Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #320962 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-09-15 19:04 +0000 |
| Last post | 2015-09-16 15:11 -0500 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 142 — 15 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.advocacy
An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> - 2015-09-15 19:04 +0000
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> - 2015-09-15 19:48 -0500
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-09-15 20:57 -0400
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> - 2015-09-16 01:04 +0000
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> - 2015-09-16 01:02 +0000
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> - 2015-09-15 20:11 -0500
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> - 2015-09-16 01:18 +0000
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> - 2015-09-15 20:26 -0500
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> - 2015-09-16 12:20 +0000
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2015-09-16 10:12 -0500
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-16 10:43 -0700
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> - 2015-09-16 18:25 +0000
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-09-16 21:50 +0000
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> - 2015-09-16 22:16 +0000
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-09-16 22:27 +0000
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> - 2015-09-16 22:35 +0000
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-09-16 23:08 +0000
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> - 2015-09-16 23:18 +0000
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-09-16 23:35 +0000
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Lloyd Parsons <lloydp21@live.com> - 2015-09-16 18:46 -0500
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-09-17 00:22 +0000
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> - 2015-09-17 00:44 +0000
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-16 18:01 -0700
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-09-17 09:36 +0200
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2015-09-17 14:06 +0200
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-09-17 12:39 +0000
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2015-09-17 08:08 -0500
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-17 10:39 -0700
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-17 10:53 -0700
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-17 10:41 -0700
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-09-18 07:52 -0500
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-18 07:57 -0700
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-09-18 17:56 +0200
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-18 09:11 -0700
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-09-18 12:39 -0500
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-18 11:17 -0700
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! "A.M" <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-09-18 12:46 -0400
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-18 10:26 -0700
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-09-18 15:24 +0200
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2015-09-18 08:42 -0500
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-09-18 16:04 +0200
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-18 08:01 -0700
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-18 08:05 -0700
Peter Köhlmann thinks UNIX did not exist before OS X Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-17 10:49 -0700
Snit Michael Glasser lying his ass off (again) Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-09-17 21:47 +0200
Re: Snit Michael Glasser lying his ass off (again) Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-17 13:04 -0700
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Siri Cruz <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-17 11:09 -0700
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Lloyd Parsons <lloydp21@live.com> - 2015-09-17 13:13 -0500
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-17 13:07 -0700
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Siri Cruz <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-17 14:03 -0700
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-09-17 03:25 +0000
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Lloyd Parsons <lloydp21@live.com> - 2015-09-17 08:02 -0500
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-09-17 13:45 +0000
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> - 2015-09-17 17:14 +0000
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-16 17:33 -0700
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-09-17 03:17 +0000
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-16 20:50 -0700
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-09-17 09:44 +0200
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-17 10:52 -0700
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-09-17 21:50 +0200
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-17 13:04 -0700
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-09-17 22:49 +0000
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-17 16:05 -0700
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> - 2015-09-17 19:25 -0500
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-17 17:33 -0700
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-09-17 14:23 +0000
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-17 10:43 -0700
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-09-17 08:09 -0400
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-09-17 13:50 +0000
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> - 2015-09-17 17:07 +0000
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-09-17 22:03 -0400
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-16 17:24 -0700
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2015-09-17 01:40 +0200
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Lloyd Parsons <lloydp21@live.com> - 2015-09-16 18:46 -0500
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-09-17 00:45 +0000
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> - 2015-09-17 00:48 +0000
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> - 2015-09-16 23:55 -0500
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-09-17 12:36 +0000
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> - 2015-09-17 12:44 +0000
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> - 2015-09-17 19:01 -0500
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> - 2015-09-18 00:05 +0000
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> - 2015-09-17 20:36 -0500
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-17 18:44 -0700
Re: An example of how/why bitter iCultists fail! ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-09-18 17:55 +0000
Re: An example of how/why bitter iCultists fail! Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> - 2015-09-18 18:00 +0000
Re: An example of how/why bitter iCultists fail! chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2015-09-18 13:56 -0500
Re: An example of how/why bitter iCultists fail! Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> - 2015-09-18 19:11 +0000
Re: An example of how/why bitter iCultists fail! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-18 13:13 -0700
Re: An example of how/why bitter iCultists fail! ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-09-18 20:42 +0000
Re: An example of how/why bitter iCultists fail! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-18 13:59 -0700
Re: An example of how/why bitter iCultists fail! Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> - 2015-09-18 21:07 +0000
Re: An example of how/why bitter iCultists fail! GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-09-18 15:47 -0600
Re: An example of how/why bitter iCultists fail! -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2015-09-18 17:17 -0700
Re: An example of how/why bitter iCultists fail! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-18 17:40 -0700
Re: An example of how/why bitter iCultists fail! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-18 17:24 -0700
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-09-18 20:55 -0400
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-09-18 07:49 -0500
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> - 2015-09-18 13:09 +0000
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-09-18 09:26 -0400
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! "A.M" <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-09-18 10:01 -0400
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-09-18 17:42 +0000
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> - 2015-09-18 17:58 +0000
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-16 18:02 -0700
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> - 2015-09-16 23:21 -0500
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-09-17 12:34 +0000
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> - 2015-09-17 19:04 -0500
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! "A.M" <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-09-16 19:44 -0400
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Lloyd Parsons <lloydp21@live.com> - 2015-09-16 18:48 -0500
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-09-17 03:32 +0000
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-16 20:53 -0700
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! "A.M" <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-09-17 08:45 -0400
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> - 2015-09-17 12:51 +0000
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-17 11:04 -0700
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-17 10:55 -0700
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! "A.M" <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-09-17 08:40 -0400
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-09-17 14:29 +0000
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! "A.M" <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-09-17 12:35 -0400
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-09-17 18:51 +0200
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> - 2015-09-17 17:05 +0000
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> - 2015-09-17 17:05 +0000
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-16 17:22 -0700
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2015-09-17 06:49 -0700
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-09-17 14:05 +0000
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2015-09-17 07:48 -0700
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-09-17 15:35 +0000
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! "A.M" <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-09-17 12:32 -0400
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2015-09-17 10:42 -0700
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-09-17 19:54 +0000
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> - 2015-09-17 17:09 +0000
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-09-17 19:48 +0000
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Lloyd Parsons <lloydp21@live.com> - 2015-09-17 14:59 -0500
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-09-17 22:15 +0000
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> - 2015-09-17 22:19 +0000
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-09-17 22:33 +0000
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-17 15:54 -0700
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-17 15:55 -0700
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2015-09-17 19:20 -0700
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-17 15:52 -0700
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> - 2015-09-17 19:24 -0500
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-17 13:06 -0700
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-17 13:07 -0700
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-09-16 15:11 -0500
Page 1 of 8 [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next page →
| From | Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-15 19:04 +0000 |
| Subject | An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! |
| Message-ID | <d5r8dqF8bieU3@mid.individual.net> |
This link pretty much describes it all: http://www.pcworld.com/article/2974148/software/canonical-is-letting-the- ubuntu-software-center-wither-and-die.html Note that little software was ever purchased from it which then made it not very viable, hence it will be gone. Yet another commercial try in the linux desktop list of failures! And not for technical reasons at all. -- Lloyd
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-15 19:48 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <mtae9g$5k2$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #320962 |
On 9/15/2015 2:04 PM, Lloyd Parsons wrote: > > This link pretty much describes it all: > http://www.pcworld.com/article/2974148/software/canonical-is-letting-the- > ubuntu-software-center-wither-and-die.html > > Note that little software was ever purchased from it which then made it > not very viable, hence it will be gone. > > Yet another commercial try in the linux desktop list of failures! And > not for technical reasons at all. "The Ubuntu Software Center application is considered rather slow and outdated compared to the alternatives." "Canonical founder Mark Shuttleworth also replied matter-of-factly. “As David said, we learned that the Deb based package system wasn’t workable for a store. The work on Ubuntu phone led us to snappy, where we put the developer of a typical app almost completely in control of publication.”" Sure, "Lloyd," no "technical reasons" there. :-P
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | DFS <nospam@dfs.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-15 20:57 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <mtaem1$mfm$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #321058 |
On 9/15/2015 8:48 PM, Nobody wrote: > On 9/15/2015 2:04 PM, Lloyd Parsons wrote: >> >> This link pretty much describes it all: >> http://www.pcworld.com/article/2974148/software/canonical-is-letting-the- >> ubuntu-software-center-wither-and-die.html >> >> Note that little software was ever purchased from it which then made it >> not very viable, hence it will be gone. >> >> Yet another commercial try in the linux desktop list of failures! And >> not for technical reasons at all. > > "The Ubuntu Software Center application is considered rather slow and > outdated compared to the alternatives." > > "Canonical founder Mark Shuttleworth also replied matter-of-factly. “As > David said, we learned that the Deb based package system wasn’t workable > for a store. The work on Ubuntu phone led us to snappy, where we put the > developer of a typical app almost completely in control of publication.”" > > Sure, "Lloyd," no "technical reasons" there. :-P NoBrains, the Ubuntu Software Center will be successful when prices for commercial software are reduced to the level that Linux freetards are willing to pay: $0.00.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-16 01:04 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <d5rtgkFdfccU3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #321059 |
On Tue, 15 Sep 2015 20:57:05 -0400, DFS wrote: > On 9/15/2015 8:48 PM, Nobody wrote: >> On 9/15/2015 2:04 PM, Lloyd Parsons wrote: >>> >>> This link pretty much describes it all: >>> http://www.pcworld.com/article/2974148/software/canonical-is-letting- the- >>> ubuntu-software-center-wither-and-die.html >>> >>> Note that little software was ever purchased from it which then made >>> it not very viable, hence it will be gone. >>> >>> Yet another commercial try in the linux desktop list of failures! And >>> not for technical reasons at all. >> >> "The Ubuntu Software Center application is considered rather slow and >> outdated compared to the alternatives." >> >> "Canonical founder Mark Shuttleworth also replied matter-of-factly. “As >> David said, we learned that the Deb based package system wasn’t >> workable for a store. The work on Ubuntu phone led us to snappy, where >> we put the developer of a typical app almost completely in control of >> publication.”" >> >> Sure, "Lloyd," no "technical reasons" there. :-P > > > NoBrains, the Ubuntu Software Center will be successful when prices for > commercial software are reduced to the level that Linux freetards are > willing to pay: $0.00. Yep, the technical issues needed some money to pay for keeping it. It wasn't, so then they could say that it was technical reasons, when it was the failure on the commercial side that made any and all technical issues 'unsolvable'. -- Lloyd
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-16 01:02 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <d5rte0FdfccU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #321058 |
On Tue, 15 Sep 2015 19:48:46 -0500, Nobody wrote: > On 9/15/2015 2:04 PM, Lloyd Parsons wrote: >> >> This link pretty much describes it all: >> http://www.pcworld.com/article/2974148/software/canonical-is-letting- the- >> ubuntu-software-center-wither-and-die.html >> >> Note that little software was ever purchased from it which then made it >> not very viable, hence it will be gone. >> >> Yet another commercial try in the linux desktop list of failures! And >> not for technical reasons at all. > > "The Ubuntu Software Center application is considered rather slow and > outdated compared to the alternatives." > > "Canonical founder Mark Shuttleworth also replied matter-of-factly. “As > David said, we learned that the Deb based package system wasn’t workable > for a store. The work on Ubuntu phone led us to snappy, where we put the > developer of a typical app almost completely in control of > publication.”" > > Sure, "Lloyd," no "technical reasons" there. :-P The technical reasons were the excuse to not have to say it was a total failure at generating any sales. I used it, it worked just fine. -- Lloyd
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-15 20:11 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <mtafkq$7o7$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #321062 |
On 9/15/2015 8:02 PM, Lloyd Parsons wrote: > On Tue, 15 Sep 2015 19:48:46 -0500, Nobody wrote: > >> On 9/15/2015 2:04 PM, Lloyd Parsons wrote: >>> >>> This link pretty much describes it all: >>> http://www.pcworld.com/article/2974148/software/canonical-is-letting- > the- >>> ubuntu-software-center-wither-and-die.html >>> >>> Note that little software was ever purchased from it which then made it >>> not very viable, hence it will be gone. >>> >>> Yet another commercial try in the linux desktop list of failures! And >>> not for technical reasons at all. >> >> "The Ubuntu Software Center application is considered rather slow and >> outdated compared to the alternatives." >> >> "Canonical founder Mark Shuttleworth also replied matter-of-factly. “As >> David said, we learned that the Deb based package system wasn’t workable >> for a store. The work on Ubuntu phone led us to snappy, where we put the >> developer of a typical app almost completely in control of >> publication.”" >> >> Sure, "Lloyd," no "technical reasons" there. :-P > > The technical reasons were the excuse to not have to say it was a total > failure at generating any sales. Those would be the "technical reasons" you said didn't exist. > I used it, it worked just fine. As well as you read an article? It's being replaced by a new service called "Snappy" which is used for Ubuntu phones currently. Try actually reading the articles you quote...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-16 01:18 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <d5ruagFdl93U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #321065 |
On Tue, 15 Sep 2015 20:11:52 -0500, Nobody wrote: > On 9/15/2015 8:02 PM, Lloyd Parsons wrote: >> On Tue, 15 Sep 2015 19:48:46 -0500, Nobody wrote: >> >>> On 9/15/2015 2:04 PM, Lloyd Parsons wrote: >>>> >>>> This link pretty much describes it all: >>>> http://www.pcworld.com/article/2974148/software/canonical-is-letting- >> the- >>>> ubuntu-software-center-wither-and-die.html >>>> >>>> Note that little software was ever purchased from it which then made >>>> it not very viable, hence it will be gone. >>>> >>>> Yet another commercial try in the linux desktop list of failures! >>>> And not for technical reasons at all. >>> >>> "The Ubuntu Software Center application is considered rather slow and >>> outdated compared to the alternatives." >>> >>> "Canonical founder Mark Shuttleworth also replied matter-of-factly. >>> “As David said, we learned that the Deb based package system wasn’t >>> workable for a store. The work on Ubuntu phone led us to snappy, where >>> we put the developer of a typical app almost completely in control of >>> publication.”" >>> >>> Sure, "Lloyd," no "technical reasons" there. :-P >> >> The technical reasons were the excuse to not have to say it was a total >> failure at generating any sales. > > Those would be the "technical reasons" you said didn't exist. > >> I used it, it worked just fine. > > As well as you read an article? > > It's being replaced by a new service called "Snappy" which is used for > Ubuntu phones currently. > > Try actually reading the articles you quote... I did read the whole article. Did you miss the 'few were buying' part? As to Snappy, well since the Ubuntu phone is a failure so far, might as well put something else on it. -- Lloyd
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-15 20:26 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <mtagfv$a29$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #321066 |
On 9/15/2015 8:18 PM, Lloyd Parsons wrote: > On Tue, 15 Sep 2015 20:11:52 -0500, Nobody wrote: > >> On 9/15/2015 8:02 PM, Lloyd Parsons wrote: >>> On Tue, 15 Sep 2015 19:48:46 -0500, Nobody wrote: >>> >>>> On 9/15/2015 2:04 PM, Lloyd Parsons wrote: >>>>> >>>>> This link pretty much describes it all: >>>>> http://www.pcworld.com/article/2974148/software/canonical-is-letting- >>> the- >>>>> ubuntu-software-center-wither-and-die.html >>>>> >>>>> Note that little software was ever purchased from it which then made >>>>> it not very viable, hence it will be gone. >>>>> >>>>> Yet another commercial try in the linux desktop list of failures! >>>>> And not for technical reasons at all. >>>> >>>> "The Ubuntu Software Center application is considered rather slow and >>>> outdated compared to the alternatives." >>>> >>>> "Canonical founder Mark Shuttleworth also replied matter-of-factly. >>>> “As David said, we learned that the Deb based package system wasn’t >>>> workable for a store. The work on Ubuntu phone led us to snappy, where >>>> we put the developer of a typical app almost completely in control of >>>> publication.”" >>>> >>>> Sure, "Lloyd," no "technical reasons" there. :-P >>> >>> The technical reasons were the excuse to not have to say it was a total >>> failure at generating any sales. >> >> Those would be the "technical reasons" you said didn't exist. >> >>> I used it, it worked just fine. >> >> As well as you read an article? >> >> It's being replaced by a new service called "Snappy" which is used for >> Ubuntu phones currently. >> >> Try actually reading the articles you quote... > > I did read the whole article. Then why did you claim there were no technical reasons?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-16 12:20 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <d5t54mFmg27U2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #321067 |
On Tue, 15 Sep 2015 20:26:23 -0500, Nobody wrote: > On 9/15/2015 8:18 PM, Lloyd Parsons wrote: >> On Tue, 15 Sep 2015 20:11:52 -0500, Nobody wrote: >> >>> On 9/15/2015 8:02 PM, Lloyd Parsons wrote: >>>> On Tue, 15 Sep 2015 19:48:46 -0500, Nobody wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 9/15/2015 2:04 PM, Lloyd Parsons wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> This link pretty much describes it all: >>>>>> http://www.pcworld.com/article/2974148/software/canonical-is- letting- >>>> the- >>>>>> ubuntu-software-center-wither-and-die.html >>>>>> >>>>>> Note that little software was ever purchased from it which then >>>>>> made it not very viable, hence it will be gone. >>>>>> >>>>>> Yet another commercial try in the linux desktop list of failures! >>>>>> And not for technical reasons at all. >>>>> >>>>> "The Ubuntu Software Center application is considered rather slow >>>>> and outdated compared to the alternatives." >>>>> >>>>> "Canonical founder Mark Shuttleworth also replied matter-of-factly. >>>>> “As David said, we learned that the Deb based package system wasn’t >>>>> workable for a store. The work on Ubuntu phone led us to snappy, >>>>> where we put the developer of a typical app almost completely in >>>>> control of publication.”" >>>>> >>>>> Sure, "Lloyd," no "technical reasons" there. :-P >>>> >>>> The technical reasons were the excuse to not have to say it was a >>>> total failure at generating any sales. >>> >>> Those would be the "technical reasons" you said didn't exist. >>> >>>> I used it, it worked just fine. >>> >>> As well as you read an article? >>> >>> It's being replaced by a new service called "Snappy" which is used for >>> Ubuntu phones currently. >>> >>> Try actually reading the articles you quote... >> >> I did read the whole article. > > Then why did you claim there were no technical reasons? Because it isn't technical reasons. It is some problems with the software, which is pretty true of all software, that would cost money to fix. And since it isn't making money they don't want to fix it. -- Lloyd
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-16 10:12 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <hq0jvadn19es3gn35hkafdj626i5anddud@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #321058 |
Nobody wrote: >"Canonical founder Mark Shuttleworth also replied matter-of-factly. “As >David said, we learned that the Deb based package system wasn’t workable >for a store. The work on Ubuntu phone led us to snappy, where we put the >developer of a typical app almost completely in control of publication.”" It's very puzzling, very cult-like, that assholes like "Lloyd" take pleasure in the "failure" of such a small business, an alternative product with little apparent significance. Most of us like to see healthy competition, and to have lots of choices. Me, I'm happy to see Apple's products in the market, even if I choose not to buy them. Hell, I'm even glad to have Micro$oft as a viable choice in the mobile-phone market. It doesn't make sense, until one considers that they are just that scared of the competitive threat that Free software poses, after seeing Android come from nothing to roar to market leadership in just a few short years. The corporate shills keep beating the "desktop Linux will never succeed" drum, but fact is that the foundations, on which the desktop duopoly is built, are showing some cracks. -- "You see 0.3 to 0.6 as a serious threat to a company who has more than 90% of the market as a threat? FFS. Get real." - "True Linux advocate" Hadron Quark
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-16 10:43 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D21EF85C.5BBC8%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #321106 |
On 9/16/15, 8:12 AM, in article hq0jvadn19es3gn35hkafdj626i5anddud@4ax.com, "chrisv" <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote: > Nobody wrote: > >> "Canonical founder Mark Shuttleworth also replied matter-of-factly. ³As >> David said, we learned that the Deb based package system wasn¹t workable >> for a store. The work on Ubuntu phone led us to snappy, where we put the >> developer of a typical app almost completely in control of publication.²" > > It's very puzzling, very cult-like, that assholes like "Lloyd" take > pleasure in the "failure" of such a small business, an alternative > product with little apparent significance. At least you know what even the big fish in the open source desktop ecosystem are: products with "little apparent significance." Agreed. I would love to see them earn their way to being more significant. > Most of us like to see healthy competition, and to have lots of > choices. Me, I'm happy to see Apple's products in the market, even if > I choose not to buy them. Hell, I'm even glad to have Micro$oft as a > viable choice in the mobile-phone market. I am happy with MS and Apple and Canonical and Mint and others in all these spaces - desktop included. > It doesn't make sense, until one considers that they are just that > scared of the competitive threat that Free software poses, after > seeing Android come from nothing to roar to market leadership in just > a few short years. Who is scared of what? What are you even talking about? > The corporate shills keep beating the "desktop Linux will never > succeed" drum, but fact is that the foundations, on which the desktop > duopoly is built, are showing some cracks. Again, what the hell are you even babbling about? You sound paranoid. -- * OS X / Linux: What is a file? <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI> * Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu: <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE> * Mint KDE working with folders: <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0> * Mint KDE creating files: <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8> * Mint KDE help: <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8> * Mint KDE general navigation: <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI> * Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs? <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA> * Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux: <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk> * OS / Word Processor Comparison: <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-16 18:25 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <d5tqgjFrtnoU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #321106 |
On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 10:12:01 -0500, chrisv wrote: > Nobody wrote: > >>"Canonical founder Mark Shuttleworth also replied matter-of-factly. As >>David said, we learned that the Deb based package system wasnt workable >>for a store. The work on Ubuntu phone led us to snappy, where we put the >>developer of a typical app almost completely in control of >>publication." > > It's very puzzling, very cult-like, that assholes like "Lloyd" take > pleasure in the "failure" of such a small business, an alternative > product with little apparent significance. > No pleasure taken, just noting that the failures exist and that you linux loonies are a big part of that problem. How many of you bought software in their software center? Hell, how many of you bought and/or donated to Canonical to help ensure the success of a small business that is trying to get Linux on the desktop to be a viable and profitable product? I know the answer, ABSOLUTELY NONE OF YOU! > Most of us like to see healthy competition, and to have lots of choices. > Me, I'm happy to see Apple's products in the market, even if I choose > not to buy them. Hell, I'm even glad to have Micro$oft as a viable > choice in the mobile-phone market. > Linux on the desktop is not any sort of 'competition'. A competitive product would be growing sales and making at least some profits. Other than RedHat I don't know of a producer of a Linux distro that is making any money at all. And even RedHat makes the bulk of their money on server and services. > It doesn't make sense, until one considers that they are just that > scared of the competitive threat that Free software poses, after seeing > Android come from nothing to roar to market leadership in just a few > short years. > Right, with about 1.5% marketshare and stagnant, Linux on the desktop will magically become 'competitive' sometime in the future and most likely in la-la land. > The corporate shills keep beating the "desktop Linux will never succeed" > drum, but fact is that the foundations, on which the desktop duopoly is > built, are showing some cracks. You wish that was true, but unfortunately it isn't. -- Lloyd
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-16 21:50 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <safdmnv83.di@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #321120 |
Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 10:12:01 -0500, chrisv wrote: >> Nobody wrote: >> >>>"Canonical founder Mark Shuttleworth also replied matter-of-factly. “As >>>David said, we learned that the Deb based package system wasn’t workable >>>for a store. The work on Ubuntu phone led us to snappy, where we put the >>>developer of a typical app almost completely in control of >>>publication.”" >> >> It's very puzzling, very cult-like, that assholes like "Lloyd" take >> pleasure in the "failure" of such a small business, an alternative >> product with little apparent significance. >> > No pleasure taken, just noting that the failures exist and that you linux > loonies are a big part of that problem. How many of you bought software > in their software center? Never heard of it. What were they selling? > Hell, how many of you bought and/or donated to > Canonical to help ensure the success of a small business that is trying to > get Linux on the desktop to be a viable and profitable product? Unity sucks. Why give those fuckers money? > I know the answer, ABSOLUTELY NONE OF YOU! > Why should we?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-16 22:16 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <d5u826Ftm0U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #321173 |
On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 21:50:50 +0000, owl wrote: > Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 10:12:01 -0500, chrisv wrote: > >>> Nobody wrote: >>> >>>>"Canonical founder Mark Shuttleworth also replied matter-of-factly. >>>>ÂAs David said, we learned that the Deb based package system wasnÂt >>>>workable for a store. The work on Ubuntu phone led us to snappy, where >>>>we put the developer of a typical app almost completely in control of >>>>publication.Â" >>> >>> It's very puzzling, very cult-like, that assholes like "Lloyd" take >>> pleasure in the "failure" of such a small business, an alternative >>> product with little apparent significance. >>> >> No pleasure taken, just noting that the failures exist and that you >> linux loonies are a big part of that problem. How many of you bought >> software in their software center? > > Never heard of it. What were they selling? > Software obviously. Try to keep up! :) > >> Hell, how many of you bought and/or donated to >> Canonical to help ensure the success of a small business that is trying >> to get Linux on the desktop to be a viable and profitable product? > > > Unity sucks. Why give those fuckers money? > > >> I know the answer, ABSOLUTELY NONE OF YOU! >> >> > Why should we? Because you are the one wanting some growth in desktop linux marketshare. Do you think the tooth fairy is going to help with that? Or is it possible that the 'advocates' and 'supporters' should be putting up a little cash? -- Lloyd
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-16 22:27 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <fsamd8.fajds@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #321176 |
Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 21:50:50 +0000, owl wrote: >> Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 10:12:01 -0500, chrisv wrote: >> >>>> Nobody wrote: >>>> >>>>>"Canonical founder Mark Shuttleworth also replied matter-of-factly. >>>>>“As David said, we learned that the Deb based package system > wasn’t >>>>>workable for a store. The work on Ubuntu phone led us to snappy, where >>>>>we put the developer of a typical app almost completely in control of >>>>>publication.”" >>>> >>>> It's very puzzling, very cult-like, that assholes like "Lloyd" take >>>> pleasure in the "failure" of such a small business, an alternative >>>> product with little apparent significance. >>>> >>> No pleasure taken, just noting that the failures exist and that you >>> linux loonies are a big part of that problem. How many of you bought >>> software in their software center? >> >> Never heard of it. What were they selling? >> > Software obviously. Try to keep up! :) Well there's teh problem right there. Trying to *sell* software. LOL. What were they thinking? Seriously, what software were they selling? I've bought software in the past. $thousands and $thousands worth over the years. I'd say at least two thousand of that was Linux-related. Hell, I just paid a couple hundred for vmware 11, and 12 is out now i believe. I'll probably upgrade in the near future. >> >>> Hell, how many of you bought and/or donated to >>> Canonical to help ensure the success of a small business that is trying >>> to get Linux on the desktop to be a viable and profitable product? >> >> >> Unity sucks. Why give those fuckers money? >> >> >>> I know the answer, ABSOLUTELY NONE OF YOU! >>> >>> >> Why should we? > Because you are the one wanting some growth in desktop linux marketshare. I couldn't care less about that. > Do you think the tooth fairy is going to help with that? Or is it > possible that the 'advocates' and 'supporters' should be putting up a > little cash? Linux is not Canonical. Linux is doing fine. Nobody cares if Canonical dies off. Just another blip on the timeline.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-16 22:35 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <d5u94qFtm0U3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #321180 |
On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 22:27:51 +0000, owl wrote: > Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 21:50:50 +0000, owl wrote: > >>> Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 10:12:01 -0500, chrisv wrote: >>> >>>>> Nobody wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>"Canonical founder Mark Shuttleworth also replied matter-of-factly. >>>>>>ÃÂAs David said, we learned that the Deb based package system >> wasnÃÂt >>>>>>workable for a store. The work on Ubuntu phone led us to snappy, >>>>>>where we put the developer of a typical app almost completely in >>>>>>control of publication.ÃÂ" >>>>> >>>>> It's very puzzling, very cult-like, that assholes like "Lloyd" take >>>>> pleasure in the "failure" of such a small business, an alternative >>>>> product with little apparent significance. >>>>> >>>> No pleasure taken, just noting that the failures exist and that you >>>> linux loonies are a big part of that problem. How many of you bought >>>> software in their software center? >>> >>> Never heard of it. What were they selling? >>> >> Software obviously. Try to keep up! :) > > Well there's teh problem right there. Trying to *sell* software. > LOL. What were they thinking? Seriously, what software were they > selling? I've bought software in the past. $thousands and $thousands > worth over the years. I'd say at least two thousand of that was > Linux-related. Hell, I just paid a couple hundred for vmware 11, and 12 > is out now i believe. I'll probably upgrade in the near future. > > >>>> Hell, how many of you bought and/or donated to >>>> Canonical to help ensure the success of a small business that is >>>> trying to get Linux on the desktop to be a viable and profitable >>>> product? >>> >>> >>> Unity sucks. Why give those fuckers money? >>> >>> >>>> I know the answer, ABSOLUTELY NONE OF YOU! >>>> >>>> >>> Why should we? > >> Because you are the one wanting some growth in desktop linux >> marketshare. > > I couldn't care less about that. > >> Do you think the tooth fairy is going to help with that? Or is it >> possible that the 'advocates' and 'supporters' should be putting up a >> little cash? > > Linux is not Canonical. Linux is doing fine. Nobody cares if Canonical > dies off. Just another blip on the timeline. Slight correction, linux on the desktop is doing fine in the hobbyist/ developer market and is finding some much smaller acceptance beyond that. And that will not change until attitudes change no matter how good linux on the desktop is or gets to be. Canonical and others have tried to monetize linux desktop and have found no market. And with the 'free and open' nature of linux it never will happen. Couple that with the really piss poor attitudes of some very vociferous 'advocates' and 'supporters' and you have the sure fire formula for commercial failure. -- Lloyd
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-16 23:08 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <sfdnmv93.daf@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #321184 |
Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 22:27:51 +0000, owl wrote: >> Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 21:50:50 +0000, owl wrote: >> >>>> Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 10:12:01 -0500, chrisv wrote: >>>> >>>>>> Nobody wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>"Canonical founder Mark Shuttleworth also replied matter-of-factly. >>>>>>>“As David said, we learned that the Deb based package system >>> wasn’t >>>>>>>workable for a store. The work on Ubuntu phone led us to snappy, >>>>>>>where we put the developer of a typical app almost completely in >>>>>>>control of publication.”" >>>>>> >>>>>> It's very puzzling, very cult-like, that assholes like "Lloyd" take >>>>>> pleasure in the "failure" of such a small business, an alternative >>>>>> product with little apparent significance. >>>>>> >>>>> No pleasure taken, just noting that the failures exist and that you >>>>> linux loonies are a big part of that problem. How many of you bought >>>>> software in their software center? >>>> >>>> Never heard of it. What were they selling? >>>> >>> Software obviously. Try to keep up! :) >> >> Well there's teh problem right there. Trying to *sell* software. >> LOL. What were they thinking? Seriously, what software were they >> selling? I've bought software in the past. $thousands and $thousands >> worth over the years. I'd say at least two thousand of that was >> Linux-related. Hell, I just paid a couple hundred for vmware 11, and 12 >> is out now i believe. I'll probably upgrade in the near future. >> >> >>>>> Hell, how many of you bought and/or donated to >>>>> Canonical to help ensure the success of a small business that is >>>>> trying to get Linux on the desktop to be a viable and profitable >>>>> product? >>>> >>>> >>>> Unity sucks. Why give those fuckers money? >>>> >>>> >>>>> I know the answer, ABSOLUTELY NONE OF YOU! >>>>> >>>>> >>>> Why should we? >> >>> Because you are the one wanting some growth in desktop linux >>> marketshare. >> >> I couldn't care less about that. >> >>> Do you think the tooth fairy is going to help with that? Or is it >>> possible that the 'advocates' and 'supporters' should be putting up a >>> little cash? >> >> Linux is not Canonical. Linux is doing fine. Nobody cares if Canonical >> dies off. Just another blip on the timeline. > Slight correction, linux on the desktop is doing fine in the hobbyist/ > developer market and is finding some much smaller acceptance beyond > that. And that will not change until attitudes change no matter how good > linux on the desktop is or gets to be. > Canonical and others have tried to monetize linux desktop and have found > no market. No market for their crap. What were they selling again? Unity? Support? Peace on Earth and goodwill toward man? > And with the 'free and open' nature of linux it never will > happen. Couple that with the really piss poor attitudes of some very > vociferous 'advocates' and 'supporters' and you have the sure fire > formula for commercial failure. What's the explanation for Apple's massive failure to capture the desktop after all these years and billions?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-16 23:18 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <d5ubmeF1m9bU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #321187 |
On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 23:08:15 +0000, owl wrote: > Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 22:27:51 +0000, owl wrote: > >>> Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 21:50:50 +0000, owl wrote: >>> >>>>> Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 10:12:01 -0500, chrisv wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>> Nobody wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>"Canonical founder Mark Shuttleworth also replied >>>>>>>>matter-of-factly. ÃÂÃÂAs David said, we learned that the Deb >>>>>>>>based package system >>>> wasnÃÂÃÂt >>>>>>>>workable for a store. The work on Ubuntu phone led us to snappy, >>>>>>>>where we put the developer of a typical app almost completely in >>>>>>>>control of publication.ÃÂÃÂ" >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It's very puzzling, very cult-like, that assholes like "Lloyd" >>>>>>> take pleasure in the "failure" of such a small business, an >>>>>>> alternative product with little apparent significance. >>>>>>> >>>>>> No pleasure taken, just noting that the failures exist and that you >>>>>> linux loonies are a big part of that problem. How many of you >>>>>> bought software in their software center? >>>>> >>>>> Never heard of it. What were they selling? >>>>> >>>> Software obviously. Try to keep up! :) >>> >>> Well there's teh problem right there. Trying to *sell* software. >>> LOL. What were they thinking? Seriously, what software were they >>> selling? I've bought software in the past. $thousands and $thousands >>> worth over the years. I'd say at least two thousand of that was >>> Linux-related. Hell, I just paid a couple hundred for vmware 11, and >>> 12 is out now i believe. I'll probably upgrade in the near future. >>> >>> >>>>>> Hell, how many of you bought and/or donated to >>>>>> Canonical to help ensure the success of a small business that is >>>>>> trying to get Linux on the desktop to be a viable and profitable >>>>>> product? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Unity sucks. Why give those fuckers money? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> I know the answer, ABSOLUTELY NONE OF YOU! >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> Why should we? >>> >>>> Because you are the one wanting some growth in desktop linux >>>> marketshare. >>> >>> I couldn't care less about that. >>> >>>> Do you think the tooth fairy is going to help with that? Or is it >>>> possible that the 'advocates' and 'supporters' should be putting up a >>>> little cash? >>> >>> Linux is not Canonical. Linux is doing fine. Nobody cares if >>> Canonical dies off. Just another blip on the timeline. > >> Slight correction, linux on the desktop is doing fine in the hobbyist/ >> developer market and is finding some much smaller acceptance beyond >> that. And that will not change until attitudes change no matter how >> good linux on the desktop is or gets to be. > >> Canonical and others have tried to monetize linux desktop and have >> found no market. > > No market for their crap. What were they selling again? Unity? > Support? > Peace on Earth and goodwill toward man? > Application software, which you probably already knew. But the tone of your comments speaks to the larger issue. And that is the extremely piss poor attitude of the linux community as a group. "I don't like it so it must suck" is not a valid complaint, it is just bitching. A possible future linux desktop user would be totally put off by comments like that. Add it to the long list of why linux desktop is such an abject failure despite being a pretty good OS overall. >> And with the 'free and open' nature of linux it never will >> happen. Couple that with the really piss poor attitudes of some very >> vociferous 'advocates' and 'supporters' and you have the sure fire >> formula for commercial failure. > > What's the explanation for Apple's massive failure to capture the > desktop after all these years and billions? That's got to be the most ignorant of questions. For Apple to take over the desktop market, they would have had to cover all segments. From the lowest end to the highest. They specifically chose to take the premium computer market, offering no el-cheapos at all. And in that they have been highly successful by any metric you choose to apply. Since Apple's goal was NEVER to take the desktop market in full, they couldn't fail in doing so. Are you really that dumb? -- Lloyd
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-16 23:35 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <adfnbm.kcv9@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #321188 |
Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 23:08:15 +0000, owl wrote: >> Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 22:27:51 +0000, owl wrote: >> >>>> Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 21:50:50 +0000, owl wrote: >>>> >>>>>> Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 10:12:01 -0500, chrisv wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>> Nobody wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>"Canonical founder Mark Shuttleworth also replied >>>>>>>>>matter-of-factly. “As David said, we learned that the Deb >>>>>>>>>based package system >>>>> wasn’t >>>>>>>>>workable for a store. The work on Ubuntu phone led us to snappy, >>>>>>>>>where we put the developer of a typical app almost completely in >>>>>>>>>control of publication.”" >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It's very puzzling, very cult-like, that assholes like "Lloyd" >>>>>>>> take pleasure in the "failure" of such a small business, an >>>>>>>> alternative product with little apparent significance. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> No pleasure taken, just noting that the failures exist and that you >>>>>>> linux loonies are a big part of that problem. How many of you >>>>>>> bought software in their software center? >>>>>> >>>>>> Never heard of it. What were they selling? >>>>>> >>>>> Software obviously. Try to keep up! :) >>>> >>>> Well there's teh problem right there. Trying to *sell* software. >>>> LOL. What were they thinking? Seriously, what software were they >>>> selling? I've bought software in the past. $thousands and $thousands >>>> worth over the years. I'd say at least two thousand of that was >>>> Linux-related. Hell, I just paid a couple hundred for vmware 11, and >>>> 12 is out now i believe. I'll probably upgrade in the near future. >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> Hell, how many of you bought and/or donated to >>>>>>> Canonical to help ensure the success of a small business that is >>>>>>> trying to get Linux on the desktop to be a viable and profitable >>>>>>> product? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Unity sucks. Why give those fuckers money? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> I know the answer, ABSOLUTELY NONE OF YOU! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> Why should we? >>>> >>>>> Because you are the one wanting some growth in desktop linux >>>>> marketshare. >>>> >>>> I couldn't care less about that. >>>> >>>>> Do you think the tooth fairy is going to help with that? Or is it >>>>> possible that the 'advocates' and 'supporters' should be putting up a >>>>> little cash? >>>> >>>> Linux is not Canonical. Linux is doing fine. Nobody cares if >>>> Canonical dies off. Just another blip on the timeline. >> >>> Slight correction, linux on the desktop is doing fine in the hobbyist/ >>> developer market and is finding some much smaller acceptance beyond >>> that. And that will not change until attitudes change no matter how >>> good linux on the desktop is or gets to be. >> >>> Canonical and others have tried to monetize linux desktop and have >>> found no market. >> >> No market for their crap. What were they selling again? Unity? >> Support? >> Peace on Earth and goodwill toward man? >> > Application software, which you probably already knew. What application software were they selling? > But the tone of > your comments speaks to the larger issue. And that is the extremely piss > poor attitude of the linux community as a group. "I don't like it so it > must suck" is not a valid complaint, it is just bitching. Unity *does* suck. Not my fault it sucks. It just does. > A possible > future linux desktop user would be totally put off by comments like that. So. People don't come to Linux because somebody lures them here with promises. They come either out of frustration with the current offerings from the commercial vendors or because they have an interest in learning Unix. > Add it to the long list of why linux desktop is such an abject failure > despite being a pretty good OS overall. Linux is not a failure at all. I don't know of anybody who put the time in to get enough experience with it to enjoy it who has not stayed with it ever since. >>> And with the 'free and open' nature of linux it never will >>> happen. Couple that with the really piss poor attitudes of some very >>> vociferous 'advocates' and 'supporters' and you have the sure fire >>> formula for commercial failure. >> >> What's the explanation for Apple's massive failure to capture the >> desktop after all these years and billions? > That's got to be the most ignorant of questions. For Apple to take over > the desktop market, they would have had to cover all segments. From the > lowest end to the highest. They specifically chose to take the premium > computer market, offering no el-cheapos at all. All computers are Chinese crap. Apple has a popular logo and some brainwashed hipster users. That's it. > And in that they have > been highly successful by any metric you choose to apply. > Since Apple's goal was NEVER to take the desktop market in full, they > couldn't fail in doing so. Apparently you think Linux has some goal to "take over the desktop" though. Linux has millions of happy users. Where it fails is when it tries to expand to include "everybody" at the expense of those happy users. We don't *want* Linux to be like Windows or Mack. Get it? If not, you're free to start Lloydix and make your mark on distrowatch. > Are you really that dumb? That's pretty bold, coming from a Mactard.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lloyd Parsons <lloydp21@live.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-16 18:46 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <d5udagF244nU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #321192 |
On 16 Sep 2015 23:35, owl wrote: > Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 23:08:15 +0000, owl wrote: > >>> Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 22:27:51 +0000, owl wrote: >>> >>>>> Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 21:50:50 +0000, owl wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>> Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 10:12:01 -0500, chrisv wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Nobody wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>"Canonical founder Mark Shuttleworth also replied >>>>>>>>>>matter-of-factly. “As David said, we learned that the Deb >>>>>>>>>>based package system >>>>>> wasn’t >>>>>>>>>>workable for a store. The work on Ubuntu phone led us to snappy, >>>>>>>>>>where we put the developer of a typical app almost completely in >>>>>>>>>>control of publication.”" >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> It's very puzzling, very cult-like, that assholes like "Lloyd" >>>>>>>>> take pleasure in the "failure" of such a small business, an >>>>>>>>> alternative product with little apparent significance. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> No pleasure taken, just noting that the failures exist and that you >>>>>>>> linux loonies are a big part of that problem. How many of you >>>>>>>> bought software in their software center? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Never heard of it. What were they selling? >>>>>>> >>>>>> Software obviously. Try to keep up! :) >>>>> >>>>> Well there's teh problem right there. Trying to *sell* software. >>>>> LOL. What were they thinking? Seriously, what software were they >>>>> selling? I've bought software in the past. $thousands and $thousands >>>>> worth over the years. I'd say at least two thousand of that was >>>>> Linux-related. Hell, I just paid a couple hundred for vmware 11, and >>>>> 12 is out now i believe. I'll probably upgrade in the near future. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>> Hell, how many of you bought and/or donated to >>>>>>>> Canonical to help ensure the success of a small business that is >>>>>>>> trying to get Linux on the desktop to be a viable and profitable >>>>>>>> product? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Unity sucks. Why give those fuckers money? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I know the answer, ABSOLUTELY NONE OF YOU! >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Why should we? >>>>> >>>>>> Because you are the one wanting some growth in desktop linux >>>>>> marketshare. >>>>> >>>>> I couldn't care less about that. >>>>> >>>>>> Do you think the tooth fairy is going to help with that? Or is it >>>>>> possible that the 'advocates' and 'supporters' should be putting up a >>>>>> little cash? >>>>> >>>>> Linux is not Canonical. Linux is doing fine. Nobody cares if >>>>> Canonical dies off. Just another blip on the timeline. >>> >>>> Slight correction, linux on the desktop is doing fine in the hobbyist/ >>>> developer market and is finding some much smaller acceptance beyond >>>> that. And that will not change until attitudes change no matter how >>>> good linux on the desktop is or gets to be. >>> >>>> Canonical and others have tried to monetize linux desktop and have >>>> found no market. >>> >>> No market for their crap. What were they selling again? Unity? >>> Support? >>> Peace on Earth and goodwill toward man? >>> >> Application software, which you probably already knew. > > What application software were they selling? > Don't know, don't care. But I'm sure you or others could have found some that would have some value. >> But the tone of >> your comments speaks to the larger issue. And that is the extremely piss >> poor attitude of the linux community as a group. "I don't like it so it >> must suck" is not a valid complaint, it is just bitching. > > Unity *does* suck. Not my fault it sucks. It just does. > See, I use Unity on my Chromebook and don't think it sucks at all, or at least no more or less than most other Linux GUIs. >> A possible >> future linux desktop user would be totally put off by comments like that. > > So. People don't come to Linux because somebody lures them here > with promises. They come either out of frustration with the > current offerings from the commercial vendors or because they > have an interest in learning Unix. > IOW, geeks. And nothing wrong with that as long as you don't mind lack of a commercial presence in meaningful way. >> Add it to the long list of why linux desktop is such an abject failure >> despite being a pretty good OS overall. > > Linux is not a failure at all. I don't know of anybody who put the > time in to get enough experience with it to enjoy it who has not stayed > with it ever since. > Linux on the desktop certainly is a failure. It fails to attract more than a rounding error in stats for users. >>>> And with the 'free and open' nature of linux it never will >>>> happen. Couple that with the really piss poor attitudes of some very >>>> vociferous 'advocates' and 'supporters' and you have the sure fire >>>> formula for commercial failure. >>> >>> What's the explanation for Apple's massive failure to capture the >>> desktop after all these years and billions? > >> That's got to be the most ignorant of questions. For Apple to take over >> the desktop market, they would have had to cover all segments. From the >> lowest end to the highest. They specifically chose to take the premium >> computer market, offering no el-cheapos at all. > > All computers are Chinese crap. Apple has a popular logo and some brainwashed > hipster users. That's it. > Nope, not at all. They have premium boxes built to THEIR specs by those Chinese manufacturers. That frees other Chinese manufacturers to produce the crap. Apple took the time and money to develop probably the best ecosystem around their gear and they've found users interested in that. >> And in that they have >> been highly successful by any metric you choose to apply. > >> Since Apple's goal was NEVER to take the desktop market in full, they >> couldn't fail in doing so. > > Apparently you think Linux has some goal to "take over the desktop" though. > Linux has millions of happy users. Where it fails is when it tries to > expand to include "everybody" at the expense of those happy users. We > don't *want* Linux to be like Windows or Mack. Get it? If not, you're > free to start Lloydix and make your mark on distrowatch. > "Linux" doesn't have any goal, but some companies would sure like to have some profits and sales for their work with it. >> Are you really that dumb? > > That's pretty bold, coming from a Mactard. > > You mean a 'mactard' that uses OSX, Linux, Windows 8/10, iOS, Android and Windows Phone? I'd say that makes me much more knowledgeable about the comparisons of the various OS's. -- Lloyd
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 8 [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.advocacy
csiph-web