Week 3 Readings

This week's readings all have to do with operating systems, about which I was pretty much clueless.  I have a little better idea now, after reading about Linux, Mac OS X, and the Windows update, that there are alternatives to the only one I’ve ever really known, Windows, if one were so inclined to tinker with what one already has.  But I’m probably destined to be one of those “lusers” Garrels refers to—at least for the time being, and at least till I’m forced to “RTFM” (loved this guy’s sense of humor!). 

Here are the main points I picked up:

Garrels's "Introduction to Linux" describes how Linux was developed by a guy who wanted a free system for smaller PCs that would work with the original UNIX, which was developed for mainframe computers.  He put out a “message in a bottle,” so to speak, for ideas on how to build what he wanted, and build it they did, as a community, which later we would all refer to as “Open Source.”  Pretty cool.  His description of Open Source is very helpful for understanding the impact such software can have on the world.  Also pretty cool is that it’s free.  Linux is written in the C programming language, which I’ve heard of but never worked with.  There are lots of pros—can work with any hardware, you don’t have to reboot all the time, it’s secure, and errors are found and fixed quickly because so many people develop and use it.  There are few cons, but there’s a big one for me:  the fact that it’s not very user friendly and confusing for beginners.  Though Garrels insists there is a Linux “Distribution” for everyone, I would beg to differ with him that “you needn’t be a programmer to install” it on your system.  This is something I would be very afraid to try on my own. 

Amit Singh’s 2003 document on the Mac OS X operating system was difficult to get through, especially since I am not an Apple user (anymore, that is--I had one back in the early 90s) and am definitely not a “hacker.”  But if one were a hacker, there’s a plethora of information of tools and programs available for use with Mac OS X.  Singh’s brief history of the Mac OS X was interesting (what I could understand of it, apart from all the abbreviations and acronyms).  Sorry, but most of this document was way over my head.  I’m sure it’s a perfectly fine operating system (it is definitely the author’s preferred OS, though he gives props to Linux and Windows at the end), but it isn’t free, and it requires Apple hardware. 

Wikipedia’s entry on Mac OS X was a little more accessible to me.  (I especially appreciated the pronunciation guide, “X” = “ten”—I wouldn’t have known that.)  Now I understand that version X has improved stability and reliability, and includes software development tools.  I wasn’t too surprised to read that Mac OS X is the “second most popular general-purpose operating system in use for the internet, after Microsoft Windows.”  Wikipedia describes this as “the most successful UNIX-like desktop operating system on the internet.”  Makes it sounds like an “also-ran,” even though it has “over 4 times the penetration of the free Linux.”  Curious that the Mac OS versions are named after “big cats.”

The SuperSite blog entry reprinted the text of a 2008 email from Microsoft’s senior vice president, Bill Veghte, in which he provides an update on the state of Windows .  This seemed a little out of date, since we’ve now seen the release of Windows 7.  Veghte thanks the billion users of Windows for their input, which makes me think of those TV commercials with all the people who say “Windows 7 was my idea.”  I’m still using Windows XP, both at work and at home, but I guess I’ll be forced to change by 2014, when Microsoft will apparently stop supporting XP.  I don’t think I’ve heard as many complaints about Windows 7 as I did about Vista, so maybe Microsoft is getting better about working out the kinks before they release a product.  I do wish they’d make security a top priority, though—virus susceptibility remains my biggest concern.  I thought it was interesting that Veghte states the planned release date for Windows 7, which was three years after the release of Vista.  Does this mean we’ll be seeing a new Microsoft OS every three years?