Linux-Advocacy Digest #8, Volume #28 Thu, 27 Jul 00 01:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: MS advert says Win98 13 times less reliable than W2k (R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard
))
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: MS advert says Win98 13 times less reliable than W2k
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 04:28:52 GMT
In article <oJrf5.7510$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Spud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard )" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8lje0u$21j$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In article <mrSd5.3443$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > "Spud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > [snips]
> > >
> > > "R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard )" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
> message
> > > news:8l7ei4$vte$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > [part 2 - due to limits on DejaNews]
> >
> > > Yeesh... $5,000 in labour for *what*?
> >
> > Full backup of all user software (done by user) 10-30 hours
> > (identification of private files, back-up over 100/T network
> > in large corporation)
>
> Step 1: Don't *do* this. At all.
>
> > Removal of old hardware to desktop location 1 hour.
>
> Removing an old box takes tops, five minutes.
Hey Spud. Do you do Fixed Price Contracts on this basis?
You budget nothing for contingincy and assume that you will
be able to service one person every 5 minutes. This means
that you are willing to guarantee that you can successfully
service 12*8=96 people in a single 8 hour shift.
Is this just a 1-day thing or are you going to remove 96 machines
a day 5 days a week, 50 weeks a year? Will you do this by yourself,
or do you have 10 more people who can remove 960 machines per day?
Keep in mind, of course, that if you remove a machine before a user
has given you permission, you may be held liable for that person's lost
time. If you make the appointment to remove his machine at 12:05 and
he's not available until 1:15 (called into a lunch meeting), will
you be able to make up the time?
I'm drawing from research based on installations of Windows 3.1,
Windows NT 3.51, Windows 95, Windows NT 4.0 and Windows 98,
across 300 companies of 10,000 employees or more. This is how much
they say they spend, on average, after adding up all expenses related
to each upgrade (planning, procurement, contract negotiations,
accounting, backup, installation, recovery, clean-up, security,
administrative expenses, billing, help-desk support, and formal
training. Typically, they spent between $5 million per thousand
installations (Windows 98), and $10 million per thousand
installations (Windows 95, Windows NT 3.5, Windows NT 4.0).
How many times have you planned and scheduled the installation
of 10,000 machines or more?
Not included are time lost due to crashes of new systems, time spent
"figuring it out" when something didn't work the way it used to,
Microsoft very wisely put their software upgrades for NT 4.0 into
the service packs, because there were many corporate IT directors
who would have dropped NT for UNIX if they had to do NT 4.3 (Sp3)
NT 4.5 (sp5) and NT 5 (mts/msmq) installations. In fact, many
are really reluctant to jump into Win2K unless they can see a clear
advantage. It does look like W2K will be one of the less expensive
upgrades.
Microsoft used Internet Explorer to avoid "upgrade trauma" on
Windows 95 and Windows 98. In fact, many corporations still
refuse to install Windows 98 on existing machines. Some are
even demanding Windows 95 on their corporate laptops.
Now, if you have some miraculous way to help companies with over
10,000 employees reduce the REAL cost of installing 10,000 machines
to 1/2 million each, and do it correctly, effectively, and profitably,
you could become very wealthy very quickly.
[snip more evidence of inexperience with large corporations]
> > UNIX and Linux has a pretty simple solution. They give each user
> > their own private directory, and everything goes somewhere on that
> > directory tree.
>
> Welcome to "My Documents".
What would be great is if "My Documents" lived in a directory off
the top level directory, along with the rest of the profiles.
I wish Microsoft had done shortcuts/symlinks right in the first place
so that you could put the shortcut to "My Documents" on the desktop and
put the real "my documents" wherever you wanted.
When you launch an Office Application (as opposed to opening a file),
your "save" defaults to directories deep in the bowels of the machine.
I'd just like to have the option of having my personal information
automatically isolated from the stuff that can be installed from a
CD-ROM or a share drive.
> > Furthermore, the configuration files for each
> > application are stored in text files that can be backed up and
> > recovered if they are erased by a subsequent installation or
> upgrade.
>
> Windows does it differently... but that can all be managed from the
> server, so that upgrading the machine isn't even an issue.
The problem is that when you are using laptops, letting users install
their own supplementary software, and giving them what they need to do
their job, the "cookie cutter" ghost image doesn't cut it. You'll
clobber the registry, wipe out all settings for 3rd party applications,
and the user will spend hours or days trying to get things back to
normal.
And God help you if you want to REMOVE software (especially Microsoft
software). Clean Sweep helps, but an overloaded disk almost always
ultimately leads to a replacement machine within a month or two.
> > Windows gives you the monolithic registry,
> > which is nearly impossible to
> > manually edit, even harder to back up sequentially,
> > and makes almost no
> > provision for manually selectable revision control.
>
> All of which is totally unncessary.
Only when you limit all users to a "Standard Installation". This
means either crippling the machine (bare bones applications and
office) or a "Disk Buster Installation".
Another item on my wish list. Linux has the ability to place an
assortment of programs, documentation, help information, and other,
less frequently used information on a separate partition or network
mount point. This makes it very easy use smaller drives on each
individual workstations (or give more private space to each user).
> > Yes it does. And when IBM tried to tie OS/2 and MCA together,
> > rather than fully supporting a public standard, and refused to
> > publish documentation for future pin-out definitions, the industry
> > balked completely.
>
> They chose _not_ to accept IBM's way. Right. See?
> It's all choice.
Actually, it was a huge gamble. In fact, many CEOs lost their jobs,
and many companies went under because the ISVs had put all their eggs
in the OS/2. It was nearly two years before the most popular
applications (Lotus 1-2-3, WordPerfect, Harvard Graphics, Borland
Sidekick functions, and PageMaker were available for Windows.
Ironically, manyn of the ISVs found that they could easily port
the OS/2 code to UNIX, and produced pretty amazing SunOS software
with minimal effort.
Windows programming took more effort, there were fewer tools, and
you had to do a great deal of low-level coding just to have the
equivalent of X11 Widgets (roughly the same as the later developed
MFCs).
Microsoft put together a package that was essentially a slightly jazzed
up version of Multiplan, Word (about the level of wordpad back then),
and PowerPoint (more like word-drawings back then) and told the OEMs
that if they wanted Windows 3.1, they would also have to install
"Office" on every single machine. This triggered an FTC investigation
and ultimately resulted in the 1995 consent decree. It was illegal,
Microsoft knew it was illegal, and they did it knowing it was illegal.
This was the George Bush administration that initiated this. The
Clinton administration tried to negotiate a deal quickly and easily,
and was told by the Judge to go back and put some teeth in it.
> > > > then you make everyone
> > > > sign an agreement
> > >
> > > At gunpoint?
> >
> > At threat of bankruptcy.
>
> Twaddle.
> Develop your own protocol.
Precisely what Linux did.
> Use a non-proprietary one.
Precisely what Linux did.
> Join with others and do something common.
Precisely what Linux did.
> As we've seen, it's been done before.
Actually, it hasn't. Linux is the first case of
a technology in which no single vendor can create an
exclusive feature. The core infrastructure and environment,
from kernel traps to KDE/GNOME environments are covered by
public license agreements. This means that IBM can't exclude
Sun, and Sun can't exclude HP and IBM.
> You could also decide not to be in the hardware market at all,
Not legally. The securities and exchange commissions take a really
dim view of companies that suddenly say "remember that product we
created, those patents we hold, those contracts and agreements we
had to support corporate customers, well, we decided to sell pet rocks
instead, your money is gone, your stock is worthless, and I'm leaving
for tahiti on the next plane. Thank your for doing business with our
former company.
It isn't that this has never happened, but when it does, prosecutors
at the state and federal levels get involved and real people go to real
prisons. There were a number of companies who decided that they didn't
want to sell computers any more. Unfortunately, they had taken checks,
had cleared credit card charges, had taken out loans, and had accepted
money from venture capitalists and investors. There were several
people who are still doing time for deciding "we don't want to do that
anymore" back in 1980.
> if paying requisite licensing fees is
> imposing such a substantial
> burden on you that you can't afford it.
Well, the fees amount to the equivalent of 4 times my earnings on
a 5-7% return, and that's a problem for stockholders. If I sell
all of my big machines with Win2K/Office, and all my low-end machines
with Win98/Works, I can pay 4% again. If I can sell 25% of my machines
with Linux, I can start earning 10% of revenue next quarter. This
makes my stock-holders very happy.
If I can increase the Linux share to 50%, I can almost double my
return again. Now I'm earning 20% return on revenue and my
stock-holders are very-very happy.
On the other hand, if I lock myself into an exclusively Microsoft
agreement, with standard tie-ins and bundling, not only will I
only earn my 5%, but if the Linux market causes a drop in the prices
of my Windows machines of only 10%, I'm going to be losing a lot of
money on a lot of product lines. If you're a company like Dell,
where inventories are minimal, sales are direct, and variable
expenses are minimal, there isn't much room. If your fixed
costs of production exceed the price your customers are willing
to pay, you can't make it up in volume.
Deal in exclusively Microsoft products when the Linux market heats
up and your $100/share stock drops to $20/share. Not a pretty sight.
This doesn't make your investors happy.
Deal in both markets strategically when the Linux market heats up
and your $100/share stock splits and doubles to $200/share. This
makes your investors very happy.
> Or you can decide you *are* in business, and guess what?
> Sometimes you have to pay for things, even if you don't like it.
All things are negotiable, unless you are dealing with a monopoly
holder. When you are shopping for a suit, you can choose from many
shops and get prices ranging from $79 for a suit by a spanish designer
made in brazil, up to $7000 for an Armarmini suit custom tailored by
Armini himself, at his Boutique in Paris (first class ticket on the
Concorde not included).
> > > No, you don't _make_ anyone do _anything_.
> >
> > You give them a choice, one with minimal negative consequences and
> > marginal benifits, and the other with horrible consequences, huge
> > risk, and no possible benefits.
>
> Linux has no possible benefits?
With Windows 95, vendors were given the option of paying for licenses
for every machine, whether they installed Windows or not.
With Windows 98, vendors were given the option of paying for licenses
for every machine, whether they installed Windows or not AND were
forbidden to make modifications necessary to install Linux on the same
machine. Although they didn't legally say "you can't install Linux
on this machine" they restricted modifications to create the same
effect.
> Or wasn't that one of the options?
Microsoft has been giving people two options. Either buy Windows
for every machine, and install it on every machine, or get no
Windows, install it on no machines, or lose money on the machines
that you sell with Windows.
Linux IS an option for companies like VA Linux who weren't interested
in Windows 98, and were only interested in NT if anything at all (and
Microsoft came to THEM).
Linux IS an option for IBM, DELL, and other "top 20" makers who
are willing to take a short-term hit to have the long-term gain
of a blended market with higher margins.
> Lemme see if I have this right; the complaint is that MS makes you
> license required technologies so you can make Windows-compliant
> hardware.
No, the complaint is that MS appropriates existing technologies,
modifies it in a manner that makes it incompatible with other
implementations (which is often a violation of the copyright licenses,
patent licenses, and trademark licenses, as well as standards bodies
agreements), then forces all OEMs to use the bastardized version, AND
they must sign nondisclosure agreements which not only prevent them
from disclosing the Public Licensed information, but also the fact
that the core product is based on Public licensed intellectual
property, AND agree to prosecute/be prosecuted for trade secrets
violations if they disclose any of this (even though they are
being asked to conceal federal and international crime).
> Fine, don't do it; make Linux hardware instead.
> You do have a choice - but you've just got
> through telling "the other choice
> has horrible consequences, huge risk,
> and no possible benefits."
Again, when the deal is "All or nothing", the only hope is that
you can create a market for as many Linux machines next year as
you sold in Windows 98 machines this year. That's a huge risk.
The probability is that Microsoft will denounce your products,
Microsoft's highly placed executives (in other Fortune 500 companies)
will kill any RFC you submit, and Microsoft will punish any large-cap
company that doesn't play ball by pulling the plug on support.
> Sort of an odd argument,
I'm merely suggesting that the behavioral remedies proposed by Judge
Jackson be implemented immediately. If Microsoft wants to drag this
though 5 more years of legal maneuvering, give the OEMs and corporate
customers the assurance of an open and competitive market.
This includes disclosure of USB "complex device" protocols, DVD-CSS
(legalization of DeCSS), and PnP signature to driver/register settings.
It would still be up to the device makers whether they wanted to
publish their specific information, but at least the standard itself
wouldn't be a trade secret. The alternative is to push to revoke
the trade secrets act through court cases, congressional action, and
"clean room" reverse engineering. The law itself may be legitimate,
and Microsoft's abuse of this law could ruin it for everybody.
The trade secrets act was designed to protect company confidential
records, competitor information, and customer relationship information.
Essentially, it makes it illegal for a sales rep to burn a CD-ROM
containing the company's customer database and joining another company
where you download it in exchange for a seat on the board of directors.
The act was not designed to "patent ideas".
Unfortunately, because Microsoft has tried to use the trade secrets
act to protect ideas, this creates the potential for court challenges
that could punch holes that nullify the original intent of the law.
The act was not designed to obstruct justice.
Unfortunately, because Microsoft uses the trade secrets act to
obstruct justice, there is a risk that challenges to this could
nullify the original intent of the law.
The act was not designed to exclude competitors and protect monopolies.
But since Microsoft uses the act to protect it's monopolies and exclude
competitors, court challenges could result in weaking the original
intent of protecting normal confidential communications.
> I don't think other Linux folks would agree.
I'm one of the most aggressive Linux advocates. But even I'm
realistic enough to realize that, unless IBM, DELL, HP, Compaq,
Gateway, and the other top 20 decide to create a united front
against Microsoft, offering support for Linux and focusing all
promotions at getting people to buy Linux and avoid Microsoft,
it's unrealistic to expect that Linux sales would be equal to
Windows 98 sales in the next 12 months.
Certainly, promotional efforts are already under way to promote
Linux based technology as end-user interface devices (desktops,
PDAs, Laptops, "appliances", TIVO, playstations...) and it's very
likely that Linux usage will continue to triple every year. But
even at that rate, it would take 2-4 years for unit volumes of
Linux to exceed the combined unit volumes of all Windows versions.
> And that's not the only choice...
> you can make BeOS-compliant hardware
> or NextStep-compliant hardware or
> MacOS-compliant hardware.
> I suspect the reason you want to make Windows
> compliant hardware is that in one
> fell swoop, you've targetted a market
> of over 100,000,000 machines.
> Oh, but you have to pay a license fee. Whoopee.
No problem with paying a reasonable license fee for the machines
that I actually sell with that machine, at a price that's within
20-30% of what everybody else pays. On the other hand, what
Microsoft offers is Windows for every single machine (actually 1.2
copies for every machine you are LIKELY to sell) or you pay as much
as 800% higher price for every copy of Windows you sell.
> > I have to respect Lou Gerstner and Michael Dell. Both of them
> > are taking a pretty big risk to make such a huge commitment to
> > Linux and UNIX. Carly Fiorina has been a bit more covert, as
> > has Michael Capellas. All have publicly supported Linux, which
> > is a direct challenge to Microsoft's draconian tactics.
>
> Gerstner, of IBM... where I can buy Windows-loaded boxes.
But starting this fall, you'll ALSO be able to buy Linux boxes
displayed on retailer shelves.
> Michael Dell, of Dell... where I can buy Windows-loaded boxes.
But starting this fall, you'll ALSO be able to buy Linux boxes
displayed on retailer shelves.
> Carly Fiorina of HP... where I can buy Windows-loaded boxes.
But starting this fall, you'll ALSO be able to buy Linux boxes
displayed on retailer shelves.
> Michael Capellas of Compaq... where I can buy Windows-loaded boxes.
But starting this fall, you'll ALSO be able to buy Linux boxes
displayed on retailer shelves.
Of course, you probably won't be able to get Linux and Windows 98 on
the same machine (for things like VMWare).
You will be running different hardware for Linux (real modems, Linux
optimized video and sound cards, parallel port peripherals, fire-wire,
and/or built-in ethernet).
> Apparently, none of them has decided Linux
> is the be-all and end-all of anything.
Nope. I would agree. Linux makes a great server, and it makes
a really great workstation. Integrating Linux into a corporate
environment does involve making some rather significant changes
to the standards established within a corporation. Instead of
just putting Microsoft Office and Microsoft Windows EVERYWHERE,
and letting users use de-facto settings that save the most proprietary
formats and protocols, you'll adopt standards that require users
to publish their documents in formats such as RFT, HTML, XML, GIF/JPEG,
and CGM (all supported by Windows/office AND Linux/(Applix,WP,Star)).
> Apparently, they've seen some popularity to it and
> decided that hey, maybe we can make a few bucks from those guys, too.
Actually, they are discovering some BIG bucks in it. Linux users pay
more for preinstalled Linux systems that cost less, they pay more for
support that costs less, and the market growth is almost as good as
the Internet. VA Linux once reported a 275% gain in one QUARTER.
And the margin is better.
> That's called "good business sense" as long as you're not in a
> competing arena.
Microsoft is learning the lesson in 2000 that IBM had to learn in
1991. Microsoft bet the farm on a bunch of proprietary technology
that requires expensive upgrades, only to be confronted with a
competitor willing to offer more value for less money.
In 1992, the Senior VP of a large insurance company department got
a bill demanding $30 million for upgrades to 5 3090 servers.
This included hardware and software upgrades (more RAM, new
disk drives, new software, and new processor). The problem was
that even under flat-rate depriciation, the 3090 servers being
upgraded started for an purchase price of $5 million and had
been depreciated to $2 million or less.
The Senior VP had also been experimenting with UNIX servers
that ran Oracle. They began investigating whether some of their
more compute/storage intensive information could be migrated to
UNIX/Oracle. Before long, they were looking at a top-of-the-line
Pyramid for $1/4 million that could eliminate the need for 2 of
the mainframes. The VP sent a check for $18 million to the
Mainframe people, purchased 2 Pyramids, 6 Sun/6 servers, and
a couple of sequent machines. IBM's stock dropped from $90
to about $40 in 30 days.
Microsoft assumes that big corporations who paid $700 for the computer
(monitor extra) back when Windows 98 was just coming out, can't
wait to spend $400 per workstation for Windows 2000, plus $300 to $500
in memory upgrades, plus $300 to $500 for additional Lan connected
storage (the alternative to replacing the hardware).
Microsoft has already announced Office 2001 for Mac, and the corporate
buyers are looking down the pike at yet another round of very expensive
upgrades. A total of about $1000/machine not including replacement
or labor costs.
Meanwhile, they look at Linux users who seem to be fishing "boat
anchors" out of the "Company Dumpster", installing Linux, and having
a pretty spectacular workstation that also doubles as a personal web
site (much safer alternative to shares). Furthermore, they've watched
Linux users upgrade distributions, even switch distributions, all in
a matter of about an hour (depending on how and where the installation
media is stored. Furthermore, the upgrade is usually done WHILE they
are at lunch (since Linux asks all the configuration questions at the
very beginning and very end of the installation..
If they are going to have to replace the computers, why not go with
one of those Linux boxes? They can avoid the hassle of trying to
figure out which settings to use on the "boat anchors", and they can
make sure that everything works the first time (definitely worth the
extra 20% people typically pay for Linux desktops and laptops).
Heck for the dollar amounts Microsoft is charging for Windows 2k alone,
you could get site-wide licences for all 3 office suites, VMWare,
and some really nice custom applications for things like sales force
automation.
By simply adopting standards that are supported by both office suites,
web browsers, and editors, you have the ability to support both Windows
NT, Windows 2000 (some folks will simply insist on it), and Linux
users all at the same time.
> I'm not sure what this is supposed to prove, other
> than that some companies are in business to make a buck...
No problem with that.
> oh, but you don't like that, remember?
Actually, I said that it's quite alright for companies to make
a profit. I LOVE it when my CUSTOMERS make a profit. There's
plenty to go around.
> You keep railing about Microsoft charging for things.
I don't mind that Microsoft charges for things, it's the fact
that they make 50% net/revenue while their customers make
5% to 15% and their suppliers make 4% to 7% and their end users
get 4% raises while Microsoft get's 20% revenue increases.
If me using Linux, and about 1/4 to 1/2 of the employees at my
company using Linux can cut the price of Microsoft products by
40%, I'm all for it. Microsoft still gets a 15-20% profit,
overall productivity goes up, and companies can reinvest in
their own IT needs instead of throwing dollars, labor, and capital
at a "Microsoft-only solution".
If Microsoft can get $400 for Windows 2000 and $600 for Office 2000
(mark-up is added somewhere in the distribution chain, even in
direct sales to corporations), when there is a fully functional
machine that works at least as well sitting right next to it running
a $50 copy of Linux and a $80 copy of WordPerfect Office Suite,
let the employee make the choice, and let him make that choice knowing
that it will be his money being used for either choice.
A big principle here is this:
If I say "buy a coat", what will you buy?
If you are using your money to buy me a coat, you'll get the
cheapest coat you can find.
If you are using your money to by you a coat, you'll get a nicer
coat, but you'll still be reasonable and cautious.
If you are using my money to buy me a coat, you'll get a nicer coat
than you'd get for yourself because you don't want me to think
you're cheap.
If you are using MY money to buy YOU a coat, and I have made no
stiplation, you might just help yourself to one of those Alaskan
Minks. You might not get the all-female pelts, but you'd get
something really nice.
If you are using money from someone you know is very rich, and likes
you a lot, you'll let him go with you to pick out your
fur in Alaska.
It's the principle of OPM - Other People's Money.
The 400 key decision makers who chose Microsoft for 100,000
employees or more are spending other people's money on
other people. They don't worry too much about costs.
If the difference were coming out of their salary or their bonus,
they'd be picking Linux in a heart-beat.
If they were picking a machine for themselves, they would
probably get a Mac or an SGI Indy (the Lexus of Workstations).
But hear's the joke. unless their equity stake in Microsoft is
much higher than their options in their own company, the pay
IS coming out of their own pocket. Back when the market was
climbing by 20%/year just because you were in the 500, you just
assumed you had very little to do with how fast your company grew.
The investors didn't even seem to care. Mutual funds tied to the
S&P 500 and the Fortune 500 and the E-50 and other large cap stocks
just blindly shoveled cash into your company simply because you were
in a cluster of big companies. Just because what people were really
after was Microsoft, Sun, HP, IBM, Oracle, and GE (the largest and
fastest growing), and your "cluster" gave them the best of several
of them, fund managers just included you in the mix.
Now, all of the sudden, the market isn't just automatically shovelling
money into your cluster. Suddenly fund managers are picking their
own mixes, and looking very carefully for value. The price/earnings
ratio is important, but it's closely tied to revenue/earnings as well.
And there you are, pouring gigibucks into Microsoft just because it's
there. Do you really NEED Windows 2000? (servers yes, workstations no).
Do you really get 16 times the value of Linux with Windows 2000?
(probably not).
At this point, you need to ask yourself:
Does Linux merit a closer look? (probably)
Could I REALLY save money by creating a Linux-friendly
environment? (probably).
Are Linux savings claims exaggerated? (somewhat)
Are there ways to support BOTH Linux and Windows? (definitely)
What policies, standards, procedures, and structures are required?
(the subject of another paper).
--
Rex Ballard - Open Source Advocate, Internet
I/T Architect, MIS Director
http://www.open4success.com
Linux - 40 million satisfied users worldwide
and growing at over 5%/month! (recalibrated 7/2/00)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
