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

Re: Redhat's intentions for streaming media support in Mozilla

Graydon wrote:

A common game engine data interchange project between several games
would be cool, but it isn't likely, either.  (And I'll note that linux
users are notoriously unwilling to buy even native linux games.)

Not when they can use the windoze version
they already have, and just download the linux
installer from idsoftware - they don't want to
pay twice for the game, that's for sure.

Since I made it a condition of employment that I got to have linux on the desktop where I'm presently working, on the grounds that I'm sufficently unfamiliar with Windows to be severely unproductive with it -- even if I'm stuck with windows in a virtual machine for some mandated things -- is is perhaps the case that I'm not one of these people.

Well that's refreshing, many of the folks who
rant against commercialism are being silly
since they use win doze, by choice, at home,
on a daily basis. My apologies for the faulty
assumption -

You don't have to have a Windows pc to view multimedia; there are a
number of decent media viewers, and for the open formats they're really
very good.  It's the existence of the closed formats which make them
difficult applications to distribute.

Well I'm all for seeing the open formats win -
but Linux users won't have much of a vote
until we gain more marketshare - if we get
to 15% market share on the desktop, then we
can no longer be ignored.

Can you give one example of a vendor who tried and failed to sell a
good linux app


I bought applixware - it was actually not bad,
but somewhat clunky.

Star Office

I bought star office - and was very disappointed,
I'd much rather use abiword, unless there is some
exquisite ms word formatting that must be
correctly rendered. The 30-second startup time
is enough to guarantee I'll never buy it again.

(still doesn't sell to individuals; sells to
corporations, but that's a completely different market); *any* native
linux game;

The problem with games is that is people
already have the win doze version and the
linux installer from idsoftware, they are
not going to buy the game yet again just to
let folks know they are using linux.

Framemaker (Adobe did a *lot* of market research and found
out that they couldn't possibly sell it within shouting distance of
their accustomed price point).

They wouldn't sell photoshop for linux either,
and now the gimp has caused them pain.

Redhat probably loses money on the desktop distro *now*, and you want
them to pay licensing fees?  And deal with the degree of infuriation
that would cause in the developer community?

I don't think the "infuriation" in the "developer
community" would be an issue -there is broad

If you required people to buy proprietary tech to get your distro?

Consider how much heat got generated over putting a common desktop skin
on GNOME and KDE.

The average Joe was thrilled - the shrieks of
outrage came from kde enthusiasts who did
not want to see kde dumbed down or crippled -

SuSE isn't saying 'you have to buy this to get our distro', either,
which is what the kind of seamless desktop media integration you're
talking about would require.

Correct, suse doesn't say say such thing, they
simply ship it all nicely installed for the user.

You fire up the browser and flash sites work,
java sites work, real sites work, out of the box.

It's not rocket science; this idealogical purity,
while admirable, could nevertheless cripple red
hat if they don't find a way to come to terms
with the market.

I want to see Red Hat succeed - if they fail, I've
got egg all over my face as well.


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