[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: The term "operating system"

  Good points and ideas, but it is important to separate the client "OS" from
  the server "OS".  The only difference between NT Workstation and NT Server
  is a few DLL's and registry settings, yet NT is marketing and deployed as an
  application server and as a network operating system.  This discussion has
  focused a good deal on the merits of other desktop OS'es compared to
  Microsoft desktop products.  The facts indicate that NT pales as an
  application server when compared to Unix, and that NT is not even in the
  same category as NetWare 4.11/IntranetWare from Novell as a network
  operating system.
  Back in the early 90's, many corporate customers resisted migrating to
  Windows because of cost of upgrades, cost of training, and cost of ownership
  of Windows vs. DOS.  Microsoft forced corporate IT staff to migrate to
  Windows by selling Windows to the consumer and to students.  People who
  purchased Windows PC's for home use then demanded that the office systems be
  brought "up to date".  
  If creates exclusive consumer oriented relationships with Disney, NBC, etc.,
  they will usurp the consumer browser market, which will force the issue with
  corporate customers.  Once Microsoft  comfortably controls the browser, they
  will most certainly add "features" to subsequent browsers and subsequent
  releases of NT Server that will apply pressure to corporate customers and
  publishers of web content to migrate to NT Server.  We must treat the client
  "OS" and the server "OS" as separate entities.
  This opinion is offered as a concerned member of the IT community.
  Michael Katz
  >>> "Marvin C. Slayton" <mcs@mail.scsinfo.com> 11/13/97 09:14AM >>>
  -----Original Message-----
  From: dski@cameonet.cameo.com.tw <dski@cameonet.cameo.com.tw>
  To: Multiple recipients of list <am-info@essential.org>
  Date: Wednesday, November 12, 1997 9:20 PM
  Subject: The term "operating system"
  >Is there an agreed-upon definition of "operating system"?
  In my humble opinion, NO! Witness our current DOJ vs. MS regarding MS
  attempt to pitch that the browser application program is really (and should
  be) part of "the operating system".
  Originally, the OS was intended to provide an interface between the human
  computer programmer and the hardware. The more sophisicated the OS, the more
  "user friendly" the interface. In today's world of software objects,
  components, plug-ins, Active-X controls, Java applets, etc. The complexities
  of the OS have reached into the hundreds of millions of lines of OS code.
  We have evolved (thank goodness!) to a point now where the OS is more than
  the interface between the hardware components and the programmer. The OS has
  been expanded to encapsulate the end-user interface. The GUI or Graphical
  User Interface, pioneered by Xerox, lifted by Steve Jobs (et. al.) for
  Apple, and blantantly copied by Microsoft for Windows, is currently the
  I would like to see Microsoft split into;
  1) an OS developer/marketer company, enhancing Windows ability to manage
  ever-expanding hardware components, input/output devices (voice, human-bio,
  eye-movement capture, etc.). Pouring their extensive resources into
  creating/evolving the man-machine interface beyond its current
  keyboard-entrenched/flat glass technologies.
  2) an applications development/marketer company, MS Office, MS Project,
  Encarta, the games, the travel agencies, etc. This company would compete in
  an open market, having no advanced access to new OS versions beyond that
  available to anyone else. (Here in lies the rub in terms of MS unfair
  competitive advantage over the rest of us software developers).
  3) a database development/marketer company, primarily focused on SQL Server
  and again, with no more advanced access to new OS versions beyond that
  available to their competitors. (Repeat above unfair competitive advantage
  Where am I going with this you ask? MS is leveraging their OS into
  applications (bye! bye! SAP, PeopleSoft, Baan, etc. if they get into the
  enterprise applications business), databases (bye! bye! Oracle, Sybase,
  Informix, etc. whenever MS decides to "embed" SQL Server in Windows NT).
  It smacks of classic monopolistic vertical leverage of an unfair competitive
  advantage. We must act sooner rather than later or watch as many great
  companies go down the tubes. If left unchecked, even the flow and storage of
  INFORMATION, in all electronic forms, may come under the "influence" of
  Microsoft. This is NOT GOOD FOR THE FUTURE OF MAN.
  Wow! Too much caffeine this morning! I'll step down off this concern of
  mine, and go back to yours...
  >My overriding concern, as a consumer, is keystrokes. My understanding
  >is that Windows handles certain keystrokes in a manner that application
  >programs cannot "see," and that it provides apps with no way to handle
  >those keystrokes themselves. Can our tech types confirm or refute this?
  >Such behavior, in my carefully considered opinion, far oversteps the
  >bounds of what an operating system should do.
  One of the primary purposes of the OS is to provide an consistent,
  replicatable, and easy-to-use interface between hardware component (a
  keyboard, for example) and the programs using it (word processors, apps,
  etc.). The current state of affairs, in all but the most simplistic program
  development languages/tools, is that there are varying degrees of "control"
  that the programmer has regarding feedback from the OS regarding the
  hardware input devices (keyboard, mouse, etc.). A developer can use the
  default mode, which reports back functional commands from the keyboard, such
  as page-down, exit, etc. or a more advanced (and difficult to program) mode
  where literally every key touched and mouse-movement vector is reported back
  to the program. Very tedious programming (an unproductive in most cases).
  If I read between the lines, I sense that your concern centers around the
  notion that maybe the OS could act like a "big brother" watching our
  keystrokes, video displays, and perhaps sooner than later, reporting back to
  the "big man" all those of us in the cyber-community that mention the words,
  Microsoft basher or Clinton is dishonest or something...
  You have a very valid concern! And very real!
  >(Let us not hear about how great Windows key bindings are or how we
  >need a consistent keyboard interface for everyone from six-year-olds to
  >100-wpm touch typists. I've been grinding this ax for a LONG time, and
  >it's VERY sharp.)
  Okay, you won't. At least not from me.
  >Dan Strychalski
  Marvin C. Slayton, mailto:mcs@mail.scsinfo.com 
  Structured Computer Systems, Inc., http://www.scsinfo.com 
  30 Tower Lane, Avon, CT 06001
  phone: 860.677.0222,  fax: 860.677.7157