Searching \ for '{Spam?} Re: [OT] Dell Linux Desktop -- poor sales' in subject line. ()
Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure! Help us get a faster server
FAQ page: www.piclist.com/techref/index.htm?key=dell+linux+desktop
Search entire site for: '{Spam?} Re: [OT] Dell Linux Desktop -- poor sales'.

Truncated match.
PICList Thread
'{Spam?} Re: [OT] Dell Linux Desktop -- poor sales'
2007\12\04@074334 by Byron Jeff

flavicon
face
On Mon, Dec 03, 2007 at 07:28:35PM -0600, Matt Pobursky wrote:
> On Mon, 03 Dec 2007 17:54:28 -0700, Nate Duehr wrote:
> > Matt Pobursky wrote:
> >
> >> new computer -- buy another copy". That made me mad and forever turned
> >> me off to Windows authentication. Considering that I build my own
> >> systems and
> >>
> >
> > Just stop that sentence at the word Windows, and you'll have the right
> > idea.  :-)
>
> Unlike a lot of people, I am not a "Windows hater". I quite like Windows
> 2000, it's really stable and allows me to get my work done. I have serious
> problems with WinXP and Vista, mostly related to Microsoft business
> practices but in Vista's case the OS itself (and the design decisions
> made).

You sound just about as preturbed with Microsoft as most of the Windows
haters.

> If there were *any* alternative that allowed me to do my work in a similar
> manner I am doing it now I would jump all over it (or at least seriously
> consider it). Sadly I find the only two real contenders (Linux and Mac)
> sadly lacking with toolsets equivalent to the ones I'm using with Windows
> now. I hope that changes.

It won't. It's unfortunate. But it won't.

> I have such a huge investment in Windows
> development tool and CAD software I'm not sure how or when a cost effective
> crossover will occur (or if it's even possible in my working lifetime).

And that inertia is the primary reason why. With the vast majority of the
industry invested in Windows, they simply cannot afford to switch.
Companies cannot afford to invest effort into a market that will yield less
than 10% of customers.

But it gets even worse. Because of support issues, companies won't even
help developers who wish to help out. Microchip is trying. Witness the
release of code to drive the pickit2 for example.

It's like an ant trying to take on an elephant. If you only have a few,
you're never going to succeed. It's going to take the collective will of
millions of users pressuring millions of companies to make a difference.

I haven't seen that will. The critical mass isn't sufficient yet.

BTW you should consider virtualization while trying to transistion. Tools
like VMware will allow you to carry Win2000 with you, while Wine and its
admittedly hit and miss nature, facilitates bringing over Windows
applications without the OS.

But in the end as long as everyone sits tight, change will never occur.

BAJ
>
> Sigh. It's kind of depressing to think about.

I'm not depressed. I simply made a committment a long time ago, in the
Windows 3.1 days, that whatever it took, I wouldn't depend on Windows based
apps. I haven't run MPLAB in a dozen years for example, since the DOS days.

But like I said, I simply don't think that the critical mass of frankly
slavish devotion to the cause necessary for mass change to occur. I think
for it to happen that Microsoft will have to do something to shock the
world into considering alternatives. I've always believed that it would be
true effective application DRM so that applications are bound to a machine
and cannot be copied. They've tried this a couple of times and backed off
due to user complaints. However, I think to support their shareholders
eventually they are going to throw it on the wall and make it stick.

Then it'll become interesting.

BAJ

2007\12\04@095918 by Xiaofan Chen

face picon face
On Dec 4, 2007 8:21 PM, Byron Jeff <spam_OUTbyronjeffTakeThisOuTspamclayton.edu> wrote:
> > If there were *any* alternative that allowed me to do my work in a similar
> > manner I am doing it now I would jump all over it (or at least seriously
> > consider it). Sadly I find the only two real contenders (Linux and Mac)
> > sadly lacking with toolsets equivalent to the ones I'm using with Windows
> > now. I hope that changes.
>
> It won't. It's unfortunate. But it won't.
>
> > I have such a huge investment in Windows
> > development tool and CAD software I'm not sure how or when a cost effective
> > crossover will occur (or if it's even possible in my working lifetime).
>
> And that inertia is the primary reason why. With the vast majority of the
> industry invested in Windows, they simply cannot afford to switch.
> Companies cannot afford to invest effort into a market that will yield less
> than 10% of customers.
>

Inertia is a main reason. The other reason from my point of view is that
it is very hard for small ISVs (which produces lower cost software, shareware
or freeware under Windows) to earn money either using the open source
model or not using the open source model.

With open source model, the software offering needs to be pretty
complicated (to earn money by support) or very popular (to earn
money by Google ad-sense or something else).

Without using open source model, the software needs to be good
enough to beat the free alternatives by a lot to have some people
to buy it. It is not easy for small ISVs and the majority of those who
use Linux or open source OSes do not want to buy software.

Therefore it seems only relatively big companies can
earn money from Linux.

And the fact many windows software are developed using
Microsoft tools and GUI framework (not portable) is another
issue. If QT/GTK+ or other platforms are used, it is easier for
the small ISVs to come out a Linux version (almost free).
I think Mono/Wine are a good thing even though some
people have strong reservations.

Xiaofan

2007\12\04@153502 by peter green

flavicon
face

> And the fact many windows software are developed using
> Microsoft tools and GUI framework (not portable) is another
> issue. If QT/GTK+ or other platforms are used, it is easier for
> the small ISVs to come out a Linux version (almost free).
>  
But it also means thier windows version will look and feel out of place
compared to applications that use the native windows toolkit.

2007\12\04@164924 by Matt Pobursky

flavicon
face
On Tue, 04 Dec 2007 20:34:15 +0000, peter green wrote:
>
>> And the fact many windows software are developed using Microsoft tools
>> and GUI framework (not portable) is another issue. If QT/GTK+ or other
>> platforms are used, it is easier for the small ISVs to come out a Linux
>> version (almost free).
>>
> But it also means thier windows version will look and feel out of place
> compared to applications that use the native windows toolkit.

Not necessarily. Here's an example of one forward thinking development tool
vendor that has a common IDE across all target platforms and was written to
be cross-platform. It doesn't feel out of place at all in Windows.

http://www.rowley.co.uk/tour/index.htm
http://www.rowley.co.uk/tour/bugs.png

BTW, we use a couple of their toolsets (ARM, AVR) and they are probably the
best development tools I've ever used at any price. We may switch to their
MSP430 tools also.

Matt Pobursky
Maximum Performance Systems

2007\12\04@205228 by Jake Anderson

flavicon
face
peter green wrote:
>> And the fact many windows software are developed using
>> Microsoft tools and GUI framework (not portable) is another
>> issue. If QT/GTK+ or other platforms are used, it is easier for
>> the small ISVs to come out a Linux version (almost free).
>>  
>>    
> But it also means thier windows version will look and feel out of place
> compared to applications that use the native windows toolkit.
>
>  
use wxwidgets then, it uses native widgets on all platforms it can and
emulates on those it cant.
same gui works on windows, ubuntu(gnome) and OS-X

More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2007 , 2008 only
- Today
- New search...