On Wednesday 17 August 2005 04:05 am, Mr. Geek mercilessly beat the
keyboard, and wrote:
| 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.
I apologize for my lack of clarity in my initial response. I agree with all
you said here as well as in the original post other than that M$ can not
produce a quality OS. They can, but choose not to.
You made my point about Linux better than I could have done. IIUC, your
organization provides customers not only a Linux based product, but the
support for that product (and it is the support, setup, and training they
pay for). Your customers are pleased with the quality of both the product
and the support, so they become repeat customers. Additionally, as the
quality of the Linux product has improved, I bet your corporate costs for
providing support have decreased, and profits increased. At the same time,
your customers get fewer problems (reducing their costs). The word spreads,
and you get more customers. More business means more profit. Both sides
win :). This is the best explanation of the Open Source business model I
can think of.
In contrast, as I see it, the M$ business model is targeted at selling
copies of the software. More software versions released means more copies
sold. Reusing old inadequate code means less cost per copy and more profit.
There has historically been no effective business competition for them,
which has given them no additional reason to do better work, so they have
produced mediocre software, driven only by their perception of customer
wants. They started out with a hacked version of (it has been too many
years, I think it was C/PM - the OS for the 8080 CPU and which came with
the Comodore 64) which they sold as DOS, then a hacked version of a hacked
version of the GUI developed by Xerox (which was stolen from Apple who
stole it from Xerox BTW) which is now sold as Windows. For all I know,
until they moved completely away from DOS to NT, there may have been
original C/PM code for the 8080 in there somewhere (and maybe still is).
They have kept any possible competition at bay with effective FUD campaigns
and other less savory means, the true details of which we may never know.
So, yes, I agree with you. There is something wrong with M$. I think it is
their business model, their ethics, and an apathetic customer base who
continue to throw good money after bad.
I'll stop here now ... :)
--
Ernie ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
ICQ 41060744
Registered Linux User 247790
____________________________________________________
Want to buy your Pack or Services from Mandriva?
Go to http://store.mandriva.com
Join the Club : http://www.mandrivaclub.com
____________________________________________________
