Linux Market?
Paulo
Thanks MS for Windows and Borland/CodeGear for the most beautiful language
on the world: DELPHI !
Tony Caduto
I think it's more than 1 %. Those market share things don't take into
account all the non commercial installs out there.
Not to mention Linux is way larger than 1% in the server market.
What about Apple, they have a very small percentage of the desktop
market as well, but they certainly are not pathetic, though there file
system is utter crap :-)
Later,
Tony
Chris Uzdavinis (TeamB)
> Linux: More than 15 years on market and less than 1% share? PATHETIC!
You probably don't care, but "on the market" is meaningless for open
source, as large-scale desktop penetration was not (and in some ways
still is not) a priority for linux. You're only evaluating it in
terms of something it's not trying to be, and measured only in a way
that makes sense to a bean counter.
Further, even if we did want to count deployments, it's very, very
hard to accurately measure the true usage of linux. It comes in so
many flavors, and that anyone/everyone is allowed to copy and
distribute it. There is no way to track its installation, and there
are pleanty of networks where the machines boot from the network (thus
no deployment at all to that machine, though it uses linux). A single
download could result in thousands of installs. Linux runs on
millions of hand-held devices, routers, servers, and some machine for
desktop use. Measuring linux "sales" (like from RedHat and Novell)
only reflect a small sector of the linux market.
--
Chris (TeamB);
Paul Nichols [TeamB]
Linux!!
PLEASE!!
Tony Caduto
> What would happen if MS had done a offer to Borland/CodeGear just like did
> to Yahoo ?
>
I don't think there is any chance of that, Delphi is no threat to VS
anymore. I have been using VS 2005 with the latest SP and it's actually
very nice. I was totally surprised after my last foray into .net which
was with VS 2003 which kind of sucked.
Rita
"Paulo" <prb...@uol.com.br> wrote in message
news:47ac...@newsgroups.borland.com...
> What would happen if MS had done a offer to Borland/CodeGear just like did
> to Yahoo ?
Shows what you know are you a Brazil nut ?
Rita
Paulo
to Yahoo ?
"Paul Nichols [TeamB]" <pa...@none.com> escreveu na mensagem
news:47ac8e32$1...@newsgroups.borland.com...
Paulo
"Rita" <ri...@spam.com> escreveu na mensagem
news:47ac...@newsgroups.borland.com...
Paul Nichols [TeamB]
in the world would MS make such a deal with Borland?
Can a deal with Borland help MS compete with Google? Can it aid them in
being in first place instead of a very distant third with MSN?
Google and Linux as well as Open Source in general, have been identified
by MS as huge threats to their empire. They are attempting to take
each down, or at least stop their tremendous growth. MS will only make
deals to help them (1) Grow their revenue (2) Increase their market
share and monopoly. A Yahoo deal could aid them in this perspective
(although I do not think it will work at all). A Borland deal will do
neither.
Now that might be different if Borland had a huge Linux and/or Google
Open Source line of products that were leading to a highly successful
market for each or either of the above. Since they do not, a Borland buy
out does not really help their bottom line. The only thing I could see
as beneficial to MS about Borland's product line, would be the ALM suites.
Delphi is a great tool as is BCB, Ruby, and JB. But these are not really
in the interest of MS, who does not do Java, and has no use for either
BCB nor Delphi, since MS is pushing NET.
GrandmasterB
Yes and No.
Yes, the total share on all PCs is low.
On the other hand, linux runs the majority of web servers. Which means that
the average web surfer accesses pages on quite a few different linux based
web servers every day. So in a way, you use linux every day. You just dont
know when it happens.
I'm by no means a great promotoer of Linux (esp on the desktop). But dont
kid yourself into thinking that Linux isnt a huge market.
Paul Nichols [TeamB]
> "Paulo" <prb...@uol.com.br> wrote in message
> news:47ac...@newsgroups.borland.com...
>> Linux: More than 15 years on market and less than 1% share? PATHETIC!
>
> Yes and No.
>
> Yes, the total share on all PCs is low.
>
You are right that he uses Linux and does not know it. If he goes to a
Fed-Ex store, the terminals are Linux as is the Web Site. What about
UPS? Sorry, Linux again.
If he flies Delta Airlines and uses their Entertainment terminals
(movies, etc) he is using Linux. If he has a Motorolla powered Cell
phone, chances are he is using Linux. Browses Google? Linux. If he goes
to a Comp USA store and checks out his items, he is using Linux, If he
goes to Fryes electronics and buys an item, the cashier is using Linux.
If he hits practically any of the Wall Street sites, he is using Linux.
Does he go to Wal-Mart.com in Brazil? Linux. If he plays games in a bar,
or plays the lottery, nine out of ten times they are running Linux.
If he goes to Amazon, Linux. etc. You get the idea.
But then again, no one uses Linux. Remember? :)
Adem
I have 3 boxes (one of which is an old Mac Mini -PowerPC) running
Linux. I am planning to setup an OpenSOlaris (for the love of ZFS) as
soon as I can run Xen on it.
I wonder if any of these will be counted in any stats --simply because
I will never report them to any central authority.
A 'central authority'?
Is there one?
No.
So, how do you determine market share?
Tony Caduto
> If he goes to a Comp USA store and checks out his items, he is using Linux,
Comp USA is down the tubes, but we could substitute Burlington Coat
Factory instead :-)
Paul Nichols [TeamB]
> Paulo wrote:
>
>> Linux: More than 15 years on market and less than 1% share? PATHETIC!
>>
>> Thanks MS for Windows and Borland/CodeGear for the most beautiful
>> language on the world: DELPHI !
>
> I have 3 boxes (one of which is an old Mac Mini -PowerPC) running
> Linux. I am planning to setup an OpenSOlaris (for the love of ZFS) as
> soon as I can run Xen on it.
>
VM), the rest are running Linux (10) and (1) Open Solaris.
According to the surveys however, I am running 12 Windows boxes and 0
Linux boxes. Guess what? SURVEY < CORRECT!
GrandmasterB
news:47acab91$1...@newsgroups.borland.com...
> I wonder if any of these will be counted in any stats --simply because
> I will never report them to any central authority.
>
> A 'central authority'?
> Is there one?
> No.
> So, how do you determine market share?
Survey research, web stats, etc. For ex, I help manage several sites that
pull in several million pages a month. Some sites are business related,
others general audience. All my stats show linux use by people browsing the
sites to be very low. I get more page loads from windows mobile. Thats
just a single data set. But combine that with thousands of other such sets,
and you get a pretty good feeling for what people are using as a desktop OS.
And its not Linux.
As servers, though, thats a wholly different thing.
GrandmasterB
>> Yes, the total share on all PCs is low.
> Not really correct, but I will not belabor the point.
I was referring to mainly "desktop PCs". Yes, a lot of techies may have a
bunch of linux boxes set up, but out in the general population thats not the
case.
Linux (and *nix) itself is everywhere, including a lot of devices. I have a
'media mvp' set-top box - even that runs linux. A greatly stripped down
linux...but linux.
Henrick Hellström
> <http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_os.asp>
Interesting, Linux + Mac usage combined is bigger than Vista.
Richard Foersom
"Paulo" <prb...@uol.com.br> wrote:
>Linux: More than 15 years on market and less than 1% share? PATHETIC!
The Linux desktop share is small, but still ca. 3 times larger
than you state. This is stat of OS used for web browsing:
<http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_os.asp>
Could you please state where you have the 1% figure from?
On server side Linux is a big player. Lots of companies have
Linux in the server room but Windows on the desktops.
This is why CodeGear should extend Delphi on Windows to compile
for Linux x86 and add Linux remote debugger, to allow developing
server applications running on Linux but with Windows client
side. This could tap into large market while limit the effort
needed for CodeGear.
Doei RIF
James Smith
And telling. Seems to me that future programmers will need to associate
themselves with software products that provide value regardless of the
backend OS. The user accessing a useful service through a browser will care
less what the backend is.
James
GrandmasterB
news:47acc358$1...@newsgroups.borland.com...
> Richard Foersom wrote:
>> <http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_os.asp>
> Interesting, Linux + Mac usage combined is bigger than Vista.
Another way of looking at that is that in one year, Vista went from 0% to
almost as much as Mac and Linux ... combined. Where do you think it will be
next year?
Keep in mind those are w2school's own statistics. That's a site used
largely by people who are web developers. And even among the web developers
who use that site, Linux only has 3.6% - the same percentage as a year
before. In fact, if you look at 2007's numbers, it was actually on a
downwards trend for a while.
Paulo Roberto
> Could you please state where you have the 1% figure from?
http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=8
http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=0
Learn why these government agencies are choosing Windows over Linux.
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver/compare/government-agencies-choose-windows.mspx
but I have to admit that Vista is a failure (unfortunately):
http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Windows/Has-Microsoft-Disavowed-Vista/
but the next Windows 7 will be great!
I also would like to thank Borland for the Delphi and Interbase!
and the www.gatesfoundation.org
Thanks for bringing clarity to our world!
Should I post this on a Linux NG?
Tom
> backend OS. The user accessing a useful service through a browser will care
> less what the backend is.
Exactly! That is what CG should be concentrating on. Innovate, don't
follow!
Unknown
> but I have to admit that Vista is a failure (unfortunately):
> http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Windows/Has-Microsoft-Disavowed-Vista/
<quote>
And the companies that want to move on to a truly better operating
system? They'll be moving to Linux or Mac OS.
</quote>
Companies are moving to Mac OS? Really? Amazing.
--
Alexandre Machado
> but I have to admit that Vista is a failure (unfortunately):
> http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Windows/Has-Microsoft-Disavowed-Vista/
I would like to know the oppinion of some crappy-Vista sympathizer folks
about that....
Regards,
Alexandre Machado
Alexandre Machado
"James Smith" wrote:
> And telling. Seems to me that future programmers will need to associate
> themselves with software products that provide value regardless of the
> backend OS. The user accessing a useful service through a browser will
> care less what the backend is.
Yes! And mainly in server side applications! We need Intraweb applications,
DataSnap servers and WebServices in Linux, written in Delphi! ;-)
CG should attack that front IMHO.
Regards,
Alexandre Machado
Alexandre Machado
It doesn't happen. So doesn't happen buying hundreds or thousands of Vista
licenses just to get.... what does Vista has better than XP???
Regards,
Alexandre Machado
Henrick Hellström
> "Henrick Hellström" <hen...@streamsec.se> wrote in message
> news:47acc358$1...@newsgroups.borland.com...
>> Richard Foersom wrote:
>>> <http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_os.asp>
>> Interesting, Linux + Mac usage combined is bigger than Vista.
>
> Another way of looking at that is that in one year, Vista went from 0% to
> almost as much as Mac and Linux ... combined. Where do you think it will be
> next year?
Sure, but being the latest version of Windows, with a combined usage of
over 90%, one ought to have expected it to grow even faster in a year.
Windows XP was released October 2001, and in one and a half year it had
climbed to a 29% usage.
Henrick Hellström
If you work in an industry such as publishing, advertising etc, chances
are you care for intuitive user interfaces and other eye-candy, but
chances are also that you have never moved away from Mac. And seriously,
if you care for those things why would you go to Vista to get a half
baked copy when the Mac OSX original is obviously superior:
Adem
OK. Take this as --somewhat-- counter example: In our company we have
hundreds of Linux boxes that are used as thin clients.
These are not allowed o leave the local network at all.
All they have is a browser, mail client (local intranet access only),
and basic office software.
The reason why we opt for Linux was for several reasons. Linux is a lot
smaller than Windows --it does not require a gigantic OS. Linux is a
lot sturdier than Windows too. Finally, we dont need a MS-tax to pay
for it all.
These, and setups like these, do not count in any stats either. Yet
they are all desktop usages.
I.P. Nichols
>>
> I have 12 boxes, all of which came with Windows. 2 run Windows (one in a
> VM), the rest are running Linux (10) and (1) Open Solaris.
>
> According to the surveys however, I am running 12 Windows boxes and 0
> Linux boxes. Guess what? SURVEY < CORRECT!
Yes, but remember you bought 12 Windows licenses for which Microsoft
received payment and you are now receiving absolutely no benefit from 10 of
those licenses. I'm sure you see the problem with just switching from
Windows to Linux. And yes I know that Dell and HP are beginning to sell
boxes with Ubuntu installed so as my good-buddy Bruce would say, folks now
have more options, but how often will John Q. Public exercise his option to
buy his new box with Linux desktop factory install and except on the
cheapest of boxes, what is his incentive to choose Linux over Windows?
In the last year 100 million Vista licenses have been sold for which
Microsoft received a "gob" of money. What happens to the money Microsoft
received. Most of it went to pay employee salaries and infrastructure costs
with some also going to reward investors. However you split the pie, most of
it ends up in the pockets of employees who feed and clothe their families,
pay their mortgages, educate their children, pay their taxes, etc. Society
benefits from such enterprise.
Question - if instead of 100 million boxes with Vista licenses being sold
those 100 million boxes were sold with Linux factory installed how would the
people who developed Linux be rewarded? How do they feed and clothe their
families, pay mortgages and educate their children? Leaving aside the
Richard Stallman arguments, how does society benefit from 100 million copies
of Linux which the FOSS developers provided for free?
I.P. Nichols
It seems that contrary to popular myth of Vista being an outright failure,
companies are increasingly going to embrace it.
http://webobjects.cdw.com/webobjects/media/pdf/CDW-Microsoft-Vista-Poll-2008.pdf
Paul Nichols [TeamB]
That about sums it up! :)
Unknown
> If you work in an industry such as publishing, advertising etc,
> chances are you care for intuitive user interfaces and other
> eye-candy, but chances are also that you have never moved away from
> Mac.
That has always been the Mac's niche, and not because of
self-proclaimed superior user interfaces, but because of file formats
and other (proprietary-) standard issues embraced by that industry.
Just as it's always safe for an office manager to choose MS, it's
always safe for a publishing manager to choose Apple.
> And seriously, if you care for those things why would you go to
> Vista to get a half baked copy when the Mac OSX original is obviously
> superior:
If there is any superiority in interaction, it's only a very recent
evolution, and by no means perpetual, I think.
--
Bruno Fierens [tmssoftware.com]
> Microsoft received a "gob" of money. What happens to the money Microsoft
> received.
they try to throw it at Yahoo!
Bruno Fierens [tmssoftware.com]
> benefits from such enterprise.
how does a society benefit from a slow bloated OS that severely limits
productivity?
You of course will be among the happy few who 'feel' not limited, but there
are LOTS of
frustrated people with Vista, many of which who had to go that far out of
frustration to
move back to XP after wasting their time & money on Vista. Use *Google* and
you'll
find plenty of evidence.
Bruno Fierens [tmssoftware.com]
> companies are increasingly going to embrace it.
> http://webobjects.cdw.com/webobjects/media/pdf/CDW-Microsoft-Vista-Poll-2008.pdf
How would one expect anything different as Microsoft just FORCES people to
embrace it.
What would the numbers be like if Microsoft continued to offer & support XP
?
I.P. Nichols
>
> how does a society benefit from a slow bloated OS that severely limits
> productivity?
> You of course will be among the happy few who 'feel' not limited, but
> there are LOTS of
> frustrated people with Vista, many of which who had to go that far out of
> frustration to
> move back to XP after wasting their time & money on Vista. Use *Google*
> and you'll
> find plenty of evidence.
Read this and get another point of view. Why would companies embrace Vista
if it's "a slow bloated OS that severely limits productivity"? Especially
read page 9...
http://webobjects.cdw.com/webobjects/media/pdf/CDW-Microsoft-Vista-Poll-2008.pdf
Bruno Fierens [tmssoftware.com]
Bruno Fierens [tmssoftware.com]
>
Well, buy me an XP license in July then, ok?
Bruno Fierens [tmssoftware.com]
you're right while you are not.
with such skewed logic, I'm wasting my time to have any further discussion
on this
"The world's largest software maker will use *cash* and stock to pay part of
the $31 a share"
now, where is that cash coming from ? Out of the blue ? No, from all the
Vista's (many of which are unused)
and other stuff they sell day in, day out.
I.P. Nichols
Don't you know that when a business orders 25 or more computers from Dell or
HP they will factory install XP if requested and Microsoft will support XP
for years to come. Get the fact not speculation. ;-)
I.P. Nichols
Nope! Microsoft's latest balance sheet shows Cash And Cash Equivalents plus
Short Tem Investments totaling $20.6 billion, Chris Liddell their CFO has
said that they intend to sell bonds to raise an undetermined portion of the
22.6 billion dollar cash part of the takeover. This will be their first
long-term debt.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=at7GtgvbLNRw&refer=home
I.P. Nichols
message news:47ad96db$1...@newsgroups.borland.com...
> They have no choice, it is forced by Microsoft, in june life of XP ends.
Nomsense!
DS
news:47acf399$1...@newsgroups.borland.com ...
> Sure, but being the latest version of Windows, with a combined usage of
> over 90%, one ought to have expected it to grow even faster in a year.
> Windows XP was released October 2001, and in one and a half year it had
> climbed to a 29% usage.
Well, for one, XP was first »NT« based Windows with 'home edition'
available.
This replaced 98 (and horror called ME), and provided much improved user
experience. I don't see such huge leap from XP -> Vista, so it's quite
reasonable to expect slower adoption rates.
LP,
Dejan
Bruno Fierens [tmssoftware.com]
I.P. Nichols
> So, what's your "FACTS" where the cash is coming from ?
I answered that in another message and made reference to this article.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=at7GtgvbLNRw&refer=home
Bruno Fierens [tmssoftware.com]
> or HP they will factory install XP if requested and Microsoft will support
> XP for years to come. Get the fact not speculation. ;-)
yeah, like I or my neighbour will buy 25 machines to get one working XP
machine,
sure, if you pay 700.000$ , you can still buy today a 1955 Mercedes SL 300
Gullwing
with this logic, everything remains "available"
iow, nonsense
I.P. Nichols
> oh come one, what a skewed logic and utter nonsense just to try to prove
> you're right while you are not.
> with such skewed logic, I'm wasting my time to have any further discussion
> on this
That's mutual, your mind is already made up so why should I waste my time
pointing out facts that you just ignore.
Bruno Fierens [tmssoftware.com]
I.P. Nichols
>>> They have no choice, it is forced by Microsoft, in june life of XP ends.
>>
>> Nomsense!
>
> Well, buy me an XP license in July then, ok?
Retail licenses:
Only until July 1 can retailers order shrink-wrapped boxes of new XP
licenses and upgrade licenses -- what Microsoft calls FPP (Full Package
Product) licenses -- to sell to customers like you. Chances are these last
licenses will sell out quickly after the June 30 order cutoff.
Also until July 1, individuals can buy XP licenses online from Microsoft
(such as when you have an installation CD and need an extra license for it
or when you need to load the software on a second computer), but not after
that date.
OEM licenses:
After June 30, OEMs can no longer order new licenses of Windows XP. (The
deadline is Jan. 31, 2009 for white-box PC makers, who have what Microsoft
calls a System Builder license. Other than the date, the limitations and
options for installing XP are the same as for Direct OEM licenses.) So how
do you get XP on PCs you buy after these cutoff dates?
After the cutoff, OEMs may still install Windows XP Pro (not Home) on users'
systems, but only for orders of 25 or more PCs. In this case, the systems
must come with a Vista Business or Ultimate license, which is then
transferred to the XP Pro install. Essentially, you're buying a Vista PC
that the OEM can then put XP Pro on instead, using the Vista license to
activate XP Pro. (Again, the OEMs don't have to provide this option.)
Bruno Fierens [tmssoftware.com]
"the world's largest software maker will use cash and stock to pay part of
the $31 a share it has bid for Yahoo in the biggest technology takeover
ever. It will raise the rest in a debt sale"
so, where is the cash coming from ?
Renato
"Alexandre Machado" <alex...@consultbrasil.com.br> escreveu na mensagem
news:47acdfb1$1...@newsgroups.borland.com...
>
>> but I have to admit that Vista is a failure (unfortunately):
>> http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Windows/Has-Microsoft-Disavowed-Vista/
>
> about that....
>
> Regards,
>
> Alexandre Machado
>
>
Very conclusive article specially when it comes from a widely known linux
zealot
aka Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols. Oh, c´mon!!
I may agree that Windows Vista consumes a lot of resources and this is a
serious problem.
But I cannot agree that Vista´s security is a joke. Vista´s security is a
huge improvement for
the Windows platform. Just check how many critical security flaws were
issued for Windows Vista
Ubuntu, SUSE or Fedora and you will see that Vista´s security is rock solid.
Best regards,
Renato.
I.P. Nichols
Remember I had said:
>> In the last year 100 million Vista licenses have been sold for which
>> Microsoft received a "gob" of money. What happens to the money Microsoft
>> received. (and explained it mostly would go to pay salaries and expenses)
And jumped up and said:
> they try to throw it at Yahoo!
Microsoft has long been cash rich and their latest balance sheet shows Cash
And Cash Equivalents plus Short Tem Investments totaling $20.6 billion.
And as the Bloomburg article said part will come from selling bonds.
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bs?s=MSFT
You really think Vista is going to provide $22.3 billion for the cash
portion of the takeover? ;-)
Henrick Hellström
I think you have to break down the number even further before they start
to make sense. Most home users buy OEM versions of Windows, which they
do when they buy a new computer. All other things equal, you would
expect hardware retailers to throw in the latest version of Windows
available. Hence, if we assume corporate customers have been upgrading
from XP to Vista in 2007 with the same pace they upgraded from 2000 to
XP in 2002 (or else something else is wrong), we have to assume either
of the following:
* Win 9x made was so bad it made home users think they needed new
computers even though they shouldn't have
* In 2002 there was some other, external reasons for home users to buy
new computers at a higher pace than expected (such as, due to the
evolution of the Internet it started to make sense for people who never
had a home computer before to get one; the hardware got cheaper; etc)
* In 2002 practically no new home computers were sold with ME OEM
installed, but in 2007 a large portion were sold with XP OEM installed. Why?
Bruno Fierens [tmssoftware.com]
> portion of the takeover? ;-)
did I say they were using *only* Vista cash ??
in a follow-up I even explicitely said : "Vista's and other stuff they sell"
please read BEFORE making ridiculous statements
Henrick Hellström
>> And seriously, if you care for those things why would you go to
>> Vista to get a half baked copy when the Mac OSX original is obviously
>> superior:
>
> If there is any superiority in interaction, it's only a very recent
> evolution, and by no means perpetual, I think.
LOL! If you needed a desktop computer back in '88 or even '96 and you
yourself made the decision to buy a PC instead of a MAC you were most
likely a geek or a nerd. ;)
I.P. Nichols
>
> LOL! If you needed a desktop computer back in '88 or even '96 and you
> yourself made the decision to buy a PC instead of a MAC you were most
> likely a geek or a nerd. ;)
Almost anyone who bought either a PC or Apple twenty years ago was
classified as either a geek or nerd or both. ;-)
seamus
> In the last year 100 million Vista licenses have been sold for which
> Microsoft received a "gob" of money. What happens to the money Microsoft
> costs with some also going to reward investors. However you split the
> pie, most of it ends up in the pockets of employees who feed and clothe
> their families, pay their mortgages, educate their children, pay their
>
> sold those 100 million boxes were sold with Linux factory installed how
> would the people who developed Linux be rewarded? How do they feed and
> clothe their families, pay mortgages and educate their children? Leaving
> aside the Richard Stallman arguments, how does society benefit from 100
> million copies of Linux which the FOSS developers provided for free?
Ah, The Broken Windows Fallacy! :)
I.P. Nichols
LOL!
Question - If all software was FOSS since the establishment of The Free
Software Foundation in 1985 who would be developing software all those many
years just to give away the fruits of his labor? What would be the state of
the art today without the for-profit software that has resulted from the
Wintel monopoly? And lastly, without Vista what would we have to moan and
whine about, Ubuntu? ;-)
Unknown
> to buy a PC instead of a MAC you were most
> likely a geek or a nerd. ;)
Or someone with two neurons to rub together. :)
--
Henrick Hellström
Seriously, though, in the late '80s and early '90s MAC dominated the
desktop market in Sweden. The typical user was a University student,
primarily due to competitive discounts offered by the reseller. If you
were a student and had a PC you probably (a) belonged to those who built
your own spectrum when you were 12, and (b) bought a second hand compaq
from some local company.
Henrick Hellström
> And lastly, without Vista what would we have
> to moan and whine about, Ubuntu? ;-)
Probably, yes, but isn't that an integral part of the Linux community
culture? The fact that people have to search and ask for drivers for
particular hardware is what binds the community together, and if you are
just complaining about the lack of drivers without being prepared to
develop them yourself or pay someone for it you are a n00b. ;)
Anders Ohlsson (CodeGear)
> Seriously, though, in the late '80s and early '90s MAC dominated the
> desktop market in Sweden.
I'm going to have to go ahead and disagree with you there.
I didn't see many Macs at all in Sweden in the late '80s, early '90s
or any other time.
--
Anders Ohlsson - http://blogs.codegear.com/ao/
CodeGear Developer Relations
"A golf course that does not have a pub after the 18th hole
is like an acupuncturist who does not offer needle removal."
New personal blog: http://myroadtofitness.blogspot.com/
Henrick Hellström
> Henrick Hellström wrote:
>> Seriously, though, in the late '80s and early '90s MAC dominated the
>> desktop market in Sweden.
>
> I'm going to have to go ahead and disagree with you there.
>
> I didn't see many Macs at all in Sweden in the late '80s, early '90s
> or any other time.
IIRC there were some 10000 MAC users in Lund alone, which, at the time,
was a fairly large percentage of the total number of desktop computer
users in the entire country. PCs dominated other segments.
Kostya
> failure, companies are increasingly going to embrace it.
> http://webobjects.cdw.com/webobjects/media/pdf/CDW-Microsoft-Vista-Poll-2008.pdf
Dunno bout other companies. For mine it offers 0 benefits
and lots of headaches. I actually stocked up some XP
licenses.
Unknown
> in the late '80s and early '90s MAC dominated the
> desktop market in Sweden.
Wow.
> The typical user was a University student,
> primarily due to competitive discounts offered by the reseller. If
> you were a student and had a PC you probably (a) belonged to those
> who built your own spectrum when you were 12, and (b) bought a second
> hand compaq from some local company.
Odd. The typical student here thought that a 5-inch bundle of black and
white pixels was just too much of a hassle, and they didn't always have
a paperclip handy to operate the appliance. <eg>
--
I.P. Nichols
How do you plan to use that stock of XP licenses. Buy new boxes from someone
like Dell or HP and replace the factory installed Vista or build your own
new boxes or sell them next year on eBay? ;-)
Kostya
> someone like Dell or HP and replace the factory installed Vista or build
> your own new boxes or sell them next year on eBay? ;-)
I'd never buy brand name system, it is just a waste of money.
All the components are available in Chinatown computer
district for much cheaper price. As for why I stock licenses,
it seems that over the time I need more and more computers.
I.P. Nichols
> I.P. Nichols wrote:
>> And lastly, without Vista what would we have to moan and whine about,
>> Ubuntu? ;-)
>
> Probably, yes, but isn't that an integral part of the Linux community
> culture? The fact that people have to search and ask for drivers for
And all this time I thought it was their virulent hatred of Microsoft. ;-)
DS
> * In 2002 there was some other, external reasons for home users to buy new
> computers at a higher pace than expected (such as, due to the evolution of
> the Internet it started to make sense for people who never had a home
> computer before to get one; the hardware got cheaper; etc)
This seems quite right.
I remember that around that time period people and companies were constantly
upgrading hardware and buying new one. Practically each new release of big
sofware suites (as f.e. Office) made using them on even two year old
mid-range PCs somewhat painfull experience.
This trend seems to have slown down somewhat - you can pretty much get away
with using 4-5 year old PC now.
Of course, Vista sets bar much higher, especially for those 'business' PCs
with integrated graphics controllers. I guess many people just don't see
need to upgrade.
LP,
Dejan
Rita
>
> did I say they were using *only* Vista cash ??
>
Hardly matters now the deal has fell through, but I was
fauvoring you Bruno ;-)
Rita
I.P. Nichols
>
> Hardly matters now the deal has fell through, but I was
> fauvoring you Bruno ;-)
The deal hasn't fallen through, as expected the Yahoo BOD wants more
premium, $40 vs $31/share that is offered and intend to notify Microsoft on
Monday that they reject the $31 offer. They have a real dilemma on their
hands, no one else is likely to come anywhere near Microsoft's offer yet
Yahoo is unlikely to convince their share holders that they can resituate
the company and meanwhile their friendly white knight Google is gleefully
over the excitement of possibly securing Yahoo's share of the search market
and sticking a thumb in Microsoft's eye. One way or another Yahoo's goose is
gonna get roasted.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120257515426256541.html?mod=mktw
Rita
"I.P. Nichols" <NoS...@nada.com> wrote in message
news:47ae0325$1...@newsgroups.borland.com...
> One way or another Yahoo's goose is gonna get roasted.
>
Sad really everyone Yahoo'ed early days and then Google grabbed the 1st
place.
Maybe they will accept my offer $50 for the whole shebang. ;-)
Rita
I.P. Nichols
> "I.P. Nichols" wrote:
>> One way or another Yahoo's goose is gonna get roasted.
>>
>
> Sad really everyone Yahoo'ed early days and then Google grabbed the 1st
> place.
> Maybe they will accept my offer $50 for the whole shebang. ;-)
Hey, do be cheap, go big time and throw the cost of a Vista home edition
license at Yahoo. ;-)
Unknown
> a 1955 Mercedes SL 300 Gullwing
LOL! This could only appear in a Bruno post. ;)
--
Rita
> sure, if you pay 700.000$ , you can still buy today a 1955 Mercedes SL 300
> Gullwing
>
You can buy the gullwing cheap at.
http://www.google.co.uk/products?hl=en&q=1955+Mercedes+SL+300+&um=1&ie=UTF-8
Rita
Rudy Velthuis [TeamB]
>
> If you work in an industry such as publishing, advertising etc,
> chances are you care for intuitive user interfaces and other
> eye-candy, but chances are also that you have never moved away from
> Mac.
If you watch Hollywood films and TV series, you'll see a high
proportion of the shown computers being Macs too.
--
Rudy Velthuis [TeamB] http://www.teamb.com
"Knowledge speaks, but wisdom listens."
-- Jimi Hendrix
Rita
"Rudy Velthuis [TeamB]" <newsg...@rvelthuis.de> wrote in message
news:xn0fm982gc20ny...@rvelthuis.de...
>
> If you watch Hollywood films and TV series, you'll see a high
> proportion of the shown computers being Macs too.
>
The reason for that early Apples got so good at graphics that
media groups and graphic artist types and film peeps loved
them. So on a film set there are hundreds on hand.
Rita
Bruce McGee
> Question - if instead of 100 million boxes with Vista licenses being
> sold those 100 million boxes were sold with Linux factory installed
> how would the people who developed Linux be rewarded? How do they
> feed and clothe their families, pay mortgages and educate their
> children? Leaving aside the Richard Stallman arguments, how does
> society benefit from 100 million copies of Linux which the FOSS
> developers provided for free?
Linux (and open source software in general) doesn't follow the same
business model as Windows does. Do a quick Google search and you will
find more answers to your question than you will be able to read.
--
Regards,
Bruce McGee
Glooscap Software
Paul Nichols [TeamB]
> "Paul Nichols [TeamB]" wrote:
>>>
>> I have 12 boxes, all of which came with Windows. 2 run Windows (one in
>> a VM), the rest are running Linux (10) and (1) Open Solaris.
>>
>> According to the surveys however, I am running 12 Windows boxes and 0
>> Linux boxes. Guess what? SURVEY < CORRECT!
>
> Yes, but remember you bought 12 Windows licenses for which Microsoft
> received payment and you are now receiving absolutely no benefit from 10
> of those licenses.
I did not but the boxes for Windows, I bought the boxes for the HARDWARE.
The fact that MS has a monopoly with these vars is why I had to but the
Windows license. I could have paid more for a box with no OS, but there
was no negotiation with the price without Windows.
The DOJ was suppose to stop this exploitation, but did absolutely
nothing about it.
Am I sad that these license are not being used? Surely, you jest. Do I
wish I did not have to pay the MS tax and could have purchased these
same computers without an OS or with Linux installed from the start? Yes.
I'm sure you see the problem with just switching from
> Windows to Linux.
No I see a problem in forcing me to pay a Windows license, when I
neither need or want Windows. If I want a Windows license, I am glad to
pay for it. But if I do not want Windows, I should not be forced to pay
for it.
>And yes I know that Dell and HP are beginning to sell
> boxes with Ubuntu installed so as my good-buddy Bruce would say, folks
> now have more options, but how often will John Q. Public exercise his
> option to buy his new box with Linux desktop factory install and except
> on the cheapest of boxes,
Perhaps firms like me or Fed-Ex, UPS, or others? Of course I am sure
that none of the OEMs will turn these down, nor force them to Windows. :)
Yes I am glad that HP, Dell, and Leveno are now offering Servers,
Desktops, and Notebooks with Linux pre-installed. That is what I will
buy in the future, if they are compatible in features and price with X.
As I stated, I only run one Windows box and that is all I need, plus a
VM or VM versions of several different OSes. To be honest, I rarely
write for Windows. I write most of my software as XPlatform. Why?
Because that is what my users want**.
Some of our software is deployed on Windows. however, many others are
not. My job is not to tell customers what they must use. That is THEIR
Choice!! It may be a novel idea for some, but our customers not only
PREFER IT THAT WAY, THEY DEMAND IT!
Most of the customers I work with do not have small deployments or roll
outs. The systems I work with often have to support tens of thousands to
millions of transactions per day, with up to as many as 300,000 users.
Not a good Windows option, except, perhaps for Desktop access. But I do
not dictate whether they use Windows, Mac, Linux, or Solaris for their
desktops, nor for the servers. That is THEIR choice.
We do recommend that they use Linux or Unix based servers for the
back-end critical processes, due to the user and processing demands, but
whether they choose to reject or accept these recommendations, is left
up to them. They normally listen to our recommendations and follow them.
But the final decision up to them.
what is his incentive to choose Linux over Windows?
>
Let's see security, stability, interoperatability. speed, cost, etc.
That's just for starters. I am not saying Linux is for everyone, but
since you have asked me, I have responded as me. :)
I do use and recommend Open Solaris for Servers as well as others. What
I recommend depends upon the solution needed and the situation.
> In the last year 100 million Vista licenses have been sold for which
> Microsoft received a "gob" of money. What happens to the money Microsoft
> received. Most of it went to pay employee salaries and infrastructure
> costs with some also going to reward investors. However you split the
> pie, most of it ends up in the pockets of employees who feed and clothe
> their families, pay their mortgages, educate their children, pay their
> taxes, etc. Society benefits from such enterprise.
>
Boo hoo!! Unless I feed the MS machine, thousands will go hungry, I will
go hungry!!
News flash!! I do not work for MS, My salary is not based on MS' success
nor failure, If MS died tomorrow, my job is not affected. In fact I
would be doing even MORE business.
Poor IBM, Oracle, Google, Sony, Sun, Redhat, etc. will all be broke
without MS. Are you really trying to be serious?
You do realize that last quarter alone Sun earned $ 200,000,000 on open
source products and IBM earned $ 100,000,000 as well? That was just in
one quarter. Novell also improved sales tremendously and would have
shown a loss without Novell Linux.
I would agree that firms that sell PCs would be hurt without MS. Each
version of Windows requires more and more hardware to be purchased to
run the pigs. OK so you see the need of an OS to require a 2gz.
processor and a gig of RAM. I don't sorry. Yes, I could see some
software programs needing this kind of HP, but not an OS. Personally I
think the OS should be transparent to the user and use as few resources
as possible. I even wish Linux took up a smaller footprint. MS must be
starting to agree, since Windows 2008 server offers the choice of a GUI
or non GUI.
If there was no MS and only Linux, hardware could be used for years
without the need to buy expensive PC upgrades. My $ 600.00 notebook
loaded with Linux will outrun a $3,000.00 dollar state of the art
machine, that is running Vista. So on that note, I agree that these
manufacturers have enjoyed the Microsoft relationship. I do not think
anyone would deny this.
> Question - if instead of 100 million boxes with Vista licenses being
> sold those 100 million boxes were sold with Linux factory installed how
> would the people who developed Linux be rewarded? How do they feed and
> clothe their families, pay mortgages and educate their children? Leaving
> aside the Richard Stallman arguments, how does society benefit from 100
> million copies of Linux which the FOSS developers provided for free?
>
Please even though by your posts, you appear to be an MS sychophant,
please do some research before regurgitating the MS line.
Linux developers, by and large, as well as Open Source developers in
general, are fully employed with very large and smaller corporations.
Oracle, IBM, Google, Yahoo, Sony, Sun, all help produce Open Source
products and services. They hire and employ many in the open source
world and want them to work with each other across countries and
corporations, and to innovate and create new products and services as
well as making current ones better.
I really feel sorry those poor mySQL developers who just received huge
bonuses on a one billion dollar sale, Red Hat who continues to be
profitable, JBoss who received over 150,000.00 for their Open Source
efforts, Suse who received $ 350,000,000 for their efforts, Sugar CRM,
etc. I should be so lucky!! But when you deal with the unprofitable
model of open source, guess multi-million and billion dollar deals
should be expected. :)
Yes, the profit margins are less with Open Source, but there are needs
and that requires programmers and support. Most software, out of the
box, whether it comes from a commercial vendor or Open Source, fails to
meet business requirements precisely. It is easier to make software fit
business than business fit a canned version of software?
Open Source offers a foundation upon which to work. It is not the end to
all custom work, nor usually the end for the resulting solution. It does
cut costs in development by providing the foundation or foundation upon
which to work, but does not usually result in the final end product.
Open Source companies make money by customizations, services, and
support. This is not any different from the way most of us in the
programming and software profession do.
IP, your problem is that you see only one software development cycle as
tenable or viable; namely, the closed source model.
Open Source software encourages the cooperative model This is a
philological and philosophical debate about which is the best way to
produce software; closed or open source. It is not new; it is an old debate.
The close source adherents believe that focused development by a set of
engineers, architects, marketers, etc. all focused on the same task, in
a controlled environment, is the only way to produce quality software.
The Open source adherents believe that the best way to produce software
is to open the process to more than one set of developers without a
single entity controlling the evolutionary development process. It is a
cooperative world views verses the isolationist view,
In reality, both models have something to commend them. The closed
source model works well in some situations better than the open source
model, and the open source model works better in others.
In the Operating System stream, I see much more benefit in the Open
model. Why? Because a single entity cannot possibly know the needs of
the world. Windows offers a one size fits all. Linux and other open
Source OSes offers the world's input to the process, and if you desire,
you can customize the OS to fit your particular business needs just for
your own business needs.
That is precisely what Yahoo and Google as well as Sony, have all done
(I know because I have worked with most of these firms). Yahoo took the
Free BSD OS and customized it to make Yahoo better, faster, and more
scalable to their needs. Google took Linux and made their own Linux to
support what they needed to support. Sony took Linux and JBoss and
customized it to fit their needs. This would not have been possible with
Windows, since they would have had no access to the source.
Suppose you had a Delphi without the source to the VCL. How would you
create your own components or extend the same? What I find odd about
those Delphites who are so opposed to Open Source is how they turn
around and herald the fact that the VCL framework is provided with
Source code. Is there not some apparent contradiction here?
Finally, I do not know of any major IT shop that lives, works, or
functions in a monolithic OS or hardware world. The IT world is
heterogeneous and will continue in this manner. In nearly all major IT
shops, you are going to find Windows, Linux, Unix, and in the large
ones, also OS400 and OS390 OSes and hardware. That is not likely to
change any time soon.
Refusing to accept this fact and instead employing an ostrich paradigm,
does not enhance a resume; it only limits your potential.
**: I am not saying that this is everyone's model or that it has to be.
It all depends upon what your needs are.
I.P. Nichols
> I.P. Nichols wrote:
<big snip>
>Please even though by your posts, you appear to be an MS sychophant...
No more that you appear to be a anti-Windows Microsoft bashing sychophant.
;-)
> **: I am not saying that this is everyone's model or that it has to be. It
> all depends upon what your needs are.
Thanks for your very long and mostly virulent tirade however since I was
exclusively talking about FOSS desktop OS vs Windows desktop and your
arguments were all about servers, I didn't find it very helpful or
informative but I will give you an A++ for excruciating passion. ;-)
I.P. Nichols
> I.P. Nichols wrote:
>
>> Question - if instead of 100 million boxes with Vista licenses being
>> sold those 100 million boxes were sold with Linux factory installed
>> how would the people who developed Linux be rewarded? How do they
>> feed and clothe their families, pay mortgages and educate their
>> children? Leaving aside the Richard Stallman arguments, how does
>> society benefit from 100 million copies of Linux which the FOSS
>> developers provided for free?
>
> Linux (and open source software in general) doesn't follow the same
> business model as Windows does.
That's the understatement of the year and a bit like saying Communism
doesn't follow the same business model as free market Democracy does. ;>)
Rita
>
> Thanks for your very long and mostly virulent tirade however since I was
> exclusively talking about FOSS desktop OS vs Windows desktop and your
> arguments were all about servers, I didn't find it very helpful or
> informative but I will give you an A++ for excruciating passion. ;-)
I thought it was way cool myself but it was not aimed at me sorry.
Glad to see you give him A++ do they have RAD TASM yet? ;-)
Rita
Paul Nichols [TeamB]
> "Paul Nichols [TeamB]" wrote:
>> I.P. Nichols wrote:
>
> <big snip>
>
>> Please even though by your posts, you appear to be an MS sychophant...
>
> No more that you appear to be a anti-Windows Microsoft bashing
> sychophant. ;-)
>
Windows has its usage, but it is certainly not a be all, is all
solution. There is some software where Unix/Linux has no equivalent. In
those cases, Windows or Terminal servers are the only solution. The
reverse is also true.
Unix/Linux is more flexible by design. Anyone who does an objective
analysis however, knows this.
My analysis wasn't all about servers either. Servers do fit into the
equation, but desktops were and are included as well. In my personal
case, it deals with both as it does in my business cases.
Rita
"Paul Nichols [TeamB]" <pa...@none.com> wrote in message
news:47ae747f$1...@newsgroups.borland.com...
> I.P. Nichols wrote:
>
>
> You do realize that last quarter alone Sun earned $ 200,000,000 on open
> source products and IBM earned $ 100,000,000 as well? That was just in one
> quarter. Novell also improved sales tremendously and would have shown a
> loss without Novell Linux.
>
Excellent post Paul I enjoyed the whole thing phewwwwwwwwwwwww
The part I left in above is very interesting I loved my Novell SuSE 10.3
so much I bought the boxed version.;-) maybe my forty something quid
put them in the black. I love figures you cant argue with them.
I hope one of the guys mentioned bring out a Kylix like tool but one that
works a little better. Maybe my fellow limey at Ubuntu can do it. ;-)
Rita
Bruno Fierens [tmssoftware.com]
> http://www.google.co.uk/products?hl=en&q=1955+Mercedes+SL+300+&um=1&ie=UTF-8
LOL, I already bought 1:18, 1:43, 1:87 to compensate for not being able to
buy the real 1:1 thing:
http://tinyurl.com/322a5l
I.P. Nichols
>
> The fact that MS has a monopoly with these vars is why I had to but the
> Windows license. I could have paid more for a box with no OS, but there
> was no negotiation with the price without Windows.
>
> The DOJ was suppose to stop this exploitation, but did absolutely nothing
> about it.
But being a monopoly isn't illegal under US law and DOJ did stop Microsoft
from compelling box vendors to install Windows on all the boxes they sold as
a condition of granting them an OEM license.
I always find it ironical when someone thinks there is simply no justice
when the DOJ doesn't espouse their POV and retaliate against their enemies.
Should Microsoft insist that DOJ enjoin Mr. Shuttleworth and his Ubuntu
organization from it's unfair trade practice of providing it's OS products
for free as a violation of the U.S. antidumping laws? <RBG>
http://www.cato.org/pubs/fpbriefs/fpb-011.html
I.P. Nichols
> "I.P. Nichols" wrote:
>
> Glad to see you give him A++ do they have RAD TASM yet? ;-)
Yeah, I think I was being generously magnanimous almost to a fault
considering his comments about me. ;-)
What means "... do they have RAD TASM yet?"
I.P. Nichols
>> I.P. Nichols wrote:
>>
>>> Please even though by your posts, you appear to be an MS sychophant...
>>
>> No more that you appear to be a anti-Windows Microsoft bashing
>> sychophant. ;-)
>>
> Not really.
Give me a break, sounds to me that the pot doesn't like the kettle calling
it black. ;-)
Bruce McGee
> That's the understatement of the year and a bit like saying Communism
> doesn't follow the same business model as free market Democracy does.
> ;>)
I don't think it's like saying that at all. That's more like something
intended to evoke an emotional response and no more accurate than
implying that proprietary software is somehow fascist. It's all
hyperbole that takes away from legitimate discussion.
As you like to say, open source is simply another option with its own
benefits and drawbacks.
Do you use any kind of free (cost or otherwise) or open source
software? Why or why not?
I.P. Nichols
> I.P. Nichols wrote:
>
>> That's the understatement of the year and a bit like saying Communism
>> doesn't follow the same business model as free market Democracy does.
>> ;>)
>
> I don't think it's like saying that at all. That's more like something
> intended to evoke an emotional response and no more accurate than
> implying that proprietary software is somehow fascist. It's all
> hyperbole that takes away from legitimate discussion.
Each to his own but I didn't say that to evoke an emotional response, I said
it because I thought it more factual that hyperbolic.
> As you like to say, open source is simply another option with its own
> benefits and drawbacks.
>
> Do you use any kind of free (cost or otherwise) or open source
> software? Why or why not?
Like most people I use a lot of "free" software and some of which may be
FOSS, I really don't know or care.
Years ago as a member of ACGNJ, founded in 1975 and the oldest computer club
still in operation, I was vary actively involved with ASM coded utility
programs for their SIG/M Software Library which was discontinued in 1983. In
the six years of operation it created and distributed over 2,000 public
domain and shareware CP/M programs on close to a hundred different floppy
disks to over 50 computer clubs around the world. This was the first
Software Library ever created for Personal Computers. With the advent of the
IBM-PC I translated some of the more popular CPM 8-bit utilities from
8080/8085 to IBM DOS 16 bit 8086/8088 code. Shortly there after there begin
the shareware concept and more and more squabbles broke out over copyrights
and then licenses and I finally said - screw it. In all the programs I
authored I started by saying they were placed in the public domain by me
with absolutely no restrictions on who or how they were used including for
commerce. It seems the FOSS folks don't share my public domain with
absolutely no restrictions philosophy. I quit contribution efforts in the
same year Richard Stillman founded the Free Software Foundion. ;-(
BTW: Bill Gates attended our anuual dinner meetings more than once and
always berated our SIG/M effots every change he got. I love that guy when he
gets angry and red faced. ;-)
Rita
>
> What means "... do they have RAD TASM yet?"
I was trying to be funny but it didnt work, I saw
A++ as ASM on steroids kinda thing but small
things amuse small minds I guess ;-)
Rita
Q Correll
| What means "... do they have RAD TASM yet?"
Perhaps RAD Studio Turbo Assembler?
I finally discarded my old TASM 4.0 a couple of days ago. <sigh>
--
Q
02/10/2008 10:20:02
XanaNews Version 1.17.5.7 [Q's Salutation mod]
Bruce McGee
> Each to his own but I didn't say that to evoke an emotional response,
> I said it because I thought it more factual that hyperbolic.
You won't be surprised to hear that I don't agree, but as you say, to
each their own.
> Like most people I use a lot of "free" software and some of which may
> be FOSS, I really don't know or care.
That's one of the advantages of this particular option. You don't
really need to care.
Rita
>
CA residents should look at this link its a once in a lifetime double your
money deal.
http://www.autosalon-singen.de/Liste.aspx?marke=Triumph&modell=&select=0&languageID=en
Thanks for the link Bruno but the steering wheels are on the wrong side for
me.
Rita
Robert Giesecke
Actually, even lots of tech people prefer Macs for themselves.
Check out all these tech-related vodcasts.
The old MacOS was horrible.
I hated it when I had to use it back in '98 for some months.
Now, I very much dislike the thought of having to work on a Windows machine tomorrow... :-/
The newer NeXT-based system is pretty cool, IMO. And at least since Tiger, it pretty much blows
everything else on the desktop. (Which is why MSFT tried to make their own version of it *g*)
Except you need software from someone who's still using Windows-only tools like Delphi, hint, hint,...
Paul Nichols [TeamB]
> "Paul Nichols [TeamB]" wrote:
>>
> But being a monopoly isn't illegal under US law and DOJ did stop
> Microsoft from compelling box vendors to install Windows on all the
> boxes they sold as a condition of granting them an OEM license.
>
If that were true, then why would I have to pay MORE for the same
computers w/o an OS?
> I always find it ironical when someone thinks there is simply no justice
> when the DOJ doesn't espouse their POV and retaliate against their enemies.
>
It is a consumer issue. Lets suppose the situation were reversed. Let's
suppose I wanted to buy a machine to run Windows, and the only one I
could buy at a reasonable price, was one that installed Linux. I tried
to tell the OEM I did not want Linux, I wanted to run Windows. They
informed me that I would have no support if I ran Windows, and they
could sell me machine with no OS, but I would have to pay 100.00 more.
Would that be the FAIR thing to do?
> Should Microsoft insist that DOJ enjoin Mr. Shuttleworth and his Ubuntu
> organization from it's unfair trade practice of providing it's OS
> products for free as a violation of the U.S. antidumping laws? <RBG>
> http://www.cato.org/pubs/fpbriefs/fpb-011.html
Considering that Ubuntu has always been free, this is a non issue.
If Ubuntu has been available only for a price and then Ubuntu started
giving it away, there could be a free trade violation. But since Ubuntu
has been free from its inception, there is no case.
I.P. Nichols
> I.P. Nichols wrote:
>
>> But being a monopoly isn't illegal under US law and DOJ did stop
>> Microsoft from compelling box vendors to install Windows on all the boxes
>> they sold as a condition of granting them an OEM license.
>>
> If that were true, then why would I have to pay MORE for the same
> computers w/o an OS?
Well it's true so you shouldn't blame Microsoft.
>> I always find it ironical when someone thinks there is simply no justice
>> when the DOJ doesn't espouse their POV and retaliate against their
>> enemies.
>>
> It is a consumer issue. Lets suppose the situation were reversed. Let's
> suppose I wanted to buy a machine to run Windows, and the only one I could
> buy at a reasonable price, was one that installed Linux. I tried to tell
> the OEM I did not want Linux, I wanted to run Windows. They informed me
> that I would have no support if I ran Windows, and they could sell me
> machine with no OS, but I would have to pay 100.00 more. Would that be the
> FAIR thing to do?
Didn't your mama tell you that life's not always fair?
>> Should Microsoft insist that DOJ enjoin Mr. Shuttleworth and his Ubuntu
>> organization from it's unfair trade practice of providing it's OS
>> products for free as a violation of the U.S. antidumping laws? <RBG>
>> http://www.cato.org/pubs/fpbriefs/fpb-011.html
>
> Considering that Ubuntu has always been free, this is a non issue.
>
> If Ubuntu has been available only for a price and then Ubuntu started
> giving it away, there could be a free trade violation. But since Ubuntu
> has been free from its inception, there is no case.
It's being sold in the U.S. at a price below it's cost of production that
would trigger the antidumping laws. And yes zero is considerd a price.
Bruce McGee
> It's being sold in the U.S. at a price below it's cost of production
> that would trigger the antidumping laws. And yes zero is considerd a
> price.
Sold?
I.P. Nichols
> I.P. Nichols wrote:
>
>> It's being sold in the U.S. at a price below it's cost of production
>> that would trigger the antidumping laws. And yes zero is considerd a
>> price.
>
> Sold?
Do you like distributed for zero price better? ;-)