Linux-Advocacy Digest #167, Volume #28 Wed, 2 Aug 00 00:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Yeah! Bring down da' man!
Re: There is no such thing as a free lunch!
Re: Micro$oft retests TPC benchmark ("Mike Byrns")
Re: There is no such thing as a free lunch! (Steve Wilbur)
Re: Yeah! Bring down da' man!
Re: There is no such thing as a free lunch!
Linux & FreeBSD - security questions (Des Dougan)
Re: Why Lycos Selected Microsoft and Intel (matts)
Re: Micro$oft retests TPC benchmark ("Mike Byrns")
Re: What are all you nix trolls doing in the WINDOWS advocacy list? ("Mike Byrns")
Re: Is there such a thing as a free lunch? (Christopher Browne)
Re: Micro$oft retests TPC benchmark ("Drestin Black")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Yeah! Bring down da' man!
Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2000 03:27:51 GMT
On Wed, 02 Aug 2000 00:43:59 GMT, Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 01 Aug 2000 23:01:05 GMT, Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Tue, 01 Aug 2000 01:10:42 GMT, Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On Mon, 31 Jul 2000 22:20:41 GMT, Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> >> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> On Sun, 30 Jul 2000 01:14:18 GMT, Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> On Sat, 29 Jul 2000 20:37:04 GMT, Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> >> >> >> [deletia]
[deletia]
>> >> >> >I was talking about the technology in general, not the implementation in any
>> >> >> >specific OS. PnP solved a problem for me that I never had. In "solving" it,
>> >> >> >it created more problems. The RedHat installation does the same thing.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Real PnP doesn't create any more problems.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> pseudo-pnp does.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> That's a BIG difference.
>> >> >
>> >> >Real PnP doesn't exist on PC's. That's the problem.
>> >>
>> >> Yes it does.
>> >>
>> >> You're just grousing because adding a daughterboard to a PC
>> >> is not something you can use for bragging rights anymore.
>> >
>> >What are you talking about? Gadzooks... where do you come up with this
>> >stuff?
>>
>> Personal experience, shared experience.
>
>Ah, so you're the one who used to brag about installing "daughterboards".
>What you just did is what psychologists call "projection". I just call it
>"merrily stuffing words in my mouth to cover your own inadequacies".
You can always use dejanews if you think you'll actually
find evidence of such things, as opposed to the Redhat
PCI/AGP success stories that are likely to actually be there.
Hell, even in this thread there's mention by me of successful
PNP with ISA under Slackware 5 years ago.
>
>> Very little of it indicates any problem with modern pnp.
>>
>> PCI is quite robust. Why seek to avoid it if there isn't
>> some sort of macho stupidity going on?
>
>Now you can dodge the following question through your usual deletion tactic:
>Where have I indicated that I sought to avoid PCI?
It's an interface that "assumes the end user is a moron" by
automating a process that previously required arcane knowledge
and manual tweaking.
It is the facility responsible for those aspects of the Redhat
install that are more automated than other older distros like
Slackware.
>
>> Why seek out the extra work? Why seek out the extra trouble?
>
>For me, "extra work" represents having to figure out how to tell 3 different
>operating systems to recognize that a piece of hardware uses a given set of
>resources. I was saved from this extra work by the simple use of a jumper in
>the past.
Such things are unecessary if you avoid ISA, which is not hard
to do in this day and age. Even if you don't, such things are
only necessary for legacy devices. Even so, the likes of Slackware
will still "treat you like a moron" because such "treating you
like a moron" features have been in the core kernel since at least
1995.
Redhat or !Redhat has little to do with it.
>
>> >> >> Besides, there's really not much that Redhat even automates.
>> >> >> What it does manage to automate is primarily due to the relative
>> >> >> robustness of PCI.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> However, Slackware was doing ISA pnp in '95. So this phenomenon
>> >> >> that you attribute to Bughat is not limited to it. Slackware also
>> >> >> had the first effective network control panel applet as well
>> >> >> (also by '95 or earlier).
>> >> >
>> >> >You're nonsensically mixing two separate points I made again. PnP was an
>> >> >illustration. It got in my way the same way RedHat did. I didn't complain
>> >> >about PnP in RedHat.
>> >>
>> >> Both are examples of what little automation exists in any Linux
>> >> distribution.
>> >
>> >Make up your mind. You were telling me before about how PnP's implementation
>> >is OS-independent:
>> >
>> >"You're still suffering from the false notion that pnp is an OS design issue
>> >rather than a hardware design issue."
>> >(an untrue assertion based on more words you've shoved in my mouth, by the
>> >way)
>> >
>> >and now you're taking the opposite tact in yet another attempt to shove words
>> >in my mouth. Talk about inconsistency!
>>
>> It's not an inconsistency if you have a clue what PCI does
>> and does not do.
>
>What PCI does and does not do is irrelevant to the contradiction I spelled out
>above. Another strawman slain mercilessly. And yet another instance of you
You complain about interfaces that give the appearance of assuming
that the end user is a moron or automate the wrong things.
Nevermind the fact that the whole point of Unix, the whole point of
operating systems in general is to abstract things and automate
others.
>mounting your high horse asserting (without evidence) that you know more than
>I do on a topic. "How to Make Friends and Influence People"
>
>> PCI doesn't load your drivers for you or tell your X server what
>> your video card is.
>
>Now you can delete the following question using your usual tactics:
>When did I ever say otherwise?
There isn't much else you could be refering to in a Redhat system.
Slackware has binary packages, and package groups,and configuration
wizards and even a few "treat you like a moron" device drivers by
way of the kernel.
>
>> Redhat does that. It's one of the few things I can think of
>> that constitutes "treating the end user like a moron" that
>> springs to mind.
>>
>> Your examples would eliminate the need for guesswork, if you
>> actually mentioned them.
>
>And I did. You just chose to delete them. Stop being such a git.
>
>> >> Since so little automation does exist, surely you
>> >> were also refering to the automation of device configuration.
>> >
>> >What I was surely refering [sic] to is what I actually referred to, namely
>> >RedHat installation routines. Do you have some psychological need to pretend
>> >I said things that I have not? Seek some help.
>>
>> Beyond a little device driver loading, mainly dependent on PCI,
>> Redhat doesn't do any more automation in the installer than
>> Slackware does.
>
>And now you've forgotten the context: "in the old days of Slackware." Do try
>to keep up.
What old days? Like 5 years ago?
That's when Slackware was my distro of choice. That is my basis
for comparison. I might do more these days, I don't really know.
>
>> Redhat just takes advantage of a robust hardware solution.
>
>And you're still trying to nonsensically relate the two separate points I made
>about the RedHat installer and PnP in spite of two corrections on the matter.
The Redhat installer is quite related to PnP. It's relative
spiffiness is due entirely to the convenience and reliability
of PCI.
Take away PCI/pnp and Redhat is just a prettified Slackware with
a slightly more sophisticated binary package system.
>Talk about thick.
Infact, in '96 Slackware had a better post install package
installer than Redhat has now.
>
>> >> Otherwise your rant makes absolutely no sense at all.
>> >
>> >It tends to be difficult to follow when you delete the explanation and fill in
>> >the blanks with what you wanted to read.
>> >
>> >> [deletia]
>> >
>> >See what I mean?
>
>Note: no response.
--
Finding an alternative should not be like seeking out the holy grail.
That is the whole damn point of capitalism.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To:
comp.infosystems.gis,comp.infosystems.www.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: There is no such thing as a free lunch!
Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2000 03:31:40 GMT
On Wed, 2 Aug 2000 03:42:23 +0100, phil hunt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Tue, 01 Aug 2000 13:29:56 -0800, Steve Wilbur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>The laws of physics (entropy) dictate there is no such thing as a free
>>lunch.
>
>Surely the 2nd law of thermodynamics only dictates that there is no such
>thing as a free lunch *in a closed system*?
The near-zero marginal production cost of software makes such a
law moot. The problem is resolved by merely acknowledging the
fact that once any particular task is done, all that is required
to replicate that functionality far and wide is the the cost of
media reproduction.
The lunch isn't free, just rediculously cheap.
A thing done would have to have been paid for either way.
The government or some company pays for it once rather than all
of us paying for it over and over again because we aren't bright
enough to solve a problem once and reuse the solution.
--
Finding an alternative should not be like seeking out the holy grail.
That is the whole damn point of capitalism.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: "Mike Byrns" <[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: Tue, 1 Aug 2000 22:37:19 -0500
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Wow, that's so complicated. You still get paged from time to time don't
you
> > ;-)? When we need to do a system setup or restore, we just netboot and
the
> > unattended installer on the server puts 2000 on the box and the post
install
> > WSH script reinstalls the standard load of apps. Intellimirror restores
any
> > personal files to their places on the local drive (although we prohibit
> > local storage for the most part).
>
> I was talking worst-case scenario for Unix.
>
> First,... a typical Unix box can expect to go its ENTIRE LIFETIME
> without suffering catastrophic filesystem damage.
>
> Thus...for many Unix boxes...the call never comes...EVER.
>
> In the event that it does happen, then you can do an instant-ignite
> over the net, and then restore the backup from over the net.
>
> ... and I haven't moved from my chair.
Then why didn't you post that in the first place. Needed the exercise ;-)?
What OS is running on that crashed disk to restore the backup after your
horribly named "instant-ignite" (I'd worry about a system in whose list of
features includes the ability to spontaneously burst into flame -- I prefer
remote-boot :-)
> > Of course we have the *option* of doing it your way but it's so much
more
> > complicated than setting the machine for restore and either rebooting it
> > remotely to start the restore or fixing the hardware (new hard drive
etc.),
> > turning it on and walking away.
> >
> > Windows engineer never left desk. Relaxation uninterrupted.
Actually PCs have had remote boot since before then. NT has had unattended
OS installs since 96 too. Although it was unclean to script application
installers it was better since the same scripts worked regardless of the
hardware. There has always been the arcane restore from tape approach on NT
too. It's just nice to clear away the cruft now and again. Of course since
nix is made of cruft if you did that you'd have nothing left :-)
> > > Meanwhile, drestin adress will be working overtime on his LoseNT box,
> > > long into the night...going home when he has achieved the mere goal
> > > of "getting it running"...and then will resume working on this ONE
> > > BOX for the next two day.
> >
> > So that's why our AIX crew have been slaving for months to get WebSphere
to
> > work passably on the $500K fully redundant farm of B50's and H70's
(secured
> > by PIXs and sprayed by LocalDirectors) here in our test lab. When all
along
> > our single Intellistation development box performs 100x as fast on
Windows
> > 2000 with IIS/5.0 and took 15 min to setup. Hmmm.
>
> AIX is a piece of crap. Personally, I don't even consider it to
> be a true unix (Posix-conformance not withstanding)
So quickly the nixers eat their own...
------------------------------
From: Steve Wilbur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.infosystems.gis,comp.infosystems.www.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: There is no such thing as a free lunch!
Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2000 19:39:40 -0800
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, phil hunt
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 01 Aug 2000 13:29:56 -0800, Steve Wilbur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >The laws of physics (entropy) dictate there is no such thing as a free
> >lunch.
>
> Surely the 2nd law of thermodynamics only dictates that there is no such
> thing as a free lunch *in a closed system*?
Of course. In this case, the closed system is Earth Technology. It
will remain a closed system until it can be shown that beings from
other planets are feeding us technology.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Yeah! Bring down da' man!
Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2000 03:42:09 GMT
On Wed, 02 Aug 2000 03:27:51 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>On Wed, 02 Aug 2000 00:43:59 GMT, Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, 01 Aug 2000 23:01:05 GMT, Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> On Tue, 01 Aug 2000 01:10:42 GMT, Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> >> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> On Mon, 31 Jul 2000 22:20:41 GMT, Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> >> >> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >> On Sun, 30 Jul 2000 01:14:18 GMT, Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> >> >> >> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>> >> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >> >> On Sat, 29 Jul 2000 20:37:04 GMT, Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> >> >> >> >> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>> >> >> >> [deletia]
[deletia]
>>> Your examples would eliminate the need for guesswork, if you
>>> actually mentioned them.
>>
>>And I did. You just chose to delete them. Stop being such a git.
[deletia]
>>Talk about thick.
>
> Infact, in '96 Slackware had a better post install package
> installer than Redhat has now.
>
>>
>>> >> Otherwise your rant makes absolutely no sense at all.
>>> >
>>> >It tends to be difficult to follow when you delete the explanation and fill in
>>> >the blanks with what you wanted to read.
>>> >
>>> >> [deletia]
>>> >
>>> >See what I mean?
>>
>>Note: no response.
The best you've come up with is ~ "it automates stuff".
That leaves "stuff" wide open to interpretation.
I am a former Slack user and a former Bughat user and I know
what parts of each could be construed as overly automagic, which
really isn't that much for either of them and the differences
are primarily cosmetic.
[deletia]
--
Finding an alternative should not be like seeking out the holy grail.
That is the whole damn point of capitalism.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To:
comp.infosystems.gis,comp.infosystems.www.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: There is no such thing as a free lunch!
Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2000 03:43:31 GMT
On Tue, 01 Aug 2000 19:39:40 -0800, Steve Wilbur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, phil hunt
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 01 Aug 2000 13:29:56 -0800, Steve Wilbur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>> >The laws of physics (entropy) dictate there is no such thing as a free
>> >lunch.
>>
>> Surely the 2nd law of thermodynamics only dictates that there is no such
>> thing as a free lunch *in a closed system*?
>
>Of course. In this case, the closed system is Earth Technology. It
>will remain a closed system until it can be shown that beings from
>other planets are feeding us technology.
How does my using Bubble sort without paying someone a patent
royalty violate any thermodynamic pseuo-laws?
--
Finding an alternative should not be like seeking out the holy grail.
That is the whole damn point of capitalism.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Des Dougan)
Subject: Linux & FreeBSD - security questions
Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2000 03:46:48 GMT
I know little about FreeBSD, other than its background and that it is
a closed development rather than the open environment Linux flourishes
in. That said, I am working with a client who has been led to believe
that FreeBSD is more secure (as a web hosting platform) than is Linux.
Can someone point me at resources which explain the operational
differences so that I can understand whether this is indeed the case?
Expert comment is also welcomed.
Many thanks,
--
Des Dougan
------------------------------
From: matts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why Lycos Selected Microsoft and Intel
Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2000 03:48:49 GMT
>
> Lycos switch to Wintel to improve performance and reliability. Think what
> that says about what they were using before...
Jesus. What's next. Windows runs for 3 months without a boot? And Intel
being a good processor? My god. You need to understand technology and get
your head outta your ass before you talk.
------------------------------
From: "Mike Byrns" <[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: Tue, 1 Aug 2000 22:56:31 -0500
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > More car analogies? This is Windows 2000. It's as flexible and
practical
> > as a Camry. So what if it's got a rocket engine hiding under the hood
:-)
>
> Mike Byrns is quite obviously a crack addict.
>
> Get help, Mike.
Ignoring the lack of rebuttal and ad hominem rhetoric, I'll take the
opportunity to support my position, an opportunity that you chose to throw
away:
Windows 2000 is a stable, practical, user-friendly operating system that
scales from the desktop to the datacenter. The consistant user interface
allows for rapid adoption and training of new IS staff. In this age of
staff shortages it's relative simplicity of operation is a boon to
organizations seeking to "upgrade" existing staff to administer new servers.
In addition, the consistancy as a platform allows near drop-in replacement
of new-hire staff whereas the balkanization of the nix world often requires
retraining of admin staff accustomed to another "flavor" of nix. It's ease
of implementation and related time-to-market advantages are well known and
have been shown as an advantage of Windows vs. nix for some time (references
available on request).
------------------------------
From: "Mike Byrns" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: What are all you nix trolls doing in the WINDOWS advocacy list?
Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2000 23:00:01 -0500
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8m7rok$2uq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> Mike Byrns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:QbGh5.6878$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:8m731n$lfb$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
>
> > So there are idiots on both sides of the fence. What I don't understand
> is
> > that every time I snip the crossposts to the nix groups on of my
replies,
> > some nixer puts them back. It's like they are looking for notoriety
> amongst
> > their peers. I post to the Windows groups. I try to snip the nix
> > crossposts. Sometimes I forget. But when I do snip, it's COMPLETE
troll
> > behavior to put them back.
>
> Can you identify the on-line identity of those who added th unix / Linux
> news groups back into the thread?
I was posting in a thread with Mr. Kulkis and petilon. I removed these
groups nearly a dozen times. I'd have to retrace the history to pinpoint
the offender but I think that's well know to the offending parties. Let it
suffice to say that nobody likes it on either side of the fence.
------------------------------
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: Wed, 02 Aug 2000 04:01:57 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
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[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: 1 Aug 2000 23:05:18 -0500
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > You dare to claim "unix boxes are essential to running microsoft.com?"
> >
>
> Yes. And based on the existance of Unix boxes at microsoft.com,
> Microsoft believes this, too.
Prove it or continue to be considered the poorest liar on usenet
>
>
> You're the one that argues that Microsoft doesn't need Unix to run
> their websight, when each machine costs them a good $100,000 more
> than if they were using their home grown LoseNT and Lose2000 shitholes.
That is correct. MS does not need now nor has EVER at any time whatsoever
used Unix to run www.microsoft.com. I challenge you to disprove that
statement. Go ahead, or are you just a big bag of bullshit? are you a huge
liar? full of unix dreams and wishes never fulfilled. There are some unix
boxes at CD production plants that produce MS CDs, sure, but a unix box
producing www.microsoft.com output? hahahahahahha keep dreaming liar.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
