Linux-Advocacy Digest #968, Volume #26 Thu, 8 Jun 00 00:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: 10 Months of my time wasted on Linux. Back to Microsoft for me! (R.E.Ballard (
Rex Ballard ))
Re: Microsoft OS, no full OS CD Re: More Dirty Microsoft Tactics ("Erik Funkenbusch")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: 10 Months of my time wasted on Linux. Back to Microsoft for me!
Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2000 03:45:07 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Tiberious <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I run a small hardware / software consulting firm and being a
> businessman educated in solid business
> principles (Wharton if you must
> know), I thought I saw an opportunity
> to get my foot in the door and
> promote Linux as an alternative to
> Windows and less so Apple.
So let's see, you had limited exposure to Linux, wanted to
get your foot in the door, and you decided to try selling
Linux. And now you're upset because you're not an instant
Millionaire!
I helped the first 8000 Internet publishers get their content on the
Web. Many of them had to start with 80386 machines because they had
absolutely zero budget. My own Dow Jones site didn't make a dime
for almost 18 months.
You want freeze-dried, instant, microwavable ready-to-eat success.
Even Amway (the largest producer of millionaires) doesn't promise
that.
You are going to have to do more than hang out your shingle and
wait for the business. You just have to go "out of the box" a bit.
> Let's face
> it there are millions of folks out
> there "consulting" at various levels
> of competency and in truth, just
> looking at my own area it is
> frightening the level of MSCE that is out there.
You are an MCSE (who can't spell MCSE)? You've been carefully
trained to thing the way Microsoft wants you to think. You
have no idea what the bits of a TCP/IP frame mean, or how to
configure a CISCO packet filtering router based on that frame
content, but you passed a TCP/IP certification test because you
knew how to use the "network" tool on the "Control Panel".
I'm going to assume that you are brighter than that, and help
you see what isn't working about your business plan.
> Some of these people can barely format a diskette via a command line.
True. They can't even write a .bat file anymore. Many NT
administrators get paid many dollars an hour to push the same buttons
on hundreds of machines because critical functions can't be scripted.
But since you're MCSE, you can't yet appreciate the advantages of
scripts and cron jobs. Sure, perl scripts aren't glamourous, and
pretty forms are easier to drag-and-drop than HTML forms (but not
much harder), and CGI http Get and Put requests are much harder to
parse than letting VB Forms call your routines when the buttons are
pressed -- or is it. The debate goes on and on.
> So anyway, I started investigating the
> various Linux distributions and
> hired 2 Linux Systems Engineers who
> knew the product so well it was scary.
I sounds scary. What is a Linux Systems Engineer, and why would
you turn to them for a business model? A UNIX systems engineer
generally has a BSEE that requires 5 years of college or 5 years
of really intense experience to earn the title of Engineer (before
that they are associate engineers if they don't have the BSEE).
How many years did this Linux Systems Engineer have? How many years
of UNIX experience? How many years of system administration?
> I am not exactly a Unix newbie either
> having dealt with IBM/AIX in the
> past,
How did you "deal" with IBM/AIX in the past?
Were you a shell progammer?
Did you configure an Apache site?
Did you configure Websphere?
Did you write your own servers?
Did you write C, C++, and Lex/Yacc programs?
Did you write PERL programs?
Many people "deal" with IBM/AIX sites everyday,
they visit AIX machines every day using their friendly
little web browser.
You've posted no URL, you've posted from hotmail, and you're
login is offensive and rediculous. This would indicate that
you are a troll. I like playing with trolls, feeding them,
fattening them up, and eating them for dinner.
You can find my URL at the bottom of this article.
Click the picture in the middle for a bio.
> but my function was mainly to
> garner support and try and sell
> Linux.
Don't try, do!
People who try are willing to accept failure.
People who DO won't let themselves be stopped by failure.
When I was putting Dow Jones on the Web, my boss threatened
to fire me at least 30 times, my co-workers would laugh and
joke, and many of the other managers figured I was crazy and
would mellow out in a few years.
I kept pushing and pushing and pushing, I created my first web
server with an 80386/16 with 16 meg of RAM, a perl script to parse
the Dow Jones News feed and a really simple freeWAIS database.
I had to install Mosaic and Trumpet Winsock on the desktops of
20 managers and 40 co-workers before they could really see that
this was going to be real. Microsoft had told them that the
Internet was nothing but a bunch of drunken college kids. I told
them that within 5 years (this was early 1993) people would give
out URLs instead of phone numbers.
I don't take no for Linux and Open Source either!
I know that there are at least 30,000 advocates out there, many
of whom actually search for my postings on this forum. I know
that they are bumping up against the same problems you are having.
> Our business plan called for the money
> to be made in pricing Linux much
> lower than similar Windows configurations
> (not hard at all) and making our money on
> hardware and the system software set up as well as
> maintenance of the above items.
What is your market. If your market is low-income families, single
parents, and community centers, this is a good business plan, but
you still need to provide more than I would guess you were providing.
> What seemed like a good idea at first
> quickly blossomed into the worst
> nightmare a person in my field could ever imagine.
You figured you could offer cut-rate systems with
minimal configurations and with little more than
a 3 minute tap-dance, you were going to have your
Billion dollar IPO!
Bob Young and the Red Hat team still tell the stories of going
to New York and selling CDs for $10 a pop just to be able to pay
for lunch. Pat Volkerding couldn't afford to make it to the show.
In early 1994, Linux wasn't even known for being a good SERVER.
In fact, the Internet had about 200 commercial web sites, and only
5 nationally branded publishers.
Guess what! Bill Gates spent almost 2 years living at the
"no-tell Motel" in Albequerue, New Mexico - not counting his little
stay in the Graybar Hotel. Even when he had an office, it was
also his bedroom for almost a year.
> The basic problem was that NOBODY WANTED LINUX!!!!
Nobody wanted what you were offering. You offered dirt cheap
PCs on overpowered hardware and wondering why people didn't
beat a path to your door.
> We couldn't GIVE IT AWAY!
You have competition! Heck, there are two magazines giving away
Linux and Linux software in their shrink-wrapped bundles. One
offered Storm Linux. The other offered a selection of software
than seem to have been dropped from the popular distributions.
> They were so entrenched in Windows that to
> even consider switching was out of the question.
Why should they?
Did you offer benefits?
Did you compare costs of archival, maintenence, support?
Were you willing to put your butts on the line?
SCO is a really good example of how you market PC versions of
UNIX. People by PCs because they need many of them (franchises
like McDonalds, Burger King, Pizza Hut, Radio Shack...), and they
are cheap (compared to $25,000 UNIX servers).
Where SCO always gets the win is that they can provide a 24/7 support
contract for every site for less than the cost of a minimum wage
employee - working part time.
They can do this because they know that while NT machines require
a relatively skilled operator that must be physically present when
things get messy, UNIX machines can be almost completely managed
without ever unlocking the cabinet door. The literally hide a key
in the building that is only used if the machine fails to reboot.
Other than that, only the Owner knows even the basics, like what
kind of machine is being used.
> The first problem was providing Microsoft compatible applications.
You mean to tell me that the only way you know of to exchange
information that's useful, informative, and aesthetically
pleasing is to use Microsoft Office? If this is true, you might
have a bigger problem than you think! One of the great joys
of Office Addiction is when they come up with a new version and
10% of the organization has the new version and the rest are
trying to figure out why they can't read their documents anymore
(because the lucky 10% keep autoconverting the documents to the new
flavor). Office for Windows is obsolete, Office 95 is almost
obsolete, Office 97 is hanging on for dear life, and Office 2000
is last year's model.
That was your first problem. We didn't create the internet by
trying to figure out a nice friendly way to share Word documents,
we adopted a standard that could easily be supported by Windows,
UNIX, and Mac. We wanted to run on anything from Windows 3.1 on an
80386 to $50,000 HP/9000 workstations.
An organization considering a Linux solution needs to adopt similar
standards. Use HTML, XML, GIF, JPEG, CGM, and/or RTF formats for
publishing content. If you want to add OpenGL and Postscript for
revisable "Line Art" that's an option.
Don't put new wine in old wineskins. There are several well-known
standard formats that can be used to publish information. You can
even use these formats to import.
The added benefit of switching to open standards for documentation,
protocols, and applications is that you can manage the archive
more creatively. If you have 5000 documents in Word format, you
might have a bit of a problem finding the documents later. If you
have 5000 documents in HTML format, you can use a robot to load a text
search engine like WAIS or Verity and provide information that can
easily be located.
The web succeeded as well as it did because it adopted standards that
could be implemented on everything from an 80386 running Windows 3.1 or
Slackware Linux all the way up to a Quad Xeon running Windows 2000 or
Mandrake 7.0. Heck, you can even implement web browsers on palm pilots
and Video Game machines.
> I tried most of the applications we
> were going to pitch to the end users
> and quite frankly thought that although
> they needed a little polish here
> and there, for the most part they
> were Microsoft compatible.
That's a pretty accurate description. If you use
every bell and whistle, chunk up the ugliest applications
you can find, and use cute features like watermarks,
not only will you break Applix, WordPerfect, and StarOffice,
but you'll also blow away Office 97, Office 95, and Office 2.0.
Bill Gates doesn't mind telling customers that the machines
they bought for $2000 two years ago are worthless pieces of junk
because the new versions of Windows and Office will transform
documents written on the older systems into undecipherable blobs
which can only be read by this year's $2000 workstation. After all,
it's how he makes his money. Furthermore, each time a new major
product is rolled out, you have to pay a premium price because
there are parts shortages. In the off years you can buy
next-year's-junk for $500 a pop.
> Boy was I wrong, BIG TIME!!!
Actually, the original statemnt was relatively accurate. Linux
Office suites can perform similar functions to any of Microsoft's
products, and can publish documents in formats that Microsoft's
Office suites can use. In some cases, you can even do a decent
job of importing and exporting relatively standard documents.
Beware, there are Microsoft advocates who are walking around with
"Linux Killers", these are documents that include embedded objects
that you'd never allow anyone to publish (embedded executables, macro
viruses, and direct calls into DLLs). If someone hands you a disk,
you can almost bet he's a ringer. He's probably planned this little
torpedo for a month, just waiting to blow some poor unsuspecting
Linux advocate's credibility.
> First we tried Wordperfect but it
> kept crashing far too much to be useful.
Which version of WordPerfect? Don't expect the demo versions to
have a flawless performance. The full implementation ($$$) includes
numerous features including backgrounds, templates, wizards, and
import/export filters that support much more than the shareware
version.
> The demo's were getting embarrassing.
> Then we tried StarOffice
> but even on decent hardware
> (Pentium II 450mhz with 256 meg)
> it ran like molasses and took over
> the entire desktop.
I've never liked StarOffice, but it usually get's touted as
the "compatibility box". It's pretty good at importing and
exporting, but it's generally better to import Word, export to
RTF or an older version like Word 6 and edit using one of the
better Suites.
> As a last resort we tried Applix,
> which seemed to work ok
> until one client asked us to try and
> import his payroll/tax spreadsheets.
Which probably contained a bunch of VBA scripts, ODBC
connections, and other "Microsoft Only" stuff that would
make most security managers completely nuts.
You were sandbagged. Better to point out that if they have
VBA and ODBC needs, that there are conversions for those
components.
> Applix died on the launch pad like Apollo 0ne.
No suprise. The sheets probably had enough Linux killers
to choke a horse. The best "acid test" is to have a copy
of Windows 95 running under VMWare. If Windows 95 chokes,
you can call the bluff.
You need to be able to offer alternatives which cooperate
with Windows rather than trying to trash windows entirely.
There are some people who really must have windows to run
some hard-coded application written 2 years ago. Don't worry,
in 6 more months, it will be obsolete, rendered disfunctional
by a Microsoft service pack, and then they will be free
to explore the Linux alternative.
> Other problems were the general dislike of Netscape. People, for some
> reason or another, seem to hate that program. They keep bringing up
> features and the general look and feel of Explorer as being far nicer.
Netscape 4.6 or 4.7 is a horrible excuse for a Linux application. It
was written using a static link to the proprietary Motif library and
comes with 8 meg of "toolkit" that cannot be shared. Furthermore,
bugs in the Mosaic for Linux implementation have left uncorrected
memory leaks and the program can grow until it has taken all of your
swap space, at which time, the system locks up.
There are over 15 web browsers for Linux, including Netscape 6.0,
which has been designed for Linux since very early on.
> Look is another area where Linux let us down.
> We kept getting complaints about the screen layouts.
> Essentially the end users could not adjust the
> screen so that the text looked smooth and clear.
Look in the how-to for deuglification. There are a number of
simple, trivial changes that can be implemented, especially when
using large displays and/or high resolutions. Switching to 100 DPI
fonts, Speedo fonts, and setting the font server will give a much
more pleasant display. The 75 DPI fonts were designed for users
who want to pack 30 screens into a single display panel.
> My Linux gurus explained the lack of anti-aliased fonts
> to me and that was the end of that.
> A person who has to look at a screen
> for 8 hours a day with jagged
> fonts is an OSHA lawsuit in the making.
That's actually amusing. Actually, Network administrators
deliberately choose these fonts because they want to manage
a great deal of information very quickly. UNIX administrators
have the option and usually go for "Quick and Ugly" over "Slow
and Beautiful".
> More problems surfaced.
Why Am I not Suprised. This is sounding more and more like
the typical troll who trashes Linux and admits in the last
paragraph that they used it for a whole 10 hours.
If you seriously want to consider making a business out of
Linux, you should seriously consider using it at least 10 hours
per week for 13 weeks. I'd strongly reccomend at least 200 hours
as quickly as you can stand it.
I can't believe that you actually went to a customer without
knowing in advance what you were doing. This is like a TV repairman
claiming that he's a mainframe programmer.
There are those who get paid very well by Microsoft to
prevent the proliferation of Linux. They use tools ranging
from bogus "tests" to benchmarks that are fraudulent though
legally accurate.
> Several clients use video and audio
> embedded applications which depend
> on the Creative Sound Blaster Live Card.
Most real soundblaster cards are pretty well supported.
Why would the clients be using applications that depend
on specific hardware - the Linux kernel wouldn't even
allow them to acces the hardware directly. At best, they
would have access to audio streams.
> The support for this device
> under Linux seems to be dismal.
Sound configuration is a function of the OEM. If you, who are
offering to function as the OEM or VAR can't configure a functional
sound system, that's your incompetance, not the fault of Linux.
You should know which cards are supported, what drivers need to
be installed, and then insure that the full system is configured.
===========
And here's the real Troll-bait.
> What we discovered about Linux is
> that while it may look like a great
> and superior system on paper,
Let me guess, you bought a thousand shares of Red Hat,
figured since it shot up like a rocket (recently) that
you'd make a quick buck.
> the truth of the matter is that the end
> users ARE NOT INTERESTED IN LINUX.
No. Users are not interested in two-bit hustlers trying to
make a quick buck on a product with which they have demonstrated
that they haven't even the most rudementary knowledge, in hopes
of making some quick cash in a fly-by-night scheme based on the
latest "Buzz Word".
Let me guess, you were also pawning yourself off as a "Web Guru"
telling them how they could get rich by paying you $500/month to
host an NT web server in your garage.
You were also pawning yourself off as a "Webmaster" telling them
you could manage their site's content - using front-page and
NT server.
You were also hocking your e-commerce solution based on you
as the clearing agent (through your access to the credit card company)
using ActiveX "checks" authenticated by you.
I'll bet you were promising to be able to do enterprise integration
as an "Achitect" because you understood the "Architecture" of Windows
NT.
> They are interested in solutions to their problems
Which you clearly did not offer. I'm a Linux advocate
grande and I WOULDN'T EVEN RECCOMEND YOU FOR AN NT SOLUTION.
You may have passed the MCSE exam, but you seem to be too
unethical to even qualify as a "box booter".
> and Windows 2000 provides them in a polished,
> ready to go package that is the current
> standard and is supported by THEIR clients.
I bet you got that right out of the Microsoft Press Releases.
Drestin, hurry, you have another Press Release Writer in the
making! Put him on salary! (if he isn't already).
> We had other consultants
> blowing us out of the water
No suprise here. You bungle your way through a Linux demo that
you obviously haven't even rehearsed, and show applications that
you haven't even tried, and let yourself get "Sucker Punched" by
a Microsoft biggot who has sworn to destroy all Linux advocates,
and you wonder why they weren't buying.
I'm sure you have no clue!
> with their offerings and although our
> clients were trying to be loyal to us
> because of our integrity
Snort, LOL, ROFL, ROFLMAO!
> and long term relationships with most of them,
> the honest truth was Linux was NOT
> and option if we intended to remain their consultants.
Gee - I wonder why. I'm finding it hard to imagin that
they would keep you on as consultants at all.
> Linux is lagging terribly in
> polished world class applications.
Judge Jackson certainly agrees!
> Even the SoundBlaster Live card has Liveware! available
> for Win2k, despite Win2k
> just being released. Linux has been spouting support "coming real soon
> now" for a long time. Still no full support for this popular card.
It might have something to do with that Nondisclosure and noncompete
agreement between Microsoft and Creative that was nullified this
afternoon. Now that Creative is off the hook, they can do their own
Linux port.
> Linux drivers are bare bones and no Livewire is even in sight.
It's a bit hard to write Linux drivers when your only source of
information not covered by a now illegal nondisclosure agreement
is anonymous leaks passed in verbal form.
> In conclusion, we have dumped Linux
Why am I not suprised.
> because Windows is really the future.
And this is what you believed all along, all that milarky
about being an AIX guru aside. What makes you worse than
these Microsoft Biggots who try Linux for 10 hours and then
rant about what a horrible system it is, is that you actually
think that after a few weeks with Linux, that you have the
right to represent the product.
> Linux shows it age with every command line instruction.
The classic Microsoft Employee Propaganda. If you are so
ignorant that you can't even figure out how to use linuxconf,
and the KDE system tools, then you really don't have a clue.
I'm not saying that a configuration guru will never need to use
the CLI to configure a system, but if he's doing his job effectively,
the customer wont need the CLI, until he's ready.
I've had my share of recent run-ins with GUI swamp, this is the
experience of trying to implement a solution using a GUI that
would take a matter of minutes in a CLI.
Certainly the best classic example of the GUI from hell in the
Registry editor, regedit. Just try and actually edit the registry.
And then kiss your system goodbye because it may never boot again.
Try and uninstall software and watch the corrupted registry turn
your hard drive into confetti.
Then it's back to the 5 Rs.
Restart the Application
Reboot the system.
Reinstall the Application
Reinstall the System.
Reformat the hard drive and start from scratch.
> We tried to support and sell Linux but
> the truth of the matter is that
> the end users have spoken and Linux
> is NOT in their vocabulary.
Certainly not if they have to depend on YOU for support!
Remember, with Linux, the code is free, but the profit is in
the support.
Did you offer a service level agreement?
Did you offer 24/7 service?
Did you offer virtual desk-side assistance?
Did you offer upgrades for a year?
Did you offer fully functional systems on every machine you provided?
This is what your competition offers!
Microsoft doesn't!
No, you offered a really cheap desktop, with no support,
and proved beyond any reasonable doubt that you were totally
incompetent to provide the support needed to even provide
the most BASIC functionality.
You made no attempt to manage the customer's expectations, made
no attempt to manage the nature of the conversation, and offered
no significant benefit other than a low-ball price.
As I've said before, this would be a worth-while strategy if
you were trying to sell to single parents - but even then you'd
have to offer a goof-proof self-configuration package that was
custom tailored to that machine.
> Tiberious
Tiberious who?
From where?
Who does What?
Who has used Linux for how long?
Who has configured how many systems?
--
Rex Ballard - Open Source Advocate, Internet
I/T Architect, MIS Director
http://www.open4success.com
Linux - 90 million satisfied users worldwide
and growing at over 5%/month!
P.S. Fire your Linux geeks, thier "Softees" in disguise.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft OS, no full OS CD Re: More Dirty Microsoft Tactics
Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2000 23:19:24 -0500
Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In other words, the policy only effects OEM that's directly liscense
windows
> > from MS, rather than OEM's that buy Windows from a distributor. The
OEM's
> > that liscense directly from MS do so because they have large volume and
can
> > negotiate better prices than distributors sell at. The OEM does this to
> > save money.
>
> But Eric, consider 2 OEMs:
>
> 1) Doesn't sell machines with CD
>
> 2) Does sell machines with CD
>
> Otherwise, everything else is exactly the same. Which one will be
> cheaper? Which one will be more likeley purchased? Which OEM will
> switch over to lower her costs?
Yes, but they're doing so to the detriment of the user. If the user knows
the situation, they'll choose the OEM that ships with a CD. Most users
don't know though. That's the job of the OEM to educate them as to why they
have higher costs and what value that will be to the customer.
Customers are willing to pay more when they percieve better value.
> It amounts to the same thing, either way.
>
> Couldn't you at least admit, just once, that Microsoft is *maybe*
> making a big mistake here?
It doesn't matter whether MS is making one or not. The OEM is the one that
is choosing to screw the customer, and thus they are making the mistake.
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list (and comp.os.linux.advocacy) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
