A bit nonsese, then: if already exist, why are we cloning it ?Ged wrote:the worlds most popular, most usable and best designed operating system is 'not-so-good'
The main difference between an open and a closed OS could be mainly in different implementations/optimizations then in a better debugging.
Exactly what i mean: i think open sourceness could build better Windows not just an "indipendet" clone.
Never said "bad" i claimed "not-so-good", that mean could be better (and/or more efficent, different, ...) keeping the compatibility. Isn't the WINE approach ? A -different- windows implementation.oiaohm wrote:Core design of windows is not exactly bad.
To be more clear: i really liked the OS/2 approach to windows apps (probably 'cause is the father, of course).
I understand but burelly agree. Just a question: why MicroSoft can change the shell any time they want (and often badly) and we not ? Is microsoft more open than us ?Z98 wrote:Also, we are trying to present users with a familiar environment. We cannot make that claim if we suddenly use a completely different shell the default.