I *snipped* my previous comments for the sake of brevity.
Ernest N. Wilcox Jr. wrote:
I do not think it is so much that M$ is unable to produce a decent OS as
much as it is that they have no motivation to do so. Their business model
is targeted to selling units of the product. The faster a new version is
'ready' for sale, the more units that can be sold. The more units sold, the
more profit generated. As a result, their development team is under the gun
to get the job done fast rather than well. Since time is money, and quality
takes time, it is expensive. Further, their customer base wants easy to use
(as you so eloquently pointed out), and continues to purchase the product
despite its history. I see nothing in this equation to provide a motivation
to any thing greater than mediocrity.
The Open Source business model on the other hand is based on the sale of
support for the product, which provides an excellent motivation for quality
since the better the product works, the less it will cost to support.
My 2 cents ...
Ernest; I'm refunding you the 2 cents you contributed. LOL!
Did I come across as eloquent? Hmm. Sorry. That wasn't my intention!
I'll be sure to apply more clarity to my rants in the future! Grin! I
suspect that you were trying to toss a bit of humour into the mix, and
if so, I thank you. Sometimes, I can get carried away by the moment.
I definitely understand the business aspect of running a software
company and I understand the mechanics of generating revenues, but my
company manages to do the same thing with Linux that Microsoft does and
we actually get calls from clients complimenting us on our technology.
Of course, it's Linux-based.
Even clients who have problems with their systems never call to complain
about Linux, they simply call and state the nature of the problem and we
fix it. Plain and simple. We don't stop until it's fixed, and our
clients have no problem with paying for the support. Mind you, they
don't call very often. On average, we hear from each of our corporate
clients once every 4 to 6 months, unless they need more equipment, are
moving their offices, or want to order more training sessions.
But I can't agree with you about how quality is expensive. Just the
opposite in fact. Initially, yes, the purchase cost of a quality product
can be substantially higher, but not in the long run. If the axiom of
'You get what you pay for' is still a valid point, then there's
definitely something wrong with Microsoft. Linux constantly proves this
and as such constitutes a obvious flaw in how Microsoft is seen by the
public. Linux is incontrovertible proof that Microsoft isn't doing a
great job of producing quality products. Hence all the F.U.D. that
Redmond has spewed out as often as possible in the past.
There have been more improvements in Linux over the last 5 years than in
all the lifespan of Microsoft, and in all that time Linux has never been
subjected to the sheer number of disasters and data loss that
Windows-based systems have had in the last 5 years! It has never caused
the loss of billions of dollars of data and productivity that the world
has had to deal with. Not by a long shot.
Also, for considerably less money than Microsoft has spent in their
entire lifespan, Linux has become a superior product. Linux is only
obligated to pay 'Lip Service' to being compared to Microsoft because
Microsoft gained it's monopoly before anyone else did. Linux doesn't owe
much to the success of Windows, except for the propagation of computers
around the world and possibly the basic design and ergonomics of their
desktops. If Linux DID owe something else to Microsoft, it would be that
Microsoft has essentially created an environment that makes Linux a
welcome alternative.
That Microsoft has made their own decision to remain closed-source isn't
a factor at this point and neither are their policies, although
Microsoft's tactics in stealing technologies and consistently trying to
force their products on companies and individuals certainly bears
further scrutiny.
No, Microsoft made their own decisions on keeping their products closed
and we all know that the biggest reason for this is not to protect
themselves from intellectual or copyright theft, but rather from letting
the world see how many bugs are in a product released to consumers.
IIRC, Windows 95 was release with over 70,000 bugs in the first 3
million lines of code. The engineering company that found these bugs
stopped counting after that.
When you factor in the fact that Microsoft certainly has the budget and
staff to build a great OS and yet always falls short of the mark, the
only conclusion is that they are a large part of the problem and not
enough of a part of the solution.
I believe that a lack of quality is actually more expensive, causing
countless hours of downtime, data loss and corporate catastrophe. No,
this is simply a case of the dominant company building sub-standard
products because they can get away with it. Even their licenses are
specifically designed to absolve them from virtually all responsibility,
be it ethical or moral.
With all the cumulative experience that Microsoft and it's staff have as
a whole, you can bet that they know exactly how to build a great OS and
other software, but continuously fail to do so. You don't get that big
without knowing how to do it right. If in fact, they have managed to
miss the mark from a lack of knowledge, then they cease to be a monopoly
that builds garbage software for reasons of financial gain and begin to
look like the largest group of incompetent engineers on the planet.
Long, Long Ago, in a galaxy far away,...(now, where have I heard that
before? Grin!), scientists, engineers and technology companies started
coming out with all these new gadgets (computers, etc.), and all of them
professed religiously that this technology would improve the quality of
our lives. With all the problems that Microsoft's products have caused,
directly and indirectly, I think it's fair to say that they've broken
that promise a few hundred times over.
No one asked them to become the dominant monopoly, but since they
attained that status, they have an obligation to ensure that their
products are reliable, safe and secure.
I'd say that they're a long way off of the mark.
I can't speak for others, but one of the principal reasons that my
clients are as loyal to us as they are, is specifically due to the fact
that we've shown them that we can deliver on the promise. In fact, we do
it every day.
I agree entirely with your viewpoint of Microsoft not being motivated to
produce a quality product, but that just demonstrates their arrogance in
thinking that people will continue to buy Windows (et al) ad infinitum.
That arrogance is the primary reason why Linux is gaining market-share
every single day and why finally, a decent alternative now stands a real
chance at offering Microsoft a run for their money.
Quality doesn't need to be expensive, it just needs to be understood for
what it really is. An opportunity to finally deliver on the promise we
were led to believe in. I think it's long overdue!
Microsoft reminds me of a dinosaur. It's too big and too stupid to
realise that it's been fatally shot. All we're waiting for now, is it's
inevitable death.
Thus endeth my rant.
--
Mr. L. Geek - Official Combat-Pant & Grunge T-Shirt
wearing, Coffee drinking, Cigarette-Smoking, Middle
of the night keyboard pounding, Self-Appointed Linux
Officianado AND,.... Registered Linux User #190712!
____________________________________________________
Want to buy your Pack or Services from Mandriva?
Go to http://store.mandriva.com
Join the Club : http://www.mandrivaclub.com
____________________________________________________
