Linux-Advocacy Digest #528, Volume #32 Tue, 27 Feb 01 13:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: Mircosoft Tax (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Mircosoft Tax (Bob Hauck)
Re: Mircosoft Tax (Bob Hauck)
Re: I will now perform a neat trick ("Flacco")
Re: Mircosoft Tax (Aaron Kulkis)
Call To Action: Help me help others. (Chris Falch)
Re: why open source software is better (John Hasler)
Re: Something Seemingly Simple. (Chris Torek)
Re: I will now perform a neat trick (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: I will now perform a neat trick (Woof)
Re: Is this odd security behaviour by MS? (Bob Hauck)
Re: Something Seemingly Simple. (Chris Torek)
Re: NT vs *nix performance (Bob Hauck)
Re: Mircosoft Tax (J Sloan)
Re: NT vs *nix performance (Bob Hauck)
Re: Mircosoft Tax (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Something Seemingly Simple. (Dan Pop)
Re: NT vs *nix performance (Craig Kelley)
Re: Mircosoft Tax (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: The Windows guy. (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: why open source software is better (David Masterson)
Re: Mircosoft Tax (Donovan Rebbechi)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Mircosoft Tax
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 16:55:29 GMT
Said Donovan Rebbechi in alt.destroy.microsoft on 26 Feb 2001 07:22:00
>On Mon, 26 Feb 2001 04:55:50 GMT, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>>Said Donovan Rebbechi in alt.destroy.microsoft on 26 Feb 2001 00:41:54
>
>>>Why should the operating system go down in price ? Has it
>>>become cheaper to design and write operating systems ?
>>
>>A consumer doesn't pay for what the producer plans to do in the future,
>>despite any pretenses to the contrary.
>
>If the producer intends to maintain the product, the consumer pays for
>that. Most consumers would consider maintenance a good thing.
How could anybody possibly pay for the "intent" of the producer when
they buy a box?
>>>Have PCs really gone down in price ? I paid about the same
>>>for the computer I wanted 5 years ago as I'd have to pay for
>>>the computer I want today. [...]
>>
>>One can't really tell, actually, given that a primary component of a PC
>>is being monopolized. Though we might, despite the NDAs, arrive at some
>>understanding of what Windows 'price' is, and its proportion to a
>
>Nonsense. Search pricewatch.com for Windows OEM licenses. At the very
>least, we can conclude that large OEMs pay less than $50- for Win 98.
Yet it has a list price of $180.
>Likewise, information on the cost of buying PC parts in bulk is
>publically available, and it looks like the OEMs run very slim margins
>on hardware (which means that a lot of the money you're spending really
>is on hardware)
And how exactly do you account for the changes in the PC parts you're
supposedly comparing? You just ignore it, right?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Mircosoft Tax
Reply-To: hauck[at]codem{dot}com
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 16:59:03 GMT
On 27 Feb 2001 05:27:50 GMT, Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Because unit volume is much higher now than it was in 1995 and software
>> development costs are independent of volume.
>
> How much higher ?
I don't know the exact figures. But PC makers and MS have been
reporting annual increases of 20% or more for ten years now.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| Codem Systems, Inc.
-| http://www.codem.com/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Mircosoft Tax
Reply-To: hauck[at]codem{dot}com
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 17:01:50 GMT
On 27 Feb 2001 05:26:35 GMT, Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Tue, 27 Feb 2001 02:43:45 GMT, Bob Hauck wrote:
>>On 26 Feb 2001 03:30:43 GMT, Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>>You're assuming that there are no other costs. Tell MS's operating system
>>>group that they don't have to go to work anymore, because the "initial
>>>development" has already been done.
>>They still have to work, but if MS sells twice as many copies they don't
>>have to work twice as hard.
>
>Yes, but if they're doing well, then they can afford to spend more on
>development.
Sure, then can do that. Or they could spend the money on marketing.
But they don't _have_ to do 2x as much work for a 2x increase in sales,
and I don't think they do. MS reports net profit margins in the
neighborhood of 50%, which means that they sure aren't putting all of
their money back into R&D.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| Codem Systems, Inc.
-| http://www.codem.com/
------------------------------
From: "Flacco" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I will now perform a neat trick
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 17:05:24 GMT
>> There. A. Kulkis' .sig will now grow in size to at least 3 more lines.
>>
>
> You have to try harder than that.
This Woof guy is obviously a dork, but he's right about the massive sig.
------------------------------
From: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Mircosoft Tax
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 12:10:27 -0500
Keldon Warlord 2000 wrote:
>
> "Mart van de Wege" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:3a9b6d43$0$11998@reader3...
> > In article <tJFm6.464$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Erik Funkenbusch"
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >> 3. OSs don't increase in performance, although they now run on faster
> > >> hardware. Therefore the relative performance of OSs goes down.
> > >
> > > I still don't follow this. When the OS runs on a faster computer, it's
> > > performance goes up as well. You have stated only prices, and nothing
> > > relating to performance.
> > >
> > >
> > My question was related to your statement that an OS upgrade is generally
> > not an upgrade in performance. Example: Let's say Win95 on a Pentium uses
> > about 10% CPU when it's idle, and Win98 on a Pentium III also uses about
> > 10% CPU when it's idle. That would mean that Win98 would be slower than
> > Win95. That's the way I understood your original comment.
> > I just wanted to know what exactly you meant by stating that OS
> > performance doesn't increase with upgrades. Sorry for any
> > misunderstandings.
> >
> > Mart
>
> performance isn't always about "speed", you know...
By which, LoseDOS **STILL** fails.
>
> --
> "There is no knowledge that is not power" Mortal Kombat III
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
ICQ # 3056642
K: Truth in advertising:
Left Wing Extremists Charles Schumer and Donna Shelala,
Black Seperatist Anti-Semite Louis Farrakan,
Special Interest Sierra Club,
Anarchist Members of the ACLU
Left Wing Corporate Extremist Ted Turner
The Drunken Woman Killer Ted Kennedy
Grass Roots Pro-Gun movement,
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....
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
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"
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
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.
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
------------------------------
From: Chris Falch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Call To Action: Help me help others.
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 11:08:44 -0600
Warning: Philosophical monologue forthcoming (aka rant)....
Newbies, this is a must-read.
As a response to a question I had about the 'setuid' system call in
linux,
Victor Wagner wrote:
> Type following command at the shell prompt:
> info -f libc "Process persona"
> If you have installed libc docs, excellent tutorial on this subject
> would come up.
Ya' know, when I first started UNIX, I *hated* it. I had just spent a
year trying to figure out Windows 3.1/DOS, and then got to college and
had to fool around with a completely different architecture with new
commands and new ways of processing information. And the worst part was
that there was no good way to learn, except from word of mouth. When I
needed information, if it wasn't in the man pages, I was SOL, until I
found a person that knew how to do what I needed to do.
Now, thankfully, I've got the internet to help me. Newsgroups like this
one, and help groups and informative web sites are immeasurable in their
helpfulness, but I still find myself floundering every time I think to
myself "... hmm. I wonder if something like *this* can be done". If I
don't know the exact command that can achieve my goals, then I don't
even know where to start.
Case in point: I'd heard the 'info' docs were sometimes better than the
'man' docs, so naturally, when I needed help with setuid, I tried 'man
setuid' and 'info setuid'. Useless. It told me exactly what I already
knew, and no more, and further, the 'info' was exactly the same as the
'man'. Now, as Victor so nonchalantly points out, 'info -f libc "Process
persona" ' will give me a tutorial on how and why and when you'd want to
change persona. Geez, if I had that information 2 weeks ago, my life
would have been a lot easier! And how completely non-intuitive is it for
me to have to supply a -f switch and a libc info file (which, by the
way, I have NO idea where it resides on my system), and provide an index
called "Process persona". Yikes. Just look at how many tools and
paradigms are needed to be learned *before* you can start learning the
stuff ya' need to know.
My organization is just getting the gears churning on the linux
movement. In the next year, I expect many people like myself wasting a
lot more time than is probably need, just finding out how to find
answers to their questions, so here's my challenge: Submit the most
powerful tools you know of to find information about UNIX/Linux specific
questions. For instance, what can I use in place of 'libc' in the
command at the beginning of this post? Are there any special tricks
with the 'man' command, or is it just for looking up already-known-of
commands? Any other resources?
If the response is good, I'll post the solutions in the public domain
somewhere, most likely on the web, where it will actually be useful to
others. I'll be posting this call-to-action on other newsgroups as
well, so please forgive me if you feel this is an inappropriate post for
this newsgroup.
------------------------------
From: John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: why open source software is better
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 14:03:49 GMT
Craven Moorehead writes:
> What do you hear all the time ? Linux guys downloading the latest ISO of
> Linux, clogging up the net with downloads.
> Would they do it if they had to pay a fee ? No, most would not.
Most do. Most copies of Linux are purchased on commercially pressed CD's,
and most of those are sold in boxed sets complete with installation manual
for $39.95 or so.
> All Linux has got really going for it is that it is free.
You have used it?
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Hasler)
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chris Torek)
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Something Seemingly Simple.
Date: 27 Feb 2001 09:23:07 -0800
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>The C compiler definition defines absolutely ZERO functions...only
>the syntax for writing them.
>
>You're confusing the Standard Library with the language itself.
Standard C defines two kinds of implementations: "freestanding"
and "hosted". A hosted implementation is required to provide
every standard C function, and none of them are required to be
implemented in the way you appear to expect.
Proof by example (which is flawed, but since you apparently use
Linux and gcc, this example no doubt holds true on your own machine):
[N.B.: I am "cheating", using the fact that I know
that size_t happens to be unsigned int on i386,
to avoid the normal #include <string.h>, which
might otherwise use gcc's `inline asm' trickery.]
% cat len.c
unsigned int strlen(const char *);
unsigned int len(const char *s) { return strlen(s); }
% cc -O -S len.c
% cat len.s
.file "len.c"
.version "01.01"
gcc2_compiled.:
.text
.align 4
.globl len
.type len,@function
len:
pushl %ebp
movl %esp,%ebp
pushl %edi
xorb %al,%al
movl 8(%ebp),%edi
cld
movl $-1,%ecx
repnz
scasb
movl %ecx,%eax
notl %eax
decl %eax
movl -4(%ebp),%edi
leave
ret
.Lfe1:
.size len,.Lfe1-len
.ident "GCC: (GNU) 2.7.2.1"
Note the complete and total lack of a call to any function. As
you can see, this C compiler has implemented strlen() directly.
It does so whenever you ask for optimization.
GCC is allowed to expand strlen() inline precisely *because* strlen()
is part of the C language, on a hosted implementation. If you attempt
to write your own replacement strlen(), IT WILL NOT EVEN BE CALLED.
For more fun, try compiling:
return strlen("hello world");
to assembly code, using "gcc -O". See what you get.
(Of course, gcc can be used freestanding, but to do so, you have
to give it the `free-standing' option, -fno-builtin. "fno" is a
rather odd way to spell "free", and "builtin" a weird way to spell
"standing", but that is what they mean, in the context of the C
language proper.)
--
In-Real-Life: Chris Torek, Berkeley Software Design Inc
El Cerrito, CA, USA Domain: [EMAIL PROTECTED] +1 510 234 3167
http://claw.bsdi.com/torek/ (not always up) I report spam to abuse@.
Note: PacBell news service is rotten
------------------------------
From: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I will now perform a neat trick
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 17:25:40 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> >> There. A. Kulkis' .sig will now grow in size to at least 3 more lines.
> >>
> >
> > You have to try harder than that.
>
> This Woof guy is obviously a dork, but he's right about the massive sig.
>
If youd bother to read the full thread numb nuts you would have noticed
it wasnt me who started the thread but Clamchu, so whos the dork now
huh?
------------------------------
From: Woof <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I will now perform a neat trick
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 17:28:22 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> >> There. A. Kulkis' .sig will now grow in size to at least 3 more lines.
> >>
> >
> > You have to try harder than that.
>
> This Woof guy is obviously a dork, but he's right about the massive sig.
>
If youd bother to read the full thread numb nuts you would have noticed
it wasnt me who started the thread but Clamchu, so whos the dork now
huh?
Woof
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Is this odd security behaviour by MS?
Reply-To: hauck[at]codem{dot}com
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 17:23:56 GMT
On Tue, 27 Feb 2001 14:47:22 GMT, Chad Myers
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't believe I saw a posting to Bugtraq by any of the SSH people
> this month in relation to the numerous vulnerabilities exposed.
1) You are mistaken.
2) Nobody cares what you believe.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| Codem Systems, Inc.
-| http://www.codem.com/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chris Torek)
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Something Seemingly Simple.
Date: 27 Feb 2001 09:29:37 -0800
>Richard Heathfield wrote:
>> If you fail to #include <stdio.h>, that doesn't mean printf isn't
>> defined. It just means there's no prototype in scope for it. Using a
>> variadic function without a prototype in scope invokes undefined
>> behaviour.
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>So many words to express the EXACT same thing which I said.
Wrong again; sorry. What Richard wrote means that if you do not
include <stdio.h>, you must provide the prototype yourself, manually.
The following is a strictly conformant complete translation unit:
void f(void) {
int printf(const char *, ...);
printf("hello world\n");
}
A conforming C compiler is within its rights to scan the format
argument, see that there is no "%", see that it ends in a newline,
and compile this to a call to puts(), or -- on a Unix-like system
-- a call to write(), or whatever.
Some compilers do in fact do this (but not gcc).
--
In-Real-Life: Chris Torek, Berkeley Software Design Inc
El Cerrito, CA, USA Domain: [EMAIL PROTECTED] +1 510 234 3167
http://claw.bsdi.com/torek/ (not always up) I report spam to abuse@.
Note: PacBell news service is rotten
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,alt.linux.sux,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NT vs *nix performance
Reply-To: hauck[at]codem{dot}com
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 17:29:52 GMT
On 26 Feb 2001 20:40:02 -0600, Jan Johanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>SWC is available and has been for a year. SWC 3 is a release candidate and
>will be available in just a month.
Didn't you say that a month ago?
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| Codem Systems, Inc.
-| http://www.codem.com/
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Mircosoft Tax
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 17:34:22 GMT
Edward Rosten wrote:
> >> Yes, of course. In order to provide a significant performance
> >> improvement. Otherwise why to make a new release?
> >
> > The 2.4 kernel only provides significant improvement on SMP systems, not
> > on typical ones. Even then, this was more of fixing a deficiency rather
> > than improving.
>
> Oh, man! You hold a really coloured outlook on life, don't you. How the
> hell does fixing a deficiency not yield an improvement. Oh, because it's
> Linux. That's why.
Of course it's all nonsense as anyone who uses 2.4 knows.
I installed 2.4 on my single processor amd 450 to get
enhanced 3D graphics support and faster networking,
which bascially makes quake 3 a better experience.
On the bigger boxes at work, it really shows though.
jjs
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,alt.linux.sux,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NT vs *nix performance
Reply-To: hauck[at]codem{dot}com
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 17:34:26 GMT
On Tue, 27 Feb 2001 15:12:21 GMT, Chad Myers
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>The TP is the OS and the database is the database.
Interesting. I guess BEA must be selling operating systems then.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| Codem Systems, Inc.
-| http://www.codem.com/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Mircosoft Tax
Date: 27 Feb 2001 17:37:52 GMT
On Tue, 27 Feb 2001 16:55:29 GMT, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>Said Donovan Rebbechi in alt.destroy.microsoft on 26 Feb 2001 07:22:00
>How could anybody possibly pay for the "intent" of the producer when
>they buy a box?
Well they're hardly gong to pay the maintenance costs afterwards are they ?
To do so would be a move to a rental model.
>>Nonsense. Search pricewatch.com for Windows OEM licenses. At the very
>>least, we can conclude that large OEMs pay less than $50- for Win 98.
>
>Yet it has a list price of $180.
That's not the OEM license.
>>Likewise, information on the cost of buying PC parts in bulk is
>>publically available, and it looks like the OEMs run very slim margins
>>on hardware (which means that a lot of the money you're spending really
>>is on hardware)
>
>And how exactly do you account for the changes in the PC parts you're
>supposedly comparing? You just ignore it, right?
Sorry, I don't get your point.
--
Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
elflord at panix dot com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dan Pop)
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Something Seemingly Simple.
Date: 27 Feb 2001 17:35:21 GMT
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Mathew Hendry
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>On 27 Feb 2001 14:11:47 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dan Pop) wrote:
>
>>In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Mathew Hendry
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>>>On Tue, 27 Feb 2001 09:42:53 +0000, "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Well, this subthread *is* about PI's presence in C headers. And, it
>>>>> turns out, an implementation that defines a PI macro violates the ISO C
>>>>> Standard. And since the ISO C Standard and related issues are the topic
>>>>> of comp.lang.c, this is rather significant.
>>>>
>>>>Out of curiosity, which part of the ISO standard does it violate?
>>>
>>>From the 3 Aug 1998 draft, 4 - Conformance
>>>
>>> [...]
>>
>>However, none of your quotes proves that <math.h> cannot define PI.
>
>Nor did yours, but I don't think a rigorous proof was requested. :)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Please elaborate.
Dan
--
Dan Pop
CERN, IT Division
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Mail: CERN - IT, Bat. 31 1-014, CH-1211 Geneve 23, Switzerland
------------------------------
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,alt.linux.sux,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NT vs *nix performance
Date: 27 Feb 2001 10:44:38 -0700
"Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > "Jan Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > I agree, anyone thinking that an OS has no effect on the performance of a
> > > database running on it is an idiot.
> >
> > It actually has very little effect. DBM systems pretty much
> > re-implement all OS features within themselves (vfs, caching, raw
> > organization). The OS just needs to get out of the way. Some OSes
> > may not be so good at that (like MacOS 9 or lower, for instance) --
> > but by and large the OS has very little say.
>
> Who marshals the calls to the database servers then?
>
> The Transaction Processor, which is technically the "OS".
Perhaps in Microsoft IntegrationLand.
In he rest of the world of DBMS, each system includes it's own
transaction processing.
I believe MSSQL has a transaction server, but it's been so long since
I've even seen it I can't quite remember. I know that Oracle under
Windows NT uses no such OS features.
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Mircosoft Tax
Date: 27 Feb 2001 17:47:05 GMT
On Tue, 27 Feb 2001 16:55:26 GMT, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>No, the customers *hope* the product is maintained. Only a moron would
>have expectations for what a company will due in the future just because
>you bought something from them in the past.
There 8are* expectations that products will be maintained. Yes, it might
seem unreasonable to extrapolate future events from past events -- who
knows if the sun will rise tomorrow ? While the philosophers contemplate
questions like this, the pragmatists get things done.
>The cost of software packages cannot be considered to include future
>expenses, and whether or not a company maintains a product cannot
>retroactively change any of their previous sales figures.
Nice dogma, but it's simply wrong. A software package that has been
abandoned is definitely less valuable than a software pacakage that
is not. Therefore the expectation that a product will be maintained
makes it more valuable. Even the fact that a product *might* be maintained
makes it more valuable to consumers than a product that is certain to
be abandoned.
>>No, the old versions are not expensive. I picked up Windows 3.1
>>(shrink wrapped) for about $20 a year ago. Win95 is fairly cheap
>>too -- the current market price seems to be less than $40- right now.
>
>There is no "market price"; you can only purchase that from a single
>vendor. No competition means no competitive market prices.
OK, the so-called "monopoly price" is $40-. Is that better? If it's
really a monopoly price, would you care to explain why it's cheaper
than the Solaris *media*, several Linux distributions. MacOS, and OS2?
You could say that it's because of a "high volume", but all that
demonstrates is that it is more efficient to have a single product
dominate the market because this results in low prices and high
prfits -- win-win.
>Is it really so incredibly hard for otherwise supposedly smart people to
>understand that monopoly pricing doesn't mean it is a huge number?
Then what does it mean ?
--
Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
elflord at panix dot com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: The Windows guy.
Date: 27 Feb 2001 17:51:34 GMT
On 27 Feb 2001 09:09:33 GMT, Steve Mading wrote:
>Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>But the argument I've just offered is pretty much the same as the one
>you objected to. I'm officially confused now.
No, it's completely different. Read the other argument. The other argument
said (essentially) that "DOS pipes can't do everything that UNIX pipes
can do, therefore they are not pipes". This argument is obviously
inadequate (unless you use "UNIX pipe" as a definition of pipe, which
sort of defines the argument into triviality)
--
Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
elflord at panix dot com
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 12:50:16 -0500
Subject: Re: why open source software is better
From: David Masterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>>> "John" == John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Craven Moorehead writes:
>> What do you hear all the time ? Linux guys downloading the latest
>> ISO of Linux, clogging up the net with downloads.
>> Would they do it if they had to pay a fee ? No, most would not.
> Most do. Most copies of Linux are purchased on commercially pressed
> CD's, and most of those are sold in boxed sets complete with
> installation manual for $39.95 or so.
Does that cover the cost of development of _*ALL*_ the software on
those CDs? Going by the cost of all the myriad tools that M$ puts out
which have similar tools on those Linux CDs, would you still buy the
Linux CDs if the costs were similar?
>> All Linux has got really going for it is that it is free.
> You have used it?
Of course. With all that "free" software (cost, not freedom) that does
a lot of what I want, who wouldn't?
--
David Masterson ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Rational Software (but I don't speak for them)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Mircosoft Tax
Date: 27 Feb 2001 17:57:26 GMT
On Tue, 27 Feb 2001 17:01:50 GMT, Bob Hauck wrote:
>Sure, then can do that. Or they could spend the money on marketing.
>But they don't _have_ to do 2x as much work for a 2x increase in sales,
>and I don't think they do. MS reports net profit margins in the
>neighborhood of 50%, which means that they sure aren't putting all of
>their money back into R&D.
If their profits are 50% though, they certainly don't do 1x the work
for 2x the sales, right ? BTW, I don't find 50% margins that excessive
for a wildly succesful software company.
I wonder what id software's profits are as a percentage of their revenue --
which raises another question -- why aren't id software's games cheaper ? They
sell enormous amounts of games, as well as getting money from licensing the
engine. Shouldn't they be able to get by just giving away the game and
licensing the engine ? Why don't these unwritten rules about pricing
also apply to id ?
--
Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
elflord at panix dot com
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
