You've got a good point there.  When it comes to GUI's nobody seems to
be thinking outside the box.  It's time for something REALLY different.
Ed.
leo wrote:
> 
> I'm almost sure I am going to be unpopular when I ask this question, but
> WHY??????????????? does everyone want a remake of Windows?  Does anybody out
> there envision a desktop control system that isn't just a plain command line
> but also is not a collection of little pictures and pop-up windows?  I
> honestly believe that over time, in order to keep adding all the functions
> that people seem to demand, how can it not get all balled up?  I think the
> KISS principle is so appropriate in this context.  OK, go ahead, bash
> me.............leo.
> 
> On Tuesday 12 June 2001 11:28 am, you wrote:
> > On Tue, 12 Jun 2001, Russell Hires wrote:
> > > Can I get a witness to the original article! .... No....well, why not?
> > > All good rebuttals here, Mike...
> > >
> > > The part about "Not enough money in it to make it worth someone's time":
> > > Ha! What a laugh. Doing anything with Linux was never about money until
> > > recently. It was all grass roots before that. Linux has always been about
> > > no money. I think people invested their time in Linux because it wasn't
> > > M$'s O$...It didn't crash, it didn't "blue screen" on you (unless you
> > > wanted that screensaver :-)
> >
> > A good chunk of people in the beginning wanted an alternative to the very
> > expensive unix flavors. The original people really didn't care about
> > Microsoft.  They wanted a free Unix clone - not a free windows clone.
> >
> > Once it started to hit more mainstream - right around 1.2.13 - people
> > started to see it as a Windows alternative, but things were still pretty
> > limited then.  But even as far back as that people were using it to make
> > money.  I can bet you that on some oil tank fields there are still some
> > 486 PC104 controller/monitoring boards running 1.2.13.  I'm saying to you
> > that doing almost everything with linux was about money for a great
> > majority of the engineers out there.
> >
> >
> >
> > Sidenote:  The fact of the matter is that if you can't make it profitable
> > for companies to install it and ship it and put it into the stores then
> > they aren't even going to look at it and the end consumer won't ever be
> > exposed.  In addition, you try to sell him one of those units sitting on
> > the shelf with linux and then you tell him that all those shelves with the
> > software boxes behind him are off limits because "They don't run on
> > Linux."  He will go pale and never even give it a second thought.  You
> > will see linux go the way of OS/2.  It was a great OS but people didn't
> > buy it because there were no applications.  I would like us not to repeat
> > history because there is only going to be one shot at it.  If it fails
> > companies will be really skeptical to do it a second time.  We still have
> > many years to go before it will be ready to make an assault on the desktop
> > for Joe User and I'd rather take that time to make it better instead of
> > just talking about how great it is.
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > | Mark Bishop  (mark@bish.net)         |             Computer Engineer |
> > | 813.258.2390                         |             Network Engineer  |
> > | http://bish.net                      |          Embedded Programmer  |
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 18:47:56 EDT