First, let me say that I love Apple OS X and the Mac, but In some ways, I agree with Torvalds. For example:
"An operating system should be completely invisible," he said. "To Microsoft and Apple (it is) a way to control the whole environment ... to force people to upgrade their applications and hardware."
I find that most OS upgrades, Mac or PC, do not help basically help me. MOST of what is added to a new OS is window dressing, eye candy, and froth.
There is a saying that 80% of users use 20% of an application. I think that should be that 95% of users use 5% of an application. I know that any group of users use a different 5% (or 20%) and, therefore, the entire 100% is necessary. I wish I could pare down my OS's and applications to just what I need. Instead, I get a bloated (for me) application, most of which, I can't or don't use.
Actually, I could use an old OS to do most of what I need to do, but then I run into problems from 3rd party apps or new hardware if I don't upgrade. It's a vicious circle. Apple upgrades the OS; then, third parties upgrade to keep up - an endless upward spiral. I understand that companies are in business to make money and they have to think up goodies and junk to sell to users, but wouldn't it be nice to be able to avoid that upward spiral. It would also be nice if app builders would perfect an app or OS before going on to another new buggy output.
I have to agree with most of this. I don't care that much about cost savings or having an absolutely minimal and lean system. But I want continuity and maintainability, and I want choice in vendors. Microsoft's and Apple's offerings both have problems in these departments.
Other than letting me run the apps I want to run, so far Leopard has done next to nothing for me over Tiger, and it has had teething problems too. Obviously, if there was no Leopard, those apps would have been made for Tiger. I know there's improvements down in the engine room, but on a gut level this does feel like a hamster treadmill.
The OS should be quite invisible to the user, absolutely. In the long run, I think apps should turn less visible too. It's the data anyone really cares about, not the software.
"An operating system should be completely invisible," he said. "To Microsoft and Apple (it is) a way to control the whole environment ... to force people to upgrade their applications and hardware."
Invisible like Linux? That's invisible alright. Flat thinkingness.
I just recently installed linux on my PC the other day (first timer) and I just have to say I don't think it will be taking over anytime soon. I don't really like Windows so I figured what the hey I'll try this system that is supposedly so great and it sucks. Everything takes a ridiculous amount of effort to get it to work. I am pretty tech savvy and Linux is just unusable for me without a TON of effort/learning. It reminds me of high school when people would say "oh German is a much better language than English, its more efficient and simpler." Maybe so but dam was I glad to get back to speaking English when I got out of class.
You guys gotta remember that a title like that is meant to get more clicks and ad revenue. What he said was cherry-picked out of a conference, and then made into a big deal to get people like us to read the article.
Comments
First, let me say that I love Apple OS X and the Mac, but In some ways, I agree with Torvalds. For example:
"An operating system should be completely invisible," he said. "To Microsoft and Apple (it is) a way to control the whole environment ... to force people to upgrade their applications and hardware."
I find that most OS upgrades, Mac or PC, do not help basically help me. MOST of what is added to a new OS is window dressing, eye candy, and froth.
There is a saying that 80% of users use 20% of an application. I think that should be that 95% of users use 5% of an application. I know that any group of users use a different 5% (or 20%) and, therefore, the entire 100% is necessary. I wish I could pare down my OS's and applications to just what I need. Instead, I get a bloated (for me) application, most of which, I can't or don't use.
Actually, I could use an old OS to do most of what I need to do, but then I run into problems from 3rd party apps or new hardware if I don't upgrade. It's a vicious circle. Apple upgrades the OS; then, third parties upgrade to keep up - an endless upward spiral. I understand that companies are in business to make money and they have to think up goodies and junk to sell to users, but wouldn't it be nice to be able to avoid that upward spiral. It would also be nice if app builders would perfect an app or OS before going on to another new buggy output.
I have to agree with most of this. I don't care that much about cost savings or having an absolutely minimal and lean system. But I want continuity and maintainability, and I want choice in vendors. Microsoft's and Apple's offerings both have problems in these departments.
Other than letting me run the apps I want to run, so far Leopard has done next to nothing for me over Tiger, and it has had teething problems too. Obviously, if there was no Leopard, those apps would have been made for Tiger. I know there's improvements down in the engine room, but on a gut level this does feel like a hamster treadmill.
The OS should be quite invisible to the user, absolutely. In the long run, I think apps should turn less visible too. It's the data anyone really cares about, not the software.
"An operating system should be completely invisible," he said. "To Microsoft and Apple (it is) a way to control the whole environment ... to force people to upgrade their applications and hardware."
Invisible like Linux? That's invisible alright.
Bah!