An analysis of why 2008 will be the tipping point for GNU/Linux world domination. http://catb.org/%7Eesr/writings/world-domination/world-domination-201.html
On 05-Jan-07, at 12:40 PM, jtd wrote:
An analysis of why 2008 will be the tipping point for GNU/Linux world domination. http://catb.org/%7Eesr/writings/world-domination/world- domination-201.html
omg - quoting the antichrist ;-)
On Friday 05 January 2007 13:14, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
On 05-Jan-07, at 12:40 PM, jtd wrote:
An analysis of why 2008 will be the tipping point for GNU/Linux world domination. http://catb.org/%7Eesr/writings/world-domination/world- domination-201.html
omg - quoting the antichrist ;-)
Not. ESR is just a mortal and needs penance like writing the above ;-) and double bonus points for pounding the real antichrist (not bsd inspite of the mascot).
On 05-Jan-07, at 1:23 PM, jtd wrote:
omg - quoting the antichrist ;-)
Not. ESR is just a mortal and needs penance like writing the above ;-) and double bonus points for pounding the real antichrist (not bsd inspite of the mascot).
the analysis of the multimedia scene is worrisome - each solution looks as bad as the next one.
On Friday 05 January 2007 13:43, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
On 05-Jan-07, at 1:23 PM, jtd wrote:
omg - quoting the antichrist ;-)
Not. ESR is just a mortal and needs penance like writing the above ;-) and double bonus points for pounding the real antichrist (not bsd inspite of the mascot).
the analysis of the multimedia scene is worrisome - each solution looks as bad as the next one.
Very. And it's not just the desktop which in any case isnt the biggest market but the gizmos and media servers. Both of which the article does not analyse. Otoh creation and distribution of content is getting very fragmented so that might yet save the day. However what drops from the desktop winds up in these gizmos. so all gizmos are moving up from 16 to 32 bit. And linux has a very definte advantage.
also companies like google would not want to be held hostage and will take steps to mitigate the codec disaster. The article also says " We have to do lots of right things and avoid lots of wrong things." which can be turned around as we are proly doing the right things already and the opossition is making all the mistakes, so just continue and they will shoot their ship full of holes anyway.
On Friday 05 January 2007 15:03, jtd wrote:
also companies like google would not want to be held hostage and will take steps to mitigate the codec disaster.
First Shot?. Perhaps just testing.
http://www.itwire.com.au/content/view/8392/53/
On Friday 05 January 2007 13:53, jtd wrote:
On Friday 05 January 2007 13:43, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
On 05-Jan-07, at 1:23 PM, jtd wrote:
omg - quoting the antichrist ;-)
Not. ESR is just a mortal and needs penance like writing the above ;-) and double bonus points for pounding the real antichrist (not bsd inspite of the mascot).
the analysis of the multimedia scene is worrisome - each solution looks as bad as the next one.
Very. And it's not just the desktop which in any case isnt the biggest market but the gizmos and media servers. Both of which the article does not analyse. Otoh creation and distribution of content is getting very fragmented so that might yet save the day. However what drops from the desktop winds up in these gizmos. so all gizmos are moving up from 16 to 32 bit. And linux has a very definte advantage.
http://www.desktoplinux.com/news/NS6087894103.html
On 05-Jan-07, at 5:22 PM, Mrugesh Karnik wrote:
However what drops from the desktop winds up in these gizmos. so all gizmos are moving up from 16 to 32 bit. And linux has a very definte advantage.
which again underlines my point - unless we have a list of linux friendly hardware dealers on our wiki we are not in business
On Saturday 06 January 2007 08:13, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
On 05-Jan-07, at 5:22 PM, Mrugesh Karnik wrote:
However what drops from the desktop winds up in these gizmos. so all gizmos are moving up from 16 to 32 bit. And linux has a very definte advantage.
which again underlines my point - unless we have a list of linux friendly hardware dealers on our wiki we are not in business
I am a linux friendly hardware shop. Infact i dont care if doze works or not. Unfortunately molly codiling single user desktops who have difficulty cleaning their mice is bad business. And it's suicide if they load doze on your box and ask u why the system crashes 13 times a day.
On 06-Jan-07, at 1:15 PM, jtd wrote:
which again underlines my point - unless we have a list of linux friendly hardware dealers on our wiki we are not in business
I am a linux friendly hardware shop.
so put your details on the wiki - and kick it off
Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
On 05-Jan-07, at 5:22 PM, Mrugesh Karnik wrote:
However what drops from the desktop winds up in these gizmos. so all gizmos are moving up from 16 to 32 bit. And linux has a very definte advantage.
which again underlines my point - unless we have a list of linux friendly hardware dealers on our wiki we are not in business
Firstly, there is no such thing as a linux friendly hardware dealer. Hardware commonly available for desktops is officially meant for windows and I haven't seen any common hardware packing that proudly and explicitly states that it is meant for Linux and contains a proper, fully functional and easily installable drivers. Hardware vendors are shopkeepers who are simply traders with some knowledge in installing windows machines. Unless we have *resellers* who are Linux installers with a highly experienced technical Linux background, no one will take responsibility and *take_back* the hardware if it does not work in Linux. Linux compatibility is still a do-it-yourself puzzle.
Instead of listing Linux friendly hardware vendors on the wiki, why not list Linux friendly hardware that commonly makes up the desktop or workstation machine. My previous attempt to ask for a list of currently installed linux hardware on workstations was not very fruitfull, so I hope this time we can get something going. Every month we can have a list of current linux compatible hardware that makes up a Desktop or Workstation PC. Then we can buy it from anywhere in India.
Regards,
Rony. Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
On 1/6/07, Rony ronbillypop@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
Linux. Linux compatibility is still a do-it-yourself puzzle.
True. But more often than not a computer is sold along with the OS, so the job of a "Linux friendly" hardware dealer is to simply have knowledge of what works and what doesn't himself. Once that is known, the vendor can simply sell the package that works.
Instead of listing Linux friendly hardware vendors on the wiki, why not list Linux friendly hardware that commonly makes up the desktop or workstation machine. My previous attempt to ask for a list of currently
This too is necessary, but not a substitute of a vendor list. Both have a different audience. For example, the compatibility list is useful for the vendors while the vendor list is useful for users.
Regards,
Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
On 1/6/07, Rony ronbillypop@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
Linux. Linux compatibility is still a do-it-yourself puzzle.
True. But more often than not a computer is sold along with the OS, so the job of a "Linux friendly" hardware dealer is to simply have knowledge of what works and what doesn't himself. Once that is known, the vendor can simply sell the package that works.
Then that makes him a Linux service/solutions provider, not a hardware vendor. ;)
Regards,
Rony.
___________________________________________________________ Inbox full of spam? Get leading spam protection and 1GB storage with All New Yahoo! Mail. http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html
--- Rony wrote:
Then that makes him a Linux service/solutions provider, not a hardware vendor. ;)
A suggestion was made on the list reagarding this. GLUG-BOM List Memebers using various Linux Distributions, could put up their Hardware details (ones that are critical) on their User page on the wiki, and perhaps, someone could run a background wiki script (if possible) to extract each of that information and update a page listing the hardware by category. (Motherboard, Processor, HDD, Modem, Sound Card etc.)
So we probably can say this "Ek teer se do nishan" ;)
-- FSF-India Fellow Associate http://www.gnu.org.in
Send free SMS to your Friends on Mobile from your Yahoo! Messenger. Download Now! http://messenger.yahoo.com/download.php
On 06-Jan-07, at 9:57 PM, Rony wrote:
which again underlines my point - unless we have a list of linux friendly hardware dealers on our wiki we are not in business
Firstly, there is no such thing as a linux friendly hardware dealer.
if you check the wiki you will find there is at least one - and you are a second. Anyway definition:
1. he knows what is linux compatible and what is not 2. he has a stock of cds of various distros 3. he has at least one linux poster up 4. he can or has access people who can install, configure and support linux
On Saturday 06 January 2007 21:57, Rony wrote:
Firstly, there is no such thing as a linux friendly hardware dealer.
You mean oem supplies for tiny quantities?.
Hardware commonly available for desktops is officially meant for windows and I haven't seen any common hardware packing that proudly and explicitly states that it is meant for Linux and contains a proper, fully functional and easily installable drivers.
Tyan. But that wont qualify as a sundry desktop.
Hardware vendors are shopkeepers who are simply traders with some knowledge in installing windows machines. Unless we have *resellers* who are Linux installers with a highly experienced technical Linux background, no one will take responsibility and *take_back* the hardware if it does not work in Linux. Linux compatibility is still a do-it-yourself puzzle.
That is where the business end of things is. Get the skill and u make money.
Instead of listing Linux friendly hardware vendors on the wiki, why not list Linux friendly hardware that commonly makes up the desktop or workstation machine. My previous attempt to ask for a list of currently installed linux hardware on workstations was not very fruitfull,
I presume you did not read the mails that were posted, including mine. Or you were expecting some magical wand to wave around that would transform available hardware into linux friendly hardware.
jtd wrote:
On Saturday 06 January 2007 21:57, Rony wrote:
Instead of listing Linux friendly hardware vendors on the wiki, why not list Linux friendly hardware that commonly makes up the desktop or workstation machine. My previous attempt to ask for a list of currently installed linux hardware on workstations was not very fruitfull,
I presume you did not read the mails that were posted, including mine. Or you were expecting some magical wand to wave around that would transform available hardware into linux friendly hardware.
The issue is about available hardware that can work on Linux. Nothing personal against you. It was addressed to all experts. :)
Regards,
Rony.
___________________________________________________________ The all-new Yahoo! Mail goes wherever you go - free your email address from your Internet provider. http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html
On 05/01/07 13:43 +0530, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
On 05-Jan-07, at 1:23 PM, jtd wrote:
omg - quoting the antichrist ;-)
Not. ESR is just a mortal and needs penance like writing the above ;-) and double bonus points for pounding the real antichrist (not bsd inspite of the mascot).
the analysis of the multimedia scene is worrisome - each solution looks as bad as the next one.
Me? I would attack the business desktop market. That's much easier to deal with, does not have patented codec and multimedia issues, and gives bigger returns faster.
Plus, anyone wanting to/needing to take work home will need compatibility with work systems, not the other way round.
Devdas Bhagat
On 1/5/07, Devdas Bhagat devdas@dvb.homelinux.org wrote:
Me? I would attack the business desktop market. That's much easier to deal with, does not have patented codec and multimedia issues, and gives bigger returns faster.
And that is really much more difficult to penetrate, especially since OOo is still not good enough.
Regards,
On Friday 05 January 2007 22:39, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
On 1/5/07, Devdas Bhagat devdas@dvb.homelinux.org wrote:
Me? I would attack the business desktop market. That's much easier to deal with, does not have patented codec and multimedia issues, and gives bigger returns faster.
And that is really much more difficult to penetrate, especially since OOo is still not good enough.
Not good enough against what? Office 2003? Well check out Office 2007 and then make up your opinion. I think this is one point where there's no answer to Windows, especially with all the piracy.
On Friday 05 January 2007 22:39, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
On 1/5/07, Devdas Bhagat devdas@dvb.homelinux.org wrote:
Me? I would attack the business desktop market. That's much easier to deal with, does not have patented codec and multimedia issues, and gives bigger returns faster.
And that is really much more difficult to penetrate, especially since OOo is still not good enough.
I think OOo got it wrong when they tried to emulate M$ Office rather than innovate.
On 05/01/07 23:58 +0530, Mrugesh Karnik wrote:
On Friday 05 January 2007 22:39, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
On 1/5/07, Devdas Bhagat devdas@dvb.homelinux.org wrote:
Me? I would attack the business desktop market. That's much easier to deal with, does not have patented codec and multimedia issues, and gives bigger returns faster.
And that is really much more difficult to penetrate, especially since OOo is still not good enough.
I think OOo got it wrong when they tried to emulate M$ Office rather than innovate.
Errr, you do need compatibility with MS Office for things to work. At this point, ODF is a standard format, and a much better format than MS Office (even the XML stuff).
Given the UI changes to MS Office, it might even make sense to tell people that OOo will actually reduce their training costs.
Devdas Bhagat
Whats the reason Apple is not becoming a OS vendor and letting people like Dell sell its OS X?
With warm regards Koustubha Kale
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
On 1/6/07, Koustubha Kale koustubha_kale@yahoo.com wrote:
Whats the reason Apple is not becoming a OS vendor and letting people like Dell sell its OS X?
as per my knowledge till apple doesnt let other people like dell sell the apples pc's or laptops they wont be selling the os to anyone
--- Dilip Khanolkar khanolkardilip@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/6/07, Koustubha Kale koustubha_kale@yahoo.com wrote:
Whats the reason Apple is not becoming a OS vendor
and
letting people like Dell sell its OS X?
as per my knowledge till apple doesnt let other people like dell sell the apples pc's or laptops they wont be selling the os to anyone
Yes but why are they not allowing pc hardware vendors to install and sell their OS? would it not be a huge revenue boost for them?
With warm regards Koustubha Kale
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
On Sat, 2007-01-06 at 02:31 -0800, Koustubha Kale wrote:
--- Dilip Khanolkar khanolkardilip@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/6/07, Koustubha Kale koustubha_kale@yahoo.com wrote:
Whats the reason Apple is not becoming a OS vendor
and
letting people like Dell sell its OS X?
as per my knowledge till apple doesnt let other people like dell sell the apples pc's or laptops they wont be selling the os to anyone
Yes but why are they not allowing pc hardware vendors to install and sell their OS? would it not be a huge revenue boost for them?
It probably would but then again, they would have to worry about supporting all the various hardware that they don't bother with now. Mac users go through life knowing that all their hardware decisions have already been taken for them. It's a very comfortable place once you get used to it.
-gabin
--- jtd jtd@mtnl.net.in wrote:
On Saturday 06 January 2007 15:32, Koustubha Kale wrote:
Whats the reason Apple is not becoming a OS vendor
and
letting people like Dell sell its OS X?
They would be writing drivers all day for new hardware that changes every qtr.
I am NOT trying to promote Apple or their OS but am just curious about the current situation. ever since they shipped OS X on x86. Hardware vendors will support with drivers if the volumes are there. And Apple is on good terms with the Open Source community so that could be another way to go. After all the OS is very good. Even commercially the revenues should justify the initial cost and those of working with hardware vendors. Are the revenues not tempting enough?
With warm regards Koustubha Kale
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
On Saturday 06 January 2007 16:24, Koustubha Kale wrote:
--- jtd jtd@mtnl.net.in wrote:
On Saturday 06 January 2007 15:32, Koustubha Kale
wrote:
Whats the reason Apple is not becoming a OS vendor
and
letting people like Dell sell its OS X?
They would be writing drivers all day for new hardware that changes every qtr.
Hardware vendors will support with drivers if the volumes are there.
Apple does not use anybody's design. They take the chipsets, design, test, write the drivers, debug then farm out to a manufacturing shop. You cnt just buy any hardware and try to run OSx on top.
And Apple is on good terms with the Open Source community so that could be another way to go.
Ther are not. there were numerous spats about them merging patches.
After all the OS is very good. Even commercially the revenues should justify the initial cost and those of working with hardware vendors. Are the revenues not tempting enough?
profit per unit effort. Their business model is about lifestyle and premium products. Not about lamington road hardware in white paper box tied with shoestring. They aren't interested in feeding the poor, just milking the rich.
Sometime Today, KK cobbled together some glyphs to say:
Whats the reason Apple is not becoming a OS vendor and letting people like Dell sell its OS X?
elitist nature. apple software is too cool to run on non-apple hardware (those were approximately the words of Jean-Louis Gasée). Things have changed since then though.
On Saturday 06 January 2007 14:25, Devdas Bhagat wrote:
On 05/01/07 23:58 +0530, Mrugesh Karnik wrote:
On Friday 05 January 2007 22:39, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
On 1/5/07, Devdas Bhagat devdas@dvb.homelinux.org wrote:
Me? I would attack the business desktop market. That's much easier to deal with, does not have patented codec and multimedia issues, and gives bigger returns faster.
And that is really much more difficult to penetrate, especially since OOo is still not good enough.
I think OOo got it wrong when they tried to emulate M$ Office rather than innovate.
Errr, you do need compatibility with MS Office for things to work. At this point, ODF is a standard format, and a much better format than MS Office (even the XML stuff).
Given the UI changes to MS Office, it might even make sense to tell people that OOo will actually reduce their training costs.
The point is, keep it compatible, but there's no need to follow, say the UI design, for example, if it can be made better. Seriously, take a look at Office 2007.
Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
On 1/5/07, Devdas Bhagat devdas@dvb.homelinux.org wrote:
Me? I would attack the business desktop market. That's much easier to deal with, does not have patented codec and multimedia issues, and gives bigger returns faster.
And that is really much more difficult to penetrate, especially since OOo is still not good enough.
What part of OO is not as good as MO?
Regards,
Rony.
___________________________________________________________ All new Yahoo! Mail "The new Interface is stunning in its simplicity and ease of use." - PC Magazine http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html
On 06-Jan-07, at 9:10 PM, Rony wrote:
What part of OO is not as good as MO?
depends on your definition of the word 'good'. If you take the meaning assigned to it my the mindless hordes, then all parts of it are not as good - OO sux
-
Devdas Bhagat -
Dilip Khanolkar -
Gabin Kattukaran -
jtd -
Kenneth Gonsalves -
Koustubha Kale -
Mrugesh Karnik -
Philip Tellis -
Rony -
Roshan -
Siddhesh Poyarekar