Linux-Advocacy Digest #715, Volume #29 Wed, 18 Oct 00 00:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? ("Simon Cooke")
Re: A classic example of unfriendly Linux (Goldhammer)
Re: A classic example of unfriendly Linux (sfcybear)
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Why the Linonuts fear me (Goldhammer)
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum ("Chad Myers")
Re: Astroturfing ("Chad Myers")
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? ("Simon Cooke")
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? ("Simon Cooke")
Re: Claire Lynn ("ostracus")
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? ("Simon Cooke")
Re: Ms employees begging for food ("Chad Myers")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Simon Cooke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 20:07:32 -0700
"Darin Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Mike Byrns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > > I bought an Amiga in 1985.
> ...
>
> > These groups weren't around then. Where did you see verifiable data on
this
> > that you can post? Andecdotal.
>
> What the...? Of course they were around then. I first got on USENET
> back in 82-83, and it had been around for quite a few years before
> then too.
>
> Can you provide verifiable data that the USENET did not exist back
> then? How do we know you'll believe our evidence if we find it. If
> you're the one going against popular wisdom (that we were all
> hallucinating and no network existed in 1985) why shouldn't you be the
> one to provide the proof?
Reparse the sentence. He's saying that the groups weren't around then --
not Usenet itself.
Simon
------------------------------
From: Goldhammer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: A classic example of unfriendly Linux
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 03:00:03 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I have sent your post to that person and thank you, but my point is
> this.
>
> "You" know how to do this stuff.
> He, and just about every other newbie who tries Linux does not. Notice
> his comment about this topic being rehashed a lot? That's because it
> is NOT easy compared to Windows.
We do not "know" this by birth. Knowledge is obtained
by interaction and study. If one is not ready to commit
to such a course of action, then knowledge will not follow.
Many individuals take much pain to point out to me
that mathematical knowledge is not something they
possess. They elaborate on this, and explain that they
simply have no head for it. I've heard this rubbish
dozens of times. Really, if you have a problem with
something like mathematics, and you cannot wrap your
head around it, then leave it alone. Go somewhere else.
I understand this entirely. Nevertheless, I do get countless
idiots explaining to me how mathematics isn't for them,
and thus shouldn't be for anybody, simply
because _they_ cannot grasp its essentials. They are idiots.
Now, don't get me
wrong here. I used the word "idiot". But this doesn't mean
someone who is ignorant of math. Everyone passes thru that
stage. When I say "idiot", I mean the type of clueless
bastard who refuses to understand mathematics, _and_ makes
an effort to point out, constantly, that "mathematics is
simply simply unnecessary bullshit, not something for the common
person." Sound familiar? It should. Same thing with operating systems.
An idiot will tell you that he is too stupid to understand
mathematics. I don't necessarily agree, because I have taught
mathematics to supposed clueless idiots who turned out otherwise.
And in the same manner, you will find idiots who will say
that unix is simply not for them, and hence not for _anyone_, simply
because they are too stupid to memorize some bash commands. Fine. If
they feel that way, then more power to them.
But what I don't like to hear, is the shit from some people
when they say: "math is just too hard. you don't need it. nobody
makes money from math. if you need math then hire some guy to do it.
it isn't user friendly. there's too much to learn." And now listen to
the same bullshit from the OS crowd.
Fine. If you can't wrap your head around math, fuck you. Pay me
my rate to do the job for you. You aren't stupid, and I probably
can teach you what I know. But like Barbie, you say "Math is hard,
let's go shopping". Ok, so if you have that attitude, then fuck you,
and you can pay my rather hefty going rate.
Nobody is stopping you from doing it yourself, and I will be
the first to point out to you that you can do it if you have
a modicum of discipline.
And the same with OSs. You say that unix is too hard for the
average idiot. Well, computers are not necessarily the property
of completely clueless idiots (CCIs). If you don't have the
discipline to learn unix or linux, then fuck you. Go play with your
dick, and when you need me, pay my going consulting rate. I am telling
you now, that you can do it yourself, just as I say to my clients
who need my mathematical abilities. You don't believe me? If so,
then you don't believe in yourself.
I do not believe that people are born stupid. But they do
try to give this impression.
There is nothing stopping you from doing your own math. There
is nothing stopping you from setting up your own unix server.
There is no real excuse why you should be paying me to do it
for you.
Do you see what I mean? Think about it.
--
Don't think you are. Know you are.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: sfcybear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: A classic example of unfriendly Linux
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 03:03:35 GMT
No but I set up my fire wall about the same time and at that time it was
NOT IPCHAINS so of course that comand would not have been there> but
then again, you would not have needed it! I did find what it took to set
up the older fire wall and set up some filter rulls by searching the
groups. I almost never have to post a question. The answer is almost
always there, so forgive me if I think you are just trying to weasle out
of looking like a fool.
In article <DoHG5.1487$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "sfcybear" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8sdhfu$9gc$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > It's not a god thing it's just that eric has been sent to the usenet
> > many times and he still can not find information. I found at least 6
> > posts that had the information he wanted by doing a deja search (all
> > news groups) looking for "linux masq firewall ipchains". After all
the
> > BS claims of technical know how eric can not even do a news group
> > search. It would have taken him all of 15 minutes at most. Pathetic
> > really and even more pathetic that you support him.
>
> I first set up my firewall on Linux 2 years ago. I doubt a deja
search
> today would reveal what the usenet looked like 2 years ago, since Deja
seems
> to only go back a year.
>
> I setup another firewall about a year ago with RedHat 6.1, and haven't
done
> so since.
>
> > I mean take a look at how many posts he has made on use net and then
try
> > to tell me he is not experiance enough to do a usenet search
>
> That's completely irrelevant to what happened 1-2 years ago.
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 09:41:23 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Paul 'Z' Ewande� in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
[...]
>> it would make logical sense if MS really did use/remove/change the
>> undocumented APIs.
>
>But they are supposed to use them to churn out better apps than the
>competitors, aren't they ?
No. Providing themselves an unfair advantage in application development
by 'churning' the OS (which the ISVs do not compete with) is *not* what
they are supposed to do.
[...]
>Well, I'll have to disagree, AFAIK, the API is the documentad part of a set
>of OS functions to be used by application developers. If it's not
>documented, it's not part of the API. Can a developer infirm or confirm ?
I'm not a developer, but I'll happily explain to any developer why they
are wrong if they disagree: no, the Application Programming Interface is
the entirety of how to tell the OS to do things in order to support
application programs. The presumption is that such a thing would be
fully documented. Partial documentation of the API is, itself, an
anti-competitive act. Obviously, there will be function calls which are
not reliable or obsolete, and these, too, should be documented as much
as possible. That's what makes an OS competitive; not the lock-in
pre-load PPL crap.
[...]
>Lets' just say that it's a function that the OS vendor is not sure of wether
>if said function will go to the API, be modified, or simply yanked out.
That's fine. Document that, or you are an inferior OS vendor (and
potentially a criminal, anti-competitive, and fraudulent one, as well.)
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
======USENET VIRUS=======COPY THE URL BELOW TO YOUR SIG==============
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Goldhammer)
Subject: Re: Why the Linonuts fear me
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 03:17:06 GMT
On Mon, 16 Oct 2000 00:04:03 GMT,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Sun, 15 Oct 2000 19:02:18 -0500, "Mike" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>I know plenty about Linux. Having used Corel, Caldera, RedHat,
>Mandrake TurboLinux and Slackware, All current versions I feel I am
>qualified to comment.
Really? Have you had experience developing molecular
dynamics simulations under NT 3.x and 4? Let me inform
you that this platform isn't worth a log of my fscking
dutch plumber's shit. Not the OS, not the VC++ compiler,
not the CMD.exe bullshit, not any of it.
There is a difference between reality and MS hype.
I've used these systems and I know which ones
work for real-world intensive applications. You said
you used them. Fine. What did you use them for? A typical
Ziff-Davis test? Install, cock around with menus, delete?
--
Don't think you are. Know you are.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 09:45:12 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Simon Cooke in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"Paul 'Z' Ewande�" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:8sf311$3vc$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > it would make logical sense if MS really did use/remove/change the
>> > undocumented APIs.
>>
>> But they are supposed to use them to churn out better apps than the
>> competitors, aren't they ?
>
>Allegedly. Personally, I put it down to:
>
>1. Brute force. They'll put more people on the project to get it fixed if
>it's broken. And they'll keep adding more and more until it works.
>Personally, I hate that development model, but there ya go.
As in "DOS ain't done 'till Lotus won't run."
>2. No frameworks. Most application development at Microsoft is done using
>straight C/C++ talking to Win32 directly. [...]
As in 'Sure, its crapware, but what choice do you have?'
>3. Spending 1/4 of the development cycle & budget on performance
>improvements before the product is released. This definitely doesn't hurt.
LOL. MS spends far more than 1/4 of the development cycle on
performance improvements. In fact, I'm pretty sure that it would be
something like 80%, at least. Apart from the odd fatal bug (nothing
less severe is fixed unless incidentally), the entire alpha/beta cycle
for MS is trying to improve performance while maintaining all the little
anti-competitive tricks and bloatware/vapor 'features' to the point
where it is not so entirely unacceptable that even a monopoly cannot
force it on the market. Notice the development of W2K. ;-)
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
======USENET VIRUS=======COPY THE URL BELOW TO YOUR SIG==============
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 03:03:20 GMT
"." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8sikng$2t12$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> The compliancy is no lie; it is indeed 'compliant' in a very basic and
technical
> sense of the word, but again, its utterly useless in the real world. Utterly.
Specific examples? No one uses it because OS/2 is worthless.
> Just like their POSIX layer--which no one ever uses. Because they CANT use
it,
> because it DOESNT WORK.
Odd. I use POSIX applications every day. Granted, the POSIX version is 1.2 or
1.3
IIRC in NT 4.0 and similar in Win2K, so it won't run the latest and greatest,
but it runs many older POSIX application.
What, specifically is broke or "DOESNT[sic] WORK"?
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Astroturfing
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 03:03:30 GMT
"Tim Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On 17 Oct 2000 21:32:42 +1100, Ben Bos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >On Mon, 16 Oct 2000 03:02:43 GMT, Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >wrote:
>
> >>> What's a skatepunk?
> >>
> >>An anti-establishment liberal who listens to punk rock music and usually
> >>passes the time skating rather than working.
>
> .. unlike you, who works dilligently posting hundreds of useless
> newsgroup messages a day when not watching Rush Limbaugh re-runs.
What's wrong with that? As opposed to smoking pot, not working, and
hugging trees while claiming that Microsoft is Evil (tm) and will
bring about the apocolypse while I use my l33t Linux to DDoS some
Evil(tm) Corporatation?
> Chad, you are a fucking loser, get over it or get a life.
That means nothing coming from you. Pot -> Kettle Black.
> >>A skatepunk is not necessarily a Linux advocate, nor is a Linux
> >>advocate a skatepunk, but they are very, very alike in more ways
> >>than one.
>
> Probaby true ... and your point is????????
"Probaby"?
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "Simon Cooke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 20:17:07 -0700
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Paul 'Z' Ewande� in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> [...]
> >Well, I'll have to disagree, AFAIK, the API is the documentad part of a
set
> >of OS functions to be used by application developers. If it's not
> >documented, it's not part of the API. Can a developer infirm or confirm ?
>
> I'm not a developer, but I'll happily explain to any developer why they
> are wrong if they disagree: no, the Application Programming Interface is
> the entirety of how to tell the OS to do things in order to support
> application programs. The presumption is that such a thing would be
> fully documented. Partial documentation of the API is, itself, an
> anti-competitive act. Obviously, there will be function calls which are
> not reliable or obsolete, and these, too, should be documented as much
> as possible. That's what makes an OS competitive; not the lock-in
> pre-load PPL crap.
By definition, the API is the documented programming interface which
applications use to communicate with another software system (OS or
otherwise). Undocumented functions are NOT part of the API; the API is only
the parts which are public.
Simon
------------------------------
From: "Simon Cooke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 20:14:33 -0700
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Simon Cooke in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> Said Simon Cooke in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >> >Max - just grow up. It's not just Microsoft that abides by the rules I
laid
> >> >out -- it's all software development that isn't 'free' in the Stallman
sense
> >> >of the word.
> >> >
> >> >Though I'm sure you can offset development costs. Let's see... if it
costs
> >> >Corel $15,000 to implement a converter for Word Perfect that takes
> >> >AppleWorks files and converts them into WP native format, and only 3
people
> >> >will buy it, they won't do it.
> >> >
> >> >Or they'll charge all 3 of the people who want it $5,000 a piece.
> >> >
> >> >Grow up, Max. This IS how the world works.
> >>
> >> Funny, I could have sworn its only how your imagination works. I'm
> >> presuming that you made up these numbers, and the example.
> >
> >Going from my experience, that's a rough estimate of how much it would
cost
> >to write a converter, assuming that all the documentation is present,
that
> >one or two people can be put on it for a month, that the new work has to
be
> >documented, and that it has to go through QA. All in all, at least 6-8
weeks
> >of work to get it done, and make sure that it works *correctly* before
> >unleashing it on the outside world.
>
> Well, you obviously have extremely limited experience in business, if
> you think costs are allocated per feature like this.
Raise your hand if you've been involved in project planning & costing for
consumer software companies for the past 3 years.
*Raises his hand*.
I'd say that YOU have an extremely limited experience in business if you
think that costs are NOT allocated per feature like this. Microsoft allocate
features based on resources -- that means engineering cost, QA,
documentation, tech support. Sierra On-Line allocates features based on
resources -- that means engineering cost, QA, documentation, cost of goods,
tech support et al. Would you care to name some software companies that
don't do this kind of cost/benefit analysis when they're looking at doing
feature work? I've already named two that *do*.
> >> Your grasp
> >> of the simplistic principle of supply and demand is to be commended,
but
> >> such grade-school ideology does not prevent Microsoft from being
> >> anti-competitive and guilty of federal crimes.
> >
> >Your inability to grasp the simplistic principle of supply and demand
amazes
> >me, and by the way, I was explaining why *generally*, compatibility with
> >other systems is not a hard requirement for any software development
> >project.
>
> It doesn't have anything to do with grasping the principle of supply and
> demand; merely your desire to use a simplistic excuse for the principle
> in order to defend a monopoly. Make a note: supply and demand only work
> in free markets, which means there aren't any illegal monopolies
> preventing actual competition.
Well, given that I don't agree with you about Microsoft's supposed
"monopoly" status, I can't argue with you on that point, as it would be
futile for both of us.
[snip]
> >Compatibility costs money. If MS won't certify something as
compatible,[...]
>
> It is not for Microsoft to 'certify' anything, but for their customers
> to enjoy compatibility, or seek a vendor which provides it, if this is
> their desire. Your rather pitiful attempt to pretend that nobody
> desires it, and that's why it isn't provided, is naive to say the very
> least, and certainly shows an ignorance of reality.
Wrong. Microsoft has to certify its software's ability to do certain things.
One way it does so is by stating a minimum requirements list for software.
If the hardware doesn't match that, then they can point to it and say "we
told you we wouldn't support it on that configuration". Other software
companies do this as well.
I didn't claim that no-one desired compatibility. I stated that if the
desire for compatibility doesn't outweigh the cost, then the extra work
won't be done. If it will sell enough copies of the software to recoup the
costs, then the work will be done. Capice? If enough people want that
compatibility, they'll vote their their checkbook, and it'll be put in -- or
the company in question won't be able to sell that software.
> >Businesses are around to do one thing and one thing only -- make money.
>
> Yada yada yada. They have to produce something to make money;
> otherwise, they're around to do one thing only: rip off their customers.
They won't have any customers if they rip them off. Cause and effect.
Simon
------------------------------
From: "ostracus" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Claire Lynn
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 22:20:00 +0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Gardiner Family"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> what is COLA?
>
> matt
1. The generic name for a soft drink.
2. Comp.Os.Linux.Advocacy ;)
------------------------------
From: "Simon Cooke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 20:25:42 -0700
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Simon Cooke in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >"Paul 'Z' Ewande�" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:8sf311$3vc$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> > it would make logical sense if MS really did use/remove/change the
> >> > undocumented APIs.
> >>
> >> But they are supposed to use them to churn out better apps than the
> >> competitors, aren't they ?
> >
> >Allegedly. Personally, I put it down to:
> >
> >1. Brute force. They'll put more people on the project to get it fixed if
> >it's broken. And they'll keep adding more and more until it works.
> >Personally, I hate that development model, but there ya go.
>
> As in "DOS ain't done 'till Lotus won't run."
No, as in if they discover at some stage that a task requires a rewrite of
every line of code, they'll do it. Many times over if necessary.
Provide one SHRED of proof that "DOS ain't done 'till Lotus won't run" is
anything more than an anti-Microsoft FUD mantra. I will gladly post that
line, and the qualifying proof as my signature for the rest of my Usenet
days if you manage to do so.
Proof that qualifies is any kind of evidence that Microsoft did indeed
change DOS explicitly so that Lotus would not run, or any kind of order from
a Microsoft executive of that form.
I'll be waiting. But I won't hold my breath.
> >2. No frameworks. Most application development at Microsoft is done using
> >straight C/C++ talking to Win32 directly. [...]
>
> As in 'Sure, its crapware, but what choice do you have?'
What are you talking about, Max? You're not a developer. So don't even try.
Or if you do try, at least give enough context in your sentences so that the
non-telepaths amongst us can understand whatever the hell you're saying.
> >3. Spending 1/4 of the development cycle & budget on performance
> >improvements before the product is released. This definitely doesn't
hurt.
>
> LOL. MS spends far more than 1/4 of the development cycle on
> performance improvements.
No, generally they don't -- except where perf improvements are the top
priority for a product (Java VM, SQL Server, etc).
> In fact, I'm pretty sure that it would be
> something like 80%, at least. Apart from the odd fatal bug (nothing
> less severe is fixed unless incidentally), the entire alpha/beta cycle
> for MS is trying to improve performance while maintaining all the little
> anti-competitive tricks and bloatware/vapor 'features' to the point
> where it is not so entirely unacceptable that even a monopoly cannot
> force it on the market. Notice the development of W2K. ;-)
Again you prove that you don't have a clue when it comes to software
development.
Yes, bugs are fixed unless they're in documented APIs that workarounds have
been published for, and are in widespread use. That is if fixing a bug would
break existing applications (business/consumer/home grown), the bug will be
documented. If the bug can be fixed while keeping that behavior for those
apps that workaround it, then it will be fixed with that proviso. If it can
be fixed without affecting anyone, it'll be fixed outright -- but higher
priority bugs get fixed first.
"anti-competitive tricks" and "bloatware/vapor 'features'" -- so... care to
explain what you mean? Or do we write this off as yet another unsupport Max
"statement"?
Notice the development of W2K? Sure:
Internally rolled out early 1998.
Wasn't released until they were sure that it was damn well near as bug free
as they could make it.
Incorporated numerous new features including better laptop support, better
network support, better optimized kernel, DirectX7 support, improved UI
unicode handling, etc etc etc.
What was your point again?
Simon
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.arch,comp.os.netware.misc
Subject: Re: Ms employees begging for food
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 03:24:58 GMT
"R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard )" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8sir9d$lln$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> neJ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Sat, 14 Oct 2000 15:04:24 -0400, unicat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > A picture claiming to show former monoposoft
> > > employees begging for food...
> > >An image from a site dedicated to spreading the "truth"-
> > >
> > >http://www.nwlink.com/~rodvan/microsoft/street1.html
>
> That is so CUTE!!
>
> > >Don't let this happen to you. Learn linux now ;-)
> >
> > You sure that picture wasn't really of Linux investors???
> > Red Hat is down what, 90% from it's high?
>
> Microsoft is down 50% and revenues are down 20%
>From what? Let's put this into perspective.
> (Red Hat's revenues grew by 270%).
Again, from what?
Revenues down 20% from hundreds of billions vs revenues up 270%
from nothing doesn't really mean a whole heck of a lot.
What's the P/E ratio of MS vs RedHat. That's the real metric here.
> Granted, Red Hat chose to give away millions of shares of stock
> options to thousands of developers who contributed thousands of
> hours to Linux specification, development, documentation, and
> promotion.
Of course, most of them never made it to those developers which is
why ETrade is in hot water now. Most of those shares went to
"friends and family".
> Some of these people were still in college and needed to sell off
> to collect tuition. Others were just unaccustomed to dealing with
> this kind of money. Others were simply jumping ship as the entire
> tech market started to skid. And IBM sold off a portion of it's
> holdings (about $14 million) shortly after the Novice option holders
> sold off. I personally bought in at 70, sold at 140, bought again at
> 60 (after the 2 for one split) and put a limit in at 140 (which missed).
> A few days later, the stock was at 70 (where I sold all but token
> holdings) and finally down to 40. Today it swings between 15 and 30.
Or, the real story: The market was living in a dream land and investing
into companies with no revenue and no hope of revenue. They finally got
smart and yanked out which is why RedHat suffered. Their business model
is to give away most of their product. Doesn't sound very profitable
to me. It's hard to be an industry leader selling manuals and support.
> Small-cap stocks always get hit hardest in a correction. They also
> take longer to bounce back.
Especially when they're horribly overvalued. Except, that problem has
been taken care of.
> Meanwhile, back at the ranch, LinuxCare and Cobalt seem to be doing
> very well, as is Applix. Corel had some legal issues which took it's
> stock from $30/share to $3/share.
Not to mention poor quality software, diminishing sales, no clear
focus in the market, no good leadership, spiraling costs, etc.
> In many cases, the fundamental rules of business have held fast.
> Companies who made good products and services at good prices and
> delivered quality consistently did quite well.
>
> Red Hat has chosen to remain focused on the server market, leaving
> the Workstation and Laptop market to Mandrake (who uses the Red Hat
> distribution as a core, but enhances it with a friendly desktop and
> consumer oriented applications). Mandrake also uses Linuxcare for
> user support.
Red Hat has done well? Their stock is tattered. What's the P/E ratio?
Earnings/Share is -0.52, they're nearing another 52-week low, since
it just set one 10/13/00. It closed at 13.5, the low is 10.5.
Price-to-cash-flow ratio is well below industry average.
Doesn't sound like it's doin' all that well.
-Chad
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
