On Jul 17, 6:36 am, Mark Kent <mark.k...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Rex Ballard <rex.ball...@xxxxxxxxx> espoused:
> > On Jul 16, 10:42 am, Mark Kent <mark.k...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> Roy Schestowitz <newsgro...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
> >> >http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/07/13/intel_joins_olpc/
>
> >> 125 million computers per year. So, after a decade, we will have buried
> >> 1 and 1/4 thousand million computers. That's enough kit to cover most
> >> continents in one go. The only hole to be patched is around persuading
> >> people that linux on older hardware is functional and effective, against
> >> the marketing monster of Microsoft.
>
> > Keep in mind that every computer Dell CAN'T give away costs as much as
> > $300 per PC for disposal. PCs are actually loaded with Toxic waste,
> > including arsenic, cyanide, selenium, phosphorus, nickel, lead, zinc,
> > titanium, and dioxin. Sticking them in land-fill contaminates water
> > supplies.
>
> It's an interesting economic model here. Microsoft did a good job of
> making a durable good (software) non-durable, thus forcing replacement,
> and at the same time, did the hardware manufacturers a huge favour by
> requiring a huge hardware upgrade each time a new release of non-durable
> Windows came along, thus essentially making the highly durable hardware
> components essentially non-durable too.
It got worse than that. As prices for XP machines fell, and labor
costs and the costs of backup/recovery increased, it became cheaper to
simply replace a corrupted computer, rather than repair it. The only
problem for the OEMs, the price had eroded so badly that they were
actually losing money on these "disposable boxes".
> This is one reason why take-up of Linux was seen so negatively by so
> many hardware and software organizations - the view being that if Linux
> could keep the hardware going for longer, people would buy fewer
> machines, thus both Microsoft and the hardware vendors lose out.
This was probably true, up to about 2003. As the price eroded, and
profits were squeezed progressively tighter, Microsoft was driving
volume, but they had reduced all OEM products to commodities with
paper thin margins. During 2004, many companies were actually LOSING
MONEY ON THE SALE OF EACH PC. They had to subsidize those losses by
generating profit margins in other products including printers,
monitors, HDTV, consulting, and other secondary services.
In 2005, HP broke from the pack by introducing a 64 bit PC. They sold
it with 32 bit Windows XP, but they also announced that all of these
machines could run 64 bit SUSE Linux if users wanted all of the
benefits of the 64 bit processor. Strangely enough, even though HP
offered the machine with SUSE preinstalled, users almost always
purchased the machine with the OEM version of Windows. It turned out
that having the license eliminated a number of legal risks, and gave
users the best of both worlds.
Server Virtualization has been a hot topic for years. Some would
argue that Virtualization has been a hot topic since IBM introduced it
as a "skunk works project" almost 40 years ago. When EMC purchased
VMWare, it created a huge opening for Server Virtualization on Intel
platforms. The VMWare Player solution made desktop virtualization
very doable (though there are still many nice features to VMWare
Workstation. Most recently, VMWare converter has made it possible to
create a VMWare appliance out of whatever you've been running on
Windows, then install that image as a client to VMWare Player running
on Linux. The irony is that Windows runs faster this way, it's better
protected by the Linux firewall, and if there is a corruption, the is
better damage control and quicker backup/recovery to/from USB drives.
> What was not factored into this equation, though, was the huge barrier
> this put into the way of real progress in computing, which hasn't become
> clear until fairly recently, where we now have linux running on pretty
> much every platform going, including old Psion machines, a newer
> generation of phones, and perhaps more importantly, the entertainment
> device world. The potential for new sales into this environment is
> huge, something which Sony have recognised all too well with the PS3.
The biggest problem is that the traditional Windows Paradigm is pretty
much played out. With the exception of 3D animated video games, it's
very hard to tell the difference between Window XP/Office XP running
on an 2Ghz Pentium, and the same software running on a 4Ghz Pentium.
Worse, Vista seems to run slower, not faster. The load time of an
application is a very minor part of performance. Waiting several
seconds while the Windows XP garbage collector tries to clean up after
itself can be a much bigger issue.
> To my mind, old hardware is likely to be used alongside new hardware,
> rather than preventing the use of new hardware, although there will
> surely be fewer absolute new sales than there might have been, had
> Microsoft still got the world conned into believing that you have to
> replace computers every 18 months.
There seems to be a very predictable progression in the migration from
Windows to Linux.
First the user gives Linux a "test drive", usually using a Live-CD or
Live-DVD. This allows him to boot into a drive without having to
actually install Linux. He might even use a Flash USB drive as the
"hard drive", which also lets him share files between Linux and
Windows. My first experience with Linux was using 3 floppies. I
booted Linux with one floppy, put the program disk in, and when I
wanted to save data, I would save to the third drive. It was very
primitive, back in February of 1992, but it did work, and it didn't
take long to realize that it would be entirely possible to port X11
and all of the other Open Source Unix software to Linux. Since most
of it was already written for the GNU compiler and libraries, the port
was almost trivial.
Next, the user purchases a new machine, and decides to put Linux on
the older machine. In some cases, they might only be using Knoppix to
back-up the older computer, but this is often when the Linux user
begins by installing a "dual-boot" configuration. He can get the
stuff from his old computer but he can also have a new computer as
well. Eventually, he may eliminate windows from the second box
completely.
Usually, about this point, he discovers VMWare. This means that he
only needs ON keyboard and screen, which can be used to access the
other machine. At first, the Windows machine is used to access the
Linux machine, but fairly quickly, the Linux machine is used to access
the Windows machine. This is why it's important to keep the Windows
XP license.
Often, this is when the Linux user begins to explore virtualization.
Initially, they may install Linux as a client on the Windows machine.
Later, the experienced Linux user, now comfortable with doing
installations, put the Windows virtual machine on the Linux host.
A very small number of Linux users eventually drop Windows entirely.
Estimates are that less than 2% of the Linux user base ever gets to
the point where they are completely "Windows free". This may change
over time, but it looks like Microsoft still has a really good market
in Linux machines.
> If OEMs are being charged for this, then it makes complete sense for the
> OEMs to push Linux on older hardware, as it could be saving them up to
> US$300 per machine, enough to wipe out any profit on new hardware sales.
Yes. This is one of the reasons why Dell and these other companies
would LOVE to have the ability to have 100 million computers/year
going into other countries as Linux systems instead of having to
recycle them. It's actually amusing that you even assume that there
is profit on hardware sales. Many "Linux Hostile" systems have
actually been sold at a LOSS. When you are taking a $100/machine hit
on every Linux hostile machine you sell, you can't make it up in
volume. Just to break even, you have to make profit on accessories
and upgrades.
> > Nearly every town and village in the USA has a "recycling center"
> > where home users can drop-off or pick-up used computers that they
> > consider obsolete. Several times I have dropped off computers that
> > were picked up while I was bringing in my second load.
>
> We have them here, too.
>
> > I usually write "Works" on the computers that are still functional,
> > but too slow to stay in MY rack. I still have a 1.3 Ghz Athalon I
> > purchased almost 5 years ago.
>
> Such a machine is perfectly usable as a Linux machine.
Absolutely! In fact that was what I have been running on it.
I even cleared the password. Whoever picked up the machine would have
been greeted with a nice "ready to go" Linux system.
I often wonder, even speculate, on how many machines that were "sold
with Windows" end up "Linux Powered". They might be dual-boot,
VMWare, or Xen sharing, but I wouldn't be all that surprised if the
number was approaching 200 million Linux installs for every 100
Windows systems sold (VMs, Used machines...).
> --
> | Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
> | Cola faq: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/linux/advocacy/faq-and-primer/ |
> | Cola trolls: http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/ |
> | My (new) blog: http://www.thereisnomagic.org |
|
|
