__/ [ Rex Ballard ] on Friday 12 May 2006 18:07 \__
> DFS wrote:
>> Linonut wrote:
>>
>> > That's because we use a fair amount of Microsoft crapware.
>>
>> It's not crapware, of course. Most MS programs are great, great software.
>> Why do you think so many large companies buy it?
>
> I would love to know who you really are. It's fine that you feel that
> all Microsoft programs are great, and if that's the way you feel, you
> should keep on using them. There are some Microsoft programs which I
> also very much like, especially MS-Project. But I have a very
> different point of view from yours.
At this stage, having read your message in its entirety, I cannot justify
your use of prose to please the person whom you reply to. One thing is a
sure fact: your posts beg for their attention. It implies that factual
information gets on their nerves and sparks that inner-conflict symptom.
> I have worked for a number of these very large companies, sometimes as
> an employee, sometimes as a consultant.
>
> In most cases, one of the things they find incredibly frustrating is
> the necessity to spend huge amounts of money, which usually involves
> layoffs of as much as 20% of the staff, to cover the expense - to
> merely purchase upgrades of Microsoft's software - simply because
> Microsoft wants more money.
Somewhat of a contradiction might exist here. You see, GNU/Linux requires
less human intervention once it is up and running. Therefore, in practice,
it requires fewer members of staff who are IT-proficient. In turn, this
could lead greedy enterprises to use it for accumulation of profit (/a la/
Allchin, Gates, Ballmer), at management-level. On the other hand, in turn,
this could lead to /extension/, e.g. new branch opens which accommodates
something other than 'box booters', as you once referred to them
> Windows XP almost fulfills the promis of being a 'Better Unix than
> Unix' - being better than the versions of Unix that were available in
> 1992, when NT was first announced.
>
> Companies still hate the costs and expenses of corrupted software and
> lost productivity due to viruses, spyware, worms, malware, and other
> 'disruptive' software, even if it's just accidental trip to 'DLL Hell'.
>
> It's gotten to the point where it's cheaper to simply replace a
> corrupted machine than to try and recover it or re-image the hard
> drive. And even then, it's now becoming common practice to need an
> external hard drive to back-up critical data and store downloaded
> applications.
>
> Many companies don't even discuss Windows as Server anymore, they want
> Linux or Unix, not Windows. Even where Windows is used, it's given a
> very restricted role, out at the 'edge' of the IT Universe. After all,
> Windows 2003 Data Center edition can run as high as $25,000 per CPU,
> with a minumum of 8 CPUs per component. The same functions can be done
> with LAMP (Linux, Apache, MySql, PHP and Perl) for almost no "per
> server" cost, and with Open Office Base providing a user friendly
> interface, the cunsulting costs are going down very quickly as well
> (rates are up, hours are down).
>
> The days when Microsoft could publish their "Fast [with the] Facts"
> benchmarks and have them be accepted as absolute truth are pretty much
> gone. Most major corporations and even most medium size businesess of
> over 100 employees, have already tried Linux in servers and have found
> that they very much licke it.
>
> Microsoft still does very well in organizations where the entire
> enterprize and all locations has fewer than 100 people at all
> locations. This is probably because the users do their own support and
> often use underlicensed servers. Essentially, they are Microsoft
> users, but they are also engaging in software piracy of Microsoft
> software.
>
> One of the best things to happen to Linux was when Microsoft announced
> that they were no longer going to support NT 4.0, and then tried to get
> all of their customers to upgrade from Windows NT 4.0 at $1500/server
> to Windows 2003 at as much as $100,000/server.
> Many simply heard this first number and went streight to Linux.
>
> Many other companies were able to use their ability to deploy Linux
> quickly and easily as a way to negotiate down the cost of those Windows
> licenses. In some cases, the discounts were as high as 90%, but it
> wasn't easily given.
Such discounts, let us not forget, are often granted in the form of coupons
-- once the courts deem Microsoft guilty. You can only redeem such software
vouchers by obtaining another 'dose (pun definitely intended) of the same
poison.
>> > By comparison, running in a Linux environment
>> > is a breath of fresh air.
>>
>> Apparently it's a huge effort to get a breath of 100% Linux fresh air,
>> because it's very rarely seen, anywhere in the world.
>
> True. Any good IT manager has to decide where to deploy what products.
> There are places where Windows is simply the path of least resistance.
> If I can buy a few hundred desktop or laptop PCs and they are already
> configured with Windows, it's probably best to take advantage of the
> available resource. However, many organizations are beginning to add
> Linux capabilities to Windows, using cygwin based applications, or even
> using VMWare Player images running on Linux VM images with preconfigure
> software that would be too difficult to install manually. The
> advantage of using VMs is that you can take snapshots to an external
> hard drive, and if your image machine gets too corrupted, you can
> recover just by reloading the image.
>
> The problem that has become all too common in the XP world is the
> laptop or desktop machine that has to be reimaged. The problem is that
> it can take 5-10 working days to fully restore a complex configuration
> AFTER the machine has been re-imaged. By having critical applications
> in VM images, you can be back to fully operational even if they replace
> your old laptop with a newer (better) model.
>
> Microsoft has seen how important this is, and has scrambled to meet
> this demand. Today they are offering free downloads of Virtual Server
> 2.0. One of the things I did like was that Virtual Server 1.0 images
> could be imported by VMWare Workstation for Linux and then I could use
> Linux as the primary operating system. Since the hardware had been
> licensed for Windows XP, I was simply using my license - in a more
> powerful and flexible way. I was eliminating a source of frequent
> frustration.
>
> Back to your original point. Yes, Microsoft does make some good
> software. Even more important, they make it easy for "non-geeks" to
> use it.
>
> The problem for Microsoft is that more and more PC users are now far
> more tech savvy, and don't need the same level of hand-holding that
> made Windows ubiquitous. Even worse, many of these more tech-savvy
> users in their twenties, thirties, and forties don't have problems
> getting Linux to run either. And many are now looking at Macs and
> others are looking at ways to have "The best of both worlds"
> (Linux/Unix and Windows/Vista).
>
> My hope is that Microsoft will begin to see Linux as an "Enhancement"
> not as a "Replacement" of Windows. Perhaps they will even work to make
> Vista more "Linux Friendly" and maybe even adopt some of this newly
> purchased Unix kernel code. Since they just "bought back" the rights
> to Unix from SCO (on a nonexclusive basis, of course), Microsoft can
> now freely market their own version of Unix and call it something like
> Vista.
>
> DFS, you seem to have a special insight into the workings of Microsoft,
> do you think this is a possibility?
As I said in regards to a previous message, I applaud your writings on these
matters. It's a shame you do not summon the time to do this more frequently.
Best wishes,
Roy
--
Roy S. Schestowitz | Anonymity - established 2001, Google Groups
http://Schestowitz.com | SuSE Linux ¦ PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
6:20pm up 15 days 1:17, 9 users, load average: 0.94, 0.55, 0.33
http://iuron.com - Open Source knowledge engine project
|
|
