Board index » delphi » Re: Linux Market?

Re: Linux Market?


2008-02-10 07:44:02 AM
delphi58
"Rudy Velthuis [TeamB]" <XXXX@XXXXX.COM>writes
Quote

If you watch Hollywood films and TV series, you will see a high
proportion of the shown computers being Macs too.

The reason for that early Apples got so good at graphics that
media groups and graphic artist types and film peeps loved
them. So on a film set there are hundreds on hand.
Rita
 
 

Re: Linux Market?

I.P. Nichols writes:
Quote
Question - if instead of 100 million boxes with Vista licenses being
sold those 100 million boxes were sold with Linux factory installed
how would the people who developed Linux be rewarded? How do they
feed and clothe their families, pay mortgages and educate their
children? Leaving aside the Richard Stallman arguments, how does
society benefit from 100 million copies of Linux which the FOSS
developers provided for free?
Linux (and open source software in general) doesn't follow the same
business model as Windows does. Do a quick Google search and you will
find more answers to your question than you will be able to read.
--
Regards,
Bruce McGee
Glooscap Software
 

Re: Linux Market?

I.P. Nichols writes:
Quote
"Paul Nichols [TeamB]" writes:
>>
>I have 12 boxes, all of which came with Windows. 2 run Windows (one in
>a VM), the rest are running Linux (10) and (1) Open Solaris.
>
>According to the surveys however, I am running 12 Windows boxes and 0
>Linux boxes. Guess what? SURVEY < CORRECT!

Yes, but remember you bought 12 Windows licenses for which Microsoft
received payment and you are now receiving absolutely no benefit from 10
of those licenses.
I did not but the boxes for Windows, I bought the boxes for the HARDWARE.
The fact that MS has a monopoly with these vars is why I had to but the
Windows license. I could have paid more for a box with no OS, but there
was no negotiation with the price without Windows.
The DOJ was suppose to stop this exploitation, but did absolutely
nothing about it.
Am I sad that these license are not being used? Surely, you jest. Do I
wish I did not have to pay the MS tax and could have purchased these
same computers without an OS or with Linux installed from the start? Yes.
I'm sure you see the problem with just switching from
Quote
Windows to Linux.
No I see a problem in forcing me to pay a Windows license, when I
neither need or want Windows. If I want a Windows license, I am glad to
pay for it. But if I do not want Windows, I should not be forced to pay
for it.
Quote
And yes I know that Dell and HP are beginning to sell
boxes with Ubuntu installed so as my good-buddy Bruce would say, folks
now have more options, but how often will John Q. Public exercise his
option to buy his new box with Linux desktop factory install and except
on the cheapest of boxes,
Perhaps firms like me or Fed-Ex, UPS, or others? Of course I am sure
that none of the OEMs will turn these down, nor force them to Windows. :)
Yes I am glad that HP, Dell, and Leveno are now offering Servers,
Desktops, and Notebooks with Linux pre-installed. That is what I will
buy in the future, if they are compatible in features and price with X.
As I stated, I only run one Windows box and that is all I need, plus a
VM or VM versions of several different OSes. To be honest, I rarely
write for Windows. I write most of my software as XPlatform. Why?
Because that is what my users want**.
Some of our software is deployed on Windows. however, many others are
not. My job is not to tell customers what they must use. That is THEIR
Choice!! It may be a novel idea for some, but our customers not only
PREFER IT THAT WAY, THEY DEMAND IT!
Most of the customers I work with do not have small deployments or roll
outs. The systems I work with often have to support tens of thousands to
millions of transactions per day, with up to as many as 300,000 users.
Not a good Windows option, except, perhaps for Desktop access. But I do
not dictate whether they use Windows, Mac, Linux, or Solaris for their
desktops, nor for the servers. That is THEIR choice.
We do recommend that they use Linux or Unix based servers for the
back-end critical processes, due to the user and processing demands, but
whether they choose to reject or accept these recommendations, is left
up to them. They normally listen to our recommendations and follow them.
But the final decision up to them.
what is his incentive to choose Linux over Windows?
Quote

Let's see security, stability, interoperatability. speed, cost, etc.
That's just for starters. I am not saying Linux is for everyone, but
since you have asked me, I have responded as me. :)
I do use and recommend Open Solaris for Servers as well as others. What
I recommend depends upon the solution needed and the situation.
Quote
In the last year 100 million Vista licenses have been sold for which
Microsoft received a "gob" of money. What happens to the money Microsoft
received. Most of it went to pay employee salaries and infrastructure
costs with some also going to reward investors. However you split the
pie, most of it ends up in the pockets of employees who feed and clothe
their families, pay their mortgages, educate their children, pay their
taxes, etc. Society benefits from such enterprise.

Boo hoo!! Unless I feed the MS machine, thousands will go hungry, I will
go hungry!!
News flash!! I do not work for MS, My salary is not based on MS' success
nor failure, If MS died tomorrow, my job is not affected. In fact I
would be doing even MORE business.
Poor IBM, Oracle, Google, Sony, Sun, Redhat, etc. will all be broke
without MS. Are you really trying to be serious?
You do realize that last quarter alone Sun earned $ 200,000,000 on open
source products and IBM earned $ 100,000,000 as well? That was just in
one quarter. Novell also improved sales tremendously and would have
shown a loss without Novell Linux.
I would agree that firms that sell PCs would be hurt without MS. Each
version of Windows requires more and more hardware to be purchased to
run the pigs. OK so you see the need of an OS to require a 2gz.
processor and a gig of RAM. I don't sorry. Yes, I could see some
software programs needing this kind of HP, but not an OS. Personally I
think the OS should be transparent to the user and use as few resources
as possible. I even wish Linux took up a smaller footprint. MS must be
starting to agree, since Windows 2008 server offers the choice of a GUI
or non GUI.
If there was no MS and only Linux, hardware could be used for years
without the need to buy expensive PC upgrades. My $ 600.00 notebook
loaded with Linux will outrun a $3,000.00 dollar state of the art
machine, that is running Vista. So on that note, I agree that these
manufacturers have enjoyed the Microsoft relationship. I do not think
anyone would deny this.
Quote
Question - if instead of 100 million boxes with Vista licenses being
sold those 100 million boxes were sold with Linux factory installed how
would the people who developed Linux be rewarded? How do they feed and
clothe their families, pay mortgages and educate their children? Leaving
aside the Richard Stallman arguments, how does society benefit from 100
million copies of Linux which the FOSS developers provided for free?

Please even though by your posts, you appear to be an MS sychophant,
please do some research before regurgitating the MS line.
Linux developers, by and large, as well as Open Source developers in
general, are fully employed with very large and smaller corporations.
Oracle, IBM, Google, Yahoo, Sony, Sun, all help produce Open Source
products and services. They hire and employ many in the open source
world and want them to work with each other across countries and
corporations, and to innovate and create new products and services as
well as making current ones better.
I really feel sorry those poor mySQL developers who just received huge
bonuses on a one billion dollar sale, Red Hat who continues to be
profitable, JBoss who received over 150,000.00 for their Open Source
efforts, Suse who received $ 350,000,000 for their efforts, Sugar CRM,
etc. I should be so lucky!! But when you deal with the unprofitable
model of open source, guess multi-million and billion dollar deals
should be expected. :)
Yes, the profit margins are less with Open Source, but there are needs
and that requires programmers and support. Most software, out of the
box, whether it comes from a commercial vendor or Open Source, fails to
meet business requirements precisely. It is easier to make software fit
business than business fit a canned version of software?
Open Source offers a foundation upon which to work. It is not the end to
all custom work, nor usually the end for the resulting solution. It does
cut costs in development by providing the foundation or foundation upon
which to work, but does not usually result in the final end product.
Open Source companies make money by customizations, services, and
support. This is not any different from the way most of us in the
programming and software profession do.
IP, your problem is that you see only one software development cycle as
tenable or viable; namely, the closed source model.
Open Source software encourages the cooperative model This is a
philological and philosophical debate about which is the best way to
produce software; closed or open source. It is not new; it is an old debate.
The close source adherents believe that focused development by a set of
engineers, architects, marketers, etc. all focused on the same task, in
a controlled environment, is the only way to produce quality software.
The Open source adherents believe that the best way to produce software
is to open the process to more than one set of developers without a
single entity controlling the evolutionary development process. It is a
cooperative world views verses the isolationist view,
In reality, both models have something to commend them. The closed
source model works well in some situations better than the open source
model, and the open source model works better in others.
In the Operating System stream, I see much more benefit in the Open
model. Why? Because a single entity cannot possibly know the needs of
the world. Windows offers a one size fits all. Linux and other open
Source OSes offers the world's input to the process, and if you desire,
you can customize the OS to fit your particular business needs just for
your own business needs.
That is precisely what Yahoo and Google as well as Sony, have all done
(I know because I have worked with most of these firms). Yahoo took the
Free BSD OS and customized it to make Yahoo better, faster, and more
scalable to their needs. Google took Linux and made their own Linux to
support what they needed to support. Sony took Linux and JBoss and
customized it to fit their needs. This would not have been possible with
Windows, since they would have had no access to the source.
Suppose you had a Delphi without the source to the VCL. How would you
create your own components or extend the same? What I find odd about
those Delphites who are so opposed to Open Source is how they turn
around and herald the fact that the VCL framework is provided with
Source code. Is there not some apparent contradiction here?
Finally, I do not know of any major IT shop that lives, works, or
functions in a monolithic OS or hardware world. The IT world is
heterogeneous and will continue in this manner. In nearly all major IT
shops, you are going to find Windows, Linux, Unix, and in the large
ones, also OS400 and OS390 OSes and hardware. That is not likely to
change any time soon.
Refusing to accept this fact and instead employing an ostrich paradigm,
does not enhance a resume; it only limits your potential.
**: I am not saying that this is everyone's model or that it has to be.
It all depends upon what your needs are.
 

Re: Linux Market?

"Paul Nichols [TeamB]" writes:
Quote
I.P. Nichols writes:
<big snip>
Quote
Please even though by your posts, you appear to be an MS sychophant...
No more that you appear to be a anti-Windows Microsoft bashing sychophant.
;-)
Quote
**: I am not saying that this is everyone's model or that it has to be. It
all depends upon what your needs are.
Thanks for your very long and mostly virulent tirade however since I was
exclusively talking about FOSS desktop OS vs Windows desktop and your
arguments were all about servers, I didn't find it very helpful or
informative but I will give you an A++ for excruciating passion. ;-)
 

Re: Linux Market?

"Bruce McGee" writes:
Quote
I.P. Nichols writes:

>Question - if instead of 100 million boxes with Vista licenses being
>sold those 100 million boxes were sold with Linux factory installed
>how would the people who developed Linux be rewarded? How do they
>feed and clothe their families, pay mortgages and educate their
>children? Leaving aside the Richard Stallman arguments, how does
>society benefit from 100 million copies of Linux which the FOSS
>developers provided for free?

Linux (and open source software in general) doesn't follow the same
business model as Windows does.
That's the understatement of the year and a bit like saying Communism
doesn't follow the same business model as free market Democracy does. ;>)
 

Re: Linux Market?

I.P. Nichols writes:
Quote
"Paul Nichols [TeamB]" writes:
>I.P. Nichols writes:

<big snip>

>Please even though by your posts, you appear to be an MS sychophant...

No more that you appear to be a anti-Windows Microsoft bashing
sychophant. ;-)

Not really. As I stated, I leave the decisions up to the customer.
Windows has its usage, but it is certainly not a be all, is all
solution. There is some software where Unix/Linux has no equivalent. In
those cases, Windows or Terminal servers are the only solution. The
reverse is also true.
Unix/Linux is more flexible by design. Anyone who does an objective
analysis however, knows this.
My analysis wasn't all about servers either. Servers do fit into the
equation, but desktops were and are included as well. In my personal
case, it deals with both as it does in my business cases.
 

Re: Linux Market?

"Paul Nichols [TeamB]" <XXXX@XXXXX.COM>writes
Quote
I.P. Nichols writes:


You do realize that last quarter alone Sun earned $ 200,000,000 on open
source products and IBM earned $ 100,000,000 as well? That was just in one
quarter. Novell also improved sales tremendously and would have shown a
loss without Novell Linux.

Excellent post Paul I enjoyed the whole thing phewwwwwwwwwwwww
The part I left in above is very interesting I loved my Novell SuSE 10.3
so much I bought the boxed version.;-) maybe my forty something quid
put them in the black. I love figures you cant argue with them.
I hope one of the guys mentioned bring out a Kylix like tool but one that
works a little better. Maybe my fellow limey at Ubuntu can do it. ;-)
Rita
 

Re: Linux Market?

"I.P. Nichols" <XXXX@XXXXX.COM>writes
Quote

Thanks for your very long and mostly virulent tirade however since I was
exclusively talking about FOSS desktop OS vs Windows desktop and your
arguments were all about servers, I didn't find it very helpful or
informative but I will give you an A++ for excruciating passion. ;-)
I thought it was way cool myself but it was not aimed at me sorry.
Glad to see you give him A++ do they have RAD TASM yet? ;-)
Rita
 

Re: Linux Market?

Quote
You can buy the gullwing cheap at.
www.google.co.uk/products
LOL, I already bought 1:18, 1:43, 1:87 to compensate for not being able to
buy the real 1:1 thing:
tinyurl.com/322a5l
 

Re: Linux Market?

"Paul Nichols [TeamB]" writes:
Quote

The fact that MS has a monopoly with these vars is why I had to but the
Windows license. I could have paid more for a box with no OS, but there
was no negotiation with the price without Windows.

The DOJ was suppose to stop this exploitation, but did absolutely nothing
about it.
But being a monopoly isn't illegal under US law and DOJ did stop Microsoft
from compelling box vendors to install Windows on all the boxes they sold as
a condition of granting them an OEM license.
I always find it ironical when someone thinks there is simply no justice
when the DOJ doesn't espouse their POV and retaliate against their enemies.
Should Microsoft insist that DOJ enjoin Mr. Shuttleworth and his Ubuntu
organization from it is unfair trade practice of providing it is OS products
for free as a violation of the U.S. antidumping laws? <RBG>
www.cato.org/pubs/fpbriefs/fpb-011.html
 

Re: Linux Market?

I.P. Nichols writes:
Quote
That's the understatement of the year and a bit like saying Communism
doesn't follow the same business model as free market Democracy does.
;>)
I don't think it is like saying that at all. that is more like something
intended to evoke an emotional response and no more accurate than
implying that proprietary software is somehow fascist. it is all
hyperbole that takes away from legitimate discussion.
As you like to say, open source is simply another option with its own
benefits and drawbacks.
Do you use any kind of free (cost or otherwise) or open source
software? Why or why not?
--
Regards,
Bruce McGee
Glooscap Software
 

Re: Linux Market?

Quote
"Paul Nichols [TeamB]" writes:
>I.P. Nichols writes:
>
>>Please even though by your posts, you appear to be an MS sychophant...
>
>No more that you appear to be a anti-Windows Microsoft bashing
>sychophant. ;-)
>
Not really.
Give me a break, sounds to me that the pot doesn't like the kettle calling
it black. ;-)
 

Re: Linux Market?

"Bruce McGee" writes:
Quote
I.P. Nichols writes:

>That's the understatement of the year and a bit like saying Communism
>doesn't follow the same business model as free market Democracy does.
>;>)

I don't think it is like saying that at all. that is more like something
intended to evoke an emotional response and no more accurate than
implying that proprietary software is somehow fascist. it is all
hyperbole that takes away from legitimate discussion.
Each to his own but I didn't say that to evoke an emotional response, I said
it because I thought it more factual that hyperbolic.
Quote
As you like to say, open source is simply another option with its own
benefits and drawbacks.

Do you use any kind of free (cost or otherwise) or open source
software? Why or why not?
Like most people I use a lot of "free" software and some of which may be
FOSS, I really don't know or care.
Years ago as a member of ACGNJ, founded in 1975 and the oldest computer club
still in operation, I was vary actively involved with ASM coded utility
programs for their SIG/M Software Library which was discontinued in 1983. In
the six years of operation it created and distributed over 2,000 public
domain and shareware CP/M programs on close to a hundred different floppy
disks to over 50 computer clubs around the world. This was the first
Software Library ever created for Personal Computers. With the advent of the
IBM-PC I translated some of the more popular CPM 8-bit utilities from
8080/8085 to IBM DOS 16 bit 8086/8088 code. Shortly there after there begin
the shareware concept and more and more squabbles broke out over copyrights
and then licenses and I finally said -{*word*222}it. In all the programs I
authored I started by saying they were placed in the public domain by me
with absolutely no restrictions on who or how they were used including for
commerce. It seems the FOSS folks don't share my public domain with
absolutely no restrictions philosophy. I quit contribution efforts in the
same year Richard Stillman founded the Free Software Foundion. ;-(
BTW: Bill Gates attended our anuual dinner meetings more than once and
always berated our SIG/M effots every change he got. I love that guy when he
gets angry and red faced. ;-)
 

Re: Linux Market?

I.P. Nichols writes:
Quote
Each to his own but I didn't say that to evoke an emotional response,
I said it because I thought it more factual that hyperbolic.
You won't be surprised to hear that I don't agree, but as you say, to
each their own.
Quote
Like most people I use a lot of "free" software and some of which may
be FOSS, I really don't know or care.
That's one of the advantages of this particular option. You don't
really need to care.
--
Regards,
Bruce McGee
Glooscap Software
 

Re: Linux Market?

Rita writes:
Quote
"Rudy Velthuis [TeamB]" <XXXX@XXXXX.COM>writes
news:XXXX@XXXXX.COM...
>If you watch Hollywood films and TV series, you will see a high
>proportion of the shown computers being Macs too.
>

The reason for that early Apples got so good at graphics that
media groups and graphic artist types and film peeps loved
them. So on a film set there are hundreds on hand.
Rita

Actually, even lots of tech people prefer Macs for themselves.
Check out all these tech-related vodcasts.
The old MacOS was horrible.
I hated it when I had to use it back in '98 for some months.
Now, I very much dislike the thought of having to work on a Windows machine tomorrow... :-/
The newer NeXT-based system is pretty cool, IMO. And at least since Tiger, it pretty much blows
everything else on the desktop. (Which is why MSFT tried to make their own version of it *g*)
Except you need software from someone who's still using Windows-only tools like Delphi, hint, hint,...