Why do I advocate Linux 9048
Why do I advocate Linux 9054
deletia If your devices are small and mobile then the need for something like a bluetooth microphone is minimal. Even the need for wifi is meagre given a little foresight. Plus wireless in general...
I also remember those days. In fact, I go back to the days of the original Altair and the 8080.
What was important about those days is that there was SO MUCH INNOVATION. But once Microsoft-IBM (old IBM) got control of the PC technology, the innovation on PCs began to be held up. In fact, each major update and upgrade to the PC-MS-DOS environment usually came as a result of breakthroughs by a "renegade" OEM. The IBM PC used an 8088 which had 8 bit data paths, but Compaq introduced an 8086 which used 16 bit data and address paths. Sanyo introduced 3 1-2 inch drives almost 3 years before IBM finally "officially" endorsed them. The Mac and Atari 800 both sported 32 bit chips nearly 4 years before IBM-Microsoft finally endorsed 32 bit chips and operating systems.
Unix was pioneering communications and networking - while IBM and Microsoft tried to Limit the scope of Netwokring. Microsoft was blessing NetBIOS and Netware, both of which limited network size to 256 nodes. It was BSD UNIX and Open Source which drove TCP-IP and provided uniform and publicly standardized communications and addressing that could span millions of networks. *nix also introduced Network Address Translation routers, which meant that each connection to the "public" internet could be used by hunreds, even thousands of private internet users. *nix also introduced IPSec, which is used for VPNs. This made it possible for users on one NAT subnet to access hosts on another NAT subnet in a secure way. Microsoft introduced these "Innovations" - often years later, in some cases as much as a full decade after they were accepted by the UNIX community.
Linux has been an even more agressive foundry of innovation. Linux has introduced new technologies, including NAT, IPChains-IPTables inbound and outbound routing and firewalls, IPSec, VNC, Virtual consoles, Client-Server, even Web Servers were first widely offered only with Linux systems.
Open Source technology was often an unacknowledged orphan in other UNIX products. Sun called it "complimentary software", which was a bit like getting complimentary steak with your wine. DEC and HP called it "Unsupported" software, essentially claiming that there would be NO ONE to support the software. IBM more accurately called it "User Contributed Software".
Linux on the other hand - promoted Open Source software as a fundamental part of the entire infrastructure. Pat Volkerding took the SLS version and added even more Open Source software, including WAIS search engine, Apache Server, Mosaic Web Browser, and other technology from NCSA, CERN, and hundreds of other repositories, and created an amazing offering. This set the pace for what we know consider the "standard" Linux distribution - complete with competing technologies.
In fact, it was BSD Unix administrators who first formalized and codified the necessity of open source. Ironically, this was a direct response to three problem that had popped up concurrently. First, BSD Unix was being ported to multiple new platforms, including the Z8000, 68000, and National Semiconductor 32000 family processors, in addition to the VAX. As a result, applications had to be ported to multiple compilers. In usenet newsgroups, more and more administrators were insisting that only applications available in source code form be published to public repositories.
Why do I advocate Linux 9049
begin oeprotect.scr I'm not sure that desktop computing will be significant in the foreseeable future. People like 'devices' which they can switch on, do a job, and switch off again, so...
At about this same time, thousands of DOD projects were declbuttified, which meant that even more source code, including technology developed for NASA and Vietnam, were being released to public repositories like SimTel20.
Microsoft had dismissed UNIX, not because they considered it to be inferior, but because they saw that so much of the UNIX technology was Open Source, meaning that there would be less profit in supporting UNIX. Microsoft sold their interests in Xenix to SCO, and eventually sold all interests in Xenix and UNIX to SCO. SCO would control Microsoft's used of UNIX based technology, including TCP-IP, Web, and other technologies, for another 14 years. Last year, Microsoft paid about $7 million for unrestricted use of all UNIX technology - including that owned by SCO. At least this appears to be the arrangement (the terms were never made public).
Why do I advocate Linux 9052
begin oeprotect.scr I agree that for us technical folks, being able to open the box is very important...
The irony is that Microsoft was right. Linux has shown that users can get a significant amount of software at a very reasonable price. The irony is that the growth, the numerous applications, and the stability of the products has resulted in a product line which has turned out to be quite profitable.
The real win for Linux has been the innovation of customized solutions created in consulting projects. The ability to quickly take established source code, applications, and toolkits - and create solutions to business problems - that provide better results than most "Shrink Wrapped" solutions.
Some companies, like IBM, even began to leverage Open Source technology to improve the productivity of their consulting organizations, including it in WebSphere and other products. Furthermore, the focus on solution toolkits, rather than one size fits all solutions, has improved the profitability of the consulting organization. Many other companies have also begun to follow this pattern - selling software tools and consulting as a package.