Prominent Linux desktop developer: "No one wants a new desktop" - Linux

This is a discussion on Prominent Linux desktop developer: "No one wants a new desktop" - Linux ; * Mark Kent peremptorily fired off this memo: > Actually, not true. Most *households* have a computer, most *people* > have a mobile device. The ratio is massively in favour of mobility. Well, I know quite a few households, at ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 21 to 33 of 33

Thread: Prominent Linux desktop developer: "No one wants a new desktop"

  1. Re: Prominent Linux desktop developer: "No one wants a new desktop"

    * Mark Kent peremptorily fired off this memo:

    > Actually, not true. Most *households* have a computer, most *people*
    > have a mobile device. The ratio is massively in favour of mobility.


    Well, I know quite a few households, at least in Amurrrrrica, where
    each person has their own computer.

    > In Manchester, UK (where Roy lives), 28% of houses *do not have a
    > landline*, which means *no desktop at all*. They all have mobiles
    > instead. These are Ofcom figures, considered to be very reliable.


    Now that makes sense, indeed.

    >> To say the desktop is indeed dead, though, is wrong.

    >
    > No, it's not wrong, it's quite right, but you need to understand what I
    > mean.
    >
    > Hardly anyone I know uses a "desktop" in work any more, pretty much
    > everyone is on their 3rd or 4th laptop now.


    Well, I would consider a laptop to be a "mobile desktop".

    > So, I'm sorry folks, but it's game over for the desktop. It's not
    > idiocy, it's economics, and it ain't my fault, so don't blame me.
    > Personally, I quite like desktops, and use one a lot, but I know that
    > doesn't mean that they will be economically significant in, say, 10
    > years time.


    Actually, I still suspect your are wrong, Mark. Word processing, taxes,
    planning, multimedia will keep the desktop around for a long time. It
    might devolve into a home-entertainment-cum-work center.

    > The period between now and then is the period over which we watch the
    > market in desktops collapse. Clearly, they'll not all disappear
    > overnight, that would be a ridiculous claim, but I doubt anyone here
    > would be daft enough to interpret my remarks in that way, would they?


    Unfortunately, your wording ("dead") lends itself to just that
    interpretation.
    >
    > --
    > | mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
    > | Cola faq: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/linux/advocacy/faq-and-primer/ |
    > | Cola trolls: http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/ |
    > | Open platforms prevent vendor lock-in. Own your Own services! |
    >



    --
    There are people who don't like capitalism, and people who don't like PCs. But
    there's no one who likes the PC who doesn't like Microsoft.[3]
    -- Bill Gates

  2. Re: Prominent Linux desktop developer: "No one wants a new desktop"

    Linonut writes:

    > * Mark Kent peremptorily fired off this memo:
    >
    >> Actually, not true. Most *households* have a computer, most *people*
    >> have a mobile device. The ratio is massively in favour of mobility.

    >
    > Well, I know quite a few households, at least in Amurrrrrica, where
    > each person has their own computer.
    >
    >> In Manchester, UK (where Roy lives), 28% of houses *do not have a
    >> landline*, which means *no desktop at all*. They all have mobiles
    >> instead. These are Ofcom figures, considered to be very reliable.

    >
    > Now that makes sense, indeed.


    And that has what to do with accessing the kind of data a mobile
    COMPUTER can access?

    >
    >>> To say the desktop is indeed dead, though, is wrong.

    >>
    >> No, it's not wrong, it's quite right, but you need to understand what I
    >> mean.


    It's hard. Since you're wrong.

    >>
    >> Hardly anyone I know uses a "desktop" in work any more, pretty much
    >> everyone is on their 3rd or 4th laptop now.


    They are probably Salesmen. I dont think I ever heard such nonsense.

    >
    > Well, I would consider a laptop to be a "mobile desktop".


    As would anyone else.

    >
    >> So, I'm sorry folks, but it's game over for the desktop. It's not


    You said that when the PS3 was released. You are a clueless old windbag
    with zero clue about the real world.

    >> idiocy, it's economics, and it ain't my fault, so don't blame me.


    Blame you? Your high regard for yourself probably makes you think people
    think about you and your silly predictions. They do not. Or only to
    ridicule and laugh at you.

    >> Personally, I quite like desktops, and use one a lot, but I know that
    >> doesn't mean that they will be economically significant in, say, 10
    >> years time.

    >
    > Actually, I still suspect your are wrong, Mark. Word processing, taxes,
    > planning, multimedia will keep the desktop around for a long time. It
    > might devolve into a home-entertainment-cum-work center.


    He is wrong and anyone with half a brain knows it. In fact in many cases
    people are moving away from laptops because of the risk to priviliged
    information.

  3. Re: Prominent Linux desktop developer: "No one wants a new desktop"

    >Mark Kent wrote:
    >>
    >> So, I'm sorry folks, but it's game over for the desktop.


    Wrong.

    >>it's not idiocy,


    Yes, it is, actually.

    >>It's economics,


    Nonsense.

    >> and it ain't my fault,


    It's not even true, much less anyone's "fault".

    >so don't blame me.


    No one has.

    >> Personally, I quite like desktops, and use one a lot, but I know that
    >> doesn't mean that they will be economically significant in, say, 10
    >> years time.


    No matter what your (highly questionable) crystal ball tells you, does
    not make your "the desktop is dead" statements any more true. It's
    not "dead", and will not be "dead" for the foreseeable future.

    Many of us will always want a large display, sitting in front of us on
    our "desktops".


  4. Re: Prominent Linux desktop developer: "No one wants a new desktop"


    "chrisv" wrote in message
    news:kjtf545udj7r0ffft19394vrkj65ftct81@4ax.com...
    > >Mark Kent wrote:
    >>>
    >>> So, I'm sorry folks, but it's game over for the desktop.

    >
    > Wrong.
    >
    >>>it's not idiocy,

    >
    > Yes, it is, actually.
    >
    >>>It's economics,

    >
    > Nonsense.
    >
    >>> and it ain't my fault,

    >
    > It's not even true, much less anyone's "fault".
    >
    >>so don't blame me.

    >
    > No one has.
    >
    >>> Personally, I quite like desktops, and use one a lot, but I know that
    >>> doesn't mean that they will be economically significant in, say, 10
    >>> years time.

    >
    > No matter what your (highly questionable) crystal ball tells you, does
    > not make your "the desktop is dead" statements any more true. It's
    > not "dead", and will not be "dead" for the foreseeable future.
    >
    > Many of us will always want a large display, sitting in front of us on
    > our "desktops".



    Shhhhh. The Kent fool thinks that millions of people will soon be going to
    work in order to do all of their work (spreadsheets, email, word processing,
    development, etc) on their cell phone. Why???? Because he personally
    proclaimed that the desktop is dead.


    ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

  5. Re: Prominent Linux desktop developer: "No one wants a new desktop"

    In article <_oS5k.9465$s77.134@bignews3.bellsouth.net>,
    Linonut wrote:
    > > In Manchester, UK (where Roy lives), 28% of houses *do not have a
    > > landline*, which means *no desktop at all*. They all have mobiles
    > > instead. These are Ofcom figures, considered to be very reliable.

    >
    > Now that makes sense, indeed.


    So if I get rid of my landline, my iMac will stop being a desktop?
    Really?


    --
    --Tim Smith

  6. Re: Prominent Linux desktop developer: "No one wants a new desktop"

    Tim Smith writes:

    > In article <_oS5k.9465$s77.134@bignews3.bellsouth.net>,
    > Linonut wrote:
    >> > In Manchester, UK (where Roy lives), 28% of houses *do not have a
    >> > landline*, which means *no desktop at all*. They all have mobiles
    >> > instead. These are Ofcom figures, considered to be very reliable.

    >>
    >> Now that makes sense, indeed.

    >
    > So if I get rid of my landline, my iMac will stop being a desktop?
    > Really?


    Liarnut really goes to extreme lengths to prove his sycophantic
    willingness to take it where it doesn't belong from Mark'n'Roy
    Kent. Methinks he is hoping to become a COLA "God".

    --
    "My college theater antics were the inspiration for Robin
    Williams' character on Mork & Mindy"
    -- Rex Ballard in comp.os.linux.advocacy

  7. Re: Prominent Linux desktop developer: "No one wants a new desktop"

    Linonut espoused:
    > * Mark Kent peremptorily fired off this memo:
    >
    >> Actually, not true. Most *households* have a computer, most *people*
    >> have a mobile device. The ratio is massively in favour of mobility.

    >
    > Well, I know quite a few households, at least in Amurrrrrica, where
    > each person has their own computer.


    It's true that mobile penetration is much lower in North America than in
    Europe and the far east, but for the planet as a whole, mobile devices
    dominate.

    >
    >> In Manchester, UK (where Roy lives), 28% of houses *do not have a
    >> landline*, which means *no desktop at all*. They all have mobiles
    >> instead. These are Ofcom figures, considered to be very reliable.

    >
    > Now that makes sense, indeed.


    They used to have landlines, but they no longer have them. They've just
    migrated to the newer technology.

    >
    >>> To say the desktop is indeed dead, though, is wrong.

    >>
    >> No, it's not wrong, it's quite right, but you need to understand what I
    >> mean.
    >>
    >> Hardly anyone I know uses a "desktop" in work any more, pretty much
    >> everyone is on their 3rd or 4th laptop now.

    >
    > Well, I would consider a laptop to be a "mobile desktop".


    They cover a similar function, for sure, but a Desktop PC is a specific
    category of machine and necessarily distinct from a laptop, at least by
    most retailer's metrics, anyway.

    >
    >> So, I'm sorry folks, but it's game over for the desktop. It's not
    >> idiocy, it's economics, and it ain't my fault, so don't blame me.
    >> Personally, I quite like desktops, and use one a lot, but I know that
    >> doesn't mean that they will be economically significant in, say, 10
    >> years time.

    >
    > Actually, I still suspect your are wrong, Mark. Word processing, taxes,
    > planning, multimedia will keep the desktop around for a long time. It
    > might devolve into a home-entertainment-cum-work center.


    Which is precisely what I've been saying (ie., I agree with you).
    The "Desktop PC" is a certain type of PC characterised by being fixed,
    rather than portable, and being a PC first and foremost, as opposed to,
    say, a media centre or something appliance like, which will fulfil a
    household role. I've stated this repeatedly, although you might not
    have seen the remarks, of course. This is one of the reasons why the
    PS3 is such an important device, in that it combines the role of games
    console and PC in one sleek, quiet and attractive device, oh yeah,
    and plays DVDs, CDs and anything from uPnP servers (like my Bubba box).

    This isn't a desktop, though, this is a console being pressed into
    service to cover the functions which in the 1990s would've been covered
    by a desktop or laptop machine.

    Mythtv is a fantastic example of Linux and open-source driving in this
    space. It even has a respectable front-end for games, although the
    integration with the remote control is not all it might be, and the
    web-browser is somewhat limited, overall, mythtv is an excellent way of
    making a really useful appliance out of a bit of old(ish) PC.

    >
    >> The period between now and then is the period over which we watch the
    >> market in desktops collapse. Clearly, they'll not all disappear
    >> overnight, that would be a ridiculous claim, but I doubt anyone here
    >> would be daft enough to interpret my remarks in that way, would they?

    >
    > Unfortunately, your wording ("dead") lends itself to just that
    > interpretation.


    It shouldn't - obviously the existing plant is not going to magic itself
    away! However, sales of new desktops are plumeting (a 1980s technology),
    and even sales of traditional laptops (more of a 1990s technology) have
    fallen dramatically.

    The desktop, from an economic sense, is dead *now*. Laptops are a
    cash-cow on its last legs, and the rising stars are the appliances and
    ultra-mobile devices of one kind or another.

    You won't see new stores setting up to sell the latest desktops to
    people, in fact, I think most people would laugh at the thought. Deep
    down, I think that few people really disagree that the desktop is dead.
    It might look like its still breathing, but it's a 20th century
    technology, and we're in the 21st...

    --
    | mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
    | Cola faq: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/linux/advocacy/faq-and-primer/ |
    | Cola trolls: http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/ |
    | Open platforms prevent vendor lock-in. Own your Own services! |


  8. Re: Prominent Linux desktop developer: "No one wants a new desktop"

    Linonut wrote:

    > Also, I can have a lot of fun without the internet. On our way to
    > Tennessee, my wife drove and I mostly wrote code (on my old Pentium
    > III running Debian etch.)


    I knew you were a geek, but... geez man. Your most fond memory of
    vacationing is writing code?




  9. Re: Prominent Linux desktop developer: "No one wants a new desktop"

    On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 22:48:00 -0400, DFS wrote:

    > Linonut wrote:
    >
    >> Also, I can have a lot of fun without the internet. On our way to
    >> Tennessee, my wife drove and I mostly wrote code (on my old Pentium
    >> III running Debian etch.)

    >
    > I knew you were a geek, but... geez man. Your most fond memory of
    > vacationing is writing code?


    That's sad......




    --
    Moshe Goldfarb
    Collector of soaps from around the globe.
    Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
    http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/

  10. Re: Prominent Linux desktop developer: "No one wants a new desktop"

    On Jun 17, 4:57*pm, Mark Kent wrote:
    > Linonut espoused:
    >
    > > * Mark Kent peremptorily fired off this memo:

    >
    > >> Actually, not true. *Most *households* have a computer, most *people*
    > >> have a mobile device. *The ratio is massively in favour of mobility.

    >
    > > Well, I know quite a few households, at least in Amurrrrrica, where
    > > each person has their own computer.

    >
    > It's true that mobile penetration is much lower in North America than in
    > Europe and the far east, but for the planet as a whole, mobile devices
    > dominate.
    >
    >
    >
    > >> In Manchester, UK (where Roy lives), 28% of houses *do not have a
    > >> landline*, which means *no desktop at all*. *They all have mobiles
    > >> instead. *These are Ofcom figures, considered to be very reliable.

    >
    > > Now that makes sense, indeed.

    >
    > They used to have landlines, but they no longer have them. *They've just
    > migrated to the newer technology.
    >
    >
    >
    > >>> To say the desktop is indeed dead, though, is wrong.

    >
    > >> No, it's not wrong, it's quite right, but you need to understand what I
    > >> mean. *

    >
    > >> Hardly anyone I know uses a "desktop" in work any more, pretty much
    > >> everyone is on their 3rd or 4th laptop now. *

    >
    > > Well, I would consider a laptop to be a "mobile desktop".

    >
    > They cover a similar function, for sure, but a Desktop PC is a specific
    > category of machine and necessarily distinct from a laptop, at least by
    > most retailer's metrics, anyway.
    >
    >
    >
    > >> So, I'm sorry folks, but it's game over for the desktop. *It's not
    > >> idiocy, it's economics, and it ain't my fault, so don't blame me.
    > >> Personally, I quite like desktops, and use one a lot, but I know that
    > >> doesn't mean that they will be economically significant in, say, 10
    > >> years time.

    >
    > > Actually, I still suspect your are wrong, Mark. *Word processing, taxes,
    > > planning, multimedia will keep the desktop around for a long time. *It
    > > might devolve into a home-entertainment-cum-work center.

    >
    > Which is precisely what I've been saying (ie., I agree with you).
    > The "Desktop PC" is a certain type of PC characterised by being fixed,
    > rather than portable, and being a PC first and foremost, as opposed to,
    > say, a media centre or something appliance like, which will fulfil a
    > household role. *I've stated this repeatedly, although you might not
    > have seen the remarks, of course. *This is one of the reasons why the
    > PS3 is such an important device, in that it combines the role of games
    > console and PC in one sleek, quiet and attractive device, oh yeah,
    > and plays DVDs, CDs and anything from uPnP servers (like my Bubba box).
    >
    > This isn't a desktop, though, this is a console being pressed into
    > service to cover the functions which in the 1990s would've been covered
    > by a desktop or laptop machine.
    >
    > Mythtv is a fantastic example of Linux and open-source driving in this
    > space. *It even has a respectable front-end for games, although the
    > integration with the remote control is not all it might be, and the
    > web-browser is somewhat limited, overall, mythtv is an excellent way of
    > making a really useful appliance out of a bit of old(ish) PC.
    >
    >
    >
    > >> The period between now and then is the period over which we watch the
    > >> market in desktops collapse. *Clearly, they'll not all disappear
    > >> overnight, that would be a ridiculous claim, but I doubt anyone here
    > >> would be daft enough to interpret my remarks in that way, would they?

    >
    > > Unfortunately, your wording ("dead") lends itself to just that
    > > interpretation.

    >
    > It shouldn't - obviously the existing plant is not going to magic itself
    > away! *However, sales of new desktops are plumeting (a 1980s technology),
    > and even sales of traditional laptops (more of a 1990s technology) have
    > fallen dramatically.
    >
    > The desktop, from an economic sense, is dead *now*. *Laptops are a
    > cash-cow on its last legs, and the rising stars are the appliances and
    > ultra-mobile devices of one kind or another.
    >
    > You won't see new stores setting up to sell the latest desktops to
    > people, in fact, I think most people would laugh at the thought. *Deep
    > down, I think that few people really disagree that the desktop is dead.
    > It might look like its still breathing, but it's a 20th century
    > technology, and we're in the 21st...
    >



    When Mark Kent says sell, you'd be wise to buy.

  11. Re: Prominent Linux desktop developer: "No one wants a new desktop"

    * Tim Smith peremptorily fired off this memo:

    > In article <_oS5k.9465$s77.134@bignews3.bellsouth.net>,
    > Linonut wrote:
    >> > In Manchester, UK (where Roy lives), 28% of houses *do not have a
    >> > landline*, which means *no desktop at all*. They all have mobiles
    >> > instead. These are Ofcom figures, considered to be very reliable.

    >>
    >> Now that makes sense, indeed.

    >
    > So if I get rid of my landline, my iMac will stop being a desktop?
    > Really?


    Huh? How many people are there that cannot afford both a PC of some
    kind and a PDA/phone?

    Looks like about 28%.

    --
    It's possible, you can never know, that the universe exists only for me. If so,
    it's sure going well for me, I must admit.
    -- Bill Gates, TIME magazine Vol. 149, No. 2 (13 January 1997)

  12. Re: Prominent Linux desktop developer: "No one wants a new desktop"

    * DFS peremptorily fired off this memo:

    > Linonut wrote:
    >
    >> Also, I can have a lot of fun without the internet. On our way to
    >> Tennessee, my wife drove and I mostly wrote code (on my old Pentium
    >> III running Debian etch.)

    >
    > I knew you were a geek, but... geez man. Your most fond memory of
    > vacationing is writing code?


    Who said that was my fondest memory of the trip?

    The greatest thing was seeing all of the people from grad-school days!

    (And seeing that, 23 years later, one of the lab PDP/11's was /still/ in
    operation.)

    The hotel room had some screwy timed web interface to let you pick an
    allotment of time to use the web. (Access through SSH, however, wasn't
    restricted by time.)

    Being impatient with popups, I clicked through them and thus selected
    only a day of time. Doh!

    But I found I could edit the cookie and re-enable the web connection.

    --
    To create a new standard, it takes something that's not just a little bit
    different; it takes something that's really new and really captures people's
    imagination -- and the Macintosh, of all the machines I've ever seen, is the
    only one that meets that standard.
    -- Bill Gates

  13. Re: Prominent Linux desktop developer: "No one wants a new desktop"

    Linonut espoused:
    > * Tim Smith peremptorily fired off this memo:
    >
    >> In article <_oS5k.9465$s77.134@bignews3.bellsouth.net>,
    >> Linonut wrote:
    >>> > In Manchester, UK (where Roy lives), 28% of houses *do not have a
    >>> > landline*, which means *no desktop at all*. They all have mobiles
    >>> > instead. These are Ofcom figures, considered to be very reliable.
    >>>
    >>> Now that makes sense, indeed.

    >>
    >> So if I get rid of my landline, my iMac will stop being a desktop?
    >> Really?

    >
    > Huh? How many people are there that cannot afford both a PC of some
    > kind and a PDA/phone?
    >
    > Looks like about 28%.
    >


    It's not that they can't afford it, it's that they don't want it,
    instead, they use a mobile. Mobiles are more expensive than landlines,
    so it's not the cost which is the driving issue, at least in this case.

    As for an iMac, well, I very much doubt that 28% of any population,
    perhaps apart from Norway or Luxembourg could afford Macs anyway.

    --
    | mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
    | Cola faq: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/linux/advocacy/faq-and-primer/ |
    | Cola trolls: http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/ |
    | Open platforms prevent vendor lock-in. Own your Own services! |


+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2