The introduction of Leopard is a watershed moment in computing history which will mark a turning point in how we view operating systems and their role in the computer-application-user triumvirate. Instead of the OS being simply a platform to support the computer-application relationship, focus will shift to its role between the user and the application.

In this context the operating system will change from being a hardware enabler to being an application enabler. In this regard, OS X with its Unix heritage is perfectly suited to this role.

The beauty of OS X is that it does not pander to the lowest common denominator with regards to the User. Inexperienced users value discoverability. Advanced users value transparency. The inexperienced want to be able to intuit the operation of an application without having to read lengthy manuals. Advanced users want an application that does not prevent them from using efficiencies gained through experience to accomplish tasks.

There is the implicit acknowledgment in OS X's design that the technology quotient of its users will run the gamut. The operating system's role is to provide a suitable framework to orient the user experience regardless of his/her technical ability. By not forcing a choice, OS X meets the primary requirement of "Users"; usability unencumbered by singular vision of compromise. By challenging the viability of a single OS monoculture and embracing the strengths of both Linux and Windows, Leopard reveals the truth about the power of multiplicity and diversity.

The principle of focusing not only on "what-it-can-do" but "what-you-can-do-with-it" is something which pervades Unix and indirectly OS X. Utility and usability. Given the right combination of hardware and software, anything is possible but it is the intent that characterizes the system. I'm inclined to believe that the harmony between utility and usability is the source of intangible "quality" that pervades OS X. Unix in one incarnation or another has evolved since in inception 30+ years ago as a platform for innovation. This quality is why Steveo's had his heart set on having a commercially viable Unix alternative. With Leopard, I believe that his wish which began with NeXT has finally been realized with Leopard.

How do OS X's rivals fare in comparison?

Although OS X shares a lot of functionality found in most commercial Linux distributions, Linux by and large is still focused on the computer-application relationship. With the exception of the Digerati, this focus prevents true widespread adoption. Until the usability gamut is addressed without diminishing its strengths, it will be relegated to infrastructure products and not the desktop. Although these weaknesses are being addressed by various commercial Linux vendors (SUSE / Redhat / Ubuntu), Linux as an application platform is still far from maturity. Until Linux moves away from mimicking equivalent functionality found in its competitors and rids itself of its preoccupation with superfluous eye candy, no true innovation can occur.

Surprisingly, Linux's weakness is also Microsoft's. By constantly pandering to self-serving industry initiatives (i.e. DRM, Genuine Validation, etc), they too have focused disproportionately on the utilitarian aspects of the Vista at the expense of the User. Vista is simply Microsoft's expression of innovation envy without the innovation. Is their any justifiable reason for upgrading from XP to Vista other than to enforce the digital rights of media companies and mitigate Microsoft's less than stellar security track record? Not from the initial reports of early Vista adopters. It is simply hubris that a company can manipulate is user base into paying for the privilege of beta testing its software. Despite the large (contractually enforced) install base, Vista is shaping up to be another Windows ME debacle for Microsoft.