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 ; "We shouldn't feel bad; Windows Vista made the same mistake. Nobody cares about Vista, because XP allows users to accomplish all the same goals." http://news.cnet.com/8301-13505_3-9967932-16.html -RFH...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 33

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

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


    "We shouldn't feel bad; Windows Vista made the same mistake. Nobody
    cares about Vista, because XP allows users to accomplish all the same
    goals."

    http://news.cnet.com/8301-13505_3-9967932-16.html

    -RFH


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

    On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 09:04:00 -0700 (PDT), Ramon F Herrera wrote:

    > "We shouldn't feel bad; Windows Vista made the same mistake. Nobody
    > cares about Vista, because XP allows users to accomplish all the same
    > goals."
    >
    > http://news.cnet.com/8301-13505_3-9967932-16.html
    >
    > -RFH


    I pretty much agree with that statement.
    While Vista does do a lot of things under the covers, most users see it as
    just a pretty face and eye candy and in some cases it is not as good as XP.

    Multimedia for one example.

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

  3. Re: Prominent Linux desktop developer: "No one wants a new desktop" - "Microsoft won the desktop war. Time to move on"


    "Ramon F Herrera" wrote in message
    news:95d0b2c4-a099-45fc-a39c-48ed771ace19@f63g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
    >
    > "We shouldn't feel bad; Windows Vista made the same mistake. Nobody
    > cares about Vista, because XP allows users to accomplish all the same
    > goals."
    >
    > http://news.cnet.com/8301-13505_3-9967932-16.html
    >
    > -RFH
    >



    You left out the best parts of the article and took your original quote out
    of context:


    GNOME 2.0 and KDE 4 are bad models for change. They rewrote and broke the
    code, but from a user-goals perspective, they are the same thing as before.
    We shouldn't feel bad; Windows Vista made the same mistake. Nobody cares
    about Vista, because XP allows users to accomplish all the same goals.

    I agree. I've long argued that what is needed is not Yet Another Desktop,
    but rather a novel conception of what "desktop" means. Microsoft won the
    desktop war. Time to move on to the next battle. It's not about Vista or
    GNOME.



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

  4. Re: Prominent Linux desktop developer: "No one wants a new desktop" - "Microsoft won the desktop war. Time to move on"

    On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 12:11:02 -0400, Ezekiel wrote:

    > "Ramon F Herrera" wrote in message
    > news:95d0b2c4-a099-45fc-a39c-48ed771ace19@f63g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
    >>
    >> "We shouldn't feel bad; Windows Vista made the same mistake. Nobody
    >> cares about Vista, because XP allows users to accomplish all the same
    >> goals."
    >>
    >> http://news.cnet.com/8301-13505_3-9967932-16.html
    >>
    >> -RFH
    >>

    >
    >
    > You left out the best parts of the article and took your original quote out
    > of context:
    >
    >
    > GNOME 2.0 and KDE 4 are bad models for change. They rewrote and broke the
    > code, but from a user-goals perspective, they are the same thing as before.
    > We shouldn't feel bad; Windows Vista made the same mistake. Nobody cares
    > about Vista, because XP allows users to accomplish all the same goals.
    >
    > I agree. I've long argued that what is needed is not Yet Another Desktop,
    > but rather a novel conception of what "desktop" means. Microsoft won the
    > desktop war. Time to move on to the next battle. It's not about Vista or
    > GNOME.
    >


    Exactly.
    Vista pretty much proves this.

    But the Linux loons won't get it so instead they will churn out one desktop
    after another.

    They call it "choice".

    Most people call it confusion.

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

  5. Re: Prominent Linux desktop developer: "No one wants a new desktop" -"Microsoft won the desktop war. Time to move on"

    On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 14:07:02 -0400, Moshe Goldfarb. wrote:

    > On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 12:11:02 -0400, Ezekiel wrote:
    >
    >> "Ramon F Herrera" wrote in message
    >> news:95d0b2c4-a099-45fc-

    a39c-48ed771ace19@f63g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
    >>>
    >>> "We shouldn't feel bad; Windows Vista made the same mistake. Nobody
    >>> cares about Vista, because XP allows users to accomplish all the same
    >>> goals."
    >>>
    >>> http://news.cnet.com/8301-13505_3-9967932-16.html
    >>>
    >>> -RFH
    >>>
    >>>

    >>
    >> You left out the best parts of the article and took your original quote
    >> out of context:
    >>
    >>
    >> GNOME 2.0 and KDE 4 are bad models for change. They rewrote and broke
    >> the code, but from a user-goals perspective, they are the same thing as
    >> before. We shouldn't feel bad; Windows Vista made the same mistake.
    >> Nobody cares about Vista, because XP allows users to accomplish all the
    >> same goals.
    >>
    >> I agree. I've long argued that what is needed is not Yet Another
    >> Desktop, but rather a novel conception of what "desktop" means.
    >> Microsoft won the desktop war. Time to move on to the next battle. It's
    >> not about Vista or GNOME.
    >>

    >
    > Exactly.
    > Vista pretty much proves this.
    >
    > But the Linux loons won't get it so instead they will churn out one
    > desktop after another.
    >
    > They call it "choice".
    >
    > Most people call it confusion.


    That's because most people. like you apparently, are quite easily
    confused.


    --
    Rick

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


    "Ramon F Herrera" wrote in message
    news:95d0b2c4-a099-45fc-a39c-48ed771ace19@f63g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
    >
    > "We shouldn't feel bad; Windows Vista made the same mistake. Nobody
    > cares about Vista, because XP allows users to accomplish all the same
    > goals."
    >
    > http://news.cnet.com/8301-13505_3-9967932-16.html
    >
    > -RFH


    "The fact is that people already have a desktop. They don't want a new
    desktop from GNOME, from Apple, or from Microsoft. Making another desktop
    does not add anything to the world. On average, people who have GNOME want
    to keep it, and the same for the other desktops."

    Hey Ramon, he says they don't want a new desktop from Apple either.

    Thanks for posting this.


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

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

    Ramon F Herrera espoused:
    >
    > "We shouldn't feel bad; Windows Vista made the same mistake. Nobody
    > cares about Vista, because XP allows users to accomplish all the same
    > goals."
    >
    > http://news.cnet.com/8301-13505_3-9967932-16.html
    >


    The desktop is dead, it's all over. It was a 1980s technology, it's
    been through its cycle. The future is devices, appliances, and
    mobility.

    --
    | 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"

    * Mark Kent peremptorily fired off this memo:

    > Ramon F Herrera espoused:
    >>
    >> "We shouldn't feel bad; Windows Vista made the same mistake. Nobody
    >> cares about Vista, because XP allows users to accomplish all the same
    >> goals."
    >>
    >> http://news.cnet.com/8301-13505_3-9967932-16.html

    >
    > The desktop is dead, it's all over. It was a 1980s technology, it's
    > been through its cycle. The future is devices, appliances, and
    > mobility.


    Well, most everyone I know has either a desktop or a laptop.

    The desktop won't die. It will always be used for engineering and
    office work.

    --
    I wish I wasn't ... There's nothing good that comes out of that. You get more
    visibility as a result of it.
    -- Bill Gates, On being the world's richest man, in an online advertising
    conference in Redmond, Washington, as quoted in The Guardian (5 May 2006)

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

    Linonut espoused:
    > * Mark Kent peremptorily fired off this memo:
    >
    >> Ramon F Herrera espoused:
    >>>
    >>> "We shouldn't feel bad; Windows Vista made the same mistake. Nobody
    >>> cares about Vista, because XP allows users to accomplish all the same
    >>> goals."
    >>>
    >>> http://news.cnet.com/8301-13505_3-9967932-16.html

    >>
    >> The desktop is dead, it's all over. It was a 1980s technology, it's
    >> been through its cycle. The future is devices, appliances, and
    >> mobility.

    >
    > Well, most everyone I know has either a desktop or a laptop.


    A laptop is a little different, though, isn't it, since it's all about
    mobility, which is rather my point.

    >
    > The desktop won't die.


    Not completely, there will be a smaller number of users, but even then,
    it's likely that they will be using network terminals for hosted
    applications.

    > It will always be used for engineering and


    Yes, for people doing development, but even then, it's likely that the
    whole thing is hosted in most cases. For some kinds of specialist work,
    something which resembles a current desktop will likely be in use, but I
    still expect that it will be mostly a networked device of some kind, as
    that's where all the "knowledge" is.

    > office work.
    >


    Most office work will have migrated to web-hosted applications over the
    next few years. Just take a look at google office, google calendar and
    so on...

    As an example, my no2 lad had an appointment at the a local optician a
    few days ago. When we arrived, I saw their calendar application with
    his appointment on it. Guess what? Google calendar.

    Mrs Mark has a blackberry, as, in fact, do a great many people I work
    with. She uses it for work email and similar. I use my Motorola A780
    in conjuction with scheduleworld to sync our home calendars (google) and
    my work calendar (outlook pushed using evolution).

    The 1980s model of the desktop, with a computer per head, and a desk per
    head and so on, is really looking very very dated, but we're almost 30
    years on, now.

    --
    | 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! |


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

    * Mark Kent peremptorily fired off this memo:

    >> The desktop won't die.

    >
    > Not completely, there will be a smaller number of users, but even then,
    > it's likely that they will be using network terminals for hosted
    > applications.


    Goddam, I sure hope not, not for home users! He who controls those
    servers....

    > Most office work will have migrated to web-hosted applications over the
    > next few years. Just take a look at google office, google calendar and
    > so on...
    >
    > As an example, my no2 lad had an appointment at the a local optician a
    > few days ago. When we arrived, I saw their calendar application with
    > his appointment on it. Guess what? Google calendar.


    Still a niche at present.

    > Mrs Mark has a blackberry, as, in fact, do a great many people I work
    > with. She uses it for work email and similar. I use my Motorola A780
    > in conjuction with scheduleworld to sync our home calendars (google) and
    > my work calendar (outlook pushed using evolution).
    >
    > The 1980s model of the desktop, with a computer per head, and a desk per
    > head and so on, is really looking very very dated, but we're almost 30
    > years on, now.


    Well, I will keep using my fast and capacious Linux desktops as long as
    possible.

    --
    We are not even close to finishing the basic dream of what the PC can be.
    -- Bill Gates

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

    [[ This message was both posted and mailed: see
    the "To," "Cc," and "Newsgroups" headers for details. ]]

    In article , Mark Kent
    wrote:

    > The desktop is dead, it's all over. It was a 1980s technology, it's
    > been through its cycle. The future is devices, appliances, and
    > mobility.


    This is stupid, but solvable:
    you're reading the excitable guys who write about technology
    DEVELOPMENT.
    In that sense (and no other sense) the exciting and dynamic parts of
    developing technology for desktop and laptop computing are becoming
    less dynamic and unexpected.
    It is taken as obvious that all of those applications remain useful,
    even critical, there are just fewer frontiers and opportunities for
    hugely lucrative projects.

    The embedded devices, appliances, and mobility products arena, on the
    other hand, seems ready for exciting new ideas, development, and
    strange changes. There may be many opportunities for new ideas and
    projects.

    So don't take those general statements as redefining the world -- after
    all, YOU can see that the desktop is not 'dead' -- you might see
    thousands every day! You also CANNOT see what there is in the future
    yet, so a statement about what the future holds is always to be
    questioned, not assumed correct (especially when it conflicts with
    facts!).

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

    Linonut espoused:
    > * Mark Kent peremptorily fired off this memo:
    >
    >>> The desktop won't die.

    >>
    >> Not completely, there will be a smaller number of users, but even then,
    >> it's likely that they will be using network terminals for hosted
    >> applications.

    >
    > Goddam, I sure hope not, not for home users! He who controls those
    > servers....


    Same as now, I suspect, mostly google :-)

    >
    >> Most office work will have migrated to web-hosted applications over the
    >> next few years. Just take a look at google office, google calendar and
    >> so on...
    >>
    >> As an example, my no2 lad had an appointment at the a local optician a
    >> few days ago. When we arrived, I saw their calendar application with
    >> his appointment on it. Guess what? Google calendar.

    >
    > Still a niche at present.


    Perhaps, but take a look at the listing of public calendars, there are
    an enormous number, I should think that they're in the thousands. I've
    no idea how many private ones that there are.

    Some folk I know use them for trading baby-sitting opportunities...

    >
    >> Mrs Mark has a blackberry, as, in fact, do a great many people I work
    >> with. She uses it for work email and similar. I use my Motorola A780
    >> in conjuction with scheduleworld to sync our home calendars (google) and
    >> my work calendar (outlook pushed using evolution).
    >>
    >> The 1980s model of the desktop, with a computer per head, and a desk per
    >> head and so on, is really looking very very dated, but we're almost 30
    >> years on, now.

    >
    > Well, I will keep using my fast and capacious Linux desktops as long as
    > possible.
    >


    The choice is, naturally, yours. Consider, though, just how much of
    what you now rely on is internet hosted?

    --
    | 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! |


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

    Homer espoused:
    > Verily I say unto thee, that Linonut spake thusly:
    >> * Mark Kent peremptorily fired off this memo:

    >
    >>> The desktop is dead, it's all over. It was a 1980s technology,
    >>> it's been through its cycle. The future is devices, appliances,
    >>> and mobility.

    >>
    >> Well, most everyone I know has either a desktop or a laptop.
    >>
    >> The desktop won't die. It will always be used for engineering and
    >> office work.

    >
    > No, no, it's *dead* I tell you. Dead!
    >
    > [hits desktop with hammer]
    >
    > Dead!
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > Erm ... anyone got a spare keyboard?
    >


    Umm, somewhere in the stables... probably under a bird's nest by now :-)

    --
    | 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! |


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

    Mitch espoused:
    > [[ This message was both posted and mailed: see
    > the "To," "Cc," and "Newsgroups" headers for details. ]]
    >
    > In article , Mark Kent
    > wrote:
    >
    >> The desktop is dead, it's all over. It was a 1980s technology, it's
    >> been through its cycle. The future is devices, appliances, and
    >> mobility.

    >
    > This is stupid, but solvable:
    > you're reading the excitable guys who write about technology
    > DEVELOPMENT.


    Eh? Sorry, matey, I reach my own conclusions from my own analysis.
    It's far from stupid, just look at why Microsoft have decided to give
    Windows XP a stay of execution... because it's the only thing which will
    run on mobile devices. On the other hand, look at DSG's loss of 20
    millions because they foolishly bought inventory of Microsoft desktop
    computers which nobody wants.

    So, why not try the facts. I do.

    > In that sense (and no other sense) the exciting and dynamic parts of
    > developing technology for desktop and laptop computing are becoming
    > less dynamic and unexpected.


    You're confusing a couple of key areas here. Ultra-mobile laptops are
    one of the most dynamic areas on the planet at the moment. Just look
    at Asus Eee, Elonex, OLPC etc. etc. It's the desktop which is stagnant,
    not mobility. Read below about consolidation and innovation, it's a
    pretty key point.

    > It is taken as obvious that all of those applications remain useful,
    > even critical, there are just fewer frontiers and opportunities for
    > hugely lucrative projects.


    No idea what you mean by that, sorry. If you're trying to imply that
    desktop computers will remain magically important because they happen to
    be there, then I think you've rather missed the boat - it sailed some
    time ago, from the quayside just next to SMS. They're being
    consolidated onto laptops, or appliances, or whatever else people have
    to replace them with.

    >
    > The embedded devices, appliances, and mobility products arena, on the
    > other hand, seems ready for exciting new ideas, development, and
    > strange changes. There may be many opportunities for new ideas and
    > projects.


    There are already orders of magnitude more mobile devices than there are
    desktop computers, something you don't appear to be aware of, but a
    critical fact, nonetheless.

    Perhaps you've not considered just why LiMo exists? Or Android? do you
    think Google would bother with creating such a stack were there not huge
    expectations from it?

    You should run along now and find out how many mobile phones there are
    in the world - that will, perhaps, surprise you.

    >
    > So don't take those general statements as redefining the world -- after
    > all, YOU can see that the desktop is not 'dead' -- you might see
    > thousands every day!


    Ah, you don't understand the 3-technology problem.

    Let me give you a brief summary: You always have 3 technologies in
    service at any one time; the old one which you're trying to phase out
    (say, vinyl records), the current generation (say, CDs) and the new,
    innovative stuff (say, mp3s or iTunes or something). The same argument
    applies to anything. A desktop PC is very much the legacy old technology,
    a traditional laptop is "current generation", and the new, innovative
    space is the ultra-mobile device, like the N800/810, iPhone, Elonex PC,
    Asus eee, Nokia N95 etc. etc.

    Consolidation takes place between the legacy and "current generation"
    technologies of the day to day work, in this case, that means that
    Linux and OSX will clean up the majority of the desktop space onto late
    generation laptop machines. The innovation space is where the new,
    exciting things go on, and innovation will happen there.


    > You also CANNOT see what there is in the future


    You might not be able to. I certainly can in many cases, by applying
    this model. In part it helps me see the present more clearly, which
    then helps me see what will survive into the future. You should try it,
    it really does work.

    > yet, so a statement about what the future holds is always to be
    > questioned, not assumed correct


    Have a think about the 3-technology model. See how many other examples
    you can find. Let me try another: Horse-drawn carriage, Railway Train,
    Car. Power sources: Oxen, Steam, Internal-combustion. Of course,
    we can now change that to: Steam (rankine), Internal-combustion, Nuclear.

    >(especially when it conflicts with
    > facts!).


    My view of the future would seem to conflict with your misunderstandings,
    not anything else. Have a really really long think about the 3-technology
    model. If you do, you'll suddenly find that you can see all kinds of
    things into the future, as they will suddenly become quite obvious.
    Much "future gazing" is really learning the lessons of history and
    applying them to the present - a trick you could learn much more about.

    Here's another one: Thermionic valves, Germanium transistors, Silicon
    transistors. FYI I still have some valve equipment here, which I use
    regularly.

    How about light-bulbs: incandescent, flourescent, LED.

    I know that the model is not perfect, of course. As with all general
    models, the experienced user is able to add their own knowledge to the
    limits of the model. Also, you'll find that the model recurses
    extremely well.

    I suspect that this model also will apply remarquably well to scientific
    theories, too. My feeling is that older, less complete theories are
    likely to be replaced (consolidated into) current generation ones,
    whilst the new thinking in the innovative space has yet to be well
    enough proven to have been accepted, to expanded enough to contain the
    current mainstream theories.

    And finally, I think it's probably as much a function of the human brain
    as anything else, and might even be related to the life-expectancy of
    most people. I also think this model probably applies to management of
    large companies in terms of the number of new philosophies they are able
    to try per management team.

    You should *never* have a rule of 1, rather, you should have a rule of
    3.

    --
    | 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! |


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

    * Mark Kent peremptorily fired off this memo:

    > Linonut espoused:
    >>
    >> Well, I will keep using my fast and capacious Linux desktops as long as
    >> possible.

    >
    > The choice is, naturally, yours. Consider, though, just how much of
    > what you now rely on is internet hosted?


    A goodly amount, to be sure.

    But for most of the internet experience, it seems to me it would be
    better on a desktop or laptop. I'm not to fast at typing with my thumb,
    and I have trouble with seeing the small keys on those blackberries.

    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.)

    Oddly enough, in the mountains near Knoxville I found a wireless
    connection, but nm-applet wasn't even able to negotiate a request for
    passphrase from it.

    --
    Be nice to nerds. Chances are you'll end up working for one.
    -- Bill Gates

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


    "Mark Kent" wrote in message
    newsoqdi5-7av.ln1@ellandroad.demon.co.uk...
    >
    > So, why not try the facts. I do.


    You really ought to try the facts someday. According to your "facts" we
    have:

    Sony will not sell the PS3 at a loss.
    The Wright Brothers airplane flew because it had a tail wind.
    British citizenship cannot be renounced.
    Microsoft is not making a profit on the XBox360.
    Most everyone will use their PS3 as a desktop computer.
    There is no such thing as intellectual property.

    You don't use facts... you use fairy tails that are demonstrably false.



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

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

    Linonut espoused:
    > * Mark Kent peremptorily fired off this memo:
    >
    >> Linonut espoused:
    >>>
    >>> Well, I will keep using my fast and capacious Linux desktops as long as
    >>> possible.

    >>
    >> The choice is, naturally, yours. Consider, though, just how much of
    >> what you now rely on is internet hosted?

    >
    > A goodly amount, to be sure.
    >
    > But for most of the internet experience, it seems to me it would be
    > better on a desktop or laptop. I'm not to fast at typing with my thumb,
    > and I have trouble with seeing the small keys on those blackberries.


    Those tiny keyboards can be hard work, they're not something you'd want
    to do hours of development on, naturally. Of course, few people are
    developers!

    >
    > 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.)


    Hehe - why not if you can :-)

    >
    > Oddly enough, in the mountains near Knoxville I found a wireless
    > connection, but nm-applet wasn't even able to negotiate a request for
    > passphrase from it.
    >


    Someone's got a router and an ADSL line, then?

    --
    | 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! |


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

    >In article , Mark Kent
    > wrote:
    >>
    >> The desktop is dead, it's all over.


    Why does this guy keep spewing this idiocy?


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

    * chrisv peremptorily fired off this memo:

    >>In article , Mark Kent
    >> wrote:
    >>>
    >>> The desktop is dead, it's all over.

    >
    > Why does this guy keep spewing this idiocy?


    It's not idiocy, really, even if you ignore devices that are basically
    laptops.

    Most people probably still have a desktop or a laptop they use as a
    desktop for dealing with pictures, email, some word-processing.

    But it wouldn't surprise me if most people access most of their data
    using small hand-held devices these days.

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

    --
    Microsoft looks at new ideas, they don't evaluate whether the idea will move
    the industry forward, they ask, 'how will it help us sell more copies of
    Windows?'
    -- Bill Gates, The Seattle Weekly, (April 30, 1998)[2]

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

    Linonut writes:

    > * chrisv peremptorily fired off this memo:
    >
    >>>In article , Mark Kent
    >>> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>> The desktop is dead, it's all over.

    >>
    >> Why does this guy keep spewing this idiocy?

    >
    > It's not idiocy, really, even if you ignore devices that are basically
    > laptops.
    >
    > Most people probably still have a desktop or a laptop they use as a
    > desktop for dealing with pictures, email, some word-processing.
    >
    > But it wouldn't surprise me if most people access most of their data
    > using small hand-held devices these days.


    Are you nuts? Oh yes. You are. Most people use home PCs to access their
    data. Most people I see with "next gen" PDAs and mobiles dont even know
    how to send an SMS with them anymore - never mind incur the cost of
    browsing online etc.

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


    As is blatantly clear to anyone living in the real world.

    --
    "I am not worthy to wipe your pee-pee "
    -- Liarnut in comp.os.linux.advocacy

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast