__/ [ Mark Kent ] on Sunday 14 May 2006 09:21 \__
> begin oe_protect.scr
> Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
>> __/ [ 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
> I've been making this point for years on various projects in my employer
> - there are two gains to be had from every improvement in productivity,
> and the employer usually can take some of each. On the one hand,
> there are direct cost savings from avoiding the use of vendor-locked
> technology, in that support contracts, downstream functionality
> changes, and so on, can be done at a real market rate rather than at a
> locked-in rate. The second is around manpower savings - as you say,
> moving to next generation technologies like Linux invariably reduces
> the manpower requirement when compared with the legacy, currently
> Windows. That manpower saving can be used in two different ways,
> either, if the company needs to, to reduce paybill, or, if the company
> wishes, to cover more jobs per person by expansion.
Yes, exactly. To remain brief, I will simply testify that everything was
slower and less effective when I clang on that burden which was legacy -- a
Windows 98 laptop. It was my last Microsoft-affiliated asset. Did more harm
(hindrance) than good. 165 pounds on a new Linux box and so long inability
> From a hardware vendor's viewpoint, this is a good thing, in that the
> cost/box is significantly reduced, so that companies can easily
> justify having far more boxes than they have now, so again, the next
> generation linux is good for the hardware vendors when compared with
> legacy Windows.
Probably, but let us not neglect power consumption (high for legacy). That
said, a single Linux server can manage the load which requires multiple
The Microsoft path: IT budget goes to Microsoft (licensing), people paid to
boot or recover boxes.
The GNU/Linux path: No licensing cost, *more* people paid *more* to engage in
activity which is more mind-stimulating and leads to /advancement/ (e.g.
http://Schestowitz.com | Free as in Free Beer ¦ PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
9:30am up 16 days 16:27, 11 users, load average: 0.59, 0.48, 0.48
http://iuron.com - semantic engine to gather information