Grunt wrote on 2025-05-16, 18:35:

BTW? I'm GNU/Linux user since Fedora Core2/3 (yes, I remember FC3) so literally for years now. And I find sudden interest into GNU/Linux (or any other Open-Source OS ) from general public bizarre.

I remember the same discussions every time a major windows version is released. How everyone is turning to linux, M$ etc.

Yes, it kinda reminds me Ubuntu 6.06 craze and then later 2009/2010 interest wave. I just don't get it why it is always FOSS operating system people are turning to. What happened to commercial competition? In 1990's there were ton of alternatives as operating system. Today there is only Windows 11 and nothing else?

All the corporates invested in Linux, the same way they used to invest in Unix.

Updating Windows sucked since at least XP. I don't update it (I change to newer build occasionally, so new install), so not effected by the horrible slowness on HDDs, other than the thing coming together after boot / logon. Linux? I suspect only handful of people leave for Linux when the new bad Windows releases.

Grunt wrote on 2025-05-17, 12:06:

[..] What happened to commercial competition? In 1990's there were ton of alternatives as operating system.

Linux killed them off?
It spread like the plag, after all, I think.

Edit: Some other *nix OSes are still in use. In automation, research etc.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FreeBSD
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NetBSD
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenBSD

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QNX
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HP-UX

Grunt wrote on 2025-05-17, 12:06:

Today there is only Windows 11 and nothing else?

There's also macOS, based on Darwin/BSD.

Windows, Linux and macOS are the big three on the desktop (afaik).

myne wrote on 2025-05-17, 13:50:

All the corporates invested in Linux, the same way they used to invest in Unix.

Because no licensing fees to pay for anymore, I think.
Unix was expensive, by comparison. That's another reason why it was taken serious, too.
Also: Decline of SGI, Sun and HP (as a PC company) who were active in Unix business.

Linux killed them off

Well, no. Microsoft killed all competition. Everything else gravitating to Linux was just a path of least resistance. And now it's practically impossible to pull off with closet source to compete with giants Microsoft and Apple.
Although I have no doubt that big companies like Canonical and Red Hat could pull the rug off from under open source community in the future, if Linux as a whole will gain a substantial market share.

Well, no. Microsoft killed all competition.

Hm. Windows NT was very good at networking at the time and rivaled Novell's Netware and others, such as Banyan's Vines or LANtastic.
Rightfully in case of IPX/SPX and TCP/IP, I think.

Windows NT 4 was better at playing Netware server than real Netware, I remember.
But I'm not sure if it was so great at the average desktop, considering the lack of PnP and drivers..

Windows 95 was a phenomenon in pop culture, but that's pretty, much it.
No, wait - it re-defined the PC jokes genre, as well! 😄

Apple by contrast was struggling at the time and System 7 was running at beige industry standard clones, too.
Which often were better than Apple hardware, I think.

Then one founder came back and took over company, made it an designer company or elitist's company again. Afaik.

Before this, in early to mid 90s, it was more of a thought factory with lots of experimental stuff going on.
Not sure what was better for that company, though.

Normal shrink-wrapped software and games for Mac were still available in early 90s and then available in early 2000s again, I think (iMac G3 and OSX 10.1 days).
That's when the platform was popular in people's mind and treated like an ordinary, rivaling "PC" platform.

In late 90s and late 2000s, it wasn't so much, I think.
In these years, the focus was more on PC each time, I think.

Though as an internet client, Macs always were kind of relevant throught the years, including late 90s.
I remember many screenshots in ads showing classic System/MacOS running Netscape/IE.
Mainly to show off homepages of some company..

The Apple we know today dates back to 2006 when the ew-phone, um, iphone was released, I believe.
That's roughly when Macs started to become less repair friendly, too.
It was a change of philosophy, I guess.

Edit: Running Windows applications was no problem on other platforms.
Macs had Virtual PC and SoftWindows in late 90s, Unix platforms had WABI that ran Windows 3.1x Enhanced-Mode kernal.

There also was some sort of SoftWindows for Unix, with a copy of Windows 95.
So I'm not sure if Windows was a big problem or rival. Maybe, maybe not. 🤷‍♂️
Unix workstation users could run all the required commercial software, at least.

Edit: A big hope of the 90s used to be BeOS.
It was a third, um, "power" next to the Windows and Linux dualism.
BeOS was a modern and powerful multimedia OS, rather than an archaic Unix and server OS.

It would have been the fresh, young, dynamic desktop OS for single users we had needed so desperately.
I remember trying out BeOS 5 PE and was amazed..

Then, finally, Zeta (BeOS spin-off) appeared in early 2000s where I lived on a questionable teleshopping channel.
We knew something was fishy, that the software was beta, but the interest was still there.
Zeta had the power to seriously rival Windows XP among a certain demographic group.

Edit:

Although I have no doubt that big companies like Canonical and Red Hat
could pull the rug off from under open source community in the future, if Linux as a whole will gain a substantial market share.

Would that be good or bad, though?
I mean, if Linux becomes too powerful, then shouldn't it be stopped?
Before it succesfully aims for world domination?

Edit: I mean, there also was Google's "don't be evil".
And we can see what happened to it, more or less.

If Linux eventually becomes too powerful or too much of a heavyweight in marketshare,
who knows if it finally becomes corrupted by power or not.
Or the people working on it, rather.

Jo22 wrote on 2025-05-17, 16:48:

Linux killed them off?
It spread like the plag, after all, I think.

I'm sorry…what?!

Grunt wrote on 2025-05-17, 12:06:

Yes, it kinda reminds me Ubuntu 6.06 craze and then later 2009/2010 interest wave. I just don't get it why it is always FOSS operating system people are turning to. What happened to commercial competition? In 1990's there were ton of alternatives as operating system. Today there is only Windows 11 and nothing else?

In no particular order :

QNX is still thing
ArcaOS is still a thing
MacOS is still a thing
FreeBSD is still a thing
Solaris is still a thing
HP-UX is just about gone, but still a thing, arguably

That's just off the top of my head. There are likely others, most of which are likely quite niche, I will admit.

Grunt wrote on 2025-05-18, 12:25:

Jo22 wrote on 2025-05-17, 16:48:

Linux killed them off?
It spread like the plag, after all, I think.

I'm sorry…what?!

linux is so versatile, i mean you are only limited by your imagination. Same goes for *BSDs, I guess anything thats under a libre license where you can fork it and do some unusual stuff. It killed off the selling OSes as software and more selling the services tied to the software.

That explains Windows XP's implemtation of Internet/Phone Activation, Mac's tied to hardware firmware keys. I mean nothing is going to stop hardcore people from downloading, you got to stop casual copying since a simple keycheck is no longer sufficent.

Windows 11 theoretically can be used without activating, its more akin to shareware with a nagscreen and watermark. microsoft's priority is the internet accounts they will force upon people to create to login aka Microsoft Accounts.

It is what is driving Microsoft to a subscription based Windows as a service. (OS as a service subscription) You wont be able to perpetually use windows anymore as a one time purchase. You will have to subscribe forever.

Windows 365 / microsoft 365 you pay and pay and if you forget... might i remind you that failure to merge the old mojang accounts to microsoft or skype accounts results in loss of what you theoretically paid for. You bought a license even boxed copies of minecraft they could take away. Read the contract you agreed to when using products as they are licensed.

I never played The Crew but I suspect if people had read the eula and contracts more carefully they would have realized you owned nothing not even the ability to hack it to play the single player offline. Oh they will tie you up in courts for years trying to fight for the right to game.

Realistically if you "buy" a game its implied you "buy" a license you cannot transfer and can be revoked at any time.

That whole stop killing games should be more akin to stop buying revocable and nontransferable licenses and start buying licenses which arent revocable, can be transferred and can be hacked to play offline legally speaking because otherwise its just a fancy cd coaster or box art thats not worth the plastic and paper. I take that back even CDs are more useful than paper. You can use them in the desert to signal planes. CD Coasters. I mean the cost of the plastic is worth more than the game on it which is none since you cant play it anymore

Grunt wrote on 2025-05-18, 12:25:

Jo22 wrote on 2025-05-17, 16:48:

Linux killed them off?
It spread like the plag, after all, I think.

I'm sorry…what?!

My apologies, in English, people rather say that something "spreads like wildfire".

In this context, Linux had found fertile ground to expand.
The development of new (commercial) OSes declined because Linux offered a no-cost *nix basis for development.

Edit: To some degree, both Linux and the internet remind me of the growth of slime moulds.
They expand and infect the existing infrastructure. They form a network that spans a whole forest.
Internet did that with the existing telephone network and the landlines (via DSL), whereas Linux infiltrates/infects existing architectures in its proximity.

Another interesting thing, if I understand correctly, is that they can assimilate its host (its pray), mimic its structure and continue to function like the host.
Reminds me of the The Body Snatchers movie.
And Linux, of course. Because it assimilates the Unix ecosystem. In my opinion.

Another argumentation would be that Linux does perform mimicry to replicate look and behavior of its natural enemy, Unix.
Here, the movie Mimic comes to mind..

I just don't want to belive other alternatives for Microsoft Windows (or any other proprietary OS) don't exist because of GNU/Linux. This isn't theory, this is pure nonsense.

Grunt wrote on 2025-05-18, 16:13:

I just don't want to belive other alternatives for Microsoft Windows (or any other proprietary OS) don't exist because of GNU/Linux. This isn't theory, this is pure nonsense.

The fans of existing OSes like AmigaOS, Atari TOS or BeOS continued to keep their platform alive.

But I doubt than much effort is being spend on developing of new sophisticated OSes, given the "just use Linux" philosophy.

Even if there's an interest, how can it be justified? Financially?
Linux essentially ended the commercial OS business, I think.

Same thing happened in medical sector when USSR folded. That's when the last new antibiotics had been invented.
In the west, there was "no market" for new developments.

Likewise, now that Linux is everywhere, there's little interest in developing something new.
The old Unixes like HP-UX will soon be EOL and Linux will be the successor on these platforms.

Edit: Windows is also going Linux, eventually. WSL is a step into that direction.
In the near future, roles might be reversed, who knows?
Then, Windows nolonger is Goliath but David. It's then Linux who's the (tyranic) giant.
Personally, I keep an eye on development of Windows Server edition(s).
If stays healthy, then Windows NT might be continue to be around for a bit longer.

Edit: I have no hard feelings for Linux, but it worries me a little bit.
Linux used to be a citizens' OS or hobbyists OS and has risen since the 90s.
It's marketshare is little on the desktop, but not small everywhere else.
The political side on Linux is worrying, too. It has a cult following, too.
In an ideal world, Linux kernal would be maintained/overseen by an international, independent non-profit forum or comitee lead by philosophers, developers and politicans/lawyers etc. alike.