Linux-Advocacy Digest #348, Volume #28 Fri, 11 Aug 00 03:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Big Brother and the Holding Company (Rex Ballard)
Re: Linux as an investment ("Mike")
Re: Honest question about NT vs. Unix as Internet platform (Christopher Browne)
Re: Big Brother and the Holding Company (Phil B)
Re: [Q] Too many distribution? (peer@service)
Re: Big Brother and the Holding Company ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Rex Ballard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Big Brother and the Holding Company
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2000 06:12:41 GMT
ZnU wrote:
> In article <8mmj3l$en7$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Christopher Smith"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > "ZnU" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "JS/PL"
> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Don't worry, big brother is going to MAKE us all care what an
> > > > operating system is when the price doubles and the features are
> > > > stripped. All for the benefit of the stupid consumer who can't make
> > > > the right choice (according to the DOJ).
Actually, the end-user has never been Microsoft's primary customer. Nearly
90% of all
of Microsoft's licenses are sold to the OEM, the CIO, and the technicians
who are most likely
to make the final recommendations to the OEMs and CIOs.
If every PC was sold with no operating system, and the consumer were to make
the final
choice of operating system, applications, and utilities, some would choose
Microsoft,
others would choose BEOS, and others would choose Linux. This is the nature
of a free
market. It wouldn't happen immediately, but over a period of 2-4 years, the
market would
evolve into a competitive market in which all players provided outstanding
products.
Inferior products simply wouldn't survive. Remember the Yugo? Nice car,
but compared
to other American, Japanese, German, and English cars, it just couldn't
compete.
In other countries, where third parties, such as the government, fleet
owners, or rental
agencies, make the final choices of all cars used, the Yugo might have been
able to
establish a market by introducing themselves to the market for a
rediculously cheap
price, negotiating an exclusive contract, and then, after 80% of the fleet
had been
converted to Yugos, they had said, unless you extend your contract
exclusively, and
upgrade all your cars to run on our new patented fuel, we wiill revoke your
right to use
the cars, revoke your right to replacement parts, and revoke your right to
refunds
on any of the existing cars. Furthermore, we will be putting our patented
fuel in all
the gas stations and if you attempt to use the patented fuel without making
the
other agreements, your cars we become undrivable within 3 months.
If you were the man running this "state sponsored livery", you now have a
problem.
People like the cars, they like getting a ride to work, they like renting
cars on the
week-ends, and the people who lease cars from you really like them.
Furthermore,
the lease cars were sold to the highest ranking government officials. If
you tell
them that they have to give back their cars immediately, the generalisimo
will have
you shot while he eats breakfast.
What you would LIKE to do is find another vendor, someone who can provide an
alternate supply. But you have that exclusive contract. Furthermore, their
cars
run on a different fuel. That Yugo dealer convinced you that acetone and
water
was the cheapest fuel. He didn't tell you that it would make the engine
rust out
in 2 years. The patented fuel would prevent the rust, but the only way you
can get
it is to make yourself even more dependent on a vendor you now know that you
can't
trust.
The only way out of the situation (where you still get to breath through
your nose and mouth
instead of machine-gun holes) is to have the Generalisimo declare the
previous contract illegal,
the misinformation to be fraud, and then force the Yugo dealer to continue
to support you
(at a fair price) while you diversify your motor pool.
> > > Increased competition leads to higher prices and fewer features?
I'm sure that would be news to every economist and economics professor I've
ever spoken to. In fact,
I believe that one of the first laws of economics is supply and demand. If
there is more demand than
supply, then the supplier will raise prices. If the difference between the
cost to produce and the
price paid by demand is great enough, then new suppliers will enter the
market. This is why there
is no "get rich quick" scheme that's guaranteed to work over time. If it
becomes too easy to make
money, everybody else will start making money the same way. Eventually,
there are too many
suppliers, the prices fall, and producers begin "shaking out". Furthermore,
the supply chain gets
tighter which raises the costs and further squeezes out competition. In
fact, most competitors
move further up or down the supply or distribution chain.
The classic example of this was Cripple Creek Colorado. Miners came to
cripple creek to
mine for gold. They figured that if they dug for gold for a while, they'd
get rich and retire in style.
The problem is that there were so many minors and so few women, and so few
water supplies,
that the local saloon could charge $20 in gold for a drink, the local saloon
girls charged $80
a night - but you had to take a bath, and the bath could cost you $200,
especially if you wanted
the first bath of the night (which generally got you the best girl too).
Since there were only two tubs,
the wood and water had to be fetched by hand, and the woman providing the
service had two children
who were very good at fetching it (and she could chop a cord of wood in a
day), she became very
rich - until some other "wash women" came to town.
Men were spending what would have been a lifetime worth of wealth - for a
few nights of pleasure
a month. The average pay for a tradesman was $1 a day.
> > You assume competition *would* increase.
>
> It tends to do that in a free market. (Free hint: control of a market by
> a single company is just as bad as control of a market by a government..
Actually, if the market is sufficiently controlled, even if only in a
segment or locality, by a single
company, that company BECOMES THE GOVERNMENT. The song "I owe my soul to
the
company store" described how minors would work 18 hours days only to have
all of their wages
taken to pay for mine-owner provided housing (substandard hovels by the
standards of the day),
food that was often substandard or unhealthy (beans, rice, coffee, and
flour), and clothes that
were often made from the bags used to ship the flour, rice, beans and
coffee. Most of the minors
died, either in unventilated mines where they suffocated, or in buckets
lowered by rope that was
often stressed beyond it's rated tinsile strength.
When a "trouble maker" tried to stir up trouble, start a strike, or just
complain too loudly about
the conditions, the foreman would have him dig out a freshly blown tunnel in
which the bird
had already died (meaning the air was unbreathable). A few of his closest
friends were sent
down with him. The bucket came up, and didn't go back down until about 18
hours later, when
they knew you'd be dead. Another careless minor who didn't take the right
precautions.
Eventually, the government, the mines, and the unions began working together
to make the
overall conditions safe AND profitable.
In missouri homestead country, the railroad found that ranchers were much
more willing to sell
right-of-way very cheaply. Furthermore, cattle on the hoof was very
profitable in terms of
cost at pick-up point to price at delivery point. Grain and produce was
bulky and offered very
little trading margin.
The ranchers partnered with the Railroads who also owned the stores used by
the farmers.
Furthermore, they usually provided the "sherrif" (usually a hired gun used
to protect the train
during loading and unloading of freight). The Mayor (someone who could
identify the
trouble-makers and gave the illusion of justice), and sometimes even the
Judge (though the
Mayor was usually the judge too. And finally, you had the general store
owner, who was
usually also the postmaster. The mayor also ran the local saloon and
provided the "party"=
for the cowboys when they came in from the range.
In many cases, the ranchers and railroads would work the homesteaders. The
homesteaders
would go out and settle the land, clear it, and cultivate it. Once they
worked it for seven years,
the land was theirs. The railroad would generally put up a station near the
end of the 6th year.
They'd pick a spot that was far enough away to exclude the farmers from the
"voting population",
but close enough that the farmers would pick up supplies and drop off
shipments at the station.
The store was generous with the credit as well.
Usually, in the last year, just before the 7th harvest (but after the 7th
planting thus the 7th year,
the railroad would hire ranch hands to burn out the farmers in the middle of
the night. In some cases,
they'd even kill the father/husband. Since women couldn't own land, and the
children couldn't inhherit
the land (too young), the mother/wife was forced to sell for a fraction of
the real value. The ranchers
would often literally graze the cattle on the crops the farmers had planted
that spring.
Often, the father would be lured away, usually by a woman he trusted. Once
he was far enough
away from the house and the neighbors, he'd be killed and buried in a deep
unmarked grave (that's
what happened to my great grandfather). With ranch-hands and railroad men
as judge, jury, and
sherrif, it was nearly impossible for the farmers to convict a ranch-hand or
rail-hand.
Many of the towns were literally abandoned as the railroad got full and free
perpetual right-of-way,
and the ranchers moved on.
Microsoft wants to be in the position of the railroad. With the ability to
help buddies like AOL and MCI
take control of their markets. Instead of setting up a "general store",
Microsoft will set up some third-rate
provider, and use that to kill off the competition in that industry.
Instead of taking over farms for "right of way". Microsoft is taking over
businesses for "monopoly control" of key services and resources needed
by the world's largest companies. Left unchecked, Microsoft could use the
same tactics it now uses
to control operating systems, applications, browsers, and servers, to take
control of all travel,
communications, advertizing, promotion, supply procurement, and
distribution.
As it is, Microsoft collects 50% earnings to revenue ratio, while most of
the Corporate Customers
who depend on Microsoft products and services, make profits of less than 5%
earnings to revenue.
And along comes Zorro, the Lone Ranger, Joe Hill, and Tux.....
> --
> This universe shipped by weight, not volume. Some expansion may have
> occurred during shipment.
>
> ZnU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | <http://znu.dhs.org>
------------------------------
From: "Mike" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux as an investment
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2000 06:19:32 GMT
"Mike" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:7EMk5.78571$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> By way of comparison: in their most recent quarter, Microsoft reported EPS
> of $0.43 per share ($2.385B total). Dell reported earnings of $0.64
[Sorry - cut off the end before sending]
...Dell reported earnings of $0.64 ($603M total). Dell's revenue was $7.7B
in the most recent quarter, and Microsoft's revenue was $5.6B.
What the Linux vendors need to gain respect on Wall Street is profits, but
it's not clear yet how they will achieve high profits on high sales.
Attempts to sell support have met with limited success, and with successful
support vendors like IBM entering the Linux support market, Linux specific
companies are going to face even more intense competition.
The shrink wrapped product is of limited value, since it's competing with
free downloads.
Companies like Red Hat are left trying to work out support agreements with
corporations, who aren't so concerned about the price of the software. Red
Hat doesn't sell the applications like IBM and others do, so they can't
bundle the application with the OS and charge a bundled support price. IBM
can sell support for the application software package, which is generally
much more lucrative than support for the OS. And, if you're going to run an
IBM application, you might as well let them sell you the application and the
OS - and bring the system coverage together.
I haven't figured out this business plan yet, and apparently neither have
the Linux vendors. Watch for more changes in strategy to come, as Wall
Street grows impatient.
-- Mike --
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher Browne)
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.solaris
Subject: Re: Honest question about NT vs. Unix as Internet platform
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2000 06:32:29 GMT
Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when Mr Jama would say:
>Greetings. This is not a troll. I am looking for serious help here.
Excuse me; comp.os.linux.advocacy is probably not the right place to go
to find "serious help."
This is an advocacy group. Historically, the primary purpose of
*.advocacy has been to provide an anodyne to suck off the insanely flakey
disussions from [theoretically] more useful places.
If you're concerned about Solaris being too expensive and insufficiently
scalable, you probably should direct this to comp.unix.solaris or some
such place. Otherwise, all you'll get is "troll" answers, which means
that regardless of whether you intended to troll, you may still be
doing so.
I'm forwarding followup to comp.unix.solaris, as that is where
you are likely to get somewhat more competent answers to the direct
questions.
>I am responsible for the technical architecture for the Internet site of a
>relatively major company (billions in income). It is my opinion that NT
>provides the most cost-effective solution for our requirements. First off, I
>think NT is as scalable as Unix. And even if it weren't, out user base is
>relatively small. We're not launching Amazon.com here. We have a small number
>of clients (thousands) that spend lots (millions).
It's more likely that NT provides the solution that you're _most
comfortable with_. If the advantages and disadvantages involve small
enough relative costs, then your comfort level may well prevail.
>Anyways, I'm being told by our IT outsourcer that I don't know what I'm talking
>about, that Unix is far more secure than NT as an Internet platform, and that
>Unix is far more scalable. He's very adamant about this.
Well, the way that you lock down NT for Internet use it to hide it
behind a firewall. And the best you can "lock it down" is to the
C2 grade, which happens to be the poorest level of security that the
NSA is currently certifying for.
Some of the Unixes certify as high as B1, and you can get database
software running on Unix that is certifiable.
>Hey, I'm happy to be wrong. But I want some facts to prove it. He claims that
>Unix has about 2 security problems identified per month, whereas NT averages
>about 12. He also claims that NT takes 2+ weeks to post patches whereas Unix
>vendors typically take 2 days after a problem is identified.
You might want to look at Bugtraq to see if this is a truthful account.
>What do you guys think? Is NT really less secure than Unix for the
>Internet?
If you've got a good firewall in front of it, it may not be too bad.
>What about browsers? Is this guy just a Unix weenie, or does he have a point?
What _about_ browsers? I don't think any of _them_ have been certified
as C2 secure, on _any_ platform, if that's what you're talking about.
>P.S> Unix platform in particular that we use is Solaris.
Solaris scales whopping high; you can get 64-way SMP Solaris systems,
when about the best that NT _realistically_ offers is around 8-way
unless you start getting into pretty experimental extensions, and
I'd not want one of _those_ boxes exposed to the Internet.
Frankly, if you have competently designed applications that separate tasks
to different servers, there's no need to worry about the _whole thing_
being secure; you need primarily to worry about the machines in the DMZ,
which pass requests through carefully secured channels to machines in
the back office that are not connected to the Internet.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - <http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/>
Rules of the Evil Overlord #21. "I will hire a talented fashion
designer to create original uniforms for my Legions of Terror, as
opposed to some cheap knock-offs that make them look like Nazi
stormtroopers, Roman footsoldiers, or savage Mongol hordes. All were
eventually defeated and I want my troops to have a more positive
mind-set." <http://www.eviloverlord.com/>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Phil B)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Big Brother and the Holding Company
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2000 00:58:53 -0600
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "JS/PL"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Joseph" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > JS/PL wrote:
> >
> > > "JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > >
> > > > "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > JS/PL wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Joseph" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > > > JS/PL wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > If I remember correctly, the links were posted as supporting
> > > opinion
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > Windows2K is extremely reliable. Posted because I was accused
> of
> > > > having
> > > > > > no
> > > > > > > > credibility when I said it myself.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > You have no credibility . How could anyone credibly say W2K is
> a
> > > > reliable
> > > > > > OS -
> > > > > > > W2K is too new and hasn't be in service long enough to prove
> itself.
> > > > > > Hotmail
> > > > > > > still runs FreeBSD. That's why W2K deployment has been put on
> hold
> > > > for
> > > > > > many
> > > > > > > firms. It's still hard to get drivers for W2K. Get real.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Who cares what Hotmail runs? Whats's the point of changing the
> server?
> > > > It's
> > > > > > just a company MS has purchased like 100's of others. There are
> > > > employees
> > > > > > and hardware in place and I'd be real surprised if the service
> ever
> > > > turns a
> > > > > > profit. Why sink dolloars retraining and purchasing un neccessary
> > > > hardware
> > > > > > and software when the Hotmail doesn't make dime one.
> > > > >
> > > > > Because it's a fucking admission that their OWN product (which,
> whaddya
> > > > > know, doesn't cost MS a dime) is incapable of handling the task.
> > > >
> > > > Well after looking into the matter further I've come across this
> little
> > > gem,
> > > > read it and weep:
> > > > "HotMail has commenced its much awaited migration to a Microsoft
> operating
> > > > system. Some Windows 2000 machines have recently been moved into the
> load
> > > > balancing pool, with currently between 90-95% of requests being served
> by
> > > > the established FreeBSD/Apache platform, and 5-10% from Windows 2000.
> The
> > > > Hotmail site infrastructure is enormous, and even if everything runs
> > > > smoothly, a migration will likely take several weeks."
> > > > http://www.netcraft.com/survey/
> >
> > You didn't know MS made a boast they were going to roll HotMail over to
> > Windows2000. I'm not surprised.
> >
> > Let me highlight the text for you.."and if everything runs smoothly, a
> > migration will likely take several weeks" "IF EVERYTHING RUNS SMOOTHLY".
> What
> > IF it does not? Windows2000 is unproven so WHO knows? Not the OS creator
> but
> > you DO?!?
> >
> > As of TODAY MS itself, has NOT yet made the commitment to use NT (ever)
> and
> > they haven't used Windows2000. How can Windows2000 be proven? It is NOT
> and
> > MS is even unsure IF THE PROCESS RUNS SMOOTHLY.
>
> Come on, all the nitpicking of words is unnecessary, your sounding like a
> resident of csma.
> All the Windows bashing on earth by this small group won't change fate. Get
> over it, you can view the real world kicking and screaming but it doesn't
> change reality. Windows is proven to be extrememly stable, get over it.
> Hotmail will soon be running on a Microsoft server like the other 20% of the
> entire internet. Mince words all you like, unfortunately time still moves
> forward while you live in denial.
-- So, the basis of your reality is 20% of the entire Internet, and yet
advocates for the other 80% are the ones who are in denial?
Got it...
------------------------------
From: peer@service
Subject: Re: [Q] Too many distribution?
Date: 10 Aug 2000 21:33:09 -0700
In article <8mvpg9$n2q$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>
>In the U.S., there are almost 200 different makes of automobiles and
>trucks to choose from, and each of those has a dizzying array of options
>available to the consumer that they must pick and choose. And the
>breadth of choice doesn't seem to be a problem; in fact there are more
>than 2500 companies in the U.S. that make aftermarket accessories that
>you can add onto your car or truck to make it different from everybody
>else's. This is seen as a Good Thing(tm); Americans like to be unique.
>Why should it be any different for computers and software?
When it comes to computers, most people are not experts at them,
and most prefer to use something familiar and easy to use and
standard.
When you buy a tire, it does not matter who made the tire becuase
you know as long as it is of the size you want, it will fit.
With software it does not work like that, you can't buy Quicken for
windows and install it on Linux or VMS.
Linux will not go anywhere on the desktop, unless and untill it becomes
easier to use than windows and the same desktop applications that exists
on windows exist on linux.
Having too many distributions also is a bad thing for standarizations
and for develpers. Now I have to test my Linux application on 20
distributions instead for one.
Choice can be good, and it can be bad at the same time.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Big Brother and the Holding Company
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2000 02:46:22 -0400
JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> As of TODAY MS itself, has NOT yet made the commitment to use NT (ever)
>and
>> they haven't used Windows2000. How can Windows2000 be proven? It is NOT
>and
>> MS is even unsure IF THE PROCESS RUNS SMOOTHLY.
>Come on, all the nitpicking of words is unnecessary, your sounding like a
>resident of csma.
>All the Windows bashing on earth by this small group won't change fate. Get
>over it, you can view the real world kicking and screaming but it doesn't
>change reality. Windows is proven to be extrememly stable, get over it.
>Hotmail will soon be running on a Microsoft server like the other 20% of the
>entire internet. Mince words all you like, unfortunately time still moves
>forward while you live in denial.
Do you ever carefully read and think about anything posted by others? I didn't
think so! So, do the people who pay you to be here have plans that your
follow, or is the drivel all ad hoc -- or something you were born with like
other brainless idiots -- or does it come from using windcrap for too long?
Come on and tell us, how much does M$ pay you to be here, and how did you get
the job?
===========================================================
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
===========================================================
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
