__/ [billwg] on Saturday 03 September 2005 15:22 \__
> "Roy Schestowitz" <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:dfblgs$1j4i$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> __/ [eros.tintory@xxxxxxxxxxx] on Friday 02 September 2005 19:44 \__
>>
>> ...
>> I still fail to grasp why people take Microsoft's word rather than the
>> word
>> of a company which uses so *cough* many *cough* different platforms.
>> Considering the fact that Microsoft paid IBM hundreds of millions
>> worth of
>> licences, IBM have no incentive or motive to favour Linux.
>>
> This is a clumsy sort of statement construct, roy, so maybe the meaning
> isn't what the overall context of the thread would imply
Life is too short to proofread. If you are going to criticise my phrasing,
which contained grammatical errors that I noticed immediately after
posting, we might wind up drifting off-topic.
> but if it
> means what I think you intended, then the simple answers are first, that
> Microsoft is an expert on the efficient use of the Windows platform,
> that being their only focus, and IBM is just a distributor of a variety
> of platforms and only views them as a means to an end of selling
> hardware.
That is true.
Microsoft's interests are their profits first. Often it has been suggested
that Microsoft punish the same very community that they pretend to cherish
(please see http://tinyurl.com/docva ). IBM also want to increase their
profit, much like Microsoft. The means by which they make profits are
software (inc. operating systems) and hardware. The wiser O/S choice IBM
make (American would refer to companies as singular), the higher the
profits. So why would they ever opt for an O/S which they believe to be
less cost-effective?
> IBM strives to be all things to all people and so only
> provides opinions designed to reinforce client prejudices whereas
> Microsoft has to evangelize their position to convince customers to
> change their minds when the customer holds some belief counter to
> Microsoft's interests.
You are twisting our arms here.
Microsoft 'know' that they are the 'best'. They will always tell that to
their prospective client. If IBM reinforce prejudice and lead the client to
bankruptcy, their status would be degraded. It does not matter to IBM which
O/S manufacturer earned money from the client. IBM lost. IBM made a poor
decision. So long IBM. In conclusion, IBM must make reasonable O/S
selections -- selections that best fit their interest, i.e. the client's
interest. It is as simple as 1,2,3.
> The classic example is the story of those who
> are involved with your breakfast wherein it is said the chicken is
> highly interested, but the pig is committed.
You got this reversed, I think. You forgot who the pig was, so here <
http://tinyurl.com/docva > is a reminder.
> If you don't believe IBM's story about linux, they do feature Windows
> servers and if you don't want Windows either, you can choose AIX or you
> can run one of the mainframe or midiframe systems also available. If
> you look around, you find that IBM has a compelling story for the
> purchase justification of each and every one of those opportunities.
>
> That brings us to the conclusion that IBM indeed does not have an
> incentive or motive to favor linux but rather favors motion in the
> market above all and seeks to provide assistance to movement in any
> direction.
This fails to address the question as to whether they favour Linux or not.
This does not support your side of your argument, to be bluntly honest.
>> The only person to go and read "Get the Facts" is one who is irritable
>> because of the looming "Linux threat".
>>
>
> I don't believe that to be the case, roy. Surely, with the vast amounts
> of money MS spends on market research, they would have discovered that
> and ceased to waste their time and money continuing the process. Give
> the devil his due.
You mentioned an important factor. "Vast amounts of money", you said. With
vast amounts of money you can make people say all sorts of things. You can
also penetrate Web sites like Slashdot and put .NET commercials in them,
which is a true story... [see below]
>> Oh, by the way, the Independent reported last week that coffee is good
>> for
>> you and some academics reported that steroids are not harmful.
>>
> Did you make that up? It sounds a little too pat.
[...continued] and so are the ones above. It is stunning that people would
choose to believe whatever they desire to believe. Coffee is good at
/moderate/ amounts of consumption and steriods... well, that's just vile.
These studies sure can get plenty attention when perculating past peer
review, but then again, about half of all academic studies are said to have
had their figures and findings 'massaged'. It is a matter of publish or
perish to them. Even peer-reviewed processes can be affected by money, but
that's an issue for another day.
Roy
--
Roy S. Schestowitz | "Slashdot is standard-compliant... in Japan"
http://Schestowitz.com | SuSE Linux | PGP-Key: 74572E8E
6:25pm up 10 days 6:36, 3 users, load average: 0.07, 0.36, 0.36
|
|
