[News] Mark Shuttleworth Spills Money to Increase Linux Adoption
Roy Schestowitz
,----[ Quote ]
| He sold Thawte for $575m at the height of the dotcom boom, when he was 26.
| Some of that went to launch venture capital firm Here Be Dragons to help
| other entrepreneurs chase their dreams. He set up the Shuttleworth Foundation
| to promote open-source software. Through that foundation and his own pockets
| he has pumped millions of rands into the development and promotion of
| open-source software in SA as a cheaper alternative to costly big-name
| brands.
`----
http://allafrica.com/stories/200712200321.html
Related:
Ubuntu Backer Is One Lucky Guy
,----[ Quote ]
| VeriSign bought Shuttleworth's Thawte, and he went on to found a venture
| capital firm and the Shuttleworth Foundation, which aims to give schools
| low-cost Linux-based computer labs. That prompted him to put $10 million into
| Canonical, the company behind Ubuntu, one of the few Linux distributions
| focused on ease of use. "Linux doesn't need to be something that's arcane and
| difficult to use," he says.
`----
http://www.informationweek.com/news/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=204803059
Shuttleworth: Microsoft Fracturing the Open-Source Community
,----[ Quote ]
| "That's extortion and we should call it what it is," he said. "To say, as
| [Microsoft CEO Steve] Ballmer did, that there is undisclosed balance sheet
| liability, that's just extortion and we should refuse to get drawn into that
| game. On the other side, if Microsoft is concerned about its intellectual
| property, there is no one in the free software community that wants to
| violate anyone's IP. Disclose the patents and we'll fix the code.
| Alternatively, move on."
|
| Microsoft has said it does disclose which patents are being violated, but
| only in one-on-one conversations with vendors. To Shuttleworth, that is not
| disclosure, because patents are public documents.
`----
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,2167193,00.asp?kc=EWRSS03129TX1K0000616
[Mark Shuttleworth Interview]
,----[ Quote ]
| Microsoft is asking people to pay them for patents, but they won't
| say which ones. If a guy walks into a shop and says: "It's an
| unsafe neighbourhood, why don't you pay me 20 bucks and I'll make
| sure you're okay," that's illegal. It's racketeering. What Microsoft
| is doing with intellectual property is exactly the same. It's a great
| company and I have great admiration for it, but this was not a
| well considered position.
|
| So you wouldn't do a deal?
|
| No, absolutely not. But the time will come when the folks at
| Microsoft who have a clear vision for the company as a participant
| in this community, rather than as a hostile antagonist, will win.
`----
http://mybroadband.co.za/nephp/?m=show&id=6672
Survey Says … Linux Desktop Is Ever More Popular
,----[ Quote ]
| The first thing we can say about the Linux desktop in 2007 is that there are
| more users than ever. The Linux Foundation 2006 survey had fewer than 10,000
| people signing in. This year more than 20,000 Linux desktop users reported
| in.
`----
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,2235654,00.asp
,----[ Quote ]
| Okay, now lets tie this all back in together. Novell claimed several months
| back in a video ad that Desktop Linux users accounted for upwards of
| 30,000,000 different people. That's 30 million. Recent statements made by
| some Novell representatives indicate that they expect there are upwards of
| 50,000,000 Desktop Linux users. Microsoft has never contested the number of
| Desktop Linux users, and if anything the deal Microsoft signed with Novell
| was tacit agreement that Microsoft believed those numbers to be accurate.
`----
http://zerias.blogspot.com/2007/11/desktop-os-vista-vs-linux.html
Linux Users Base More Than doubled Over Last One Year: Survey
,----[ Quote ]
| The number of Linux users has more than doubled over the last one year, says
| a new survey by DesktopLinux.com. The survey also said Ubuntu remains their
| Linux distribution of choice.
`----
http://www.sda-india.com/sda_india/psecom,id,22,site_layout,sdaindia,news,19940,p,0.html
Survey: Desktop Linux use grows
,----[ Quote ]
| DesktopLinux.com, which is a Web site devoted to, obviously, desktop Linux,
| has finished a survey that found more than a doubling of Linux desktop users
| in the past year.
`----
http://weblog.infoworld.com/techwatch/archives/013576.html
Desktop Linux on the Rise, Linux Foundation Reports
,----[ Quote ]
| For starters, almost 20,000 self-selected users filled out this year's survey
| compared with fewer than 10,000 in 2006's survey.
|
| [...]
|
| In those businesses and organizations that have deployed Linux desktops, 39.5
| percent are running Linux on more than half of their machines.
`----
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,2220549,00.asp?kc=EWRSS03119TX1K0000594
Tony Sivori
> South Africa: Shuttleworth 'Is a Brain to Watch'
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | He sold Thawte for $575m at the height of the dotcom boom, when he was
> | 26. Some of that went to launch venture capital firm Here Be Dragons
> to | help other entrepreneurs chase their dreams. He set up the
> Shuttleworth | Foundation to promote open-source software. Through that
> foundation and | his own pockets he has pumped millions of rands into
> the development and | promotion of open-source software in SA as a
> cheaper alternative to | costly big-name brands.
Roy, I am wondering if you know the answer to this. I assume you have read
Linus' now rather out of date autobiography, Just for Fun. If not, here is
the background circumstances. On page 166 (of the paperback edition) Linus
mentions turning down an offer of $10 Million just to sit - apparently
with no real duties - on the board of directors of a new Linux distro.
All that the unnamed "London entrepreneur" wanted was to be able to attach
Linus' name as a board member to his new (and in the book, also unnamed)
distro. Unlike the Red Hat stock IPO, Linus turned it down, as he thought
it was a bad idea to favor one distro over another.
When I read the book I was wowed at a man who had the strength of
character to turn down an easy $10 million based on a personal belief.
Later, on a rereading of the book I became curious about the identity of
the unnamed London entrepreneur.
It seems probable to me that the unnamed London entrepreneur is Mark
Shuttleworth. How many other Londoners could there be with their own Linux
distro, and have $10 Million to spare to hire Linus to a no show job with
no real responsibilities?
Probability is one thing, facts are another. I've Googled, and I don't
find any obvious hits regarding the identity of the person who offered to
$10 Million to Linus. So I am wondering if you, or anyone else reading
this, knows the answer. Who was the London entrepreneur that offered Linus
$10 Million to sit on the board of a Linux company?
--
Tony Sivori
Roy Schestowitz
> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>
>> South Africa: Shuttleworth 'Is a Brain to Watch'
>>
>> ,----[ Quote ]
>> | He sold Thawte for $575m at the height of the dotcom boom, when he was
>> | 26. Some of that went to launch venture capital firm Here Be Dragons
>> to | help other entrepreneurs chase their dreams. He set up the
>> Shuttleworth | Foundation to promote open-source software. Through that
>> foundation and | his own pockets he has pumped millions of rands into
>> the development and | promotion of open-source software in SA as a
>> cheaper alternative to | costly big-name brands.
>
> Roy, I am wondering if you know the answer to this. I assume you have read
> Linus' now rather out of date autobiography, Just for Fun. If not, here is
> the background circumstances. On page 166 (of the paperback edition) Linus
> mentions turning down an offer of $10 Million just to sit - apparently
> with no real duties - on the board of directors of a new Linux distro.
This reminds of of a story that never received the attention it deserved
(Microsoft's other attempts to 'pull and SCO' on Linux).
Andrew Tanenbaum: Operating systems' Mr Reliable
,----[ Quote ]
| Almost 20 years on, what would you say has been MINIX's
| contribution to society?
|
| Well, it has educated hundreds of thousands of students worldwide
| in operating system design. It also led to Linux. I doubt that
| Linus would have written Linux if he hadn't had the MINIX source
| code to study carefully. I think that it will yet show that the
| only way to make a system truly reliable is to make it small
| and modular.
`----
http://www.computerworld.com.au/index.php/id%3b925218285%3bfp%3b16%3bfpid%3b1
Red Hat still has Alan Cox (questionably or at least arguably the #2 man) and
Ingo Molnar. Linspire brought ESR to its board last year, but he quietly left
some months ago (it wasn't supposed to be known, but I enquired a little).
There is _a lot_ going on behind the scenes -- stuff that people are not aware
of. In fact, finding out the networks of people and companies is what leads to
all these stories. Bear in mind that Mark Shuttleworth has used GNU/Linux for
about a decade. When he launched his modest Ubuntu 4.10 (quite ugly, first
version, but a free CD nonetheless) I installed it, but it was still
noticeably behind SuSE (at the time). Shuttleworth could have gone with KDE
and he in fact still uses KDE quite a lot. He could have spun Ubuntu off RHEL,
I think, which would make it another clone or maybe even a fork.
> All that the unnamed "London entrepreneur" wanted was to be able to attach
> Linus' name as a board member to his new (and in the book, also unnamed)
> distro. Unlike the Red Hat stock IPO, Linus turned it down, as he thought
> it was a bad idea to favor one distro over another.
>
> When I read the book I was wowed at a man who had the strength of
> character to turn down an easy $10 million based on a personal belief.
> Later, on a rereading of the book I became curious about the identity of
> the unnamed London entrepreneur.
>
> It seems probable to me that the unnamed London entrepreneur is Mark
> Shuttleworth. How many other Londoners could there be with their own Linux
> distro, and have $10 Million to spare to hire Linus to a no show job with
> no real responsibilities?
Don't worry about Linus. He lives like a Hollywood star. He doesn't need just
the money.
> Probability is one thing, facts are another. I've Googled, and I don't
> find any obvious hits regarding the identity of the person who offered to
> $10 Million to Linus. So I am wondering if you, or anyone else reading
> this, knows the answer. Who was the London entrepreneur that offered Linus
> $10 Million to sit on the board of a Linux company?
He got Waugh and some of the prominent Debian developers at the end, but having
Linus would have helped his get rid of that "Ubuntu is for n00bs" stereotype.
That's why Linspire wanted ESR on the board (it didn't last long). Did you
know that Kevin Carmony has found a new career? Dating site! It was in the
news last week. So he ruined a Linux distro by doing Ballmer's dirty work and
now he's off to Ubuntu and some 'meat market' business. Someone in Digg once
described his correctly, calling his "a cock".
--
~~ Best of wishes
Roy S. Schestowitz | McDonald's Certified Sandwich Engineer (MCSE)
http://Schestowitz.com | RHAT GNU/Linux | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
21:00:01 up 13 days, 9:48, 4 users, load average: 1.04, 1.35, 1.65
http://iuron.com - help build a non-profit search engine
Linonut
> When I read the book I was wowed at a man who had the strength of
> character to turn down an easy $10 million based on a personal belief.
> Later, on a rereading of the book I became curious about the identity of
> the unnamed London entrepreneur.
Wasn't there some asswipe (Jeff Merkey?) who offered to buy the Linux
kernel for $15000?
--
Tux rox!
DFS
No, but there are a few million asswipes who are willing to freeload the
Linux kernel for $0.00.
Tim Smith
Linonut <lin...@bollsouth.nut> wrote:
>
> Wasn't there some asswipe (Jeff Merkey?) who offered to buy the Linux
> kernel for $15000?
$50000, although I wouldn't say it was to buy the kernel. He wanted a
copy of the kernel not under GPL. Presumably, it would have been a
one-time fork of the then-current kernel under a license suitable for
whatever weird thing he wanted to do, and normal development of the GPL
kernel would have continued.
(And he's tended to want to do weird things. The article about him on
Wikipedia is rather interesting:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_V._Merkey>
Definitely a colorful character.)
--
--Tim Smith
Roy Schestowitz
It's worth about $60 million (or was it $600 million) now. Samba was offered
$40 million to be acquired (Samba declined). CUPS, on the other hand...
--
~~ Best of wishes
Roy S. Schestowitz | Windows O/S: chmod a-x internet; kill -9 internet
http://Schestowitz.com | Open Prospects | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
Tasks: 154 total, 1 running, 153 sleeping, 0 stopped, 0 zombie
http://iuron.com - knowledge engine, not a search engine
Kier
How can someone 'freeload' a thing which is created to be given away
freely? You still have no grasp of what FOSS is about, even after years of
trolling in COLA.
--
Kier
AHappyCamper
Mepis 7.0 in both 32 and 64 bit, is out, and free, and FREE!
Our praise and thanks go out to Mark Shuttleworth for sponsoring the
Ubuntu/Kubuntu/Edubuntu/Zenbuntu projects world wide, to all the peoples
of all nations!
And, to the Fortune 1,000 Corporations, including Microsoft, who support
the FOSS movement, and who use GNU/Linux in their work places, on their
servers, and, in their embedded appliances!
The dumping of stock options at maximum rates the SEC permits, by
Microsoft holders, is one indication of product insecurity. In markets
like Asia, where dozens of alternatives are offered for free,
Microsoft's 'free' versions are left roadside.
Microsoft trolls, along with the annoyances of the millions of Microsoft
Virus/Worms/Trojans/Malware/exploits and the necessity to run a half
dozen protection schemes, are just some of the reasons that Microsoft
executives declare on Quarterly filings with the SEC that Linux was
above 17% worldwide user base, in 2005, with an annual growth rate above
3%.
It is with some reasoning on the part of Microsoft Corporate Executives
that the reported percentage of Linux conversion of the Microsoft user
base exceeds 5% per annum, post-Vista.
Thus, the increase in MS sponsored trolls, shills. But, it is a counter
productive modus operandi that actually drives more windows users to
GNU/Linux. Once engaged, it is difficult stopping anti-social misfits
from the psychotic behavior that was once rewarded with praise from on
high.
The OEMs recognize the allure of an OS that is nearly perfect, and offer
complete systems since 1998, online, and since 2002 in Wal Mart, and, in
Asia, factory direct, and all have been sold out successes, up to the
manufacturing limits in place for those offerings.
Now, Lenovo and others are ramping up their production levels. Third
party vendors are showing on their product packaging that Tux can use
their product, to try to get their sales above the base flatline of 2000.
The "Stockholm Syndrome" is also in effect, for many of the consumers of
Windows Products, but, Microsoft's market share does continue to shrink
and share price has not increased in over 8 years.
But, for me, having been an advocate of free choice for all people over
the past two decades, it is a marvelous option to have hundreds of FREE
Open Source OSes from which to choose! http://livecdlist.com
DFS
> How can someone 'freeload' a thing which is created to be given away
> freely? You still have no grasp of what FOSS is about, even after
> years of trolling in COLA.
Noun. freeloader - someone who takes advantage of the generosity of others
An April 2007 survey of 27000+ openSUSE desktop users
http://files.opensuse.org/opensuse/en/6/6c/Opensuse_survey_102_data_final.pdf
found
* 78% download it for free
* 85% do nothing but use the software (no development or contributions or
bug reports)
Which means 0.78 * 0.85 = 66% are total cheap-ass freeloaders who pay
nothing and give nothing back. And there's no reason to think that figure
doesn't apply to the entire Linux community.
Roy Schestowitz
> Microsoft's market share does continue to shrink
> and share price has not increased in over 8 years.
It has; a little. But not in line with inflation (well behind it in fact) and
only because Microsoft began a buyback program of $100 billion (I sh*t you
not). According to the Seattle P-I, Microsoft lost over half of its cash pile
in just two years. People don't need to buy new versions of Windows and
Office; other Microsoft products are money sinks -- for now, with Google
picking up the disruptive trend, leaving Microsoft behind and stealing some of
its poison, aka 'employees'.
It's true that Microsoft has _enormous_ power and control when it comes to
divulging figures about Linux use. IDC and Garter are good examples of this
because Linux figures that they have comes from Microsoft, with Microsoft
investment (Bill Gates invests, Microsoft commissions the 'studies').
--
~~ Best of wishes
Roy S. Schestowitz | "Spam enchanted evening..."
http://Schestowitz.com | GNU/Linux | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
Mem: 515500k total, 445140k used, 70360k free, 25052k buffers
http://iuron.com - next generation of search paradigms
Linonut
Including you.
Anyway:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_V._Merkey
Jeff Vernon Merkey is an American computer scientist and
entrepreneur. After working as chief scientist for Novell,[1] Merkey
left to create his own company, Wolf Mountain Group, to develop a set
of clustering technologies.[2] Later renamed Timpanogas Research
Group (or simply TRG),[3] Merkey and his company were sued by Novell,
who alleged misappropriation of trade secrets.[1] When the legal
battle with Novell ended, TRG announced its intention to develop an
open source, NetWare-compatible operating system.[4]
After a brief spat with Microsoft over the NTFS source code TRG
licensed from the company in 2000,[5] Merkey would once again go on
to develop slightly different projects. Much like before, he set out
to develop an open source, Netware-compatible operating system, only
this time it would run the Linux kernel atop a Netware microkernel,
called GaDuGi.[6] According to at least one report, Merkey became a
controversial figure on LKML, the Linux kernel mailing list, for
announcing that he would purchase a version of the Linux kernel
without the GPL license, among other things.[7][8] Wolf Mountain
Group would later announce plans for a new file system for Linux and
Windows, called the Wolf Mountain File System.[9]
. . .
Merkey v. Perens et al.
On June 21, 2005 Merkey filed a lawsuit against several people and
organizations such as Slashdot and Bruce Perens, and 200 John Does.
The suit includes various charges concerning harassment by the
defendants.[18][19]
--
Tux rox!
Linonut
Definitely an asswipe!
--
Tux rox!
tha...@tux.glaci.delete-this.com
>
> How can someone 'freeload' a thing which is created to be given away
> freely? You still have no grasp of what FOSS is about, even after years of
> trolling in COLA.
He understands (at some level anyway), he just rejects the
philosophical underpinnings of OSS because it runs counter to
the MS religion of profit over all else. He must denigrate
open source users as 'freeloaders' because to accept the
validity of our system would put his whole world view and
self image at risk. I witnessed business people struggle
with similar challenges to their core beliefs when growth
of the Internet was turning the business world upside down.
Many of them tried to pass off the Internet as a fad that
would die out soon. They were eventually dragged kicking and
screaming into the new reality.
Have some sympathy for wintrolls... their healthcare plans
probably do not cover the emotional stress caused by the
growth of OSS. >;)
Thad
--
Yeah, I drank the Open Source cool-aid... Unlike the other brand, it had
all the ingredients on the label.
DFS
> * DFS fired off this tart reply:
>>> Wasn't there some asswipe (Jeff Merkey?) who offered to buy the
>>> Linux kernel for $15000?
>>
>> No, but there are a few million asswipes who are willing to freeload
>> the Linux kernel for $0.00.
>
> Including you.
I may be an asswipe, but I don't use Linux and can't be considered a
freeloader.
> Anyway:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_V._Merkey
He's probably an asswipe, but he didn't offer to buy it for $15,000.
tha...@tux.glaci.delete-this.com
>
> $50000, although I wouldn't say it was to buy the kernel. He wanted a
> copy of the kernel not under GPL. Presumably, it would have been a
> one-time fork of the then-current kernel under a license suitable for
> whatever weird thing he wanted to do, and normal development of the GPL
> kernel would have continued.
Seems the obvious choice in his case would be one of the BSD versions
of Unix. It runs on most of the same hardware and uses a license
that allows proprietary forking. 386bsd even predated Linux, so you
know it was around when he made the offer to Linus.
DFS
> Kier <val...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> How can someone 'freeload' a thing which is created to be given away
>> freely? You still have no grasp of what FOSS is about, even after
>> years of trolling in COLA.
>
> He understands (at some level anyway), he just rejects the
> philosophical underpinnings of OSS because it runs counter to
> the MS religion of profit over all else.
MS has nothing to do with it. OSS runs counter to life, to capitalism, to
professionalism, and to progress in software.
> He must denigrate
> open source users as 'freeloaders' because to accept the
> validity of our system would put his whole world view and
> self image at risk.
Thad, please stop with the 'our system'. You're as big a Linux money-making
opportunist as I've seen - and there's nothing at all wrong with that
(except denying it if you're heading that way). You may indeed contribute
time and code to OSS projects, but if you couldn't make a living with Linux
you'd go right back to proprietary coding.
> I witnessed business people struggle
> with similar challenges to their core beliefs when growth
> of the Internet was turning the business world upside down.
> Many of them tried to pass off the Internet as a fad that
> would die out soon. They were eventually dragged kicking and
> screaming into the new reality.
Sorry, but the 'new reality' of OSS taking over Windows\commercial systems
will NEVER happen.
> Have some sympathy for wintrolls... their healthcare plans
> probably do not cover the emotional stress caused by the
> growth of OSS. >;)
heh
tha...@tux.glaci.delete-this.com
>
> It has; a little. But not in line with inflation (well behind it in fact) and
> only because Microsoft began a buyback program of $100 billion (I sh*t you
> not). According to the Seattle P-I, Microsoft lost over half of its cash pile
> in just two years. People don't need to buy new versions of Windows and
> Office; other Microsoft products are money sinks -- for now, with Google
> picking up the disruptive trend, leaving Microsoft behind and stealing some of
> its poison, aka 'employees'.
And that multi-billion dollar stock buyback was on top of a muti-
billion dollar dividend payout (something they never had to do when
thy were a 'growth' investment). MS is far from dead, but things
are not as rosy at One Microsoft Way as they used to be. It means
less money to dump into new product development, acquisitions, and
efforts to compete with Linux/OSS.
Linux and OSS remain immune to the pressures that threaten many
proprietary technologies during times of slow economic growth.
tha...@tux.glaci.delete-this.com
>>
>> He understands (at some level anyway), he just rejects the
>> philosophical underpinnings of OSS because it runs counter to
>> the MS religion of profit over all else.
>
> MS has nothing to do with it. OSS runs counter to life, to capitalism, to
> professionalism, and to progress in software.
And with that statement you prove exactly what I said in the previous
statement. The whole idea that it runs counter to capitalism is bunk.
It competes directly with MS, but shifts profits from license revenue
to a service model. MS is trying to hang onto a business model in
the face of more efficient, competing model. Your crap about
professionalism and progress is so wrong that it doesn't even deserve
an answer. It is just more smoke to discredit a methodology that MS
does not want to compete against directly.
> Thad, please stop with the 'our system'. You're as big a Linux money-making
> opportunist as I've seen - and there's nothing at all wrong with that
> (except denying it if you're heading that way). You may indeed contribute
> time and code to OSS projects, but if you couldn't make a living with Linux
> you'd go right back to proprietary coding.
Again, you don't get the fact that there is nothing incompatible
with Open Source and making money, it is just that the revenue
model is different (service rather than license). Most core
programmers on mainstream projects are paid for their work. There
is also nothing incompatible with working at a non OSS job but
contributing to OSS projects. Maybe there would be if OSS was as
much a 'cult' or 'religion' as some people make it out to be, but
that particular stereotype is just more smoke.
> Sorry, but the 'new reality' of OSS taking over Windows\commercial systems
> will NEVER happen.
It already is. In case you haven't noticed the little OS that was
supposed to go nowhere on the server now owns a sizeable chunk of
the space and is currently gobbling up the embedded realm as well.
It might never 'take over' in the sense of completely pushing MS
and other proprietary technologies from the market, but it is
definitely taking over various sectors that MS thought it would
own and is on its way to becoming an accepted mainstream desktop
alternative. I'm sure MS is not happy about that. Sounds like
you don't like the idea much either.
Kier
> tha...@tux.glaci.delete-this.com wrote:
>> Kier <val...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>> How can someone 'freeload' a thing which is created to be given away
>>> freely? You still have no grasp of what FOSS is about, even after
>>> years of trolling in COLA.
>>
>> He understands (at some level anyway), he just rejects the
>> philosophical underpinnings of OSS because it runs counter to
>> the MS religion of profit over all else.
>
> MS has nothing to do with it. OSS runs counter to life, to capitalism, to
> professionalism, and to progress in software.
What utter nonsense.
<snip>
--
Kier
Kier
> Kier wrote:
>
>> How can someone 'freeload' a thing which is created to be given away
>> freely? You still have no grasp of what FOSS is about, even after
>> years of trolling in COLA.
>
> Noun. freeloader - someone who takes advantage of the generosity of others
So, when soneone does something generous towawrds me, I am supposed to be
'taking advantage' of them? You are *such* an idiot.
>
>
> An April 2007 survey of 27000+ openSUSE desktop users
> http://files.opensuse.org/opensuse/en/6/6c/Opensuse_survey_102_data_final.pdf
> found
>
> * 78% download it for free
As if is provided for them to do, if they wish.
> * 85% do nothing but use the software (no development or contributions or
> bug reports)
Yes, and?
>
> Which means 0.78 * 0.85 = 66% are total cheap-ass freeloaders who pay
No, it means they are people who downloaded the software and are using it,
exactly as was intended. It is provided free, to be used freely.
> nothing and give nothing back. And there's no reason to think that
> figure doesn't apply to the entire Linux community.
Really? Who says so? You?
Hate to tell you, chummy, but you are not an authority on anything to do
with Linux. You don't even use it, yet you presume to tell *real* Linux
users how to behave and what FOSS is all about.
--
Kier
Rick
> tha...@tux.glaci.delete-this.com wrote:
>> Kier <val...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>> How can someone 'freeload' a thing which is created to be given away
>>> freely? You still have no grasp of what FOSS is about, even after
>>> years of trolling in COLA.
>>
>> He understands (at some level anyway), he just rejects the
>> philosophical underpinnings of OSS because it runs counter to the MS
>> religion of profit over all else.
>
> MS has nothing to do with it. OSS runs counter to life, to capitalism,
> to professionalism, and to progress in software.
All lies.
>
>
>
>> He must denigrate
>> open source users as 'freeloaders' because to accept the validity of
>> our system would put his whole world view and self image at risk.
>
> Thad, please stop with the 'our system'. You're as big a Linux
> money-making opportunist as I've seen - and there's nothing at all wrong
> with that (except denying it if you're heading that way). You may
> indeed contribute time and code to OSS projects, but if you couldn't
> make a living with Linux you'd go right back to proprietary coding.
So what?
>
>
>
>> I witnessed business people struggle
>> with similar challenges to their core beliefs when growth of the
>> Internet was turning the business world upside down. Many of them tried
>> to pass off the Internet as a fad that would die out soon. They were
>> eventually dragged kicking and screaming into the new reality.
>
> Sorry, but the 'new reality' of OSS taking over Windows\commercial
> systems will NEVER happen.
Are claiming to be psychic?
Linonut
> Roy Schestowitz <newsg...@schestowitz.com> wrote:
>>
>> It has; a little. But not in line with inflation (well behind it in fact) and
>> only because Microsoft began a buyback program of $100 billion (I sh*t you
>> not). According to the Seattle P-I, Microsoft lost over half of its cash pile
>> in just two years. People don't need to buy new versions of Windows and
>> Office; other Microsoft products are money sinks -- for now, with Google
>> picking up the disruptive trend, leaving Microsoft behind and stealing some of
>> its poison, aka 'employees'.
>
> And that multi-billion dollar stock buyback was on top of a muti-
> billion dollar dividend payout (something they never had to do when
> thy were a 'growth' investment). MS is far from dead, but things
> are not as rosy at One Microsoft Way as they used to be. It means
> less money to dump into new product development, acquisitions, and
> efforts to compete with Linux/OSS.
Perhaps Microsoft is on its way to becoming a ... normal business?
--
Tux rox!
Linonut
> Linonut wrote:
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_V._Merkey
>
> He's probably an asswipe, but he didn't offer to buy it for $15,000.
Ooooh. $50,000. Big whoop.
--
Tux rox!
Rick
> Linonut wrote:
>> * DFS fired off this tart reply:
>
>>>> Wasn't there some asswipe (Jeff Merkey?) who offered to buy the Linux
>>>> kernel for $15000?
>>>
>>> No, but there are a few million asswipes who are willing to freeload
>>> the Linux kernel for $0.00.
>>
>> Including you.
>
> I may be an asswipe,
Thatnks for admitting it.
> but I don't use Linux and can't be considered a freeloader.
I do use Linux and OSS and I am not a freeloader.
>
>
>> Anyway:
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_V._Merkey
>
> He's probably an asswipe, but he didn't offer to buy it for $15,000.
--
Rick
Linonut
> MS has nothing to do with it.
> OSS runs counter to life,
Usenet kook alert!
> to capitalism,
Yeah, just like the water utility does.
> to professionalism,
OSS is certainly counter to this professionalism:
Serious Windows Home Server concerns [Updated]
> and to progress in software.
http://www.kernel.org
http://www.mozilla.com/firefox
http://www.kde.org
http://www.gnu.org
http://www.openoffice.org
http://www.apache.org
http://www.ubuntu.com
http://www.debian.org
http://www.openoffice.org
http://www.openoffice.org
Only two .com's among 'em.
Here's one, from Dan Lyons at that!:
http://www.forbes.com/2005/03/15/cz_dl_0315linux.html
Linux Rules Supercomputers
Daniel Lyons, 03.15.05, 6:00 AM ET
NEW YORK - The homegrown Linux operating system has come
a long way from its origins as a college kid's pet
project and computer hobbyist favorite. Refined in recent
years by professional computer programmers at IBM,
Hewlett-Packard, Novell and Red Hat, Linux now has become
so technically powerful that it lays claim to a
prestigious title--it runs more of the world's top
supercomputers than any other operating system.
> Thad, please stop with the 'our system'. You're as big a Linux money-making
> opportunist as I've seen - and there's nothing at all wrong with that
> (except denying it if you're heading that way). You may indeed contribute
> time and code to OSS projects, but if you couldn't make a living with Linux
> you'd go right back to proprietary coding.
So what? A guy has to eat.
> Sorry, but the 'new reality' of OSS taking over Windows\commercial systems
> will NEVER happen.
I agree. But it already is very significant, and those who ignore it
(such as yourself) do so at their peril. Even Microsoft seems to be
getting the message.
--
Tux rox!
amicus_curious
<tha...@tux.glaci.delete-this.com> wrote in message
news:feq445-...@tux.glaci.com...
>
> And that multi-billion dollar stock buyback was on top of a muti-
> billion dollar dividend payout (something they never had to do when
> thy were a 'growth' investment). MS is far from dead, but things
> are not as rosy at One Microsoft Way as they used to be. It means
> less money to dump into new product development, acquisitions, and
> efforts to compete with Linux/OSS.
>
> Linux and OSS remain immune to the pressures that threaten many
> proprietary technologies during times of slow economic growth.
>
education could be so blind to facts. Mr. Softee is funding developments at
a higher rate than ever and has made a greater profit this year than ever
before in their history. Now you can say this is a sign of impending
failure, but I would then say that you are daft.
Whatever would the OSS bunch copy if/when the commercial companies stopped
creating new products? Do you see some kind of "open marketing community"
arising out of thin air to guide future development of OSS? Unlikely, in my
opinion.
amicus_curious
"Kier" <val...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message
news:pan.2007.12.24....@tiscali.co.uk...
discloses one's innovations to the community in the expectation that others
will use it and extend it, making it better, and so enrich the original
giver in return. Now if you don't do both, you are just a freeloader,
according to the definition given above. There seems to be no question that
many FOSS projects are, as you say, intended to be used by freeloaders,
since it is hardly rational to think that a million or more users would have
the ability to contribute anything at all. Look at the likes of rick,
chrisv, 7, etc., who cannot even create intelligent conversation, much less
a technical contribution to a complex software product.
That brings into question the motivation of the developers of these
products, i.e. why do they do it? Not for a return of development effort,
certainly. It seems to be a combination of a sort of vanity fairness in
having someone else use your creation and some attempt at locking in users
who would become dependent on the supplier and so candidates to pay for
support services. A number of companies have overtly established finally
profitable businesses based on this latter activity. Of course buying a
license with support and buying just support are not such different things.
With the latter, you have the built-in advantage of not having to return the
price paid if the product proves to be less than advertised.
DFS
How about sending me the diff, rich man?
Rick
> <tha...@tux.glaci.delete-this.com> wrote in message
> news:feq445-...@tux.glaci.com...
>>
>> And that multi-billion dollar stock buyback was on top of a muti-
>> billion dollar dividend payout (something they never had to do when thy
>> were a 'growth' investment). MS is far from dead, but things are not
>> as rosy at One Microsoft Way as they used to be. It means less money
>> to dump into new product development, acquisitions, and efforts to
>> compete with Linux/OSS.
>>
>> Linux and OSS remain immune to the pressures that threaten many
>> proprietary technologies during times of slow economic growth.
>>
> Do you really believe that? It seems odd to me that anyone with a
> college education could be so blind to facts. Mr. Softee is funding
> developments at a higher rate than ever and has made a greater profit
> this year than ever before in their history. Now you can say this is a
> sign of impending failure, but I would then say that you are daft.
It is a sign of inflation, and the effects of an illegally maintined
monopoly. And there is no one named "Mr. Softee".
>
> Whatever would the OSS bunch copy if/when the commercial companies
> stopped creating new products?
Whatever would Microsoft copy if/when other companies stop producing new
products?
> Do you see some kind of "open marketing
> community" arising out of thin air to guide future development of OSS?
> Unlikely, in my opinion.
Market should not direct development.
And, BTW, Mozilla's Firefox continues to take userbase from IE.
--
Rick
Rick
No, the community is enriched by developers releasing their changes, AND
by a growing amount of software.
> Now if you don't do both, you are just a
> freeloader, according to the definition given above.
That's because your premise is incorrect
There seems to be
> no question that many FOSS projects are, as you say, intended to be used
> by freeloaders,
You're a liar.
> since it is hardly rational to think that a million or
> more users would have the ability to contribute anything at all. Look
> at the likes of rick, chrisv, 7, etc., who cannot even create
> intelligent conversation, much less a technical contribution to a
> complex software product.
More lies.
>
> That brings into question the motivation of the developers of these
> products, i.e. why do they do it? Not for a return of development
> effort, certainly. It seems to be a combination of a sort of vanity
> fairness in having someone else use your creation and some attempt at
> locking in users who would become dependent on the supplier and so
> candidates to pay for support services.
Some for money. Some for altruism. Some for fun.
> A number of companies have
> overtly established finally profitable businesses based on this latter
> activity. Of course buying a license with support and buying just
> support are not such different things. With the latter, you have the
> built-in advantage of not having to return the price paid if the product
> proves to be less than advertised.
--
Rick
Tim Smith
tha...@tux.glaci.delete-this.com wrote:
> Tim Smith <reply_i...@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
> >
> > $50000, although I wouldn't say it was to buy the kernel. He wanted a
> > copy of the kernel not under GPL. Presumably, it would have been a
> > one-time fork of the then-current kernel under a license suitable for
> > whatever weird thing he wanted to do, and normal development of the GPL
> > kernel would have continued.
>
> Seems the obvious choice in his case would be one of the BSD versions
> of Unix. It runs on most of the same hardware and uses a license
> that allows proprietary forking. 386bsd even predated Linux, so you
> know it was around when he made the offer to Linus.
Yeah, I've wondered why he didn't just use BSD. I've wondered why more
embedded products don't use BSD, either. It's as capable (sometimes
more so) as Linux, and the license is a lot more friendly to commercial
use. It can run Linux applications, so if you have a particular Linux
application that you need in your product, you can run it.
--
--Tim Smith
Tim Smith
Kier <val...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
> > No, but there are a few million asswipes who are willing to freeload the
> > Linux kernel for $0.00.
>
> How can someone 'freeload' a thing which is created to be given away
> freely?
By using it without giving anything back. The definition of a
freeloader is "a person who takes advantage of others' generosity
without giving anything in return".
--
--Tim Smith
Tim Smith
Linonut <lin...@bollsouth.nut> wrote:
> >> It has; a little. But not in line with inflation (well behind it
> >> in fact) and only because Microsoft began a buyback program of
> >> $100 billion (I sh*t you not). According to the Seattle P-I,
> >> Microsoft lost over half of its cash pile in just two years.
> >> People don't need to buy new versions of Windows and Office; other
> >> Microsoft products are money sinks -- for now, with Google picking
> >> up the disruptive trend, leaving Microsoft behind and stealing
> >> some of its poison, aka 'employees'.
> >
> > And that multi-billion dollar stock buyback was on top of a muti-
> > billion dollar dividend payout (something they never had to do when
> > thy were a 'growth' investment). MS is far from dead, but things
> > are not as rosy at One Microsoft Way as they used to be. It means
> > less money to dump into new product development, acquisitions, and
> > efforts to compete with Linux/OSS.
>
> Perhaps Microsoft is on its way to becoming a ... normal business?
Finally, a couple people here who actually knows something about the
stock market and business! Microsoft as a business is now like an IBM,
or a GE. (And if you compare stock growth among those three, you'll see
they match pretty closely, in fact).
--
--Tim Smith
amicus_curious
"Rick" <no...@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:13n00g3...@news.supernews.com...
> On Mon, 24 Dec 2007 13:39:56 -0500, amicus_curious wrote:
>
>> <tha...@tux.glaci.delete-this.com> wrote in message
>> news:feq445-...@tux.glaci.com...
>>>
>>> And that multi-billion dollar stock buyback was on top of a muti-
>>> billion dollar dividend payout (something they never had to do when thy
>>> were a 'growth' investment). MS is far from dead, but things are not
>>> as rosy at One Microsoft Way as they used to be. It means less money
>>> to dump into new product development, acquisitions, and efforts to
>>> compete with Linux/OSS.
>>>
>>> Linux and OSS remain immune to the pressures that threaten many
>>> proprietary technologies during times of slow economic growth.
>>>
>> Do you really believe that? It seems odd to me that anyone with a
>> college education could be so blind to facts. Mr. Softee is funding
>> developments at a higher rate than ever and has made a greater profit
>> this year than ever before in their history. Now you can say this is a
>> sign of impending failure, but I would then say that you are daft.
>
> It is a sign of inflation, and the effects of an illegally maintined
> monopoly. And there is no one named "Mr. Softee".
>
to look, and it is definitely not the effect of an illegally maintained
monopoly. You would like to think so, I imagine, but that is just your own
fantasy.
>>
>> Whatever would the OSS bunch copy if/when the commercial companies
>> stopped creating new products?
>
> Whatever would Microsoft copy if/when other companies stop producing new
> products?
>
the trees here. Microsoft will take a new technology concept and develop it
into a commercially viable product or new feature for an existing product.
If/when it proves popular, the OSS bunch will generally clone it to some
extent if not exactly. This negates somewhat the commercial vitality of the
technology and spurs Microsoft and other successful companies on to seek
newer and better things to develop into more products.
To put it into your perspective, it is the well-funded city Fire Departments
that provide the money for the fire engine companies to invent better and
better equipment so that the rustics like yourself have used equipment to
buy for your amateurs. OSS would disappear overnight if commercial software
were to vanish.
>> Do you see some kind of "open marketing
>> community" arising out of thin air to guide future development of OSS?
>> Unlikely, in my opinion.
>
> Market should not direct development.
>
"Marketing", silly. That's where th ideas for new products come from.
Certainly not from you old curmudgeons and your pipe dreams of a distorted
reality.
> And, BTW, Mozilla's Firefox continues to take userbase from IE.
>
Does it? And what is the net net of it anyway? As long as people use it on
Windows on the desktop, more power to them, I say. And the Firefox folks
will tire of the game soon enough. Nothing in it for them but association
with the likes of you and chrisv and 7 and such.
amicus_curious
>>>
>> Well correct me if I am wrong, but the central idea behind FOSS is that
>> one discloses one's innovations to the community in the expectation that
>> others will use it and extend it, making it better, and so enrich the
>> original giver in return.
>
> No, the community is enriched by developers releasing their changes, AND
> by a growing amount of software.
>
Now why is it that I believe that you think that way? Maybe because that is
what I thought all along! Certainly the community of users is enriched, but
what about the poor developers? If your fire department comes out to get
your cat out of the tree, do you at least give them a coffee and doughnut to
show some appreciation?
Kier
Innovations, yes. But a user, who only uses but does not modify the
software, has no such obligation. In fact, even someone who modifies the
software is not obliged to do anything unless he wishes to distribute it.
That's the GPL.
> will use it and extend it, making it better, and so enrich the original
> giver in return. Now if you don't do both, you are just a freeloader,
See above.
> according to the definition given above. There seems to be no question
> that many FOSS projects are, as you say, intended to be used by
> freeloaders, since it is hardly rational to think that a million or more
> users would have the ability to contribute anything at all. Look at the
> likes of rick, chrisv, 7, etc., who cannot even create intelligent
> conversation, much less a technical contribution to a complex software
> product.
>
> That brings into question the motivation of the developers of these
> products, i.e. why do they do it? Not for a return of development
> effort, certainly. It seems to be a combination of a sort of vanity
No. At bottom, they do it for themselves, to satisfy a need for some kind of
software that doesn't exist until they create it.
> fairness in having someone else use your creation and some attempt at
> locking in users who would become dependent on the supplier and so
No. Locking users in is Microsoft's way.
<snip>
--
Kier
Kier
So, are ordinary users who just want to use the software are all
freeloaders, then?
--
Kier
Linonut
There's still some differences, however. For one thing, IBM got reined
in.
--
Tux rox!
Linonut
I wouldn't send you $5.00 if I /knew/ it would make you stop posting!
<grin>
The "big whoop" is $15,000 versus $50,000 for a project estimated to
cost $611,757,037 to develop.
http://www.dwheeler.com/essays/linux-kernel-cost.html
That article has more information, too, about the asswipe Jeff Merkey:
. . . Merkey has been under a court-ordered restraining order from
Novell (his former employer) by the Fourth Judicial District Court,
Utah County, Utah. The judge ruled, in this order, that Merkey had
breached his contractual obligations to his employer, and that he had
"pirated" technology from his employer (see point 228 and others).
The judge also made several pointed statements about Mr. Merkey in
his findings of fact (see point 124, 131, etc.). The judge also noted
that Mr. Merkey signed his emails to Microsoft as "Your Loyal
Servant".
I hope he used only the finest Charmin or Cottonelle on Ballmer's
sensitive rectum.
--
Tux rox!
Linonut
> Yeah, I've wondered why he didn't just use BSD. I've wondered why more
> embedded products don't use BSD, either. It's as capable (sometimes
> more so) as Linux, and the license is a lot more friendly to commercial
> use. It can run Linux applications, so if you have a particular Linux
> application that you need in your product, you can run it.
Here's why:
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/115042/little_known_facts_cottonelle_toilet.html
Groklaw published an article that mentioned this proposal, and the
information it found provided many reasons to be suspicious of this
offer. It noted that someone with the same name is listed on a patent
recently obtained by the Canopy Group; I have since confirmed that
the patent application refers to the same person. SCO is a Canopy
Group company, and this finding raised additional suspicions in many
as to Mr. Merkey's motivations. . . . The judge also noted that Mr.
Merkey signed his emails to Microsoft as "Your Loyal Servant".
--
Tux rox!
Linonut
Not at all. Many OSS coders may have these two motivations:
1. Write code that solves their problems.
2. The joy of knowing that others like their code and enjoy using it.
Now, dunning a coder and turning angry on him for not making fixes you
think are needed, that is freeloading.
--
Tux rox!
Rick
> "Rick" <no...@nomail.com> wrote in message
> news:13n00g3...@news.supernews.com...
>> On Mon, 24 Dec 2007 13:39:56 -0500, amicus_curious wrote:
>>
>>> <tha...@tux.glaci.delete-this.com> wrote in message
>>> news:feq445-...@tux.glaci.com...
>>>>
>>>> And that multi-billion dollar stock buyback was on top of a muti-
>>>> billion dollar dividend payout (something they never had to do when
>>>> thy were a 'growth' investment). MS is far from dead, but things are
>>>> not as rosy at One Microsoft Way as they used to be. It means less
>>>> money to dump into new product development, acquisitions, and efforts
>>>> to compete with Linux/OSS.
>>>>
>>>> Linux and OSS remain immune to the pressures that threaten many
>>>> proprietary technologies during times of slow economic growth.
>>>>
>>> Do you really believe that? It seems odd to me that anyone with a
>>> college education could be so blind to facts. Mr. Softee is funding
>>> developments at a higher rate than ever and has made a greater profit
>>> this year than ever before in their history. Now you can say this is
>>> a sign of impending failure, but I would then say that you are daft.
>>
>> It is a sign of inflation, and the effects of an illegally maintined
>> monopoly. And there is no one named "Mr. Softee".
>>
> Oh, Mr. Softee's
There is no one named Mr. Softee.
> profits have grown a lot faster than inflation, if you
> care to look, and it is definitely not the effect of an illegally
> maintained monopoly. You would like to think so, I imagine, but that is
> just your own fantasy.
It is the network effects of an illegally maintained monopoly that has
fueled the continued sales of Microsoft products.
>>>
>>> Whatever would the OSS bunch copy if/when the commercial companies
>>> stopped creating new products?
>>
>> Whatever would Microsoft copy if/when other companies stop producing
>> new products?
>>
> Microsoft doesn't copy things the way that OSS does.
AHa hHA hhah HAHHAh ahah aha HAHah aha hAH ah.
> You miss the woods
> for the trees here. Microsoft will take a new technology concept and
> develop it into a commercially viable product or new feature for an
> existing product.
Embrace, extend, extinguish.
> If/when it proves popular, the OSS bunch will
> generally clone it to some extent if not exactly. This negates somewhat
> the commercial vitality of the technology and spurs Microsoft and other
> successful companies on to seek newer and better things to develop into
> more products.
Well, it might spurt other companies to truly innovate.
>
> To put it into your perspective, it is the well-funded city Fire
> Departments that provide the money for the fire engine companies to
> invent better and better equipment so that the rustics like yourself
> have used equipment to buy for your amateurs. OSS would disappear
> overnight if commercial software were to vanish.
You show your bigoted ignorance. You don't know spit about volunteer
emergency services, and yet you continue to make your disgusting insults.
>
>>> Do you see some kind of "open marketing community" arising out of thin
>>> air to guide future development of OSS? Unlikely, in my opinion.
>>
>> Market should not direct development.
>>
> "Marketing", silly. That's where the ideas for new products come from.
> Certainly not from you old curmudgeons and your pipe dreams of a
> distorted reality.
You keep showing your ignorance.
>
>> And, BTW, Mozilla's Firefox continues to take userbase from IE.
>>
> Does it?
Yes, it does.
> And what is the net net of it anyway? As long as people use
> it on Windows on the desktop, more power to them, I say. And the
> Firefox folks will tire of the game soon enough. Nothing in it for them
> but association with the likes of you and chrisv and 7 and such.
You're a bigoted, and stupid, liar.
--
Rick
Rick
> "Rick" <no...@nomail.com> wrote in message
> news:13n00l6...@news.supernews.com...
>
>
>>> Well correct me if I am wrong, but the central idea behind FOSS is
>>> that one discloses one's innovations to the community in the
>>> expectation that others will use it and extend it, making it better,
>>> and so enrich the original giver in return.
>>
>> No, the community is enriched by developers releasing their changes,
>> AND by a growing amount of software.
>>
> Now why is it that I believe that you think that way?
Because I do?
> Maybe because
> that is what I thought all along! Certainly the community of users is
> enriched, but what about the poor developers?
May OSS developers are paid corporate developers.
> If your fire department
> comes out to get your cat out of the tree, do you at least give them a
> coffee and doughnut to show some appreciation?
Look, dumb ass, maybe you should go research volunteer services. You
should also know that I have over 20 years of experience in emergency
services as a paid employee. And yes, I also volunteered during that
time. So, go take your disgusting insults elsewhere.
--
Rick
Rick
... except that many developers write FOSS so that users have software to
use free of charge. Using that software is NOT free loading.
--
Rick
tha...@tux.glaci.delete-this.com
>
> Do you really believe that? It seems odd to me that anyone with a college
> education could be so blind to facts. Mr. Softee is funding developments at
> a higher rate than ever and has made a greater profit this year than ever
> before in their history. Now you can say this is a sign of impending
> failure, but I would then say that you are daft.
The point we were addressing was that MS has burned recently burned
through half of its cash reserves. If that goes on much longer, they
will not be able to sustain the levels of development they currently
enjoy. I'm not saying that MS is going to die any time soon, they
will certainly weather economic storms better than most, but OSS
will weather it even better as it is not driven by the same economic
forces.
> Whatever would the OSS bunch copy if/when the commercial companies stopped
> creating new products? Do you see some kind of "open marketing community"
> arising out of thin air to guide future development of OSS? Unlikely, in my
> opinion.
Open source software is more responsive to customer needs than
proprietary. There is no need for 'marketing' to drive features;
the meritocracy of user contributions handles that. Experimentation
occurs in the various distros, and popular features go mainstream.
This results in greater innovation than any single closed source
vendor. In case you forget, Apache pre-dated ISS, Mosaic pre-dated
Internet Explorer... need I go on? The idea that OSS just copies
the proprietary world is ridiculous. There are certainly some
prominent examples of that in the desktop world where Linux has
been playing catch-up, but it in the world of the Internet and
server technology, OSS has more often lead.
Thad
--
Yeah, I drank the Open Source cool-aid... Unlike the other brand, it had
all the ingredients on the label.
tha...@tux.glaci.delete-this.com
>
> To put it into your perspective, it is the well-funded city Fire Departments
> that provide the money for the fire engine companies to invent better and
> better equipment so that the rustics like yourself have used equipment to
> buy for your amateurs. OSS would disappear overnight if commercial software
> were to vanish.
Wow are you living in your own little fantasy world. OSS does not
depend on commercial software to exist. That is the entire reason
it has thrived and grown into unexpected niches in the face of MS
competition... no air supply to cut off.
tha...@tux.glaci.delete-this.com
>
> By using it without giving anything back. The definition of a
> freeloader is "a person who takes advantage of others' generosity
> without giving anything in return".
That definition might apply here if the software provider were someone
diminished by the expanded use, but the opposite is true. No OSS
author expects every user to provide bug fixes or even feedback, but
some percentage of users will, and an increase in users increases that
percentage. Furthermore, the increased notoriety of being the author
of a very popular app translates into indirect benefits.
In my opinion, it is impossible to be a 'freeloader' using something
that can be replicated repeatedly at no additional cost and with the
express consent of the authors. OSS authors *want* there software to
be used widely and fully expect not everyone can or will contribute
something back. They benefit from wider distribution and increasing
mindshare.
tha...@tux.glaci.delete-this.com
>
> Yeah, I've wondered why he didn't just use BSD. I've wondered why more
> embedded products don't use BSD, either. It's as capable (sometimes
> more so) as Linux, and the license is a lot more friendly to commercial
> use. It can run Linux applications, so if you have a particular Linux
> application that you need in your product, you can run it.
At this point, Linux has gained the momentum in the embedded space
because it has better driver support and a broader pool of talent
to draw from... but several years ago that was not the case and
I'm surprised more vendors didn't go the BSD route. I personally
worked at a few places that were a little unsure about basing a
product on a GPL'ed OS. I even mentioned BSD as an option, but
they eventually went with Linux anyway after getting their heads
around all the ramification of the license. It may have just been
the power of name recognition... suits can be like that.
Tim Smith
> software, has no such obligation. In fact, even someone who modifies the
> software is not obliged to do anything unless he wishes to distribute it.
> That's the GPL.
This may be overly nit-picky, but if you are obliged to do something and
fail to do it, I would not describe that as freeloading. I would call
that thievery, scumbaginess, or some such. Freeloading is when you get
something free, through the generosity of someone else, with no legal
obligation to give something back, and so you don't, even though giving
back in some way would be the good karmic thing to do. (Or you could
give something in an unrelated way--it would not have to be give
something back--you benefit from party A's generosity, so you in turn
are generous to party B...that works, too).
...
> > That brings into question the motivation of the developers of these
> > products, i.e. why do they do it? Not for a return of development
> > effort, certainly. It seems to be a combination of a sort of vanity
>
> No. At bottom, they do it for themselves, to satisfy a need for some kind of
> software that doesn't exist until they create it.
That's been my motivation for the few things I've had time to work on
that I made open source--and that's why I made them public domain,
rather than making them GPL. All I wanted out of them was satisfied
when I made them for myself, so why put them out there with restrictions
on who can use them or how they can use them?
I view releasing programs as similar to releasing mathematical theorems
or the results of scientific research. You do that to contribute
something to the general pool of knowledge that is available without
restriction to all of humanity.
--
--Tim Smith
amicus_curious
takes advantage of the generosity of others" is obviously met when you use
the offering. You can go beyond mere freeloading, as I said, by offering
some innovation of your own on top of what your receive. Then you are a
contributor, not a mere freeloader. But it is all a matter of definition
and you are stuck with the facts of the matter.
>> according to the definition given above. There seems to be no question
>> that many FOSS projects are, as you say, intended to be used by
>> freeloaders, since it is hardly rational to think that a million or more
>> users would have the ability to contribute anything at all. Look at the
>> likes of rick, chrisv, 7, etc., who cannot even create intelligent
>> conversation, much less a technical contribution to a complex software
>> product.
>>
>> That brings into question the motivation of the developers of these
>> products, i.e. why do they do it? Not for a return of development
>> effort, certainly. It seems to be a combination of a sort of vanity
>
> No. At bottom, they do it for themselves, to satisfy a need for some kind
> of
> software that doesn't exist until they create it.
>
>> fairness in having someone else use your creation and some attempt at
>> locking in users who would become dependent on the supplier and so
>
> No. Locking users in is Microsoft's way.
>
Well, I think that it is everyone's way. No matter what you do, you will
create a dependency on the continuity of whatever it is. If you use MS
Office, you build a library of documents that you might create and you also
obtain an increased efficiency in terms of the experience that you gain
while doing that. A wiley vendor will use this to advantage by making sure
that the customer is aware that obtaining a new version of a previously used
program will have the benefit of allowing continued use of existing data
files and will work similarly to the old for features that are the same as
before. This is called "protecting your customer's prior investment" in
marketing circles and is an important element in creating a successful
product line.
It obviously works to the disadvantage of a latecomer to the market, since
customers would already be familiar with some other product and so not so
favorably disposed to adopt the latecomer's product without some significant
additiona benefit being provided. OSS is almost always the latecomer to
the party and rarely offers anything really new. The main attraction of OSS
is the notion of "free" as in beer as they say. That may be enough of an
incentive, particularly to those with no other means of gaining access to
whatever functionality is offered, but in many cases, the inherent value of
the existing data and the user's experience outweighs the money involved and
the user is not motivated to make any change.
This idea of "free" has been used to advantage by some, particularly
municipal government agencies, where they see that they can free funds that
are budgeted to new or replacement licenses for commercial software by
adopting an OSS product. The freed funds may then be applied to salary
increases for the IT staff without having to go to the voters for any
approval. Of course there is always the risk that the change will create a
burble in the flow of municipal business operations, causing voter dissent
and some retribution from the elected officials who bear the brunt of voter
dissatisfaction.
AHappyCamper
> Kier wrote:
>
>> How can someone 'freeload' a thing which is created to be given away
>> freely? You still have no grasp of what FOSS is about, even after
>> years of trolling in COLA.
>
> Noun. freeloader - someone who takes advantage of the generosity of others
>
>
> http://files.opensuse.org/opensuse/en/6/6c/Opensuse_survey_102_data_final.pdf
> found
>
> * 78% download it for free
> bug reports)
>
> doesn't apply to the entire Linux community.
>
>
>
Funny, those "Freeloaders" have Microsoft executives so worried that
they cause Linux to be named as the most competitive group in the SEC
filings.
The happy news is that Microsoft Corporation has the true stats on
usage, and it was attested in Courts of Law in 2005, as being 17%, with
a growth factor of about 3% per annum, until Vista, at which time it
jumped to 5%.
That 5% Linux growth out of the total 1 billion on the internet, is
approximately 50 million new users per year. We welcome them all.
Holland has become the 43rd nation to mandate by law that the government
use GNU/Linux and FOSS.
They may take the free copies, that is what GNU is all about.
Simply using GNU/Linux contributes, because the huge user base has new
money to spend in the market, and hardware makers, system OEMs, game
developers, all market to us prducts which comply to international
standards, due to the economic pressures involved.
When we go to purchase computers, hardware, software, we expect to
purchase items packaged with Tux prominently displayed on the front.
Sandisk is doing that, now. Look at the sales jump in their financials,
when they began.
Just like the trolls on this board, everyone has freedom to be, to
choose, and to enjoy. The rest of us may ignore them as we choose.
Free choice is the mandate.
amicus_curious
<tha...@tux.glaci.delete-this.com> wrote in message
news:59q545-...@tux.glaci.com...
> amicus_curious <AC...@sti.net> wrote:
>>
>> Do you really believe that? It seems odd to me that anyone with a
>> college
>> education could be so blind to facts. Mr. Softee is funding developments
>> at
>> a higher rate than ever and has made a greater profit this year than ever
>> before in their history. Now you can say this is a sign of impending
>> failure, but I would then say that you are daft.
>
> The point we were addressing was that MS has burned recently burned
> through half of its cash reserves. If that goes on much longer, they
> will not be able to sustain the levels of development they currently
> enjoy. I'm not saying that MS is going to die any time soon, they
> will certainly weather economic storms better than most, but OSS
> will weather it even better as it is not driven by the same economic
> forces.
>
on various things to enhance their stockholder's values. MSFT had built a
very large cash reserve that they distributed to stockholders in the form of
dividends and stock re-purchases over the past few years. I will concede
that you are a programmer head and shoulders above the average COLA Linux
fan, but you seem very naive when it comes to a balance sheet or business
plan or financial statement. If you were a little more astute you would see
the error in your ways. MSFT is a strongly going concern and is stronger
today than yesterday.
>> Whatever would the OSS bunch copy if/when the commercial companies
>> stopped
>> creating new products? Do you see some kind of "open marketing
>> community"
>> arising out of thin air to guide future development of OSS? Unlikely, in
>> my
>> opinion.
>
> Open source software is more responsive to customer needs than
> proprietary. There is no need for 'marketing' to drive features;
> the meritocracy of user contributions handles that. Experimentation
> occurs in the various distros, and popular features go mainstream.
Kind of a techno-myth that gearheads tell one another over and again, I
know, but, it is without any merit in the real world. Witness the evolution
of Linux itself after taking off your blinders. Linux was nowhere other
than a technical curiosity tended to by a small group of hobbyists and
appealing to a small group of Unix wannabes. Then along came IBM with a
real problem in trying to get around Sun Microsystem's lock on the Unix
market. They used Linux as a price umbrella destroyer to leverage their way
into a much more favorable position. Of course they let HP and then Dell in
through the same hole and were not as successful as they had originally
hoped, but it sure ruined Sun's day overall. A few companies, Red Hat,
Novell, Linspire, etc., were able to move into the black or at least lowered
the red ink by the same doing. Market-wise, though, Linux is still a poor
fourth place entry in the server business and essentially a non-starter on
the desktop.
Without the marketing effort, though, Linux would still be nowhere
everywhere and that is a fact.
> This results in greater innovation than any single closed source
> vendor. In case you forget, Apache pre-dated ISS, Mosaic pre-dated
> Internet Explorer... need I go on? The idea that OSS just copies
> the proprietary world is ridiculous. There are certainly some
> prominent examples of that in the desktop world where Linux has
> been playing catch-up, but it in the world of the Internet and
> server technology, OSS has more often lead.
>
Apache was a knockoff to Netscapes web server and killed it pretty much dead
since there wasn't much of a functional difference between the two. Mosaic
was a funded project that started the internet certainly, but I don't
believe that it was ever OSS. Else why would there be such a furor over
Spyglass and it's inablity to capture more funds from Microsoft? Spyglass
was the company named to handle licensing for Mosaic.
Can you think of a single, important OSS project that wasn't a clone of some
prior commercial project? I can't.
>
Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!
Rick
You are wrong. Or are you saying you are a free loader?
>
>>> according to the definition given above. There seems to be no
>>> question that many FOSS projects are, as you say, intended to be used
>>> by freeloaders, since it is hardly rational to think that a million or
>>> more users would have the ability to contribute anything at all. Look
>>> at the likes of rick, chrisv, 7, etc., who cannot even create
>>> intelligent conversation, much less a technical contribution to a
>>> complex software product.
>>>
>>> That brings into question the motivation of the developers of these
>>> products, i.e. why do they do it? Not for a return of development
>>> effort, certainly. It seems to be a combination of a sort of vanity
>>
>> No. At bottom, they do it for themselves, to satisfy a need for some
>> kind of
>> software that doesn't exist until they create it.
>>
>>> fairness in having someone else use your creation and some attempt at
>>> locking in users who would become dependent on the supplier and so
>>
>> No. Locking users in is Microsoft's way.
>>
> Well, I think that it is everyone's way.
It isn't.
> No matter what you do, you
> will create a dependency on the continuity of whatever it is. If you
> use MS Office, you build a library of documents that you might create
> and you also obtain an increased efficiency in terms of the experience
> that you gain while doing that. A wiley vendor will use this to
> advantage by making sure that the customer is aware that obtaining a new
> version of a previously used program will have the benefit of allowing
> continued use of existing data files and will work similarly to the old
> for features that are the same as before. This is called "protecting
> your customer's prior investment" in marketing circles and is an
> important element in creating a successful product line.
A vendor like Micosoft will use it to try to prevent customers from using
competing software, using legal or illegal means.
>
> It obviously works to the disadvantage of a latecomer to the market,
> since customers would already be familiar with some other product and so
> not so favorably disposed to adopt the latecomer's product without some
> significant additiona benefit being provided. OSS is almost always the
> latecomer to the party and rarely offers anything really new.
You mean like Microsoft offered word processors as new? Or spreadsheets?
Or integrated applications? Or GUI based software? Or browsers? or Web
servers?
> The main
> attraction of OSS is the notion of "free" as in beer as they say. That
To some. Many of us have paid for our distros, and contributed to
projects financially.
> may be enough of an incentive, particularly to those with no other means
> of gaining access to whatever functionality is offered, but in many
> cases, the inherent value of the existing data and the user's experience
> outweighs the money involved and the user is not motivated to make any
> change.
>
> This idea of "free" has been used to advantage by some, particularly
> municipal government agencies, where they see that they can free funds
> that are budgeted to new or replacement licenses for commercial software
> by adopting an OSS product. The freed funds may then be applied to
> salary increases for the IT staff without having to go to the voters for
> any approval. Of course there is always the risk that the change will
> create a burble in the flow of municipal business operations, causing
> voter dissent and some retribution from the elected officials who bear
> the brunt of voter dissatisfaction.
That hasn't happened in Largo, Florida. Can you gice us examples
supporting your claim?
--
Rick
Linonut
> The point we were addressing was that MS has burned recently burned
> through half of its cash reserves. If that goes on much longer, they
> will not be able to sustain the levels of development they currently
> enjoy. I'm not saying that MS is going to die any time soon, they
> will certainly weather economic storms better than most, ...
Those high profit margins on Office and Windows are a nice berm against
invading lawsuits.
> Open source software is more responsive to customer needs than
> proprietary. There is no need for 'marketing' to drive features;
> the meritocracy of user contributions handles that. Experimentation
> occurs in the various distros, and popular features go mainstream.
> This results in greater innovation than any single closed source
> vendor. In case you forget, Apache pre-dated ISS, Mosaic pre-dated
> Internet Explorer... need I go on? The idea that OSS just copies
> the proprietary world is ridiculous. There are certainly some
> prominent examples of that in the desktop world where Linux has
> been playing catch-up, but it in the world of the Internet and
> server technology, OSS has more often lead.
And, in any case, computer technology, both in hardware and software, is
well known as an endless leapfrog game.
--
Sign at a nudist colony:
ALL PLAYERS IN CO-ED LEAPFROG MUST COMPLETE THE JUMP.
Linonut
> They did not "burn through" their cash reserves, silly. They "spent" them
> on various things to enhance their stockholder's values.
What a laugher of a spin movement, "silly".
--
Tux rox!
amicus_curious
>>>
>> You should "see above" yourself, silly. The definition, i.e. "someone
>> who takes advantage of the generosity of others" is obviously met when
>> you use the offering. You can go beyond mere freeloading, as I said, by
>> offering some innovation of your own on top of what your receive. Then
>> you are a contributor, not a mere freeloader. But it is all a matter of
>> definition and you are stuck with the facts of the matter.
>
> You are wrong. Or are you saying you are a free loader?
>
the rest of us a break. You make no sense much of the time, as here, and
you never seem to offer any cogent argument for or against anything.
Curmudgeons are cute in some sitcoms and fairy tales, but you have worn out
your act many times over.
>
>> No matter what you do, you
>> will create a dependency on the continuity of whatever it is. If you
>> use MS Office, you build a library of documents that you might create
>> and you also obtain an increased efficiency in terms of the experience
>> that you gain while doing that. A wiley vendor will use this to
>> advantage by making sure that the customer is aware that obtaining a new
>> version of a previously used program will have the benefit of allowing
>> continued use of existing data files and will work similarly to the old
>> for features that are the same as before. This is called "protecting
>> your customer's prior investment" in marketing circles and is an
>> important element in creating a successful product line.
>
> A vendor like Micosoft will use it to try to prevent customers from using
> competing software, using legal or illegal means.
>
You are a loser because you do not have a winning strategy, old man. It is
not illegal to be better at business than those who so disrespect the
businessman.
>>
>> It obviously works to the disadvantage of a latecomer to the market,
>> since customers would already be familiar with some other product and so
>> not so favorably disposed to adopt the latecomer's product without some
>> significant additiona benefit being provided. OSS is almost always the
>> latecomer to the party and rarely offers anything really new.
>
> You mean like Microsoft offered word processors as new? Or spreadsheets?
> Or integrated applications? Or GUI based software? Or browsers? or Web
> servers?
>
They were among the first to offer them to the people who buy things, old
man. It is not so important as to who is first, but it is more important to
reach out and sell the product to people who want it. You are a loser
because you do not do that. You sit and wait for someone to show up at your
door and then, when it does not happen, look to some malicious acts of
others to account for the failure of your strategy rather than being honest
and realizing that it is your own fault.
>> The main
>> attraction of OSS is the notion of "free" as in beer as they say. That
>
> To some. Many of us have paid for our distros, and contributed to
> projects financially.
>
Perhaps you are a foolish old man as well if you do that. Next to no one
else does and it would not matter if no one ever did.
>> may be enough of an incentive, particularly to those with no other means
>> of gaining access to whatever functionality is offered, but in many
>> cases, the inherent value of the existing data and the user's experience
>> outweighs the money involved and the user is not motivated to make any
>> change.
>>
>> This idea of "free" has been used to advantage by some, particularly
>> municipal government agencies, where they see that they can free funds
>> that are budgeted to new or replacement licenses for commercial software
>> by adopting an OSS product. The freed funds may then be applied to
>> salary increases for the IT staff without having to go to the voters for
>> any approval. Of course there is always the risk that the change will
>> create a burble in the flow of municipal business operations, causing
>> voter dissent and some retribution from the elected officials who bear
>> the brunt of voter dissatisfaction.
>
> That hasn't happened in Largo, Florida. Can you gice us examples
> supporting your claim?
>
Largo never replaced any Windows installations, old man. They replaced
convention Unix terminals and servers. BFD.
amicus_curious
"Linonut" <lin...@bollsouth.nut> wrote in message
news:MZbcj.9550$L27....@bignews9.bellsouth.net...
each year since US Grant got out of the academy, it would seem, so where has
there been any other activity to account for the distribution of their cash
reserves? It is OK to comment negatively, but you are falling into the same
useless mode that rick and chrisv and 7 and some others use. They, and now
you, just make an inane comment with the expectation that your fellows will
cheer your incisive wit. Do you thirst for the admiration of 7?
Linonut
>
> "Linonut" <lin...@bollsouth.nut> wrote in message
> news:MZbcj.9550$L27....@bignews9.bellsouth.net...
>>* amicus_curious fired off this tart reply:
>>
>>> They did not "burn through" their cash reserves, silly. They "spent"
>>> them
>>> on various things to enhance their stockholder's values.
>>
>> What a laugher of a spin movement, "silly".
>>
> Can you put some flesh on that bone? Microsoft has been very profitable
> each year since US Grant got out of the academy, it would seem, so where has
> there been any other activity to account for the distribution of their cash
> reserves? It is OK to comment negatively, but you are falling into the same
> useless mode that rick and chrisv and 7 and some others use. They, and now
> you, just make an inane comment with the expectation that your fellows will
> cheer your incisive wit. Do you thirst for the admiration of 7?
Frankly, I think you're an idiot, or you are playing a game.
--
Tux rox!
Roy Schestowitz
> Roy Schestowitz <newsg...@schestowitz.com> wrote:
>>
>> It has; a little. But not in line with inflation (well behind it in fact)
>> and only because Microsoft began a buyback program of $100 billion (I sh*t
>> you not). According to the Seattle P-I, Microsoft lost over half of its cash
>> pile in just two years. People don't need to buy new versions of Windows and
>> Office; other Microsoft products are money sinks -- for now, with Google
>> picking up the disruptive trend, leaving Microsoft behind and stealing some
>> of its poison, aka 'employees'.
>
> And that multi-billion dollar stock buyback was on top of a muti-
> billion dollar dividend payout (something they never had to do when
> thy were a 'growth' investment). MS is far from dead, but things
> are not as rosy at One Microsoft Way as they used to be. It means
> less money to dump into new product development, acquisitions, and
> efforts to compete with Linux/OSS.
>
> Linux and OSS remain immune to the pressures that threaten many
> proprietary technologies during times of slow economic growth.
>
> Thad
That's an accurate assessment. A few days ago I pulled some references and
cross-references together at
http://boycottnovell.com/2007/12/23/microsoft-dirty-cashy-secret/ . There's
also one about Novell (which gives its investors a similar illusion):
http://boycottnovell.com/2007/12/24/novell-annual-report-breakdown/
Don't listen what Microsoft agents, shills, and employees tell you. The people
at the top know that they need to cook the books to demonstrate good growth
(or evolve to reach other markets like hardware and advertising).
--
~~ Best of wishes
Roy S. Schestowitz | $> unzip; ping; mount /usr; grep; umount& sleep
http://Schestowitz.com | RHAT Linux | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
01:20:01 up 15 days, 14:08, 4 users, load average: 1.55, 1.41, 1.39
http://iuron.com - Open Source knowledge engine project
Roy Schestowitz
> amicus_curious <AC...@sti.net> wrote:
>>
>> To put it into your perspective, it is the well-funded city Fire Departments
>> that provide the money for the fire engine companies to invent better and
>> better equipment so that the rustics like yourself have used equipment to
>> buy for your amateurs. OSS would disappear overnight if commercial software
>> were to vanish.
>
> Wow are you living in your own little fantasy world. OSS does not
> depend on commercial software to exist. That is the entire reason
> it has thrived and grown into unexpected niches in the face of MS
> competition... no air supply to cut off.
He uses Fool.com terms (e.g. Mr. Softie). Fool.com is a Microsoft-affiliated
site which is used to boost its image (Barron's is another). He drinks the
Kool-Aid. Ignore him.
Make no mistake. He's not independent. From an E-mail I received:
===
hi,
i just happened to notice that you spent some text debunking my old 'friend'
bill weisgerber last spring.
i went around with bill (& a host of other paid2post shills) on a nytimes
forum for over 3 years. despite being exposed for what/who they were/are,
they just would not quit their mindless pr firm hypenosys. at that time, the
nytimes was quite supportive of their charade. what a blight.
just anecdotal.
best regards,
<anon>
===
He must be one of those known shill that Microsoft unleashed onto the Web. He
has something to earn from this.
--
~~ Best of wishes
Google: organising the world's information. Government: reorgnaising
the world's information (censorship) in its favour
http://Schestowitz.com | GNU/Linux | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
Mem: 515500k total, 458036k used, 57464k free, 1036k buffers
http://iuron.com - next generation of search paradigms
Roy Schestowitz
Linonut, Weisgerber is a spinner, or a liar just like those politicians who run
the US government at the moment with a permanent poker face. Just ignore him.
Microsoft knows that illusion of good prospects is the only way to
attract /real/ investors, which /might/ replace the need for buybacks, i.e.
Microsoft buying its own dropped stocks using its hard-earned savings (crime
money, aka loot, estimated at $100,000,000,000 for the backbacks alone).
Roy Schestowitz
...to mandate Linux.
Last week:
U.S. Department of Defense
,----[ Quote ]
| This action provides for advanced cockpit one production effort includes
| production and integration of Linux hardware for Predator/Reaper ground
| control stations. At this time all funds have been obligated. HQ AFMC,
| Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio is the contracting activity
| (F8620-05-G-3028-Order 0025).
|
| McDonnell Douglas Corp., of Saint Louis, Mo., is being awarded a contract
| modification for $14,759,087.
`----
http://www.defenselink.mil/contracts/contract.aspx?contractid=3673
--
~~ Best of wishes
Roy S. Schestowitz | Data lacking semantics is currency in an island
http://Schestowitz.com | Free as in Free Beer | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
Load average (/proc/loadavg): 0.41 0.95 1.23 1/153 16579
http://iuron.com - semantic search engine project initiative
amicus_curious
"Linonut" <lin...@bollsouth.nut> wrote in message
nonsensical remarks and occasionally say something interesting. You seem to
suggest that paying stockholder dividends and stock buy-backs, which is
where MSFT spent their billions over the past few years, is a "spin" on some
kind of disasterous situation for MSFT rather than a more or less common
business practice. Once the bulk of the lawsuits were settled, they had a
lot more cash than they were afraid that they might have and so posted a $3
dividend. Gates, with over a billion shares to his name at the time gave it
all to charity.
Linonut
> ____/ Linonut on Tuesday 25 December 2007 22:43 : \____
>>
>> Frankly, I think you're an idiot, or you are playing a game.
>
> Linonut, Weisgerber is a spinner, or a liar just like those politicians who run
> the US government at the moment with a permanent poker face. Just ignore him.
I'll ignore him when he is (1) silly or demeaning in tone; and (2)
trying to weasel-word an argument into being. I'm not too interested in
nit-picking an argument-win.
However, when I see something interesting to me, hell, I'll respond if I
feel up to it.
> Microsoft knows that illusion of good prospects is the only way to
> attract /real/ investors, which /might/ replace the need for buybacks, i.e.
> Microsoft buying its own dropped stocks using its hard-earned savings (crime
> money, aka loot, estimated at $100,000,000,000 for the backbacks alone).
I'm not sure that's quite his game. I suspect it is, for him, a
convenient tool to troll and hone his debating skills.
The thing is, even when he's wrong, he can sometimes produce such an
approximation to correctness that one has to think pretty carefully to
figure out where he's wrong and how to argue back.
I don't mind doing that if it isn't leading to a dead end (e.g. a verbal
pissing contest).
Not that I'm perfectly consistent in my resolutions, though.
--
Tux rox!
Tim Smith
Roy Schestowitz <newsg...@schestowitz.com> wrote:
> He uses Fool.com terms (e.g. Mr. Softie). Fool.com is a Microsoft-affiliated
> site which is used to boost its image (Barron's is another). He drinks the
> Kool-Aid. Ignore him.
Is anyone keeping a list of all the entities Roy thinks are controlled
by Microsoft or its agents? So far, we've got:
fool.com
Barron's
Forbes
The BBC
The British Museum
All three branches of the US government
ECMA
ISO
Digg
and I think I've missed a few.
>
> Make no mistake. He's not independent. From an E-mail I received:
Wow. Anonymous hearsay. That's convincing.
--
--Tim Smith
AHappyCamper
>
>>
> Well, I can't really tell if you are intelligent or not. You make
> nonsensical remarks and occasionally say something interesting. You
> seem to suggest that paying stockholder dividends and stock buy-backs,
> which is where MSFT spent their billions over the past few years, is a
> "spin" on some kind of disasterous situation for MSFT rather than a more
> or less common business practice. Once the bulk of the lawsuits were
> settled, they had a lot more cash than they were afraid that they might
> have and so posted a $3 dividend. Gates, with over a billion shares to
> his name at the time gave it all to charity.
Actually, the laws require executive share holders to hold all stock
options for two years, before selling, to prevent fraud, pumping,
manipulation.
Some large parts of the 'charity' donations are more like bribes such as
the 'donation' to India's Ministies of Health and Education, when they
had adapted GNU/Linux for all government programs.
Then, there is the Bill and Melinda Gates 'foundation' donations.
What we would like to hear is that he gave several billion to a charity,
such as the Red Cross, Red Crescent, or even the Salvation Army, which
he sued this millennium for $4.6million for restoring old systems with
the M$ OS they originally shipped with, and keeping millions of systems
out of the land fill.
Now, the SA runs Linux on all servers, desktops, workstations, and won't
accept any systems that might be older than 5 years.
M$ and Bill G screws with charity, churches, and populations, using
'piracy' to enter new markets, to undercut and flood any emerging market
economy in any place just coming into the computer revolution.
Linonut
> "Linonut" <lin...@bollsouth.nut> wrote in message
>>
>> Frankly, I think you're an idiot, or you are playing a game.
>>
> Well, I can't really tell if you are intelligent or not.
Your perception of me matters not a whit.
Linonut
> In article <1678380.l...@schestowitz.com>,
> Roy Schestowitz <newsg...@schestowitz.com> wrote:
>> He uses Fool.com terms (e.g. Mr. Softie). Fool.com is a Microsoft-affiliated
>> site which is used to boost its image (Barron's is another). He drinks the
>> Kool-Aid. Ignore him.
>
> Is anyone keeping a list of all the entities Roy thinks are controlled
> by Microsoft or its agents? So far, we've got:
>
> fool.com
> Barron's
> Forbes
> The BBC
> The British Museum
> All three branches of the US government
> ECMA
> ISO
> Digg
>
> and I think I've missed a few.
I think he believes they've been 'turfed, not controlled (except for the
BBC <grin>).
>> Make no mistake. He's not independent. From an E-mail I received:
>
> Wow. Anonymous hearsay. That's convincing.
Microsoft is a funded religion.
--
Tux rox!
Linonut
BTW, fortune came up with this applicable one:
Remark of Dr. Baldwin's concerning upstarts: We don't care to eat
toadstools that think they are truffles.
-- Mark Twain, "Pudd'nhead Wilson's Calendar"
Rick
> "Rick" <no...@nomail.com> wrote in message
> news:13n2c1o...@news.supernews.com...
>>>>
>>> You should "see above" yourself, silly. The definition, i.e. "someone
>>> who takes advantage of the generosity of others" is obviously met when
>>> you use the offering. You can go beyond mere freeloading, as I said,
>>> by offering some innovation of your own on top of what your receive.
>>> Then you are a contributor, not a mere freeloader. But it is all a
>>> matter of definition and you are stuck with the facts of the matter.
>>
>> You are wrong. Or are you saying you are a free loader?
>>
> You are an idiot, old man, why don't you just do the plonk thing and
> give the rest of us a break. You make no sense much of the time, as
> here, and you never seem to offer any cogent argument for or against
> anything. Curmudgeons are cute in some sitcoms and fairy tales, but you
> have worn out your act many times over.
Are you saying you are a freeloader?
>
>
>>> No matter what you do, you
>>> will create a dependency on the continuity of whatever it is. If you
>>> use MS Office, you build a library of documents that you might create
>>> and you also obtain an increased efficiency in terms of the experience
>>> that you gain while doing that. A wiley vendor will use this to
>>> advantage by making sure that the customer is aware that obtaining a
>>> new version of a previously used program will have the benefit of
>>> allowing continued use of existing data files and will work similarly
>>> to the old for features that are the same as before. This is called
>>> "protecting your customer's prior investment" in marketing circles and
>>> is an important element in creating a successful product line.
>>
>> A vendor like Micosoft will use it to try to prevent customers from
>> using competing software, using legal or illegal means.
>>
> You are a loser because you do not have a winning strategy, old man. It
> is not illegal to be better at business than those who so disrespect the
> businessman.
Since I am in no competition, I cannot be a loser...
... and Microsoft as repeatedly broken laws on at least two continents.
>
>
>>> It obviously works to the disadvantage of a latecomer to the market,
>>> since customers would already be familiar with some other product and
>>> so not so favorably disposed to adopt the latecomer's product without
>>> some significant additiona benefit being provided. OSS is almost
>>> always the latecomer to the party and rarely offers anything really
>>> new.
>>
>> You mean like Microsoft offered word processors as new? Or
>> spreadsheets? Or integrated applications? Or GUI based software? Or
>> browsers? or Web servers?
>>
> They were among the first to offer them to the people who buy things,
No, They weren't.
> old man.
I am not an old man.
> It is not so important as to who is first, but it is more
> important to reach out and sell the product to people who want it. You
> are a loser because you do not do that.
You say I am a loser because I am not in sales?
> You sit and wait for someone to
> show up at your door and then, when it does not happen, look to some
> malicious acts of others to account for the failure of your strategy
> rather than being honest and realizing that it is your own fault.
You are a dishonest idiot.
>
>>> The main
>>> attraction of OSS is the notion of "free" as in beer as they say.
>>> That
>>
>> To some. Many of us have paid for our distros, and contributed to
>> projects financially.
>>
> Perhaps you are a foolish old man as well if you do that. Next to no
> one else does and it would not matter if no one ever did.
So, you are proud of being a freeloader?
>
>>> may be enough of an incentive, particularly to those with no other
>>> means of gaining access to whatever functionality is offered, but in
>>> many cases, the inherent value of the existing data and the user's
>>> experience outweighs the money involved and the user is not motivated
>>> to make any change.
>>>
>>> This idea of "free" has been used to advantage by some, particularly
>>> municipal government agencies, where they see that they can free funds
>>> that are budgeted to new or replacement licenses for commercial
>>> software by adopting an OSS product. The freed funds may then be
>>> applied to salary increases for the IT staff without having to go to
>>> the voters for any approval. Of course there is always the risk that
>>> the change will create a burble in the flow of municipal business
>>> operations, causing voter dissent and some retribution from the
>>> elected officials who bear the brunt of voter dissatisfaction.
>>
>> That hasn't happened in Largo, Florida. Can you give us examples
>> supporting your claim?
>>
> Largo never replaced any Windows installations,
Their desktops are running Linux, not Windows.
> old man.
I am not an old man.
> They replaced convention Unix terminals and servers. BFD.
BFD? Microsoft hasn't been able to break in. It wasn't even considered.
--
Rick
amicus_curious
> On Tue, 25 Dec 2007 13:43:39 -0500, amicus_curious wrote:
>
>> "Rick" <no...@nomail.com> wrote in message
>> news:13n2c1o...@news.supernews.com...
>>>>>
>>>> You should "see above" yourself, silly. The definition, i.e. "someone
>>>> who takes advantage of the generosity of others" is obviously met when
>>>> you use the offering. You can go beyond mere freeloading, as I said,
>>>> by offering some innovation of your own on top of what your receive.
>>>> Then you are a contributor, not a mere freeloader. But it is all a
>>>> matter of definition and you are stuck with the facts of the matter.
>>>
>>> You are wrong. Or are you saying you are a free loader?
>>>
>> You are an idiot, old man, why don't you just do the plonk thing and
>> give the rest of us a break. You make no sense much of the time, as
>> here, and you never seem to offer any cogent argument for or against
>> anything. Curmudgeons are cute in some sitcoms and fairy tales, but you
>> have worn out your act many times over.
>
> Are you saying you are a freeloader?
>
>>
>>
>>>> No matter what you do, you
>>>> will create a dependency on the continuity of whatever it is. If you
>>>> use MS Office, you build a library of documents that you might create
>>>> and you also obtain an increased efficiency in terms of the experience
>>>> that you gain while doing that. A wiley vendor will use this to
>>>> advantage by making sure that the customer is aware that obtaining a
>>>> new version of a previously used program will have the benefit of
>>>> allowing continued use of existing data files and will work similarly
>>>> to the old for features that are the same as before. This is called
>>>> "protecting your customer's prior investment" in marketing circles and
>>>> is an important element in creating a successful product line.
>>>
>>> A vendor like Micosoft will use it to try to prevent customers from
>>> using competing software, using legal or illegal means.
>>>
>> You are a loser because you do not have a winning strategy, old man. It
>> is not illegal to be better at business than those who so disrespect the
>> businessman.
>
> Since I am in no competition, I cannot be a loser...
> ... and Microsoft as repeatedly broken laws on at least two continents.
>
obvious. But your favorite things are in a sort of competition and they are
losing right and left. Laws regulating commerce are meant to be broken.
That is how governments gain added revenue from fines and such. They are
not really important laws, but are just procedural regulations. They are
like speed limits that are designed to slow down the winners so that the
losers don't feel so bad.
>
>>
>>
>>>> It obviously works to the disadvantage of a latecomer to the market,
>>>> since customers would already be familiar with some other product and
>>>> so not so favorably disposed to adopt the latecomer's product without
>>>> some significant additiona benefit being provided. OSS is almost
>>>> always the latecomer to the party and rarely offers anything really
>>>> new.
>>>
>>> You mean like Microsoft offered word processors as new? Or
>>> spreadsheets? Or integrated applications? Or GUI based software? Or
>>> browsers? or Web servers?
>>>
>> They were among the first to offer them to the people who buy things,
>
> No, They weren't.
>
Microsoft was among the "fustest with the mustest" and thereby gained a
solid position in the software industry in operating system platforms,
office automation, back-office database, and professional development tools.
They lead today in all of these businesses.
>> old man.
>
> I am not an old man.
>
>> It is not so important as to who is first, but it is more
>> important to reach out and sell the product to people who want it. You
>> are a loser because you do not do that.
>
> You say I am a loser because I am not in sales?
>
Surely even an old man has a better understanding than that. Quit being so
obtuse.
>> You sit and wait for someone to
>> show up at your door and then, when it does not happen, look to some
>> malicious acts of others to account for the failure of your strategy
>> rather than being honest and realizing that it is your own fault.
>
> You are a dishonest idiot.
>
You are an old man.
>
>>
>>>> The main
>>>> attraction of OSS is the notion of "free" as in beer as they say.
>>>> That
>>>
>>> To some. Many of us have paid for our distros, and contributed to
>>> projects financially.
>>>
>> Perhaps you are a foolish old man as well if you do that. Next to no
>> one else does and it would not matter if no one ever did.
>
> So, you are proud of being a freeloader?
>
I do not use Linux for any beneficial purpose.
>>
>>>> may be enough of an incentive, particularly to those with no other
>>>> means of gaining access to whatever functionality is offered, but in
>>>> many cases, the inherent value of the existing data and the user's
>>>> experience outweighs the money involved and the user is not motivated
>>>> to make any change.
>>>>
>>>> This idea of "free" has been used to advantage by some, particularly
>>>> municipal government agencies, where they see that they can free funds
>>>> that are budgeted to new or replacement licenses for commercial
>>>> software by adopting an OSS product. The freed funds may then be
>>>> applied to salary increases for the IT staff without having to go to
>>>> the voters for any approval. Of course there is always the risk that
>>>> the change will create a burble in the flow of municipal business
>>>> operations, causing voter dissent and some retribution from the
>>>> elected officials who bear the brunt of voter dissatisfaction.
>>>
>>> That hasn't happened in Largo, Florida. Can you give us examples
>>> supporting your claim?
>>>
>> Largo never replaced any Windows installations,
>
> Their desktops are running Linux, not Windows.
>
And before that, they were terminals on a Unix system.
>> old man.
>
> I am not an old man.
>
Tut. When you used to advertise your crappy website you had your picture
there with the class of fat girls that you were supposed to be teaching
mouth to mouth or whatever. You look like an old man. If you are not
really, then you need to get a new camera.
>> They replaced convention Unix terminals and servers. BFD.
>
> BFD? Microsoft hasn't been able to break in. It wasn't even considered.
>
Well, they broke in enough other places to make them successful, old man.
Largo had little money of their own and had to settle for Linux.
Rick
> "Rick" <no...@nomail.com> wrote in message
> news:13n50fv...@news.supernews.com...
>> On Tue, 25 Dec 2007 13:43:39 -0500, amicus_curious wrote:
>>
>>> "Rick" <no...@nomail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:13n2c1o...@news.supernews.com...
>>>>>>
>>>>> You should "see above" yourself, silly. The definition, i.e.
>>>>> "someone who takes advantage of the generosity of others" is
>>>>> obviously met when you use the offering. You can go beyond mere
>>>>> freeloading, as I said, by offering some innovation of your own on
>>>>> top of what your receive. Then you are a contributor, not a mere
>>>>> freeloader. But it is all a matter of definition and you are stuck
>>>>> with the facts of the matter.
>>>>
>>>> You are wrong. Or are you saying you are a free loader?
>>>>
>>> You are an idiot, old man, why don't you just do the plonk thing and
>>> give the rest of us a break. You make no sense much of the time, as
>>> here, and you never seem to offer any cogent argument for or against
>>> anything. Curmudgeons are cute in some sitcoms and fairy tales, but
>>> you have worn out your act many times over.
>>
>> Are you saying you are a freeloader?
>>
> No, I don't use Linux for any beneficial purpose.
... which implies you use Linux for something. Have you never taken
advantage of the charity of others? Needed a dollar? A ride? Hmmm ...
So, are you saying you are a free loader?
>>>
>>>
>>>>> No matter what you do, you
>>>>> will create a dependency on the continuity of whatever it is. If
>>>>> you use MS Office, you build a library of documents that you might
>>>>> create and you also obtain an increased efficiency in terms of the
>>>>> experience that you gain while doing that. A wiley vendor will use
>>>>> this to advantage by making sure that the customer is aware that
>>>>> obtaining a new version of a previously used program will have the
>>>>> benefit of allowing continued use of existing data files and will
>>>>> work similarly to the old for features that are the same as before.
>>>>> This is called "protecting your customer's prior investment" in
>>>>> marketing circles and is an important element in creating a
>>>>> successful product line.
>>>>
>>>> A vendor like Micosoft will use it to try to prevent customers from
>>>> using competing software, using legal or illegal means.
>>>>
>>> You are a loser because you do not have a winning strategy, old man.
>>> It is not illegal to be better at business than those who so
>>> disrespect the businessman.
>>
>> Since I am in no competition, I cannot be a loser... ... and Microsoft
>> has repeatedly broken laws on at least two continents.
>>
> Of course you are not in any competition yourself, old man,
I am not an old man.
> that much is
> obvious. But your favorite things are in a sort of competition and they
> are losing right and left.
Really. You may now try to tell us all what my favorite things are.
> Laws regulating commerce are meant to be broken.
Really? You are now advocating breaking laws?
> That is how governments gain added revenue from fines and such.
> They are not really important laws, but are just procedural regulations.
> They are like speed limits that are designed to slow down the winners
> so that the losers don't feel so bad.
Speed limits are designed to try to protect people, you ass.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>> It obviously works to the disadvantage of a latecomer to the market,
>>>>> since customers would already be familiar with some other product
>>>>> and so not so favorably disposed to adopt the latecomer's product
>>>>> without some significant additiona benefit being provided. OSS is
>>>>> almost always the latecomer to the party and rarely offers anything
>>>>> really new.
>>>>
>>>> You mean like Microsoft offered word processors as new? Or
>>>> spreadsheets? Or integrated applications? Or GUI based software? Or
>>>> browsers? or Web servers?
>>>>
>>> They were among the first to offer them to the people who buy things,
>>
>> No, They weren't.
>>
> You are just being obtuse.
I am not. Microsoft was not the first with word processors, spread sheets
or integrated software.
> Anyone as old as you are must remember that
> Microsoft was among the "fustest with the mustest" and thereby gained a
> solid position in the software industry in operating system platforms,
They gained their position in operating systems because IBM chose their
non-existent OS for IBM's new personal computer.
> office automation, back-office database, and professional development
> tools. They lead today in all of these businesses.
>
>>> old man.
>>
>> I am not an old man.
>>
>>> It is not so important as to who is first, but it is more important to
>>> reach out and sell the product to people who want it. You are a loser
>>> because you do not do that.
>>
>> You say I am a loser because I am not in sales?
>>
> Surely even an old man has a better understanding than that. Quit being
> so obtuse.
I am not an old man, asswipe.
>
>>> You sit and wait for someone to
>>> show up at your door and then, when it does not happen, look to some
>>> malicious acts of others to account for the failure of your strategy
>>> rather than being honest and realizing that it is your own fault.
>>
>> You are a dishonest idiot.
>>
> You are an old man.
You are a liar.
>>
>>
>>>>> The main
>>>>> attraction of OSS is the notion of "free" as in beer as they say.
>>>>> That
>>>>
>>>> To some. Many of us have paid for our distros, and contributed to
>>>> projects financially.
>>>>
>>> Perhaps you are a foolish old man as well if you do that. Next to no
>>> one else does and it would not matter if no one ever did.
>>
>> So, you are proud of being a freeloader?
>>
> I do not use Linux for any beneficial purpose.
That implies you use Linux. And I am sure yo have borrowed from fiends
(or enemies) or taken advantage of the charity of others.
>>>
>>>>> may be enough of an incentive, particularly to those with no other
>>>>> means of gaining access to whatever functionality is offered, but in
>>>>> many cases, the inherent value of the existing data and the user's
>>>>> experience outweighs the money involved and the user is not
>>>>> motivated to make any change.
>>>>>
>>>>> This idea of "free" has been used to advantage by some, particularly
>>>>> municipal government agencies, where they see that they can free
>>>>> funds that are budgeted to new or replacement licenses for
>>>>> commercial software by adopting an OSS product. The freed funds may
>>>>> then be applied to salary increases for the IT staff without having
>>>>> to go to the voters for any approval. Of course there is always the
>>>>> risk that the change will create a burble in the flow of municipal
>>>>> business operations, causing voter dissent and some retribution from
>>>>> the elected officials who bear the brunt of voter dissatisfaction.
>>>>
>>>> That hasn't happened in Largo, Florida. Can you give us examples
>>>> supporting your claim?
>>>>
>>> Largo never replaced any Windows installations,
>>
>> Their desktops are running Linux, not Windows.
>>
> And before that, they were terminals on a Unix system.
And what did that Unix stuff replace in 1992? And still, Microsoft was
not even considered.
>
>>> old man.
>>
>> I am not an old man.
>>
> Tut. When you used to advertise your crappy website you had your
> picture there with the class of fat girls that you were supposed to be
> teaching mouth to mouth or whatever. You look like an old man. If you
> are not really, then you need to get a new camera.
You are a real piece of shit. Do you still pull the wings from flies?
>
>>> They replaced convention Unix terminals and servers. BFD.
>>
>> BFD? Microsoft hasn't been able to break in. It wasn't even considered.
>>
> Well, they broke in enough other places to make them successful, old
> man. Largo had little money of their own and had to settle for Linux.
--
Rick
DFS
> Some large parts of the 'charity' donations are more like bribes such
> as the 'donation' to India's Ministies of Health and Education, when
> they had adapted GNU/Linux for all government programs.
How come none of your wild-ass 'facts' - not one, ever - are backed up by
supporting links? In case you're emulating Rex Ballard, you should
understand he's no role model.
> Then, there is the Bill and Melinda Gates 'foundation' donations.
What about them? And why is foundation in quotes, moron? That Foundation
does more in one year to help the world's developing countries than
1,000,000 cheap freeloaders distributing free crapware will ever do.
> What we would like to hear is that he gave several billion to a
> charity, such as the Red Cross, Red Crescent, or even the Salvation
> Army, which he sued this millennium for $4.6million for restoring old
> systems with the M$ OS they originally shipped with, and keeping
> millions of systems out of the land fill.
Let's see some proof of this 'lawsuit'. I don't believe you.
> Now, the SA runs Linux on all servers, desktops, workstations, and
> won't accept any systems that might be older than 5 years.
http://toolbar.netcraft.com/site_report?url=http://www.salvationarmy.org
> M$ and Bill G screws with charity, churches, and populations, using
> 'piracy' to enter new markets, to undercut and flood any emerging
> market economy in any place just coming into the computer revolution.
You sound very bitter that open source software isn't competitive with
Windows and commercial programs.
DFS
> Funny, those "Freeloaders" have Microsoft executives so worried that
> they cause Linux to be named as the most competitive group in the SEC
> filings.
Where does it say 'most competitive', or even 'competitive'?
> The happy news is that Microsoft Corporation has the true stats on
> usage, and it was attested in Courts of Law in 2005, as being 17%,
> with a growth factor of about 3% per annum, until Vista, at which
> time it jumped to 5%.
I bet you don't have the hanging old-man nads to follow up this bullshit
claim with any 3rd party verification.
> That 5% Linux growth out of the total 1 billion on the internet, is
> approximately 50 million new users per year. We welcome them all.
That's a lot of welcome-to-the-club smooches on the cheek you're giving out.
> Holland has become the 43rd nation to mandate by law that the
> government use GNU/Linux and FOSS.
uh huh.
> They may take the free copies, that is what GNU is all about.
Technically it's all about keeping software out of the hands of
corporations.
> Simply using GNU/Linux contributes, because the huge user base has new
> money to spend in the market, and hardware makers, system OEMs, game
> developers, all market to us prducts which comply to international
> standards, due to the economic pressures involved.
You know, just because it has the word 'open' in the file format name
doesn't mean it's an international standard.
> When we go to purchase computers, hardware, software, we expect to
> purchase items packaged with Tux prominently displayed on the front.
Then you've always been, and still are, greatly disappointed.
> Sandisk is doing that, now. Look at the sales jump in their
> financials, when they began.
If I look I'm quite sure there won't be a sales jump corresponding to
anything having to do with Linux. In fact, it's your claim, so you show me
the money (instead of doing your lazy 'poor man's Ballard' routine of making
exaggerated claims but running away).
> Just like the trolls on this board, everyone has freedom to be, to
> choose, and to enjoy.
Nice. Thanks Dad.
> The rest of us may ignore them as we choose.
Only thing you (and many cola nuts) ignore is reality.
> Free choice is the mandate.
As long as it's the choices you cola idiots want. If the BBC chooses to
partner with MS, cola lusers whine like 12-year olds. If OLPC works with MS
to get XP on the laptop, cola babies whine like they're missing their
pacifiers.
DFS
> * DFS fired off this tart reply:
>
>> MS has nothing to do with it.
>> OSS runs counter to life,
>
> Usenet kook alert!
Quit borrowing from me, ya OSS beggar! My posts are not GPL'd.
>> to capitalism,
>
> Yeah, just like the water utility does.
>
>> to professionalism,
>
> OSS is certainly counter to this professionalism:
>
> http://community.winsupersite.com/blogs/paul/archive/2007/12/22/serious-windows-home-server-concerns.aspx
>
> Serious Windows Home Server concerns [Updated]
It's pathetic. One bug in one MS product is all the 'evidence' you idiots
need to indict all of Microsoft.
You wacks had best clean your own homes first.
>> and to progress in software.
>
> http://www.kernel.org
> http://www.mozilla.com/firefox
> http://www.kde.org
> http://www.gnu.org
> http://www.openoffice.org
> http://www.apache.org
> http://www.ubuntu.com
> http://www.debian.org
> http://www.openoffice.org
> http://www.openoffice.org
clone-alike of Unix
good app
hit and miss
gag me with a spoon
retch!
good app
backed by big money
lots of 'stable' crapware
gag!
ack!
> Only two .com's among 'em.
>
> Here's one, from Dan Lyons at that!:
>
> http://www.forbes.com/2005/03/15/cz_dl_0315linux.html
>
> Linux Rules Supercomputers
> Daniel Lyons, 03.15.05, 6:00 AM ET
>
> NEW YORK - The homegrown Linux operating system has come
> a long way from its origins as a college kid's pet
> project and computer hobbyist favorite. Refined in recent
> years by professional computer programmers at IBM,
> Hewlett-Packard, Novell and Red Hat, Linux now has become
> so technically powerful that it lays claim to a
> prestigious title--it runs more of the world's top
> supercomputers than any other operating system.
Supercomputers are all fine and good, but what about toasters?
>> Thad, please stop with the 'our system'. You're as big a Linux
>> money-making opportunist as I've seen - and there's nothing at all
>> wrong with that (except denying it if you're heading that way). You
>> may indeed contribute time and code to OSS projects, but if you
>> couldn't make a living with Linux you'd go right back to proprietary
>> coding.
>
> So what? A guy has to eat.
I agree, and as I said there's nothing at all wrong with Thad banking some
good money doing Linux work.
>> Sorry, but the 'new reality' of OSS taking over Windows\commercial
>> systems will NEVER happen.
>
> I agree. But it already is very significant, and those who ignore it
> (such as yourself) do so at their peril. Even Microsoft seems to be
> getting the message.
I don't ignore it. I used Linux a bit 10 years ago, and have been keeping
up with the state of Linux for the last few years. It's improving, but so
is Windows/commercial programs. I'll start worrying when OpenOffice gets
their act together and shows a system that's nearly as good and fast and
interoperable as MS Office. That for me is the 'belwether' of Linux/OSS.
Rick
> AHappyCamper wrote:
>
>> Funny, those "Freeloaders" have Microsoft executives so worried that
>> they cause Linux to be named as the most competitive group in the SEC
>> filings.
>
> Where does it say 'most competitive', or even 'competitive'?
Client-> Competition
"The Linux operating system, which is also derived from Unix and is
available without payment under a General Public License, has gained some
acceptance as competitive pressures lead PC OEMs to reduce costs."
Server and Tools -> Competition
"Nearly all computer manufacturers offer server hardware for the Linux
operating system. IBM’s endorsement of Linux has aided the acceptance of
Linux as an alternative to Unix and Windows server operating systems.
Linux’s competitive position has also benefited from the large number of
compatible applications now produced by many leading commercial software
developers and non-commercial software developers. A number of companies
supply versions of Linux, including Novell and Red Hat."
Business Description, Risk Factors
"A number of commercial firms compete with us using an open source
business model by modifying and then distributing open source software to
end users at nominal cost and earning revenue on complementary services
and products. These firms do not have to bear the full costs of research
and development for the software. A prominent example of open source
software is the Linux operating system."
>> The happy news is that Microsoft Corporation has the true stats on
>> usage, and it was attested in Courts of Law in 2005, as being 17%, with
>> a growth factor of about 3% per annum, until Vista, at which time it
>> jumped to 5%.
>
> I bet you don't have the hanging old-man nads to follow up this bullshit
> claim with any 3rd party verification.
I highly doubt there could be any third party verification that could
suit you.
>> That 5% Linux growth out of the total 1 billion on the internet, is
>> approximately 50 million new users per year. We welcome them all.
>
> That's a lot of welcome-to-the-club smooches on the cheek you're giving
> out.
>> Holland has become the 43rd nation to mandate by law that the
>> government use GNU/Linux and FOSS.
>
> uh huh.
Do you have a third party to dispute the claim?
>
>
>> They may take the free copies, that is what GNU is all about.
>
> Technically it's all about keeping software out of the hands of
> corporations.
You're a liar, and not based on a technicality.
>
>
>> Simply using GNU/Linux contributes, because the huge user base has new
>> money to spend in the market, and hardware makers, system OEMs, game
>> developers, all market to us products which comply to international
>> standards, due to the economic pressures involved.
>
> You know, just because it has the word 'open' in the file format name
> doesn't mean it's an international standard.
Where in the above paragraph does he make that claim?
>
>
>> When we go to purchase computers, hardware, software, we expect to
>> purchase items packaged with Tux prominently displayed on the front.
>
> Then you've always been, and still are, greatly disappointed.
>
>
>> Sandisk is doing that, now. Look at the sales jump in their
>> financials, when they began.
>
> If I look I'm quite sure there won't be a sales jump corresponding to
> anything having to do with Linux.
I am sure you won't. You see what you want to see.
> In fact, it's your claim, so you show
> me the money (instead of doing your lazy 'poor man's Ballard' routine of
> making exaggerated claims but running away).
>
>
>
>> Just like the trolls on this board, everyone has freedom to be, to
>> choose, and to enjoy.
>
> Nice. Thanks Dad.
>
>
>> The rest of us may ignore them as we choose.
>
> Only thing you (and many cola nuts) ignore is reality.
Pot, kettle, black.
>
>
>
>> Free choice is the mandate.
>
> As long as it's the choices you cola idiots want. If the BBC chooses to
> partner with MS, cola lusers whine like 12-year olds. If OLPC works
> with MS to get XP on the laptop, cola babies whine like they're missing
> their pacifiers.
You're a liar.
--
Rick
Rex Ballard
> AHappyCamper wrote:
> > Some large parts of the 'charity' donations are more like bribes such
> > as the 'donation' to India's Ministies of Health and Education, when
> > they had adapted GNU/Linux for all government programs.
>
> How come none of your wild-ass 'facts' - not one, ever - are backed up by
> understand he's no role model.
No, you wouldn't want to become to good at providing well-reasoned
arguments in favor of Linux, and good plausable explanations of
Microsoft's tactics to prevent the adoption of Linux. After all, that
would make you a primary target, you might even displace me as
"Undesirable Number One" in Microsoft's "hit list".
There isn't a great deal of evidence to prove inconclusively that
Microsoft attempted to use financial donations or incentives to
influence political leaders, especially since Microsoft demands non-
disclosure agreements for even such trivial matters as employment
applications.
On the other hand, there do seem to be a LOT of "Coincidences". There
seem to be a LOT of episodes where a government official recommends a
formal policy of choosing Open Source and/or Linux based technologies,
such as Open Document Format, Linux PCs, or even Linux compatibility
as a procurement requirement or preference. This is usually followed
by visits from Microsoft's TOP executives, in a private meeting under
terms of strict nondisclosure, followed by a reversal in policy, and
possibly the resignation of the official recommending the Open Source
and/or Linux policy.
> > Then, there is the Bill and Melinda Gates 'foundation' donations.
>
> What about them? And why is foundation in quotes, moron? That Foundation
> does more in one year to help the world's developing countries than
> 1,000,000 cheap freeloaders distributing free crapware will ever do.
The Gates Foundation does do some really great things, I am especially
impressed with their willingness to help innoculate hundreds of
millions of children against the diseases that kill almost that many
children every year. Inoculations that are REQUIRED in this country.
On the other hand, Bill Gates, and the Gates Foundation were among
those implicated during the Abramhov influence peddling
investigation. It seems that Gates has been making a number of
"Charitable Donations" to charities which were little more than money
laundering operations for the Republican Party, and key Republican
Candidates. To be fair, however, many of those who were making these
donations had no idea that the "Children's Foundation" spent less than
1% of it's funds providing a camp for kids, and almost all of it's
funds on "Family Values" related "Freedom of Speech" public service
announcements, often including the names of specific Democrats who
were to be targeted in the next election. Since the ads were
"general" in nature, they weren't regulated by "Political Action
Committeee" rules and accountability.
I'm sure that when Tom DeLey reccomended this charity in his
conversations with Bill Gates, and their discussions of the Antitrust
activities and the Bush Administration handling of the case, that it
never occurred to Bill Gates that this marvelous "Charity" might be a
form of bribery. I'm sure that Bill Gates thought he was providing a
home for millions of children living in orphanages and homeless
shelters.
> > What we would like to hear is that he gave several billion to a
> > charity, such as the Red Cross, Red Crescent, or even the Salvation
> > Army, which he sued this millennium for $4.6million for restoring old
> > systems with the M$ OS they originally shipped with, and keeping
> > millions of systems out of the land fill.
>
> Let's see some proof of this 'lawsuit'. I don't believe you.
I'm not sure that he "sued" them. I believe he just offered them a
deal they couldn't refuse. Keep in mind that with Windows 98, Windows
2000, and Windows XP, the OEM purchases bulk quantities of licenses
which allow them to put Windows on all of the machines they sell.
Typically they buy about 20% more than they need,
(see http://antitrust.slated.org/www.iowaconsumercase.org/011607/0000/PX00402.pdf
)
When a corporation purchases these computers, they can either use the
OEM licenses, and use the correct registration key each time the
computer needs to be re-imaged, or they can REPLACE the OEM license
with a Volume Managed License. The Corporation purchase these Volume
Managed Licenses in bulk, usually enough for every employee, plus up
to 20% extra, depending on how many non-computer using employees there
are. This allows the company to use a single license manager server
to validate all of the licenses.
This is usually coupled with a support package which often includes
support for Windows, Office, Project, Visio, and other Microsoft
applications, similar to the support offered by the Microsoft
Developer Network. The prices are undisclosed, but have been rumored
to range anywhere from $50 per employee per year to $150 per employee
per MONTH, depending on service levels, applications covered, volume
discounts, and other "negotiating factors" (threat of switching to
Linux seems to drop the price quite drastically).
The point is that when the corporation switches to the Volume Managed
License, this VOIDS the original OEM license. Normally, the
corporation is required to purchase machines that have the OEM license
in order to qualify for the Volume Managed Licenses, but once the
machines are switched, the OEM licenses are no longer valid.
Most corporations use the PCs for 2 to 4 years. They are either
leased, and returned at the end of the lease, or they are purchased
and recycled at the end of their depreciation cycle. To legally
recycle the machine, they usually have to pay recyclers up to $200 per
machine to disassemble the computer and dispose of it in an
environmentally safe way, or they can donate it to a charitable
organization, along with $10-$25 for shipping and handling.
The Charity computers can be donated to schools, Red Cross, or any
other worthy organization, but they no longer have a valid Windows
license (because they have been used with the corporate Volume
license).
However, as a result of various court settlements, and other good-will
gestures, Microsoft is willing to "donate" Windows licenses to these
worthy organizations, schools, and institutions, if they meet a few
requirements. They have to provide the serial number of the machine,
this allows Microsoft to validate that the machine did at one time
have a legitimate OEM license. They have to have status as a 501-C
non-profit organization, so that the "donations" can be tax
deductable, alternatively, they can be part of a government agency
that does not normally purchase computers or computer software - so
they can get the tax deduction.
If the 501-C corporation is giving the PC to a family, they have to
provide some information about the family as well, such as annual
income, immigration status, place of residence, and other demographic
information - to be sure that the computers are not being "donated" to
families who could otherwise afford to purchase their own computers.
If all of these requirements are met, Microsoft will donate Windows
licenses for these machines, but there is a modest "handling fee" of
around $5-10 per machine to handle the overhead of reactivating the
license for the serial number. Normally, the charity gives Microsoft
credit for the donation equal to it's retail value. So if Microsoft
gives the Red Cross 200 Windows XP Professional licenses, they get a
tax credit for a "donation" of "$60,000". After all, they are losing
the revenue that could have been raised by selling that license to the
end-user or organization at full retail price. Since these are not
OEMs, they do not qualify for OEM pricing.
Of course, if the charity or organization in question has several
thousand "White Box" machines that are running Linux and are being
used by 20-30 people per day, such as a public school classroom,
Microsoft will often waive the requirement for serial numbers, and
several other requirements. After all, Microsoft's top directive is
to "Win Against Linux At ALL COSTS".
In many of these cases, Microsoft will attempt to issue these licenses
on an exclusionary basis, requiring terms that prevent the
installation of Linux and other Open Source Software, but this is
often a negotiating point, and is often a point given if the customer
is already satisfied with Linux. However, there are usually some
nondisclosure and benchmarking restrictions which prevent these
organizations from declaring their love for Linux once they have
accepted the Windows licenses.
I've been getting a lot of this information from charities who have
wanted, or accepted Linux computers, or want to expand their
consumption of recycled computers. When I start discussing how they
can get more access to additional "Linux Ready" computers, they start
explaining the restrictions of their terms with Microsoft.
I still give them the information they need. After all, I am more
interested in getting computers into the hands of kids in the Ghettos
and Barios, the kids in the poorest parts of South America, Africa,
India, and Asia, and making sure that they can "bridge the technology
gap" if they want to, and less concerned with whether the computer
they get is running Linux or Windows.
The propblem usually arises when I'm talking to an organization that
wants $20 computers (which are typically 5-6 years old), but they want
to run the latest version of Microsoft Windows and Microsoft Office in
their school or community center. A computer made for Windows NT 4.0
isn't designed to support much more than 64 megabytes of RAM, even the
early XP machines were shipped with capacities of only 256 MB of RAM.
If they want Vista Business, Office 2007, and some good educational
programs, a machine made in 1997, or even 2001 isn't going to cut it.
But Dell has about 50 million of these older machines coming back from
lease return every year, and these machines run Linux perfectly. Many
of them were "Linux Ready" when they were purchased, even those that
weren't usually have all of the devices supported by now. Sure, you
might not want to turn on all the bells and whistles on KDE, you might
want to set some "best performance" settings on the configuration
panels, and you might not want to install every imaginable application
in every known language, but you can still get a pretty nice little
Linux system that is perfect for kids from 8-16 years old.
The problem is that Windows 95, Windows 98, and Windows NT 4.0 are now
"unsupported", you can't even get them from Microsoft anymore. Even
if you could get a copy of the installation media, it's probably not a
legal copy, and Microsoft won't grant you a license.
If you have a 400 Mhz pentium, with 64 megabytes of memory, a 20
gigabyte hard drive, and a 1024x786 S3 video card, you aren't going to
be happy running Windows XP on it. I'm not even sure XP would boot on
such a box, and Vista absolutely would not. On the other hand, the
same computer, running Puppy Linux, Damn Small Linux, or even SUSE or
Fedora with FVWM would give you pretty nice performance with not too
much effort, and no additional expense.
> > Now, the SA runs Linux on all servers, desktops, workstations, and
> > won't accept any systems that might be older than 5 years.
I would like to know more about that. I have helped several people
while they were in SA, as a 12 step sponsor. It would be interesting
to see if they are getting the chance to learn Linux and *Nix
administration as part of their recovery process now.
> http://toolbar.netcraft.com/site_report?url=http://www.salvationarmy.org
http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph?site=www.redcross.org
Interesting, The OS is Linux, but the server is IIS? Sounds like a
signature spoof to me.
> > M$ and Bill G screws with charity, churches, and populations, using
> > 'piracy' to enter new markets, to undercut and flood any emerging
> > market economy in any place just coming into the computer revolution.
Bill Gates personally thinks that any PC that is called a PC and
doesn't run Windows is "piracy". Microsoft has an official "Mission"
of "A PC in every home and office, and Microsoft products running on
each of them".
Apparently, this means Microsoft products running EXCLUSIVELY on each
of them, since Microsoft seems unwilling to "share" the PC platform
with other competitors once it has established it's hold on a
market.
Linux has been willing, happy, even eager to share the platform, and
has provided mechanisms such as Dual-boot, Emulation, Compatibility
libraries, and even Virtualization - all in an attempt to "play nice"
with Windows. Linux has found ways to play nicely with Windows any
number of ways, including letting owners of legitimate Windows
licenses run Windows as a Linux application.
Microsoft on the other hand, refuses to let OEMs deploy ANY of these
innovations unless they are done in a manner which gives Microsoft
complete control of the machine, and the ability to exclude
competitors such as Linux, Solaris, OS/2, UnixWare, OpenOffice, Lotus
SmartSuite, WordPerfect, Stacker, RealPlayer, even Norton Antivirus,
McAffee Antivirus, and Symantic Antivirus.
Perhaps the Linux community should call desktops and laptops powered
by Linux something other than a "PC". Maybe we should call them
"Penguins". Maybe we should call a Linux server an "Emperor", a
Desktop a "Royal", and a Laptop a "RockHopper". And of course, there
would be the "Little Blue" for the OLPC sized Penguins.
> You sound very bitter that open source software isn't competitive with
> Windows and commercial programs.
If you lived in the midwest, like Missouri in the 1880s and 1890s, you
had one link to civilization, and that was the railroad. The railroad
owned the general store, and at the store you would have to pay as
much as 3 times more than you would pay in the east for fabric, for
tools, even for seed. And when the harvest time came, and you brought
in a nice big crop of wheat or corn, the only person buying was the
owner of the general store, and he was only willing to offer 1/3rd of
what the commodity market was offering back east. Even though the
actual cost to the railroad was only about 5%, they made 300% coming
and 300% going. Of course, the store would give you CREDIT, and
usually only at 20% interest.
And at the end of the 7th year, when the homesteaders got title to
their property, the railroad would bring in cowboys and cattlemen, who
would burn the crops. In many cases, the father and sons over 18
would be killed. Since women couldn't own land, the family often had
no choice but to turn over the land to the railroad - which graciously
granted the widow a ticket back to St Louis or Chicago, where she
could work as a washer-woman or a sweat-shop seamstress for the rest
of her life.
Microsoft is nowhere near so draconian. They just come in every 3-5
years and hit the largest corporations in the world with a huge bill
that forces them to lay off as much as 20% of their work force. The
companies have to finance their purchases and upgrades, and this puts
additional strain on the economy.
Today, instead of Unions, the highly skilled technical workers have
joined consulting organizations, and these companies provide training,
support, benefits, and help them find assignments, in some cases even
assignments with their former employers who pay as much as three times
their old salary to do the projects they used to do as employees. In
some cases, even the administration of the systems is "outsourced" to
these consulting companies, and in many cases, the people are simply
transferred to the consulting company.
Microsoft's business model of licensing software for royalties based
on "percieved value" has almost gone the way of the Buggy Whip.
Today, businesses are more interested in business solutions than
software, more interested in Software as a SOLUTION (Service) than
some general purpose "One Size Fits All" application like Microsoft
Office. They are looking at software as a Business STRATEGY, highly
customized to their business rules, industry regulations, and
contracts. They are looking at Open Source, not because it's "better"
but because it is more easily customized.
Microsoft is trying to adapt with .NET, but even today, .NET is often
a very small portion of the total business SOLUTION. There is more
emphasis on Open Standards, Standards Compliance, Open Source,
adapters, plug-ins, and frameworks, all adhering to strict, open, and
PUBLICLY AVAILABLE standards and specifications, as well as Open and
publicly available source code. This is where Microsoft so often
falters. Bill Gates can't resist the urge to "twiddle" with the
standards, and then insists on putting these "tweaks" into
Nondisclosure protection.
It's ironic that Microsoft attempts to claim that Linux has violated
patents when their technology was proprietary and protected by
nondisclosure while "similar" but not identical technology was
developed, published, and promoted throughout the Open Source
community, often as much as a full Decade before Microsoft was granted
their patent and the information became public.
Too often, Bill has simply tried to imitate Open Standards based
technology in a proprietary way, and too often, these proprietary
"enhancements" were just "back doors" that allowed Microsoft to peek
into the hard drives of users' computers. Supposedly, these were
intended for "piracy control", "support", and "market research", but
too often, these back doors were used for identity theft, sabotage,
espionage, and other criminal acts. Microsoft even attempted to
license some of these acts, calling the licensed access "spyware" and
encouraging vendors to pay for the right to hack into users' computers
by purchasing certificates from Microsoft and it's subsidiaries and
satellite companies.
Today, Malware, Viruses, Worms, Trojans, Spyware, Bots, Identity
theft, and are costing an average of $1000 per PC User per YEAR. Much
of this is paid in the form of involuntary overtime required to meet
deadlines and other commitments even in the face of such malware
effects as drive corruption, total PC failures, spam in corporate e-
mail, and other time consuming activities that have been brought to us
as by the nice people who brought you ActiveX, .NET, ActiveScript,
script executing e-mail, macros embedded in documents, and OLE objects
that can call any library function on the PC without your knowledge or
permission.
According to Microsoft, there are over 1 billion PCs in use in the
world today. There are probably close to 2 billion PC users in the
world today (many share PCs in libraries or internet Cafe's). Many of
them have never used anything BUT some version of Windows, but that
doesn't mean that they LIKE Windows so much that they would never even
consider anything else, it just means they haven't SEEN anything
else. Microsoft would like to keep it that way.
The Linux and OSS community, on the other hand, are doing everything
they can to get Linux and OSS into the hands of as many of those 2
billion users as possible. Firefox has now achieved as much as 40% of
the market according to some web surveys. Open Office has been
downloaded by as many as 500 million people, and can be freely copied
to USB thumb drives, CD-ROMs, or DVD-R media. Nobody knows how many
people have installed Open Office, or how often they use it, or
whether they are opting not to purchase MS-Office on their next PC
because OpenOffice is "good enough" and MS-Office is too expensive,
it's just not worth an extra $200-$400 when you can get the same core
functions on OpenOffice.
Linux can now be booted from a CD-ROM or DVD without even having to
install it on the PC. A USB thumb drive will let you store your
personal information into a private directory, and you can mount the
NTFS file system on the host PC as a read-only drive. You can even
get an external USB drive and have all of the power of Linux,
including a full suite of applications, on ANY PC that is "Linux
Ready", and it's personalized to your specific needs and tastes.
These days, WiFi is widely available, often for free, in hotels,
airports, restaurants, even libraries. You can download a CD-ROM
sized copy of a Linux ISO in about 20 minutes. You
can download a DVD sized ISO in about an hour.
More and more book stores are stocking shelves with books that contain
Linux CDs or DVDs. They are stocking magazines that offer the latest
versions of numerous Linux distributions. There are even PC magazines
which are now including Live-Boot versions of Linux on DVD or CD.
There are even magazines which include vmware player images of Linux
that can be run like Windows applications.
Just because a machine is sold with Windows, doesn't mean that's the
only OS it ever runs. Just because a machine is shipped with Windows,
doesn't mean that's the way it will be used.
Just because a machine has Windows on the hard drive, doesn't mean
that's the only OS that it is running.
Sure, there aren't that many "Linux Only" systems out there, but that
doesn't mean that there aren't hundreds of millions of people out
there who are using Linux in ADDITION to Windows.
The reality is that Open Source Software IS competitive with
commercial applications.
The reality is that Linux IS still growing at exponential rates.
The reality is that Linux and OSS IS having an impact on the PC
market, including how machines are designed, manufactured, and
marketed.
Dell doesn't have to offer Linux as a drop-down option on their web
site, they just have to make sure that their laptops and desktops are
listed on the compatibility lists of major Linux web sites.
HP doesn't have to ship OpenSUSE with every PC they sell, they just
have to advertize that you can get OpenSUSE to run on every machine
they sell.
HP doesn't have to put the Linux logo on every printer they sell, they
just have to tell the Linux community that they will support Linux on
every printer and scanner they sell.
IBM/Lenovo doesn't have to put the penguin on every thinkpad, they
just have to make sure that when you google "Thinkpad Linux", that the
support for your Thinkpad is one of the entries.
And if you hadn't noticed, people seem to be willing to pay EXTRA for
a "Linux Ready" machine. While "Linux hostile" machines have been
eroding in price, many falling as much as 70%, the "Linux Ready"
machines, such as the T61p have been holding their value much longer.
Linux users also pay for other features such as higher resolution
WSXGA or WUXGA displays, and 7200 RPM SATA hard drive, as well as
additional memory - up to 4 gigabytes on some machines, because Linux
can not only recognize the extra memory, the 64 bit processor support
and 64 bit addressing make it easy to access the extra memory without
resorting to funny "tricks".
But that doesn't mean they don't want windows too. After all, if they
buy the machine with an OEM copy of XP Professional, they can use
VMWare Converter, generate a VMWare image, and run XP as a Linux
application. Since Linux is providing buffering and caching for the
storage devices, XP runs quite nicely with a limit of as little as 256
megabytes of memory.
Vista Business on the other hand, is a memory pig, it eats memory,
it's hostile to VMWare, boot managers, and Linux friendly drivers.
You don't get the AeroGlass graphics unless you have a Linux-Hostile
DirectX/10 Video card, the firewall is a pain, the antivirus is
ineffective, and the license actually PREVENTS you from blocking
Microsoft authorized spy-ware. Finally, if Microsoft decides it
doesn't like your machine's configuration, it can disable the machine
until you can prove to them that you are not violating the license.
Is it such a surprise then, that according to the January 2008 Edition
of Redmond Channel Partner, 53% of the IT decision makers have NO PLAN
TO IMPLEMENT VISTA, and only 13% have any plan to deploy Vista across
the entire enterprise any time in the near future.
The reality is that Linux IS WINNING! OSS is WINNING!
Microsoft has attempted to "Lock out Linux" with Vista, and instead it
seems like a huge chunk of the market has opted to "Lock out Vista".
Rex Ballard
http://www.open4success.org
tha...@tux.glaci.delete-this.com
>
> They did not "burn through" their cash reserves, silly. They "spent"
> them
> built a
> very large cash reserve that they distributed to stockholders in the
> form of
> dividends and stock re-purchases over the past few years. I will
> concede
> that you are a programmer head and shoulders above the average COLA
> Linux
> fan, but you seem very naive when it comes to a balance sheet or
> business
> plan or financial statement. If you were a little more astute you
> would see
> the error in your ways. MSFT is a strongly going concern and is
> stronger
> today than yesterday.
In the world of finance, 'burn' is just another word for 'spend'. If
it makes you feel better to use a different word, go for it, but it
doesn't change the reality of their decreasing cash reserves. Perhaps
my years of owning a corporation and preparing financial statements
has left me less qualified than you on these issues, but I had the
impression that having increasing cash reserves was better than
having decreasing cash reserves.
If MSFT was a young VC backed company, decreasing cash reserves would
be less of a concern; it is expected that start-up ventures will burn
through capital for a while before reaching net profitability. Even
in a 'mature' company, if cash reserves occasionally go toward
acquisitions that increase company value, a short term decrease in
cash is not a concern. If, on the other hand, you are using your
cash reserves to buy back stock, pay dividends, or fund normal
operations, that is something less than desirable. In the long
term, it is unsustainable. If you think otherwise, than I encourage
you to send me some of your excess cash reserves so your balance
sheet can be moving in the same direction as MSFT's. >:)
>> Open source software is more responsive to customer needs than
>> proprietary. There is no need for 'marketing' to drive features;
>> the meritocracy of user contributions handles that. Experimentation
>> occurs in the various distros, and popular features go mainstream.
>
> Kind of a techno-myth that gearheads tell one another over and again,
> I
> know, but, it is without any merit in the real world. Witness the
> evolution
> of Linux itself after taking off your blinders. Linux was nowhere
> other
> than a technical curiosity tended to by a small group of hobbyists and
> appealing to a small group of Unix wannabes. Then along came IBM with
> a
> real problem in trying to get around Sun Microsystem's lock on the
> Unix
> market. They used Linux as a price umbrella destroyer to leverage
> their way
> into a much more favorable position. Of course they let HP and then
> Dell in
> through the same hole and were not as successful as they had
> originally
> hoped, but it sure ruined Sun's day overall. A few companies, Red
> Hat,
> Novell, Linspire, etc., were able to move into the black or at least
> lowered
> the red ink by the same doing. Market-wise, though, Linux is still a
> poor
> fourth place entry in the server business and essentially a
> non-starter on
> the desktop.
>
> Without the marketing effort, though, Linux would still be nowhere
> everywhere and that is a fact.
Commercial support and marketing of Linux would never have emerged
had it not already been growing and proving itself. Linux was
certainly helped by that commercial participation, but business
would never have gotten on board if there was no reciprocal
benefit. In contrast to how you describe it, commercial involvement
is actually a validation of OSS success.
> Apache was a knock-off to Netscape's web server and killed it pretty
> much dead
> since there wasn't much of a functional difference between the two.
> Mosaic
> was a funded project that started the internet certainly, but I don't
> believe that it was ever OSS. Else why would there be such a furor
> over
> Spyglass and it's inability to capture more funds from Microsoft?
> Spyglass
> was the company named to handle licensing for Mosaic.
You have your history backwards. Apache pre-dated Netscape's server.
It is in fact a direct descendent of the original open source NCSA web
server, deriving its name from being a very patched up version of the
final NCSA source code release. I know this because I was part of
that community during its evolution. Similarly, the first web
browsers were open source. Spyglass was a commercial entity riding
the coat-tails of the open effort, not the other way around.
> Can you think of a single, important OSS project that wasn't a clone
> of some
> prior commercial project? I can't.
Again, I already mention the web server and browser. NAT routing was
first implemented as an open technology, as was peer based distributed
downloads. Pretty much the entire IP network stack was innovated as
open source technology on BSD Unix. Perl is not a clone of any
previously existing language and was developed as open source. The
same is true of several other OSS languages. There was no commercial
ancestor to Sendmail... modern email was another open invention.
Much of the groundbreaking work in compute clusters and parallel
processing comes from open source research (Globus, grid computing,
etc). Again, in this area the commercial world has followed more
than led. The security software Tripwire was an original open
source invention, but the concept has since been borrowed by various
commercial companies. The email aggregating/retrieving/sending tool
fetchmail is another example. I could go on and on and on and on
and on.
Thad
--
Yeah, I drank the Open Source cool-aid... Unlike the other brand, it had
all the ingredients on the label.
amicus_curious
<tha...@tux.glaci.delete-this.com> wrote in message
news:9pel45-...@tux.glaci.com...
and did have the same sort of situation that Microsoft was facing. If you
had, you might have spent some of them on tuition at a better business
school where you might have found a better strategy.
> If MSFT was a young VC backed company, decreasing cash reserves would
> be less of a concern; it is expected that start-up ventures will burn
> through capital for a while before reaching net profitability. Even
> in a 'mature' company, if cash reserves occasionally go toward
> acquisitions that increase company value, a short term decrease in
> cash is not a concern. If, on the other hand, you are using your
> cash reserves to buy back stock, pay dividends, or fund normal
> operations, that is something less than desirable. In the long
> term, it is unsustainable. If you think otherwise, than I encourage
> you to send me some of your excess cash reserves so your balance
> sheet can be moving in the same direction as MSFT's. >:)
>
You are a hoot.
Spin it your way, but without IBM, Linus is on the soup line. Now they are
establisheq in the server area squarely in fourth place behind Window, Unix,
and IBM Mainframe servers in that order. They have some 7% of the overall
server market. They have next to no presence in the desktop market.
You could go on and on and get nowhere. MOSAIC was not OSS. And you fail to
describe any product that qualifies under the definition. You make
statements about what was in ancient times, but lets focus on the past 20
years or so where all the action is/was.
tha...@tux.glaci.delete-this.com
>
> Apparently you didn't have some 60 billion dollars worth of cash reserves
> and did have the same sort of situation that Microsoft was facing. If you
> had, you might have spent some of them on tuition at a better business
> school where you might have found a better strategy.
And of course you probably have sixty billion in loose change in your
sofa cushions, which makes you vastly more qualified on these issues.
That is no doubt why you feel it unnecessary to actually address the
facts being discussed.
>
> You are a hoot.
Glad I could amuse, though I still don't see you addressing the point
under discussion (that decreasing cash reserves are not a good thing).
Of course the way you go on, I expect that if MS went bankrupt and
Bill Gates was indicted for fraud, you would still try to spin it as
some grand strategic victory.
> Spin it your way, but without IBM, Linus is on the soup line. Now they are
> establisheq in the server area squarely in fourth place behind Window, Unix,
> and IBM Mainframe servers in that order. They have some 7% of the overall
> server market. They have next to no presence in the desktop market.
Fourth place in revenue perhaps, but second place in deployment volume,
and since Linux revenue is more often generated around support, those
our the numbers that matter. Linus has nothing to worry about. I
expect you are at higher risk of ending up on the soup line.
> You could go on and on and get nowhere. MOSAIC was not OSS. And you fail to
> describe any product that qualifies under the definition. You make
> statements about what was in ancient times, but lets focus on the past 20
> years or so where all the action is/was.
The original versions of Mosaic were developed by NCSA and distributed
for free with source code (at least the Unix version I used back in the
early 90's included it). The license may not have been as permissive
as the GPL, so you can quibble about whether it was Open Source in the
modern sense, but it certainly was not a counter-example of commercial
development. Spyglass did eventually license the Mosiac name, but they
developed a completely new browser which shared no code with the
original.
Furthermore, all the other software I mentioned meets the Open Source
Definition and was developed in the last 20 years, so I don't know
what you are blathering about.
amicus_curious
<tha...@tux.glaci.delete-this.com> wrote in message
news:as9m45-...@tux.glaci.com...
> amicus_curious <AC...@sti.net> wrote:
>>
>> Apparently you didn't have some 60 billion dollars worth of cash reserves
>> and did have the same sort of situation that Microsoft was facing. If
>> you
>> had, you might have spent some of them on tuition at a better business
>> school where you might have found a better strategy.
>
> And of course you probably have sixty billion in loose change in your
> sofa cushions, which makes you vastly more qualified on these issues.
> That is no doubt why you feel it unnecessary to actually address the
> facts being discussed.
>
what we think of analysts' thoughts on future performance, eh? Maybe you
should just tell them yourself about your simplistic theory and see if they
agree. Maybe you would find out how it was that what was so obvious to you
was overlooked by these fellas.
>>
>> You are a hoot.
>
> Glad I could amuse, though I still don't see you addressing the point
> under discussion (that decreasing cash reserves are not a good thing).
> Of course the way you go on, I expect that if MS went bankrupt and
> Bill Gates was indicted for fraud, you would still try to spin it as
> some grand strategic victory.
>
No, I would not, but that is unlikely to happen and so the idea will never
be tested. Cash is retained by a company for a purpose, i.e. growth or to
fill in for some anticipated period of low cash flow. Clear enough?
Microsoft has a lot of cash, still, and had an excessive amount of cash due
to its incredible profitability over the past 20 years. It has, though,
migrated from being a rapid growth company to being a very huge corporation.
Their cash needs are quite different today. The only question mark was the
impact of all the lawsuits and, once that proved to be minimal, they had way
too much cash. What are they to do with it? Continue to invest? They are
a software products company, not a bank or insurance company or holding
company, so they simply give it back to their stockholders in the form of
dividends and/or stock buybacks. They continue to generate cash at a high
rate and there is no need to horde it.
If cash reserves are decreasing because your income or profitability is
decreasing, then it is a bad thing, certainly, but the exact opposite is the
case with Mr. Softee.
>> Spin it your way, but without IBM, Linus is on the soup line. Now they
>> are
>> establisheq in the server area squarely in fourth place behind Window,
>> Unix,
>> and IBM Mainframe servers in that order. They have some 7% of the
>> overall
>> server market. They have next to no presence in the desktop market.
>
> Fourth place in revenue perhaps, but second place in deployment volume,
> and since Linux revenue is more often generated around support, those
> our the numbers that matter. Linus has nothing to worry about. I
> expect you are at higher risk of ending up on the soup line.
>
Linux revenues for support, i.e. the sales of Red Hat, Novell, and a few
others are miniscule compared to the overall revenues for commercial,
paid-for, closed source software.
>> You could go on and on and get nowhere. MOSAIC was not OSS. And you fail
>> to
>> describe any product that qualifies under the definition. You make
>> statements about what was in ancient times, but lets focus on the past 20
>> years or so where all the action is/was.
>
> The original versions of Mosaic were developed by NCSA and distributed
> for free with source code (at least the Unix version I used back in the
> early 90's included it). The license may not have been as permissive
> as the GPL, so you can quibble about whether it was Open Source in the
> modern sense, but it certainly was not a counter-example of commercial
> development. Spyglass did eventually license the Mosiac name, but they
> developed a completely new browser which shared no code with the
> original.
>
> Furthermore, all the other software I mentioned meets the Open Source
> Definition and was developed in the last 20 years, so I don't know
> what you are blathering about.
>
Can you say the word "product"? The concept seems foreign to you. It is
what you sell to make money. Windows is a product. Red Hat Linux is a
product. Adobe Photoshop is a product. Intuit Quicken is a product.
Presumably Gimp is a product although it doesn't make any money. See?
Mark Kent
> ____/ Linonut on Monday 24 December 2007 03:16 : \____
>
>> * Tony Sivori fired off this tart reply:
>>
>>> When I read the book I was wowed at a man who had the strength of
>>> character to turn down an easy $10 million based on a personal belief.
>>> Later, on a rereading of the book I became curious about the identity of
>>> the unnamed London entrepreneur.
>>
>> Wasn't there some asswipe (Jeff Merkey?) who offered to buy the Linux
>> kernel for $15000?
>
> It's worth about $60 million (or was it $600 million) now. Samba was offered
> $40 million to be acquired (Samba declined). CUPS, on the other hand...
>
The linux kernel is probably beyond anyone's ability to "afford". Aside
from anything else, you'd have to get everyone to agree to the
purchase, and even then, you could just fork it from the last version
anyway because of the GPL, so it's kind of worth everything and nothing
all at the same time.
Even so, operating systems are now at the natural monopoly state, where
they cost far too much for any oranisation to develop, and all you could
hope to achieve would be the split the market anyway. This is not a
sane investment approach.
--
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
| Cola faq: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/linux/advocacy/faq-and-primer/ |
| Cola trolls: http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/ |
| My (new) blog: http://www.thereisnomagic.org |
Mark Kent
> * Tim Smith fired off this tart reply:
>
>> In article <t7Sbj.7833$L27....@bignews9.bellsouth.net>,
>> Linonut <lin...@bollsouth.nut> wrote:
>>>
>>> Perhaps Microsoft is on its way to becoming a ... normal business?
>>
>> Finally, a couple people here who actually knows something about the
>> stock market and business! Microsoft as a business is now like an IBM,
>> or a GE. (And if you compare stock growth among those three, you'll see
>> they match pretty closely, in fact).
>
> There's still some differences, however. For one thing, IBM got reined
> in.
>
There are vast differences - always beware of the Microsoft
shillcosystem here. Microsoft have no viable hardware-based business,
unlike IBM. Microsoft have no viable integration business, unlike IBM.
Microsoft are losing vast amounts of cash on their attempts to move into
consumer electronics (Xbox, zune), and have insisted on trying to take
Windows into "professional" environments like IPTV, where its been a
disaster.
Microsoft are in extremely deep trouble, have been losing vast sums of
cash for several years, and are showing no signs of recovery from this.
There is almost no comparison between Microsoft and IBM, for example.
IBM have growth, have taken key decisions (like pulling out of PC
manufacturing, for one), have a substantial integration business and a
similarly impressive hardware capability (cell processors and so on).
As soon as you see Timmy say something positive about business analysis,
you should be /very/ cautious indeed.
DFS
> Microsoft are in extremely deep trouble, have been losing vast sums of
> cash for several years, and are showing no signs of recovery from
> this.
It amazes me that some of you cola idiots can function in society.
Mark Kent
> amicus_curious <AC...@sti.net> wrote:
>>
>> Do you really believe that? It seems odd to me that anyone with a college
>> education could be so blind to facts. Mr. Softee is funding developments at
>> a higher rate than ever and has made a greater profit this year than ever
>> before in their history. Now you can say this is a sign of impending
>> failure, but I would then say that you are daft.
>
> The point we were addressing was that MS has burned recently burned
> through half of its cash reserves. If that goes on much longer, they
> will not be able to sustain the levels of development they currently
> enjoy. I'm not saying that MS is going to die any time soon, they
> will certainly weather economic storms better than most, but OSS
> will weather it even better as it is not driven by the same economic
> forces.
>
MS are in extremely deep trouble at the moment. Their reserves are
evaporating fast, which will soon begin to negatively affect their share
price. If they start to take on debt, in due course, their credit
rating will fall, which will cause the cost of their debts to rise.
Sooner or later, analysts will recognise that Microsoft have no
successful pitch into any market, and have no assets. Once their lack
of assets is recognised, their balance sheet collapses. It will not be
allowed to happen too quickly, of course, as there is a lot of money
invested in Microsoft which brokers and investors will not want to lose,
however, once the run starts, it will be difficult to stop.
In order to avoid this collapse, Microsoft need a viable business plan,
unfortunately, they've proven to be unable to achieve anything other
than a "monopoly attempt", and aside from one, amazing, example
(desktop PC), they've failed to achieve this in any other market.
Roy Schestowitz
Their future business plan is pay-as-you-go computing, advertising, and online
services (ending the forced upgrade dilemma, which leads to customer
backlash). They are behind, and they still lose money in this area while
legacy products like Windows and Office still bring home some bacon -- for
now. The executives have big cash reserves as well, not just the company. They
fight ODF very hard because they want OOXML, XAML and Sharepoint on the Web,
in order for Microsoft to control communication (and pretty much everything).
Sellouts like Gordon "Bildenberg" Brown are helping them a lot at the moment.
--
~~ Best of wishes
Roy S. Schestowitz | "The speed of time is one second per second"
http://Schestowitz.com | GNU is Not UNIX | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
roy pts/2 cg093a.halls.man Sun Dec 30 18:40 still logged in
http://iuron.com - proposing a non-profit search engine
tha...@tux.glaci.delete-this.com
>
> MS are in extremely deep trouble at the moment. Their reserves are
> evaporating fast, which will soon begin to negatively affect their share
> price. If they start to take on debt, in due course, their credit
> rating will fall, which will cause the cost of their debts to rise.
I doubt they will start taking on debt any time soon. It is more
likely that they will begin slashing unprofitable divisions before
then. Much of their recent burn rate has been from stock buybacks
and dividends in an effort to keep share price up. Taking on debt
has the opposite effect and will be a last resort.
> Sooner or later, analysts will recognise that Microsoft have no
> successful pitch into any market, and have no assets. Once their lack
> of assets is recognised, their balance sheet collapses. It will not be
> allowed to happen too quickly, of course, as there is a lot of money
> invested in Microsoft which brokers and investors will not want to lose,
> however, once the run starts, it will be difficult to stop.
Never underestimate the power of an entrenched legacy install base.
Novell mined revenue from their Netware install base for many years
after its death was a forgone conclusion. Windows and Office are
nowhere near that kind of decline.
That is not to say MS is not facing challenges though. Linux has
taken huge chunks of the server and embedded markets and is now
nibbling at the desktop. Google has denied MS control of the web
services sector, and even Office revenue is seeing some competition
from OpenOffice. The core products are still making plenty of
money, but the days of heady growth are certainly over.
tha...@tux.glaci.delete-this.com
>
> Well, we couldcompare how many thousand shares of MSFT each of us have and
> what we think of analysts' thoughts on future performance, eh? Maybe you
> should just tell them yourself about your simplistic theory and see if they
> agree. Maybe you would find out how it was that what was so obvious to you
> was overlooked by these fellas.
I have no doubt you own more shares of MSFT than I do (my investments
currently lean more heavily toward European and Pacific Rim funds).
That of course says nothing about whether or not it is a good investment.
As the typical fund prospectus disclaimer says, 'Past performance is not
a guarantee of future return.' There is certainly some value in taking
the collective pulse of the analysts, but you provide no example of any
analyst defending your position.
> No, I would not, but that is unlikely to happen and so the idea will never
> be tested. Cash is retained by a company for a purpose, i.e. growth or to
> fill in for some anticipated period of low cash flow. Clear enough?
True... now perhaps you should examine what use MS put their cash to.
> Microsoft has a lot of cash, still, and had an excessive amount of cash due
> to its incredible profitability over the past 20 years. It has, though,
> migrated from being a rapid growth company to being a very huge corporation.
> Their cash needs are quite different today. The only question mark was the
> impact of all the lawsuits and, once that proved to be minimal, they had way
> too much cash. What are they to do with it? Continue to invest? They are
> a software products company, not a bank or insurance company or holding
> company, so they simply give it back to their stockholders in the form of
> dividends and/or stock buybacks. They continue to generate cash at a high
> rate and there is no need to horde it.
>
> If cash reserves are decreasing because your income or profitability is
> decreasing, then it is a bad thing, certainly, but the exact opposite is the
> case with Mr. Softee.
MS continues to generate decent revenue but growth has been flat. They
had to use cash reserves to pay dividends and buy back stock to keep the
share price up and investors happy. That is certainly a good thing for
stockholders in the short term, but it is hardly something to cheer
about if you are an MS executive. They would no doubt prefer it if
growth alone were driving share value. The money could then be better
spent acquiring new companies or technologies or funding additional
research and development.
Again, I am not saying MS is imploding or any such nonsense, just that
they are seeing tougher times than in the past, and their decreasing
cash reserves during a period of only modest revenue and value growth
reflects that. Why is that such a hard thing for you to acknowledge?
> Linux revenues for support, i.e. the sales of Red Hat, Novell, and a few
> others are miniscule compared to the overall revenues for commercial,
> paid-for, closed source software.
Linux and OSS support is a massive, growing, multi-billion dollar
industry spread out among many competing vendors. Other industries may
gross more. So what. I'm making a great living in the OSS world, and
I find it much more accessible than trying to compete directly in the
closed source world where the barriers to entry are higher.
> Can you say the word "product"? The concept seems foreign to you. It is
> what you sell to make money. Windows is a product. Red Hat Linux is a
> product. Adobe Photoshop is a product. Intuit Quicken is a product.
> Presumably Gimp is a product although it doesn't make any money. See?
Moving the goalpost now, are we? We were talking about innovation in
software, not just in for-sale products. It exposes just how weak your
argument is that you have to arbitrarily shift definitions to exclude
the evidence that contradicts your position.
Really, if I'm looking for software to fill a particular need, why
should it matter to me whether it is a 'product' or not? Does it
have the right features? Do support options exist? Those are the
sorts of questions that matter, not whether it can be labeled a
'product' or not.
Mark Kent
> Mark Kent <mark...@demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> MS are in extremely deep trouble at the moment. Their reserves are
>> evaporating fast, which will soon begin to negatively affect their share
>> price. If they start to take on debt, in due course, their credit
>> rating will fall, which will cause the cost of their debts to rise.
>
> I doubt they will start taking on debt any time soon. It is more
> likely that they will begin slashing unprofitable divisions before
> then. Much of their recent burn rate has been from stock buybacks
> and dividends in an effort to keep share price up. Taking on debt
> has the opposite effect and will be a last resort.
I agree that it will be a last resort, but as Microsoft seem to have
been unable to do anything other than lose cash for a very very long
time, it seems inevitable that debt will be required, *unless* they have
a huge change of direction. My personal interpretation is that they are
pumping the cash into the share price so that the big shareholders can
"monetise" their holdings now.
>
>> Sooner or later, analysts will recognise that Microsoft have no
>> successful pitch into any market, and have no assets. Once their lack
>> of assets is recognised, their balance sheet collapses. It will not be
>> allowed to happen too quickly, of course, as there is a lot of money
>> invested in Microsoft which brokers and investors will not want to lose,
>> however, once the run starts, it will be difficult to stop.
>
> Never underestimate the power of an entrenched legacy install base.
> Novell mined revenue from their Netware install base for many years
> after its death was a forgone conclusion. Windows and Office are
> nowhere near that kind of decline.
I think that the change from Windows and Office will happen rather more
rapidly. Novell never had a monopoly, and therefore, never had
monopoly business practices, so have been used to surviving on normal
incomes - Microsoft do not have that cultural advantage.
>
> That is not to say MS is not facing challenges though. Linux has
> taken huge chunks of the server and embedded markets and is now
> nibbling at the desktop. Google has denied MS control of the web
> services sector, and even Office revenue is seeing some competition
> from OpenOffice. The core products are still making plenty of
> money, but the days of heady growth are certainly over.
>
I think that the desktop is very very dead indeed. The combined
assault of web tablets, mobile devices, appliances and ultra-portable
linux-based machines doesn't really leave a lot of space for Microsoft.
Don't forget that having a large installed base of XP and Office 2003
is of virtually no monetisable value once the public at large realise
that OO.org and linux are quite adequate for their needs. Firefox and
oo.org have gone a long way to achieving that, and Ubuntu, Eee, N810,
OLPC and PS3 are in the process of driving that home.
One could argue that gamers might want Windows, but there doesn't seem
to be much evidence of that. The best games now are appearing for
consoles, which are far easier to set up, use and run than PCs are;
Microsoft's console is losing them money.
By one of those exceptional twists of fate, it's probably working to
Microsoft's disadvantage that they were not broken up either by the US
or the EU, since either would probably have left them in better shape
than they are in now.
I predict that they will keep doing share buy-backs to keep the share
price inflated whilst senior people, pension funds and major investors
extract the maximum value, after which, I think that the share price will
crash, that new management will be brought in, that development will be
"offshored", and that the company will change beyond recognition.
There will not be another version of Windows, nor will there be a
version of Office. Microsoft, after their "rebuild", will be an
open-source integration house, looking to compete with IBM, DiData,
Logica, etc.
Roy Schestowitz
> that development will be
> "offshored
I suppose you haven't heard. It's already happening. They create many jobs in
Asia and 1 in 3 (IIRC) staff in the US come from abroad to be overworked (and
possible underpaid, but I'm not sure about that).
--
~~ Best of wishes
Roy S. Schestowitz | Bottom-post: as English goes from top to bottom
http://Schestowitz.com | RHAT GNU/Linux | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
run-level 2 2007-12-10 11:12 last=
http://iuron.com - help build a non-profit search engine
Linonut
> MS continues to generate decent revenue but growth has been flat. They
> had to use cash reserves to pay dividends and buy back stock to keep the
> share price up and investors happy.
Not to mention settling a large number of lawsuits and paying fines.
> Moving the goalpost now, are we? We were talking about innovation in
> software, not just in for-sale products. It exposes just how weak your
> argument is that you have to arbitrarily shift definitions to exclude
> the evidence that contradicts your position.
That's never stopped him before.
He basically just likes arguing.
> Really, if I'm looking for software to fill a particular need, why
> should it matter to me whether it is a 'product' or not? Does it
> have the right features? Do support options exist? Those are the
> sorts of questions that matter, not whether it can be labeled a
> 'product' or not.
He's thinking inside the box. The Microsoft box, as in that apparently
common question asked of anyone doing new work at Microsoft:
"How many boxes will it sell?"
Short-sighted.
--
Tux rox!
amicus_curious
<tha...@tux.glaci.delete-this.com> wrote in message
news:ee4o45...@tux.glaci.com...
past year have grown at 31% and the year before that at 21%. If that is
"flat" what is "moderate"? Certainly not Red Hat, the only really pure play
in Linux with %14 and 0% for the same periods. The spectre of Google has
made the stock very undervalued and so a very smart time to do a buy-back.
> Again, I am not saying MS is imploding or any such nonsense, just that
> they are seeing tougher times than in the past, and their decreasing
> cash reserves during a period of only modest revenue and value growth
> reflects that. Why is that such a hard thing for you to acknowledge?
>
Because it is a stupid assessment of the situation, obviously.
>> Linux revenues for support, i.e. the sales of Red Hat, Novell, and a few
>> others are miniscule compared to the overall revenues for commercial,
>> paid-for, closed source software.
>
> Linux and OSS support is a massive, growing, multi-billion dollar
> industry spread out among many competing vendors. Other industries may
> gross more. So what. I'm making a great living in the OSS world, and
> I find it much more accessible than trying to compete directly in the
> closed source world where the barriers to entry are higher.
>
Baloney. First off, Red Hat's total nut is less than a half billion, less
than 10 % of Xbox sales even, on a par with Visual Studio subscriptions. I
believe you provide custom system development and installation yes/no? You
are selling your services by the hour, more or less, and you could do that
regardless of what platform you client might insist upon.
>> Can you say the word "product"? The concept seems foreign to you. It is
>> what you sell to make money. Windows is a product. Red Hat Linux is a
>> product. Adobe Photoshop is a product. Intuit Quicken is a product.
>> Presumably Gimp is a product although it doesn't make any money. See?
>
> Moving the goalpost now, are we? We were talking about innovation in
> software, not just in for-sale products. It exposes just how weak your
> argument is that you have to arbitrarily shift definitions to exclude
> the evidence that contradicts your position.
>
I'm not moving anything. I said that every OSS product available is a
copycat of some successful commercial item. You dig back into academic
developments of odds and ends with the notion that this is somehow the gist
of OSS. It is not. R&D has been going on for a long time, funded by
universities and governments. The commercialization of this research is
what makes it an easy sell to the the universities and governments and so
research continues. If OSS ever had the power to derail this engine, it
would be a terrible blow to progress, but that is not likely to ever happen.
There will always be entrepreneurs founding companies like Sun, Microsoft,
and even Netscape to commercialize things that have potential in the
markets. There will always be hippie type protesters saying Free Love, Free
Sex, Free Software, too, and there will always be flower child-like
followers of these self-styled apostles.
> Really, if I'm looking for software to fill a particular need, why
> should it matter to me whether it is a 'product' or not? Does it
> have the right features? Do support options exist? Those are the
> sorts of questions that matter, not whether it can be labeled a
> 'product' or not.
>
If it had all that, it would be a product, silly. So what OSS product
wasn't copied from something that was originally paid for and sold to
others?
amicus_curious
"Linonut" <lin...@bollsouth.nut> wrote in message
>* tha...@tux.glaci.delete-this.com fired off this tart reply:
>
>> MS continues to generate decent revenue but growth has been flat. They
>> had to use cash reserves to pay dividends and buy back stock to keep the
>> share price up and investors happy.
>
> Not to mention settling a large number of lawsuits and paying fines.
>
some $30billion back to stockholders a few years ago when it became apparent
that their real troubles were over.
>> Moving the goalpost now, are we? We were talking about innovation in
>> software, not just in for-sale products. It exposes just how weak your
>> argument is that you have to arbitrarily shift definitions to exclude
>> the evidence that contradicts your position.
>
> That's never stopped him before.
>
> He basically just likes arguing.
>
Well, you be the judge. Whenever there is a demand to put up or shut up,
the OSS fans fall back on some abstract notion of what is true innovation
and will seemingly go all the way back to the invention of the wheel to show
that some commercial success is just a copy of something done as an open
source development. But that is just a lot of empty words. There was no
gimp until Adobe created Photoshop. There was no OpenOffice until Microsoft
Office dominated the market. There was no Linux until Unix was developed.
There was no Apache until Mosaic was funded. Many database engines existed
and defined SQL programming before MySQL came about. ASP was around before
PHP. And so on.
>> Really, if I'm looking for software to fill a particular need, why
>> should it matter to me whether it is a 'product' or not? Does it
>> have the right features? Do support options exist? Those are the
>> sorts of questions that matter, not whether it can be labeled a
>> 'product' or not.
>
> He's thinking inside the box. The Microsoft box, as in that apparently
> common question asked of anyone doing new work at Microsoft:
>
> "How many boxes will it sell?"
>
> Short-sighted.
>
In the OSS world, there is not even that much of a question asked. Rather
it is "What are the commercial companies doing? I'll copy that."
tha...@tux.glaci.delete-this.com
>
> Well, you be the judge. Whenever there is a demand to put up or shut up,
> the OSS fans fall back on some abstract notion of what is true innovation
> and will seemingly go all the way back to the invention of the wheel to show
> that some commercial success is just a copy of something done as an open
> source development. But that is just a lot of empty words. There was no
> gimp until Adobe created Photoshop. There was no OpenOffice until Microsoft
> Office dominated the market. There was no Linux until Unix was developed.
> There was no Apache until Mosaic was funded. Many database engines existed
> and defined SQL programming before MySQL came about. ASP was around before
> PHP. And so on.
Your definition of innovative software seems very focused on
GUI pointy-clicky stuff. Why am I not surprised. Linux/OSS is
admittedly the newcomer in the desktop space. It has a stronger
record of innovation in the server and Internet space. That does
not mean the OSS developers are not innovating, it only indicates
where they have been focusing their attention.
And your comments about Mosaic and Apache make no sense. Mosaic
was a browser. Apache is the server. Apache is direct descendent
of open source code that predates any commercial version of Mosaic.
Sources of funding are irrelevant to the topic. Its the openness
of the code that makes it open source, not the details of who is
signing the checks. Or are you living under the illusion that
true open source software is only written by pimple faced geeks
living in their parents' basements?
>
> In the OSS world, there is not even that much of a question asked. Rather
> it is "What are the commercial companies doing? I'll copy that."
Certainly OSS developers often copy commercial products, just as
commercial developers copy their competitors products... but you
are being willfully ignorant if you think that is all they do.
Quite a few popular OSS tools were developed exactly because no
suitable commercial tool was available. Many have been discussed
in this thread and elsewhere. You simply keep moving the goalpost
and shifting definitions to ignore them.
amicus_curious
<tha...@tux.glaci.delete-this.com> wrote in message
news:qefq45-...@tux.glaci.com...
> amicus_curious <AC...@sti.net> wrote:
>>
>> Well, you be the judge. Whenever there is a demand to put up or shut up,
>> the OSS fans fall back on some abstract notion of what is true innovation
>> and will seemingly go all the way back to the invention of the wheel to
>> show
>> that some commercial success is just a copy of something done as an open
>> source development. But that is just a lot of empty words. There was no
>> gimp until Adobe created Photoshop. There was no OpenOffice until
>> Microsoft
>> Office dominated the market. There was no Linux until Unix was
>> developed.
>> There was no Apache until Mosaic was funded. Many database engines
>> existed
>> and defined SQL programming before MySQL came about. ASP was around
>> before
>> PHP. And so on.
>
> Your definition of innovative software seems very focused on
> GUI pointy-clicky stuff. Why am I not surprised. Linux/OSS is
> admittedly the newcomer in the desktop space. It has a stronger
> record of innovation in the server and Internet space. That does
> not mean the OSS developers are not innovating, it only indicates
> where they have been focusing their attention.
>
even in servers? All of Linux was a copy of functionality and format from
Unix.
> And your comments about Mosaic and Apache make no sense. Mosaic
> was a browser. Apache is the server. Apache is direct descendent
> of open source code that predates any commercial version of Mosaic.
> Sources of funding are irrelevant to the topic. Its the openness
> of the code that makes it open source, not the details of who is
> signing the checks. Or are you living under the illusion that
> true open source software is only written by pimple faced geeks
> living in their parents' basements?
>
>>
>> In the OSS world, there is not even that much of a question asked.
>> Rather
>> it is "What are the commercial companies doing? I'll copy that."
>
> Certainly OSS developers often copy commercial products, just as
> commercial developers copy their competitors products... but you
> are being willfully ignorant if you think that is all they do.
Well, you admit that is what they are doing, even with the lame notion of
somehow making it sound normal by handwaving at some concept that others do
it too. This would be a good place to make mention of whatever you think
OSS developers have totally created on their own.
> Quite a few popular OSS tools were developed exactly because no
> suitable commercial tool was available. Many have been discussed
> in this thread and elsewhere. You simply keep moving the goalpost
> and shifting definitions to ignore them.
>
More handwaving rather than any specific examples. I suppose you might want
to mention the old hat GNU stuff that Stallman supposedly conjured up in the
early years, but weren't those "tools" themselves copies of what pay-for
software was doing in those days. It is hard to make much sense out of his
rantings, but maybe it takes one to know one.
tha...@tux.glaci.delete-this.com
>
> What product or even product feature was actually innovated by OSS software
> even in servers? All of Linux was a copy of functionality and format from
> Unix.
As has been explained to you before, most of the Internet stack
was developed as OSS. Why should I list it all again if you insist
on keeping your fingers in your ears? Sendmail, NAT, P2P (FreeNet),
web servers/browsers, perl, fetchmail.... any of this ringing any
bells?
> Well, you admit that is what they are doing, even with the lame notion of
> somehow making it sound normal by handwaving at some concept that others do
> it too. This would be a good place to make mention of whatever you think
> OSS developers have totally created on their own.
So nobody should ever attempt a competing version of software if
something already exists? You have something against free markets?
Was it wrong for MS to come up with their own browser just because
one already existed?
And I have listed the OSS innovations, you just continue to ignore
them.
> More handwaving rather than any specific examples. I suppose you might want
> to mention the old hat GNU stuff that Stallman supposedly conjured up in the
> early years, but weren't those "tools" themselves copies of what pay-for
> software was doing in those days. It is hard to make much sense out of his
> rantings, but maybe it takes one to know one.
Please refer back to the specific examples I mentioned earlier.
You must remember... it was the stuff you rejected as not being
'products' (whatever that is supposed to mean).
Thufir
> What product or even product feature was actually innovated by OSS
> software even in servers? All of Linux was a copy of functionality and
> format from Unix.
"Microsoft licensed Spyglass Mosaic in 1995 for US$2 million, modified
it, and renamed it Internet Explorer. After a later auditing dispute,
Microsoft paid Spyglass $8 million. The 1995 user guide The HTML
Sourcebook: The Complete Guide to HTML, specifically states in a section
called Coming Attractions, that Explorer "will be based on the Mosaic
program" (p. 331)."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosaic_%28web_browser%29
If only Mosaic had been GPL licensed :(
Granted, Mosaic wasn't FOSS, or even really OSS, but source code was
publicly available. However, it's reminiscent of the motivation for the
GPL and all those GNU utilities which made Linux possible.
-Thufir
tha...@tux.glaci.delete-this.com
>
> Where on earth do you get your information? Revenues at Mr. Softee for the
> past year have grown at 31% and the year before that at 21%. If that is
> "flat" what is "moderate"? Certainly not Red Hat, the only really pure play
> in Linux with %14 and 0% for the same periods. The spectre of Google has
> made the stock very undervalued and so a very smart time to do a buy-back.
I get my information from Microsoft's own most recent annual report,
which reports only a 6% increase in revenue over the previous year.
That is certainly good but still modest compared to earlier growth
Recent quarterly filings indicate they have returned about 175% of
cashflow to stockholders, resulting in much of the net decrease in
cash reserves that we have been talking about.
>> Linux and OSS support is a massive, growing, multi-billion dollar
>> industry spread out among many competing vendors. Other industries may
>> gross more. So what. I'm making a great living in the OSS world, and
>> I find it much more accessible than trying to compete directly in the
>> closed source world where the barriers to entry are higher.
>>
>
> Baloney. First off, Red Hat's total nut is less than a half billion, less
> than 10 % of Xbox sales even, on a par with Visual Studio subscriptions. I
> believe you provide custom system development and installation yes/no? You
> are selling your services by the hour, more or less, and you could do that
> regardless of what platform you client might insist upon.
I just said that Linux revenue is distributed across many vendors,
so picking out only Red Hat is rather pointless.
Also, I choose to sell my services on the Linux platform because
there is demand for it there. As Linux deployment increases, so
does the demand for my services and related business opportunities.
I can increase my billing rate and subcontract work for additional
revenue (both of which I have done).
And that is exactly why I and other Linux professionals care about
deployment numbers and not the revenue based market share numbers
you love to harp about. Billions of dollars of license revenue
makes no difference to me when I am the guy called in post sale
to provide support services.
> I'm not moving anything. I said that every OSS product available is a
> copycat of some successful commercial item. You dig back into academic
> developments of odds and ends with the notion that this is somehow the gist
> of OSS. It is not. R&D has been going on for a long time, funded by
> universities and governments. The commercialization of this research is
> what makes it an easy sell to the the universities and governments and so
> research continues. If OSS ever had the power to derail this engine, it
> would be a terrible blow to progress, but that is not likely to ever happen.
> There will always be entrepreneurs founding companies like Sun, Microsoft,
> and even Netscape to commercialize things that have potential in the
> markets. There will always be hippie type protesters saying Free Love, Free
> Sex, Free Software, too, and there will always be flower child-like
> followers of these self-styled apostles.
Your characterization of the OSS world and its relationship to
academia and business has no resemblance to reality.
Rex Ballard
> amicus_curious <A...@sti.net> wrote:
>
> > What product or even product feature was actually innovated by OSS software
> > even in servers? All of Linux was a copy of functionality and format from
> > Unix.
Keep in mind that about 80% of what we now call "UNIX" was also OSS.
There was a huge body of libraries and applications published under
the BSD license. There were applications and "21st century office"
applications that were published as part of Project Athena under the
MIT license, this includes most of X11, most of the Andrew User
Interface Toolkit (the pattern for most modern GUI applications), the
EZ editor (most of the features of Microsoft Office, published while
Microsoft was still pushing Multiplan instead of Excel. There were
hundreds of other applications that were also created for UNIX under
open source licenses. Even the GNU applications were originally
written for UNIX but published under OSS licenses.
There are also many Public Domain applications which were republished
in both proprietary and OSS formats. UNIX administrators often had to
support multiple forks, multiple processor types, and multiple server
types. They often insisted on getting software in source code
format. UNIX administrators were also much more concerned about
security and were acutely aware of viruses being passed between MS-
DOS, most frequently through the boot sector and "hidden" tracks that
were often undetected while they spread viruses and worms to thousands
of computers.
UNIX administrators became even more insistent on source code and
adherence to public standards when the Morris Worm infected several
thousand UNIX systems in 1987. Many applications were tested against
"Reference" implementations that were published in source code
format. Even the proprietary implementations had to be compliant with
the OSS applications.
The term Open Source Software wasn't actually formalized until the mid
1990s, but the definition of Open Source Software included about 3
dozen licenses which were used to publish hundreds of applications
dating back almost as far back as 1977, the beginning of the modern
copyright law that covered software and software licensing.
AT&T licensed many of these OSS programs, and these licenses included
the right to republish derivative works using AT&T licenses and
copyright notices. One of the funniest instances was the "true"
application. The true application was an empty file that would return
successfully. The AT&T was the same "empty file" but included a 2
kilobyte copyright notice for an empty file.
Many of these same OSS applications were also also licensed under
other licenses, including the GNU public licenses, where derivative
products were implemented, enhanced, and expanded, including numerous
bug fixes and security fixes, under these GPL and related licenses.
Ironically, the proprietary implementations were not able to legally
implement these enhancements, because the enhancements were ONLY
released under the terms of the GPL licenses.
Even older Open Source applications dated back to NASA and the "Space
Race". Remember that NASA was not allowed to patent most of it's
technologies, and most of the technology was public domain because it
was funded by public tax funds and federal grants. Some of this
technology goes all the way back to the late 1950s, perhaps as far
back as 1957.
In addition, there was software that was declassified during the Ford
and Carter years, much of which dated back to World War II, and even
software dating back to 1947. This means that Open Source software,
including Public Domain Software republished under Open Source
licenses, may be as much as 60 years old.
> As has been explained to you before, most of the Internet stack
> was developed as OSS. Why should I list it all again if you insist
> on keeping your fingers in your ears? Sendmail, NAT, P2P (FreeNet),
> web servers/browsers, perl, fetchmail.... any of this ringing any
> bells?
Keep in mind that the DOD ARPA projects were largely funded by federal
research grants. Some of the technology dates back to the height of
the cold war, including the initial requirements to design a
communications system capable of surviving a nuclear holocaust.
Ironically, many of these design principles were incorporated into the
design of the TCP/IP stack, and the use of layered protocols, which
could be encrypted and scrambled at any layer.
It's ironic that we are seeing attempts to patent software that had
been developed by DOD/ARPA as far back as 1947, for exactly the same
purposes claimed in the current patent applications.
Keep in mind that many of the early computer pioneers, including
Sperry, Harris, Univac, and IBM, were also early UNIX adopters. Many
of these companies ported UNIX versions of software that dates all the
way back to the sorting algorythms used for sorting and counting
Hollerith cards during the Census of 1890. It's amazing that there
are actually people attempting to "patent" these algorythms even
though both the algorythm and the "claims" (intended use of the
algorythms) had been documented as much as 100 years ago.
> > Well, you admit that is what they are doing, even with the lame notion of
> > somehow making it sound normal by handwaving at some concept that others do
> > it too. This would be a good place to make mention of whatever you think
> > OSS developers have totally created on their own.
You seem to forget that OSS developers included thousands of
professionals who worked for insurance companies, banks, legal firms,
even manufacturers, who were NOT in the software business. They wrote
software as tools, to help their employers do various jobs more
efficiently.
A small portion of the code was strategic and proprietary, but often
the majority of the code, often as much as 95%, was more "generic" in
nature. Often, the algorithms were published in scientific journals,
IEEE journals, and later ACM journals. There were also a number of
special interest groups that supported generic functionality in
various programming languages, and introduced new paradigms (including
object oriented programming, multithreading, and most of what we
associate with Modern Computing.
These people weren't exactly "open source publishers", but they
published these snippets of code in a public domain way. When
copyright law changed in 1977, many companies created proprietary
licensed versions of the public domain software, but there were also
millions of lines of code which were also published under Open Source
Licenses such as the BSD, MIT, and GPL licenses. In some cases, the
same "root code" has been published under several different licenses
ranging from highly proprietary licenses, to the GNU Public License
with it's "mandatory source code disclosure" requirements.
Ironically, the Open Source Software was often better supported, and
provided proof of first publication. It's very hard to claim that you
"invented" something when you have kept your code under the protection
of proprietary "binary only" licenses and strict nondisclosure
agreements. It's even harder to prove that the publisher of the Open
Source version "stole" your idea, when the OSS version of the
information was widely available, especially when the OSS version is
published by a college student, or as a "simple little hack" or
"trivial patch" by the person disclosing the idea and it's source code
implementation.
> So nobody should ever attempt a competing version of software if
> something already exists? You have something against free markets?
Nothing wrong with coming up with a competing version, as long as
credit is given where credit is due, and licenses are complied with.
Ironically, it is often the monopolistic vendor of proprietary
software that is often the worst pirate of all.
> Was it wrong for MS to come up with their own browser just because
> one already existed?
The problem was that MS DIDN'T come up with their own browser. They
purchased "branding rights" to the Mosaic browser, which was generated
by OSS contributors under an NCSA license that was very similar to the
GNU public license.
Ironically, Marc Andreeson, the founder of Netscape, was also the lead
developer of Mosaic. Mosaic was published under a license that
prevented Andreeson from marketing a proprietary version, so he
completely reengineered the browser from scratch.
The problem was that at the very last minute, Microsoft's lawyers
added a few additional provisions, permitting them to market their own
proprietary derivative products, and told the vendor (Spyglass) to
either sign the contract, or the entire deal was off. There are a
number of different versions of the story, depending on who is telling
it, and when it is being told.
What is certain is that right after Spyglass made the deal, the NCSA
unilaterally rewrote the license under which Mosaic was released. The
contributors were not asked to accept the new license terms, or even
officially republish their code contributions under the new license.
Some say that it was this illegal seizure of intellectual property,
for sale to Microsoft, that ultimately lead to the court cases against
Microsoft.
Needless to say, after this change in policy, much of the support for
the NCSA vanished, and contributors rallied around new OSS licenses,
including the Artistic License (Apache), the GNU public license, the
Common Public License, and several other licenses which protected the
rights of the contributor, and allowed contributors to control the
publication of their applications or enhancements, especially if a
commercial publisher, like IBM, Sun, BEA, or Borland, wanted to
publish a proprietary commercial implementation.
> And I have listed the OSS innovations, you just continue to ignore
> them.
Seriously, there are entire web sites dedicated to the history of Open
Source software. Of course, Microsoft has it's own version of
history, which seems to change from year to year. I'm always amazed
at how Microsoft's own version of history has changed in various print
Microsoft publications over the last 20 years.
> > More handwaving rather than any specific examples. I suppose you might want
> > to mention the old hat GNU stuff that Stallman supposedly conjured up in the
> > early years, but weren't those "tools" themselves copies of what pay-for
> > software was doing in those days.
Actually, it was the other way around. Much of the pay-for software
was just publications of BSD software that was published under the
AT&T license. AT&T couldn't sell System III without the BSD
extensions, so they licensed the BSD extensions and included it in
their System V releases. The System V release 4 distribution included
ALL of the BSD software.
Many of those who wrote BSD software as students were not entirely
happy with AT&T getting their software, without paying them a royalty,
or even giving them a job, then charging as much as $700 per user for
licenses. In retailiation, many of them published these college class
projects under the GNU license. In some cases, the GNU versions were
"adopted" and then "enhanced" and "improved". Ironically, because the
GNU versions were released under the GNU public license, the
proprietary versions couldn't use these proprietary enhancements.
Some companies, like Sun and DEC and IBM, offered the GPL and other
Open Source software as "Complimentary" software (like getting a
complimentary steak with your salad), or "Unsupported Software" (often
better supported that the proprietary commercial versions whose
support was limited by tight staffing budgets.
Meanwhile, the OSS community was staffed by UNIX administrators,
college students, and others, many of whom contributed while working
from home. In many cases, they told their employers about their
accomplishments, and asked for permission to publish it under open
source licenses. In most cases, their employers were more concerned
about avoiding liability than about getting royalties. After all,
their business was insurance, banking, health care, or making cars,
not selling software.
> > It is hard to make much sense out of his
> > rantings, but maybe it takes one to know one.
Here are some good references:
http://www.opensource.org/
http://www.opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_license
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hacker_ethic
http://sourceforge.net/softwaremap/trove_list.php?form_cat=187
http://www.darwinsys.com/history/hist.html
http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/network/2000/03/17/bsd.html
Note that even AT&T published an "Open Source" version of UNIX, in
1976, version 6 was published in source code form, to many colleges
and universities. Remember, at the time AT&T had a monopoly on the
telephone system and had been barred from producing their own
computers. AT&T accepted divestiture in 1983, partly so that they
could market UNIX and AT&T computers, including several PBX switches
as well as computers like the 3B2 and 3B20 and the #5ESS electronic
switch.
A professor at MIT even produced a fully annotated version of Version
6 UNIX that provided extensive documentation, it was two "pages" per
page, two on front, and two on the back, and filled a 2 inch notebook,
but for students who really wanted to understand the finer points of
UNIX, and the finer points of C programming, this was the best
tutorial of all.
The UNIX source code even featured object oriented programming,
inheritance, abstraction, and methods, back in 1976, when smalltalk
was still in it's infancy and Microsoft was still trying to get BASIC
to load from punched paper tape.
Since AT&T couldn't patent software at the time, and the 1976 version
predated modern copyright licenses, the code was essentially public
domain. The code was for "educational purposes" but there were not
many restrictions on creating proprietary versions such as Xenix,
Venix, OS/9, and of course BSD 2.0 through BSD 2.6.
Depending on who you talk to, many claim that it was the OSS community
who introduced demand paged virtual memory to UNIX, along with
networking, ethernet support, terminal independent support (termcap),
X11 graphics, wysiwyg editors, in addition to numerous compilers,
shells, scripting languages, and other common tools.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix
http://www.ee.ic.ac.uk/docs/software/unix/begin/appendix/history.html
When AT&T settled with BSD, about the only part of UNIX that was not
available under the 1992 BSD license was the regular expression
library. Much of the other AT&T specific code was easier to implement
using the BSD libraries and tools.
> Please refer back to the specific examples I mentioned earlier.
> You must remember... it was the stuff you rejected as not being
> 'products' (whatever that is supposed to mean).
Keep in mind that in "Microsoft World" the only "products" are huge
monolithic applications that have to be installed using Microsoft
Software Installer or Install-Shield, require numerous registry
modifications, and customizations are limited to whatever is included
in the GUI configuration menus. This monolithic application has to
include everything and do everything in a single executable, including
documentation, setup, configuration, error handling, and of course any
form of communication - usually in a totally mysterious, undocumented,
and proprietary format, or at least an undocumented "enhanced" version
of a public standard format.
Of course, in UNIX world, "applications" are highly specialized, and
they can be combined as building blocks like LEGO or Tinker-Toys,
using shells, python, PERL, Ruby, or other graphical scripting
languages. Furthermore, help, documentation, configuration, and
support are often accomplished using public format files. If you
really want, you can have a nice GUI interface configuration tool that
will generate or edit these file for you.
Of course, if you don't want to put the lego blocks together, there
are lots of other people who will put them together for you. Heck,
you might even think it's a "real application".
> Thad
> Yeah, I drank the Open Source cool-aid... Unlike the other brand, it had
> all the ingredients on the label.
I've been guzzling from the Open Source fountain since 1977.