Linux-Advocacy Digest #778, Volume #29 Sat, 21 Oct 00 02:13:02 EDT
Contents:
Re: Ms employees begging for food (Mike Byrns)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (Mike Byrns)
Re: Ms employees begging for food (Mike Byrns)
Re: Pros and Cons of MS Windows Dominated World? ("Chad Myers")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Mike Byrns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Ms employees begging for food
Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2000 05:48:43 GMT
"R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard )" wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Mike Byrns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Ketil Z Malde wrote:
> >
> > > "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > >
> > > > Revenues down 20% from hundreds of billions vs revenues up 270%
> > > > from nothing doesn't really mean a whole heck of a lot.
> > >
> > > It could mean that the cash value of the software market is
> > > shrinking. If free software becomes a (more and more) viable
> > > alternative, it means that pure software companies will struggle to
> > > keep their niches, and they'll eventually die off.
>
> > And the niches will not be supported because
> > the free software developers
> > will have no reason to support those
> > niches that they find "less than cool".
>
> Actually, Niches are great. Niches have been the life's blood of
> UNIX for years. And one of the reasons is because you know what
> you're dealing with. When your success depends on supporting
> a niche market, you can't afford to redesign your application every
> two years simply because Microsoft came out with a new operating
> system.
That's OK because you do not have to redesign your application every two
years. Software written correctly for Windows 95 runs just fine on Windows
2000 sans the new features. For that matter, almost all software that
written for Windows 3.0 runs fine on 2000 as well. You might find a
compelling business reason for updating your software to take advantage of
newer OS features -- maybe your competitor is doing it -- but that's hardly
a redesign.
> Many ISVs and Niche market vendors are opting not to redesign
> their code to exploit Windows 2000 features. They are pretty much
> telling customers to live with the NT 4 implementation if they can.
That will last until their competitor's update their software package and
engineer a clean migration path.
> In some cases, vendors are even telling customers NOT to upgrade
> to Windows 2000 (since Microsoft may have altered DLLs).
There's a mature development organization :-). Maybe the vendor could
_TEST_ it under Windows 2000? Hmm...
> > The thing with free software is
> > that it is not market driven and
> > thus is not resposive to the business
> > user who votes with dollars to get
> > what he wants.
>
> Actually, very much the opposite. Again, go back to the UNIX
> industry (which is heavily supported by Open Source BSD and GNU
> software). In fact, most of the revenue for UNIX supporters comes
> from creating custom applications using reliable "unglamourous"
> building blocks like PERL and Apache in combination with "Glitzy"
> applications like Oracle, DB/2, Sybase, MQSeries, and EJB.
>
> IBM calls this combination "WebShere".
Ahem. The IBM HTTP Server AKA Apache _IS_ used by WebSphere but I can 100%
assure you that the application server is C++ and Java. Compliled. Closed
source. Binaries only. NO PERL scripts in the application server. Maybe
some in utils but nothing in the core app server. We got WebSphere to
replace Apache/JServ for precisely that reason -- rolling your own takes
too much time. And we also use Oracle, EJB and MQSeries. They are
directly supported by WebSphere (after the required patches :-).
> BEA calls it "WebLogic".
I'll certainly keep this in mind next time someone spouts off about
evaluating it!
> Essentially, most of these packages are a powerful combination of
> Open Source software used as "Glue" for high performance services
> and middleware.
We'll one of your example's isn't and I know nothing about the other.
> Then you back that up with support teams like Global Services
> Consulting and Outsourcing.
Yeah -- you'll need it with WebSphere. We were so much happier with IIS on
NT. And so much more productive.
> > If the source is GPL'd then no one
> > will be able to get VC to
> > start a software company to make profits
> > because every other geek on the
> > planet can just take that software
> > and make the same thing and undercut the
> > first until the they are both free.
>
> Again, whether we're talking Linux or traditional UNIX,
> it's likely that you'll have a hybrid of Open Source
> software and commercial software. Even if your competitor
> outbids you, you may still end up selling him support for
> your original software. And given the nature of the IT labor
> market these days, I don't think you will be hurting for work.
Given the nature of linux startups you may have to go work IT :-)
> Of course, if you can walk in with your "ready to run CD-ROM" and
> deliver a fully functional product using canned Open Source modules,
> that require a few hours of tuning, and can be maintained by people
> who already know PERL or Java or Python, and Linux, then you have
> a high profit "product". Essentially, this is what ASPs are.
Or you can just install a Windows product that doesn't require all that
tuning and expertise. IIS was much easier to setup than Apache/JServe OR
WebSphere.
> The most successful ASPs will be able to quickly configure custom
> systems using easily learned input from the user.
>
> > So look at it this way -- voting by
> > buying is the American way.
>
> Absolutely! The Americans like to shop at a supermarket where
> 3-4 brands of each item sit on the shelves within a few feet of
> each other. The American way would be to have Red Hat, Caldera,
> SuSE, OS/X, and Windows 2000 all sitting on running computers that
> could be taken for a "test drive" by potential customers so that
> they can make an informed choice.
That would be great! Make sure you disclose every step taken to make that
linux desktop look and work the way you display becuase when they get it
out of the box and it doesn't work the way it did in the store then they
will return it and get Windows.
> The "Soviet Way" is to have a "Depot" where you get your "allotment"
> of "Soviet Products" (one brand, no alterates or substitutions),
> and if the Commisary runs out (because part of the allocation was
> diverted elsewhere, or into the black market) you get whatever is
> left. Of course, since there is only one commisary, and only the
> minimal number of clerks, you simply stand in line for the entire day,
> the day assigned to you.
>
> When you go into a CompUSA computer store and see 10 desktop
> systems looking nearly identical in terms of operation,
> with nothing to distinguish them apart but the plastic
> on the case and monitor, it's not much of a choice. They
> all run Windows "du jur" and they all look pretty much
> the same with the possible exeption of the wallpaper in
> the background.
What about the Macs? And the copies of RedHat on the shelves? The
differentiating factors are service, price, speed and capacity. You pick
the best mix for you.
> > > OTOH companies
> > > that are consumers of software are likely to benefit, and in
> > > particular I'd expect an increased demand for consultants and
> > > programmers.
> >
> > Sure. Reinvent the wheel every time.
>
> Actually, you have to reinvent the wheel when the only wheel in
> existence is copyrighted, trademarked, and protected by nondisclosure
> agreements indended to have the very IDEA of the wheel protected by
> "trade secret" laws.
How about using the wheel you've got? Works fine for most folks. Special
needs? There are other wheels you can buy...
> It's OpenSource that lets you start with your choice of 8 different
> types of wheel, along with reccomendations as to which is best for
> which type of road, and then lets you move on to your choice of 5
> different engines, 9 different upholstry types, 5 cab types, and
> your choice of "economy", "luxury", "sporty", or "rugged" suspension
> systems.
And Windows allows you to choose among Windows 98SE, Millenium, NT
Workstation, Server, Enterprise Server, Windows 2000 Professional, Server,
Advanced Server or Datacenter. Each has easy to configure options that
span virtually every conceivable configuration. I think the ala carte
selection is grand when you know exactly what you want and what your needs
are now and can acurately predict what they will be in the future. When
you cannot, choose Windows. It's guaranteed to be there for you.
> It will take about 2 hours to build your car, but you can either wait,
> spend some time looking at which stereo you'd like to have installed,
> and review which of the warrantee options you'd like, from the 50,000
> major repair option (cheap but full of exclusions and waiting periods)
> to the 200,000 mile full service renewable agreement where they pick up
> the car, perform all maintainance, and have it back to your door before
> you need the car, as often as needed and on a regular periodic basis.
No wait for the car nor do you have to wait to learn how to use it and
setup all the subsystems. Service contracts available from the
manufacturer and others too.
> The car analogy is good since most Windows users don't have much
> experience with Linux and UNIX infrastructure.
And most UNIX folks don't have much experience with production Windows
systems.
> Essentially, with Linux you have 1200 packages composed of roughly
> 80,000 components performing about 8,000 common functions. You
> can then use preconfigured combinations (such as KDE or GNOME) or
> you can use combinations (use KRN and Kmail on Enlightenment
> desktop). With a little study, you can roll your own, or have
> someone else tailor one for you.
With Windows you have most of that base functionality in a cohesive,
integrated environment. You can use the preconfigured combinations (Such
as Explorer or MyComputer) or you can use combinations (use XNews and
Eudora on WindowBlinds). Without much study at all you can roll your own
so you don't have to have someone else tailor one for you...
> > Depend on often undependable code
> > when the OCC is watching (from my experience at a bank).
>
> Fortunately, the components themselves are pretty well tested (many
> have been production hardened for over 25 years). Unfortunately,
> when you roll a custom application, you can't blame an uncaring
> and unresponsive vendor who you know won't do anything but is
> to loaded for legal battle to sue.
But you can show that it's the vendor's fault and the OCC will take it up
with them. They can ignore you but when your contract with with the vendor
promises something they don't deliver, you are off the hook :-) If the OCC
found you to be using software found to be written by anonymous or
difficult to discern sources they would question your due dilligence and
how would you handle that?
> > Close all of your accountability doors when
> > you are accused of an error.
>
> Are you saying that you have successfully obtained accountability
> for "Microsoft NDA-Ware"? I'm sure that anything can be negotiated,
> but the default license pretty much says that all of their software
> is pretty much useless and any practical application you may have
> developed is simply a result of your own imagination. In fact,
> if Microsoft deliberately renders your computer entirely useless,
> the license prevents you from suing them. In fact, even criminal
> negligence or vandalism by Microsoft is exempt.
Unless your state protects you. Criminal negligence warranty exemptions
are in effect in many states. Reference:
"Microsoft warrants that the
Product will perform substantially in accordance with the
accompanying materials for a period of ninety days from the
date of receipt. If an implied warranty or condition is
created by your state/jurisdiction and federal or
state/provincial law prohibits disclaimer of it, you also
have an implied warranty or condition, BUT ONLY AS TO
DEFECTS DISCOVERED DURING THE PERIOD OF THIS
LIMITED WARRANTY (NINETY DAYS). AS TO ANY
DEFECTS DISCOVERED AFTER THE NINETY (90) DAY
PERIOD, THERE IS NO WARRANTY OR CONDITION OF
ANY KIND. Some states/jurisdictions do not allow limitations
on how long an implied warranty or condition lasts, so the
above limitation may not apply to you."
and:
"Your exclusive remedy for any breach of this
Limited Warranty is as set forth below. Except for any
refund elected by Microsoft, YOU ARE NOT ENTITLED TO ANY
DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO
CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, if the Product does not meet
Microsoft's Limited Warranty, and, to the maximum extent
allowed by applicable law, even if any remedy fails of its
essential purpose. The terms of Section 13 below ("Exclusion
of Incidental, Consequential and Certain Other Damages") are
also incorporated into this Limited Warranty. Some
states/jurisdictions do not allow the exclusion or
limitation of incidental or consequential damages, so the
above limitation or exclusion may not apply to you. This
Limited Warranty gives you specific legal rights. You may
have others which vary from state/jurisdiction to
state/jurisdiction."
and:
"TO THE MAXIMUM
EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW, IN NO
EVENT SHALL MICROSOFT OR ITS SUPPLIERS BE
LIABLE FOR ANY SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, INDIRECT,
OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES WHATSOEVER
(INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR
LOSS OF PROFITS OR CONFIDENTIAL OR OTHER
INFORMATION, FOR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION, FOR
PERSONAL INJURY, FOR LOSS OF PRIVACY, FOR
FAILURE TO MEET ANY DUTY INCLUDING OF GOOD
FAITH OR OF REASONABLE CARE, FOR NEGLIGENCE,
AND FOR ANY OTHER PECUNIARY OR OTHER LOSS
WHATSOEVER) ARISING OUT OF OR IN ANY WAY
RELATED TO THE USE OF OR INABILITY TO USE THE
PRODUCT, THE PROVISION OF OR FAILURE TO
PROVIDE SUPPORT SERVICES, OR OTHERWISE UNDER
OR IN CONNECTION WITH ANY PROVISION OF THIS
EULA, EVEN IN THE EVENT OF THE FAULT, TORT
(INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE), STRICT LIABILITY,
BREACH OF CONTRACT OR BREACH OF WARRANTY OF
MICROSOFT OR ANY SUPPLIER, AND EVEN IF
MICROSOFT OR ANY SUPPLIER HAS BEEN ADVISED OF
THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES. "
And this is quite interesting :-)
http://www2.linuxjournal.com/articles/currents/015.html
Oh, yeah. Don't forget Kaner. As in Cem Kaner PHD, JD. Read this -- no
really! :-) He is the most cited expert witness in these matters!
http://www.kaner.com/qwucc97/qwucc97.htm
> Furthermore, unless you purchased the software from a retailer,
> you are generally covered by a nondisclosure agreement that
> prevents you from making any public statements that might
> damage the Microsoft brand.
Unless that NDA is found void by wrongdoing. See Kaner above.
> This would include any bug report
> or benchmark in which Microsoft is not depicted as the clear
> winner.
So that's the linux excuse for the TPC numbers? ;-)
> It takes some real creativity to create press releases
> which appear to praise Microsoft while in fact pointing to glaring
> deficiencies.
Tell the media that. Tell MSNBC that for that matter. They are never
particularly careful with the facts these days...
> The Microsoft lawyers are pretty sharp, but they
> occaisionally let one through.
And the Apple folks are too -- reference the lawsuits on the sites that
leaked the cube. The Intel folks as well -- how about those P4
benchmarks. So far I've not seen any fiasco of that magnitude from
Microsoft. Can you refresh my memory?
> > I don't think so.
>
> Certainly you can make whatever deal you can with whomever you choose.
> Perhaps your bank is so powerful and influential that you can have
> Microsoft indemnify you and guarantee all claims and damages. I
> know of only one financial company that even comes close to having
> that type of power and they don't have a bank in their infrastructure.
We have the FDIC and OCC in our "infrastructure". The same Government that
plays games in court with Microsoft to make them play ball with them
essentially mandates the use of commercial software in financial
environments. Maybe that's why NASDAQ uses NT almost exclusively.
> > And get contracts that make them support
> > all Open Source code they use and
> > take full accountability for it.
>
> Again, I suppose anything is negotiable. I know of very
> few consulting firms, especially Microsoft focused consulting
> firms who will even sign a fixed price contract, let alone a
> meaningful service level agreement.
No SLA no SALe. Our guidelines. Windows consultants are lining up. AIX
and WebSphere folks? You even know any? As for the fixed price contract,
you gotta be kidding :-) All those consulting houses went out of business
in the 80's.
> > Watch them all get sued out of existance.
>
> Actually, it's even worse than that. If Microsoft decides
> that a product or utility is "no longer strategic", you're
> stuck. Even if it's a third party product, you are pretty
> much at the mercy of the NDAs between Microsoft, the vendors,
> and your company.
How's that? What does "no longer strategic" mean to you? And you assume
that we need to honor NDAs when it comes to the OCC :-)
> Conversely, if an Open Source focused consulting firm does a
> really lousy job, and you start discussing that on usenet
> newsgroups (in seeking assistance), it's very hard for the
> vendor to prevent you from seeking alterate sources, and
> very hard to prevent you from providing enough detail about
> the problem to indicate who the service provider was.
So what. You can't sue them, there are no assets, what do they have to
protect? All that can happen, and it will come to pass, is that the
companies that bet the bank (I'm so droll :-) on Open Source go away over
time. Business has a long memory when it comes to IT decsions losing the
business.
> When an Apache/Linux server goes down, it's news.
Really? Any Apache/Linux sever? Front page? Please clarify :-)
> This isn't
> because the vendor makes so much noise, but because it happens
> so rarely that people are very curious about the cause of the
> failure.
Oh you must mean linux and apache news. You must not be reading the IIS
paper.
> 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)
Mike Byrns - Quality Assurance, Business Integration
Windows Advocate, eCommerce
Windows - Where do you want to go today?
Linux numbers cannot be trusted without clear proof :-)
------------------------------
From: Mike Byrns <[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: Sat, 21 Oct 2000 05:49:42 GMT
"." wrote:
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > It figures.
>
> > They always seem to know each other :(
>
> Thats some argument youve got there. Care to fib a little more
> about your linux experience?
So you're gay too? :-0
------------------------------
From: Mike Byrns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.arch,comp.os.netware.misc
Subject: Re: Ms employees begging for food
Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2000 05:53:00 GMT
Bruce Hoult wrote:
> In article <8snt82$qf2$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard )
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > 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 $72 million in license revenue and
> > triple it almost 4 years in a row to achieve Microsoft's revenue.
>
> Geez. That's not all that far from the realms of possibility. They
> *are* tripling each year at the moment. And four years is a very short
> time. And if it's six years instead of four Microsoft should *still* be
> very worried.
Heh. You've obviosly not been around long enough to understand what greater
competition Microsoft has faced. Four years and Linux will be a memory,
relegated to the niche of MacOS. Six years and Microsoft will probably lend
you the mortagage for you next house :-)
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Pros and Cons of MS Windows Dominated World?
Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2000 05:40:25 GMT
"Bruce Schuck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:sU9I5.113233$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:8sr6i8$f1s$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > Mike Byrns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > A monopoly is when you have all of them.
> >
> > Wrong. For all of you who have flunked Econ-101, you're a monopoly when
> > you have such an overwhelming share of the market that you can
> > effectively excercise control over the marketshare you don't have.
>
> If you knew anything about the history of computing you would realize that
> Microsoft gained it's market by the stupidity of other companies, not by
> anything close to a monopoly.
>
> IBM had it's chance. So did Apple. They both blew it. So did many others.
> Gates hung in there, made some good choices (and many bad ones), and kept
> trying to make his products better.
>
> Look at Novell. They owned the file sharing market in the PC world. And let
> it slip away.
>
> Look at Sybase. They SOLD their SQL Server code to Microsoft. Eventually
> Microsoft commited enough resources to rebuild SQL Server and 7.0 and 2000
> are great products.
What's common among all these companies (except MS)?
They all had dominance in the market with some type of really "great" product
or products.
They then, in the face of competition, refused to innovate, rather attack
MS legally, politically, and in the public eye.
Rather than improving their product(s), they were content to sit on their
piles of gold and poke fun at the tiny, inept MS trying to unseat them.
MS, through hard work, trial and error, and savvy business practices,
enventually beat them at their own game and won the favor of paying
customers.
Apple with hardware and OS, Novell with their anemic NetWare and it's
horrible accompanying software like GroupWise, ManageWise, etc and
the horrible, buggy, and completely broken clients for their server
software, Netscape with their anemic and completely broken browser...
The list goes on.
MS, on the other hand, refuses to fall prey to the same fate as
their predecessors and revels in the challenge of competition
and sees fit to improve and innovate. .NET, Win2K and now Whistler,
Win2K DC, etc. MS has several more years in them, at least, with
the current management philosophy of never stopping and never
becoming complacent.
-Chad
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
