[KLUG Advocacy] Interesting . . .

[randy perry]

> He (or what) holds the rights is what matters, not who actually wrote
> the code.   For every this-is-just-a-copy-of-that statement it is
> usually possible to go back and show how the copied was a copy itself. 
> Mac invented the GUI which M$ copied is a common one (albeit impossible,
> look at the dates).  But Apple didn't have the first GUI by at least ten
> years,  that was Xerox.
Lisa was the first gui.  Palo Alto research labs at Xerox developed the
first mouse (another thing attributed to Apple)
> 
> >Their inferior software was cheap enough to get  others to use it.  
> 
> For a period of time there software was hardly inferior.  Sure WingZ on
> the $57,000 RS/6000 I had access to was one awesome (and GUI)
> spreadsheet for its day.  But on a $1,200 IBM AT?  Not a chance.  M$ won
> the PC market straight up by releasing software that made those machines
> usable by minimum wage workers.  That was "success".
I was referring to their spreadsheet solution (before excel) and their
word processors.  Their OS alternatives were IBM PC Dos and QDOS (which
are all really the same thing with different wrappers)

M$ marketed to and cut deals with the OEMs to saturate the market.
> 
> >They started out cheap to get everyone to have a piece  of it.  
> 
> A legitimate arguement to use Linux today. :)  There is nothing new
> under the sun.
> 
> >Then the prices started going skyward to the point it has the most 
> >expensive software out there (and by no means is the BEST).
> 
> Well, they are capitalists, so one honestly can't get worked up over
> that.  They charge what the market will bear.  If the market finds in
> unbearable (is that a pun?) it will go elsewhere.  Or at least that is
> the theory, assuming the market is free.
And that brings us to today.  I am tired of hearing people get caught up
in brands.  I don't care if your T-shirt says Tommy Hilfinger
(intentional mispelling for comic effect), JCrew or Izod.  Does it fit?
Does it cover skin?  Materialism creates irrational consumers. You have
consumers that will spend more for a swap-meet knock off screen printed
on a low quality shirt than a higher quality 100% cotton shirt.
   What my point? Technology is the same way.  Consumers assume
Microsoft=good.  See the name, it must be good (for M$ not Joe
Consumer).  So they are not free to choose because they are ignorant
that there exist other choices.  Best Buy offers no alternative OS
(because they are a puppet of M$ who provides their IT support services
that don't work anyway)
> 
> >They reduce their cost by cooking the books (or at least getting them warm 
> >over the bunsen burner).  Questionable tactics like stock options 
> >unaccounted for until they are excercised misconstrued earnings statements.
> 
> I'm not an accountant and know nothing about their books.
> 
> >>s this the heart of Microsoft's success?  Do they really have a more
> >>efficient cost-per-unit operation than other huge software houses?
> >>They've grown and scratched more immensely expensive projects over the
> >>years (Bob, Cairo, etc...).  In my mind their success stemmed from there
> >>ability to provide a usable platform on cheap ubiquitous hardware,
> >>while all their "competition" stumbled about like so many dazed and
> >>confused trolls.
> >I think they just have better marketing and nothing more. 
> 
> But marketing is real, and something companies, candidates, job seekers,
> religions, etc... all need to do.  Doing it well is something to be
> commended, so long as what is said is honest.  And the definition of
> honestly in the marketing realm is squishy. "one degree of separation" 
> What does that mean? "9 out of 10 dentists..." Ok, sure.
<rant> A necessary evil is to have salesmen (and marketing).  I despise
the "hey, your whats happening!" salesman BS.  Salesmen only suck oxygen
that could be used by thinking humans or by internal combustion
engines.</rant>
> 
> >IBM did compete 
> >with them directly with OS/2 warp on the business desktop.  It was clearly 
> >superior but expensive to support (they wanted my credit card number to 
> >help resolve a CDRom driver issue).  OS/2 warp pepped along on little 
> >hardware that was later crippled to its knees when I migrated to WinNT4.0.
> 
> Yes, but IBM failed to promote OS/2, and they paid the price for that
> failure.  NT4 was an architectural disaster,  but apps ran on it.
> >>"IBM might compete with Microsoft, for example, and its recent
> >>flirtation with Linux is aimed at exactly that by lowering transaction
> >>costs."
> >IBM wants to make money on the consultations and hardware.  
> 
> Of course.
> 
> >Rather than give money to M$, 
> 
> Exactly.
> 
> >they pass the savings to the customer.  
> 
> Eh?  Not likely.
> 
> >It's not like IBM 
> >charges the exact same amount for X86 server and just pockets the difference.
> 
> Not certain what you mean.  "same amount" as what?
I mean that if a base price of a server is $15,000 you don't have to
also tack on the $1500 server/client fees. (could be perceived as
savings)
> 
> >>Erm.. no.   I am an IBM customer.  Sure IBM would be happy to shelve
> >>AIX.  But the "flirtation" (~4.x billion dollars at this point) is
> >>because customers said - "Wow!  Apache, Samba, Cyrus, etc... runs great
> >>on that dual x86 box, but not so great on my {AS/400 | S/390 | RS/6000,
> >>zSeries ??? | iSeries }  Hmmm...  What kind of server will I spend my
> >>money on?"  The minute IBM heard this enough times they spun their Linux
> >>attitude around so fast you could hear the corporate tires squeel.
> >IBM wants their customers to be able to run all of the software that has 
> >been developed for Linux.  
> 
> No! Customers want to be able to run on AIX (or whatever) all the apps
> they run on Linux.  IBM wants to sell stuff, be it hardware, software,
> services, etc...
Yes! totally agree, and that is exactly what
> >IBM wants their customers to be able to run all of the software that has 
> >been developed for Linux.  
says.  Probably would have been clearer if I had inserted an OS tag in
there.  
> 
> >>You can have immeasurable low cost-per-unit,  but piss off your
> >>customers and watch out.  IBM bends over back wards NOT to do just
> >>that,  the M$ guy practically moons you on the way out.
> >IBM might cost a bundle, but it just works.  Their solutions are very 
> >solid, and they do stand behind them.  Not waving their arms about like 
> >Microsoft, jibbering all kinds of marketing BS.
> 
> Bobs point is right:  when it doesn't work it isn't M$ standing about
> waving there arms.  It is a pack of MCSEs.
Yes, and they are "certified" with the stamp of approval of Microsoft.

Certified Angus Beef.

Randall Perry
randallp@domain-logic.com