| RE: your laptop blog, the laptop market mirrors the problems with the modern desktop OS: - Apple is closed source, trying to abuse its users AND developers with the pointless app store, OSX was a big improvement when released but basically doesn't evolve and breaks all your software with major releases, and seems openly hostile to open source, Java, Docker/containers. Stubbornly sticks to its UNIX variant and doesn't even offer a linux-ish compatbility layer (even worse considering the lack of native container support) - Windows: where do I start. two desktops? Tiles is horrible. The UI actively hates its users. Security continues to be bad, although not as bad as the XP days. The only saving grace is WSL is basically evolving windows to becoming a UI for a linux core, which is the only actual glimmer of progress. I actually am cheering for Microsoft to get really big in Azure as the anti-AWS and at some point deciding to go all in with Linux and doing Windows as the UI for basically free to chase all that IAAS dollar. - Linux: still completely fragmented. Treading water on UIs, not solving fundamental problems, still hardware support headaches. But the worst is that Linux, despite winning the IAAS OS wars, won't properly organize on the desktop front. Here's a list of major entities whose funding of a real desktop on linux for small small fractions of their financial resources to make a secure, supported, easily upgraded/patched/rolled out OS would be in their great interest: - Intel, AMD, NVidia: allows them to surface all their hardware innovations and features to the desktop without having to lobby/beg/pray Microsoft adds support to their OS. Instead, you make Microsoft chase/feel pressure to keep up. - Dell/HP/Lenovo: cheaper hardware for their customers. Ability to directly update the OS with support for their specific firmwares and all its foibles. Maybe even support/push/innovate hardware rather than always following Apple? - Nintendo and Sony (game consoles / set top boxes): They're already in millions of homes. Neither of these companies can handle a full OS, but they can piggyback on Linux. - anyone with an IAAS cloud (except Microsoft): Why doesn't AWS want to take over the business desktop? Or oracle cloud, or Google compute, or IBM cloud? You are getting all that sweet IAAS money for servers, why not people's desktops? - US intelligence and military: ransomware is cyber warfare enemy #1. Do you really want your defense being waiting for Microsoft to release a patch? When a huge number of people using their OS don't pay for it and won't upgrade? And for our military applications, do you want a closed source OS, or an open source one that you can audit? The US military should be throwing a billion dollars at Linux every year. - EU... everything: Who made Linux? A goddamn European. Do you want to wrest technical software leadership from the US and Microsoft? Well, the author and many/most core committers are in the goddamn EU. It is sitting in your backyard. Now add it all the things I said about the US military: you can avoid (software) backdoors because the code is auditable. You can keep US, Russian, China intel from eating your lunch every day. The EU should be throwing a billion a year at Linux. - China: Same thing as the EU: do you want closed source Microsoft OSs running on your machines? Do you want Google controlling the OS of all the phones your people use, or Apple? China should be throwing a billion at Linux every year too. What should be happening is that Linux is getting 10 billion a year to improve itself: security, features, support, etc. But... it doesn't. I mean, there should be literally 100,000 core committers each getting funded 100k/year for their first and only job. What actually should be happening is probably 100 billion a year between concerned militaries, governments, corporations, etc, basically funding a worldwide army of a million committers. Torvalds should be eligible for a (quite ironic given his temperment) Nobel peace prize just from what he has already done. |