Prominent Linux desktop developer: "No one wants a new desktop"
Ramon F Herrera
"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
Moshe Goldfarb.
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/
Ezekiel
"Ramon F Herrera" <ra...@conexus.net> wrote in message
news:95d0b2c4-a099-45fc...@f63g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
You left out the best parts of the article and took your original quote out
of context:
<quote>
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.
</quote>
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
Moshe Goldfarb.
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.
Rick
> On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 12:11:02 -0400, Ezekiel wrote:
>
>> "Ramon F Herrera" <ra...@conexus.net> wrote in message
>> news:95d0b2c4-a099-45fc-
a39c-48e...@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:
>>
>> <quote>
>> 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.
>> </quote>
>
> 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
Lurky
"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.
Mark Kent
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! |
Linonut
> Ramon F Herrera <ra...@conexus.net> 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)
Mark Kent
> * Mark Kent peremptorily fired off this memo:
>
>> Ramon F Herrera <ra...@conexus.net> 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.
Linonut
>> 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
Homer
> * 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?
--
K.
http://slated.org
.----
| "Stallman has frequently pointed out, Free Software is by no means
| antithetical to making money: it's just a question of how you make
| money." ~ Glyn Moody: http://tinyurl.com/4wn2l2 (ComputerworldUK)
`----
Fedora release 8 (Werewolf) on sky, running kernel 2.6.23.8-63.fc8
21:00:28 up 176 days, 17:36, 1 user, load average: 0.06, 0.14, 0.12
Homer
> Well, I will keep using my fast and capacious Linux desktops as long
> as possible.
Dead, I tell you.
:)
--
K.
http://slated.org
.----
| "Stallman has frequently pointed out, Free Software is by no means
| antithetical to making money: it's just a question of how you make
| money." ~ Glyn Moody: http://tinyurl.com/4wn2l2 (ComputerworldUK)
`----
Fedora release 8 (Werewolf) on sky, running kernel 2.6.23.8-63.fc8
21:01:59 up 176 days, 17:37, 1 user, load average: 0.19, 0.17, 0.13
Mitch
the "To," "Cc," and "Newsgroups" headers for details. ]]
In article <mi8di5-...@ellandroad.demon.co.uk>, Mark Kent
<mark...@demon.co.uk> 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!).
Mark Kent
> * 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 Kent
> 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 Kent
> [[ This message was both posted and mailed: see
> the "To," "Cc," and "Newsgroups" headers for details. ]]
>
> In article <mi8di5-...@ellandroad.demon.co.uk>, Mark Kent
><mark...@demon.co.uk> 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.
Linonut
> Linonut <lin...@bollsouth.nut> 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
Ezekiel
"Mark Kent" <mark...@demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:poqdi5-...@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.
Mark Kent
> * Mark Kent peremptorily fired off this memo:
>
>> Linonut <lin...@bollsouth.nut> 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?
chrisv
><mark...@demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> The desktop is dead, it's all over.
Why does this guy keep spewing this idiocy?
Linonut
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]
Hadron
> * chrisv peremptorily fired off this memo:
>
>>>In article <mi8di5-...@ellandroad.demon.co.uk>, Mark Kent
>>><mark...@demon.co.uk> 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 <grin>"
-- Liarnut in comp.os.linux.advocacy
Mark Kent
> * chrisv peremptorily fired off this memo:
>
>>>In article <mi8di5-...@ellandroad.demon.co.uk>, Mark Kent
>>><mark...@demon.co.uk> 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.
No need to do that, rather, consider the 3-technology problem. Anyone
uses phrases like "spewing idiocy" is clearly more than a little scared
of change, but it comes to all of us.
>
> Most people probably still have a desktop or a laptop they use as a
> desktop for dealing with pictures, email, some word-processing.
Actually, not true. Most *households* have a computer, most *people*
have a mobile device. The ratio is massively in favour of mobility.
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.
>
> But it wouldn't surprise me if most people access most of their data
> using small hand-held devices these days.
This issue is about technology direction, and you're right, people are
using mobile devices, so that's what they're spending money on.
>
> 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 about the 3-technology problem. We have 1980s-style desktops which
are mostly being consolidated onto 1990s style laptops, and then we have
2000s ultra-mobile devices which are selling in huge numbers, showing
massive growth. Apple have tried to bridge the gap with the lightweight
laptop (airbook?), but the real growth is in Asus Eee, Nokia 800/810,
Elonex, etc. etc. Desktop sales are dismal, and even laptop sales have
ground more or less to a halt.
The opportunity is fantastic for Linux to grab the consolidation of
desktop onto laptop, and equally, Linux is playing well in the innovation
space on the ultra-lightweight stuff.
Hardly anyone I know uses a "desktop" in work any more, pretty much
everyone is on their 3rd or 4th laptop now.
The other big user of desktops, after home (onto mobility) and business
(also onto mobility) is gamers. But, the amazing success of Wii and
PS2/3, coupled with the disaster which is Windows Vista, has meant near
total stagnation in the PC games market. The growth is in, well, PS3/2
and Wii.
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.
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?
Linonut
> 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
Hadron
> * 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.
chrisv
>>
>> 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".
Tim Smith
Linonut <lin...@bollsouth.nut> 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
Hadron
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
Moshe Goldfarb.
> Linonut <lin...@bollsouth.nut> espoused:
>> * chrisv peremptorily fired off this memo:
>>
>>>>In article <mi8di5-...@ellandroad.demon.co.uk>, Mark Kent
>>>><mark...@demon.co.uk> 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.
>
> No need to do that, rather, consider the 3-technology problem. Anyone
> uses phrases like "spewing idiocy" is clearly more than a little scared
> of change, but it comes to all of us.
Scared of what?
Are you that stupid Kent?
Let's suppose you are correct, what's the big deal?
Why would anyone be scared?
Most people own both types of devices anyway.
>>
>> Most people probably still have a desktop or a laptop they use as a
>> desktop for dealing with pictures, email, some word-processing.
>
> Actually, not true. Most *households* have a computer, most *people*
> have a mobile device. The ratio is massively in favour of mobility.
Try using the typical mobility device to say troll COLA and see how long
your fingers and your eyeballs last.
> 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.
Roy Schestowitz lives in a slum.
So?
Does he have running water?
No wonder he has to sponge off of your ISP.
>>
>> But it wouldn't surprise me if most people access most of their data
>> using small hand-held devices these days.
>
> This issue is about technology direction, and you're right, people are
> using mobile devices, so that's what they're spending money on.
>
>>
>> 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 about the 3-technology problem. We have 1980s-style desktops which
> are mostly being consolidated onto 1990s style laptops, and then we have
> 2000s ultra-mobile devices which are selling in huge numbers, showing
> massive growth. Apple have tried to bridge the gap with the lightweight
> laptop (airbook?), but the real growth is in Asus Eee, Nokia 800/810,
> Elonex, etc. etc. Desktop sales are dismal, and even laptop sales have
> ground more or less to a halt.
Are you crazy?
Laptop sales are increasing, but desktop sales are very brisk.
Just ask Dell.
Anything Linux is just about dead though.
> The opportunity is fantastic for Linux to grab the consolidation of
> desktop onto laptop, and equally, Linux is playing well in the innovation
> space on the ultra-lightweight stuff.
The problem is nobody seems to be buying.
And even if they do buy, they tend to wipe it and run Windows.
See the Eee for example.
> Hardly anyone I know uses a "desktop" in work any more, pretty much
> everyone is on their 3rd or 4th laptop now.
Here in the USA it depends.
The companies are making their workforce mobile which lets them cut back on
office space and save money.
However these very same people generally have several desktop systems at
home as well.
> The other big user of desktops, after home (onto mobility) and business
> (also onto mobility) is gamers. But, the amazing success of Wii and
> PS2/3, coupled with the disaster which is Windows Vista, has meant near
> total stagnation in the PC games market. The growth is in, well, PS3/2
> and Wii.
I suggest you spend a little time over on Toms Hardware or one of the hard
core gamer sights and re-think that last one.
> 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.
I disagree.
> 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?
I dunno.
You say some very odd things.
Mark Kent
> * 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...
DFS
> 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?
Moshe Goldfarb.
That's sad......
cc
> Linonut <lino...@bollsouth.nut> espoused:
When Mark Kent says sell, you'd be wise to buy.
Linonut
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)
Linonut
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
Mark Kent
> * Tim Smith peremptorily fired off this memo:
>
>> In article <_oS5k.9465$s77...@bignews3.bellsouth.net>,
>> Linonut <lin...@bollsouth.nut> 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.
Ezekiel
"chrisv" <chr...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:kjtf545udj7r0ffft...@4ax.com...
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.
Ezekiel
> Linonut <lin...@bollsouth.nut> espoused:
>> * chrisv peremptorily fired off this memo:
>>
>>>>In article <mi8di5-...@ellandroad.demon.co.uk>, Mark Kent
>>>><mark...@demon.co.uk> 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.
>
> No need to do that, rather, consider the 3-technology problem. Anyone
> uses phrases like "spewing idiocy" is clearly more than a little scared
> of change, but it comes to all of us.
Anyone using phrases like "the desktop is dead" is certainly more than a
little scared and is spewing idiocy.
>>
>> Most people probably still have a desktop or a laptop they use as a
>> desktop for dealing with pictures, email, some word-processing.
>
> Actually, not true. Most *households* have a computer, most *people*
> have a mobile device. The ratio is massively in favour of mobility.
Most people have a cell phone. A much smaller number have a PDA or MP3
player. None of these are adequate for much beyond simple email and text
messaging. Good luck using your cell phone or PDA to file your taxes or buy
something on eBay.
> 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.
That's nice. But you and your little village is hardly the rest of the
world.
>>
>> But it wouldn't surprise me if most people access most of their data
>> using small hand-held devices these days.
>
> This issue is about technology direction, and you're right, people are
> using mobile devices, so that's what they're spending money on.
And they use those little mobile devices to check email and sports scores.
Not for general purpose computing.
>>
>> 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.
Unfortunately for you the rest of the world and sales figures show
otherwise. But you have the right to make all the wrong predictions you
want. Just don't expect anyone to take you seriously.
> It's about the 3-technology problem. We have 1980s-style desktops which
> are mostly being consolidated onto 1990s style laptops, and then we have
> 2000s ultra-mobile devices which are selling in huge numbers, showing
> massive growth. Apple have tried to bridge the gap with the lightweight
> laptop (airbook?), but the real growth is in Asus Eee, Nokia 800/810,
> Elonex, etc. etc. Desktop sales are dismal, and even laptop sales have
> ground more or less to a halt.
Yawn.... Desktop and laptop sales are *NOT* dismal. Don't let actual facts
and actual sales figures get in the way of your personal ridiculous theory.
> The opportunity is fantastic for Linux to grab the consolidation of
> desktop onto laptop, and equally, Linux is playing well in the innovation
> space on the ultra-lightweight stuff.
Linux has had this "fantastic opportunity" for about the last 10-15 years.
And other than microwave ovens and servers it's nowhere to be found.
> Hardly anyone I know uses a "desktop" in work any more, pretty much
> everyone is on their 3rd or 4th laptop now.
Again... *you* are not the world. What you see in your limited little view
of the world is of no consequence.
> The other big user of desktops, after home (onto mobility) and business
> (also onto mobility) is gamers. But, the amazing success of Wii and
> PS2/3, coupled with the disaster which is Windows Vista, has meant near
> total stagnation in the PC games market. The growth is in, well, PS3/2
> and Wii.
Nonsense. Just because someone buys a Wii for gaming is completely
orthogonal to the fact that the desktop is alive or dead. Let me know when a
significant (> 1%) number of people start using the Wii for something even
as rudimentary as web surfing.
> 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.
Why would anyone blame you? You are simply a hypocrite that by day is a
Microsoft business partner who sells closed source propreitary software.
> 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.
And because you have some ridiculous theory with nothing substantitive to
back it up doesn't meant that desktops will not be economically significant
in 10 years.
> The period between now and then is the period over which we watch the
> market in desktops collapse.
Just like the market for Windows has collapsed in the past 15 years since
linux was released?
> Clearly, they'll not all disappear overnight,
Brilliant deduction. Did you figure this out all on your own?
> that would be a ridiculous claim,
Not nearly as ridiculous as claiming that the desktop is dead.
> but I doubt anyone here
> would be daft enough to interpret my remarks in that way, would they?
Nobody else here is nearly as stupid as you. Other than High Plains Rafael
and Rick.