I was wonderin what does this post by James Simmons means.
James did you abondon ruby in order to bring something comersial ?
there are no changes in ruby for a more then 4 monts,
and ruby is hardly useable/ compilable, and you are talking about
a production status?
did i misunderstood something, or you have droped ruby for something comersial?
if i missed smth please excuse me, but please give some sort of explanation.
best
Svetljo
<!---sight very sad --->
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?t=105546067000002&r=1&w=2
<snip>
> solution, but these projects were orphaned.
Not true. Your project has just finished it first stable
release. Its just we are going commerical with this product.
We even have a modified distro to handle such a system.
Yes you have to do special modifications to make
multi-desktop systems work.
> My motivation is simply a priva
..............
Now that we have a working product we can go to the
next stage. Finding customers to sell it to. This weekend
I'm getting together with a few sales guys to discuss this.
As for the potential of this. Its large. With Gnome/KDE
and OpenOffice running for 3,4 or more people at the same
time out of one box will be a enormous cost reducer for
any business. You coudl even do Wine to run MS apps but I
don't know what the legal ramifactions of that would be.
As a business we wouldn't do it out of fear of being sued.
The next stage will be non PC boards supporting more than
one graphics display output. Every now and then you see such a
board. I seen a 8 graphics chip board with 8 video outputs.
Embedded devices that open like a wallet with a display on each
side. Multiuser game consoles would be really cool. Its going to
be a fun future.
<snip>
--
> I was wonderin what does this post by James Simmons means.
>
> James did you abondon ruby in order to bring something comersial ?
> there are no changes in ruby for a more then 4 monts,
> and ruby is hardly useable/ compilable, and you are talking about
> a production status?
The 2.5.X version is broken. Instead I have beening working on making
the fbdev layer stable. The api I developed while working on ruby. The
2.4.X version is quite stable. Alot of the framebuffer drivers could be
dropped onto the 2.4.X ruby kernel and it would work. We do have a few
changes in the framebuffer api that happened but that wouldn't take much
to port to ruby 2.4.X.
> did i misunderstood something, or you have droped ruby for something comersial?
No. I'm still working on ruby. All my 2.5.X is geared toward ruby.
Quoting James Simmons <[email protected]>:
>
> > I was wonderin what does this post by James Simmons means.
> >
> > James did you abondon ruby in order to bring something comersial ?
> > there are no changes in ruby for a more then 4 monts,
> > and ruby is hardly useable/ compilable, and you are talking about
> > a production status?
>
> The 2.5.X version is broken. Instead I have beening working on making
> the fbdev layer stable. The api I developed while working on ruby. The
> 2.4.X version is quite stable. Alot of the framebuffer drivers could be
> dropped onto the 2.4.X ruby kernel and it would work. We do have a few
> changes in the framebuffer api that happened but that wouldn't take much
> to port to ruby 2.4.X.
ruby 2.4.X ?
does it exist?
there is nothing about ruby-2.4 on the linuxconsole web site, mailing list.
are there sources available anywhere?
does framebuffer console work in ruby-2.4
> > did i misunderstood something, or you have droped ruby for something
> comersial?
>
> No. I'm still working on ruby. All my 2.5.X is geared toward ruby.
where can one get your latest work?
linuxconsole's cvs and bitkeeper have no changes since more then 4 months,
there where no diffs posted to the mailing list too.
Svetljo