Thoughts on a linux only platform

[BDNiner]

I know one of the great features of linux is the ability to modify the kernel to run on any platform. but would linux benefit from having its own platform like mac? I think the main thing that drive mac sales are the fact that you can only run their OS on their hardware. Windows has made sure that their are no serious innovations on the hardware front, i feel like the scare hardware manufactures into sticking to the tried and true because they don't want to lose sales by having a platform that is not windows compatible.

Any thoughts or comments. I for one am tired of the i386 architecture and feel that if other platforms were developed, the innovation and progress of the PC would increase in leaps and bounds.

[milosz.galazka]

Hi, Probably we are all tired of its (i386 arch) problems. But don't forget that anyone can create something useful from almost nothing :) just by using some not so new hardware and linux/bsd/... os.

[jrusso2]

I would love an open hardware computer. That would be great with Linux

[Dimitriid]

I do not agree. Microsoft and Apple have fought hard to sink in the "Designed for X OS" idea into people's mind and thats no coincidence: its a one way ticket to full software monopoly.

There's just no reason to tie software to hardware unless you need to solder it in ROM memory which is usually a bad idea only good for appliances that have super small functionality.

There needs to be a clear distinction between the two because there needs to be improvement on the software as its own entity, not just tied to whatever hardware can do, in the end is counterproductive to software progress to be tied to a single platform like that. Of course none of that is important to Apple of Microsoft, in fact if you look at their products other than computers ( iPods, xboxes ) they are actually happy to limit their users as much as they can so they can neatly control them and have their marketing people neatly classify them into niche groups they can exploit for every single penny they have.

[-grubby]

no. that would be like supporting vendor lock-in. How about Linux runs on all(or most) platforms but has it's own OEM type deal? It could have
it's own architecture and have a "designed for Linux" sticker slapped on the front. It would be designed with Linux FIRST

[Ireclan]

I agree with Dimitriid. A Linux only platform is a bad idea. I like nathangrubb's idea far more.

[ticopelp]

I agree with Dimitriid. A Linux only platform is a bad idea. I like nathangrubb's idea far more.

Agreed.

[HermanAB]

There already are hundreds of Linux only platforms!

Linux is primarily an embedded systems OS that also happens to run on desktop systems. Desktop and server systems together represent about 1% of the Linux deployment:

3 millions servers per year, vs 300 million embedded devices per year.

[betweenthetines]

I agree with Dimitriid. A Linux only platform is a bad idea. I like nathangrubb's idea far more.

+1

[wdo_will]

No!

GNU/Linux =/= OS X or Windows, despite how it is perceived! The beauty of the GNU/Linux family, and other free software operating systems like the BSD family, is that it is, for the most part, universal. Any sort of "locking" on free software is a bad thing.

[hardyn]

open architecture hardware is starting...

example:
http://wiki.opengraphics.org/tiki-index.php

the pricing is huge! so it might be focused at the professional, or is just a research project, but its interesting none the less...

[Sp4cedOut]

I know one of the great features of linux is the ability to modify the kernel to run on any platform. but would linux benefit from having its own platform like mac? I think the main thing that drive mac sales are the fact that you can only run their OS on their hardware. Windows has made sure that their are no serious innovations on the hardware front, i feel like the scare hardware manufactures into sticking to the tried and true because they don't want to lose sales by having a platform that is not windows compatible.

Any thoughts or comments. I for one am tired of the i386 architecture and feel that if other platforms were developed, the innovation and progress of the PC would increase in leaps and bounds.

???

Actually, Microsoft allowing Windows to run on any computer fostered innovation in hardware by creating competition. Apple originally thought they could compete with that but gave up, that's why they're using processors from Intel, graphics cards from nVidia, etc...

[BDNiner]

???

Actually, Microsoft allowing Windows to run on any computer fostered innovation in hardware by creating competition. Apple originally thought they could compete with that but gave up, that's why they're using processors from Intel, graphics cards from nVidia, etc...

I think you are missing my point. The "computer" hasn't changed in like 20 years. Both PCs and MACs are technically the same thing. they work the same way. You can see this technology filtering down the other devices now. A video game system now is basically a specialized computer. Smart phones are turning into the same thing also. The PC was a great invention, but its popularity stunted the innovation of other kinds of computing architectures.

Now the only way to improve the computer is to keep making things faster, instead of throwing the whole system out the window and starting from scratch. For instance since we now have multicore processors. why can we put a graphics processor and a sound processor on the same chip as the computer's main processor. so if you have a 4 core processor, use one core for sound, one for graphics and the last 2 for system processors. wouldn't that make the communications between the different parts faster, and then you can use a flash hard disk.

This is just a thought.