09.11.13
Guest Article: Unlock the PC from the Operating System
Unlock PC from the OS
Tere is how to do it;
Step 1, manufactures of physical hardware shall adapt an “OUHP” (Open Universal Hardware Protocol), so that every OS can make use of the SAME hardware drivers regardless of the OS brand.
Step 2, include in the PC physical hardware a replaceable memory module storage system that stores the hardware drivers and a “boot loader GUI”. The hardware drivers should always remain with the PC physical hardware in a protected environment away from the OS.
Benefits are faster loading drivers, as compared to how UEFI loads drivers on slower memory. Other advantages are better security (firmware), not compromised by the software layer of an OS and the choice of running any OS on the hardware.
This makes possible the ability to run any OS on your hardware, and allowing the user to run your software in the OS environment on any PC in the world that supports the universal hardware protocol, giving the user choice and freedom.
Unfortunately, Microsoft would never accept an open honest universal standard that everyone (all software developers) could use freely without restrictions; given how Microsoft can only compete when the customers cannot choose.
What would YOU rather buy;
- A device locked into a monopolized market forcing their brand upon you or;
- an open platform that allows any OS of your choice to run your software on any PC system in any language globally.
What do your readers think about this idea of unlocking the PC from the OS?
I would like to offer another project I am working on, thinking some of your readers might be interested in know about my RDSS – “Relevant Data Storage System” idea.
Why do we need a more relevant storage file system?
So the PC user won’t be required of a “forced remembrance” of the navigation address of folder/file names in a hierarchy for later data acquisition that was created by different people at different times using different languages.
When another person joins a multi user networked system, they wouldn’t know the files names or the location of where those files were stored by the other individual/s before them. Who is to say that the creator of those files or data was ever assigned a proper “coherent” name for those files/data, right?
So what happens when the PC users/operators include “non-native” speakers?
My idea is simple, data shouldn’t be stored by human “designations” as file names. The solution is to make the software application assign a value to that data and then store the data where it would best function in terms of both recall, relevancy and distribution.
This is actually easy to do, if the data includes “meta tags”, making possible for the OS and the application layer to recall your relevant data. Software applications would become smarter, helping the user label their data properly for relevancy, recall and distribution automatically.
Instead of seeking data by using pathways, human beings would be freed to think in their own natural thinking process. The data is recalled by the user for the relevancy of their data, rather than by the pathway, navigation or hierarchy.
Which method would you value more;
- a method of “forced remembrance” by all users to locate each other’s data by using pathway hierarchies or;
- a method of recalling only “relevant data” by using “relevancy”!
Benefits of my “Relevant Data Storage System” is that the only thing the PC user needs to know is the relevancy of they data! No need to hunt around, where did I put that file? I don’t remember the file name! What to do? OMG!
Surely, it makes more sense to match the method of recalling data by using a more natural human process, and is why ICANN adapted the method of assigning IP Addresses with “names” so people could more easily access sites online as an example.
What do your readers think about this idea of applying relevancy to recall relevant data as compared to the forced remembrance of finding user data using folder/file pathways? █
Content is available under CC-BY-SA
NotZed said,
September 18, 2013 at 12:56 am
We already have a couple of free hardware abstraction layers – linux and freebsd kernels. Adding another layer is pointless. Vendors still insisting on writing their own kernels will go out of business before too long because it’s just a liability and cost and not an asset.
As to your second idea, heirarchical organisation isn’t perfect, but it scales better than no organisation.