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.
That's true, and it's the kind of thing I mean when I saw that Windows 10 Mobile didn't fail because Windows 10 Mobile was itself a bad OS; it failed for other reasons. For example, Windows 7 Mobile being bad mad people not want to develop for Windows 10 Mobile. I think part of this is about timing. iPhoneOS 1.0 had a lot of problems. Some classics were the complete lack of a clipboard, support for only one calendar and the keyboard not supporting multi touch. But they were in the game early, and so it didn't really hurt them in the end. If some manufacturer came out with their own set of AR glasses, they could get away with writing their own OS. But I don't think a laptop manufacturer could do much beyond they own Linux distro like System 76 does.
The only method to separate software from the operating system is by bundling the OS with the software, which is how Docker on Windows operates. This approach seems wasteful and inefficient, yet it prevents additional development work and dependency issues. Free and open-source software doesn't address the challenge of adapting applications for every new platform. Notepad++ remains FOSS, but its developer declined to port it to Linux due to time constraints. You can technically install it on Ubuntu, but it will come with Wine, which complicates the process.
It seems they might not be reaching far enough. The main strategy could involve sending software through a Virtual Box Disk Image.
Well, it is not the only way - it is one way. I do agree on the insanity part. FOSS is not indeed a magic wand which will solve every problem, but it is one way to help facilitate this goal. Also, previously I was not referring to the end-user software (although it also does play a role - a closed source software can only be ported by the source rights holder, but with a more free license many other parties can facilitate a port). To re-iterate what I was trying to say: Currently, we have competing, closed source APIs and Libraries for every major OS (Windows, OS X - strictly speaking only parts of OS X are closed). A software supporting any closed API or Library tied to these OSes, needs a lot of efforts to be ported to another OS (which does not have the libraries of the other). This is contrast to a goal which is something to aspire for (IMHO): If, indeed, we had open Libraries in wide use, efforts for porting are smaller, as by having open Libraries and APIs, the said APIs and Libraries could be ported (or already are ported) - which would in principle ease porting already existing open or closed software (though, only if the license allows closed-source software to use the said libraries - some may have restrictions, in which sense these licenses can be seen as restrictive). This is also happening in practice - many developers choose to use APIs and Libraries which exist on many OSes, exactly because that way supporting several ports is easier ( Vulkan , SDL, others, and hopefully more in the future when needed... ). Note: there already are many closed software using open APIs for example in the case of Vulkan! The problem with Notepad++ is exactly the above reason - despite itself being GPL, it uses a closed Win32 API (TBH there main reason it has not been ported is probably that there already are good - many would claim better - widely adopted editors working in other OSes, often better adhering to said OSes UI paradigms and user-base conventions etc...). Edited February 2, 2021 by Wild Penquin minor clarifications and restructuring