"Ian Hilliard" <nospam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:bee29$44cf97eb$544a537b$17778@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Roy Schestowitz wrote:
Linux needs to disappear
,----[ Quote ]
| But the fact that Linux is not yet ubiquitous is simply another reason
| why the Zimbra approach to a communications client is such an ideal way
| to make operating systems disappear. It is a prime example of how a
| browser really can make an operating system irrelevant, which is a good
| thing. And it is a prime example of why network computing should bea
| significant part of the future.
`----
http://www.linuxjournal.com/node/1000070
Here is someone having a good old troll. Whether the client sees the OS or
not, there needs to be some abstraction layer between the hardware and the
application even on thin clients. This, whether the OP likes it or not is
an OS.
I think the author is advocating thin clients implemented in AJAX or
Java. In other words, yes, in his view, there'll be an OS in the sense of an
hardware abstraction that provides services to client program (such as data
storage, network connectivity, etc.), but this "OS" won't be Linux. It'll be
a webbrowser, or a JVM.
To that, there are places where you just can't use a thin client. Until
the
world becomes totally wirelessly networked, a thought I dread from the
point of view of privacy, there will need to be applications running on
your own hardware. Thus, there will be the need for operating systems.
I can't see any relationship between whether your machine has a wireless
network connection or not, and whether it has an OS or not.
Of course, there is much too much effort put into using certain OS's that
make it hard to produce reliable software. Still, for the last ten years
sloppy programmers have had an excuse for their applications crashing. "It
was Window's fault!", is the standard excuse, because more often than not
it is some quirk in Windows that caused the problem.
It is the knowledge of the Windows quirks and what to do about them that
makes senior Windows programmers valuable. As a result, these people are
fighting to keep Windows as the main operating system to be used for
software development.
The writing is already on the wall. Microsoft sees more money in thin
clients and services. In this brave new world there will be no room for
programmers outside of Microsoft. According to a document I read not too
long ago, Microsoft also intends to expand its business services to write
specialised software for corporations. This will then be run from
Microsoft
servers.
If senior Windows developers have any sense, they will be working as hard
as
they can on learning Linux. These people are going to have to reskill,
sooner or later, or go the way of senior assembler programmers.
Isn't C# on Windows pretty much just like C# on Linux?
- Oliver
|
|
