On Fri, 2 Feb 2001 13:57:03 +0000 Lee
got it together enough to write: It wasn't my intention to start a war. Just to comment that some linux users want everything free, source code and all. This is just unreasonable.
Best regards, Lee
And I don't consider you are starting one :-) I agree with your sentiments completely. Some people would do well for
I apologize for entering this discussion so late. A number of critical
issues for Linux were raised in this thread as well as in "[SLE] Microsoft
going down, according to Linus" and "Re: [SLE] interesting". Here's my
$0.0001:
1) It's unfortunate, but not too surprising, that the share prices of
companies in the Linux technology sector are down. First the prices were
high earlier because of unrealistic expectations by investors who in their
exuberance bid them up. Now, the whole technology sector is down, along
with Linux stocks. It's the nature of the stock market to go up and down.
But, behind this up and down movement, is the issue as to the fundamental
strength and value of companies betting on the future of Linux technology.
2) I disagree with the writer mentioned in one of the threads
(http://ragingbull.lycos.com/cgi-bin/static.cgi/a=01-16-01.txt&d=articles/cy
berstock) that there's an inherent problem with Linux being "free". His
argument was, more or less, that one can't make money selling something that
was free. This is nonsense. It's like arguing that a farmer can't make
money because sunlight and rain are free. Robert Young got started
packaging Linux on CDs and selling them because of the convenience and
download time avoided by his customers. The market price (and ultimate
profitability) of any good or service are determined by it's value and
usefulness to the purchaser and by competing prices. The fact that one or
more of the resources used in producing the product or service is free may
contribute to lower prices in a competitive market but it doesn't reduce
profitability. In fact, to the extent that lower prices result from free
resources, the market expands because more customers can afford to buy. So,
all else equal, if Linux-based products or services can be delivered at a
lower total cost than those based on competing technologies (e.g., Windows)
they will enjoy a more rapidly growing market share.
3) There tends to be, in my opinion, an oversimplification of what's
necessary to succeed in the market
(http://segfault.org/story.phtml?id=3a7992f7-019f5820). It's necessary to
be messianic and positive about the future of an emerging technology to
build support. But, to be totally objective, much more than really great
technology and low prices are necessary to succeed. History shows this.
For example, 20 years ago IBM was surrounded by competitors like DEC, Wang
and Data General whose minicomputers were much more capable and outperformed
IBM's mainframes at a lower cost (per MIPS, MB of storage, etc.). Of the
three companies, who has survived? Why? The answer lies in looking at the
problem from the perspective of a customer evaluating alternative
technologies. To the customer, the cost per million instructions per second
or megabyte of capacity are just raw numbers. The customer needs to, for
example, provide a staff with PCs, software, training and technical support
to enable them to perform tasks like word processing. If, for example, this
potential customer could get a CD, put it in his PCs, run a simple
installation script and end up with a functioning system (configured, for
example, for office automation) and get training and technical support --
all based on Linux -- then he would have a real alternative. There is a
real need for this alternative. Windows is expensive, it's buggy, there's
this continued forced upgrade path, people don't like Gates' monopoly, etc.
But, to put most customers fully in a position to throw out Windows, there's
a need for this kind of product packaging (including training and customer
support) and marketing to make the solution truly viable. The writer in the
first thread mentioned above put it this way:
"Microsoft holds regular events geared toward the software community. Pam
Saozer, manager of Microsoft's small and medium enterprise team, says the
firm hosts roughly 700 events of different sizes in just the region from
Delaware to Richmond, VA every year. Microsoft's goal is to forge
partnerships with local resellers, developers and independent system
vendors. "Our purpose is twofold," Saozer explains. "We continue to develop
software that enriches peoples' lives - which is what we do best. But we
also develop partners who become experts in developing successful vertical
and horizontal markets."
Microsoft partners make their money on the mark-up of their re-sold
Microsoft products. In my opinion, their profitability becomes the fuel that
propels and keeps Windows out front of the rest, including Linux. This is
the reason that Sun Microsystems' (SUNW) recent move to tweak Bill Gates'
nose by giving away its Star Office software suite - hoping it would put a
dent in Microsoft's Office Suite sales - is an uphill battle. Although Sun's
free suite of office applications is excellent, it doesn't appear to be
hurting Office sales at all. In fact, awareness of Sun's Star Office suite
seems to be minimal outside the world of the hardcore open source tech
heads. Think about it. Why is this so? What sales channel or developer is
going to push a suite of applications that he or she can't turn a profit on?
Therefore, it's my feeling that cyberinvestors who are also interested in
making a possible profit steer clear of Linux vendors and reconsider
investing in companies such as Microsoft that thrive by enabling others to
make money. Despite the drumbeat of the open source community - and the
outcry this column will produce - it's my belief that until someone can
figure out a way to make Linux profitable, it will never surpass Windows in
popularity or acceptance."
Well, I don't agree with all of that. (In fact, the fact that Star Office
is free should make it easier for the reseller to make a profit!!) But I do
agree that prospective Linux customers need a supporting infrastructure to
promote, install, train and support the technology. This is what companies
like SuSE do -- to an extent. Linux can't succeed by code alone.
Peter Hollings
----- Original Message -----
From: "Don Hansford"
-- Microsoft gave me a job -- But Linux gives me a LIFE!
Regards Don Hansford ECKYTECH COMPUTING/ SQIT Warwick
"We're tired, we're wired, and our breath smells bad -- -But at least our Operating System doesn't suck!"
-- To unsubscribe send e-mail to suse-linux-e-unsubscribe@suse.com For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the FAQ at http://www.suse.com/support/faq