OS/2 was technically a better OS but lost out to Windows.
Superior technology doe not always come out on top.
Rennie Allen [> RAllen@csical.com> ] in
news:> D4907B331846D31198090050046F80C9030676@exchangecal.hq.csical.com > :
Also, neither the author of the article, nor any of the posters have
a clue about OS architecture. At the core, QNX6 is a more advanced
architecture than BEOS is (the exact opposite assertion was stated in
the article - it equated GUI with OS architecture, which is ridiculous).
Definitely agree with you, Rennie. Yet to many users and some (many these
days?) programmers, the perception of advancement resides in how well a
GUI is designed to access the underlying architecture. Right or wrong,
that’s the way many experience an OS. We know that QNX’s architecture is
superior but that has yet to become apparent to many {columnists anyway;}
Does BEOS have a nice GUI and a nice Filesystem ? You betcha. Does
QNX have a better underlying OS architecture ? Indeed. As for GUI,
and hardware support QNX is just getting out of the gate, and it
already beats BEOS on HW support. GUI takes longer. Two years and
there won’t be any comparison between the two.
I believe (and hope) you are right. Actually I’d like to see that in a
year, however ; } …I found it odd that as high as they rated RTP in
some of the sections, the overall summary felt like “kudos to BeOS”. I
guess what was important to the writer was largely the appearance of
advancement, and of course polish in some areas BeOS may have that RTP
has yet to gain, given the timeframe.
I guess these perceptions are worth noting and leveraging on, regardless
of the underlying truths.
As for your desire to have the “appeals to Linux geeks” perception
changed, I can’t agree more. I want QNX6 to be usable. Linux is
not the model to follow for usability (BEOS is a much better
mentor in this regard), and I don’t believe that QSSL is following
Linux for UI issues (otherwise we would have X for the GUI).
Thank God or Waterloo ; } Comparison to BeOS is rather an improvement
I suppose; it points to a few areas to make improvements, and reveals
many areas where both the architecture and the business model are
superior. Not to belittle (
BeOS or its users - a gamble was taken and
some innovation was fuel. And somewhere along the trail, BeOS management
made some nasty moves.
There is much to admire about the Linux community if not the
architecture itself; taking the good with the bad. Now, where was that
BeOS POSIX roadmap? ; }
Industrial strength OS with BEOS usability, that’s what I want to see.
Amen.
Usability takes time, but does not require rocket science, it’ll happen.
Maybe in relative terms it does require rocket science. The tendency
outside QNX the company now arguably is just to tack on pieces from the
Linux, uh, er, solution. There are surely better models, or at least ways
to implement. Again, X versus Photon.
Make no mistake though, QNX6 is (and will continue to be) a follower,
rather than a leader for UI. The goal is to be a good follower.
I suppose that is true as well. The goal to put out an OS with a UI that
a large amount of developers can already grok certainly supercedes any
attempt to provide the mostest coolest UI metaphor and have developers
go, “Huh, what the heck is THAT? And what good is it going to do me?”
QNX will remain a leader in OS architecture (where nothing comes close -
and where the barriers to competition are large).
And where BeOS will be is still open to speculation ; }
Buzz, is nice, but for lasting success what matters is quality.
Buzz about quality at all levels is really nicer yet. I believe QNX has
a commitment to quality, and the underlying architecture of course SHOULD
come first. Some nice steps have been made already in UI, but I hear, “we
want more!” from quite a few voices out there. Assuming that anything
that is added or “improved” does not conflict with the vet who likes it
clean and mean and command line (the architecture suggests this should
not be a problem), I’m all for it.
I want QSSL to “get it right”, and for the most part I believe they are
doing so. Now’s about time for the community (and there is a QNX
community) to make some contributions in the “nitty gritty” details
realm of the UI (which is what I think your saying).
Exactly.
The best way for QSSL to achieve this is to open-source things like the
file manager. They also need to create, and open source a drag n’ drop
desktop manager.
I see the QNX Repository has just been opened [> http://cvs.qnx.com> ] : }
It might seem worrying that there will be an explosion of different UI’s
flying around, but I believe in evolution.
Just as in editors, there will be differing interpretations of what a UI
should be. Some of them may eventually come from products built around
RTP - and then migrate into use on the development platform itself. Who
knows? …Evolution may be messy, but it works better than some of the
alternatives ; }
QSSL can sit back for a couple of years, and then look at what has
evolved, pick the best of breed, and include it as the standard
desktop.
Uh-huh. Yeah, that’s a good way to go. Rounds off some of the chaos that
divergent Linux distributions have contributed to. For the average user
in two years, using RTP on the desk as well as in other products may look
very inviting indeed. The mess factor will not be turned up to 11 like it
seems to be in Linuxland.
The only reason that this hasn’t really happened with Linux is that
there are multiple packaging entities. With QNX there is only one
packager.
: }
– greenboy —<<<< Phoenix Developer Consortium > http://phinixi.com
