Microsoft, Innovation, and Linux - is Linux too Windows like?

Brian Astill bastill at
Tue Dec 24 00:21:34 CST 2002

David Lloyd wrote:

    /Yet we're not copying them? I think you mean set OPEN standards and
    not THE standard./

What's the difference?

One problem we face is that Intel and MSDOS have colluded, and coerced 
others into supporting, restrictions on the way PCs work at quite a 
basic level.  

Another is that because "we" had to wait for a viable 32-bit 
architecture before "we" could operate, M$, it's OS and apps  had a 
virtual stranglehold on the market before "we" could start.  Hence "we" 
have been obliged to accept "compatibility" both at the OS and 
application level to avoid the move from "them" to "us" being too 
difficult to make.

Overall, "we" have had to accept that most neo-converts to our true way 
will want/need to dual boot.  Many will also want "our" apps to 
read/write "their" app outputs.  That in turn means we have to live 
within the previously-mentioned PC design restrictions.

For example - who said the first partition MUST be the primary boot 
partition and that if you require multiple partitions they MUST be 
enclosed in an extended partition (of which there can only be one) and 
the maximum number of extended + primary is four?  (BTW, just TRY using 
Primary, Primary, Extended, Primary - it's fun! )
Why is my laptop limited to 500M HD if I am using WinDOS, but can 
accomodate almost any size I like in "dangerously dedicated" FBSD mode?

What this seems to mean is that "we" have two options.  Be rather like a 
much more efficient and effective Windows OR follow the Amiga and be 
superb at what we do with no general impact on the IT scene.

If there is a third, more effective, way I for one would be very pleased 
to hear about it.


LinuxSA WWW: IRC: #linuxsa on
To unsubscribe from the LinuxSA list:
  mail linuxsa-request at with "unsubscribe" as the subject

More information about the linuxsa mailing list