On Tue, 2006-26-12 at 12:48 -0600, Wes Morgan wrote:
> Most of you have probably seen ESR's recently-slashdotted essay about
> what Linux needs to do to conquer the desktop computing world by the
> end of 2008 (and why we need to do it by then--hint: because of the
> 32-to-64-bit transition). If no
Scott J. Henson wrote:
> Maybe an Ubuntu "Preferred Hardware" list
> needs to be created that lists hardware in certain areas
> that Ubuntu recommends because it has vendor supported, open
> source drivers.
i'll second that.
maybe also a 'works with ubuntu' logo that hardware vendors could us
Andrew Jorgensen wrote:
>> Here are the "what it will take win" points from the essay:
>>
>> 1. Drivers for all major existing hardware.
>> ...
>
> Unfortunately what we need is not drivers for all major existing
> hardware but drivers for all major hardware soon to exist. We're
> always
On 12/28/06, Wes Morgan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Eric and Rob's point there was that whichever 64-bit desktop takes the
> crown, one of the reasons will be because it had 64-bit drivers for all the
> existing hardware out there. Linux actually has an advantage over Windows in
> this regard sinc
Eric and Rob's point there was that whichever 64-bit desktop takes the
crown, one of the reasons will be because it had 64-bit drivers for all the
existing hardware out there. Linux actually has an advantage over Windows in
this regard since we have the source code to lots of drivers, whereas MS
d
> Here are the "what it will take win" points from the essay:
>
> 1. Drivers for all major existing hardware.
> ...
Unfortunately what we need is not drivers for all major existing
hardware but drivers for all major hardware soon to exist. We're
always one step behind (or several) in this
Below is the response from Rob Landley on the Vista 64 issue:
I'll format it in interview fashion so it's clear who's saying what.
Wes: In your essay, you assert that Windows-64 doesn't exist and that MS
still needs to provide an OS to fill the 64-bit desktop demand by 2008.
However, you don't r
Op woensdag 27-12-2006 om 07:14 uur [tijdzone +0100], schreef mikecorn:
> Linux Problems
> - too many bugs and rough edges in applications
> - error messages are hidden in log files, incomprehensible, or do not
> exist
> - technical and user docs are often missing, erroneous, or outdated
> - docs a
If you are going to continue this thread, could you please do so on
sounder instead devel-discuss? This sort of discussion really isn't
appropriate or relevant for devel-discuss.
Thank you,
Constantine Evans
Wes Morgan wrote:
> Most of you have probably seen ESR's recently-slashdotted essay about
Op woensdag 27-12-2006 om 04:02 uur [tijdzone -0600], schreef Conrad
Knauer:
> On 12/27/06, Wes Morgan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > With out-of-the-box Wine and Codex support,
> > it would be well-poised to become [...] dominant on the desktop
>
> (Just a nitpick, its "codecs"; a codex is a book
Op woensdag 27-12-2006 om 11:20 uur [tijdzone -0600], schreef Wes
Morgan:
> You know, after doing a little digging, I think ESR may be smoking the
> cheeb on one of his points here. He claims that Vista is still a
> 32-bit OS. Upon first reading of the essay, I took his word for it. I
> figured tha
You know, after doing a little digging, I think ESR may be smoking the cheeb
on one of his points here. He claims that Vista is still a 32-bit OS. Upon
first reading of the essay, I took his word for it. I figured that, like
Windows 95 wasn't _really_ a 32-bit OS, neither was the "64-bit" version
On 12/27/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 12/27/06, Wes Morgan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> With out-of-the-box Wine and Codex support,
> it would be well-poised to become [...] dominant on the desktop
(Just a nitpick, its "codecs"; a codex is a book
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex). CODEC is
I don't disagree with your reasoned points.
Perhaps all I advocate is a change in priorities: PC vendors will not
pre-load Linux until it is better standardized and supportable.
Therefore bellyaching about lack of pre-loads is pointless. The same
point can be made about lack of hardware suppo
On 12/27/06, Wes Morgan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> With out-of-the-box Wine and Codex support,
> it would be well-poised to become [...] dominant on the desktop
(Just a nitpick, its "codecs"; a codex is a book
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex). CODEC is a shortened version of
COmpressor-DEC
Thanks for the grins and for clarifying Mark's "LSD" support.
Mark was not very convincing:
<<
In fact, every distro ALWAYS modifies elements of the core, and with
good reason. And while we would love that not to be the case, the truth
is that the reasons to specialize outweigh the benefits of
You're not necessarily wrong (in fact, I agree with you on many of your
points). But, we need to take advantage of this 32-to-64-bit transition
window when and while we can. And the fact of the matter is, many of these
problems are as bad if not worse in the Windows world, and those that remain
ar
On 12/27/06, mikecorn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> - the LSD project
*GRIN* (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LSD)
Please see the LUG meeting image on
http://distrowatch.com/dwres.php?resource=review-winvista
;)
> is an attempt to create some useful standards and
> cross-platform tools, but Mark S
The 5 points are OK but there are deeper problems with Linux that need
to be solved first. Ubuntu is the best Linux, but is not doing anything
to fix the real issues, IMO.
This is a (short) rant about what is wrong with Linux, so if you are
sick of reading about this you can just delete it now.
Most of you have probably seen ESR's recently-slashdotted essay about
what Linux needs to do to conquer the desktop computing world by the
end of 2008 (and why we need to do it by then--hint: because of the
32-to-64-bit transition). If not, you can read it here:
http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/wo
20 matches
Mail list logo
