Last Thursday OSNews had the opportunity to meet Miguel de Icaza, founder of Gnome, Ximian and among other things leader of the much discussed, Mono project. Miguel is a talented and versatile developer but he is also a very intelligent businessman able to understand the industry on many different levels. Talking to Miguel guarantees that you are very quickly taken away by his enthusiasm and optimism and his thoughtful strategies and vision on how OSS will take over the world.
Permalink for comment
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
"1) Hard drive space is not memory in the way you imply."
What do you mean? I thought the point was making the best of a shortage of resources. It's easier to change out a RAM chip than switch hard drives, so I would think the hard drive should be the most important factor. If you're saying that KDE and GNOME are resource hogs, that might well be. But if you're saying that XP is the best way to make use of limited resources, I beg to differ. The whole point, from my view, is that OSS offers you more options on how to best make use of those limited resources. As with this machine that I described, I would have a choice of getting a new copy of Windows 98 or using OSS (FreeBSD in my case).
"Afterstep and Fluxbox are not desktop mamangers, they are mere window managers and, thus, cannot be compared to Windows Explorer."
Why not? While it's true they are not as popular as something like GNOME, but people who take the time to get used to them and find them very useful. And let's face it, the Windows desktop has alot of extra features that the average user doesn't even need.
People can argue which is better, the Open Source operating systems or Windows all day long. Points could be made on boths sides, but I think flexibility has to go to OSS.
"1) Hard drive space is not memory in the way you imply."
What do you mean? I thought the point was making the best of a shortage of resources. It's easier to change out a RAM chip than switch hard drives, so I would think the hard drive should be the most important factor. If you're saying that KDE and GNOME are resource hogs, that might well be. But if you're saying that XP is the best way to make use of limited resources, I beg to differ. The whole point, from my view, is that OSS offers you more options on how to best make use of those limited resources. As with this machine that I described, I would have a choice of getting a new copy of Windows 98 or using OSS (FreeBSD in my case).
"Afterstep and Fluxbox are not desktop mamangers, they are mere window managers and, thus, cannot be compared to Windows Explorer."
Why not? While it's true they are not as popular as something like GNOME, but people who take the time to get used to them and find them very useful. And let's face it, the Windows desktop has alot of extra features that the average user doesn't even need.
People can argue which is better, the Open Source operating systems or Windows all day long. Points could be made on boths sides, but I think flexibility has to go to OSS.