Too much to respond to everything, but let's try.
1- DirectX is free. Developers pay nothing. You are free to download the sdk if you want and read the license agreement and develop a commercial game in the process if you so desire.
2- I never ever said the people developing the OS should not be paid. For all I care MS or any other company for that matter could be hired to develop the OS, as long as the OS is developed under the organization's rules and standards and is free to use. Companies, institutions and governments wanting to be members would obviously contribute with fees, which is no different than what happens with OpenGL/OpenCL, JEDEC and recently HSA foundation. Just because something is non-profit it doesn't mean its employees are not paid. It only means it's purpose is not to profit from its operation.
3- I already infered that Windows and other "OS" are more than OS, they are software packages that include many basic applications, such as file manager (win explorer). So basically you are repeating what I actually said. Free OS (kernel and little more), standardized so that it's easy to develop software for. Software companies would develop the apps , including the basic apps that we're used to see included in the OS package, and charge for them as usual. So for example you would be able to choose from several file managers. And there would be a helluva number of free/open programs too.
4- I didn't say OpenGL is inferior in any way. In fact I was infering the opposite and pretty much saying what you said.
5- I realize all this imposible in current world and that it is basically what Linux is and has been trying to do.
EDIT: just remembered:
6- It's a duopoly. Linux has around 1% of the market and is not dominant in any way or form. A duopoly is that market that is dominated by 2 suppliers.
Pay for file managers? Are you really suggesting that somebody could take a vanilla manager, change colors and patterns, then resell it and make a profit? Is that any sort of a step forward?
Additionally, what the heck are you talking about here:
I too think that OS should be free. The reason is that this way it could be just one single OS for everyone, without the drawbacks (understatement) of a monopoly. Consumer wins and software developers win (except MS and Apple), because they only have to support a single ecosystem.
Ideally it would be developed and mantained by a non-profit organization, in which software developers would form part of a comitee, but that would be about as much control as they would have.
You want a monopoly, controlled by developers. Is that an improvement over the developers at Apple and MS? Do you really want to "stop" a monopoly by installing another monopoly? Have I read the words incorrectly, or are you perhaps saying something that I have missed?
Perhaps you could put a coherent and developed idea forward. I see excellent points, but no ideological base to string everything into a coherent whole. Kreij was hitting the nail on the head with your earlier assertions. You've got a nice idea, but nothing to follow it through with.
You want a single OS, but don't address the fact that a lack of competition will cause stagnation. In your words:
Except there's no competition. And competition is overrated anyway. The only thing that competition brought to Windows is Metro UI and Windows Store, both of which are terrible for the end user. So let me simply wholeheartedly and completely disagree.
By your definition every standard is a bad idea. On certain things I agree, push from companies is necessary and without them the standard stagnates. On the most basic levels like an OS tho, I don't agree at all...
Standards are good. Kreij simply wanted to point out the obvious. Of course, competition has never bred anything interesting. I mean, what do we need GUIs, optimized code, office applications (word and excel), e-mail, browsers, and
the internet for. I mean, all I should have ever needed was MSDOS.
Has the point sunk in yet, or do I have to cover of the Apple vs. MS competition?
Let's cover what you're asking for and what you've added to the discussion.
You want free software, but don't give people a way to make a living doing the actual coding.
You imply that developers are part of the reason that software isn't yet open source, but you don't offer a way to convert them to your ideas.
You cling to the idea of two OSes. For the record, Windows and OSX are the two most popular OSes in the
consumer world; Windows and Linux are the driving forces in the server world. Online games need servers to function, thus if you ever want Linux to thrive you have to place the horse (servers) in front of the cart (consumers) to get anything to move.
Now all of the ideas are nice. A free OS, people all driving forward to better software, and even compatibility being 100%. Reality is where your ideas are failing. Give me a coherent and reasoned plan as to how this works, and then let's pick each others ideas apart and create something better from the remains. Otherwise, your desire for something from nothing is best left to the alchemists among us... That is why I have a problem. I have no right to speak for Kreij, but given the fact that he codes I'd think that some of my points might resonate.
As far as Directx goes:
Downloading SDK -
free with a windows license
Writing programs - free
I was wrong. It is not charged for by developers. The internal documents say the license is provided free
with a windows license. In legalese: NOT FREE, because you have to buy windows. If you'd like to argue that it could theoretically run on Linux I'm sure the lawyers at MS would like to sue you into oblivion.