Linux-Advocacy Digest #227, Volume #31 Wed, 3 Jan 01 22:13:02 EST
Contents:
Re: Profitability of Linux being a challenge (R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ))
Re: Global Configuration tool (WAS: Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes ("Aaron R.
Kulkis")
Re: Does Linux envy Microsoft? ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Profitability of Linux being a challenge (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: Microsoft is 20-years BEHIND other OS vendors (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Profitability of Linux being a challenge
Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2001 02:31:26 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
* <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard )" wrote:
>
> > > but the argument goes both ways.
> >
> > That's the problem. It doesn't go both ways.
>
> ok.
>
> > > the individual doesn't know what's best for the masses.
> >
> > But Bill Gates thinks he does.
>
> and this is counter to my argument because..
One person has used monopoly control of legacy systems (MS-DOS, then
Windows 3.1 then Windows 9x then NT) to force nearly everybody to use
Microsoft's operating system, whether they want to or not.
Put simply Bill Gates has the power to say:
I have the right to innovate - you don't.
I have the right to choose operating systems and technology - you don't.
I have the right to privacy - you don't.
I have the right to free speech - you don't (NDAs).
I have the right to enforce copyrights - you don't.
I have the right to make a substantial profit - you don't.
I have the right to publish anything I want, true or not - you don't.
You have no rights in the domain of workstation choices.
I will demand that your employer force you to use the software
I have chosen for you. If they fail, I will cause financial
hardship. If you refuse to obey, I will demand that they fire you.
I will demand that your clients refuse to do business with you
unless you (and they) pay me the equivalent of 10% of the payroll
of both companies (more if I can get it) for the software that I
demand they use.
Any company who refuses to cooperate will be driven into bankruptcy
(with $20-60 billion to throw around, I can do it pretty easily).
I'll bankroll a 3rd rate competitor with so much cash, public
relations, and referrals that they will dominate your industry.
Any company who is to big to drive into bankruptcy will have it's
supply lines choked off, and it's customers will become the target
of strategic advertising and subsidized competition.
> > > and if you're not the individual then you're part of the masses.
> >
> > Actually, you're an individual who is one of many individuals.
> > There may be millions who disagree with you, and millions more
> > who agree with you.
>
> obviously. but if i am not you
> - which thankfully is not possible - i am
> one of everyone else.
You assume that I am the only one. I assert that roughly between
40 and 60% of the general population would stop using Windows if
Linux were available on equal terms (based on USA today polls
taken during the Microsoft trial in which 40-60% of respondents said
they would stop using Windows if they could).
You happen to be in the other 40-60% who would keep using Windows 98
even if Linux provided every feature of the top-of-the line $50,000
workstation AND the $2 million supercomputer - all for $1000 or less.
I don't want to stop you from using Windows 9x or ME or NT or 2000
or even CE if that's what you really want to use. That isn't a problem.
The difference is that I have to bring in my own laptop with Linux on
it, pay for all hardware and support myself, and even then am restricted
to using less than 10% of the capabilities of Linux because Bill Gates
has told a sales rep to pay "special attention" to my new employer.
> we are still saying basically the same thing. i was just also making a
> point.
No we are not. You are upset because Linux advocates want others
to use Linux IF THEY SO CHOOSE. Yet your very criticism of that
advocacy (in a group dedicated to Linux Advocacy) implies that
we should not even be allowed to advocate.
MacIntosh users were literally forced to give up their Macs and switch
to Windows 95 or Windows NT 4.0 even though the Mac offered features
that NT couldn't even approach. Even today, many artists in the
advertizing and marketing departments rent Macs to circumvent
company policies which forbid the purchase of Windows systems.
> > > so because some hard bloke in c.o.l.a
> > > thinks linux is the greatest thing
> > > since, well, since 1950's computing.
> > > doesn't mean it's the greatest thing
> > > for me.
> >
> > Which is fine. No one is asking Microsoft or the PC makers or
> > the retailers to stop carrying Windows systems entirely. They
> > are merely asking for the ability to make and offer an informed
> > choice.
>
> umm. but if you are informed then shouldn't
> you already be aware of the choices offered?
But the fact is that I don't have the option of going to a computer
store and test-driving SuSE, Mandrake, and Red Hat to see which
distribution I might like best. Instead, I have to purchase and
configure 3 computers to do a side-by-side comparison.
I use Windows NT at work because I am FORCED to. Because executives
at my company have been given misinformation and have no accurate
information on which to make a responsible and informed decision.
The result is that the company spends money it doesn't have to, on
software that doesn't work as well, because Microsoft has established
a network of nondisclosure agreements, exclusive installation
agreements, exclusive Enterprise License Agreements, and nearly $4
billion a year in advertizing strategically placed to discourage
the publication of any editorial content that threatens Microsoft.
To make matters worse, this misinformation and contractual silence
coupled with optimistic and often unrealistic claims has lead to
security holes that caused nearly $10 billion in damages due to
viruses (Melissa and I Love You). It has also led corporate managers
to spend $ billions (possibly trillions over the last 15 years) on
solutions that are often impractical or even useless but are based
on Microsoft technology.
Finally, corporations have lost $trillions in lost productivity due
to failure-prone versions of MS-DOS, Windows 3.0, Windows 3.1, Windows
95 first edition, Windows 98 first edition, Windows NT 3.51, Windows NT
4.0 service packs 1 through 4, and Windows 2000 SP0 and SP1.
For 10 years Microsoft has been telling corporations to "wait for
the next release", which is supposed to be "A better UNIX than UNIX",
while Linux not only delivers the "better UNIX than UNIX", but also
fosters the only really useful technology on Windows (The Web, E-mail,
Chat and other Internet services).
You actually think that you could do without UNIX or Linux. But what
would happen if the UNIX community suddenly decided that they had had
enough of Microsoft's tactics and decided to route all traffic from
Microsoft systems to the bit bucket. No internet, no web, no chat, no
stock quotes, no e-mail, no communication whatsever. You couldn't even
call Microsoft's help desk because UNIX controls the flow of the
telecommunications lines. You couldn't fly to redmond because UNIX
controls the Air Traffic Control system, the airport ticketing
interfaces to most travel agents, and the credit card clearing system
used by your bank to clear the purchase of th airplane ticket. You
couldn't rent a car, you couldn't even take a train since the track
switches are all controlled by UNIX. You couldn't even mail them
a letter because the letters are sorted by Linux systems.
And yet you arrogantly demand that Bill Gates be allowed to demand
that I stop using Linux and UNIX. If Bill Gates did successfully
pull the plug on all non-microsoft systems, you wouldn't even have
the electrical power to recharge the laptop.
Unfortunately, it's a bit like a "Dr Who" episode where technicians
who have been stranded for several generations replace perfectly
functional equipment because all they have left is the "religeon
of the maintenance cycle". They don't even know how to fly the ship.
The "seveteem" is actually the descendents of the original survey
team, which included the original pilot.
And by the way, some of that other "1960s techonology" is absolutely
critical to the handling of banking transactions, airline bookings,
and nearly all billing systems.
When I first found out about Linux, I had been digging for months.
I had been looking for a version of UNIX that would run on a PC
for quite some time. My employer had paid nearly $7,000 dollars
for a copy of Interactive UNIX that ran on a $1200 80386 system.
I didn't want to pirate the software, and I wanted to find something
that could be configured for about $1000 so that BBS operators could
provide internet POPs that were about to be defunded by the NSF.
I first heard about Linux in February of 1992. And even then I was
poorly informed. I downloaded the "TAMU" release, which barely offered
gcc, the kernel, and some basic shell commands (bash, sed, awk, grep,
and make). I didn't find out until almost a year later that there
were over 80 floppies to be downloaded over 2400 baud lines.
Then, after the download I found out that I could have purchased
a CD-ROM for about $200 that contained the same software that was
available on a Sun SPARC 10 but ran under Linux on an Intel box.
Ironically, I quickly found that I could develop code on Linux and
compile it under SunOS or Solaris (using GCC of course) with no
code changes. Many of the applications could be complied using
Sun's C compiler, but it was more trouble than it was worth.
Remember all those nifty things UNIX does. Most of them were
originally coded on Open Source version of UNIX such as BSD and
Linux.
> > > which it isn't.
> >
> > Linux isn't for everybody. Even in a completely competitive market,
> > Linux would probably only capture about 30% of the market before
> > other competitors offered even better products at comparable prices.
>
> gee. did you come up with all those useless figures and baseless
> predictions by yourself? brilliant.
Actually, I'm basing estimates on how many people like to use the
internet, how many people don't like Windows, and how many servers
are running UNIX or Linux on the Internet. If I were going to really
stretch, I would actually suggest that 70-80% of all computers would
be runing some variant of UNIX.
Keep in mind that Web browsers only give users access to about 20%
of the capabilities of UNIX. Fully functional UNIX to UNIX (including
Linux) connections and interactions offer capabilities that Microsoft
can't even fantasize about. Quite literally, even Windows 2000 has
neither the security, the responsiveness, nor the stream processing
capacity to handle custom coded implementations on 1 Ghz 2 BIPs
processors with 8 Gigaflop display engines. And Linux offers many
of these capabilities on machines with 1/4 the capacity.
The bigger irony is that in the UNIX to UNIX interaction, such
things as multichannel streaming video, real-time 3-D graphics,
and real-time interactive statistical analysis of stock feeds
become trivial programming exercises. The standards are in
place, the components exist on nearly any Linux distribution,
and the implementation can be as simple as a few lines of shell
and/or PERL programming.
> > > at all.
> >
> > Good. If you like Windows, stay with it.
> > In fact Linux encourages standards that can
> > easily be implemented by software vendors
> > who wish to create software for Windows.
>
> hmm. perhaps you should inform yourself a little better.
>
> windows is not and has never been the only alternative to linux.
Absulutely true! In fact, the sames standards, tools, and software
can be implemented on Mac, VMS, and Mainframes as well as nearly
any flavor of BSD and nearly any flavor of UNIX. They can even be
implemented on OS/2, and Commodore's TRIPOS. Getting multitasking
and multithreading to work well under Atari 1040 ST GEM might be
a little ugly.
> > Microsoft doesn't want you to have a choice.
> > Microsoft wants you to use Windows whether your like it or not.
>
> umm. i think it's great that linux is
> fundamentally socialist and wants
> to promote diversity - well,
That's amusing. A rather substantial percentage of the code contributed
to Linux distributions originated from corporate interests. Many of
them have even found lucrative markets that are much more profitible
than comparable Microsoft markets where they must pay as much as 80%
of their revenue in licenses, MSDN licenses, consulting fees, service
agreements, strategic partnership/alliance fees and dues, and must
accept nondisclosure agreements which limit their ability to advertize,
to use Microsofts name and logo on their products, and yet gives
Microsoft the right to say anything they want, anytime they want,
whether it's true or not, without even so much as the ability of
the company to provide comment and clarification without Microsoft's
prior written consent.
> within the realm of 'linux' anyway - but i'm
> not critisizing microsoft because their goals are the same as any
> business in the capitalist market.
Most businesses are seeking a modest and reasonable profit in a
competitive market in which the largest market share is as little as
30%. They provide the customer with a superior quality of service
in some areas and charge a price that represents a modest mark-up.
Microsoft's management expects a profit of over 50% of revenue, with
95% or more of the market, in every market it enters, and usually
within 12 to 18 months. Once control is established, all competitors
are targeted until they are either bankrupt or taken over by a neutral
corporation which will primarily grab the intellectual property and
terminate all employees and nonessential managers. The essential
players are given stock shares (with killer taxes if they ever try
to sell them) worth less than 1 percent of the true value.
> i am not saying i agree either. because i don't.
>
> and i am not saying i don't agree with
> the government action being taken
> against them. because i do.
I actually think that the forced break-up on involuntary terms
suggested by Judge Jackson are a bit extreme. The primary goal
is to create a competitive market, not to destroy Microsoft.
> microsoft did terrible things, and they should pay.
> but the problem i think, is much much larger.
Unfortunately, Microsoft has come to represent both the pinnicle
of success and the most flagrant examples of illegal and unethical
behavior at the same time. If Microsoft were run by Bill Gotti
instead of Bill Gates, the feds would be crawling all over him with
racketeering investigations, charges, and court cases.
Ironically, we no have a drug dealer in the White House (how many
times were investigations and charges dropped because his father was
CIA director, Vice President, and President). And we have one of
the biggest extortion rackteers just recently losing his position
as the richest man in the world.
> > In the 1960s, people who felt segregation was wrong and should be
> > stopped were beaten, attacked, assaulted, and in many cases lynched,
> > by majority forces who wanted to silence the minority. In Germany,
> > Bosnia, and Africa, the majority simply exterminated the minority
> > in mass murders that often took place on an unimaginable scale.
>
> good lord.
>
> it's easy to persecute gates and compare him to hitler. or his 'cult
> following' employees to the nazis. but why stop there?
>
> when the secret ones pulling all the strings are
> the billion stockholders who just want to see a
> return on their buck?
That's a good point. How many of these stockholders are also
purchasing software? How many have paid far more for far less
because they owned 100-200 shares of Microsoft stock? How many
people were GIVEN stock?
It really is a bit unrealistic to expect a company with $80 billion
in revenue, which includes profits and share price increases on over
200 corporations, to continue to grow at 20%/month and maintain a
50% profit margin. To do this, Microsoft would have to grow to
over 200 billion in 10 years, would own nearly half the world's stock,
and would have to find ways to invest over $100 billion dollars a year.
Microsoft **COULD** pay a divididend. But it won't.
They **COULD** spin off subsidiaries (actually very likely).
They **COULD** even expand the ownership base so that Bill Gates and
Steve Ballmer don't own so many shares of stock that they could
bankrupt the company using only their primary votes. No proxy fight
is even possible for Microsoft.
This may be one of the reasons that the stock dropped from $120/share
to $40/share in less than a year.
Unfortunately, shareholders who had heavily margined Microsoft stock
and purchased Internet stocks (reccommended by Microsoft) which then
rose enough to be further margined got eaten alive with Margin calls
on everything, forcing them to sell most of their holdings at the
worst possible time. But Bill Gates was quietly selling off just
before the crash and has been "diversifying his portfolio" (buying
panic-sold shares at bargain basement prices).
Hitler wanted to conquer the world. Gates just wants to buy it,
at half-price of course.
> y'r pal -kK
>
>
--
Rex Ballard - VP I/T Architecture
Linux Advocate, Internet Pioneer
http://www.open4success.com
Linux - 60 million satisfied users worldwide
and growing at over 9%/month! (recalibrated 10/23/00)
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.microsoft.sucks
Subject: Re: Global Configuration tool (WAS: Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes
Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2001 21:40:08 -0500
Peter Hayes wrote:
>
> On Wed, 03 Jan 2001 18:13:03 GMT, Giuliano Colla
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Jure Sah wrote:
> > >
> > > "Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> > > > > ?????? Tell me of a OS that crashes on it's own!!!!!!!!!!! Moron...
> > > >
> > > > Windows. I've seen it crash more than once before even getting
> > > > to the fucking LOGIN screen.
> > > >
> > > > Can't get any more "crashes on it's own" than that now, can you...
> > >
> > > TIME is beyond your capacity of understanding? Did you have any software
> > > runing before?
> > >
> >
> > If you mean that the only way not to have Windows crashing
> > is to boot up after a fresh install, without running any
> > software at all, I concur with you that this may somehow
> > reduce the probability, but it can still happen.
> > Just try inserting a CD during the boot process, to make an
> > example.
>
> I have a machine with 'ME on it that won't complete the boot process until
> I hit the eject button on the CD drive. No CD needed, just eject the tray
> and push it back. Maybe not exactly a "crash" but the next best thing....
>
> Peter
Typical Microshaft sloppy programming.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
ICQ # 3056642
H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Does Linux envy Microsoft?
Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2001 21:40:38 -0500
chrisv wrote:
>
> "Todd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> >Nope... appeals *will* overturn the verdict. MS did not break the law.
> >
> >-Todd
>
> You're an idiot, Todd.
Specifically, Todd Needham, Microshaft employee
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
ICQ # 3056642
H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Profitability of Linux being a challenge
Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2001 02:47:59 GMT
JSPL wrote:
>
> That depends on your point of view. One could argue thats it's a very bad
> ratio. If it was more user friendly there would be a need for such a high
> ratio, especially since the OS exists on only .3% of the worlds computers.
There you go with that unsubstantiate 0.3% number again.
Don't bother answering me. Answer R.E. Ballard's message instead.
Also, your argument about the books is bogus. Why aren't there many more
math books in the bookstore? Why are they so highly outnumbered by
fiction?
Chris
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Microsoft is 20-years BEHIND other OS vendors
Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2001 02:50:41 GMT
Kyle Jacobs wrote:
>
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>
> > He only know those things that were explicitly given to him on
> > a silver platter to point-drool, and click on.
> >
> > This, of course, is the sign of a severely under-developed mind.
I didn't write that! Learn to quote properly, man!
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2001 03:09:11 GMT
Said chrisv in alt.destroy.microsoft on Wed, 03 Jan 2001 16:42:50 GMT;
>T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>>Well lets see, a law on the books in Florida stated that the the Secretary
>>>of State SHALL certify the results by a certain date. The Florida Supreme
>>>court issued an order stating that the Secretary of State SHALL NOT certify
>>>by that date. I'd call that "subverting" the existing law, not
>>>"interpreting" it.
>>
>>Thus supporting the theory that Republicans are simply wrapping
>>themselves in the flag, and claiming that any Democratic action
>>whatsoever was "subverting" the law. A relatively worrisome indication
>>of the kind of civil environment we can expect under Republican rule.
>
>This is incredibly dense. You just have an insult for every occasion,
>even when you clearly have no facts to back you up.
This is incredibly silly. You have an opinion for every occasion, even
when you clearly have no insult to back you up.
>Maybe you should
>stick with computer-related topics, where you appear to actually have
>a clue.
You mean, where you agree with me? ;-)
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
------------------------------
** 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 by posting to comp.os.linux.advocacy.
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
******************************
