This week's book giveaways are in the Jython/Python and Object-Oriented programming forums. We're giving away four copies each of Machine Learning for Business: Using Amazon SageMaker and Jupyter and Object Design Style Guide and have the authors on-line! See this thread and this one for details.
IMHO (based on experience with Win and Linux not much Mac):
Current OSes haven't really changed dramatically in more than a decade. The basic file structure, linking, searching, and saving of documents is vertually unchanged. I would limit this discussion by stating that, in my opinion, the OSes responibilities do not include the ability to deal with various media/archive/file types other than basic text (and I question even basic text).
My question(s) is: Is there a need for a new OS? What major differences would there be from the current offerings? How would such a thing get developed?
My initial offering: I think it is past time for a radically different OS.
Proposed change: Get rid of the current, fragile, tree file structure. I would replace it with a tagging system that could be made to look the same, but would allow better searches, multiple 'locations' (which would really just be tags) of files without duplication (replacing the idea of links or shortcuts).
I have a couple other ideas, but I'd like to see what is out there.
How would it get developed? I think it would take an organization willing to invest a large amount of capital and time into development. Something which I think is highly unlikely.
I think people are comfortable with what they know. If it aint broke, dont fix it kind of thing.
All computer users understand tree filesystems and going from Windoze to Mac to Solaris to Linux to whatever is pretty straightforward as essentially they work the same.
A new OS with a radically different feel to it would struggle in my opinion. I am not sure users would want to make the jump to something so different.
Although OS's have stayed the same for the last few years, so have cars, but people still get the latest version of both for improved performance, reliability etc. [ February 16, 2005: Message edited by: Rick Beaver ]
Using links current filesystems already support much of what you want (which seems to be a gridlike filesystem in which each file can have as many locations as you want to designate for it).
Such a system would lead to chaos though. A hierarchical system is best for organising most data which is why it was chosen by filesystem designers in the first place...
Remember: just because something is old doesn't mean it's bad. That line of thinking was what caused the .com boom to collapse (well, part of the reason).
Different concepts have been tried, including completely flat filesystems. None ever gained general acceptance. I'd not be surprised if a gridlike FS has also been tried and rejected (or may still be in use for specific applications, neural nets come to mind).
Such a filesystem would of course need a true 3D display system in order to properly display it. Maybe once such displays gain acceptance in general use a gridlike FS will become more useful.
Are you here to take over the surface world? Because this tiny ad will stop you!