As some of you are aware I have been trying to network two computers without
to much success. One of the suggested solutions for this was to use e-Smith.
Having never heard of e-Smith I finally took a look at their web site last
night.
I then started calculating what it would cost me to build a firewall/gateway
for this system using all new parts. I then tool a look at what a small Cisco
router/gateway would cost.
Now these people may manufacture fine equipment but I have the same question
in relation to Cisco as I have in relation to Microsoft.
Why would anyone pay their high prices when you can get a better product for
much, much less?
The software exists; it is free (as in free beer) and the hardware retail
cost for topnotch components is only two or three times what a company like
Dell can buy it for holesale.
Speaking of Dell this is exactly the way that they started. Making a product
with topnotch components for a fraction of what IBM and Compact could and of
course you are aware that HP has made a tender offer for Compact because
Compact retail prices are to high.
I haven't figured out yet how HP with all there bolted overhead is going to
compete against thousands of garage computer shops that have a cost less than
1/10 of HP's but who am I to understand the realm of billion dollar deals. I
do though wish some one would give me a logical explanation of why anyone
would pay MS high prices when they can get Linux for free (as in free beer)
especially when the free product is superior to the high priced spread.
To complicate this matter further I tried to tell my stock broker about Cisco
being way over priced is you can get their product for 1/10 of Cisco's cost
and that MS would probable go chapter 11.
MS you see has this slight problem in that they pay for poor quality
development while Linux is public domain with a unit cost of zero and has top
quality development.
Now as any as any good financial type will tell you if your cost are higher
than your competitors and your competitor has a better product you are in
trouble.
This gives MS one of two choses go out of business or attempt to legislate
your self a monopoly.
It was at this point my stock broker elapsed into complete disbelieving
sarcasm because obviously MS is a FINE company.
If you do not believe that ask Wall Street who got the information straight
from MS. Projected profits will be XXX with growth of YYY and YES HAVE FINE
PRODUCTS.
Monopolies based on legislative fiat are impossible to maintain unless you
control the legislative process.
That is you may be able to declare a monopoly in the US and in China and in
Russia and in Japan and in Germany and in France and in the UK just to name a
few of the major players.
But! "How do you obtain a monopoly in all of them when it is in everybody's
self interest except the home country not to have a monopoly.
As far as it not being in everyone self interest "Why would Germany or China,
et desire to send millions of dollars to the US for an inferior product?"
So even if MS were to complete take over and the US became the republic of MS
that would not change anything.
There are three points to this:
1. This belongs on the political bull shit list.
2. Regardless of what the government or MS does it will not make Linux better
(or worse.)
3. People are going to look out for their own self interest.
If Linux is better than MS with a cost of zero then you can expect someone
to start manufacturing Linux equipment at a fraction of the cost of MS
equipment and that there will be a big demand for this equipment.
Thanks
Frank
On Thursday 06 September 2001 03:23 pm, Anita Pesola wrote:
> Check this info out....I'm upset...VERY upset....
>
> Bush Not Interested In Breaking Up Microsoft
> KAREN GULLO
> Published: Sep 6, 2001
>
> WASHINGTON - The Bush administration, reversing the Clinton White House
> legal strategy against Microsoft, told the software manufacturer
> Thursday it no longer seeks to have the company broken up.
> The Justice Department also said it will not pursue the bundling issues
> in its protracted antitrust suit against the software giant.
>
> The agency is taking these steps to obtain ``prompt, effective and
> certain relief for consumers,'' it said in a press release.
>
> The release follows a judge's order for the two sides to produce a joint
> status report by Sept. 14.
>
> The government told Microsoft that it does not intend to pursue a
> breakup and will drop the bundling issue to ``facilitate consultations''
> in the joint report, the department said.
>
> Microsoft spokesman Vivek Marma said, ''We remain committed to resolving
> the remaining issues in the case.''
>
> In trading on the Nasdaq Stock Market after the announcement, Microsoft
> shares were down 73 cents a share, or 1.3 percent, at $57.01.
>
> The government's about-face wasn't totally unexpected. At the time of
> his confirmation hearings to be attorney general, John Ashcroft hedged
> when asked repeatedly by senators about the government's commitment to
> pursuing the lawsuit against Microsoft.
>
> Ashcroft for the most part said that was among a host of issues he would
> need to review.
>
> On Thursday, his department said that since an appellate court agreed
> that Microsoft illegally maintained a monopoly over the market for
> operating systems, the government ``believes it has established a basis
> for relief that would end Microsoft's unlawful conduct, prevent its
> recurrence and open the operating-systems market to competition.''
>
> Pursuing the tying claim would only prolong the proceedings, the
> department said.
>
> U.S. District Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson, who originally heard and
> decided the case, had ordered a series of restrictions against Microsoft
> last year, then rescinded them soon after the case was appealed.
>
> Among those restrictions, Jackson ordered Microsoft to divulge to
> outside developers technical information about how its operating systems
> interact with its software. Those developers would be able to pick apart
> the computer code without cost to improve their understanding of it and
> make their own products.
>
> Microsoft also would no longer have been able to control what icons
> would appear on the Windows operating screen when a user bought a
> computer. A person buying a computer from a distributor such as Dell or
> Gateway would have seen a desktop that looked nothing like the usual
> Windows desktop.
>
> Howard University law professor Andy Gavil said the restrictions could
> affect the upcoming Windows XP operating system, which has been finished
> by Microsoft programmers but has not yet hit store shelves.
>
> ``All of these little things really have to do with how XP is being
> prepared and marketed,'' Gavil said.
>
> On Thursday, the Justice Department said it will ask the court for time
> to investigate developments in the industry since the trial concluded
> and ``to evaluate whether additional conduct-related provisions are
> necessary, especially in the absence of a breakup.''
>
> Microsoft just rolled out the final Window XP code to computer
> manufacturers. Some critics have charged that the rollout is evidence
> that the company continues to use its dominance to muscle into new
> markets.
>
> Windows XP includes many new features that are currently standalone
> products made by competitors, including a program for storing digital
> photos and an instant messaging system.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 18:53:30 EDT