Edit: Rotten correctly points out that Unix ran on machines like the PDP-11 which were not mainframes but minicomputers. I'd amend the text accordingly but think the lasting shame of my error is fitting punishment.
TheDeamon wrote:People still take their work home with them, and while it's much easier to use different platforms today than almost any time previously, it still remains a thing.
In the 1970's and 80's, Unix was _the_ mainframe OS. If you had a mainframe computer, you ran Unix on it. You know what's weird? That's still true. Pretty much any mainframe system you encounter today is probably going to be running some kind of Unix.
In the 80's and 90's, DOS/Windows was _the_ PC OS. If you had a PC, you ran DOS/Windows on it. You know what's weird? That's still true. Pretty much any PC system you encounter today is probably going to be running some MSFT-created OS.
The majority of computers in existence today are not PC's (https://searchenginewatch.com/sew/opini ... rnet-began
Unix is still found on the surviving mainframes of the world because it never left its original market. Its market shrunk a bit because the wealthier institutions were able to pay for mainframes to do things that PC's were eventually capable of doing but those users who still genuinely need the capabilities of the mainframe aren't letting their AIX and Solaris systems go.
Windows will continue to be found on the surviving PC's because it will never leave its original market. The PC market will shrink a bit because those who are currently using PC's for things that a mobile system can easily do will stop using their PC's and those who genuinely need the capabilities of a PC will not let their Windows and OS X systems go.
Still being "a thing" is not the same as remaining relevant or being the basis for modern computer usage and it CERTAINLY isn't the same as not being shit. Because Windows is shit.
TheDaemon wrote:Another aspect is the PC gaming market, which was initially an outgrowth of that large install base. Linux may be slowly gaining ground, particularly with efforts like Steam behind it, but there still remains a lot more ground to cover, and WINE is too high a tech factor for most users.
It's like if somebody were to say "The Estonian language is becoming increasingly irrelevant" and you protested with "But nearly everyone in Estonia still speaks it!" while ignoring the fact that Estonia's population is on a (slow) decline and the populations of other countries are increasing --- and then you go on to mention other languages that are more irrelevant like Lojban and Klingon. Sure, Estonian is more relevant than those but... so?
TheDaemon wrote:On most home networks it's more of an ad hoc distributed services situation than anything else.
Um. What? Something about NAS and thumb sticks? How does any of this support your claim that we aren't already living in the era of client/server software architecture?
People don't set up a LAN in their house so they can have file servers and be all SOCKS compliant and enforce access controls with some group policy shit. HOME NETWORKS EXIST TO CONNECT PEOPLES' MOBILE DEVICES TO THE INTERNET. They buy a Wifi router so they can watch Netflix on their iPads and upload photos of their bendy straw improvised coat hangers to /r/lifehacks.
This _is_ the client/server architecture you speak of and it's happening today.
Not only are you amazingly wrong when you say that the client/server software era "is not today" but you still haven't explained why, even if it were true, that it's part of this whole "ultimately matters" tripe you started with --- nor have you clarified how this "ultimately matters" nonsense is proof that Windows doesn't suck rhinoceros balls.
It surely is a shock that every time I ask for clarity, you introduce more new statements that are either wrong or irrelevant. That is wholly uncharacteristic of you.
No, sir. None of the things that you claim "ultimately matter" actually matter at all. We know this because the trend is already very much one of phasing Windows PC's out of life --- even for the average user.
Even Microsoft sees this!
http://www.zdnet.com/article/microsoft- ... indows-10/
http://blogs.microsoft.com/blog/2016/03 ... -on-linux/
And again, this isn't because I want Linux to be on all the computers. delay Linux in the ear with dynamite dildos. I'm saying this because Windows, in a vacuum, irrespective of its alternatives, and irrespective of the successes people can have while running it, is a piece of shit and it's becoming increasingly shittier with time.
You claim that it's easier to use because folks are already accustomed to it but Microsoft has been making strides toward solving that problem. They're continuing to grind away at all the familiarity of Windows with each update and replacing it with more shenanigans and people will continue to retreat into their tablets and phones for most uses until they can figure out a way to type up book reports on their phones and shit.
And they will do this. Because even though Rotten's employer can make money while using Windows for now, it's a massive pile of shit.