The variety in operating systems is limited by historical development, market dominance, and technological standards.
The variety in operating systems is limited by historical development, market dominance, and technological standards.
It's interesting you're reflecting on this. I've wondered why there aren't more options in the operating system space. While Windows, Linux, and Apple are well-known, it seems new or improved alternatives haven't gained much traction. I'm not a developer, so I might just be asking something that's already been discussed. I currently use Ubuntu for its efficiency and Windows for my desktop.
Since operating systems are highly intricate and people won’t adopt them unless there are suitable programs, you can’t build one that works with current applications due to legal issues and other obstacles.
Creating an OS is extremely challenging.
Current desktops still trace back to the 90s, relying on DOS/FreeBSD/UNIX.
Other systems exist but are niche—targeted devices or specific hardware.
Previously there was greater diversity in the market, but Microsoft largely eliminated most major rivals. Apple managed to stay afloat because it didn't directly challenge Microsoft at that stage, while Linux (and BSD to a lesser extent) persisted due to community support and server availability. Creating something new with features matching these established desktop OSes is now extremely difficult because the effort needed would be immense—only massive companies like Google might have the capacity, and they're currently working on it through Fuchsia. In contrast, there are alternative choices, ranging from incomplete solutions to specialized projects. Additionally, several real-time operating systems exist that focus on embedded systems rather than traditional desktops.
Even the three you referenced aren’t entirely original—iOS and iPadOS are based on MacOS, and Android runs on Linux. Fuchsia serves as a clear illustration of how even a major company like Google struggles to create a fully independent operating system and make it functional. I suspect the project will eventually be abandoned. The core issue is software support; there’s a self-reinforcing loop where no one adopts the new OS because there’s no available software, and developers avoid building for it since demand is low. Even with massive investment, it won’t succeed, as seen with Windows Phone.
There are even changes that significantly impact OS security practices like: - seL4 (offers high assurance and formal verification, used by NASA) - Genode OS (focuses on capability-based security) - HelenOS (uses microkernel with message passing) The main drawbacks are poor user experience and limited driver support. Creating an OS is simpler than building a browser. Unfortunately, it relies on a leaked educational kernel from Microsoft that shares identical macros and functions, making long-term usability unlikely unless legal issues arise. It's clear how similar these two functions are—identical names, logic, and variable names.
Thanks for the feedback. It’s clear how challenging it is to set up a new operating system. I understand why you prefer Windows and Ubuntu despite their downsides, but I’d really appreciate a solution that runs more smoothly, uses fewer resources, and supports modern drives.
Having more options is beneficial, but they must serve a clear goal and focus. I believe intense rivalry between operating systems isn't necessary because it often causes compatibility problems.
Another point to consider is the effect of diminishing returns. I remember Steve Jobs saying you can't rely on small improvements to make a product successful; it needs to be significantly better. The iPhone changed expectations for smartphones, for instance. Microsoft struggled with MP3 players and phones because they kept trying to add minor upgrades instead of bold changes. You wouldn't replace your iPod just to use a Zune to play songs. In the desktop operating system space, it would be tough to launch an OS that was so ahead of its time that users would abandon their current choices. Without a broad software ecosystem, many people struggled to complete tasks or enjoy their favorite games.