On Dec 29 2006 23:53, Bob S wrote:
On Tuesday 26 December 2006 11:11, Marcus Meissner wrote:
Received a boxed set of five old 007 movies remastered and enhanced on
DVD from one of my children for Christmas. Popped one in my SuSE box,
and guess what. Wouldn't play. Got a message that I needed
On Mon, Dec 25, 2006 at 04:54:34PM -0500, Fred A. Miller wrote:
On Monday December 25 2006 5:10 am, Marcus Meissner wrote:
You can't win the desktop if you don't even try. Right now, few in the
Linux world are seriously trying. And time is running out.
On Mon, 2006-12-25 at 08:11 -0800, Randall R Schulz wrote:
On Monday 25 December 2006 07:10, Mike McMullin wrote:
...
In fact, I see no danger to Linux because you cannot destroy an
idea. Linux is too entrenched and too important to far too many
individuals and organizations,
On 12/24/06, Randall R Schulz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Can you define what you mean when you say:
- enough of a critical mass
- to matter
- leverage control
- onramps to the information highway
- game over
- meaningful access
- most internet content
- islands
- hopeless, irrelevant rebellion
-
On Mon, 2006-12-25 at 18:46 -0500, Fred A. Miller wrote:
On Monday December 25 2006 10:47 am, Mike McMullin wrote:
But Ken, your federal government must have used some other OS before
switching to Linux which means that 'they' are a fickle lot and will
switch from Linux at a drop of a
Peter,
On Tuesday 26 December 2006 08:54, Peter Van Lone wrote:
...
Again, I agree with you generally Randall ... however I find myself
wondering why your responses are framed in such agressive language?
Ask the questions, push the author to be specific about what he means
... but I believe
Randall R Schulz a écrit :
Probably true, but I read and participate in a lot of on-line debates
(not just on the SuSE forums), and I'm growing progressively more weary
of and frustrated with poorly thought out, poorly phrased, overly
emotional or downright irrelevant arguments people throw
On Tuesday 26 December 2006 09:15, jdd wrote:
Randall R Schulz a écrit :
Probably true, but I read and participate in a lot of on-line
debates (not just on the SuSE forums), and I'm growing
progressively more weary of and frustrated with poorly thought out,
poorly phrased, overly
Randall R Schulz wrote:
Peter,
On Tuesday 26 December 2006 08:54, Peter Van Lone wrote:
...
Again, I agree with you generally Randall ... however I find myself
wondering why your responses are framed in such agressive language?
Ask the questions, push the author to be specific about
On Tuesday December 26 2006 11:59 am, Mike McMullin wrote:
On Mon, 2006-12-25 at 18:46 -0500, Fred A. Miller wrote:
On Monday December 25 2006 10:47 am, Mike McMullin wrote:
But Ken, your federal government must have used some other OS before
switching to Linux which means that 'they'
On Monday 25 December 2006 03:46, J Sloan wrote:
Randall R Schulz wrote:
Can you define what you mean when you say:
- enough of a critical mass
- to matter
- leverage control
- onramps to the information highway
- game over
- meaningful access
- most internet content
- islands
On Sun, Dec 24, 2006 at 08:25:59PM -0500, Fred A. Miller wrote:
Linux on the desktop has been a year or two away for over a decade now,
and there are reasons it's not there yet. To attract nontechnical
end-users, a Linux desktop must work out of the box, ideally
preinstalled by the hardware
On Sunday 24 December 2006 19:48, Randall R Schulz wrote:
On Sunday 24 December 2006 19:46, J Sloan wrote:
Randall R Schulz wrote:
Can you define what you mean when you say:
- enough of a critical mass
- to matter
- leverage control
- onramps to the information highway
-
On Sun, 2006-12-24 at 23:22 -0800, Robert Smits wrote:
On Sunday 24 December 2006 19:39, Randall R Schulz wrote:
Joe is absolutely correct to be worried about the future viability of Linux
software. Of course, it's not game over today, but if you've looked at the
implications of a future
Kenneth Schneider wrote:
On Sun, 2006-12-24 at 23:22 -0800, Robert Smits wrote:
On Sunday 24 December 2006 19:39, Randall R Schulz wrote:
Joe is absolutely correct to be worried about the future viability of Linux
software. Of course, it's not game over today, but if you've looked at the
Basil Chupin a écrit :
But Ken, your federal government must have used some other OS before
switching to Linux which means that 'they' are a fickle lot and will
switch from Linux at a drop of a hat. If they abandoned the other OS
then they will abandon Linux given the appropriate excuses.
a
On Monday 25 December 2006 03:49, Peter Nikolic wrote:
Sorry, but if you're going to play dumb, it would be far too tedious and
time consuming to try and bring you up to speed. Suffice it to say there
is apparently a huge gap between our positions. Go back to sleep...
Joe
On Sun, 2006-12-24 at 21:34 -0800, Randall R Schulz wrote:
On Sunday 24 December 2006 20:55, J Sloan wrote:
...
No need. Perhaps I was too hasty to dismiss your questions - Each of
the points you reference above can be easily grasped with just a bit
of thought, but I hesitate to put a
On Sun, 2006-12-24 at 23:32 -0800, Randall R Schulz wrote:
On Sunday 24 December 2006 23:22, Robert Smits wrote:
...
Joe is absolutely correct to be worried about the future viability of
Linux software. Of course, it's not game over today, but if you've
looked at the implications of a
On Mon, 2006-12-25 at 23:59 +1100, Basil Chupin wrote:
Kenneth Schneider wrote:
On Sun, 2006-12-24 at 23:22 -0800, Robert Smits wrote:
On Sunday 24 December 2006 19:39, Randall R Schulz wrote:
Joe is absolutely correct to be worried about the future viability of
Linux
software. Of
On Monday 25 December 2006 07:10, Mike McMullin wrote:
...
In fact, I see no danger to Linux because you cannot destroy an
idea. Linux is too entrenched and too important to far too many
individuals and organizations, including large business concerns,
distributed all over the globe to
On Sunday 24 December 2006 23:32, Randall R Schulz wrote:
On Sunday 24 December 2006 23:22, Robert Smits wrote:
...
Joe is absolutely correct to be worried about the future viability of
Linux software. Of course, it's not game over today, but if you've
looked at the implications of a
On Monday 25 December 2006 07:25, Mike McMullin wrote:
...
One ought to seriously consider that there are those Windows users
who don't want DRM laden technology stopping them from doing what
they want. The market has yet to through it's weight around on this
issue, I suspect that is
On Monday 25 December 2006 02:10, Marcus Meissner wrote:
But this is not a Linux problem, it is more a problem of the current
state in the software industry where everything multimedia interesting
requires per-copy royalties, NDAs, closed source and so on.
But this makes it a Linux problem!
On Monday 25 December 2006 04:39, Kenneth Schneider wrote:
We (Linux users) are at what 4-5 % of computer users?
Actually closer to 10%
Good. I haven't seen estimates that high, but I suspect it's because it's much
harder to aggregate all those downloads and magazine DVDs.
Much of our
Peter Nikolic wrote:
On Monday 25 December 2006 03:46, J Sloan wrote:
Randall R Schulz wrote:
Can you define what you mean when you say:
- enough of a critical mass
- to matter
- leverage control
- onramps to the information highway
- game over
- meaningful access
- most internet
Basil Chupin wrote:
Kenneth Schneider wrote:
Linux is used far and wide by the federal government for it to go away.
But Ken, your federal government must have used some other OS before
switching to Linux which means that 'they' are a fickle lot and will
switch from Linux at a drop of a
On Monday 25 December 2006 08:24, Robert Smits wrote:
On Sunday 24 December 2006 23:32, Randall R Schulz wrote:
...
Every paragraph of your reply except one mentions DRM! If you see
the entire issue of open computing platforms as one and the same
with DRM, then you're not going to be
On Mon, 2006-12-25 at 10:13 -0800, J Sloan wrote:
Basil Chupin wrote:
Kenneth Schneider wrote:
Linux is used far and wide by the federal government for it to go away.
But Ken, your federal government must have used some other OS before
switching to Linux which means that 'they' are
On Monday December 25 2006 5:10 am, Marcus Meissner wrote:
You can't win the desktop if you don't even try. Right now, few in the
Linux world are seriously trying. And time is running out.
http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/world-domination/world-domination-201.h
tml#id247970
But this is
On Monday December 25 2006 10:47 am, Mike McMullin wrote:
But Ken, your federal government must have used some other OS before
switching to Linux which means that 'they' are a fickle lot and will
switch from Linux at a drop of a hat. If they abandoned the other OS
then they will abandon
On Sunday 24 December 2006 19:03, J Sloan wrote:
John Meyer wrote:
Fred A. Miller wrote:
You can't win the desktop if you don't even try. Right now, few in the
Linux world are seriously trying. And time is running out.
I've heard this argument too many times to count.
With all due
Linux on the desktop has been a year or two away for over a decade now,
and there are reasons it's not there yet. To attract nontechnical
end-users, a Linux desktop must work out of the box, ideally
preinstalled by the hardware vendor. Right now, Linux is usually an
aftermarket upgrade on
Fred A. Miller wrote:
Linux on the desktop has been a year or two away for over a decade now,
and there are reasons it's not there yet. To attract nontechnical
end-users, a Linux desktop must work out of the box, ideally
preinstalled by the hardware vendor. Right now, Linux is usually an
John Meyer wrote:
Fred A. Miller wrote:
You can't win the desktop if you don't even try. Right now, few in the
Linux world are seriously trying. And time is running out.
I've heard this argument too many times to count.
With all due respect to the author, the argument is based on the
On Sunday 24 December 2006 19:03, J Sloan wrote:
...
Unfortunately, it's not about being mainstream anymore - at this
point, it's about viability, period.
If linux can't achieve enough of a critical mass on the desktop to
matter, microsoft will be able to leverage control of all the
Randall R Schulz wrote:
Can you define what you mean when you say:
- enough of a critical mass
- to matter
- leverage control
- onramps to the information highway
- game over
- meaningful access
- most internet content
- islands
- hopeless, irrelevant rebellion
- microsoft world
Silent Night : Lyrics
Play Music !
Silent night, holy night
All is calm, all is bright
Round yon Virgin Mother and Child
Holy Infant so tender and mild
Sleep in heavenly peace
Sleep in heavenly peace
Silent night, holy night!
Shepherds quake at the sight
Glories stream from heaven afar
Heavenly
Druid wrote:
Silent Night : Lyrics
Play Music !
Silent night, holy night
All is calm, all is bright
Round yon Virgin Mother and Child
Holy Infant so tender and mild
Sleep in heavenly peace
Sleep in heavenly peace
Silent night, holy night!
Shepherds quake at the sight
Glories
On Sunday 24 December 2006 19:46, J Sloan wrote:
Randall R Schulz wrote:
Can you define what you mean when you say:
- enough of a critical mass
- to matter
- leverage control
- onramps to the information highway
- game over
- meaningful access
- most internet content
- islands
Randall R Schulz wrote:
On Sunday 24 December 2006 19:46, J Sloan wrote:
Randall R Schulz wrote:
Can you define what you mean when you say:
- enough of a critical mass
- to matter
- leverage control
- onramps to the information highway
- game over
- meaningful access
- most internet
On Sunday 24 December 2006 20:55, J Sloan wrote:
...
No need. Perhaps I was too hasty to dismiss your questions - Each of
the points you reference above can be easily grasped with just a bit
of thought, but I hesitate to put a lot of work into explaining all
these points if you're really
On Sun, 2006-12-24 at 20:55 -0800, J Sloan wrote:
No need. Perhaps I was too hasty to dismiss your questions - Each of the
points you reference above can be easily grasped with just a bit of thought,
but I hesitate to put a lot of work into explaining all these points if you're
really
On Sunday 24 December 2006 19:39, Randall R Schulz wrote:
On Sunday 24 December 2006 19:03, J Sloan wrote:
...
Unfortunately, it's not about being mainstream anymore - at this
point, it's about viability, period.
If linux can't achieve enough of a critical mass on the desktop to
J Sloan a écrit :
Sorry, but if you're going to play dumb,
with several players...
Linux is born quite many times agos and did not stopped to grow.
Linux is now a major part of the server market and this
alone make it's life sure.
To hope find a solution to problems, these problems must
On Sunday 24 December 2006 23:22, Robert Smits wrote:
...
Joe is absolutely correct to be worried about the future viability of
Linux software. Of course, it's not game over today, but if you've
looked at the implications of a future where every device, every
piece of hardware has to meet
On Sunday December 24 2006 9:36 pm, John Meyer wrote:
[snip]
I've heard this argument too many times to count.
With all due respect to the author, the argument is based on the
assumption that we want to be mainstreram, that we want everybody and
their grandmother to be running Linux.
47 matches
Mail list logo
