Re: [ubuntu-uk] Sir Alan Sugar: it's too late for Linux
On Sat, Jun 21, 2008 at 5:16 PM, LeeGroups [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: History shows that whatever starts in the business and back-end world ends up finding it's way through the servers, to the corporate desktops, and then finally down to home desktops. -- Really? Like what? Lee My words were somewhat malformed :-) I meant to say more broadly that technology tends to start in businesses and governments - where price and sometimes size is prohibitive, and then trickles towards the smaller enterprises and finally into the home. Computers, fax, the Internet, mobile phones, etc, Kris -- ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk https://wiki.ubuntu.org/UKTeam/
Re: [ubuntu-uk] Sir Alan Sugar: it's too late for Linux
alan c wrote: can be made easily. The foss rising tide will mean this may not be with computing. Should there be any such 'rising tide', and it become entirely clear that there is no money to be made in software RD (only in supporting 'innovation ... elsewhere') then where is the investment money going to come from? Do you really want software to be controlled by the hardware vendors again? I can remember when we all had sparcstations on our desks, and there were Open Systems. Open Wallet Systems, we used to call them. I bought a licence for Sun C++. It came with a really crap GUI builder from Imperial and not much else. Shortly afterwards, a new version came out, but I wasn't entitled to it without paying the full support wack. For slightly less money, I got MSDN Universal, with updates all year, several development tools, databases, office systems, operating systems, and a lot more documentation. Microsoft earned their market share. They might have screwed me over on OS/2 and Windows Libraries for OS/2 and all the rest, but you can't really blame them for IBM's failure to 'fess up that you didn't need a PS/2 and Compaq's failure to market it *at all*. I don't. James -- ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk https://wiki.ubuntu.org/UKTeam/
Re: [ubuntu-uk] Sir Alan Sugar: it's too late for Linux
Josh Blacker wrote: Something of an, er, interesting comment beginning 7:11 on this video: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7462104.stm The rest of the video is pretty boring, including the preceding section on 'Is Microsoft a monopoly?'. Alan Sugar's business model is a strongly conventional one, he will not appreciate many benefits of foss, and would probably find it is too hard to make money from foss. He will move into areas where money can be made easily. The foss rising tide will mean this may not be with computing. Particularly if foss is in competition. -- alan cocks Kubuntu user#10391 Linux user #360648 -- ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk https://wiki.ubuntu.org/UKTeam/
Re: [ubuntu-uk] Sir Alan Sugar: it's too late for Linux
I found the interview quite interesting... what Alan Michael Sugar Trading (Amstrad) achieved in the 80s was nothing short of extraordinary... their machines were actually pretty naff, but they were cheap... and they kept up the free thinking that had characterised computing up until the mid-80s (Sinclair, Acorn, Oric, Dragon etc.) as most of the industry started to consolidate around one or two preferred architectures when everybody else in the world seemed resigned to either using 5.25 floppies or 3.5 Amstrad came up with their own 3 format... when the trend was towards varieties of DOS (be it DR-DOS or MS-DOS) they produced computers and word processors running CP/M. What Alan doesn't mention in his interview is that they might have bought some copies of MS-DOS for their PCs, but they certainly weren't having anything to do with Bill's fledgling Windows, instead shipping with Digital Research's GEM. Alan did what he did VERY well, which is no doubt why he managed to seal the contract with Sky to supply boxes when they launched, and is still one of the major suppliers of Digiboxes to this day. Having sold Amstrad to Sky last year, and with a lucrative income from TV appearances and lecturing/consultation, I don't imagine Sugar has any interest at all in watching trends in computing. Was he still on the ball he wouldn't have said what he did in that interview. If Microsoft had a monopoly on computing in 2003 it most certainly doesn't any more. Offices using Excel and Word formats doesn't necessarily mean they're using Excel or Word - not now, with Openoffice being so strong. I wonder what controls Alan's Sky boxes? I bet it's not Windows - is it? Sean -- ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk https://wiki.ubuntu.org/UKTeam/
Re: [ubuntu-uk] Sir Alan Sugar: it's too late for Linux
Josh Blacker wrote: Something of an, er, interesting comment beginning 7:11 on this video: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7462104.stm The rest of the video is pretty boring, including the preceding section on 'Is Microsoft a monopoly?'. I haven't watched this clip, but according to his interview on the programme that was on last night, he admits that he made a mistake not using Microsoft software on his Amstrads. He was of the opinion that he was making the hardware and shouldn't have to pay for something such as software. Funny how he once thought that, and now thinks differently. He thinks that it's too late to have another mainstream OS - clearly he hasn't been watching the trends (especially) in MacOS over the last 5 years, and more recently Linux gaining popularity on the desktop enviroment. But hey, would you trust someone's opinion that made that mistake then? After all Linux wasn't a viable option, and the arguably (IMO) better OS - Amiga Workbench was hardware specific - like Mac is today. Kind Regards, Dave Walker -- ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk https://wiki.ubuntu.org/UKTeam/
Re: [ubuntu-uk] Sir Alan Sugar: it's too late for Linux
A few random ramblings... Alan talked about Microsoft being in every office, although it interests me that he then specifically mentions that everyone uses Word, Excel, ... - I guess an operating system isn't really the important thing at all, it's the applications that are used. A shift to ODF in Microsoft Office - if it ever happens, an if it's a 'clean shift', without the traditional Embrace, Extend, Extinguish - would smash this lock in necessity. However, I do think Microsoft Office is currently the best office suite on the market presently. Whether it's worth paying that much for it is a different question, and at least this would promote decent competition in the office suite world, whereby Office would have to stay ahead by feature and technical merit alone. Interestingly, I remember maybe one or two years ago doing a search on the BBC website for linux, and receiving maybe one or two results. Now we see 11 pages[http://search.bbc.co.uk/cgi-bin/search/results.pl?uri=%2Fscope=allgo=toolbarq=linux] - not sure how relevant that is, however I do see a lot more F/OSS and Linux visibility in newspapers and news websites, which seems to suggest progress. I think it's important to note that we're talking about Linux on the desktop here. Linux has been a viable and generally preferable option for the server world for a couple of years now. History shows that whatever starts in the business and back-end world ends up finding it's way through the servers, to the corporate desktops, and then finally down to home desktops. I do expect this to happen with Linux, but I don't think 'relevant penetration' will happen for a good few years. Interesting viewing though, and I didn't actually realise that he was the chairman of Amstrad :-) Kris On Sat, Jun 21, 2008 at 9:17 AM, Dave Walker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Josh Blacker wrote: Something of an, er, interesting comment beginning 7:11 on this video: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7462104.stm The rest of the video is pretty boring, including the preceding section on 'Is Microsoft a monopoly?'. I haven't watched this clip, but according to his interview on the programme that was on last night, he admits that he made a mistake not using Microsoft software on his Amstrads. He was of the opinion that he was making the hardware and shouldn't have to pay for something such as software. Funny how he once thought that, and now thinks differently. He thinks that it's too late to have another mainstream OS - clearly he hasn't been watching the trends (especially) in MacOS over the last 5 years, and more recently Linux gaining popularity on the desktop enviroment. But hey, would you trust someone's opinion that made that mistake then? After all Linux wasn't a viable option, and the arguably (IMO) better OS - Amiga Workbench was hardware specific - like Mac is today. Kind Regards, Dave Walker -- ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk https://wiki.ubuntu.org/UKTeam/ -- ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk https://wiki.ubuntu.org/UKTeam/
Re: [ubuntu-uk] Sir Alan Sugar: it's too late for Linux
I wonder what controls Alan's Sky boxes? I bet it's not Windows - is it? -- Well, that phone in the bottom left foreground, an E3 I think, runs Linux... :) History shows that whatever starts in the business and back-end world ends up finding it's way through the servers, to the corporate desktops, and then finally down to home desktops. -- Really? Like what? Lee -- ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk https://wiki.ubuntu.org/UKTeam/
[ubuntu-uk] Sir Alan Sugar: it's too late for Linux
Something of an, er, interesting comment beginning 7:11 on this video: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7462104.stm The rest of the video is pretty boring, including the preceding section on 'Is Microsoft a monopoly?'. -- All the best, Josh Blacker -- ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk https://wiki.ubuntu.org/UKTeam/
