Re: [Fwd: Re: [Nautilus-list] paypal]

I see a lot of negative karma around and that's bad. :)

On Sat, 21 Apr 2001, Andrew Post wrote:

> Ximian and Eazel are just about the last two companies left that care
> about Linux on the desktop.

I think the wording may not be very precise, that is using the word
"care". The statement should be
"Ximian and Eazel are two nice and ambitious companies that are working
to make a good desktop environment for Linux".

> RedHat's Matthew Szulik was quoted in the
> current issue of Linux Magazine as saying about RedHat's decision not to
> buy Corel, "...Microsoft had 92 percent of that category. We didn't
> think it was a very forward-looking category. A lot of smarter people
> than us fought that war and lost."

It is just a statement that until now there have not been any good and
succesfull, in terms of market share, attempts to provide a desktop

> Most of GNOME's other financial
> contributors (IBM, Sun, etc.) don't care much for the desktop either. I

I do not think that "care" should be used in this sentence either.
Sun will be using Gnome as it's desktop environment replacing it's
aging OpenWindows [source:]
HP is also on the same track.

> hope that Eazel (or at least its developers) can hold on. GNOME as a
> desktop platform is pretty much dead otherwise, since Ximian doesn't
> have a desktop to write apps for without an actively maintained
> Nautilus.

Hmm, I think your pessimism is getting you here.
You even use by accident a structure that spammers exploit to persuade
victims! :) It's the
	<make an incredible statement>, since <give a long explanation
that will fill up the memory buffers of the victim>
With this trick, the incredible statement is "proven". Chain-mail/spams
are really interesting to analyse.

> Plus, Eazel is the only GNOME company I've seen anything
> _original_ out of.
Eazel has a good background in user-interfaces (Apple). If you search
further in computing I am sure you will find more examples. By the way,
you do not mention KDE. I am sure you must, at least, see screenshots of

> Yes, we do need a component architecture and an
> Outlook clone, but if that's all that GNOME has to offer on the desktop,
> why not just use Win2K?

I think that's too provocative. It's like saying "If you need a car
to go to work, why not buy only Ford?" In fact, in the car industry
there is not that much variations between models of the same range
but different companies.

I think you are slightly pessimistic in your e-mail. It makes you
look as if you work secretly for MS.. :) (I hope there is no offence on

See you later,

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]