On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 1:49 PM, Matthew Garrett <mjg59(a)srcf.ucam.org> wrote:
On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 01:38:29PM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 1:32 PM, Matthew Garrett <mjg59(a)srcf.ucam.org> wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 01:29:02PM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
> >> There needs to be focus. Where that focus is can surely be up for
> >> debate, but I'd rather not just drive Workstation into irrelevance by
> >> not learning from our past mistakes. We can't focus on everything or
> >> we'll wind up gaining nothing.
> > Who do other desktop operating systems target?
> Who do you think Workstation should target? Why? How does that
> differ in a large fashion from what is drafted?
It's an honest question. Looking at what other desktop operating systems
focus on and the userbase that they develop is an important part of
figuring out which audiences need to be targetted and which audiences
will grow organically. For instance, OS X is used by a huge number of
developers. Are they the target audience? What compromises do Apple make
in order to satisfy them? Does a focus on an average desktop user impair
Apple's ability to attract them?
Apple makes the following compromises:
1) It has it's own hardware division
2) It ties it's OS to that hardware
3) It then creates app stores and services around the OS
Which leads to people buying the hardware because it's actually decent
hardware, a smaller set of machines to support which reduces
maintenance costs, a completely vertically integrated ecosystem that
locks people into their products, and developers focusing on OS X
because people buy into this because it works and is shiny.
I really don't think comparing a general purpose OS with OS X is a
fair comparison in a broader sense. Sure, some things can be compared
from a usability standpoint, etc but it isn't as simple as "OS X