Remote desktop vs. remote display

Posted Feb 25, 2013 18:26 UTC (Mon) by raven667 (subscriber, #5198)
In reply to: Remote desktop vs. remote display by Cyberax
Parent article: LCA: The ways of Wayland

I think there's always room for another Mac OSX, in no way dominant but carving out a significant and sustainable market share. I think a similar strategy would work as well, selling a small number of boutique devices as a profit to fund development on a constrained set of hardware. Canonical could maybe pull it off if they could focus on one thing but I think Google has a better chance with their Chrome books which seem to be doing OK.

(Log in to post comments)

Posted Feb 25, 2013 20:57 UTC (Mon) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link]

I think there's always room for another Mac OSX, in no way dominant but carving out a significant and sustainable market share.

I'm not so sure. Mac OSX is only sustainable because Apple sells hundreds of millions iPods and iPhones. It's not a sustainable as a purely desktop OS. And I'm not sure even large companies (like RedHat) have enough money to pour in the development of Mac OSX alternative.

Canonical could maybe pull it off if they could focus on one thing but I think Google has a better chance with their Chrome books which seem to be doing OK.

These are no yet sustainable by itself: they are somewhat popular but you can't develop software for ChromeOS on ChromeOS. Give it few years and situation may change, though.

Remote desktop vs. remote display

Posted Mar 11, 2013 9:34 UTC (Mon) by Duncan (guest, #6647) [Link]

> but you can't develop software for ChromeOS on ChromeOS.

In theory, you develop it for the web and run it on a server an it "just works" on chromeos... and anywhere else there's a reasonably current browser. Yes, as always with the web there's some issues with portability on the advanced stuff, but it's still far more portable than stuff written to a local system api.

Feb	MAR	Apr
	31
2015	2016	2017