Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
News

Whole Slew Of Commercial Linux Apps? 150

Posted by CmdrTaco from the this-is-kinda-weird dept.
Rannos sent us a somewhat strange ZD story talking about chilliware and their "100 Linux Applications" that they are releasing to retail this year. They claim to be releasing a Linux office suite, too. All closed source. Also talks about the Corel/Microsoft thing a bit.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Whole Slew Of Commercial Linux Apps? More

Whole Slew Of Commercial Linux Apps?

Comments Filter:

  • Re:Chillware's plan (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    I wouldn't mind it. They're not talking about subverting the OS here; just producing a Linux office suite. Fine for ppl who like Office. If you're alluding to the scripting vulnerabilities in Office, I'll have to say again: Fine for ppl who like Office.

    On the other hand I don't like the line drawn here between open and closed source. It's perfectly possible to sell open source software and even GPL'd stuff. Prolly see a better discussion of that further down somewhere though.

  • YAOS? (Score:1)

    by tzanger ( 1575 )

    Yet Another Office Suite?

    So what does that bring us now? StarOffice, the bloated hungry pig of an app (haven't checked the opensource release, hopefully that changes and they REMOVE THAT FUCKING MDI SCHEME or at least make it an option), KOffice and Gnome-Office, Applix, Corel Office, iOffice2000, Siag Office, and who else have I missed?

    I love Open Source. I love selection. None of these guys get it right though; they all stop short of giving a fully integrated system which at least matches MS Office, let alone beat it. I realize that some of these aren't quite done yet but some have also been a work in progress since they've been released. Come on... If you're gonna do something, go whole hog, don't do a half-assed job about it!

  • "but most of the cool ones I am interested in have been going on for YEARS and look no closer to completion than they did a few years ago."

    Software(that is used) is never complete or finished, it evolves over time to fit the users changing needs. This is the fundamental beauty of open source software, the user is allowed to take part in this evolution. I like this ability and don't want to lose it.

    Time is Change. Get used to it.
  • I've always found it interesting that many of the posters in these forums sound like religious zealots rather than REAL sysadmins or coders

    I would guess that's because REAL sysadmins and coders are busy with REAL stuff, while 12 year old (in actual time or just mental maturity time) zealots have lots of time to post to /.

  • No, that's chilisoft.com - I wonder if these guys are just trying to rip off their name (since chilisoft's ASP solution is fairly well known)
  • Wow - I was marked as flamebait! Sheesh!

    What was it? The fact that I mentioned I'd support a company that charged for apps? Or perhaps the notion that 'not everything needs to be open source'?

    I'll modify my point some - not everyone WANTS things for free. Regardless of quality, many end users want to pay - they might think it buys them security, or peace of mind, or continued development, or whatever. And perhaps that's the only way some people CAN contribute. We can't all code new kernel hacks. But many of us could contribute to the development of Linux by financially supporting those who can and do develop new Linux apps.

    By capitalizing on this premise, I think Chilliware will do good for themselves AND just possibly demonstrate to other companies that there is a viable opportunity in porting other Apps to Linux. I'd love to see Quicken or Quickbooks for Linux. I might end up using some other package later, but I'm drawn to the brand. Not everyone wants just a car - even if it functions the same - some people want a specific *brand* of car. Same thing with many end-users, imo.
  • Depends. Newbie user who doesn't like compiling and find free software intimidating - yes. Stick-in-the-mud companies that want 'support' - yes. Linux is entering the mainstream now, so don't expect these new users to make the rational choice.

  • For the canadians in the audience, Compusmart [compusmart.ca] carrys boxed Linux software from Loki.


    --
  • With a name like that, perhaps they are hoping to be bought out by a hardware company who will eventually end up being bought out by Sun.
  • Another company trying to sell second class software. Any serious software developer will tell you that you need more time than that to develop a fully featured software like a DTP application.

    In addition I do not see any specifications or screenshots on their web site. Its one thing to come up with shots of the boxes, another to come up with competetive software.

    Sorry, but this news looks more like a trap targeted for investors. On the web site you can see that the guy responsible for press releases is also responsible for investor relations. This is pathetic.

  • Chilliware != Chili!Soft (Score:3)

    by SparkyUK ( 10333 ) on Monday October 23, 2000 @03:23AM (#684131)

    I see at least one poster who has lost the plot and started off on a ramble about how great Chili!Soft are. This ain't them.

  • Good for them (Score:3)

    by uradu ( 10768 ) on Monday October 23, 2000 @03:25AM (#684132)
    I've always advocated that operating systems should be open, in order to facilitate a level playing field for application developers. I see the OS as a sort of super-specification for how to write applications; while most OSs also provide a lot of services above and beyond that, I think their primary role is that of an application running environment. Having a free and open OS is akin to having openly published specs for public utilities. Imagine having secret electrical specs, known only to the people at your local electricity board. They'll come and wire your house for you, but there's no way in hell they'll disclose them to third party contractors.

    In this light I view Linux as that open spec OS, the level playing field. Now whether "third party" application developers choose to follow the same economic model with their apps is an entirely different thing. StarOffice or Kylix or what have you provide none of the critical services of the OS, and whether you use them or not is entirely up to you, but not using them does not cripple your ability to use Linux in any way.

    Not everybody is convinced by the economic viability of the Open Source way of life. Or--to put another spin on it--not everybody is as the same level of enlightenment regarding Open Source. But by providing an open source operating system and a mechanism for keeping it that way, at least we prevent closed source developers from forcing dependence on them on the rest of the community. After all, for a long time that was the biggest complaint about Microsoft: not that their software wasn't freely available, but that Windows was an opaque environment at the whims of its parent company, deliberately used to gain a competitive advantage by keeping its inner workings obscure, or even changing them periodically to break existing software. Linux as a widespread desktop OS would change all that.
  • A traditional shrink wrap company is just not going to make it. Most people here would agree that closed source festers without peer review. Anyone would agree that you can't compete against no cost alternatives. Traditional companies are going to have a harder time providing service as free software gains mindshare as well. Who's going to become a technician for products produced by companies using an obsolete business model? These poor devils are going to get beat, and bad.

    Companies that make it are going to be the ones that provide a real service using the best available software. That software will be increasingly Free [fsf.org]. They will provide the funds for others to continue writing software. Part of that service might even be a shrink wraped box with paper documents, as a "reasonable" price.

  • There are already a good sized variety of closed source Linux applications...

    Jeremy

  • Why should anyone care that they don't match MS tit for tat?

    I never said matching them exactly, but rather in terms of usability, integration and features.

    How did they fail?

    • StarOffice: Huge, Slow, MDI.
    • KOffice/Gnome-Office: Not done, can't comment quite yet
    • iOffice2k: Everything is proprietary
    • Corel: They haven't had a good word processor since WordPerfect 5.1. Unfortunatley they're too bull-headed to realize it. Their office suite is similar in this regard.
    • Siag Office: no groupware
    • Applix: Java everything. Did I mention slow?
    So you see, I have tried many different things; I'm not talking out of my ass. Some of these office suites have the ability to be great. At this point in time however none of them are capable of replacing MS Office in the workplace.
  • Linking with Richard Stallman's recent opinions on Open Software, people should have the means to choose what software they want to use. It is one of the main principles of Open Source Software; choice. If people want to use Closed source software, they can, provided they don't come running if it all goes wrong.

    Personally, I believe that people are more likely to use Open source software, simply it is adaptable, (usually) well maintained and (usually) free. However; if people wish to use the software, then that's up to them. It will probably fill the needs of those who aren't so technically adept. New Linux-converts for instance.

    It is also worth noting that a lot of Linuxes offer real-time support (over IRC), and due to different time zones, this constitutes 24 hour (free) support.

  • I hope this doesn't have an adverse affect on the Linux market by crowding out free software.

    Consider beer. Your competitors brand is outselling you. Solution? Release 100 inferior brands of beer. You will take the market by sheer bandwidth.

  • It seems to me that these guys are trying to follow in M$ footsteps so to speak. I'm not terribly fond of the idea of running closed-source apps in my open-source OS, seeing as how there are plenty of alternatives.

    Joshua
  • It simply makes no sense year after year to keep on paying again for that same app that would have suited you well enough 10 years ago.

    If you don't need any of the new features of a given piece of software, you don't need to upgrade it (Y2K aside...). That's something that's often forgotten. If your company is happy with Windows 95 and Office 97, Microsoft doesn't show up at the door and say "excuse us, but did you realize that we've got new versions out that you MUST buy?"

  • can we assume... (Score:3)

    by bubbasatan ( 99237 ) on Monday October 23, 2000 @03:03AM (#684140) Homepage
    that this is an x86 Linux only thing? I mean, after using Linux on x86 exclusively the last few years, I have now branched out and seen what Linux on Sparc and PPC can do for me. With open source software, I can of course port the stuff with little difficulty. However, this Chillisoft business being closed source, do I then have to wait to be able to buy a different platform version? That was why I quit using closed source crap in the first place!
  • I am going to guess that in both of the second cases you mentioned, the user will be able to help themselves more than the company could. Anybody who can gather together all of the stuff needed to run their own Linux setup can probably figure out if they are running something incompatable with Product X. In the same way, if you went to the effort of compiling your own 2.4 kernel and X setup, you should know what is going on. Of course, that isn't 100% guarenteed, but it seems reasonable to me...
  • ... does anyone seriously think that the linux os will bloom into a viable, end-user-oriented platform?
    and also, does any one expect the manufacturers of closed source software to port their offerings to linux as open source?
  • Closed source is better than no source at all.. isnt it?? well???
  • It's sad to see the market is capitalizing on linux... It's provided free of charge, donated code by programmers aiming for a better NOS. Not for games, not for "productivity apps"...

  • See my detailed article [advogato.org] on supporting Linux end-users and their needs at Advogato. I also give the weaknesses and strengths of setting up a "cooperative" to support these needs.

    I think the limitation is that not much is really known about GNU/Linux end-users and what they expect. With all of the VC injected into the Linux server market, large entities really don't care about the end-users because the margins are very tight. There is not enough money to satisfy their VC obligations with a return of 15%. Server margins are upwards of 400%.

    Lucas

  • But if you make a rock solid, easy to use software package for linux, where's the money going to come from if not for sales of binaries. Well written and small/simple apps typically won't require much support to get running, and right now, support is where all the linux companys claim to want to make their money from.
  • It's not sad, it's expected. Developers of various stripes (FSF, Open Source, public domain, et.al.) who contribute to the free Unixes have created a collection of platforms that are low cost/free, stable, relatively easy to develop for, and available on commodity hardware. Given this, the next wave to wash ashore is certain to be the strictly commercial applications, many of whom have suffered difficulty and setback on that other OS. Surprised? Don't be. It's as if we built a public highway using private donations along side the original dirt path, everyone is going to use it if they can and their uses may not be the same as those of the original supporters.
    - technik
  • So what! People make bad decisions every day of their lives. I for one don't want to hand hold anybody. Hell, if someone wants to start paying for software, then perhaps there's money to be made out of it ;-)

  • Ummm...Closed source *IS* no source.

    --K
    ---
  • I agree. Also, why so many ad banners on a commercial software site?
    Trying to make a few pennies are we?
    Maybe it's just a traffic trick.
    Lame.
  • Um...but those boxes of 'just the OS itself' usually come with a stack of apps as well...

    I personally think that boxed software is becoming an increasingly unfeasible software distribution mechanism now that the 'net is widely accessible - how much money is wasted in binning boxed software when newer versions come out?

    [Happosai]
  • Its the web, stupid.

    At least with reference to contact management, desktop apps are dead. Anyone who needs to actually manage their contacts is likely mobile enough to need the contact data available on the road, which makes a web-based solution natural.

    As for office apps, this is a dead business. Anyone who needs Office already has it. Why people even bother with this is beyond me - you'd think the lukewarm response to Applix, KOffice, StarOffice, etc. would demonstrate how little demand there actually is for office suites on linux.

    Its web application developers who have the opportunities in front of them - why address one platform when you can address all of them? Look at salesforce.com to see where apps are heading - people want this stuff on the network.

    Outside of web browsing, the desktop app is dead, RIP.

  • Money? Really? Screw free software. I think I'll write a basic interpreter...

    Whaddaya mean it's been done allready? :D

  • More likely they'll take the current open source applications, put thier own name and slightly modified GUI on them, and claim they wrote them from scratch.

    Who will know? If they compile them slightly diferently so the binaries aren't bit-for-bit exactly the same would it be possible to determine if they've 'highjacked' some free software and made it thier own?

    Sure, with similer functionality I know I won't buy them, but MS and other established software companies are doing a good job of scaring people about Free Software. They want someone they can call and yell at when it doesn't work quite right.

    -Andy

  • They are trying yo use MS's model then.

    They're taking an idea that's already popular(man pages). Then they make some trivial cosmetic change. And put out a 'better' but non-compatable version. They'll play fair and nice until the majority of the people are using 'better-then-man pages' and every programer must use this format or his program will be deamed 'hard to use' and 'poorly documented' and then they'll jack up the price and start squezing competing suites out of business.

    That's why they have investors, because they hope to claw thier way into a monopoly.

  • You're kidding, right? (How did this get moderated up?)

    Explain GNOME. Explain KDE. Explain the rest of the UI's currently in development. These are desktop environments that a LOT of open source development is going into SPECIFICALLY to compete with Windows in the desktop arena.

    Yes, Linux is competing with NT & 9x.

    Linux on the server side doesn't need easy to use interfaces like the aforementioned environments. Linux on the desktop does. Windows 9x is currently dominant on the desktop.

    Consider the facts:

    The Linux kernel is increasing support for desktop user space applications. USB, Firewire, DRI (for 3d/fx thus far), etc.

    One of the main focii of the XFree86 project is to deliver better 3D accelleration. This is for the desktop, not servers.

    Projects like GNOME, KDE, and other desktop environments are burning up community efforts like wildfire. These are for the desktop.

    Office suites are being released like mad. Why do you need office productivity server on the server? You don't. This is for the desktop.

    I could continue this tirade, but I'm irritated at the apathy in thinking like that. To say that Linux doesn't compete with Windows 9x is absurd. We need to feel as competetive as possible against Windows on server AND desktop - because I promise you, Microsoft feels the same about Linux (do you remember the post the other day? - M$ are directly attacking Linux in their ads!)

    You mentioned that most users don't consider between Windows and Linux when choosing a desktop. This is the whole problem! Users NEED to have a strong pull towards Linux, otherwise, users in mass will not move away from Microsoft... and M$ will continue their monopoly.

    Repeat after me: Linux is competing with Windows 98.

  • Of course, real tech support, on hearing that the application regularly crashes every ten minutes will ask questions like,

    "Does it always crash after 10 minutes, for example even if you just start it and walk away?"
    "How many times has it done this so far?"
    "Can you make it crash at will?"
    "is there anything else you or your computer does every ten minutes?"
    "How much ram do you have?"
    "Run it from the command line and tell me if you get any messages from the program while you're using it"

    Then if none of that is enlightening, the tech support would probably ask a number of questions having to more directly with Product X.

    I've done various kinds of support, and I don't believe the distribution or other differences are as important as everyone seems to think. If the user knows enough to customize their computer a lot, they will know enough to know what they've changed and what it's about. Otherwise, simple commands like "vmstat, ldconfig -v | grep ..., free, df, ..." will tell support enough to know if they are within support boundaries or not. Most applications won't care where files are as long as expected binaries are in the path and libraries are found the usual way. Most of this would be checked at install time. Heck, I think I'd rather support unix (not just linux) over the phone than windows or MacOS.

  • Greetings from Chilliware... (Score:5)

    by Chilliware ( 215893 ) on Monday October 23, 2000 @10:36AM (#684158) Homepage
    Wow. And I thought I was going to have a nice boring Monday!
    Allow me to introduce myself. My name is Scott McDaniel. I am the 'Technical Development Manager' at Chilliware, Inc. (Chilliware.net [chilliware.net]) Essentially, this means that I am in charge of making sure the code is fresh, clean and efficient. (Also, as I am kinda a geek, I am the one that answers questions like the ones posed here today.)
    What I would like to do is let you guys know a few things about us, and correct a few mistakes I have seen. If anyone wants to ask further questions or discuss anything, please feel free to email me [mailto]. (Oh yeah, please excuse any typos. I am the worlds worst typist..yes, even worse that Taco.[heh heh])

    Ok, let's start here:

    • We are not releasing 100 apps this year. I'm not sure where the idea that these apps were for immediate release came from. I will say that we have white papers started for over 100 different real (Not ICQ clones or panel monitors) apps that we want to do. To start with though, we are releasing:
    Mohawk, the Apache Server Configuration program. (Will the guy that named his program Mohawk please email [mailto] me?)
    iceSculptor, an absolutely kickass DTP program. (If anyone was at NetWorld in Atlanta this past month, you may have seen me demoing it.)
    and Mentor, a documentation program for Developers. Mentor is a help project manager that creates indexed and compressed help files that can be displayed in an html widget. Very nice stuff.

    (By the time you see this, there SHOULD be a set of screenshots up on the products page. If not, check www.chilliware.net/shots/ [chilliware.net] for a few I did at NetWorld.)

    • We are NOT Microsoft. We don't want to be Microsoft. We DO however, want to offer as many software solutions as MS does. As I posted on ZDNet [zdnet.com] the other day, I don't think that anyone can argue that too many desktop apps is a Bad Thing[tm].
    • We are NOT ChiliSoft [chilisoft.com]. I don't even want to get into that. Sigh.
    • We are a new company. New in this case means about 10 months. However, this does not mean we are newbies. Each of our 100+ developers has been writing *nix apps for a while. Our CEO and most of the entire board, are all experienced software guys. This isn't a jump on the bandwagon type of company. Yes, we are privately held and financed. Not that it's anyone business, but alot of the funding from this company came from it's employees. Because we believe in what we're doing. There are no marble foyers or private jets here. We are in this for the long haul.
    • We did not use Natalie Portman as our spokes model, as rumor has it she does not like grits. That is just wrong. (Couldn't resist, sorry.)
    • Our desktop apps are closed source. I don't want to get into the licensing thing here, but, I can assure you that all of our code is written from the ground up. I'm sure that if , in the future, someone has a claim that we have used their code, we will be happy to allow them or an external auditor to review said code. Simple as that. It has been job #1 for us that we don't stand on the backs of others in the creation of our software. We are self made. The only Open Source stuff we are using is in our Linux distro, and that will be Open Source, as required by the GPL. We aren't doing this to exploit anyone or anything.
    • We WILL be releasing some source code in the near future. In particular, we will open up the source for some of our widgets. This will allow other developers to use some of the cool stuff we are doing in their own apps. At this time, I don't have details, but if you're curious to learn more, let me know [mailto].


    We aren't the typical Linux company. We aren't riding the coattails of anyone else's work. We are not trying to corner the market on anything.
    That's the beauty of Linux. The CHOICE. If someone doesn't want to use our software, that's fine. We're sorry to hear it, but, I understand your position.
    The whole concept of our company is that we want to bring Linux home.
    I really want my wife to be able to design a Christmas card on my Linux desktop machine, without having to run WINE or VMWare to use PrintShop.
    I want my Mom to be able to write a letter, do a mail merge, and print said letters out, without having to use a word processor that uses 90% of available memory.
    I want my daughter to be able to use an encyclopedia or web browser for her homework, and I want all of this to happen on my Linux Desktop. And I do not want to wait a couple of years for Microsoft to provide this "service" to us.

    I know that it is hard to accept this kind of change to what we already know and expect. But remember that we are just trying to put Linux onto as many desktops as possible.
    I would like to close now, but first I want to cordially invite you to pop into our offices in L.A..
    Send me an email [mailto], and we'll make arrangements. Come in, talk to us, maybe join the team...

    I'll be keeping an eye on the threads, but I probably won't post any more responses here. I have alot of work to do this week...and I would much rather SHOW you what we can do than just talk about it. :-)

    Thanks for your comments everyone.
    Scott McDaniel
    Technical Development Manager
    Chilliware, Inc.
    http://www.chilliware.net [chilliware.net]
    213-365-8700




    www.Chilliware.net [chilliware.net]
  • This is very true. I do quite a bit of phone support at my job (mostly Windows 9x support) and sometimes you have to be creative in simplfying your explainations. People seem to understand better when you tell them to click on the "spider-looking-thingie" rather than telling them to open the TCP/IP properties. But a lot of people who call can't even understand directions as simple as the ones Macka described. A lot of people don't know what an "icon" or the "desktop" is. You would be surprised at the number of callers who can't tell me what version of Windows they are using. I've had to explain to quite a few people what "right-clicking" the mouse means. A couple people needed an explanation of a double-click. An amazing ammount of people do not know what the Start Menu or Start Button is. Most people don't know the difference between a backslash and a forward slash. And I have had to explain to more than one person how to turn their computer on.

    I try to remain patient, but it is very hard sometimes. Some users require me to repeat explainations over and over and over and they still don't get it. Often users start yelling when they don't understand. And sometimes you get to the point where there is no way to dumb it down any further. Also when people have trouble speaking and understanding English it becomes even more difficult for me to explain to them what needs to be done. I really don't think I could do Linux software support. There are just too many things for the user to not know (i.e. distro, Window Manager, Desktop Enviroment, version numbers). Each Linux installation is so unique that supporting software would require too many questions that the users simply wouldn't be able to answer.

  • and when will things like mozilla fit any of my needs? hasn't yet. Whereas IE has. Much better product on my mac than the win version.
  • well a certain BSD based OS has QT and blows the pants off Linux...

    (i bet this is marked as flamebair)

  • Do you think anyone would buy it?
  • Why not? If it worked for Bill Gates, it'll work for me.
  • You're basically talking about the open-source equivalent of industrial espionage, ripping off opensource code and putting it in a closed source project. I don't think that would be happening in this case, and I don't think it's fair to ask to see their code on the off chance they are using the same speadsheet algorithms as Gnumeric. After all a lot of opensource code is realtively platform independent and you don't see people asking for the source to MS Works 2000 because of it has some the same features as AbiWord. I'm not expert but if you are really worried you could try running the likes of strings or a disassembler on their binary and see if they have left anything obvious in plain sight.
  • At the Networld Interop, they didn't advertise by handing out some crappy trinkets that break as soon as you get home, but they advertised using sex. That's right, they had some ho in black leather advertising their stuff, whatever it is. Of course, we'll ignore the fact that she was about 60 years old. Her assistants were looking pretty good. In retrospect, I think that it would have been a good idea for me to go back to the FreeBSD/BSDi booth to get them some devil horns and tails to complete the look.

    Oh, and umm...in a business sense ChiliWare makes the software that lets you run a website using .asp on linux...yeah...that's it. See? I did learn something from ChingaWare.

  • I agree with you in some respects. I am SOOOOO not the typical open source zealot.. but I must say having to rely on one company for patches, not being able to do it yourself and just buggy software in general... closed source sorta bothers me. BUT it is released a LOT quicker than opensource. I have been enjoying Internet Explorer over netscape for a long time because that opensource model for mozilla failed a long time ago. Just my opinion. But it has taken too long and I have stopped thinking of netscape as a solution. So many cool open source projects going on out there... but most of the cool ones I am interested in have been going on for YEARS and look no closer to completion than they did a few years ago. So on one hand you have slow to finish open source with publicly viewable code.. faster to fix. On the other you have closed source... its a companies ass if they don't produce it quick enough.. so it comes out quick... is for the most part quite usable... however sometimes buggy... Too bad there can't be an inbetween... where it comes out quick and can be fixed by the public. I guess it all has to do with the amount of people willing to work for free associated with open source.
  • I don't think that the corporate world is uncomfortable with open source. For custom work clients often demand (and get) source code. Even if they don't know what to do with it at the time they know that they can hire someone to maintain/enhance the product if the company creating the software disappears. There is a prevailing perception that FREE=INFERIOR though.
  • So, John Q. Public doesn't want to have to compile his own apps, but he doesn't mind using a command-line OS? huh? So now Slashdot isn't even pro-Open Source? Now Slashdot is only geared at anti-MS stuff? That's pretty damn silly.

  • Linux has suffered similar problems to the Macintosh: people avoid buying them because "there just isn't enough software for them." They proceed to then buy Windows boxes.

    I'm sure this is probably true, but I think there is a fundamental shift going on in what people use their computers for today. The number of apps people are needing is dropping, because people are doing more and more on the web. I think this trend is even true for non-geeks as well as geeks, and that means that less and less software will be needed. We don't need lots of Office apps, we just need good ones.

    Joshua
  • A good sysadmin also has time to find out what others in the profession think; hence the differentiation between zealot posters and those with some insight and logic.
  • The "News Courtesy of Slashdot" link goes to www.slashdot.org. We all know not to go there [slashdot.org], right?
  • I hope they're paying royalties to Walter Lantz's [geocities.com] estate for use of Chilly Willy [geocities.com] as their penguin! One would expect a commercial software company to honor the Intellectual Property of others ;-)
  • I used to think that the barrier to entry was too great for Linux to become a large viable OS. After all Linux development is much more dificult than Windoze development, so many developers would stick with Microsoft.

    Enter Helix Code. I think that they will be the most influential company in bringing Linux to the desktob because they address these findamental issues, and their software is very much rooted in the OSS movement.

    I think that many individuals have a knee-jerk reaction to commercial software and an idealism about OSS which is unjustified. Commercial software, like it or not, has got us where we are today, and no anti-capitalist ravings will enable the OSS movement to arise to world dominance.

    However, I do believe that OSS will rise to world dominance because it offers a market model more consistant with the actual state of the market than the closed source model, particularly on the enterprise level. I read somewhere that around 95 percent of programmers do inhouse applications. That development power is extremely large, and is enhanced by OSS.

    Remember that server manufacturers may find OSS OS's to be more cost efficient because (1) they are primarily sellign hardware, not software, and (2) OSS software reduces their R&D costs associated with the servers.

    Linux will do well because it offers a compelling market model, not because it is altruistic. Businesses depend on market dynamics, and altruism does not "place bread on the table."

    I think that Chiliware will have a short-lived success which will benefit the Linux market by eroding the barrier to entry still further. However, the future of software, I still believe is OSS, so it will see how long they survive.

    Star Office will, no doubt make some vast and badly needed improvements after 6.0 is released. (That inheritance based interface drives me nuts.)

    So I suggest welcoming chiliware to the market. In their short stay, I think they will help more than hurt.

  • I think that chilliware are taking a giant leap in bringing linux to the mainstream market. I am particularly interested in seeing their office suite and will definately try their distro out.
    I have always said that Linux just isn't as accessible for desktop use as windows to the general public, this is a great leap towards that goal.
    Sure Stallman might lay an egg over this, but for linux to reach the next level we need people who get PAYED for their PROGRAMS.

    I would also like to thank Scott McDaniel for his comments and for clearing up the zdnet errata.
    He gets my "Linux: Hero of the day award"
    Previous "Linux, Hero of the Days." include :-
    Linus Torvalds.
    Tux.

    btw:- Please write a better linux chat client.
  • I do think that OSS has a strong future, but not through idealism or altruism. This is a heretical point of view, I know, but OSS will thrive when companies adopt it as a market strategy. Rapidly developed software that is easy to fix may become a reality if Helix Code does well.

    Note that IBM is also opening up a large number of proprietary software technologies for Linux programmers, and I think that this is a good business move for them because it enables them to cut their costs.

    Open source software may take over and force cooperation between corporations simply because of the fact that you can save money by NOT paying your developers-- you let some other company pay them.

    I am looking at starting up a company which aims at Linux implimentation and support. I have done research into the market implications of the OS, and I think that it has potential.

  • You have said:
    "The one common thread in all of the varying OS/hardware/networking/cabling crap I've dealt with through the years is the fact that CEOs, CIOs, CFOs and CXXXOOOs don't care what wonderful/demon organization brought the systems to you, they want it running 24X7 with only minimal scheduled maintenance. Laugh if you want, but I've stayed employed doing just that (yes, even with NT). Barring perfect uptime, (which is a myth), the way these management knuckleheads get their warm fuzzies is if you can show them a company that you can yell at if things go wrong."

    This is exactly what Linux needs. And some companies are going to get rich when they figure this one out. Linux is on the rise in the corporate server world but will only become more than just another important NOS when companies give them someone to yell at in the middle of the night.

    Linux will florish because there is a lot of money to be saved in it by vendors, and a penny saved is a penny earned, especially in a competative industry.

  • Explain GNOME. Explain KDE.

    Cheap knockoffs a decade too late to save unix.

    Are you seriously comparing Gnome and KDE to the Mac? Try some missing featues like, uhm, drag and drop, application-aware documents, and other standbys that have been on Windows and the Mac for the better part of a decade.

    Its hubris to think that KDE is even the equivalent of Windows, let alone OSX.

    The Linux kernel is increasing support for desktop user space applications. USB, Firewire, DRI (for 3d/fx thus far), etc.

    Yawn - who cares if none of the device vendors support linux out of the box? For example, consider the logitech USB webcam. It has a nice little applet included for taking photos and movies...on Windows. When is the linux version expected...never?

    Projects like GNOME, KDE, and other desktop environments are burning up community efforts like wildfire.....Office suites are being released like mad.

    AND NONE OF THESE PRODUCTS IS REMOTELY COMPETITIVE WITH MS OFFICE.

    Thats my entire goddam point - these toys are still years behind the current crap you like to deride on Windows, and is at least five years behind what OSX will bring to the desktop.

    I could continue this tirade,

    Please don't, we've already conlcuded that you're a fanboy.

  • Who has been wasting their time building a linux DTP program?

    This market was locked up by Quark and Adobe years ago, and no one is interested in getting invloved with a new vendor at this point, particularly on a platform that has no color support, no support for high-end printing and lithography equipment.

    Ugh! Is there ONE person/company in the linux world who is actually trying to build something that someone else didn't build five years ago???

    Oh, I see there is [google.com].


  • Do you use e-mail? Is your mail editor a desktop app? What about your text editor? What if you don't want your contact list on someone else's server where they can see it (opinion piece in e-week on this)? Is video recording (a la Tivo) not a desktop app? What about financial management ( Iknow, I know, you absolutely trust the online company where you store your data not to abuse it.)Etc. Etc. Ad Nauseum.

    There are many places for the desktop app.

  • the subrelease quality of most software on Freshmeat is not sufficient - and Mr. Public does not want to compile his own software.

    Chilliware is marketing shovelware, the rip-off-at-half-the-price crap that screams at you pitifully from the bargain bin with the garish colors of laundry detergent boxes. Why would I pay "$79 or less" for a contact manager or a desktop publisher. A 117-person company with a hundred apps.? I dare you to call Support with a question on app. #42.

    I bought DeScribe for OS/2 almost ten years ago, because it was a native app. That was probably its only marketable feature. I didn't buy StarOffice when it was proprietary. I didn't buy Applix Office. I'm not going to buy Chilli Office. Will I buy Corel Office? Yes, maybe. My experience with proprietary software is that you should buy big. Buy from the company that's going to be around tomorrow. Bend over when it's time to upgrade.

    Why does Chilli see an opportunity? Because free software projects rarely compete for users. They're big on "scratch an itch" development, decent on "all bugs are shallow" development, but really weak on testing, release engineering, and documentation. There are some potential solutions:

    • start a company like Red Hat or Helix and sell garish boxes with the word "official" stamped on them
    • brainwash someone into having an itch for a really easy to install version of, say, GNU Cash for Windows, Mac, and 31 flavors of Unix
    • have a bake sale so that Damian Conway's wife can take a year off to package all his software
  • These days Linux has no shortage of decent, open-source tools for the desktop. What would be nice to see would be a comapny that would do for apps what Red Hat, Caldera, Mandrake, Corel, etc. have done for linux itself: Put it in a pretty package with documentation and a support plan and sell it on computer store shelves. Your average comsumer probably doesn't understand the concept of an OS that comes with a few hundred applications; they expect to buy apps separately in a shiny box with a CD and a book and a quick-start guide. Is anyone selling boxed versions of the Gimp, say? Maybe packaged with "Grokking the Gimp"? If Joe User sees a linux distribution in the store, they think "what would I do with it?". If they see a box with a $30 price tag that says it contains a program that does everything Photoshop does, and it runs best on linux, they might start thinking about buying one of those Red Hat boxes and checking it out.

    Or hey, how about packaging a basic distro with the app? Maybe even something like phatware, that can be installed straight from windows. Taking an app-centric approach might attract more home users to trying linux out for the first time.

    --

  • Awesome AC post, as usual.

    1. Not all platforms support 'binary RPMs'. Many platforms I still gotta get the source and compile. Lord help me if one damn file is not where the package expects it to be, as I'll get cryptic error messages. If one more person tells me to read the 'man' page, I'll scream. The 'man' page was written by someone who ate/slept and breathed the project back in 1996 and isn't around any more (not 100% true, but I've seen it enough to bother me). 2. If you READ the article, it says 100% Linux apps, not 100 Linux apps. Someone got it wrong above. 3. I was talking about MS support. I've had decent support with open source stuff, but it's not universal. Open source (OS) is not a cure-all for all types of apps. Trying getting support from an OS project - if you get a response, *often* (not always) you get 50 'rtfm's from people who don't bother to read your inquiry, then you get people who bitch at you that your platform is wrong (get debian, not redhat, etc.) and that, just as you said, you're 'too stupid'. Excellent way to build a user base.

    If by paying $79 I can occasionally get someone on the phone who can tell me how to get an app working with a beta of XR1146-whatever, excellent. I'll pay. My time is more valuable doing real work than poring over some crap docs written by someone whose attitude is they don't give a rat's ass if I use their product or not.

    Back to RPMs for a moment - why, if I'm too stupid to use them, are graphic RPM front-ends being written at all? Is everyone else too stupid to use RPM as well?
  • Seriously, the only pieces of code you might possibly want to use in an office suite are the auto-formatting tools (and maybe some GUI widgets that might catch your eye). And where else would you use them? They are useless in a different program type (well, maybe not the widgets, but then you'd get yourself into a patent battle [slashdot.org] and would have to retaliate somehow [slashdot.org]).

    It's not a good idea to salvage parts from a moped to put into your hot-rod. So why salvage code from a word processor for that next big project of yours?

  • Support would be a nightmare (Score:4)

    by Score 0 ( 215860 ) on Monday October 23, 2000 @04:13AM (#684184)
    Think about it. In true Wayne's World fashion I will provide three different endings to this question.

    User: I am using Product X and it crashes after about ten minutes.
    Tech support: Which Linux distribution are you using?

    Response #1
    U: Yggdrasil (sp?)
    TS: Eggdrawhat??

    Response #2
    U: I rolled my own distro.
    TS: *dial tone*

    Response #3
    U: Debian 2.2
    TS: Ok, so your using kernel version 2.2.16?
    U: Well, not exactly. I compiled a 2.4 pre release. I also built my own XFree86 4.0.1.
    TS: *dial tone*
  • But most distributions provide the software in a pre-compiled, and often pre-configured, form.

    SuSE 6.2, for instance, included a noncommercial personal-use license for StarOffice if memory serves; now they can have fewer restrictions on it.

    Compilers, et al -- check the box, select the package, and often there's no setup time afterwards.

    Support's the dodgier issue -- how's Linuxcare doing, or their ilk? ISTR also that RHAT has some higher-end expensive distros... hopefully they provide something a bit more than basic 30-day installation support for those.
  • Did anyone else notice that on their site, http://www.chilliware.net/ [chilliware.net], they have a news column on the left that just links to news stories on this site? This obviously won't fool any savvy linux users, but it makes it appear that they are connected and a solid part of the community. I guess they feel its ok to take other people's work and include it in your own. Let's just hope that they haven't done this for their upcoming apps as well.
  • Do you use e-mail? Is your mail editor a desktop app? What about your text editor?

    Email reading is no longer necessarily a desktop-bound app - in fact, I use Yahoo Mail because I want my email available wherever I go - not just wherever I can find someone running Mutt who is willing to let me create and edit a fetchmailrc file so I can access my POP account.

    I think email is one of those applications where your argument is weakest - web based email services have improved dramatically, and some even offer encryption.

    What if you don't want your contact list on someone else's server where they can see it (opinion piece in e-week on this)?

    Uh, most desktop apps these days (in a corporate setting at least), store data on the network, so its a little late for those conerns. I don't know of any major corporation where user data is solely on the local drive. Its simply an issue of whether that network is a closed corporate network or one that is accesible anywhere. Of course some data is sensitive enough that you do not want it openly available on the web - in those cases you can employ security measures or keep it on a closed network (although arguable this is still insecure).

    I would argue that for most data, the convenience of having it accesible everywhere (with reasonable security provided by SSL) is preferrable to closed internal networks (where users break the closure of the network daily by copying data insecurely to palm pilots or x-drive or i-drive, etc).

    Taking data off the local net and putting it on your palm pilot is not good security. So far I have found three palm pilots in airports, one belonging to a Sun exec who shall remain nameless.

  • "All closed source"

    So what? Does it have to matter that something isn't open source??? Man this drives me crazy! A new app for Linux is a new app for linux. It gives Linux more exposure and greater expansion into areas it lacks, namely desktop apps. Linux can't survive with the big boys purely on little, noddy apps. The more, the better I say, even if they're closed source.
  • I dunno...Something here doesn't smell quite right. Maybe I am just paranoid, but I usually think of new software companies starting with one app and gettign it out the door before doing 4 at once. I may just pick up one of these to compare it to what's already out there. I am sure there will be an outrage if someone does "diff `strings ` `strings `" and there is not much difference
  • Of course this depends on the quality and usefulness of the applications!
  • They aren't advertising 100 apps.

    They're advertising 4, with 16 on track for NEXT YEAR.

    I don't know what the reporter was smokin' when the section header "100 products from 100 developers?" -- there's NO hint of 100 apps in the text -- but I do know this: You didn't read the article.

  • Probably just the NSA trying to corner the market on Linux applications before open-source alternatives become too standard among the masses, making things difficult for getting their spyware onto people's systems.

  • Re:Good on them! (Score:3)

    by Bruce Perens ( 3872 ) <bruce@perens.com> on Monday October 23, 2000 @04:59AM (#684193) Homepage Journal
    It would be good if they were for real. If you read their plans, you won't be sanguine about their chances. But naive investors might believe them. Perhaps, that's the point.

    Bruce

  • IMAP. It lets you do what you are looking for.

    What I'm looking for is to be able to read my email anywhere I can find an internet cafe or airport kiosk.

    Since I can't even predict what OS they'll be running or what device, the bottom line assumption is that a web browser with javascript support will be available, which makes web email my ownly choice.

  • At the bottom of the column, they make it clear that the "News" is coming from slashdot. If they are trying to fool people, they're going about it in kind of a strange way.

  • /. has configured itself to make this easy for people to do. It's not theft, it's called linking, which is what the web is all about. If you'll note, /. makes money everytime a banner ad is displayed, which basically means this company is linking people to several handfuls of banner ads at /., so don't expect any great complaints from the geek compound.
  • Surely its more important to have the best software tool for a given job, even if its closed source rather than open?

    For example, hands up everyone who would rather not have Photoshop ported to Linux as closed source, and would rather use Gimp? Keep those hands up, so I know who to avoid giving professional work to later...
  • I don't think it is quite as simple as cutting costs, although total cost for the benefits should decrease. Seems like IBM's involvement in Linux adds to their cost. You hit near a critical area with "Open source software may take over and force cooperation between corporations". For business-to-business to work, extreme cooperation is essential and fragile. Proprietary standards, protocols and code are too subject to manipulation ( unless they are your own ;)
  • From what I've seen, as soon as Linux gets close enough, Windows will go the way of MS-DOS. Single-user and bad graphic abilities just will not hack it.
  • How many new desktop application vendors have you noticed in the windows market lately???

    Um, lots? What about all those file sharing programs? Media players/encoders? Lots of client software for the internet. Tons of sound tools. Zillions of art tools. Reams of screen savers, winamp plugins. Games galore. Just to name a few. Anyone who works in the creative industry can always find a new toy to learn, there are more than you could ever even try.

    While I agree that a number of apps have moved to the web for some people, there will be a cutoff point for both speed and security which people aren't willing to use the web for. A perceptually realtime interface is often a requirement.
  • Sympathize completely, but consider where the users would be with no support.
  • website says newspapers, fliers, etc.. is there anything like that in linux

    Ugh!!! I had programs to do that on the Amiga in the 80s!!

    ChilliWare is doomed. There is no demand for a linux program to print community fliers.

  • The best (or worst) one I ever heard was the user that thought he needed to upgrade his keyboard because his didn't have an 'any' key.

  • It certainly is a step in the right direction to have off-the-shelf, high quality, end-user-ready applications for Linux. What would be better is a new killer-app (new application so powerful and obviously necessary that everyone wants it NOW) for Linux. Why not marry the convergence of these two trends: The move to Linux, and the move from desktop-to-laptop-to-wearable PC? Someone ought to be aiming at writing the ultimately integratable (sp?) software for wearables, now, for a Linux machine of the near future.

    Hey, maybe that's why Transmeta hired Linus? (I never really believed it was just for PR, myself. Why would he have accepted the gig, if it were?)

  • >>Oh, and umm...in a business sense ChiliWare makes the software that lets you run a website using .asp on linux...yeah...that's it. See? I did learn something from ChingaWare

    Actually, no. ChiliSoft (as in Chili pepper) develops the open ASP interfaces.

    Chilliware (a loose reference to Chilly the Penguin I imagine) is what this story is about.

    Apparently their trinkets weren't only cheap - they didn't do their job.

    Marc
  • I'm sure they're working hard, but they have box mock-ups, but no screenshots, and they'll be releasing next week?

    Interesting angle on some things, too -

    Mentor is the first documentation creator for Linux! No more 'man' pages, say goodbye to cheesy HTML help files.


    Ok... so what is this, a proprietary help format? Is something like that gonna catch on?

    Also, their own distro - "tightly integrated with our products" - does that mean the browser will be built into the kernel? :-)

    ---

  • They do mention portability a few times on their site.. of course, I'd wait and see if they actually do any porting to other platforms..

  • I've always found it interesting that many of the posters in these forums sound like religious zealots rather than REAL sysadmins or coders. Some responses to this parent will fall under the same category. Sure, we all have our favorites and experiences. I cut my teeth on Sun and HP platforms well before Solaris and CDE in the UNIX world. I loaded some of the first NT back when only primary M$ partners could get it (scary). But most systems are are owned by companies that are capitalist in nature.

    The one common thread in all of the varying OS/hardware/networking/cabling crap I've dealt with through the years is the fact that CEOs, CIOs, CFOs and CXXXOOOs don't care what wonderful/demon organization brought the systems to you, they want it running 24X7 with only minimal scheduled maintenance. Laugh if you want, but I've stayed employed doing just that (yes, even with NT). Barring perfect uptime, (which is a myth), the way these management knuckleheads get their warm fuzzies is if you can show them a company that you can yell at if things go wrong.

    Linux hasn't had that. I don't care what utopian OSzealot induced nirvana you live in, most of the real world has investors and managers that (no matter how much they may praise you and depend on you) really want as many people on a problem as they can get. And before you say it, the legions of dedicated opensource/freesource coders don't count because they can't be held accountable. No matter how much we believe in the cooperative model, the fact remains that Linux is having a hard time getting through the bonehead fence of "free must mean no one to yell at". Software distributed via more traditional means will help to continue the mainstreaming of Linux because it fills in the gaps between old methods and new ones. I don't care if there isn't really someone capable on the other end of the phone (my teams fix most of our own problems because the support geeks are usually 7 steps behind us), but the perception of support in the management mind is real.

    Also, when you're running a mainstream OS (read HPUX, Solaris, NT, AIX, Novell), you have the chance to start slipping in shareware/freeware/homegrown utilities and apps as you deem appropriate. The management weenies only see the good results and think they're running from the native systems. Once you have them dependant upon the product, then you let them in on the background (if you have to). This will be one more method of getting the best products on our systems and keep our pagers from going off in the middle of the night.
  • Funnily enough, I think they could succeed in their proposed business, not because the category of products that they want to produce are particularly useful, but because the corporate machine requires employees to have them on their desktops. Yes, a large and lucrative market may exist for them, despite costing good money and despite lacking the freedom benefits of Free Software.

    Note that these kinds of applications are not thought of very highly by tech individuals, otherwise they'd have been created by the community already. There has never been much of an itch to scratch for program developers in this area, but the PHBs probably think that they are essential, and no doubt are willing to pay for their belief.
  • Linux has suffered similar problems to the Macintosh: people avoid buying them because "there just isn't enough software for them." They proceed to then buy Windows

    Oh come on, this is ridiculous. There is not a significant market of people who seriously consider linux and windows simultaneously when making purchase decisions.

    Most linux users want nothing to do with windows (or have a windows box available for the things they need it for), and most windows users only have a vague idea what linux actually is.

    Linux is only a mass consumer product insofar as Solaris or FreeBSD are mass consumer markets, and the markets these products actually compete in has almost nothing to do with the windows/mac market.

  • Good on them! (Score:5)

    by mgkimsal2 ( 200677 ) on Monday October 23, 2000 @03:04AM (#684220) Homepage
    We use Linux for development and hosting, but most of the people here still use Windows as their main desktop for day-to-day apps. I'd love to be able to have apps like what they're talking about - contact management, for one, and don't mind paying a reasonable price for them, as long as they're (1) usable and (2) supported should we need that.

    Not EVERYTHING needs to be open source! This is precisely the kind of options I think the Linux community needs. We don't all feel like downloading RPMs or source code, make install, etc. If this company makes a distro that they'll make apps for that look good, install easily and have good functionality and decent prices, these guys will do well!
  • "... he said he'd like to do for desktop Linux what Microsoft has done for Windows".

    Oh Goddess, I hope not.

  • Open or closed, this is a Good Thing. (Score:5)

    by Gendou ( 234091 ) on Monday October 23, 2000 @03:06AM (#684222) Homepage
    I am not going to sit here and tell you that Linux lacks software. Anyone who has ever browsed the Freshmeat archive knows better than to rattle something like that off.

    I am going to tell you that John Q. Public who is out browsing the store shelves is going to see have his attention caught rather quickly.

    Wow, there are applications for Linux?

    Linux has suffered similar problems to the Macintosh: people avoid buying them because "there just isn't enough software for them." They proceed to then buy Windows boxes.

    For the mainstream, the subrelease quality of most software on Freshmeat is not sufficient - and Mr. Public does not want to compile his own software. Just so long as ChilliWare produces a good product (aren't they they the ones who produce that software to run ASP on Linux - and looking at their four new products, things are looking good) this will produce many exciting benefits.

    And in the long run, there's always the possibility of ChilliSoft opening its software up once they become successful. Hey, look at what Sun did with Star Office (it didn't take that long either).

    One Window at a time...

  • a good step... maybe (Score:3)

    by Bad_CRC ( 137146 ) on Monday October 23, 2000 @03:06AM (#684224)
    I like to see this. Commercial, closed source retail software is a big step for linux, and I for one would love to see it. Walking into a software store and having more software for linux than just the OS itself isn't something you can do without an EB in your town (loki's only major retail outlet iirc.)

    But, this is an unknown company, and their products might be crap. Then the nay-sayers would just love to hold them up as an example if they fail, proclaiming "Selling retail software for linux won't work!" and discouraging other companies from trying the same thing.

    Will be interesting to watch. I hope the benefits end up outweighing the potential costs.

    ________

  • Let's face it, the corporate world is not comfortable with open source and free (as in beer) software. Commercial products that are not open source, selling them, and supporting them, may be the kick-in-the-pants that the Linux-on-the-Desktop movement needs to really take off....

    If for one, would love a choice in Browsers. Something that has the support of Macromedia, Real, (and maybe even QuickTime!) and etc. and all the other things that make web-browsing 'fun'...
  • Great, now all we need is a "Linux Country"! Seriously, think about it! It's great and all that Linux is really starting to move up in the popularity, and that there are commercial apps coming out, but it's not good enough yet.

    Hear me out . . . Microsoft's Windows is only popular because its ease of use, its dominance in the market and its number of available titles. Walk into a Best Buy or a CompUSA, you see aisle after aisle of commerical Windows product.

    Linux? Well, all I really see at these places are the OS distros and maybe a couple utilities or Corel WordPerfect Office Suite. The Best Buy here has only one four-foot (just over a metre for the Non-American-System people) section with five shelves for Linux, and probably twelve aisles of Windows products (mainly games).

    For Linux really to have some power in the same market as Windows, and make it more popular, it has to be the three things Windows already is. Ease of use: Well, last I saw, Debian and Red Hat were fairly easy to use. Maybe there are more already. Dominance? Well, as a server OS, it does fairly well. As a desktop or business solution, it's still got a little while to go. And number of available titles? Sure, Open Source is great, and free software is better, but the only people who are developing these are developing them because they want to, not to really make a living.

    How do we remedy these? Well, open a dedicated store! Linux Country! Really. Walk inside, have nice black cases all around with white spots (not those stores with the white boxes and black spots), notebooks which are preinstalled with your favourite distribution, software as far as the eye can see . . .

    Well, it's a dream. But if someone really wanted to invest in it, would it be that difficult of a dream? If people could make money off Linux developing the games, software and utilities, they would. Though people on slashdot often don't think software should be commercialised, it's one of the only ways to feasibly make Linux and Linux software more dominant.

    In this fantasy store, we'd have all these titles. We'd have pretty plush penguin Tuxes. We'd have training courses so even the computer-illiterate will be untarring and bashing and telnetting!

    It's feasible. But then again, it was feasible fifty years ago we'd have flying cars. It's 2000, and the only flying my car will be doing is if I get tired of it breaking down and I drive it down to the local gorge.

    Just a little daydreaming on my part. Don't mind me.

    Dragon Magic [dragonmagic.net]
  • I'm currently a moderator, and so I was tempted to actually do just that and mark it as flamebait, but I'll respond instead.
    1) How exactly does it blow the pants off of Linux? It's not customizable at all, it's not free, and it runs only on godawfully expensive HW.
    2) Just because it is BSD-based does not make it in any way open. Apple has taken the source and closed it (as is their right under the BSD license) so saying "Linux suxOrs because another Open Source OS has QT" is wrong.
    3) As the original post mentions, Apple won't let the codec be ported to Linux. Your post basically says "Apple ported it to BSD themselves." Big fricking deal. It still doesn't in any way refute his point: that Apple will not allow anyone to port the codec, because they have a closed and controlling mentality about software.
    Ugh. In summary: it is definitely flamebait, and I fell for it. Hope you are happy.
    ~luge

  • 100 products this year? (Score:4)

    by gle ( 215268 ) on Monday October 23, 2000 @03:12AM (#684255) Homepage
    When I read the article I see:

    They'll be releaseing 4 next week.

    They plan to release 16 next year (read: maybe 10)

    They speak of 100 percent Linux-for-desktop applications, not 100 Linux-for-desktop applications

    The journalist speaks of more than 100 desktop Linux apps, without any time frame. I beleive journalists even less than lawers.
    And their website is nearly empty. Who said vaporware?

    ____________________

  • 16 apps in a year from 117 engineers.

    Either the apps are simple desktop "applets", or they will be low quality knock-offs of good software.

    Designing, developing, and testing a robust, feature-rich application takes a lot of time. He gives a total of 8 man-years per product. My experience says this is plenty for the 'developer' quality software you see on freshmeat (ie, the software does its job if you treat it right), but will not cut the mustard of what consumers expect from a CompUSA shelf box.

    My gut feeling is that they will be hawking the type of software that you find in those big 'bargain boxes' at CompUSA. First there are the cheap knock-offs: "Heh, look. $10 for a CAD program!! I gotta have this." Unfortunately, trying to do anything but the tutorial crashes program. Then there are the useless extension to outdated shareware: "Look. 1001 Card Games. Only $10. And here is 101 Arcade Games That We All Wish We Could Forget. Still only $10."

    It's nice to have 117 more developers on board, but since they're closed source I don't see them contributing much to the community other than some exposure on store shelves. Even then, if they're software is as sub-standard as I expect it to be, it may prove to be negative exposure.

  • "As for Microsoft, Eppers doesn't see the Redmond, Wash., software maker as an enemy. In fact, he said he'd like to do for desktop Linux what Microsoft has done for Windows."

    Cool, so he wants to completely break Linux (but Microsoft had a head-start - their OS was broken to begin with!), force all Linux users that load his apps to re-boot once every couple of hours, and charge an arm-and-a-leg for half-ass apps that require several service patches before they're even minimally functional because they were too cheap to fix the bugs BEFORE they shipped? Oh, that's EXACTLY what Linux needs. Why didn't WE all think of that?!?!?

    Sombody PLEASE wonk this guy several dozen times with the ClueBat(tm)!

Slashdot Top Deals

FORTRAN is not a flower but a weed -- it is hardy, occasionally blooms, and grows in every computer. -- A.J. Perlis

Close