Board index » kylix » Linux on the desktop *not* imminent

2004-01-08 11:27:26 PM
kylix1
"pNichols" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
"The adoption of Linux as a Windows desktop alternative is not imminent ..."
SD Times, Jan 1, 2004 by Andrew Binstock, principal analyst at Pacific Data
Works LLC, a company that specializes in technology assessments and market
analyses for the high-tech industry.
 

terribly profitable [for RedHat]"
So the IT suppliers might not be interested. This move is driven by the
customers.
-Michael
 

"Michael Schnell" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
interested either.
Maybe government. Government has a long history of poor decision-making
when it comes to IT.
 

{smallsort}

If i understand you, this meaning that use linux in desktop is sooo bad
decision?
 

"mamcx" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
If you are running a business and you expect to have lots of commercial
quality desktop software to choose from, Linux might not be your best
choice.
For example, I've been unable to find a good US payroll system for Linux.
Dozens are available for Windows with varying price tags and capabilities to
fit almost any need.
 

JQP wrote:
to enter a recession which has already being going on for a year.
B
--
www.mailtrap.org.uk/
 

"Bob { Goddard }" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in
message news:btk8ca$85irv$ XXXX@XXXXX.COM ...
This newsgroup and the product it represents are a testament to their
abilities. You'd think that at some point they'd develop some humility but
they're still here, still plying their trade as fervently as ever.
 

Ah.....
For that reason i want to build system like that because i know that the
potential clients wait for them...For that reason the dark about
delphi/kylyk drive me crazy :(
 

JQP wrote:
commercial software for linux, when he needs to build against a number
of versions of libc and other libraries used?
From customer's point of view -- I am trying to install a binary of
some application and this binary requires libraries A (version 2.5+),
library B (version not higher than 3.0) and library C (which is supposed
to be in most recent version, but that version is unstable and will
crash another application I use). Even if I am a smart user with
knowledge of A, B and C, most likely I will give up.
--
Eugene Mayevski
EldoS Corp., CTO
Security and networking solutions
www.eldos.com
 

Eugene Mayevski [SecureBlackbox] wrote:
Ho, Windows 95 of course... But Windows is Windows no ?
Download Mozilla, any version on any recent linux (>RH 6.2, Suse 6.x, MDK
6.x), it simply work !
Download OpenOffice, it work.
And, oh, when was the last time you have compiled java from source ?
Oh, yes, java can't run on Linux, it's binary only ...
JQP know nothing about Linux, the same for you.
Borland is unable to write descent software on Linux (and don't tell me that
Kylix is far more complexe that Mozilla or OpenOffice or java) but others
can and do.
 

Eugene Mayevski [SecureBlackbox] wrote:
 

"Eugene Mayevski [SecureBlackbox]" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
user to do his own build.
 

M>I try to install MS SQL Server 2000 on Windows, i can't, so i will
M>give up.
M>Ho, Windows 95 of course... But Windows is Windows no ?
No. Windows is W'NT/2K/XP. However, did you read system requirements for MS
SQL Server 2000?
M>Download Mozilla, any version on any recent linux (>RH 6.2, Suse
M>6.x, MDK 6.x), it simply work!
M>Download OpenOffice, it work.
M>And, oh, when was the last time you have compiled java from source?
I'm don't use java right now, but last time i compiled Qt. 7 hours.
M>Oh, yes, java can't run on Linux, it's binary only ...
M>JQP know nothing about Linux, the same for you.
M>Borland is unable to write descent software on Linux (and don't tell
M>me that
M>Kylix is far more complexe that Mozilla or OpenOffice or java) but
M>others can and do.
Borland able to write, but they wont. They stated that several times.
 

JQP wrote:
to run more than a browser and perhaps a word processor?
Microsoft have created the impression that everybody needs
everything, but for a call centre like operation, the last
thing you want on the operator terminals is 'Office'. An old
browser on Linux does the job fine.
Nowadays do we need two dozen versions of Package X? Finding
markets for products is difficult so I am finding that the
only way to earn a crust is to provide support against what
is currently available and Linux/Open Office is available at
the right price ;)
--
Lester Caine
-----------------------------
L.S.Caine Electronic Services
 

JQP wrote:
I guess you have never done dynamic linking in your life!!
Do you even know what an obj file is? Guess what, it is not source code.
Have you ever done a conditional build? Do you know what Make files do?
Yes, you can use a Make file to build and link source code, but you can also
use a make to link in libraries in/to obj files and use conditional
compiles. The advantages are you are doing linking on modules and can use
conditional switches to adjust to the hardware you are compiling on.
This is a common procedure in the non MS world. Get out of an IDE sometimes.
You can do the same on Windows, with C++,or Delphi. <G>.
In addition, rpms can also be used to make a build using the conditonal make
files or they can be delivered statically linked. This too, is common.
I will certainly agree that many have, in the Linux world, not taken the
time, nor the thought, to provide adequate packaging and installation
instructions, but that has and is changing.
So, suppose that I send a make file or a rpm src file and ask the user to
do it themselves. This is not a common practice to those outside of the
Unix, AS400, or OS390 world, agreed, but all that you would have to teach
an end user is to type in make <filename>, or rpm -ivh <filename>. I guess
that might be too hard for some people <G>.
However, I am amazed that you feel that a user should not have to go to a
terminal and type "make" or rpm -ivh to install an application, but they
should be able to run a Windows install program and answer all sorts of
questions (where is the drive, what is installed, click here, click there,
etc). So which is really more difficult, typing make <fileName>, or going
to Windows explorer and finding an icon, clicking on that icon, and
answering questions? Seems to me that one is not more difficult than the
other.
To make it short and sweet, if you can install Windows or a Windows program,
then you can install 90% of Linux open source programs that are in release
state, and any modern Linux distro itself (like Mandrake or Suse). Roll
your own Linux distros (like Slackware, Debian Woody, Gentto, etc.) are not
made for the faint of heart, nor the Linux newbie, but they are not
designed to be. If you want to build your system from the ground up, use a
Slack, Gentoo, or Debian sources. You can make it as lean and mean as you
desire. At least you have a choice between ease of use or a speed demon.
What choice do you have with Windows? What they build and sell, is the only
choice you have.
Another great thing about Linux is, that you can upgrade the core of the OS,
without having to do a fresh install of everything. Try that with Windows.