Linux-Advocacy Digest #215, Volume #26 Sat, 22 Apr 00 05:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Windows2000 sale success.. (R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ))
Re: Sell Me On Linux (Mike Marion)
Re: Sell Me On Linux (abraxas)
Linux from a Windows perspective (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Become a Windows Registry Expert! (When in LA)
Re: Sell Me On Linux (SeaDragon)
Re: Sell Me On Linux (SeaDragon)
Illegal to discount software - Linux is in trouble! (SeaDragon)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows2000 sale success..
Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2000 06:30:59 GMT
In article <yaPL4.1686$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"billwg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> "R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard )" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8dnehk$thi$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > I wouldn't be suprised if by the end of the summer, we were actually
> > looking at Linux on retail shelves. Even Microsoft has hinted at
> > Microsoft Office for Linux. Once the remedy portion of the hearing
> > is established, I wouldn't be suprised if OEMs and Software vendors
> > started very agrressively backing Linux.
> >
> > If the remedies are reasonable (Giving FTC authority to regulate
> > and mediate Microsoft contract practices), the Supreme Court will
> > uphold the verdict and the FTC will relax controls as Linux captures
> > 30-50% of the desktop market. When Linux establishes a sufficient
> > share of the market that Microsoft can say it's no longer a
monopoly,
> > the FTC won't need to regulate Microsoft because the OEMs will be
> > able to choose how much of a balance of each OS they want to sell
> > and market based on the terms Microsoft gives them.
> >
>
> I think that this is an incredibly
> optimistic view of things.
Here's the bottom line. Microsoft has defeated far superior
products numerous times with it's crossly inferior products.
It has successfully done so through it's it's contracting
practices with OEMs that effectively excludes all competitors.
Even when companies like Dell did come up with alternatives
such as SCO UNIX, or IBM with OS/2, Microsoft literally demanded
"all or nothing" - threatening to revoke all license rights unless
every PC was sold exclusively with Windows. This has been going on
since 1990. Furthermore, Microsoft was eventually prosecuted and
narrowly escaped a conviction in 1994 when they threatened "all or
nothing" terms that mandated Windows and Microsoft Office or Windows
at full retail (effectively causing each PC to be sold at a loss).
> The non-technical buyer, who is part of
> the great majority of PC buyers, is
> going to perceive the Linux box as
> some kind of low-cost substitute for the
> "real thing" which they associate with
> Windows 98 and the name Microsoft.
To the general consumer, windows is a yawner. Most PC makers
are doing everything they can to make their desktop screen look
as little like Windows as possible. In fact, there were two
desktops that I thought were KDE desktops - until I found a
16 pixel by 16 pixel windows icon buried in one corner.
> and is going to expect a discount larger
> than the 5% to 10% difference between
> the OEM Windows price and "free" that
> the economics of Linux pricing can
> deliver without the OEM eating some
> of the difference.
Actually, if the sales of current Linux products are any
indicators, OEMs will actually have very little difficulty
collecting a PREMIUM of 10-20% for a properly configured
Linux system. What makes this particularly interesting is
that mass-produced hard drives with properly configured
software installed as an image, the cost is actually about
1/3 the cost of Windows.
> Windows 98 and the name Microsoft are
> household words and it's going to be
> awful difficult for any of the Linux
> vendors to create any product image
> that can match this.
In 1977, Bill Gates came up with a formula which has been the
key strategy for Microsoft's success. Rather than attempting
to sell software directly to consumers or retailers, he found
a way to convince the directors at MITS that without Microsoft
BASIC, the Altair was nothing more than a big box with pretty
lights, then issued the ultimatum - unless they paid the equivalent
of $50/machine sold, Microsoft would revoke the license and port
to a competitor's product.
Even today, Microsoft has tried to use this tactic with Windows 95
and Windows 98. In the case of Windows 95, Microsoft actually carried
out it's threat - agains IBM. They refused to grant IBM a license
until 15 minutes before the "grand opening" - and even then only
so that they could legally display the IBM logo among those supporting
Microsoft Windows 98.
Microsoft has used this tactic for nearly 25 years, and the OEMs have
privately resented it. Unfortunately, prior to the emergence of Linux
as a desktop machine - less than 6 months ago, the OEMs had no
alternative. What the OEMs want, is the right to offer consumers
BOTH the "Windows model" AND the "Linux model".
> Plus they can't effectively recover their
> investments since a) they not only
> have to differentiate between Linux
> and Windows but also between Caldera,
> Corel, Red Hat, and possibly other
> distributions,
This actually works in favor of the OEMs. While the
OEMs have only ONE source for Windows, they have several
sources including those above (you forgot SuSE, TurboLinux,
and Slackware), and better packaging (Mandrake, Yellow Dog).
As a result, the distributors are willing to compete more
agressively for OEM distribution - this means good prices and
good support.
> and b) their profits are zilch in the OEM environment
> where Microsoft collects for each copy shipped,
> but the Linux copies are free.
Actually, the lowest OEM price for Linux is about $2/machine.
This is a license fee justified by the fact that a complete
distribution has been tested and configured to run correctly
with the configured applications.
> If the OEM provides the user support, which
> they must in a retail scenario, there
> is nothing for the Linux distributor
> to collect any money for.
Actually, the support contract is the bigger deal. Typically,
the OEM provides the tier 1 support (is the machine plugged in?),
while they pay a premium for Tier 2 and Tier 3 support).
Keep in mind that several OEMs including Compaq were actually
loosing money on their consumer line products because Microsoft
wouldn't lower their prices.
> It makes no difference that people are using Red
> Hat or whatever, since Red Hat gets no license fee
> and nobody buys their support either.
Actually, Red Hat does get a license fee for the machines
that the OEM sells with Red Hat. It's about 1/4 the price
of Windows, but still sufficient to provide several million
in annual revenue - which isn't bad for less than 1% of the
total PC market.
> About the only thing that can make
> this work is for the FTC to mandate that
> Microsoft significantly raise prices
> to create a sufficient difference
> between a Wintel box and a Lintel box
> to force a choice for the latter.
Actually, the only thing the FTC needs to do is
make sure that Microsoft doesn't "lock out" Linux
with it's restrictive terms. I wouldn't be suprised
if Microsoft decided that it was better for the bottom
line to allow OEMs to install both Linux and Microsoft
(so that it can retain market share in terms of unit volumes).
If Microsoft suddenly finds that Linux is a competitor,
it may even have to lower prices to capture and retain even
the 40% market share. More likely, OEMS may even opt for
the less restrictive and exclusive Windows 2000 license
rather than put their companies (and marketplace) on hold
for Millineum Edition. This would mean that end users
would be able to get systems that run BOTH Linux and
Windows 2000 for about the same price as current
Windows 98 systems.
Ironically, Microsoft may even discover that since
companies like Borland and Corel are offering their
best products for BOTH Linux and Windows 2000, that
Windows will actually be starved for applications
that are Microsoft Exclusive. Furthermore, because
there will be more Linux users, compatibility with
Linux will be more important - making Office less
desirable. To stay in the market, Microsoft will
have to lower the price of Office, and they will
have to support Linux compatible standards used
by other applications.
> I don't think this is politically feasible
> for either potential future administration.
You are assuming that the highly competitive Linux market,
where each distributor tries to out-feature and out-bundle
the others, will continue to be kept from the general public,
such that no user will be able to walk into CompUSA (or any
other reputable computer store), wiggle the mouse, and see
a Linux desktop.
You are assuming that people will never see features like OS-View,
and real-time strip-charts. You are assuming that they will be
content to view every document in Word format and will want to
manually process every slice of information. You are assuming
that every Windows user loves the Windows 9x interface so much
that they won't be interested in seeing a user interface like
any of the 20 styles of KDE, or of enlightenment. We seem to
forget how much everybody raved about NeXT or NeXTStep (which
was the driving force behind the start menu and icon bar - but
NeXT was fully extensible), and AfterStep has an even better
look and feel.
But look at the Automotive industry. If the car makers don't come
out with new designs, nicer interiors, the competitors grab market
share. Each year, they are either leading or following, usually
of little of each, leading in some catagories, following in others.
--
Rex Ballard - Open Source Advocate, Internet
I/T Architect, MIS Director
http://www.open4success.com
Linux - 60 million satisfied users worldwide
and growing at over 1%/week!
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Mike Marion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Sell Me On Linux
Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2000 06:46:43 GMT
SeaDragon wrote:
> You are extremely out of touch.
>
> The fastest shipping CPU in integer performance currently (by far)
> is the Pentium III. The I GHz model is a whopping 46.8 SPECint95.
> The second fastest is HP 8600, which is at 42.6. Alpha is way behind
> at 40.1 for the 667 MHz 21264 (which is not even shipping yet!). SPARC
> isn't even on the roadmap. It is at 18.3 for the UltraSPARC II, well
> less than half of Intel, HP, or Compaq.
You seem to be the one that's out of touch. The vast majority of businesses
that buy the Alpha and Sparc machines could give a rats ass about Integer
performance. They buy this equipment for the floating point performance (which
is where x86 sucks big time compared to the big boys), or they buy it because it
is much more reliable and capable then PC hardware.
> You don't understand. The speedpath incurred by text file databases is
> _critical_ and greatly increases the overhead. In a text file database you
You don't seem to understand that Unix systems don't keep every single piece of
configuration info for every single application in one huge file. They use a
small file for each application so that reading time is minimal, and Admins have
the ability to hand edit the files if necessary.
That O(1) search ability in the registry isn't going to be worth jack shit if
the registry is corrupted to a point where you can't boot the OS to load the
apps needed to access the registry... now is it?
--
Mike Marion - Unix SysAdmin/Engineer, Qualcomm Inc.
Well, what else is important to them? As far as stimulants go, both of our
generations know the feeling of jonesing for product from Columbia; it's just
that their product is coffee. -- Dennis Miller on GenX
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Subject: Re: Sell Me On Linux
Date: 22 Apr 2000 06:58:37 GMT
Jim Richardson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>With the more serious operating systems, you can log out then reattach
>>to your session without interrupting your programs. All serious operating
>>systems have this feature built-in. Linux does not because it is a toy.
>>"screen" only works for text applications not X apps.
>>
> How would you do this for windows? Say you are running photoshop over the
> lan on a server, and some goofball unplugs your terminal, will NT or
> W2K allow you to reattach to that photoshop process after a reboot?
No, unless it is actually being remotely viewed PCAnywhere/VNC style by
Terminal Server.
> You could do this with VNC for any platform supported. (which of course
> includes NT and Linux, don't know about W2K)
VNC works just fine with W2K...
> But the point was remote management, which is an area that Linux far outstrips
> windows in choice and ability. Webmin, linuxconf, telnet, the list is allmost
> endless.
Agreed. And besides that, there are all kinds of possibilities for running
remote X11 apps and even entire desktops remotely over a network. Its pretty
much what X11 was built for, after all.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
Subject: Linux from a Windows perspective
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin)
Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2000 07:22:12 GMT
I've been attempting to install Linux on my older P166 system and having a
few problems.
I have a SB16 card, and a AHA1520B card. Both are ISA, both are PnP. I
finally figured out one of my SB16 cards was faulty as Windows would not
boot with it.
I can get Windows to boot with both cards but not Linux. I kept a note of
the settings Windows uses and tried the same on Linux. Linux then proceeded
to hang and emit messages about the SCSI controller.
When I reboot Linux, it's lost the SCSI controller.
Now, from a Windows user perspective, Linux hasn't changed in one respect
since I last looked at it. It is still a tricky package to install.
I have three distributions:
Slakware 7.0
Red Hat 6.0
Mandrake 7.0 Deluxe
Slakware is the most difficult to install but results in a lean, clean
machine. Unfortunately, things are harder to setup as none of the easy to
use tools are there, but it does boot faster and startup X faster.
Mandrake is very easy to install but boots slower and X is definately a lot
slower. Also, setup asks a few bizarre questions - installing packages
results in a dialog box showing me the size of everything its about to
install. The dialog seems to suggest I can change this size!
The Mandrake installer tries to install the AHA152X card automatically but
fails. So it asks me for parameters and the most confusing dialog appears:
aha152x (1-8i)
aha152x1 (1-8i)
Now, nothing explains on screen what these mean. I took a wild guess and
entered aha152x=0x340,11,7 and it worked.
I can boot both systems with the SB16 card in, but if I try to setup the
card, SCSI dies. I can't reboot after that as I can't get past the kernel
trying to load the sound card.
A friend at work said to me "What did you expect with Linux, it's free
software after all". I guess I expected more from something that is
supposed to be a Windows killer. I guess it's not there yet, and is still
playing catchup.
Pete
------------------------------
From: When in LA
Reply-To: When in LA
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Become a Windows Registry Expert!
Date: 22 Apr 2000 07:21:54 GMT
On Sun, 18 Apr 3900 06:21:47, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jeff Glatt)
said:
|Karel is a moron. Plain and simple. It's people like him that give
|OS/2 users a bad name, but then, it's obvious that Karel is no friend
|to OS/2. He hasn't done squat for OS/2, and quite the contrary, is
|determined to make OS/2 users look like ignorant jerks.
Hmmm, must be imitating you Jeff. However, I think your all-time
usenet record of ignorantly and incorrectly making two consecutive
grammar corrections in a month will go unchallenged for a long long
time.
BobO
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (SeaDragon)
Subject: Re: Sell Me On Linux
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2000 08:03:08 GMT
On Sat, 22 Apr 2000 06:46:43 GMT, Mike Marion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>You seem to be the one that's out of touch. The vast majority of businesses
>that buy the Alpha and Sparc machines could give a rats ass about Integer
>performance.
Right. I'm sure all of those big Sun "e-Commerce" (or whatever the trendy,
Unix-dweeb buzzword today is) "we're the blot in dot-com" E10K servers
are just pumping out floating point calculations a mile a minute. I mean,
think of the raw floating point power needed to total an entire order
of books from Amazon.com! Whew! No way a pee-cee can handle that!
Actually the technical reason why Sparc _is_ viable in systems like
this has nothing to do with floating point, but with the bus. The MP
bus in systems like this is much better than the shared Intel MP bus
although there are Intel-based systems which give them a pretty good
run for the money (c.f. Sequent's ccNUMA machines).
>They buy this equipment for the floating point performance (which
>is where x86 sucks big time compared to the big boys), or they buy it
>because it is much more reliable and capable then PC hardware.
Ah, yes. So the reason Linux crashes constantly is because it runs
primarily on X86 hardware? Gee, I thought that was Windows excuse.
>You don't seem to understand that Unix systems don't keep every single piece
>of configuration info for every single application in one huge file. They use
>a small file for each application so that reading time is minimal, and Admins
>have the ability to hand edit the files if necessary.
Oh yeah, I guess it was just my imagination when I've logged on to Unix
systems with 30,000 long line /etc/passwd. Looks like a database, talks
like a.. Oh yeah, they even have builtin database caches because they
realize that text file based databases are so weak, fragile, and primitive.
>That O(1) search ability in the registry isn't going to be worth jack shit if
>the registry is corrupted to a point where you can't boot the OS to load the
>apps needed to access the registry... now is it?
Strawman.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (SeaDragon)
Subject: Re: Sell Me On Linux
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2000 08:25:49 GMT
On Sat, 22 Apr 2000 06:27:58 GMT, Jim Richardson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>All the open source apps, including mozilla, are available. Gimp, etc.
If they are 64-bit clean. The "ping" which shipped with Red Hat 6.0
is not 64-bit clean. If they can't even get ping right why should
31337-athl0n-h@[EMAIL PROTECTED] and all of the other cruft
you see put out by Linux programmers be 64-bit clean?
>>Not Intel x86 as the original poster claimed. There are at least five
>>vendors of x86 processors which Windows will run on.
>>
>
>As will Linux. They (the various x86 clones) are clones after all. Same
>architecture.
Not the point. The point I'm refuting is that Windows only runs on
Intel hardware. They are not strictly the same archtectures: e.g.
AMD has 3dNow and Intel has SSE.
>pedant point, but Sparc and Strongarm are both available in mobile units.
>(at least sparc used to be, haven't seen a sparc book in a while. )
> Not to mention of course the M68K derivatives running palm pilots and
>pda's. Hitachi's S3s etc.
Ironically, Windows runs on handhelds. The two main assertions made here
are that "Windows only runs on Intel x86" and "x86 cannot do handheld".
Please choose a side and stick to it. This week, which is more fashionable
for the trendy Linux community to bash - Microsoft or Intel? This will help
you choose your side in this issue.
>>What exactly do you see as the limitation of x86?
>
>
>No handhelds for one.
Ah so how about the Windows handheld which Microsoft introduced the other
day? Pick your argument - does Windows only run on Intel hardware, or is
there an Intel architecture low power chip? You can't have it both ways.
Oh - and don't try to claim that Windows CE isn't Windows because I can
just as well assert that the Embedded Linux which Transmeta is doing isn't
Linux.
>How would you do this for windows? Say you are running photoshop over the
>lan on a server, and some goofball unplugs your terminal, will NT or
>W2K allow you to reattach to that photoshop process after a reboot?
Yes.
>You could do this with VNC for any platform supported. (which of course
>includes NT and Linux, don't know about W2K)
> But the point was remote management, which is an area that Linux far outstrips
>windows in choice and ability. Webmin, linuxconf, telnet, the list is allmost
>endless.
Linuxconf? I hope you're joking. That is the slowest, most unreliable, most
fragile, least robust, most primitive, most painful, and buggiest piece of
software I've ever used in my life. As for telnet et al, Windows gives you
the same thing - full access to the machine remotely. What more can you
want? How can you possibly claim that Linux is superior when the solution
for both OS'es (primarily) is to simply open a session on a remote machine?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (SeaDragon)
Subject: Illegal to discount software - Linux is in trouble!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2000 08:36:10 GMT
>From the Techweb article on proposed Microsoft remedies:
http://www.techweb.com/wire/story/TWB20000420S0016
"Also, the software giant may have to open its APIs and stop discounting
Windows to PC makers."
Oh boy. So it's illegal to give a DISCOUNT on software? What is going
to happen to Linux? If it is illegal for Microsoft to give a discount
of a few dollars, what are they going to do when they are giving away
Linux for FREE??? Is Linus going to get the chair? And how is
discounting software bad for the consumer? Should the government impose
a price floor on OS'es so PC's have to be more expensive? You all better
be careful about proclaiming that Linux is free, because that's ILLEGAL!
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list (and comp.os.linux.advocacy) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
