linux [2]

Over on OS News [3], there is an interesting article [4] by Russian intellectual property and insurance lawyer, Dmitrij D. Czarkoff, about how the current direction of Linux is ultimately doomed.
In the article, he talks about the fact that many modern Linux distributions are attempting to copy Microsoft Windows features and as such will always be playing a game of catch up (my words).

Dmitrij sees this approach as flawed because Microsoft are always changing their plans and Linux can only copy those features which have been released and so will be always behind and therefore not winning the "war" as he refers to it. The article refers to modern Linux as Windows on top of Unix and it is clear that Dmitrij sees this as wrong.

Why is this relevant to RISC OS [5]?

Well, so far, RISC OS has steered its own course, albeit a very rocky one in recent years, but RISC OS's main unique selling point in my opinion is that of the GUI, but there are others. However, we also have an operating system which draws on experience of other fields and tries to be compatible, but not by copying how things are done.

For me, the RISC OS way of doing things has always been quite natural, whereas I've never been so comfortable with Windows or the Linux Windows Clones because they present the experience in a very Windows way which I often find awkward or counter intuitive.

Mostly these comments refer to the GUI, but I also think that the Core of RISC OS with Relocatable Modules building up the OS and the way our System Variables, Obey files etc. work and add to the value of RISC OS. I know that other operating systems have similar concepts and that to some extent RISC OS probably copies ideas from those, but I feel quite content with how these work. When having to write what are effectively DOS batch files for my work, I find it quite awkward compared to RISC OS Obey files for example.

I tend to agree with many of Dmitrij's thoughts about not cloning Windows and am glad that RISC OS is not trying to be another Windows Clone. For RISC OS to survive, it does obviously need compatibility with larger market segments, and we do have much of this with TCP/IP, USB [6], Programming Languages, Document Processors and Web Browsing. Clearly there are areas in which we are behind what many people consider to be the minimum acceptable level though.

Our aims for RISC OS need to be greater file compatibility with applications, more application features which give similar if not identical functionality to that which people demand of other platforms and greater compatibility with the emerging Internet technologies. Much of that has been said elsewhere, but again in line with Dmitrij's thoughts, I believe that RISC OS should continue to stay its own course, implementing compatibility but not cloning along the way.

Steve.