The code's supposedly in the kernel, but they just
haven't made their modules loadable.  Linux is a lot more advanced than
that 20-year old Unix.)

But, contrary to his statement, cross-"piece" innovation is quite
possible.  If someone came up with a useful integrated solution that
required kernel mods, I don't think it would be difficult to get those
changes into the kernel.  It's not like each piece is "closed" and not
open to cooperation with other development teams.

> Of course, the "piece called the kernel" is Linux and
> Linux is not an operating system, nor is Linux a clone.

Not a "clone", per se, but it is essentially a Unix kernel.  A kernel
building on 20+ years of experience... can Microsoft claim that Windows
has built on 20 years of experience gained from multiple vendors and
development groups, and people driven not by profit but by the desire to
build the best OS they can?

It's all marketing spin here... you can hold a facet up and, in the right
light, it looks like either a benefit or a fault.

--
Carl D Cravens (raven@xxxxxxxxxxx)
And old UNIX programmers never die, they just lose their grep.
-- This is the discussion@xxxxxxxxx list.  To unsubscribe,
visit http://www.complete.org/cgi-bin/listargate-aclug.cgi