"open-source development is far too insecure and slow for a global commercial *desktop* OS"
There are problems with OS for a consumer desktop because development doesn't necessarily take the direction the customer wants.
But really, insecure software didn't stop windows from conquering the market in the last century. Only after their reputation couldn't get any worse somewhere near 2002 did they invest into security at all.
The development speed of linux is also comparable to windows, there are only two differences: Linux might not go into a direction a commercial entity using linux might want (but there are remedies, see google, see ubuntu). And driver development for windows is completely outsourced to the hardware manufacturers. But the same happens for any OS that gets enough market share, so some hardware companies do that for OS-X and even Linux.
Take a look at android which is, obviously, a global commerical "desktop" OS, just not the "desktop" you were thinking of. Is its development too insecure and slow? Doesn't seem that way.
IBM did invest some time and money into linux, but they never tried to make it into a consumer/business desktop, they looked at the server market. They had burnt their fingers with OS/2 and they always were a big iron and server company at heart and didn't and still don't have the mindset to push a desktop into everyones home and business.
They had their small chance with OS/2. Their chances after 2000 would have been negligible, whether with Linux or OS/3 or any other OS. The only way Microsofts domination could be endangered was by conquering a new market and coming in from the side. That's what Apple and google did. But notice that Microsoft still has 85% or more of the desktop market even though Apple has a closed source OS and the money.
Ah, what was this discussion about? Oh yes, Divinity ;-) Got a bit sidetracked
Last edited by Meganoth; 10/09/14 01:06 AM.