On Wednesday 31 October 2001 12:36 pm, you wrote:
> >$$$ is definitely NOT all that big companies care about. It's just not
> >that simple.
>
> sorry, i should clarify again. i was refering to big corporations, not
> neccesarily large business (although the two are _almost_ interchangable)
>
> these are my opinions based on what i have observed about the business
> world. it's not neccesarily the truth.
>
> >Businesses care about things like being dependent on a single
> >source for getting products that are important to success.
>
> being dependent on one source for software and services IS bad. but the
> motivating force is cash. if you have an alternate source that costs less
> for the same (or better) quality service or product, which do you choose?
> and do you stick with it even when another solution comes up that will cost
> less and offer the same or better services? you only stick with the
> current service or solution when the cost of upgrading and the perceived
> cost of using the newer solution are higher than your previous operating
> costs. and if the current solution is getting you cash ("success"), why
> change?
>
> >And also
> >about planned obsolescence built into windoze products. They care about
> >existing hardware vendor support, and about being able to adapt existing
> >software and hardware to tomorrow's needs.
>
> to save the cost of upgrading later.
>
> >And about the ability to
> >upgrade, and the expectation about upgrade costs in terms of time and
> >effort and about simplifying the issues related to license compliance.
>
> because all that time and effort boils down to one thing : cash. you have
> to pay for the time and effort. "time is money." why is everybody so
> angry about liscence compliance? because it costs time (read : money) to
> make sure that all of those computers are compliant.
Also because the corporations are liable for any infringement even if they
didn't know about it. Like employees that bring software in from elsewhere..
>
> >Big businesses care about downtime and reliable delivery of goods and
> >services. That's why Linux makes sense for business.
This is not always obvious to business...
>
> because it's cheap and doesn't crash, thus saving a company from worrying
> about downtime, which cuts into profits. if there's no downtime, more
> services and product can be shipped more reliably, thus resulting in, you
> guessed it, more cash.
>
> the only motivating force behind a corporation is profit. you have to
> please the investors. if you don't make money, people don't invest in you.
Actually corporations are *required* by their charters to make profit (unless
they are registered as non-profit).
>
> >Like you, I like the GPL concept, and I'm glad that it works. It's
> >probably attractive to some businesses, too. Especially those outside
> >of the software development industry. If a business creates some useful
> >piece of software, it doesn't hurt to share it if the direct competition
> >isn't unjustly enriched.
>
> <direct, pointed opinion> that's true. but i still believe it all comes
> down to the bottom line. if a corporation isn't worried about the GPL and
> even enjoys using it and helping others out, it still boils down to their
> profits. PR helps drive profits. and looking like a "nice big brother"
> who helps out the underdogs by sharing is great PR (much as i admire IBM
> and their willingness towards linux, i think this is part of their
> plan...)</direct, pointed opinion>
Actually IBM hopes that linux and Open Source will break Microsoft's lock on
the market. This is something IBM has not been able to do by themself.
>
> "unjustly" enriched? never mind, i'm not going to be an ass and nit-pick
> that to death. sorry i even thought about it...
>
> >I'm appalled that many businesses find it acceptable and even appealing
> >to continue doing business with a supplier that has so blatantly and
> >repeatedly broken anti-trust laws. To me, it's like hiring a felon, or
> >taking on partner that you already know is dishonest. Why would a
> >business want the disgrace?
>
> i'm with you there. it's something i've never even considered... and the
> more i think about it, the more "wrong" it seems.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ralph Zeller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2001 11:57 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [EUG-LUG:3566] RE: Robbing from the rich......
