"Roy Schestowitz" <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:dfcnlb$1rrq$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> 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.
>
You have to keep a balance about you, roy. Sloppy work in one area
carries over to others. If you get to the recognition level of Einstein
or Edison or the like, you can afford to be eccentric, but until you do,
you are just seen as careless. You can dismiss that as unimportant but
you will lose a lot of efficiency in what you do.
>
>> 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?
>
You make an unsubstantiated assumption that "The wiser O/S choice IBM
make (American would refer to companies as singular), the higher the
profits. " Here you equate profits with something that is not been a
traditional measure. Profits are the difference between revenues and
costs and are higher when costs are lower, which is your point, but you
ignore what every salesman knows to his core, i.e. that profits are much
higher when revenues soar. You have to feed the fire to get it burning
bright, roy, and that may not be the most conservative use of fuel.
>
>> 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.
>
You have an almost childlike view of business here, roy! IBM will lead
all of their customers in the directions that each wants to go
naturally. That is the expedient way to get the business over and done
with. Some may make bad choices and founder, but in the main all of the
solutions available to the world in terms of computing efficiency are
all reasonably efficacious and none of them inherently lead to disaster.
They are mostly preference items and IBM knows that they can close a
sale a lot sooner by meeting the customer's request than by trying to
educate him into accepting another solution.
>
>> 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.
>
Well, you are a hard case, roy! You are possibly more interested in
forcing a conclusion than in learning anything new. IBM obviously
supports all sides of the issue and has a supportive story for each. If
you want to take your own survey, look at the IBM website and see how
much support is given Windows, how much is given AIX, how much is given
to mainframe and traditional IBM platforms, and how much is given to
linux. Draw your own conclusions.
>
>>> 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]
>
>
Didn't seem to be anything below that had anything to do with that
claim, roy.
|
|
