SOTL wrote:
> 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.
Well, I'm new here, so what is your setup?
> Having never heard of e-Smith I finally took a look at
> their web site last night.
I haven't heard much about them either (just of them, and not much
there). Got a URL (wanna make sure I have the right one)?
> 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.
I guess I should hit the archives, because I need to know what kind
of setup you have that would require a router?
> 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?
Same reason why people buy Oracle, Adaptec, Promise, Western Digital
(although that's changing), etc...
About the only company I know that is large, but continues to make
quality software is Adobe. Unfortunately, some morons in their
litigation department got stupid recently (not the KIllustrator
issue, which was the fault of some overzealous, independent German
lawyers, but the Dimitry one ;-). Corel is yet another, although
not quite as big, especially with their acquition of Micrografx. I
hope they continue to release Linux versions of their applications
(which is in a different department than their recently sold off
Linux group), and every indication says they will.
> The software exists; it is free (as in free beer)
Er, I've seen a lot of free, as in free speech, in this regard.
> and the hardware retail cost for topnotch components is
> only two or three times what a company like Dell can buy
> it for holesale.
Is that as cheap as whoresale? ;-PPP
> 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
Er, kinda. More like Dell (and Gateway 2000, etc...) just put
together a "reference kit" from Intel and Microsoft. ;-PPP
> and of course you are aware that HP has made a tender
> offer for Compact because Compact retail prices are to
> high.
Or Compaq is still recovering from their Digital gobble? Let alone
a failed experiment at JIT (just in time) inventorying? They still
sold on the retail shelves and stock on the retail shelves off sits
until it is sold at a value lower than it cost them wholesale!
And it could also be that the computing market moving from dozens of
proprietary platforms to only two proprietary ones, Apple (desktop)
and Sun (server). Everyone else, including Digital (now Compaq), HP
and others are moving to the Intel platform. Of course there are a
few "niche" players like IBM and its never-going-to-die mainframe
business, but in mass quantity, these are the three left: Intel
(commodity desktop/server), Apple (proprietary desktop), Sun
(proprietary server).
[ Of course Apple makes servers, and Sun makes desktops, but you get
what I mean -- the "meat" of their sales. ]
> 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.
80% of their revenue comes from one product: Printer Cartridges
> 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)
Because people like what they are used to. I've seen so-called
Linux enthusiasts and users use Microsoft applications, not just
Windows, but Microsoft-branded apps on their desktop. It's what
they like, it's what they are used to -- screw the issues with
compatibility, let alone trying to take over the Internet with
proprietary tags and services.
BTW, I think you mean Linux for free, as in free speech. If Linux
was just free beer, in five to ten years, we'd just have a new
Microsoft. I mean, that's how Microsoft got 80% of its marketshare,
by bundling Windows with MS-DOS and then, later, Office with
Windows, for free! Even as late as 1997, Lotus and Corel were
outselling Microsoft on the retail shelves -- but that's not where
most people got their software.
> especially when the free product is superior to the high
> priced spread.
Here, here. Just because it doesn't act like the Microsoft product
you are used to, doesn't mean it isn't superior. God knows I _hate_
word processors -- that's pre-GUI technology! Desktop publishing,
that's the documentation program of the GUI era! But we're still
using WP?!?!?!
> 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.
Microsoft won't go Chapter 11. >>50% of their revenue is now
investment-based. It's no longer software and services. They'd
survive, even if Windows and Office were no longer sold as of
tomorrow.
> MS you see has this slight problem in that they pay for
> poor quality development
Actually, Microsoft developers are very, very good. Many of them
use Linux themselves, speak out that Microsoft should stick to
standards, etc... Unfortunately, they don't release the products,
their managers do. And those managers listen to the upper
management. And anyone who disagrees with upper management finds
themself on vacation to the point where they finally quit.
> while Linux is public domain with a unit cost of zero
> and has top quality development.
Er, not so much "top quality" but "top quantity" development.
;-PPP And 80% of the software engineering model is post-sales
support. That's where commercial software has been
_utterly_failing_ since the creation of "shrink wrapped" software in
the mid-70s.
> 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.
And that's when you change markets and profit model. That's what
Microsoft has done. It has gone to an investement model.
> This gives MS one of two choses go out of business or
> attempt to legislate your self a monopoly.
Again, Microsoft isn't going out of business.
But they _are_ trying to maintain their monopoly. When you have
>90% marketshare, the only place is down. They will continue to leverage their stranglehold on the desktop to gain more marketshare in other areas. Servers, the Internet, etc... So far, it has worked for the former quite well, and surprisingly increasing on the latter.
> It was at this point my stock broker elapsed into complete
> disbelieving sarcasm because obviously MS is a FINE company.
>From a fiscal standpoint, Microsoft is fine. Overvalued, yes, but
fine.
>From a product standpoint, if you are talking their investments,
yes.
If you are talking about product quality, no. Even the consumer is
refusing to buy their newer products. So the new move is to
software rental and force upgrades.
> 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.
And even in countries that are far less wealthy, Microsoft is using
a trade practice known as "dumping" to sell at a fraction of a cost
their than here. Brazil and Mexico are two such countries where
Microsoft will be selling Windows and Office to the government for
pennies on the dollar versus prices in the US, UK, etc... And if
the government uses it and requires it in those countries, private
industry will as well. And _thats_ where they money is.
> 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?"
China isn't. Germany is not.
And in the case of China, piracy and ignorance of IP is what they
use. But as companies fight piracy, China will just move to OSS
anyway, while principled US consumers lose their right to fair use,
pay fines and even end up in jail.
I thought one of the _core_reasons_ why we founded this country on
belief that no one should go to jail for unintended financial loss?
> So even if MS were to complete take over and the US became
> the republic of MS that would not change anything.
I purposely avoid investments and funds that put more than 2% in
Microsoft stock.
> There are three points to this:
> 1. This belongs on the political bull shit list.
That's quit an "on-topic" response from yourself. ;-PPP
> 2. Regardless of what the government or MS does it will
> not make Linux better (or worse.)
True, so true.
But consumers, the industry in general and even Microsoft itself
would be bettered if Microsoft was required to adopt the GNU
Toolchain in 3 years. I've detailed this before on other lists.
> 3. People are going to look out for their own self interest.
Depends on if you are talking about "short term" self-interest, or
"long term." 90% of the consumers and businesses out there seem to
be solely focused on the "short term" which lead to this whole mess
in the first place!
> 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.
But the model might be turned "upside down" on itself. Businesses
are realizing that they can make a lot of money, while keeping the
end-user cost nearly the same as the other equipment. So where does
the end-user benefit? Unless they assemble the product themself.
Which is a whole other story.
-- TheBS
-- Bryan "TheBS" Smith mailto:b.j.smith@ieee.org chat:thebs413 Engineer AbsoluteValue Systems, Inc. http://www.linux-wlan.org President SmithConcepts, Inc. http://www.SmithConcepts.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 18:53:54 EDT