34 ms·
Why only military infrastructure? Image a war between, say the USA and Russia, and imagine that the USA manages to shut down or cripple all Windows machines in
by gbog 10y ago
Why only military infrastructure? Image a war between, say the USA and Russia, and imagine that the USA manages to shut down or cripple all Windows machines in Russia, this will probably put the enemy on the kneels, even more than weeks of airstrikes. And it may also be better PR as it do not directly "kill" anyone. I have always thought that Microsoft holding 95% of PCs in the world is extremely dangerous, and can't get why American, with their admirable foundness of personal freedom and security, do not decide to put a stop to this anomaly. (Imagine, if 95% of world's oil was provided by one company?)
- golergka 10y agoBecause unlike oil, computers running on different OS create difficulties for users and developers. Apart from the point of national security, I think it's reasonable to assume that in an alternative world, where 20 operating systems competed on desktop market with more-or-less equal market shares, everybody would suffer from neverending compatibility problems, we would have worse applications, a lot of businesses would never succeed and a lot less value would be created in IT industry overall. Hell, we don't even have to imagine — remember testing JS on every browser around 2007?
- gbog 10y ago20 different operating systems would have shown the necessity of a common open protocol for the filesystem being it, and would have given much more space to creativity on the computer.