Ah, there's the daily nicety, but I thought it was due to supersede any other
__/ [rex.ballard@xxxxxxxxx] on Wednesday 04 January 2006 08:15 \__
> Sinister Midget wrote:
>> Not one of the upper management at MICROS~1 has ever held me at
>> gunpoint and stolen my credit cards.
> Micrososft got your money long before your credit card.
> You're employer purchased a machine from a major OEM, who paid for the
> equivalent of 1.2 to 1.5 licenses per machine at a net price that was
> about 80% of the wholesale price of the machine.
> Then you employer paid for a "Support Program" which included
> "upgrades" to "Professional". This also included other Microsoft
> software - such as MS-Office.
> The total package came to the equivalent of 20% of payroll, or a
> similar amount of net profit - possibly as much as 1/2 the net profit
> of the company.
> To pay for it, Management had to cut budget elsewhere, including
> layoffs, suspension or reduction of raises and bonuses, and
> unreembursed overtime.
> Furthermore, the IT department is typically expected to take the
> biggest churk of the cut, because they are the cause of the extra
I am not too sure about that.
Acquisition of unreliable or unstable (READ: commercial) software makes the
IT department more necessary than otherwise. Imagine yourself an idle group
of programmers munching doughnuts while LAMP server do not fail. Users do
not make phonecalls because uptime is decent and servers do not require any
maintenance other than occasional upgrades. It is then that systems
administrators become redundant, or at least fewer of them are necessary.
The systems sustain (or maintain) themselves.
>> Possibly the guy that did it
>> worked for them, but I can't say for sure.
> Actually, the guy who did it, was more like a pickpocket - and he
> supposedly worked for YOU, but gained far more by supporting Microsoft.
> He may have owned stock, he may have been getting perks and junkets,
> or he may have just been getting free "evaluation" software.
> Ultimately, Microsoft convinced him that turning over most of what
> would have been your paycheck, was good for the company, and possibly
> good for his career, or that not supporting Microsoft would be very bad
> for his career..
>> Neither my new computer, nor even Linux, would exist without MS.
> There is probably a great deal of truth to this. Microsoft tried very
> hard to hold back technology - much as it has tried to hold back 64 bit
> technology - which Linux has been supporting for over 10 years. They
> held back 32 bit technology for almost a decade as well.
The step-up to 64-bit architectures will only be encouraged when more
fundamental issues are resolved at the 32-bit level. For example, make sure
you can reboot successfully for several consecutive years. Windows is unable
to do that, so why raise the level of complexity?
> Microsoft drains massive amounts of corporate R&D funding and support
> for incompatibilities and manual procedures can suck even more
> resources from the company, which means that companies have fewer
> resources available for other technologies.
> You computer is as slow, old, primative, buggy, and insecure as it is
> because of Microsoft.
I often think of this differently. Given the cost of a Linux workstation
(around $250 these days for a brank new box), you could buy *more* of these
for the same price. Either you have more resources to serve customers, or
you can cater for more employees, or have a shorter upgrade cycle. All of
these are winning factor that puts the company in a position of advantage.
> By the same token,Microsoft's disregard for it's previous allies,
> partners, vendors, and customers has united them. The net result is
> that Open Source, and Linux, with the support of numerous corporations.
> including these former partners, vendors, customers, and allies - has
> begun making huge cuts into Microsoft's revenue model.
>> Edwin, A Follower of the True Windows Religion©
>> Message-ID: <1136066927.949830.316320@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>