Re: [News]Linux to Ship on More Desktops than Windows - Ubuntu

This is a discussion on Re: [News]Linux to Ship on More Desktops than Windows - Ubuntu ; Robin T Cox wrote: > Linux to Ship on More Desktops than Windows > > http://www.linux-foundation.org/webl...-than-windows/ > http://tinyurl.com/6a9v5w > > > October 29, 2008 | > > For those that decry the constant prediction of the “year of the Linux ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 16 of 16

Thread: Re: [News]Linux to Ship on More Desktops than Windows

  1. Re: [News]Linux to Ship on More Desktops than Windows

    Robin T Cox wrote:
    > Linux to Ship on More Desktops than Windows
    >
    > http://www.linux-foundation.org/webl...-than-windows/
    > http://tinyurl.com/6a9v5w
    >
    >
    > October 29, 2008 |
    >
    > For those that decry the constant prediction of the “year of the Linux
    > desktop” I am happy to say that next year Linux may actually ship on more
    > desktops than Windows or the Mac. That is right, I said next year. What is
    > driving this? Two words: fast boot.
    >
    > Matt Richtell of the New York Times wrote a great article on Sunday about
    > the demand for faster start up times on computers. In the story the
    > chronicled how HP, Dell, Lenovo, Asus and a array of other PC makers are
    > starting to develop “machines that give people access to basic functions
    > like e-mail and a Web browser in 30 seconds or less.” Here is the
    > interesting part: Linux is providing that access.
    >

    >



    Shocking that a real Linux bigshot (Jim Zemlin) is saying this---until
    you notice he is talking about Linux being built into the motherboard
    and that most people would likely still boot into Windows.

    But if they can make Linux and Windows access the same Firefox and
    Thunderbird and OpenOffice files so that people don't have to keep one
    set for Windows and a different set for Linux, then Windows may actually
    be in big trouble from this. People would be able to stay in Linux most
    of the time.

    I haven't tried to mount an NTFS partition from Linux lately. Is it
    standard to mount NTFS partitions read/write nowadays? I guess that
    would be sufficient for the shared access I mention above to come true.

    Trying to think of how MS could throw a wrench into this ...

  2. Re: [News]Linux to Ship on More Desktops than Windows


    "Matt" wrote in message
    news:JumOk.1575$Di1.859@newsfe13.iad...
    > Robin T Cox wrote:
    >> Linux to Ship on More Desktops than Windows
    >>
    >> http://www.linux-foundation.org/webl...-than-windows/
    >> http://tinyurl.com/6a9v5w
    >>
    >>
    >> October 29, 2008 | For those that decry the constant prediction of the
    >> "year of the Linux
    >> desktop" I am happy to say that next year Linux may actually ship on more
    >> desktops than Windows or the Mac. That is right, I said next year. What
    >> is
    >> driving this? Two words: fast boot.
    >>
    >> Matt Richtell of the New York Times wrote a great article on Sunday about
    >> the demand for faster start up times on computers. In the story the
    >> chronicled how HP, Dell, Lenovo, Asus and a array of other PC makers are
    >> starting to develop "machines that give people access to basic functions
    >> like e-mail and a Web browser in 30 seconds or less." Here is the
    >> interesting part: Linux is providing that access.
    >>

    >>

    >
    >
    > Shocking that a real Linux bigshot (Jim Zemlin) is saying this---until you
    > notice he is talking about Linux being built into the motherboard and that
    > most people would likely still boot into Windows.


    Whether it's Zemlin or somebody else everyone likes to talk and talk.
    Generally "predictions" are a dime a dozen.


    > But if they can make Linux and Windows access the same Firefox and
    > Thunderbird and OpenOffice files so that people don't have to keep one set
    > for Windows and a different set for Linux, then Windows may actually be in
    > big trouble from this. People would be able to stay in Linux most of the
    > time.


    What about permissions? Who's OpenOffice files do you plan on opening from
    the BIOS. Is FF and OO run directly from the BIOS or from the hard drive?
    Does this mean that the BIOS needs to know how to mount various file
    systems? If you're going to include a "browser" (FF) and "office suite" (OO)
    then you can't exclude email (Thunderbird) from the mix because people will
    most definitely want to read their email. I use Thunderbird on multiple
    machines and have it installed so the mail-files/datastore is out on the
    network. So how would the BIOS mount the network drives? Where will it keep
    the "sent items" or any email that I receive. (Most people use POP not IMAP
    for accessing mail.)


    > I haven't tried to mount an NTFS partition from Linux lately. Is it
    > standard to mount NTFS partitions read/write nowadays? I guess that would
    > be sufficient for the shared access I mention above to come true.


    Ubuntu for example mounts my NTFS partition RW. Of course this can be
    changed via /etc/fstab to make it read-only. I rarely write anything to my
    NTFS partitions. I'm more likely to write it to a server on the network
    first. I don't 100% trust the NTFS driver to get it right so I play it safe
    and throw the data out on the network.


    > Trying to think of how MS could throw a wrench into this ...


    No need to. There are enough problems already.



  3. Re: [News]Linux to Ship on More Desktops than Windows

    On Thu, 30 Oct 2008 14:07:19 -0400, Ezekiel wrote:

    > "Matt" wrote in message
    > news:JumOk.1575$Di1.859@newsfe13.iad...
    >> Robin T Cox wrote:
    >>> Linux to Ship on More Desktops than Windows
    >>>
    >>> http://www.linux-foundation.org/webl...0/29/linux-to-

    ship-on-more-desktops-than-windows/
    >>> http://tinyurl.com/6a9v5w
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> October 29, 2008 | For those that decry the constant prediction of the
    >>> "year of the Linux
    >>> desktop" I am happy to say that next year Linux may actually ship on
    >>> more desktops than Windows or the Mac. That is right, I said next
    >>> year. What is
    >>> driving this? Two words: fast boot.
    >>>
    >>> Matt Richtell of the New York Times wrote a great article on Sunday
    >>> about the demand for faster start up times on computers. In the story
    >>> the chronicled how HP, Dell, Lenovo, Asus and a array of other PC
    >>> makers are starting to develop "machines that give people access to
    >>> basic functions like e-mail and a Web browser in 30 seconds or less."
    >>> Here is the interesting part: Linux is providing that access.

    >>>
    >>>

    >>
    >> Shocking that a real Linux bigshot (Jim Zemlin) is saying this---until
    >> you notice he is talking about Linux being built into the motherboard
    >> and that most people would likely still boot into Windows.

    >
    > Whether it's Zemlin or somebody else everyone likes to talk and talk.
    > Generally "predictions" are a dime a dozen.
    >
    >
    >> But if they can make Linux and Windows access the same Firefox and
    >> Thunderbird and OpenOffice files so that people don't have to keep one
    >> set for Windows and a different set for Linux, then Windows may
    >> actually be in big trouble from this. People would be able to stay in
    >> Linux most of the time.

    >
    > What about permissions? Who's OpenOffice files do you plan on opening
    > from the BIOS. Is FF and OO run directly from the BIOS or from the hard
    > drive? Does this mean that the BIOS needs to know how to mount various
    > file systems? If you're going to include a "browser" (FF) and "office
    > suite" (OO) then you can't exclude email (Thunderbird) from the mix
    > because people will most definitely want to read their email. I use
    > Thunderbird on multiple machines and have it installed so the
    > mail-files/datastore is out on the network. So how would the BIOS mount
    > the network drives? Where will it keep the "sent items" or any email
    > that I receive. (Most people use POP not IMAP for accessing mail.)
    >


    The BIOS wouldn't. The way this is done is likely with the linux
    installation using flash memory that is on the motherboard run either by
    the main processor or a secondary processor. So the Linux installation
    boots just like the primary OS does, just a lot faster. You just tell the
    BIOS which it should start.

    Network access is no issue at all. I've personally worked on embedded
    linux devices running on 32MB flash memory that have full network access
    including SAMBA and NTFS shares. Support for local hard drives along with
    the necessary file system support is no issue either.

    And I honestly have to say, I personally would love such a feature on my
    motherboard. There are many times, particularly in the mornings before I
    go to work where I only want to turn my system on to check e-mail or
    something.

    While Ubuntu doesn't take long to boot, having something that is instant
    or near-instant would be nice at times.

    --
    Stephan
    1986 Pontiac Fiero GT

    君の事思い出す日なんてないのは
    君の事忘れたときがないから

  4. Re: [News]Linux to Ship on More Desktops than Windows

    Matt schreef:

    >
    > I haven't tried to mount an NTFS partition from Linux lately. Is it
    > standard to mount NTFS partitions read/write nowadays?


    It does from the box.
    And it works, I use the option daily.

    > I guess that
    > would be sufficient for the shared access I mention above to come true.
    >
    > Trying to think of how MS could throw a wrench into this ...


    Easy, surely they can move Windows 7 to a different undocumented file type.
    As of recently MS is active in a work group to make Samba access easier,
    this could be e veil for an upcoming breach of ntfs-3g...

    Lets see what the European commission would say of such a trick.

  5. Re: [News]Linux to Ship on More Desktops than Windows


    "Stephan Rose" wrote in message
    news:wdmdnbNNQ_hOmJfUnZ2dnUVZ_rfinZ2d@giganews.com ...
    > On Thu, 30 Oct 2008 14:07:19 -0400, Ezekiel wrote:
    >
    >> "Matt" wrote in message
    >> news:JumOk.1575$Di1.859@newsfe13.iad...
    >>> Robin T Cox wrote:
    >>>> Linux to Ship on More Desktops than Windows
    >>>>
    >>>> http://www.linux-foundation.org/webl...0/29/linux-to-

    > ship-on-more-desktops-than-windows/
    >>>> http://tinyurl.com/6a9v5w
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> October 29, 2008 | For those that decry the constant prediction of the
    >>>> "year of the Linux
    >>>> desktop" I am happy to say that next year Linux may actually ship on
    >>>> more desktops than Windows or the Mac. That is right, I said next
    >>>> year. What is
    >>>> driving this? Two words: fast boot.
    >>>>
    >>>> Matt Richtell of the New York Times wrote a great article on Sunday
    >>>> about the demand for faster start up times on computers. In the story
    >>>> the chronicled how HP, Dell, Lenovo, Asus and a array of other PC
    >>>> makers are starting to develop "machines that give people access to
    >>>> basic functions like e-mail and a Web browser in 30 seconds or less."
    >>>> Here is the interesting part: Linux is providing that access.

    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> Shocking that a real Linux bigshot (Jim Zemlin) is saying this---until
    >>> you notice he is talking about Linux being built into the motherboard
    >>> and that most people would likely still boot into Windows.

    >>
    >> Whether it's Zemlin or somebody else everyone likes to talk and talk.
    >> Generally "predictions" are a dime a dozen.
    >>
    >>
    >>> But if they can make Linux and Windows access the same Firefox and
    >>> Thunderbird and OpenOffice files so that people don't have to keep one
    >>> set for Windows and a different set for Linux, then Windows may
    >>> actually be in big trouble from this. People would be able to stay in
    >>> Linux most of the time.

    >>
    >> What about permissions? Who's OpenOffice files do you plan on opening
    >> from the BIOS. Is FF and OO run directly from the BIOS or from the hard
    >> drive? Does this mean that the BIOS needs to know how to mount various
    >> file systems? If you're going to include a "browser" (FF) and "office
    >> suite" (OO) then you can't exclude email (Thunderbird) from the mix
    >> because people will most definitely want to read their email. I use
    >> Thunderbird on multiple machines and have it installed so the
    >> mail-files/datastore is out on the network. So how would the BIOS mount
    >> the network drives? Where will it keep the "sent items" or any email
    >> that I receive. (Most people use POP not IMAP for accessing mail.)
    >>

    >
    > The BIOS wouldn't.


    I don't mean the BIOS directly - I mean the copy of Linux that's started by
    the BIOS.


    > The way this is done is likely with the linux
    > installation using flash memory that is on the motherboard run either by
    > the main processor or a secondary processor. So the Linux installation
    > boots just like the primary OS does, just a lot faster. You just tell the
    > BIOS which it should start.


    Let's just stick to the most-common single processor scenario for now.

    > Network access is no issue at all. I've personally worked on embedded
    > linux devices running on 32MB flash memory that have full network access
    > including SAMBA and NTFS shares. Support for local hard drives along with
    > the necessary file system support is no issue either.


    I've used tiny installs has well. The problem is that there's no X-server,
    limited hardware support and etc. If you're talking about embedding
    Firefox, Thunderbird and OO in flash memory then at today's prices it is
    going to get expensive quick. Flash drives aren't very cheap. (But the price
    is falling.) These apps combine to make a pretty large footprint. Not to
    mention all of the support libraries and things like an X-server that are
    needed to run Firefox or Open Office. (Last I checked OO needed Java - still
    true?)


    > And I honestly have to say, I personally would love such a feature on my
    > motherboard. There are many times, particularly in the mornings before I
    > go to work where I only want to turn my system on to check e-mail or
    > something.


    That's why I have a laptop. Open up the lid, it comes out of "sleep mode"
    and is ready to use in far less than 30 seconds.


    > While Ubuntu doesn't take long to boot, having something that is instant
    > or near-instant would be nice at times.


    The faster the better but the length of time it takes my laptop to come out
    of sleep mode is more than acceptable.


    > --
    > Stephan
    > 1986 Pontiac Fiero GT
    >
    > ???????????????
    > ?????????????




  6. Re: [News]Linux to Ship on More Desktops than Windows

    On Thu, 30 Oct 2008 15:27:31 -0400, Ezekiel wrote:

    > "Stephan Rose" wrote in message
    > news:wdmdnbNNQ_hOmJfUnZ2dnUVZ_rfinZ2d@giganews.com ...
    >> On Thu, 30 Oct 2008 14:07:19 -0400, Ezekiel wrote:
    >>
    >>> "Matt" wrote in message
    >>> news:JumOk.1575$Di1.859@newsfe13.iad...
    >>>> Robin T Cox wrote:
    >>>>> Linux to Ship on More Desktops than Windows
    >>>>>
    >>>>> http://www.linux-foundation.org/webl...0/29/linux-to-

    >> ship-on-more-desktops-than-windows/
    >>>>> http://tinyurl.com/6a9v5w
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> October 29, 2008 | For those that decry the constant prediction of
    >>>>> the "year of the Linux
    >>>>> desktop" I am happy to say that next year Linux may actually ship on
    >>>>> more desktops than Windows or the Mac. That is right, I said next
    >>>>> year. What is
    >>>>> driving this? Two words: fast boot.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Matt Richtell of the New York Times wrote a great article on Sunday
    >>>>> about the demand for faster start up times on computers. In the
    >>>>> story the chronicled how HP, Dell, Lenovo, Asus and a array of other
    >>>>> PC makers are starting to develop "machines that give people access
    >>>>> to basic functions like e-mail and a Web browser in 30 seconds or
    >>>>> less." Here is the interesting part: Linux is providing that access.
    >>>>>

    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>> Shocking that a real Linux bigshot (Jim Zemlin) is saying
    >>>> this---until you notice he is talking about Linux being built into
    >>>> the motherboard and that most people would likely still boot into
    >>>> Windows.
    >>>
    >>> Whether it's Zemlin or somebody else everyone likes to talk and talk.
    >>> Generally "predictions" are a dime a dozen.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>> But if they can make Linux and Windows access the same Firefox and
    >>>> Thunderbird and OpenOffice files so that people don't have to keep
    >>>> one set for Windows and a different set for Linux, then Windows may
    >>>> actually be in big trouble from this. People would be able to stay
    >>>> in Linux most of the time.
    >>>
    >>> What about permissions? Who's OpenOffice files do you plan on opening
    >>> from the BIOS. Is FF and OO run directly from the BIOS or from the
    >>> hard drive? Does this mean that the BIOS needs to know how to mount
    >>> various file systems? If you're going to include a "browser" (FF) and
    >>> "office suite" (OO) then you can't exclude email (Thunderbird) from
    >>> the mix because people will most definitely want to read their email.
    >>> I use Thunderbird on multiple machines and have it installed so the
    >>> mail-files/datastore is out on the network. So how would the BIOS
    >>> mount the network drives? Where will it keep the "sent items" or any
    >>> email that I receive. (Most people use POP not IMAP for accessing
    >>> mail.)
    >>>
    >>>

    >> The BIOS wouldn't.

    >
    > I don't mean the BIOS directly - I mean the copy of Linux that's started
    > by the BIOS.
    >
    >
    >> The way this is done is likely with the linux installation using flash
    >> memory that is on the motherboard run either by the main processor or a
    >> secondary processor. So the Linux installation boots just like the
    >> primary OS does, just a lot faster. You just tell the BIOS which it
    >> should start.

    >
    > Let's just stick to the most-common single processor scenario for now.
    >
    >> Network access is no issue at all. I've personally worked on embedded
    >> linux devices running on 32MB flash memory that have full network
    >> access including SAMBA and NTFS shares. Support for local hard drives
    >> along with the necessary file system support is no issue either.

    >
    > I've used tiny installs has well. The problem is that there's no
    > X-server, limited hardware support and etc. If you're talking about
    > embedding Firefox, Thunderbird and OO in flash memory then at today's
    > prices it is going to get expensive quick. Flash drives aren't very
    > cheap. (But the price is falling.) These apps combine to make a pretty
    > large footprint. Not to mention all of the support libraries and things
    > like an X-server that are needed to run Firefox or Open Office. (Last I
    > checked OO needed Java - still true?)


    Actually there are installs where there is an X-Server. The system I work
    with has an X-Server on it. However I don't actually use it for the
    software I develop to run on it as the CPU is too slow for it to make
    sense. I get far better results using direct frame buffer access without
    X-Server. That however is a personal preference of mine.

    As far as the flash memory goes, I don't really see the price as an
    issue. Looking around on digikey, you can get 2 GB NAND flash memory
    (same type as used in USB sticks) chips for less than $5 if you're
    willing to buy at least 1,000 at a time. Motherboard manufacturers pay
    even less than that.

    >
    >
    >> And I honestly have to say, I personally would love such a feature on
    >> my motherboard. There are many times, particularly in the mornings
    >> before I go to work where I only want to turn my system on to check
    >> e-mail or something.

    >
    > That's why I have a laptop. Open up the lid, it comes out of "sleep
    > mode" and is ready to use in far less than 30 seconds.


    I personally don't care much for laptops. I'm really picky about
    keyboards, they have to be ergonomic (and I have yet to see a laptop with
    an ergonomic keyboard) and Japanese as I use Direct Kana input for
    Japanese writing. So in my case the feature makes more sense on a desktop.

    --
    Stephan
    1986 Pontiac Fiero GT

    君の事思い出す日なんてないのは
    君の事忘れたときがないから

  7. Re: [News]Linux to Ship on More Desktops than Windows


    "Stephan Rose" wrote in message
    news:wdmdnbJNQ_jVjZfUnZ2dnUVZ_rfinZ2d@giganews.com ...
    > On Thu, 30 Oct 2008 15:27:31 -0400, Ezekiel wrote:
    >
    >> "Stephan Rose" wrote in message
    >> news:wdmdnbNNQ_hOmJfUnZ2dnUVZ_rfinZ2d@giganews.com ...
    >>> On Thu, 30 Oct 2008 14:07:19 -0400, Ezekiel wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> "Matt" wrote in message
    >>>> news:JumOk.1575$Di1.859@newsfe13.iad...
    >>>>> Robin T Cox wrote:
    >>>>>> Linux to Ship on More Desktops than Windows
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> http://www.linux-foundation.org/webl...0/29/linux-to-
    >>> ship-on-more-desktops-than-windows/
    >>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/6a9v5w
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> October 29, 2008 | For those that decry the constant prediction of
    >>>>>> the "year of the Linux
    >>>>>> desktop" I am happy to say that next year Linux may actually ship on
    >>>>>> more desktops than Windows or the Mac. That is right, I said next
    >>>>>> year. What is
    >>>>>> driving this? Two words: fast boot.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Matt Richtell of the New York Times wrote a great article on Sunday
    >>>>>> about the demand for faster start up times on computers. In the
    >>>>>> story the chronicled how HP, Dell, Lenovo, Asus and a array of other
    >>>>>> PC makers are starting to develop "machines that give people access
    >>>>>> to basic functions like e-mail and a Web browser in 30 seconds or
    >>>>>> less." Here is the interesting part: Linux is providing that access.
    >>>>>>

    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>> Shocking that a real Linux bigshot (Jim Zemlin) is saying
    >>>>> this---until you notice he is talking about Linux being built into
    >>>>> the motherboard and that most people would likely still boot into
    >>>>> Windows.
    >>>>
    >>>> Whether it's Zemlin or somebody else everyone likes to talk and talk.
    >>>> Generally "predictions" are a dime a dozen.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>> But if they can make Linux and Windows access the same Firefox and
    >>>>> Thunderbird and OpenOffice files so that people don't have to keep
    >>>>> one set for Windows and a different set for Linux, then Windows may
    >>>>> actually be in big trouble from this. People would be able to stay
    >>>>> in Linux most of the time.
    >>>>
    >>>> What about permissions? Who's OpenOffice files do you plan on opening
    >>>> from the BIOS. Is FF and OO run directly from the BIOS or from the
    >>>> hard drive? Does this mean that the BIOS needs to know how to mount
    >>>> various file systems? If you're going to include a "browser" (FF) and
    >>>> "office suite" (OO) then you can't exclude email (Thunderbird) from
    >>>> the mix because people will most definitely want to read their email.
    >>>> I use Thunderbird on multiple machines and have it installed so the
    >>>> mail-files/datastore is out on the network. So how would the BIOS
    >>>> mount the network drives? Where will it keep the "sent items" or any
    >>>> email that I receive. (Most people use POP not IMAP for accessing
    >>>> mail.)
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>> The BIOS wouldn't.

    >>
    >> I don't mean the BIOS directly - I mean the copy of Linux that's started
    >> by the BIOS.
    >>
    >>
    >>> The way this is done is likely with the linux installation using flash
    >>> memory that is on the motherboard run either by the main processor or a
    >>> secondary processor. So the Linux installation boots just like the
    >>> primary OS does, just a lot faster. You just tell the BIOS which it
    >>> should start.

    >>
    >> Let's just stick to the most-common single processor scenario for now.
    >>
    >>> Network access is no issue at all. I've personally worked on embedded
    >>> linux devices running on 32MB flash memory that have full network
    >>> access including SAMBA and NTFS shares. Support for local hard drives
    >>> along with the necessary file system support is no issue either.

    >>
    >> I've used tiny installs has well. The problem is that there's no
    >> X-server, limited hardware support and etc. If you're talking about
    >> embedding Firefox, Thunderbird and OO in flash memory then at today's
    >> prices it is going to get expensive quick. Flash drives aren't very
    >> cheap. (But the price is falling.) These apps combine to make a pretty
    >> large footprint. Not to mention all of the support libraries and things
    >> like an X-server that are needed to run Firefox or Open Office. (Last I
    >> checked OO needed Java - still true?)

    >
    > Actually there are installs where there is an X-Server. The system I work
    > with has an X-Server on it. However I don't actually use it for the
    > software I develop to run on it as the CPU is too slow for it to make
    > sense. I get far better results using direct frame buffer access without
    > X-Server. That however is a personal preference of mine.


    True but users are going to want more than a minimal X-server. If they are
    going to use Firefox, Thunderbird, OO, etc. then I think they'll be
    expecting a decent X-server and window manager.


    > As far as the flash memory goes, I don't really see the price as an
    > issue. Looking around on digikey, you can get 2 GB NAND flash memory
    > (same type as used in USB sticks) chips for less than $5 if you're
    > willing to buy at least 1,000 at a time. Motherboard manufacturers pay
    > even less than that.


    I was looking at this more as a solid-state disk where even a small (32G or
    64G) SSD will still run you several hundreds of dollars. I think that
    ideally it would be a combination of the two. Conventional USB sticks work
    well but are limited in the number of writes they can handle. I think that
    data that is primarily "read-only" can go on the flash memory but something
    else would need to be used for writes.

    I didn't add up the sizes but 2-Gigs might be enough. Some of these apps
    (OpenOffice, Firefox, etc) are hardly small light-weight clients. Often they
    want/demand several other libs and packages to be installed in order for
    them to work. If 2-Gigs doesn't cut it then 4-gigs most certainly would. I
    think the apps and libs they need could be stored in flash memory but
    something more durable would be needed for writes. Then again... there's
    nothing to prevent the kernel from creating a small RAM disk for swap,
    cookies and temporary files.


    >>
    >>
    >>> And I honestly have to say, I personally would love such a feature on
    >>> my motherboard. There are many times, particularly in the mornings
    >>> before I go to work where I only want to turn my system on to check
    >>> e-mail or something.

    >>
    >> That's why I have a laptop. Open up the lid, it comes out of "sleep
    >> mode" and is ready to use in far less than 30 seconds.

    >
    > I personally don't care much for laptops. I'm really picky about
    > keyboards, they have to be ergonomic (and I have yet to see a laptop with
    > an ergonomic keyboard) and Japanese as I use Direct Kana input for
    > Japanese writing. So in my case the feature makes more sense on a desktop.
    >
    > --
    > Stephan
    > 1986 Pontiac Fiero GT
    >
    > ???????????????
    > ?????????????




  8. Re: [News]Linux to Ship on More Desktops than Windows

    On Thu, 30 Oct 2008 16:02:27 -0400, Ezekiel wrote:

    > "Stephan Rose" wrote in message
    > news:wdmdnbJNQ_jVjZfUnZ2dnUVZ_rfinZ2d@giganews.com ...
    >> On Thu, 30 Oct 2008 15:27:31 -0400, Ezekiel wrote:
    >>
    >>> "Stephan Rose" wrote in message
    >>> news:wdmdnbNNQ_hOmJfUnZ2dnUVZ_rfinZ2d@giganews.com ...
    >>>> On Thu, 30 Oct 2008 14:07:19 -0400, Ezekiel wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> "Matt" wrote in message
    >>>>> news:JumOk.1575$Di1.859@newsfe13.iad...
    >>>>>> Robin T Cox wrote:
    >>>>>>> Linux to Ship on More Desktops than Windows
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> http://www.linux-foundation.org/webl...8/10/29/linux-

    to-
    >>>> ship-on-more-desktops-than-windows/
    >>>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/6a9v5w
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> October 29, 2008 | For those that decry the constant prediction of
    >>>>>>> the "year of the Linux
    >>>>>>> desktop" I am happy to say that next year Linux may actually ship
    >>>>>>> on more desktops than Windows or the Mac. That is right, I said
    >>>>>>> next year. What is
    >>>>>>> driving this? Two words: fast boot.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Matt Richtell of the New York Times wrote a great article on
    >>>>>>> Sunday about the demand for faster start up times on computers. In
    >>>>>>> the story the chronicled how HP, Dell, Lenovo, Asus and a array of
    >>>>>>> other PC makers are starting to develop "machines that give people
    >>>>>>> access to basic functions like e-mail and a Web browser in 30
    >>>>>>> seconds or less." Here is the interesting part: Linux is providing
    >>>>>>> that access.

    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>> Shocking that a real Linux bigshot (Jim Zemlin) is saying
    >>>>>> this---until you notice he is talking about Linux being built into
    >>>>>> the motherboard and that most people would likely still boot into
    >>>>>> Windows.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Whether it's Zemlin or somebody else everyone likes to talk and
    >>>>> talk. Generally "predictions" are a dime a dozen.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> But if they can make Linux and Windows access the same Firefox and
    >>>>>> Thunderbird and OpenOffice files so that people don't have to keep
    >>>>>> one set for Windows and a different set for Linux, then Windows may
    >>>>>> actually be in big trouble from this. People would be able to stay
    >>>>>> in Linux most of the time.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> What about permissions? Who's OpenOffice files do you plan on
    >>>>> opening from the BIOS. Is FF and OO run directly from the BIOS or
    >>>>> from the hard drive? Does this mean that the BIOS needs to know how
    >>>>> to mount various file systems? If you're going to include a
    >>>>> "browser" (FF) and "office suite" (OO) then you can't exclude email
    >>>>> (Thunderbird) from the mix because people will most definitely want
    >>>>> to read their email. I use Thunderbird on multiple machines and have
    >>>>> it installed so the mail-files/datastore is out on the network. So
    >>>>> how would the BIOS mount the network drives? Where will it keep the
    >>>>> "sent items" or any email that I receive. (Most people use POP not
    >>>>> IMAP for accessing mail.)
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>> The BIOS wouldn't.
    >>>
    >>> I don't mean the BIOS directly - I mean the copy of Linux that's
    >>> started by the BIOS.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>> The way this is done is likely with the linux installation using
    >>>> flash memory that is on the motherboard run either by the main
    >>>> processor or a secondary processor. So the Linux installation boots
    >>>> just like the primary OS does, just a lot faster. You just tell the
    >>>> BIOS which it should start.
    >>>
    >>> Let's just stick to the most-common single processor scenario for now.
    >>>
    >>>> Network access is no issue at all. I've personally worked on embedded
    >>>> linux devices running on 32MB flash memory that have full network
    >>>> access including SAMBA and NTFS shares. Support for local hard drives
    >>>> along with the necessary file system support is no issue either.
    >>>
    >>> I've used tiny installs has well. The problem is that there's no
    >>> X-server, limited hardware support and etc. If you're talking about
    >>> embedding Firefox, Thunderbird and OO in flash memory then at today's
    >>> prices it is going to get expensive quick. Flash drives aren't very
    >>> cheap. (But the price is falling.) These apps combine to make a pretty
    >>> large footprint. Not to mention all of the support libraries and
    >>> things like an X-server that are needed to run Firefox or Open Office.
    >>> (Last I checked OO needed Java - still true?)

    >>
    >> Actually there are installs where there is an X-Server. The system I
    >> work with has an X-Server on it. However I don't actually use it for
    >> the software I develop to run on it as the CPU is too slow for it to
    >> make sense. I get far better results using direct frame buffer access
    >> without X-Server. That however is a personal preference of mine.

    >
    > True but users are going to want more than a minimal X-server. If they
    > are going to use Firefox, Thunderbird, OO, etc. then I think they'll be
    > expecting a decent X-server and window manager.


    If you have enough CPU power and storage space to handle Firefox,
    Thunderbird and OO then providing a full X server with window manager
    shouldn't really be an issue.

    >
    >
    >> As far as the flash memory goes, I don't really see the price as an
    >> issue. Looking around on digikey, you can get 2 GB NAND flash memory
    >> (same type as used in USB sticks) chips for less than $5 if you're
    >> willing to buy at least 1,000 at a time. Motherboard manufacturers pay
    >> even less than that.

    >
    > I was looking at this more as a solid-state disk where even a small (32G
    > or 64G) SSD will still run you several hundreds of dollars. I think that
    > ideally it would be a combination of the two. Conventional USB sticks
    > work well but are limited in the number of writes they can handle. I
    > think that data that is primarily "read-only" can go on the flash memory
    > but something else would need to be used for writes.
    >
    > I didn't add up the sizes but 2-Gigs might be enough. Some of these apps
    > (OpenOffice, Firefox, etc) are hardly small light-weight clients. Often
    > they want/demand several other libs and packages to be installed in
    > order for them to work. If 2-Gigs doesn't cut it then 4-gigs most
    > certainly would. I think the apps and libs they need could be stored in
    > flash memory but something more durable would be needed for writes. Then
    > again... there's nothing to prevent the kernel from creating a small RAM
    > disk for swap, cookies and temporary files.


    Sure, when you get into the 32-64gig SSD ranges things get pricey.
    However, that isn't really necessary here. Really, all you need is a
    small 2-4 gig storage space that is read-only. As you say, RAM can be
    used for temporary file storage and anything that needs to be stored
    permanently can be stored on the computers local hard drive. The only
    thing that should ever be stored permanently anyway should be files the
    user wants to keep and those have to be accessible from the primary
    system OS as well. Therefore, they really should be on the system hard
    drive. Just map the drive and let the user save their documents there.

    That would also make it a really good tool for troubleshooting a broken
    system or rescuing data from a bad hard drive.

    --
    Stephan
    1986 Pontiac Fiero GT

    君の事思い出す日なんてないのは
    君の事忘れたときがないから

  9. Re: [News]Linux to Ship on More Desktops than Windows

    Matt wrote:
    > Robin T Cox wrote:
    >> Linux to Ship on More Desktops than Windows
    >>
    >> http://www.linux-foundation.org/webl...-than-windows/
    >>
    >> http://tinyurl.com/6a9v5w
    >>
    >>
    >> October 29, 2008 |
    >> For those that decry the constant prediction of the “year of the Linux
    >> desktop” I am happy to say that next year Linux may actually ship on more
    >> desktops than Windows or the Mac. That is right, I said next year.
    >> What is
    >> driving this? Two words: fast boot.
    >>
    >> Matt Richtell of the New York Times wrote a great article on Sunday about
    >> the demand for faster start up times on computers. In the story the
    >> chronicled how HP, Dell, Lenovo, Asus and a array of other PC makers are
    >> starting to develop “machines that give people access to basic functions
    >> like e-mail and a Web browser in 30 seconds or less.” Here is the
    >> interesting part: Linux is providing that access.
    >>

    >>

    >
    >
    > Shocking that a real Linux bigshot (Jim Zemlin) is saying this---until
    > you notice he is talking about Linux being built into the motherboard
    > and that most people would likely still boot into Windows.
    >
    > But if they can make Linux and Windows access the same Firefox and
    > Thunderbird and OpenOffice files so that people don't have to keep one
    > set for Windows and a different set for Linux, then Windows may actually
    > be in big trouble from this. People would be able to stay in Linux most
    > of the time.
    >
    > I haven't tried to mount an NTFS partition from Linux lately. Is it
    > standard to mount NTFS partitions read/write nowadays? I guess that
    > would be sufficient for the shared access I mention above to come true.
    >
    > Trying to think of how MS could throw a wrench into this ...

    My laptop is partitioned, from the factory, and 8.04 recognized my other
    160GB NTFS partition NO PROBLEM. I ust had to give it a root password
    and I was off.

    --
    ________
    David M Lemcoe Jr.
    ender@ender.ath.cx
    Roswell, Georgia
    Running Ubuntu 8.0.4.1 "Hardy Heron"

  10. Re: [News]Linux to Ship on More Desktops than Windows

    In article ,
    Matt wrote:
    >
    > Trying to think of how MS could throw a wrench into this ...


    Use (yet another) proprietary filesystem by default.

    Refuse to mount the disk if it's been modified behind Windows' back.

    Detect if it's running in a VM (apps from VMware do it, so it must not
    be a perfect VM) and refuse to boot.

    Overwrite non-MS bootloaders.

    --
    -eben QebWenE01R@vTerYizUonI.nOetP royalty.mine.nu:81

    This message was created using recycled electrons.

  11. Re: [News]Linux to Ship on More Desktops than Windows

    How in the world could having Linux in flash or any other
    kind of memory as the BIOS instead of some other BIOS
    have any significant effect on how fast WINDOWS boots from disk?

    --
    Wes Groleau

    Obama and McCain on Education
    http://Ideas.Lang-Learn.us/russell?itemid=549

  12. Re: [News]Linux to Ship on More Desktops than Windows

    On Thu, 30 Oct 2008 17:11:47 -0400, Wes Groleau wrote:

    > How in the world could having Linux in flash or any other
    > kind of memory as the BIOS instead of some other BIOS
    > have any significant effect on how fast WINDOWS boots from disk?


    These Linux yahoo's actually think that people are going to run Linux and
    never have the need to boot Windows.

    Yea, that's what they think......

    Prediction: This model of *engineering* will be the next Playtape.....
    Never heard of a PlayTape?
    Exactly.....




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

  13. Re: [News]Linux to Ship on More Desktops than Windows

    Matt wrote:

    > But if they can make Linux and Windows access the same Firefox and
    > Thunderbird and OpenOffice files so that people don't have to keep one
    > set for Windows and a different set for Linux, then Windows may actually
    > be in big trouble from this. People would be able to stay in Linux most
    > of the time.


    Windows /is/ in serious trouble, and has been for some while.

    > I haven't tried to mount an NTFS partition from Linux lately. Is it
    > standard to mount NTFS partitions read/write nowadays? I guess that
    > would be sufficient for the shared access I mention above to come true.


    NTFS read / write has been stable for a good while.

    > Trying to think of how MS could throw a wrench into this ...


    You can be sure that sooner or later they'll alter NTFS /just/ /enough/ to
    break compatibility...

    C.


  14. Re: [News]Linux to Ship on More Desktops than Windows

    Stephan Rose wrote:

    >
    > Sure, when you get into the 32-64gig SSD ranges things get pricey.


    >

    So $59.95 is pricey? Maybe the economy REALLY IS depressed!
    http://www.buy.com/retail/product.as...70&dcaid=17070


  15. Re: [News]Linux to Ship on More Desktops than Windows

    Ezekiel wrote:

    > I was looking at this more as a solid-state disk where even a small (32G or
    > 64G) SSD will still run you several hundreds of dollars.


    You're some way behind the times. My company has just bought a supply of 32
    Gb SSDs for a project, and paid <$60 US for each. The prices are falling
    rapidly, as more of them are being made for these sub-laptops and PDAs.

    C.

  16. Re: [News]Linux to Ship on More Desktops than Windows


    "User" wrote in message
    news:C-KdnRbxE74u-ZfUnZ2dnUVZ_qninZ2d@trueband.net...
    > Stephan Rose wrote:
    >
    >>
    >> Sure, when you get into the 32-64gig SSD ranges things get pricey.

    >
    >>

    > So $59.95 is pricey? Maybe the economy REALLY IS depressed!
    > http://www.buy.com/retail/product.as...70&dcaid=17070
    >


    That's a /flash drive/ and NOT a solid-state disk. These are solid state
    disks... there *IS* a difference.

    http://www.newegg.com/Store/SubCateg...id-State-Disks




+ Reply to Thread