LinuxQuestions.org
Visit Jeremy's Blog.
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Non-*NIX Forums > General
User Name
Password
General This forum is for non-technical general discussion which can include both Linux and non-Linux topics. Have fun!

Notices


Reply
  Search this Thread
Old 06-03-2003, 06:14 AM   #1
arun79
Member
 
Registered: Apr 2003
Location: Bangalore
Distribution: Mandrake 9.1
Posts: 66

Rep: Reputation: 15
Question 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
 
Old 06-03-2003, 06:23 AM   #2
kater
Member
 
Registered: Feb 2003
Location: Switzerland, Berne
Distribution: Slackware 9.0
Posts: 186

Rep: Reputation: 30
You should think before you write.
 
Old 06-03-2003, 06:34 AM   #3
kazuni
Member
 
Registered: May 2003
Location: Hong Kong
Distribution: Android on HTC Hero
Posts: 256

Rep: Reputation: 30
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?
 
Old 06-03-2003, 06:43 AM   #4
arun79
Member
 
Registered: Apr 2003
Location: Bangalore
Distribution: Mandrake 9.1
Posts: 66

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 15
Quote:
Originally posted by kater
You should think before you write.
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.
 
Old 06-03-2003, 06:46 AM   #5
acid_kewpie
Moderator
 
Registered: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Distribution: Gentoo, RHEL, Fedora, Centos
Posts: 43,417

Rep: Reputation: 1981Reputation: 1981Reputation: 1981Reputation: 1981Reputation: 1981Reputation: 1981Reputation: 1981Reputation: 1981Reputation: 1981Reputation: 1981Reputation: 1981
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...
 
Old 06-03-2003, 06:54 AM   #6
gbbenson
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Jan 2003
Location: Munich, Germany
Distribution: Linux from Scratch
Posts: 29

Rep: Reputation: 15
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.
 
Old 06-03-2003, 07:31 AM   #7
kater
Member
 
Registered: Feb 2003
Location: Switzerland, Berne
Distribution: Slackware 9.0
Posts: 186

Rep: Reputation: 30
Quote:
Originally posted by arun79
Let me word the question better for your convenience kater, "Why was Unix used as the reference for Open Source Development and not DOS???"
DOS is a very ugly and bad clone of Unix.
 
Old 06-03-2003, 07:31 AM   #8
arun79
Member
 
Registered: Apr 2003
Location: Bangalore
Distribution: Mandrake 9.1
Posts: 66

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 15
Question

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

 
Old 06-03-2003, 07:38 AM   #9
kater
Member
 
Registered: Feb 2003
Location: Switzerland, Berne
Distribution: Slackware 9.0
Posts: 186

Rep: Reputation: 30
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.
 
Old 06-03-2003, 07:39 AM   #10
mad_ady
Member
 
Registered: Jan 2003
Location: I'm all in your mind!
Distribution: Debian
Posts: 248

Rep: Reputation: 30
Quote:
DOS is a very ugly and bad clone of Unix.
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?
 
Old 06-03-2003, 07:40 AM   #11
kazuni
Member
 
Registered: May 2003
Location: Hong Kong
Distribution: Android on HTC Hero
Posts: 256

Rep: Reputation: 30
hehe, i think MS was like Caldera nowadays - ever since they joined SCO now they're forgetting linux - totally :|
 
Old 06-03-2003, 09:24 AM   #12
hawkpaul
Member
 
Registered: Nov 2001
Location: Black Mountain , NC
Distribution: Debian
Posts: 46

Rep: Reputation: 15
Unhappy 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?
 
Old 06-03-2003, 10:09 AM   #13
qanopus
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jul 2002
Location: New York
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 1,358

Rep: Reputation: 45
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.
 
Old 06-03-2003, 11:15 AM   #14
XavierP
Moderator
 
Registered: Nov 2002
Location: Kent, England
Distribution: Debian Testing
Posts: 19,192
Blog Entries: 4

Rep: Reputation: 475Reputation: 475Reputation: 475Reputation: 475Reputation: 475
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......
 
Old 06-03-2003, 11:44 AM   #15
bentman78
Member
 
Registered: Mar 2003
Location: Washington DC, USA
Distribution: Redhat
Posts: 212

Rep: Reputation: 30
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.
 
  


Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
File system for both Windows and Linux nonoitall Linux - Newbie 6 11-16-2005 11:33 AM
Can't mount windows file system kaega2 Linux - Software 4 05-29-2005 11:12 AM
Does anyone have any experience with installing two or even 3 linux operation system? babyboss Linux - Distributions 2 10-23-2004 04:33 AM
some problem about multi operation system ,help me, xyuren Linux - General 4 05-10-2004 07:08 AM
Why not build an OS Exactly like windows in operation and file system???? arun79 General 3 06-03-2003 06:44 AM

LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Non-*NIX Forums > General

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:52 AM.

Main Menu
Advertisement
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration