From: "Adam Flinton" 


"Paul Ranson"  wrote in message
news:3e490ff8{at}w3.nls.net...
> "Adam Flinton"  wrote in message
> news:3e47e726{at}w3.nls.net...
> > I think the network basically renders the OS down to the network
services
> it
> > can/does provide. Hooking into SMB running on Linux or whatever &
hooking
> > into SMB running on Windows is one example.
>
> Which makes OS somewhat irrelevant.
>

Exactly

> But which also means investing huge effort in competing with MS in their
> current space may be futile, 'Unix' has a niche in the server end but I
> think pursuing if for general purpose desktops on PCs is a hobby.
>

or conversely makes MS competing with free / OSS software futile.

re gp desktops & Unix you may be rigth re gp desktops & linux I
think you're wrong. The whole PC & it's ilk was a hobbiest pursuit
& many made cases that that is where it would stay.


> And X is a terrible base for a user interface. Hobbling oneself to
> emulations of the tty design error and X-Windows will always make 'Unix'
> ugly.
>

Fine so get the Apple & BeOS people to help build a new gui.

> > Because the PC as a piece of standardized piece of commodity hardware is
> the
> > industrial way. I also think that one OS is to choice & innovation what
a
> > one party state is to developing good political ideas.
>
> You shouldn't care what OS you are running. We're not there yet. But I
don't
> see a Unix base as the solution we'll all be using in 10 years time.
>

Linux base. Certainly on servers & small /consumer elec devices

> When I read the Tanenbaum book back in the mid 80s I thought 'cool'. To me
> it's a real shame that Linus didn't.
>
Operating Systems: Design and Implementation?

Adam

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-4