Why not build an OS like windows in operation and file system????
 

When you consider the fact that crossover software have been built by the open source community like wine? why is that we are not building an OS like M$ Windows that is far superior to Windows, but offers a similar file system, thus making it friendly to M$ users. This would make us No. 1 in Desktop Operating Systems. Why I ask this question is because it appears to me that the Open Source Community has enough expertise in the windows environment considering the access to FAT32 file systems in linux and crossover products.

I'm really happy with Linux and the unix file system. But what about all the people that are just scared to shift out of windows to a new file system and file naming convention, in an environment that they do not know. That is what makes most M$ users stick to windows.

Is the windows file system or the way it works copyrighted?

Just a question really :confused:

You should think before you write.

why, for christ's sake, would we want a duplication of windows ? first - there is already a Lindows linux - i myself consider it a shame of the linux community. second - which part of linux is not intuitive? i mean, if u want a really install-and-go version, grab mandrake. it's flat straight forward, no hassle in most cases. the thing that makes M$ windows strong is the heavy bias of the operating system over the internet - look at how they are supported - internet explorer, ICQ, bla bla bla. yes tehre are alternatives, but if people's mind are set to someting, they are not easily convinced to switch over. get it?

Let me word the question better for your convenience kater, "Why was Unix used as the reference for Open Source Development and not DOS???"

I ask not because I think M$ is better. But out of curiosity as to why someone else has not built an OS based on DOS other than M$. I am sure that such an OS can be made much more secure and stable than M$ Windows. But M$ just does not want to for their own selfish purposes, or is just plain incompetent.

I am equally in fact more at home in Linux than Windows and extremely glad that I shifted. So please don't come down on me like a ton of bricks.

because DOS is / was an absolutely crippled joke. it could never ever compare to the inherent power of UNIX. have you actually tried using DOS seriosuly once you're used to the funcation AND ideological benefits of stream pipes and so forth. DOS is just an embarrasment, and was at the time of it's success too...

Actually, Windows XP has the NTFS file system out of the box, which is superior to the FAT32 fs. But, that's besides the point. The file system is not the reason why Windows users do not switch. Truth be told: Wiindows is, indeed, quite user friendly. Mind-numbingly so. And that's the key: "mind-numbing".

The more that users have to think, the more that users don't want to change. True, the latest Linux distros are more user friendly than in the past. There are still a bit behind what Windows offers, with respect to "point-and-click-and-done" functionality. And, of course, there are the proprietary .doc and .xls formats, which people have gotten close to figuring out, but not quite.

But, in the end, I wouldn't want to have another "mind-numbing" Windows-like operating system. I'd rather use my own brain once in a while, thank you very much.

Leave the Windows-like OS's for the people who'd rather use their Word and Excel and Outlook. Leave the UNIX-like OS's for the people who want to get real work done.

DOS is a very ugly and bad clone of Unix.

Yes Chris is right.....

I agree that stream pipes and the other benefits that unix provides are really fantastic...


I am also sorry for not wording the other part correctly. What I meant by file system was the method in which files are organized. People have become so used to having their files organized under c:, d: etc that the "/" makes them frightened.

Let's face it.. The average computer user wants just the basic functionality to check his mail and surf the net, and maybe make a few spreadsheets and documents. And when people get used to something, they don't want it to change ("Who moved my cheese??" .....Remember?) That was what I was asking. I am sure there are people amongst the novice users who do not want to use M$ and yet are forced to because the alternative seems scarier.

Again.. Just asking

:D

What the hell is so fucking hard with /dev/hd[abc...]? Sorry, but this is a very dumb question.

My opinion is: Linux or any other Unixclone is _not_ for the normal, dumb Windows user. If an user wants to switch to a Unixclone, he has to use his brain.

I remember M$ had its own UNIX distro back in the 80's... It was called XENIX. What ever happened with that?

I know Dos 1.0 didn't even have the concept of directory. It was later stolen from UNIX and integrated in DOS 2.0! :)
Nice business strategy, huh?

hehe, i think MS was like Caldera nowadays - ever since they joined SCO now they're forgetting linux - totally :|

Come on...
 

Why do we have to be so quick to react in such a non helpful, imature way. What was the name of this site again?

arun79, this idea has come to many people. Ever heard of lindows? It's a linux OS but it tries to imitate the look and feel of windows. They even have a "C:" icon on the desktop that opens the file browser in the root directory.
But really, as was pointed out earlyer, most linux users including me, have no desire to have our desktops look like windows.

c:\ d:\, etc are largely irrelevant and arbitrary - mappings are just an easy way of saying localdisk or \\server\apps or whatever. Once you become used to using servers, whether novell, ms or *nix, you tend to talk in terms of volumes - sys, apps, data, etc.

Additionally, the mapping convention is meaningless to *nix as we don't have a system even similar to Windows. Our swap is a partition not a file - do we give it a letter or mark it hidden? Isn't /home/user just as friendly (if not more friendly) than c:\documents and settings\user\my documents?

You say tomayto, I say tomato......

Look Kater... others. No reason to get nasty, they guy asked a question, he wants an anwer, not smart ass remarks.

With that said, I see what your gettting at. Most choose linux because it is different than windows. Making a gui easier for plain end users (and let's face it, they are a majoriy of the market) and they might look to switching.

Anything to give Microsoft competition.

As an IT professional myself, I personally like Windows 2000, and really like Active Directory. Until Linux, Sun....whatever, can compete with AD, and MS Exchange, and come up with the same features, it's futile to even use Linux for other than Database, Web, and Firewall/Proxy Servers, and possibly a NAS platform.

A new gui will help Linux reach the market Microsoft controls. As much as most Linux users want to consider them selves "above" the regular end-user, they have to realize they are the ones have teh largest part of the market, and give all of us IT pros. jobs.