Linux-Advocacy Digest #750, Volume #29 Thu, 19 Oct 00 19:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: The Linux Experience (Karen Rosin)
Re: who's WHINING dipshit! (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Ms employees begging for food ("Weevil")
Re: Linux lags behind Windows (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Is there a MS Word (or substitute) for Linux? (Garry Knight)
Re: Ms employees begging for food ("Weevil")
Re: Windows 2000 challenges GNOME/KDE ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: who's WHINING dipshit! (Mike Byrns)
Re: End-User Alternative to Windows (Larry Ebbitt)
Re: Is there a MS Word (or substitute) for Linux? (John Hasler)
Re: Is there a MS Word (or substitute) for Linux? ("Jan Schaumann")
Re: who's WHINING dipshit! (John Travis)
Re: who's WHINING dipshit! (.)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (.)
Re: Ms employees begging for food (R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ))
Pros and Cons of MS Windows Dominated World? (Bailey/Davis)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 01:02:05 +0200
From: Karen Rosin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Linux Experience
What about Nautilus as a desktop? Very similar the Windows idea???
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Haoyu Meng
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote
> on Thu, 19 Oct 2000 09:23:56 GMT
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >
> >Linux is not ready for the desktop. Functionality offered by
> >KDE/GNOME is relatively imature and unstable, compared to
> >Windows, especially Windows2000. GNOME and KDE crash way
> >too often, is slow unless used under root account, and
> >has almost no cross-application integration (ActiveX).
> >
> >I use many Linux boxes to do data intensive batch jobs. Another
> >friend of mine use a personal farm of about 10 identical Linux
> >boxes to do data-mining and spamming. There is definitely use
> >for Linux, just not on the desktop -- yet.
> >
> >Haoyu Meng
>
> Dumb question perhaps, but .... why aren't you using Win2k + Cygwin
> to do these data intensive batch jobs? Or just Win2k, period?
>
> As for the speed of X under a non-root account, that should make
> little difference unless you're using something like Wine and
> are running a DGA-aware Windows application in it...a configuration
> that is still not quite ready for prime time AFAIK. This may
> be a configuration setup problem and/or bug.
>
> Dunno what to make of ActiveX. It's certainly not appropriate
> for Web development, although it seems to be useful for
> limited internal communication (Office appears to be highly
> depenent on it, for example).
>
> But you're right, Linux isn't quite ready for the desktop. And if
> certain businesses have their way, it never will be.
>
> --
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random dire warning here
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: who's WHINING dipshit!
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 22:05:23 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Thu, 19 Oct 2000 19:56:40 -0000
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>On Thu, 19 Oct 2000 08:31:24 -0400, MH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>More Linux BS. Windows has a very large driver database. WinMe found my
>>Matrox video card, yamaha opl3 sound card, both cd roms..in other words
>>EVERYTHING.
>
> What about next year?
What about it? I rather doubt the hardware manufacturers
are going to simply say "No, we will no longer support Windows"
en masse somehow.... :-)
But it may become an interesting question if Microsoft shows serious
signs of slippage, or gets broken up.
[rest snipped]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
------------------------------
From: "Weevil" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.arch,comp.os.netware.misc
Subject: Re: Ms employees begging for food
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 17:06:23 -0500
Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:eK8H5.11301$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Or, the real story: The market was living in a dream land and investing
> into companies with no revenue and no hope of revenue. They finally got
> smart and yanked out which is why RedHat suffered. Their business model
> is to give away most of their product. Doesn't sound very profitable
> to me. It's hard to be an industry leader selling manuals and support.
Whoa! I actually agree with you on something. I've never quite been able
to get my mind around this business model that involves giving so much away.
I can imagine some scenarios where it might work on a limited, unambitious
scale, but I still can't quite understand some of the growth projections I
see for the business side of Linux.
I do fervently hope that Linux becomes a force that Microsoft has to
genuinely compete with. It'll obviously be better for all of us. And
contrary to what a lot of people in these groups might think, I do not hope
that Microsoft bites the dust. They are in a unique position to truly push
the envelope in every category of software. They have a virtually unlimited
budget for R&D, and they have some of the most talented programmers in the
world working there.
I just happen to believe that they've never used all that capital and talent
to benefit us consumers. I believe -- no, I *know* they've stifled
innovation almost throughout their history, and we're all the poorer for it.
I wish Bill Gates would wake up with a conscience some day and decide to
honestly do the best he can for the customers who put him where he is today.
I don't care if he comes clean with anything in the past; I just want him to
decide to devote Microsoft to putting things right. With the resources at
his command, he could work real wonders.
What a dream, eh?
jwb
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: alt.windows98
Subject: Re: Linux lags behind Windows
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin)
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 22:06:10 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Gardiner Family) wrote in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>In the case of Linux, include the version number, ie, Linux 2.2.16 lags
>behind windows 2000, then people will know what areas you are talking
>about and whether it is recycled MS bullshit.
Since the statement:
'Simply say "Windows is unstable". This applies to all flavors, all
versions, all releases.'
pretty much covers all versions of Windows, why do you think I said 'Linux
lags behind Windows' without qualifying my statement?
--
Pete Goodwin
---
Why don't I use Linux?
Lack of support for my sound card for one thing.
------------------------------
From: Garry Knight <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Is there a MS Word (or substitute) for Linux?
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 18:49:07 +0100
On Mon, 16 Oct 2000, Jan Schaumann wrote:
>Garry Knight wrote:
>>Most of the word processors I've come across can import and export RTF
>>pretty well.
>
>The most portable document format is PDF (Portable Document FOrmat - D'uh). RTF
>is not half as portable.
Great. Let's see you "port" a PDF document into Word 97.
--
Garry Knight
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Weevil" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Ms employees begging for food
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 17:10:02 -0500
Nick Condon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Sure. Reinvent the wheel every time. Depend on often undependable code
> > when the OCC is watching (from my experience at a bank). Close all of
your
> > accountability doors when you are accused of an error. I don't think
so.
>
> LOL! Closed-software reinvents the wheel every time. Sharing source-code
is
> building on the works of others in the time-tested and proven fashion of
> scientists and academics.
>
> > > Invest in consultancy companies with high technical competence, system
> > > integrators that aren't too dependent on particular software, and
> > > hardware manufacturers instead.
> >
> > And get contracts that make them support all Open Source code they use
and
> > take full accountability for it. Watch them all get sued out of
existance.
>
> Examples of software companies being successfully sued over code they
support
> are vanishingly rare. Your average support contract is more full of holes
than a
> ... a ... thing with lots of holes. It just doesn't happen.
LOL! Hey, keep writing! I like your style.
jwb
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 challenges GNOME/KDE
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 22:11:26 GMT
Yawwwnnn,,,
Assuming you have the time and knowledge to set it all up and make it
work.
All for the joy of running Netscape....
claire
On Thu, 19 Oct 2000 20:46:56 -0000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tim Kelley)
wrote:
>And to answer your question, I prefer the multi user-ness and network
>transparency of X11/unix that windows will never, and can never, have.
------------------------------
From: Mike Byrns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: who's WHINING dipshit!
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 22:06:46 GMT
In article <8snp6v$1grh$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (.) wrote:
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > On Thu, 19 Oct 2000 17:00:59 -0000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
>
> >> I never had any problems with my Voodoo3, or Voodoo2, or Intel
740,
> >> or S3Virge, or Matrox G400.
>
> > Is the Matrox G400 FINALLY fully supported under Linux, or is it
still
> > single head only support?
>
> Its not "linux" that supports video cards, brainiac. Its the X-
server.
> You're probably referring to XFree86, and yes it does.
>
> Though AccelleratedX has for a bit longer.
>
> Funny, you seem to have claimed repeatedly that you have lots of
experience
> running linux. Even someone with very limited experience would have
> known that linux doesnt support ANY sort of video hardware directly,
and
> that all of that happens inside the X-server.
>
> I suspect that youve been lying quite alot, claire.
To people that care about video card compatibility X is Linux. What
comes in the box at the store or the ISO image they download is all
linux to most folks. You'd probably be first in line to say that
Notepad.exe is Windows. What I like is how when people
criticize "Linux" in this regard, the Penguinista's turn coat and say
things like "but that's not Linux". Without X and all the things that
technically aren't linux you'd have a machine that cannot boot since
LILO isn't techically Linux either :-)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 18:21:31 -0400
From: Larry Ebbitt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: End-User Alternative to Windows
Gardiner Family wrote:
>
> In theory, say if Microsoft made the DOS component of Windows totally 32bit and
> then slapped Windows (made totally 32bit) on top, would this result in a more
> stable OS, if so, why didn't MS do it? Just a question :)
>
Stability is not dependent on word size. It's more a function of design
and code quality. Microflaccid is poor at both.
--
Larry Ebbitt - Linux + OS/2 - Atlanta
------------------------------
From: John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Is there a MS Word (or substitute) for Linux?
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 21:35:22 GMT
Haoyu Meng writes:
> U need to read a whole book to understand how to use Latex. I am in the
> business of writing books using computers. I don't want to have to learn
> programming to do that.
I've just about finished teaching myself to use Lyx: about four hours
total, using only the on-line docs. Of course, I have an unfair advantage:
I've never used a "word processor".
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Hasler)
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI
------------------------------
From: "Jan Schaumann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Is there a MS Word (or substitute) for Linux?
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 18:28:19 +0400
"Garry Knight" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Oct 2000, Jan Schaumann wrote:
>>Garry Knight wrote:
>
>>>Most of the word processors I've come across can import and export RTF
>>>pretty well.
>>
>>The most portable document format is PDF (Portable Document FOrmat -
>>D'uh). RTF is not half as portable.
>
> Great. Let's see you "port" a PDF document into Word 97.
See <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> further below.
Opening one document-type with an application that is not intended to
handle that type can not produce the correct output.
*You* try opening a word-document with xv.
Cheers,
-Jan
--
Jan Schaumann <http://www.netmeister.org>
Please add smileys where appropriate.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Travis)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: who's WHINING dipshit!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 22:15:24 GMT
And Keith Peterson spoke unto the masses:
>Don't believe the compatibility lists. They flat out lie.
I guess it depends on what you consider support eh? My SBLive sounds great
(although I am not sure what they are doing with the drivers after about
10/05/2000). I would certainly call it "compatible," even though I can't
make all the lyrics sound like they're being sung by the chipmunks yet, like I
can in windows. But maybe the binary only driver that Creative plans on
releasing will finally provide all of these "essential" features I have been
missing out on all of this time :-).
jt
--
Debian GNU/Linux [Woody]
2.4.0-test9-ReiserFS
You mean there's a stable tree?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: who's WHINING dipshit!
Date: 19 Oct 2000 22:38:02 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Mike Byrns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <8snp6v$1grh$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.) wrote:
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> > On Thu, 19 Oct 2000 17:00:59 -0000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
>>
>> >> I never had any problems with my Voodoo3, or Voodoo2, or Intel
> 740,
>> >> or S3Virge, or Matrox G400.
>>
>> > Is the Matrox G400 FINALLY fully supported under Linux, or is it
> still
>> > single head only support?
>>
>> Its not "linux" that supports video cards, brainiac. Its the X-
> server.
>> You're probably referring to XFree86, and yes it does.
>>
>> Though AccelleratedX has for a bit longer.
>>
>> Funny, you seem to have claimed repeatedly that you have lots of
> experience
>> running linux. Even someone with very limited experience would have
>> known that linux doesnt support ANY sort of video hardware directly,
> and
>> that all of that happens inside the X-server.
>>
>> I suspect that youve been lying quite alot, claire.
> To people that care about video card compatibility X is Linux.
They are quite simply incorrect. You can redefine terms all you like, and
it will never, ever make you correct.
> What
> comes in the box at the store or the ISO image they download is all
> linux to most folks.
"claire" put herself apart from "most folks" by listing a fairly impressive
(though a lie) list of linuces shed had experience with.
> You'd probably be first in line to say that
> Notepad.exe is Windows.
No, because I know that it isnt.
> What I like is how when people
> criticize "Linux" in this regard, the Penguinista's turn coat and say
> things like "but that's not Linux".
Correclty of course.
> Without X and all the things that
> technically aren't linux you'd have a machine that cannot boot since
> LILO isn't techically Linux either :-)
You can boot linux without LILO, you diminutive-brained maroon.
XFree86 is an X-Server that works on a ton of unix and unix-like operating
systems. It is developed independantly of linux and what linux is doing.
If theres a problem with a video driver, it has everything to so with the
good people over there at XFree, and nothing to do with anyone working on
the linux kernel or filesystem. This is the correct viewpoint, yours is
absolutely wrong.
=====.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes
Date: 19 Oct 2000 22:40:19 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Strange, my girlfriend (who is in a MUCH better position to evaluate)
> disagrees with your assessment.
Funny. Ive been told that you're a homosexual.
=====.
------------------------------
From: R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.arch,comp.os.netware.misc
Subject: Re: Ms employees begging for food
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 22:40:03 GMT
In article <eK8H5.11301$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> "R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard )" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8sir9d$lln$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > neJ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On Sat, 14 Oct 2000 15:04:24 -0400, unicat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > A picture claiming to show former monoposoft
> > > > employees begging for food...
> > > >An image from a site dedicated to spreading the "truth"-
> > > >
> > > >http://www.nwlink.com/~rodvan/microsoft/street1.html
> >
> > That is so CUTE!!
> >
> > > >Don't let this happen to you. Learn linux now ;-)
> > >
> > > You sure that picture wasn't really of Linux investors???
> > > Red Hat is down what, 90% from it's high?
> >
> > Microsoft is down 50% and revenues are down 20%
> From what? Let's put this into perspective.
6.5 Billion to 5.8 Billion
> > (Red Hat's revenues grew by 270%).
>
> Again, from what?
$4 million to $18 million.
> Revenues down 20% from hundreds of billions vs revenues up 270%
> from nothing doesn't really mean a whole heck of a lot.
Absolutely correct. Microsoft is still the 500 pound Gorilla. To
become equal, the combined revenue of Red Hat, SuSE, Caldera, Turbo
Linux, and others (Red Hat has about 25% of the total Linux market),
you'd have to take the current $72 million in license revenue and
triple it almost 4 years in a row to achieve Microsoft's revenue.
Of course, this doesn't all have to be operating systems licenses.
You could have support contracts, outsourcing, web hosting, help desk,
and of course, commercial applications.
Essentially, Microsoft prices the support and marketing into the "up
front" purchase price with discounts to volume buyers who probably need
less support. Linux vendors give away the software and sell the printed
documentation (O'Reilly), service (LinuxCare & IBM), consulting (IBM),
and help-desk support (Caldera & RedHat).
Assuming that there may be another $72 million in revenues that are
currently "invisible" (integrated into other corporate revenues),
Linux my still only have $144 million in total revenues.
The key here is that there is clearly room for growth, and much of
that growth will probably be at Microsoft's expense (though not
necessarily, Microsoft is still finding new and creative revenue
sources as well).
> What's the P/E ratio of MS vs RedHat. That's the real metric here.
Nowhere near as good as Microsoft's. The key differences is that
earnings are a function of how well a company either deploys resources
to cause growth, or consolidates resources to accomodate shrinkage.
Microsoft has pretty much saturated it's market, new products aren't
generating quite as much demand, and competitors are emerging. About
the only significant advantages Microsoft still has are illegal
agreements which include exclusionary nondisclosure agreements used
to perpetrate fraud, deception, and to prevent competition, and to
exclude competitors from the most strategic market channels. The
remaining question will be how many of these contract practices will
be allowed by attourney's general and the courts.
At some point, either Microsoft will adopt a more ethical and legal
approach to it's contracting, or the war of attrition will drain
resources and public opinion from Microsoft in favor of competitors.
At some point, Microsoft will simply stop the questionable practices
as part of a voluntary settlement.
> > Granted, Red Hat chose to give away millions of shares of stock
> > options to thousands of developers who contributed thousands of
> > hours to Linux specification, development, documentation, and
> > promotion.
>
> Of course, most of them never made it to those developers which is
> why ETrade is in hot water now. Most of those shares went to
> "friends and family".
Yes. Some of the friends and family included celebrities. But many
of the friends were Linux contributors. Unfortunately, ETrade did
handle things poorly (rejecting account applications or approving them
only after it was too late to "opt in").
> > Some of these people were still in college and needed to sell off
> > to collect tuition. Others were just unaccustomed to dealing with
> > this kind of money. Others were simply jumping ship as the entire
> > tech market started to skid. And IBM sold off a portion of it's
> > holdings (about $14 million) shortly after the Novice option holders
> > sold off.
> Or, the real story: The market was living
> in a dream land and investing
> into companies with no revenue and no hope of revenue.
Actually, the market was irrational and analysts had been warning
of "impending collapse" of tech stocks across the spectrum.
Quite simply with prices running at 90 times earnings and 20 times
revenue, there wasn't enough "across the board" top-line growth
to justify these prices.
Red Hat suffered doubly because investors rushing to "buy a piece
of Linux" only saw the one company (at that time, there were only
3 "Linux Plays" available, and only Red Hat was "pure Linux". Corel
and Applix were diluted with other products. When investors suddenly
watched that 3 grow into 9, and eventually even more, the money itself
spread out. Furthermore, when Red Hat went for a second IPO only a few
months after the first (effectively halving the value ofthe stock), it
was not good news for Red Hat stock holders.
Now, with Microsoft dropping from $140/share to $49 a share, it's
a reasonable investment. With Linux companies like Red-Hat dropping
from $140 a share to $14 a share, it's a reasonable investment.
> They finally got smart and yanked out which
> is why RedHat suffered. Their business model
> is to give away most of their product.
And charge for packaging, service, and support contracts.
Keep in mind, this is recurring revenue compared to "one shot"
revenue of the pure royalty model (in which customers expect
unspecified amounts of similar services in exchange for the higher
price.
For this reason, Linux will continue to have the strongest appeal to
those who can "help themselves" or those who have access to help.
Microsoft will continue to have the strongest appeal for off-line
unsupported users.
> Doesn't sound very profitable to me.
If you think about it, neither does giving away support.
> It's hard to be an industry leader selling manuals and support.
It's also hard to be an industry leader by giving away manuals and
support. The more you charge for the royalties, the more support
your customers expect.
Ask any consultant which he'd preferr, a "fixed price" contract
or a "Time and materials" contract, especially when confronted
with a competitive market and changing requirements.
> > Small-cap stocks always get hit hardest in a correction. They also
> > take longer to bounce back.
>
> Especially when they're horribly overvalued. Except, that problem has
> been taken care of.
>
> > Meanwhile, back at the ranch, LinuxCare and Cobalt seem to be doing
> > very well, as is Applix. Corel had some legal issues which took
it's
> > stock from $30/share to $3/share.
>
> Not to mention poor quality software, diminishing sales, no clear
> focus in the market, no good leadership, spiraling costs, etc.
Yup. Corel had a stockholder suit pending (eventually settled with
Cowpland's resignation), had spent most of it's resources trying to
retake the Windows desktop, and released debian Linux (the least
supportive to commercial markets). And the clincher was that Corel
was charging customers for support, including customers who had
purchased the commercial version.
> > In many cases, the fundamental rules of business have held fast.
> > Companies who made good products and services at good prices and
> > delivered quality consistently did quite well.
> > Red Hat has chosen to remain focused on the server market, leaving
> > the Workstation and Laptop market to Mandrake (who uses the Red Hat
> > distribution as a core, but enhances it with a friendly desktop and
> > consumer oriented applications). Mandrake also uses Linuxcare for
> > user support.
>
> Red Hat has done well? Their stock is tattered. What's the P/E ratio?
Red Hat has done well in the market it chose to address. It has
achieved significant revenue increases in it's chosen market.
> Earnings/Share is -0.52, they're nearing another 52-week low, since
> it just set one 10/13/00. It closed at 13.5, the low is 10.5.
Correct. Typically, you spend more on R&D and advertizing when
you are building a company. Once the industry approaches saturation
and revenues begin to decrease (due to increased competition for same
market), the investors expect to see cost cutting, and often expect
dividends in leiu of stock price increases. Furthermore, the
investors looking for this type of stock tend to be more conservative.
> Price-to-cash-flow ratio is well below industry average.
True. At $140, the price was unrealistic. At $14, for a growing
industry segment, the price is quite reasonable.
> Doesn't sound like it's doin' all that well.
Again, different investors seek different investment goals. At one
time, Microsoft was the company spending everything it made and
nearly going into hock, only to come out cash rich. Today,
Microsoft's market isn't growing (most of it's revenue is from
churning existing customers through new versions of software).
In the absence of increasing stock prices, employees are less likely
to be attracted/retained by stock options, and the investors interested
in a high margin/low growth company like Microsoft will be expecting
dividends.
Meanwhile, agressive growth investors will be looking to Linux and
UNIX, who have massive room for growth and could grow for years
with almost no interruptions.
Adding UNIX to the equation also shifts the entire market. With
Linux brining UNIX to the desktop, and with UNIX being a
$multibillion industry (Sun, substantial portions of IBM, HP, and
Compaq(DEC/Tandem), that are still growing at about 50%/year, we
could easily see Linux/UNIX exploding in the marketplace almost as
dramatically as the Internet did in 1996 (the explosion started in
1995 but was still considered a fluke until 1996 when analysts and
prognosticators finally corrected their numbers).
Still, Chad is correct. Linux costs less to produce and support,
which means it will require less revenue per unit. On the other
hand, each unit will bring higher profit margins. The key pressure
on margins will be the money spent establishing and growing the brand
recognition (advertizing).
The average web site starts with at $2000 investment and a $20/month
recurring charge. But the EBAYs YAHOOs, and LYCOSs spend several
billion on advertizing to support what eventually grows to servers
selling in the $10 million range with $2 million in non-advertizing
based recurring costs.
> -Chad
--
Rex Ballard - I/T Architect, MIS Director
Linux Advocate, Internet Pioneer
http://www.open4success.com
Linux - 50 million satisfied users worldwide
and growing at over 5%/month! (recalibrated 8/2/00)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Bailey/Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Pros and Cons of MS Windows Dominated World?
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 17:50:06 -0500
I am writing a paper for a college class on the topic of "The Pros and
Cons of a MS Windows Dominated World" from a "raw" perspective (i.e.
Usenet and email listserve). I am interested in whether the market
created the best (fast, efficient) hardware/software products in light
of MS Windows dominance.
If interested, please send your ideas or thoughts on this topic directly
to me ([EMAIL PROTECTED]). I will post a summary of the results
later.
Thanks
Ed
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
