On 10/30/05, Tracy R Reed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > This is a very old idea. This is basically an > xterm/thin client setup.
Yes, but... > I think this has potential in the future and that a > lot of people would rather have someone else > properly manage their PC > This plus the fact that Linux on the desktop really > hasn't caught on yet That would be a moot point with this desktop hosting plan. Linux on the desktop hasn't caught on yet due to: 1) Windows comes pre-installed. Not on this desktop hosting plan. 2) It's hard to install. (true or not) You don't have to install it; the hoster does. 3) Not enought applications are available. People who want their desktop on the go (business travelers and the like) are probably only going to want the basics anyway. > [Linux on the desktop] is still an idea ahead of its time. I don't think that's true. The only real obstacle left is based on the fact that not many people are using Linux on the desktop. There are no more technical considerations. I mean, what more do people want?? What does Windows do that Linux doesn't??? > You always maximize windows? Then you don't have enough screen real > estate! My desktop is 3200x1200 pixels Okay, first you're bragging about uptime, and now you're boasting about your size. Brag brag brag! > Neato. Filesystems are getting to do more and more interesting things. "Everything is a file. And if it's not it should be." --LUFS motto > Hopefully Linux will have something nice to compete with the new > filesystem features Longshot or whatever MS is calling their perpetually > impending OS. Or did they remove WinFS from it because there was no way > it would be ready on time for the next OS release? Yeah, I think they removed it. There's nothing left to this next release besides eye-candy. Stop licking the screen! If Windows were a language, it would be Newspeak. -todd -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
