As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.
Closed 10 years ago.
What is the average time that it would take a complete novice, whose background is mostly Windows XP, to go through the FreeBSD handbook and get sufficient mastery to setup a server from the ground up?
It's impossible to say. Not only is it highly dependent upon what sort of person you are, but it also depends on what exactly you are doing and how you define "sufficient mastery". Being able to get Apache operational is a simple matter of following step-by-step tutorials, you could do that in a matter of hours. Being able to run a multi-user server competently takes a hell of a lot longer, and the handbook isn't nearly enough.
It would depend on how much knowledge you have of unix, and from the sounds of things, you probably do not have a whole lot.
Assuming you have little knowledge of unix at all, I would say that it will probably take a few days to get a grasp of what is going on, and possibly a week to have something working.
The FreeBSD handbook is pretty detailed though, and does provide you with a good grounding of everything you need to do to get things to work.
I know that this sounds like an awful lot of time, but in my experience, they really are quite different OS paradigms.
You could start with PC BSD (an easy to use distro) to get a feeling of BSD and then move to more advanced stuff like setting up servers.
As others have noted, configuring a service to do a couple of things isn't very hard, you just have to follow some steps (which any monkey could do), but if you want more, you'll need extra time. A competent sysadmin does not know only the how, but also the why. Grandma can click all day in Windows and even if Windows Server has a GUI for server administration, it doesn't mean she can configure IIS or the DHCP service. By the way, it would be a good thing if you could learn an (Unix) editor, preferably vi, since it's the standard on BSDs; emacs, joe, pico are nice too, but they aren't so popular.
As for the time, it took about two days for me to configure a server. But I had previous Linux experience and the server didn't do anything fancy.
Look if you've never touched a Unix platform, you should learn a lot of things, basically a different philosophy. The FreeBSD Handbook and the community is simply wonderful, but a reference book like the FBSD handbook contains a lot of information that you must develop yourself.
Also, the BSD platform is not easiest of the Unix family to begin from zero.
Good sources to learn:
Absolute BSD book.
The Complete BSD book (this is for Release 5, it's good for learning also).
Man pages. The BSDs man pages are a LOT better than the Linux ones.
FreeBSD Handbook.
FreeBSD forums: forums.freebsd.org and daemonforums.
Any Unix/Linux resource you can get your hands on. Many things are compatible (or near-compatible). e.g, if your friend tells you "I've found an old SGI IRIX / HPUX or (insert unix here) manual that I will throw in the thrashcan" stop it and see what you can learn from it.
Keep in mind that you've a long road ahead. But you'll enjoy it.
Depends on your reading speed :-)
Depends on your needs (I mean: what kind of server).
Once upon a time I did this - installing a FreeBSD on x86- (although I had some Linux knowledge already at that time), and it took me 3 hours, mainly that much time, because I was working on another machine in parallel.
Depends on your background: Did you ever use power shell or other command line "applications" (like batches ;-). For me one of the greatest challenges to switch from a completely GUI'd operating system to an operating system that works best with a shell (something a little bit like the DOS prompt). But the moment you get the hang of it you'll be fine again.
Another aspect is the availability of a second computer beside the one you are setting up. If you can do web searches for additional information while in the midst of doing an install, it can save a lot of time.
As for the original topic, I've used Linux and Unix extensively, but have yet to get FreeBSD working after several tries over many years. I'd always get frustrated before I could get it fully installed and configured for a nice graphical desktop. (So personality obviously matters.) But it has been about two years since I've tried, and it may be simple now...
Please do not consider this a flame against FreeBSD... just a true story that for some reason I couldn't seem to make it work. If it were not a good OS, I wouldn't have attempted so many times.
If you're coming from a primarily Windows background, I think FreeBSD would be a great way to dive into UNIX, but you may also want to check out Ubuntu Linux-- specifically, Ubuntu Server.
Got a spare Pentium 4-based system laying around at home? Burn yourself a CD and go to it.
As a fan of FreeBSD myself, I have to second the recommendation for the "Absolute FreeBSD" book above-- another book worth a look is "Building a Server with FreeBSD 7."
My original rationale for choosing FreeBSD was getting better control over what gets installed-- I was really tired of installing RedHat and/or SuSE and having a few gigabytes of stuff I wasn't going to use installed as part of the base install that wasn't easily removed after the fact. I've grown rather enamored with the BSD way of doing things, but it isn't necessarily for everyone.
Something to consider-- if you have the hardware, run VMWare or VirtualBox, and set up a few virtual machines to get used to various distributions before making the commitment to install a particular one on bare hardware.
Related
I would like to know if freedos is better than windows or not, and why, I mean in terms of operability and development capacity using one or the other.
And finally which onw would you use and why.
Thanks for your support,
John.
This mainly would depend on what you're goal is for your operating system. If you're goal is to play some classic games or run legacy software, sure you would probably appreciate FreeDOS, as for anything else... Windows definitely wins out. In terms of development, Windows has a lot more active community and you will likely find more tools and resources on it. If you are looking for an similar open source OS, consider looking into Linux or even Kali Linux if you are familiar with that. The command line utility with those type of operating systems have a lot more flexibility and isn't as limited as FreeDOS.
So overall, Windows definitely wins out in terms of ease-of-use and development capacity.
As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.
Closed 12 years ago.
I love Ruby and have been using it for a few years to handle day-to-day scripting tasks. Lately however, I've had a number of people tell me that Perl is where it's at. I have nothing against Perl, but it seems like it's kind of fallen behind the times a bit.
However, that's probably just my perception, so I'm asking all of you, what makes Perl so great? I'm genuinely seeking information here; I'd like to understand why this language has such ardent followers.
I know a good handful of hackers who left Perl to go to Ruby. Python is obviously a nice language too. I am neither saying nor implying anything against either.
Pros for Perl 5
Since about 2005 or so Perl has been in a fairly dramatic renaissance in both CPAN and core releases. Perl 6 has helped drive this by sending concepts like role-oriented OO back. Strawberry Perl has made Perl hacking on Windows more like *nix.
The CPAN is huge, still growing, and most of the more widely used authors/teams are responsive to bugfixes. Most popular Perl modules are tested widely and well. CPAN testers recently sent their 10 millionth test report.
Many of the big kits have good communities associated where expert help is available quickly.
The tool chain has become very flexible.
The combination of perlbrew, local::lib, and cpanminus lets users (even without root) have an arbitrary number of perl versions and libraries accessible on the same box.
Many of things that Java, Ruby, Python do right come back to Perl and with facility. For example–
KinoSearch is Lucene but even faster by some benchmarks.
Catalyst is Rails but more flexible. It’s a completely agnostic C with regards to the M and V.
Plack is Python’s WSGI + Ruby’s Rack.
It’s as fast and personal or readable and robust as you want it to be.
A short one-liner can edit every HTML file in your tree when you’re in a hurry to fix something.
A clear and robust program with error reporting, logging, and feedback built on any of the 6 or 7 suitable HTML/XML packages could do the same for a client.
Perlmonks. Though there are notable exceptions, the Perl community is generally friendly, helpful, and positive.
There are quite a few good Perl jobs waiting to be filled. The back and forth between the high level languages has left oodles of Perl in the wild without a matching crop of Perl-centric devs. (I get 5-7 cold calls from recruiters a year.)
It’s fun. In quotes: “Perl has the happiest users.” I can’t speak to the scientific nature of that but I can say I only program today because Perl exists. Many other Perl hackers share this stupid giddiness for the language.
Keep in mind it’s not a zero sum game. The more languages you can wield, the better.
If I had to name one great strength of Perl, it's one word: CPAN.
Having worked with Ruby as well, I'd not say that Perl is necessarily better or worse, but definitely more mature. It is, after all, much older. However, it's not decrepit. It has plenty of modern stuff, e.g., Moose and the 5.10 and 5.12 updates have fixed a lot of problems that the ancient 5.0.x had.
(And if you're wondering: Perl 5 and Perl 6 are different languages. The similar name is an unfortunate mistake. Though Perl 5 does borrow ideas from Perl 6 and vice versa.)
CPAN.
The syntax of Perl is sometimes painful to look at but it is available on Unix machines everywhere and with the command line access to the huge number of packages in CPAN (which can also be accessed via browser), Perl is the de facto standard because of its broad applicability and availability.
These days, IMO the main reason to use Perl is that you can be pretty confident that just about any UNIX system will have it available, even on the sparser commercial UNIX distros.
Also, it has some features that make it work very conveniently with the UNIX shell and filesystem. Perl one-liners are convenient in shell scripting when you need a little more power.
If you're not on a UNIX machine then there's probably little advantage over more modern scripting languages.
First of all I love Python and Ruby as well. In fact I think anything you can do in anyone of the 3 languages you can do in the other just as easily.
CPAN however is a big advantage. There are not many times I find myself looking for a specific general functionality and not finding a module for it.
The greatest thing for me is however is that I can do absolutely everything I want, quickly, and in 10 different ways if I like, but maybe that's just because Perl is my 'mother tongue'.
Anyway, I think it depends on what you want to do. If you want to create a scalable website or web application with all the plumbing (authentication, authorization, session tracking, database ORM, etc, etc) taken care of, it can be done in Perl, but the hassle is not worth it. Go with Python (Django) or Ruby (Rails 3.0 rocks) then.
Good luck and watch out fire setting of flamewars with this subject, this kind of stuff get seriously get you hurt ;)
Rob
Hi guys we are on the way to start developing a big web platform. For db server we choosen postgresql. Would you suggest an OS for the postgresql server (we are looking for the maximum performance)?
Thanks
P.S. sorry for the bad english
I would suggest a platform that you feel comfortable with. As Jeff suggested, it is usually easier to throw faster hardware at a problem than human time.
This reasoning is based on theses main ideas :
Usually the database is only marginally faster given different OS.
The high order optimisations are usually in tuning the database or the requests. Not really in switching OS.
If you have more knowledge on a OS, you can take usually more juice out from it. Whereas if you take an OS that you are not really familiar with, but that is supposed to be faster, it might kick your back in unexpected ways.
That said, as answered before an *NIX-based OS would be better right now, since PostgreSQL has still deep roots in a *NIX world. But this is becoming less and less an issue with the 8.x line.
I would suggest *nix based, Linux would be great if it is possible because you can get the package easier with the built-in package manager (e.g apt for debian, yum for fedora, etc). Because Postgres is originally made for *nix based OS. The port to windows is only recently and as you can see on several threads here on Stackoverflow, Postgres does not perform as good on Windows as it is on *nix based OS.
As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.
Closed 10 years ago.
I know that this is subjective and all, but still, can you provide some list of serious applications that were written in Lisp (perhaps along with what Lisp it is)?
Emacs.
At least parts of it are written in Emacs Lisp.
ITA Software's airline-fare search service. See here to understand why this is impressive.
LISP itself! :)
DART. A logistics app written in Common Lisp for the first gulf war, to free Kuwait from Saddam Hussein. One could say that the war started when this app was ready. The developers worked under intense time pressure to make it possible.
This single application is said to have paid back for all (!) US government investment in AI research.
I'm particularly fond of Maxima. Another nice project I've discovered relatively recently is Nyquist.
One of the most impressive Lisp applications is surely Cyc. Cyc is a project started by Doug Lenat that tries to put common-sense knowledge into a knowledge-based system. Not just a bit, but really really lots of knowledge. Humans have learned a lot of widely different things and it was seen a limitation to artificial intelligence software to not know anything of that. What is the typical color of honey? Do we sit on a chair or under a chair? A cup of fresh coffee is hot. When it rains outside, it does not rain inside. Sea water contains salt, but water in a pond does not. Most birds can fly. Some birds can't fly. It is surprising how many of these facts, rules and concepts people know.
Cyc is under continuous development since 1984 and the knowledge base contains (numbers are from 2004) more than 2.5 million facts and rules. It also contains more than 150 thousand concepts (similar to classes in OOP). Cyc is developed in SubL (a dialect of Common Lisp).
Knowledge is entered in CycL (a declarative logic based language). Specially trained people are entering knowledge. Cyc checks that this new knowledge is not in conflict with existing knowledge. It can also derive new conclusions and one can query it. For its answers it can also generate explanations. Cyc has also many domain-specific heuristics implemented.
In the early days the project started developing on Lisp Machines, but today the software is portable and is also available to interested students and researches (OpenCyc and ResearchCyc).
Lisp Machines were used by NASA to check Space Shuttle starts. From a Symbolics press release from 1990:
"Recently the National Aeronautical and Space Administration (NASA) used Symbolics'
high-definition technology to analyze HDTV video images of the
Discovery launch in real-time. This high-definition system enabled
NASA engineers to get an instant replay of critical launch systems.
The engineers were able to enhance and enlarge high-resolution images
of the lift-off in order to analyze the condition of and spot
potential problems with space shuttle tiles."
They used a bunch of Lisp Machines with special image processing boards.
Sawfish was GNOME's default window manager long time ago. Now they default to Metacity, but you may still use Sawfish (also standalone) and it is still actively developed.
Sawfish is very feature-rich and customizable. Just what you would expect from a LISP window manager.
What eventually became Yahoo! shopping was done with Lisp. See the original author's description
AutoCAD
G2
Yahoo Store
Obidos, The Original Amazon Web Server
This according to Steve Yegge.
http://steve.yegge.googlepages.com/tour-de-babel
Whitehouse Publication Server
During the Clinton administration a Lisp application was used to inform the US citizens about government news. The application was written in Common Lisp and ran on top of the CL-HTTP web server on two Symbolics Lisp Machines (later on the Open Genera virtual Lisp Machine). It also used the Statice object-oriented database. The application provided a taxonomy of government areas which could be queried with a web or an email interface for publications. For example citizens could find out what the vice president Al Gore said about environmental issues in a certain week. This was application was shut down by George W. Bush when he came into office.
Orbitz.com?
Another application I really like is PWGL.
PWGL is a visual programming language for computer aided composition and sound synthesis. It is a LispWorks application, which is available for Windows and Mac OS X (free download). It uses a lot of sophisticated graphics (done in OpenGL) for example in its advanced note editor. It can process and create sounds. It also can use Midi input and output. It comes with a really large amount of examples in its tutorial. If you have LispWorks, you can also load the binaries and write your own code using it.
The capabilities of the application are really amazing and if you are willing to learn its usage, it is hours of fun for the hobby composer and hobby sound designer.
Probably, not the most impressive, but really worth mentioning, considering, that it's mostly a one-man effort: http://piano.aero/
It's hard to say which Lisp software is exactly most impressive, but I would add Symbolics Genera and related software to the list of achievements worth mentioning. Also don't forget SLIME.
See this question for a list of many commercial uses of Lisp.
IRCAM's OpenMusic (computer-aided composition environment).
The matchmaking server for Zone: The Battleground is written in Common Lisp. Their website.
http://www.thanandar.de/
LISP, or at least the LISP evaluator.
As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.
Closed 10 years ago.
I am toying with the idea of creating an completely new operating system and would like to hear what everyone on this forums take is on that? First is it too late are the big boys so entrenched in our lives that we will never be able to switch (wow - what a terrible thought...). But if this is not the case, what should a operating system do for you? What features are the most important? Should all the components be separate installations (in other words - should the base OS really have no user functionality and that gets added on by creating "plug-ins" kind of like a good flexible tool?)
Why do I want to do this... I am more curious about whether there is a demand and I am wondering, since the OSes we use most today (Linux, Windows, Mac OS X (Free BSD)) were actually written more than 20 years ago (and I am being generous - I mean dual and quad cores did not exist back then, buses were much slower, hardware was much more expensive, etc,...), I was just curious with the new technology if we would do anything differently?
I am anxious to read your comments.
To answer the first question: It's never too late. Especially when it comes to niche market segments and stuff like that.
Second though, before you start down the path of creating a new OS, you should understand the kind of undertaking it is: it'd be a massive project.
Is it just a normal programmer "scratch the itch" kind of project? If so, then by all means go ahead -- you might learn alot of things by doing it. But if you're doing it for the resulting product, then you shouldn't start down that path until you've looked at all the current OSes under development (there are alot more than you'd think at first) and figured out what you'd like to change in them.
Quite possibly the effort would be better spent improving/changing an existing open source system. Even for your own experimentation, it may be easier to get the results you want if you start out with something already in development.
First, a little story. In 1992, during the very first Win32 ( what would become the MS Professional Developers Conference ) conference, I had the opportunity to sit with over some lunch with one Mr. Dave Cutler ( Chief Architect of what most folks would now know as Windows NT,Windows 2000, XP, etc. ).
I was at the time working on the Multimedia group at IBM Boca Raton on what some of you might remember, OS/2. Having worked on OS/2 for several years, and recognizing "the writing on the wall" of where OSes were going, I asked him, "Dave, is Windows NT going to take us into the next century or are there other ideas on your mind ?". His answer to me was as follows:
"M...., Windows NT is the last operating system anyone will ever develop from scratch !". Then he looked over at me, took a sip of his beer, and said, "Then again, you could wake up next Saturday after a particularly good night out with your girl, and have a whole new approach for an operating system, that'll put this to shame."
Putting that conversation into context, and given the fact I'm back in college pursuing my Master's degree ( specializing in Operating Systems design ), I'd say there's TONS of room for new operating systems. The thing is to put things into perspective. What are your target goals for this operating system ? What problem space is it attempting to service ?
Putting this all into perspective will give you an indication of whether you're really setting your sights on an achievable goal.
That all being said, I second an earlier commenters note about looking into things like "Singularity" ( the focus of a talk I gave this past spring in one of my classes .... ), or if you really want to "sink your teeth into" an OS in its infancy....look at "ReactOS".
Then again, WebOSes, like gOS, and the like, are probably where we're headed over the next decade or so. Or then again, someone particularly bright could wake up after a particularly fruitful evening with their lady or guy friend, and have the "next big idea" in operating systems.
Why build the OS directly on a physical machine? You'll just be mucking around in assembly language ;). Sure, that's fun, but why not tackle an OS for a VM?
Say an OS that runs on the Java/.NET/Parrot (you name it) VM, that can easily be passed around over the net and can run a bunch of software.
What would it include?
Some way to store data (traditional FS won't cut it)
A model for processes / threads (or just hijack the stuff provided by the VM?)
Tools for interacting with these processes etc.
So, build a simple Platform that can be executed on a widely used virtual machine. Put in some cool functionality for a specific niche (cloud computing?). Go!
For more information on the micro- versus monolithic kernel, look up Linus' 'discussion' with Andrew Tanenbaum.
I would highly suggest looking at an early version on linux(0.01) to at least get your feet wet. You're going to mucking about with assembly and very obscure low-level stuff to even get started (especially getting into protected mode, multi-tasking, etc). And yes, it's probably true that the "big boys" already have the market cornered. I'm not telling you NOT to do it, but maybe doing some work on the linux kernel would be a better stepping stone.
Check out Cosmos and Singularity, these represent what I want from a futuristic operating system ;-)
Edit :
SharpOS is another managed OS effort. Suggested by yshuditelu
An OS should have no user functionality at all. User functionality should be added by separate projects, which does not at all mean that the projects should not work together!
If you are interested in user functionality maybe you should look into participating in existing Desktop Environment projects such as GNOME, KDE or something.
If you are interested in kernel-level functionality, either try hacking on a BSD derivate or on Linux, or try creating your own system -- but don't think too much about the user functionality then. Getting the core of an operating system right is hard and will take a long time -- wanting to reinvent everything does not make much sense and will get you nowhere.
You might want to join an existing OS implementation project first, or at least look at what other people have implemented.
For example AROS has been some 10 or more years in the making as a hobby OS, and is now quite usable in many ways.
Or how about something more niche? Check out Symbios, which is a fully multitasking desktop (in the style of Windows) operating system - for 4MHz Z80 CPUs (Amstrad CPC, MSX). Maybe you would want to write something like this, which is far less of a bite than a full next-generation operating system.
Bottom line...focus on your goals and even more importantly the goals of others...help to meet those needs. Never start with just technology.
I'd recommend against creating your own Operating System. (My own geeky interruption...Look into Cloud Computing and Amazon EC2)
I totally agree that it would first help by defining what your goals are. I am a big fan of User Experiences and thinking of not only your own goals but the goals of your audience/users/others. Once you have those goals, then move to the next step of how to meet it.
Now days what is an Operation System any way? kernal, Operating System, Virtual Server Instance, Linux, Windows Server, Windows Home, Ubuntu, AIX, zSeries OS/390, et al. I guess this is a good definition of OS... Wikipedia
I like Sun's slogan "the Network is the computer" also...but their company has really fallen in the past decade.
On that note of the Network is the computer... again, I highly recommend, checking out Amazon EC2 and more generally cloud computing.
I think that building a new OS from scratch to resemble the current OSes on the market is a waste of time. Instead, you should think about what Operating System will be like 10-20 years from now. My intuition is that they will be so different as to render them mostly unrecognizable by today's standards. Think of frameworks such as Facebook (gasp!) for models of how future OSes will operate.
I think you're right about our current operating systems being old. Someone said that all operating systems suck. And yes, don't we have problems with them? Call it BSOD, Sad Mac or a Kernel Panic. Our filesystems fail, there are security and reliability problems.
Microsoft pursued interesting approach with its Singularity kernel. It isolates processes in software, using a virtual machine similar to .NET, and formal verification methods. Basically all IPC seems to be formally specified and verified, even before a program is ran.
But there's another problem with it - Singularity is only a kernel. You can't run application not designed for it on it. This is a huge penalty, making eventual transition (Singularity is not public) quite hard. If you manage to produce something of similar technical advantages, but with a real transition plan (think about IPv4->IPv6 problems, or how Windows got so much market share on desktop), that could be huge!
But starting small is not a bad choice either. Linux started just like this, and there are many cases when it leads to better design. Small is beautiful. Easier to change. Easier to grow. Anyway, good luck!
checkout singularity project,
do something revolutionary
I've always wanted an operating system that was basically nothing but a fresh slate. It would have built in plugin support which allow you to build the user interface, applications, whatever you want.
This system would work much like a Lua sandbox to a game would work, minus the limitations. You could build a plugin or module system that would have access to a variety of subsystems that you would use. For example, if you were to write a web browser application, you would need to load the networking library and use that within your plugin script. Need 'security' ? Load the library.
The difference between this and Linux is that, Linux is an operating system but has a windows manager that runs over top of it. In this theoretical operating system, you would be able to implement the generic "look" and "feel" of a variety of windows within the plugin system, or could you create a custom interface.
The difference between this and Windows is that its fully customizable, and by fully I mean if you wanted to not implement any cryptography at all, you can do that, or if you wanted to customize an already existing window, you can do that. Nothing is closed to you.
In this theoretical operating system, there is an OS with a plugin system. The plugin system uses a simple and powerful language.
If you're asking what I'd like to see in an operating system, I can give you a list. I am just getting into programming so I'm not sure if any of this is possible, but I can give you my ideas.
I'd like to see a developed operating system (besides the main ones) in which it ISN'T a pain to get the wireless card to work. That is my #1 pet peeve with most of the ones I've tried out.
It would be cool to see an operating system designed by a programmer for other programmers. Have it so you can run programs for all different operating systems. I don't know if that's possible without having a copy of windows and OSX but it would be really damn cool if I could check the compatablity of programs I write with all operating systems.
You could also consider going with MINIX which is a good starting point.
To the originator of this forum, my hats off to you sir for daring to think in much bolder and idealistic terms regarding the IT industry. First and foremost, Your questions are precisely the kind you would think should engage a much broader audience given the flourishing Computer Sciences all over the globe & the openness taught to us by the Revolutionary Linux OS, which has only begun to win the hearts and minds of so many out there by way of strengthing its user-friendly interface. So kudos on pushing the envelope.
If I'm following correctly, you are supposing that given the fruits of our labor thus far, the development of further hardware & Software concoctions could or at least should be less conventional. The implication, of course, is that any new development would reach its goal faster than what is typical. The prospect, however, of an entirely new OS system #this time would be challenging - to say the least - only because there is so much friction out there already between Linux & Windows. It is really a battle between open source & the proprietary ideologies. Bart Roozendaal in a comment above proves my point nicely. Forget the idea of innovation and whatever possibilities may come from a much more contemporary based Operating System, for such things are secondary. What he is asking essentially is, are you going to be on the side of profit or no? He gives his position away easily here. As you know, Windows is notorious for its monopolistic approach regarding new markets, software, and other technology. It has maintained a deathgrip on its hegemony since its existence and sadly the windows os is racked with endless bugs & backdoors.
Again, I applaud you for your taking a road less travelled and hopefully forgeing ahead and not becoming discouraged. Personally, I'd like to see another OS out there...one much more contemporary.