Well, even worse case scenario, Russia and China want total control over their country, and where they may not be able to have control, the most important thing is to ensure that others DON'T have it. Software freedom will ensure that Microsoft isn't a dictator, and in "oppressive" countries like Russia or China, I am sure their leaders are the first and best to recognize a regime hell bent on global domination and control. Have it their way, they would take credit for giving Microsoft the idea in the first place.
Americans have been spewing their Liberty, Freedom, and Democracy rhetoric so long without any thought to the meaning, they wouldn't know a dictatorship if it kicked them in the face, stole their money and replaced it with "notes" depicting people that used to know what those terms meant.
Too subtle?
Woot to Russia. I look forward to seeing where this goes in many respects.
Just because the RIAA is able to buy its way into congress doesn't mean that the laws it writes are not subject to jurisprudence.
I believe in the rule of law and do not give 'god-like' status to the government in my mind, or in my obedience to it.
Truth is not a democracy.
The content industry has spread lies and fears based on dubious hypotheticals. Now that it turns out that either they were totally talking out their ass, or had an ulterior motive. This should challenge the system to change, as it is an obligation of politicians and people of a republic.
But given that these multi-billion dollar companies likely didn't get where they are by being stupid, looking at the "real" threat of of a healthy commons, and recognizing the roots of the constitution where it says, "Congress shall have the power to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries", and compare it to what is going on in our legal system today...
...there are people that are very angry. And they should be.
When an OEM negotiates a price agreement with Microsoft, they now have a viable alternative. It changes the negotiating relationship.
1% isn't that much, but Microsoft MUST make deals with EVERY major OEM to keep their position, and before Microsoft had the leverage to ensure that every OEM MUST have Windows. The game has changed, and even though every OEM is still going to sell Windows, having Linux on the table to wave in their face makes Microsoft sweat a little. Especially with netbooks because an OEM CAN walk away if they don't get whatever price they feel like asking. Apple sells its own products, so what did Microsoft have to compete against? Nothing! While it isn't much, Linux offers not just competitive options for users, but OEMs. The fat Microsoft had before was the monopoly. Remember that market share is only a warning sign of monopolistic practices; remember Cisco Systems and their investigation? Cisco successfully argued that their market share is directly related to innovation and a superior product, nothing else. Microsoft on the other hand HAS been playing dirty. Microsoft is now being forced to play in the real world where a Microsoft computer tax will no longer be status quo.
I think they mean company branded Linux in the same way HP, Dell, and the old Compaq and others brand Windows and the machine bios. I'll agree this isn't any kind of advantage, but only because this was always reasonably easy to do with Windows.
My best and nerdiest friend has several Ubuntu machines and Mac OSX machines, and one Vista laptop he hardly ever uses, but keeps just in case he needs to test something on native Windows (He believes in developing and debugging his windows software in Wine because it can only make things better). Makes a lot more sense now.
Thanks for the discussion. This will be helpful in helping people decide what OS will best serve their needs, Ubuntu or Mac OSX. (If Red Hat or Solaris were viable options for their needs, I would not be the one they would ask)
I love Solaris, but I think the point a lot of people were making (ok, this does sound very FUDish) is that it is a bunch of nerds in a basement. Solaris is AWESOME! Sun hardware is AWESOME! They also have a huge staff of nerds that can show you how to do ANYTHING! If I had the smarts to work at any company of my choice, I think Google would be my only pick over Sun as far as people I could only wish to be as smart and as innovative as.
but...
Who really knows that beyond you or I, Slashdot, and maybe every nerd on the planet? That is the problem and where they lack innovation. Ask the average person on the street what they love about Windows Media Center and you could get a wide range of answers, even though they don't know anything about what is going on behind the scenes or how any of that works, or what is GUI and what is making it work (or not work). Ask the same people what they think of DTRACE or ZFS, and I am sure you will mostly get a blank stare. I doubt many people off the street would even know you are talking about computers. I am sure there are at least a few people that that asked what the difference between NTFS and FAT file systems they would say that NTFS is 'newer' or 'better', but unlikely anyone would say why.
Is this an unfair comparison? Of course it is, but it is a reality that impressions and exposure are everything.
Someone else mentioned being at a Sun seminar (or whatever) and after the whole speech someone asked "Why don't we just use your free stuff on someone else's cheaper hardware?" and the rep was totally lost for words. Sometimes I think smart people forget that dumb things work. Everyone knows Microsoft because they brand EVERYTHING they can, so does Apple and Intel. Sure, they have the power and money to do that now, but they have been doing it since they were nothing. How smart would you need to come up with "Intel Inside"? Was that just a freak accident that it worked?
They are missing an edge, and it isn't for lack of technology or business innovation, but they do lack marketing innovation. As great as they are, I think Sun id perceived as old. People need to know they are still "Sun Microsystems, building the future". But maybe they are marketing to the right people rather than anyone I would necessarily know. I think Sun needs its own NASCAR vehicle.
By your measure, a Windows 7 success isn't going to fix their problem. The best they can hope for is to keep the customers they already have, while a failure would be enough to drive them away. I had been overlooking a good point you made, M$'s multimedia pissing contest with Apple really took away from what they were doing well, and worst for them, Apple won with customer perceptions of their product. Linux has reined well over the server market for some time. Apple gives customers options, but they are far from pushing it in some self destructive way. Apple has taken fancy, sleek, and easy to use in a dominating way, and they sit nearly alone on the throne of the "best money can buy" designer label rivaled only by possibly Alienware. Linux is getting a good hold on the low cost market after owning servers and embedded systems without anyone really noticing. I warn people, don't get Linux for Wine, get Linux for Linux. BUT, Wine + DOSbox does offer more compatibility for Windows 98 and all earlier MS OS software than Windows XP or Vista.
Admittedly, Microsoft has incredible market momentum, but where does that leave them but to hope to keep who they already have? Children of Windows users? IBM had their time when they reigned all powerful in the computing world, as did AT&T and Sun Microsystems... I don't see Microsoft taking a different path. The next Bill Gates isn't going to come from Microsoft.
Maybe I am just overly cautious. Having had a few (although not wildly successful) businesses, and coming from a family of businessmen (whom have been much more successful), and talking to suppliers and asking business people for advice, the one thing they most all say and stress is "Do one thing and do it better than anyone else". There are always many companies doing many things. We see monopolies doing powerful things across a broad base, but that is not most successful companies. What frequently ruins companies is trying to do too much.
I LOVE your idea, and I think it would be really cool, but Apple has been in the game for a long time working on that image. Red Hat does have an image, and a really good one doing something very specialized. They have also had very little competition that has been able to keep up with them. Novell is still trying, but I think they are over extended among other things, and Canonical is looking towards a different customer base that I think could only make Red Hat's market larger, not take away from it.
Dell has dome a lot of things that killed HP and IBM in their bottom line, particularly in the inventory turn around time + time to fill orders combination was UNBEATABLE. At one time they even had customer service. Dell could deliver a product cheaper than their competitors cost. For a gladiator type match, seeing Red Hat in the game up against Apple, Dell, and HP would be glorious, and I would delight in following every bit of news that came by. But as far as Return on Investment, it just doesn't make business sense, imo.
super computers have their place. All I was saying is that consumer hardware is scalable to handle just about any task such that specialized hardware is not as necessary. I didn't mean to imply that a $200 laptop can take over for your web server, just that hardware does exist on a consumer level to build to your needs on your own. Also, if say you no longer need that equipment for that task, because you are upgrading, or whatever, it can be easily used for something else, rather than just thrown to a shelf the recycling bin. Signal tuners, sound mixers, routers, media centers, and the such. They can have specialized components, but much hardware is getting more and more flexible. You can now build machines that can do any of those tasks, or change tasks much more cheaply than before. In the past, if you needed a sound mixer, you bought a sound mixer, if you needed a media center, you bought a media center. Those pieces of hardware would not ever do anything else. Not saying they no longer have a place. 15 years ago, a $5,000 home pc wasn't going to do all of those jobs very well. But a $2,000 home pc today COULD take the place of a $2,000 sound mixer under the right conditions for many, given the trade offs, it is a worthy investment. Those opportunities are reasonably new and growing.
Sorry, when I said average cheap PC, I simply meant consumer grade.
Do you think they could successfully do this assembling and shipping in-house, or find a company like Dell to put their orders together, where it is the Red Hat web site, branded Red Hat, but actually Dell machines? Like many off-brand companies or grocery brand items aren't actually MADE by any subsidiary. Would you have the same trust in that case that Red Hat would provide as excellent support as if they built and tested every machine themselves? Would this be better than, say, a web page telling people which models and such from various distributors are fully supported by Red Hat, and what types of device / brands / models to avoid to help people judge if an unlisted model would likely be fully supported?
Maybe you had to be there, but even if you totally love Vista, you would have had argument with this guy. It was a used car salesmen sell, and was not answering the guy's questions at all.
How is that spreading fear, uncertainty, and doubt? Sun has made a lot of money on Unix, and that market is declining. As many other comments have pointed out, in many ways Sun is not being innovative while I think much of the praise and speculation of Red Hat comes from a perspective of Red Hat being very forward looking, even if a reasonably new player in the game. Can you explain?
Personally, I think Microsoft is the greatest contributor to Microsoft's decline. Apple is picking up a lot of the slack on the innovation, and I think Linux sets a hard standard with what everything needs to be better than (or appear better than) in order to be profitable. Windows 98 was great, as was NT4. Windows XP was the best of both worlds... but after that they do not have a lot to offer than the promise of native support for DirectX,.NET and Silverlight which work just fine on XP? This is not meant of a ridicule of anyone that fancies Vista or looking forward to Windows 7, is just that for me, if you are looking for something more from your computing experience, Microsoft hadn't introduced competitively more for a long time, and after several years, I don't see a reason, for me, to try it again. Windows 7 has caught my attention and running the Beta 1 in a VM. I am impressed, but nothing that makes my wallet itch.
Dell has really revolutionized direct PC sales. They are very aggressive and good at making up extremely slim margins with high volume and strong attention to supply line management. While it may all look like "computers", Dell and Red Hat are not even remotely in the same business after that. There is a good reason why IBM got out of the game. As it is, Canonical has a deal with Dell for Ubuntu (albeit one that lacks selection for my taste), and Red Hat has a deal with IBM for their high end machines if I remember correctly. Each working to do what they do best, and pairing themselves up with the appropriate company that can help promote them.
we are reaching a point where we need less high end equipment
I think it is more like people / businesses no longer need so much specialized equipment as your average cheap PC can do almost anything, and what was once very specialized hardware is very efficient software that runs on consumer grade hardware. Wasn't sure if that is what you meant, but that is the impression I have gotten also.
IBM was another player that tried to take advantage of their strong market dominance to control things. It didn't work out for them in the long run, and they had to adapt to an F/OSS world. This happened to sun just a bit later. Is the unmentionable company another software giant with strong market control that you predict has forgotten how they got to where they are today such that soon you will see them going on to the back burner? Big nameless company is nearing about the same amount of time IBM and Sun had before their ship set sail into the past as a market leader, and they are following many of the same trends each followed.
No product can make money if you can't sell it. Doesn't matter how good it is. Call it marketing hype, but how is anyone going to know that your systems are superior if you don't say as much. That seems like such a screw up that the sales rep couldn't explain the whole "end-to-end" solution issue. Personally, I don't think that wasn't a gotcha question at all, that should have been prompted as a great opportunity for the rep to explain what kind of business Sun is really in.
But if Sun doesn't even know what kind of business they are in... one really needs to wonder how much longer they are going to last. I am sure any sales rep at Red Hat would drool at the opportunity to answer a question like that from a real customer in front of a crowd that would have influence over possible huge sales. Hell, even I live to hopefully answer questions like that! Shortly after Vista came out, I was at a Fry's Electronics, and a sales associate was telling this guy looking to buy a bunch of machines that Vista was the hot new thing and that he needed it for his business because everyone was going to be using it in the next 6 months when XP died. I bust up laughing and warned the customer that was likely the worst advice you could get to drive a business, let alone a speculation I agreed with. From what he talked about needing for his business, I did my little Linux/FlOSS speech, but really recommended Red Hat, and explained a bit about their free product with full end-to-end support, and that they could likely best advice him on what would work best for HIS business needs. I am fairly sure I sold the guy on it. The Fry's sales rep was upset and just kept saying I was wrong and that everyone was going to use Vista. I humored him and asked "So what's Vista got that XP doesn't?". He started explaining the higher system requirements (as if it was a selling point), and went on to show me Aero. I gave a long *sigh*, and walked away. I should hang out there more often:)
[does] market capitalization really [say] more about how the company was doing than its sales numbers? Do we now judge the success of tech companies by looking at what non-technical financial people think the company might be worth?
I think customers are a good way to predict what customers will do in the future, but sales volume is only a very small fraction of that equation. The people that really track customer behavior are investment analysts / non-technical financial people. And as far as stock traders being susceptible to hype, it isn't necessarily bad at all to "go with the flow", just be sure to jump ship in time if the only thing you are going on is hype.
But in reality, for as much as traders may be unpredictable and susceptible to hype, you got to admit that customers are MUCH worse.
...but it is also about opportunity. It may hinge on the whims of hype, but it is very similar to a credit score. There are many factors that go into convincing someone to give you money, and of course only a part of that is going to be the technology, just like ideas are only part of an equation.
Ever known a person with a good idea that didn't follow through on making it into something?
It all comes down to predicting what customers are going to do. Unfortunately good talent, technology, and the drive to succeed is not enough. You need capital. Add customers whims into the whole equation and it is just one big mess where many people are trying to profit (including the customer that wants the best value product for their money).
So is it a big deal when investor confidence + actual investors + talent + drive + technology = a number nearly bigger than Sun Microsystems? ABSOLUTELY! It is good for Red Hat, Linux Community, and even customers. It boosts everyones confidence to see the most intelligent and greedy people saying "This is where I am going to keep my money". This in turn becomes better for everyone. Also, I don't think it is so much "better than Sun" that is the issue, but the fact that they have hit the mark to definitively say that they are in the same league.
It makes me as happy as something like this can when nobody is writing me the check.
... then Linux market capitalization is how much software that previously cost money was made free, so if Linux can be considered directly responsible for killing Microsoft, which I think is some peoples objective, that puts their market capitalization at $400B - $153B = $247B. That means Linux has 1.6x the market capitalization of of Microsoft just in Operating Systems! That doesn't even begin to include all the other great FlOSS out there.
Add to that the average wage of a software engineer times the number of man hours contributed to FlOSS, and you can quickly see how Microsoft is getting its butt kicked!
There are pretty clear outlines for what is notable. You can know if something is going to be notable. However, there are many articles that are NOT notable that get included anyway, and there does seem to be a certain 'theme' amongst certain moderators about what they are going to hold to the guidelines. Anything scholarly typically gets a lot of slack, where as comics of 1k circulation get deleted quickly unless some issue made the news, or featured a picture of Mohammad or something. While I generally side with inclusionism, it is intended as an encyclopedia, not a pop culture magazine, fan site, or artist resume / advertising site. Typically the stuff that is missing are things I am looking for are things that are not included, rather than things have been deleted; not to mention you can always review an article's history.
But 9/11 is an example of an extreme situation. Now, buildings do blow up, but of all the risks that people could spend a lot of money on preventing, I think the asbestos thing has been blown out of proportion, as least as so far as contractors have been preying on peoples fears that having asbestos in their walls is going to give them cancer. Asbestos should never be used in any new building because of various harms, but that does not necessarily justify spending tons of money to demo all old buildings with asbestos immediately. I also wouldn't call 9/11 a normal asbestos situation, however it does explain why you brought it up. That seemed so out there when I read it, thank you for the clarification.
So why do you give any credit to the speculation that the people detained therein pose a threat or have information about threats?
To be honest I don't have any greater evidence that Guantanamo prison even exists let alone whether the actions of anyone operating it could be justified. Both pieces of information come from the same source. I would totally agree the government needs more oversight, but the reality is that people don't care, and the most that people do care are sitting here on slashdot talking about it, or protesting where it doesn't even matter. Hippies protesting in Santa Cruz is the biggest joke, sorry. Why spend all day "protesting" in a place where everyone is going to agree with you. Now that you really got me thinking, I think the reality is that there are too many other injustices going on in this country that I care a whole lot more about than Guantanamo Bay prison. I have friends joining the war because the economy sucks so bad for them it is the only job they can get. That I can care about. There are too many things to list that I care about more than how many innocent people end up in Guantanamo Bay, as sad as the whole thing is. As far as the country, more people are much worried about whether or not gays get to marry than how many children on either side die in Iraq. That is a pathetic truth. California prop 8 is another injustice I'd rather see resolved first. People are beaten and raped in my greater neighborhood area every month. Why do people care so much about people so far away and not right in their neighborhood? Just saying.
As far as the Gallop poll... that is really sad. But it explains our wonderful democratically elected leaders. Why should they be expected to be so much better than the people that elected them.
detaining people that may pose a terrorist threat or have information about a possible terrorist threat
Is a fiction.
Ok, sorry, still not getting what you are saying in context. Are you saying that the above statement is a lie by Bush, or the liberal media? Is it a lie that they are "detaining people" or a lie that "they pose a threat or have information"? Is it a lie that in the applicable cases that this is "done in the name of national security" or that they are "using the excuse of national security"? Or is it simply a lie that there is even a war going on or that Guantanamo bay exists?
I can see you obviously have a very strong opinion about something, I just can't tell what it is, though I am willing to believe that it was because I was unclear about something. So just to clarify, right now I believe Bush is lying about intelligence information / possible terrorist threats, habeas corpus should be a protected right to all except prisoners of war / enemy combatants in which case follow the Geneva convention, change it, or formally state that it will not be recognized.
And as far as the issues you brought up, I don't know anybody that even thought Saddam even might be related to 9-11, though I believe they might exist. Asbestos mining is dangerous, but that is it; It is always dangerous to mine, but unless you are being extremely stupid or intentionally creating a hazardous situation, PROCESSED asbestos and demolition of asbestos buildings is reasonably safe, and leaving asbestos in your walls is COMPLETELY HARMLESS!!! Anyone claiming otherwise is a lawyer or a moron. I have no idea how safe Guantanamo Bay is keeping us because that information is classified, so anything said about it is speculation, however, I do think that it is CAUSING harm since we are abandoning what we believe in out of fear. The inquisition was political and who cares what they told the public. Jesus == Worst Pokemon Ever; I put theists in the same category as people that take comic books WAY too seriously.
You can't take the sky from me...
Obviously not, but can you please explain some of your statements? Again, it really sounds like you were almost onto something. Please share.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, even worse case scenario, Russia and China want total control over their country, and where they may not be able to have control, the most important thing is to ensure that others DON'T have it. Software freedom will ensure that Microsoft isn't a dictator, and in "oppressive" countries like Russia or China, I am sure their leaders are the first and best to recognize a regime hell bent on global domination and control. Have it their way, they would take credit for giving Microsoft the idea in the first place.
Americans have been spewing their Liberty, Freedom, and Democracy rhetoric so long without any thought to the meaning, they wouldn't know a dictatorship if it kicked them in the face, stole their money and replaced it with "notes" depicting people that used to know what those terms meant.
Too subtle?
Woot to Russia. I look forward to seeing where this goes in many respects.
Just because the RIAA is able to buy its way into congress doesn't mean that the laws it writes are not subject to jurisprudence.
...there are people that are very angry. And they should be.
I believe in the rule of law and do not give 'god-like' status to the government in my mind, or in my obedience to it.
Truth is not a democracy.
The content industry has spread lies and fears based on dubious hypotheticals. Now that it turns out that either they were totally talking out their ass, or had an ulterior motive. This should challenge the system to change, as it is an obligation of politicians and people of a republic.
But given that these multi-billion dollar companies likely didn't get where they are by being stupid, looking at the "real" threat of of a healthy commons, and recognizing the roots of the constitution where it says, "Congress shall have the power to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries", and compare it to what is going on in our legal system today...
When an OEM negotiates a price agreement with Microsoft, they now have a viable alternative. It changes the negotiating relationship.
1% isn't that much, but Microsoft MUST make deals with EVERY major OEM to keep their position, and before Microsoft had the leverage to ensure that every OEM MUST have Windows. The game has changed, and even though every OEM is still going to sell Windows, having Linux on the table to wave in their face makes Microsoft sweat a little. Especially with netbooks because an OEM CAN walk away if they don't get whatever price they feel like asking. Apple sells its own products, so what did Microsoft have to compete against? Nothing! While it isn't much, Linux offers not just competitive options for users, but OEMs. The fat Microsoft had before was the monopoly. Remember that market share is only a warning sign of monopolistic practices; remember Cisco Systems and their investigation? Cisco successfully argued that their market share is directly related to innovation and a superior product, nothing else. Microsoft on the other hand HAS been playing dirty. Microsoft is now being forced to play in the real world where a Microsoft computer tax will no longer be status quo.
I think they mean company branded Linux in the same way HP, Dell, and the old Compaq and others brand Windows and the machine bios. I'll agree this isn't any kind of advantage, but only because this was always reasonably easy to do with Windows.
My best and nerdiest friend has several Ubuntu machines and Mac OSX machines, and one Vista laptop he hardly ever uses, but keeps just in case he needs to test something on native Windows (He believes in developing and debugging his windows software in Wine because it can only make things better). Makes a lot more sense now.
Thanks for the discussion. This will be helpful in helping people decide what OS will best serve their needs, Ubuntu or Mac OSX. (If Red Hat or Solaris were viable options for their needs, I would not be the one they would ask)
Ok, excellent points.
I love Solaris, but I think the point a lot of people were making (ok, this does sound very FUDish) is that it is a bunch of nerds in a basement. Solaris is AWESOME! Sun hardware is AWESOME! They also have a huge staff of nerds that can show you how to do ANYTHING! If I had the smarts to work at any company of my choice, I think Google would be my only pick over Sun as far as people I could only wish to be as smart and as innovative as.
but...
Who really knows that beyond you or I, Slashdot, and maybe every nerd on the planet? That is the problem and where they lack innovation. Ask the average person on the street what they love about Windows Media Center and you could get a wide range of answers, even though they don't know anything about what is going on behind the scenes or how any of that works, or what is GUI and what is making it work (or not work). Ask the same people what they think of DTRACE or ZFS, and I am sure you will mostly get a blank stare. I doubt many people off the street would even know you are talking about computers. I am sure there are at least a few people that that asked what the difference between NTFS and FAT file systems they would say that NTFS is 'newer' or 'better', but unlikely anyone would say why.
Is this an unfair comparison? Of course it is, but it is a reality that impressions and exposure are everything.
Someone else mentioned being at a Sun seminar (or whatever) and after the whole speech someone asked "Why don't we just use your free stuff on someone else's cheaper hardware?" and the rep was totally lost for words. Sometimes I think smart people forget that dumb things work. Everyone knows Microsoft because they brand EVERYTHING they can, so does Apple and Intel. Sure, they have the power and money to do that now, but they have been doing it since they were nothing. How smart would you need to come up with "Intel Inside"? Was that just a freak accident that it worked?
They are missing an edge, and it isn't for lack of technology or business innovation, but they do lack marketing innovation. As great as they are, I think Sun id perceived as old. People need to know they are still "Sun Microsystems, building the future". But maybe they are marketing to the right people rather than anyone I would necessarily know. I think Sun needs its own NASCAR vehicle.
By your measure, a Windows 7 success isn't going to fix their problem. The best they can hope for is to keep the customers they already have, while a failure would be enough to drive them away. I had been overlooking a good point you made, M$'s multimedia pissing contest with Apple really took away from what they were doing well, and worst for them, Apple won with customer perceptions of their product. Linux has reined well over the server market for some time. Apple gives customers options, but they are far from pushing it in some self destructive way. Apple has taken fancy, sleek, and easy to use in a dominating way, and they sit nearly alone on the throne of the "best money can buy" designer label rivaled only by possibly Alienware. Linux is getting a good hold on the low cost market after owning servers and embedded systems without anyone really noticing. I warn people, don't get Linux for Wine, get Linux for Linux. BUT, Wine + DOSbox does offer more compatibility for Windows 98 and all earlier MS OS software than Windows XP or Vista.
Admittedly, Microsoft has incredible market momentum, but where does that leave them but to hope to keep who they already have? Children of Windows users? IBM had their time when they reigned all powerful in the computing world, as did AT&T and Sun Microsystems... I don't see Microsoft taking a different path. The next Bill Gates isn't going to come from Microsoft.
Maybe I am just overly cautious. Having had a few (although not wildly successful) businesses, and coming from a family of businessmen (whom have been much more successful), and talking to suppliers and asking business people for advice, the one thing they most all say and stress is "Do one thing and do it better than anyone else". There are always many companies doing many things. We see monopolies doing powerful things across a broad base, but that is not most successful companies. What frequently ruins companies is trying to do too much.
I LOVE your idea, and I think it would be really cool, but Apple has been in the game for a long time working on that image. Red Hat does have an image, and a really good one doing something very specialized. They have also had very little competition that has been able to keep up with them. Novell is still trying, but I think they are over extended among other things, and Canonical is looking towards a different customer base that I think could only make Red Hat's market larger, not take away from it.
Dell has dome a lot of things that killed HP and IBM in their bottom line, particularly in the inventory turn around time + time to fill orders combination was UNBEATABLE. At one time they even had customer service. Dell could deliver a product cheaper than their competitors cost. For a gladiator type match, seeing Red Hat in the game up against Apple, Dell, and HP would be glorious, and I would delight in following every bit of news that came by. But as far as Return on Investment, it just doesn't make business sense, imo.
super computers have their place. All I was saying is that consumer hardware is scalable to handle just about any task such that specialized hardware is not as necessary. I didn't mean to imply that a $200 laptop can take over for your web server, just that hardware does exist on a consumer level to build to your needs on your own. Also, if say you no longer need that equipment for that task, because you are upgrading, or whatever, it can be easily used for something else, rather than just thrown to a shelf the recycling bin. Signal tuners, sound mixers, routers, media centers, and the such. They can have specialized components, but much hardware is getting more and more flexible. You can now build machines that can do any of those tasks, or change tasks much more cheaply than before. In the past, if you needed a sound mixer, you bought a sound mixer, if you needed a media center, you bought a media center. Those pieces of hardware would not ever do anything else. Not saying they no longer have a place. 15 years ago, a $5,000 home pc wasn't going to do all of those jobs very well. But a $2,000 home pc today COULD take the place of a $2,000 sound mixer under the right conditions for many, given the trade offs, it is a worthy investment. Those opportunities are reasonably new and growing.
Sorry, when I said average cheap PC, I simply meant consumer grade.
Do you think they could successfully do this assembling and shipping in-house, or find a company like Dell to put their orders together, where it is the Red Hat web site, branded Red Hat, but actually Dell machines? Like many off-brand companies or grocery brand items aren't actually MADE by any subsidiary. Would you have the same trust in that case that Red Hat would provide as excellent support as if they built and tested every machine themselves? Would this be better than, say, a web page telling people which models and such from various distributors are fully supported by Red Hat, and what types of device / brands / models to avoid to help people judge if an unlisted model would likely be fully supported?
Well, anyway, as an unyielding, "fact" spewing fanboy, I look forward to history repeating itself a few more times
I should hang out there more often
obvious sarcasm?
How is that spreading fear, uncertainty, and doubt? Sun has made a lot of money on Unix, and that market is declining. As many other comments have pointed out, in many ways Sun is not being innovative while I think much of the praise and speculation of Red Hat comes from a perspective of Red Hat being very forward looking, even if a reasonably new player in the game. Can you explain?
It was meant to be funny, but funnier works too.
Personally, I think Microsoft is the greatest contributor to Microsoft's decline. Apple is picking up a lot of the slack on the innovation, and I think Linux sets a hard standard with what everything needs to be better than (or appear better than) in order to be profitable. Windows 98 was great, as was NT4. Windows XP was the best of both worlds... but after that they do not have a lot to offer than the promise of native support for DirectX, .NET and Silverlight which work just fine on XP? This is not meant of a ridicule of anyone that fancies Vista or looking forward to Windows 7, is just that for me, if you are looking for something more from your computing experience, Microsoft hadn't introduced competitively more for a long time, and after several years, I don't see a reason, for me, to try it again. Windows 7 has caught my attention and running the Beta 1 in a VM. I am impressed, but nothing that makes my wallet itch.
Dell has really revolutionized direct PC sales. They are very aggressive and good at making up extremely slim margins with high volume and strong attention to supply line management. While it may all look like "computers", Dell and Red Hat are not even remotely in the same business after that. There is a good reason why IBM got out of the game. As it is, Canonical has a deal with Dell for Ubuntu (albeit one that lacks selection for my taste), and Red Hat has a deal with IBM for their high end machines if I remember correctly. Each working to do what they do best, and pairing themselves up with the appropriate company that can help promote them.
we are reaching a point where we need less high end equipment
I think it is more like people / businesses no longer need so much specialized equipment as your average cheap PC can do almost anything, and what was once very specialized hardware is very efficient software that runs on consumer grade hardware. Wasn't sure if that is what you meant, but that is the impression I have gotten also.
IBM was another player that tried to take advantage of their strong market dominance to control things. It didn't work out for them in the long run, and they had to adapt to an F/OSS world. This happened to sun just a bit later. Is the unmentionable company another software giant with strong market control that you predict has forgotten how they got to where they are today such that soon you will see them going on to the back burner? Big nameless company is nearing about the same amount of time IBM and Sun had before their ship set sail into the past as a market leader, and they are following many of the same trends each followed.
Oracle, right? (j/k)
No product can make money if you can't sell it. Doesn't matter how good it is. Call it marketing hype, but how is anyone going to know that your systems are superior if you don't say as much. That seems like such a screw up that the sales rep couldn't explain the whole "end-to-end" solution issue. Personally, I don't think that wasn't a gotcha question at all, that should have been prompted as a great opportunity for the rep to explain what kind of business Sun is really in.
:)
But if Sun doesn't even know what kind of business they are in... one really needs to wonder how much longer they are going to last. I am sure any sales rep at Red Hat would drool at the opportunity to answer a question like that from a real customer in front of a crowd that would have influence over possible huge sales. Hell, even I live to hopefully answer questions like that! Shortly after Vista came out, I was at a Fry's Electronics, and a sales associate was telling this guy looking to buy a bunch of machines that Vista was the hot new thing and that he needed it for his business because everyone was going to be using it in the next 6 months when XP died. I bust up laughing and warned the customer that was likely the worst advice you could get to drive a business, let alone a speculation I agreed with. From what he talked about needing for his business, I did my little Linux/FlOSS speech, but really recommended Red Hat, and explained a bit about their free product with full end-to-end support, and that they could likely best advice him on what would work best for HIS business needs. I am fairly sure I sold the guy on it. The Fry's sales rep was upset and just kept saying I was wrong and that everyone was going to use Vista. I humored him and asked "So what's Vista got that XP doesn't?". He started explaining the higher system requirements (as if it was a selling point), and went on to show me Aero. I gave a long *sigh*, and walked away. I should hang out there more often
[does] market capitalization really [say] more about how the company was doing than its sales numbers? Do we now judge the success of tech companies by looking at what non-technical financial people think the company might be worth?
I think customers are a good way to predict what customers will do in the future, but sales volume is only a very small fraction of that equation. The people that really track customer behavior are investment analysts / non-technical financial people. And as far as stock traders being susceptible to hype, it isn't necessarily bad at all to "go with the flow", just be sure to jump ship in time if the only thing you are going on is hype.
But in reality, for as much as traders may be unpredictable and susceptible to hype, you got to admit that customers are MUCH worse.
...but it is also about opportunity. It may hinge on the whims of hype, but it is very similar to a credit score. There are many factors that go into convincing someone to give you money, and of course only a part of that is going to be the technology, just like ideas are only part of an equation.
Ever known a person with a good idea that didn't follow through on making it into something?
It all comes down to predicting what customers are going to do. Unfortunately good talent, technology, and the drive to succeed is not enough. You need capital. Add customers whims into the whole equation and it is just one big mess where many people are trying to profit (including the customer that wants the best value product for their money).
So is it a big deal when investor confidence + actual investors + talent + drive + technology = a number nearly bigger than Sun Microsystems? ABSOLUTELY! It is good for Red Hat, Linux Community, and even customers. It boosts everyones confidence to see the most intelligent and greedy people saying "This is where I am going to keep my money". This in turn becomes better for everyone. Also, I don't think it is so much "better than Sun" that is the issue, but the fact that they have hit the mark to definitively say that they are in the same league.
It makes me as happy as something like this can when nobody is writing me the check.
... then Linux market capitalization is how much software that previously cost money was made free, so if Linux can be considered directly responsible for killing Microsoft, which I think is some peoples objective, that puts their market capitalization at $400B - $153B = $247B. That means Linux has 1.6x the market capitalization of of Microsoft just in Operating Systems! That doesn't even begin to include all the other great FlOSS out there.
Add to that the average wage of a software engineer times the number of man hours contributed to FlOSS, and you can quickly see how Microsoft is getting its butt kicked!
I love the new math!
There are pretty clear outlines for what is notable. You can know if something is going to be notable. However, there are many articles that are NOT notable that get included anyway, and there does seem to be a certain 'theme' amongst certain moderators about what they are going to hold to the guidelines. Anything scholarly typically gets a lot of slack, where as comics of 1k circulation get deleted quickly unless some issue made the news, or featured a picture of Mohammad or something. While I generally side with inclusionism, it is intended as an encyclopedia, not a pop culture magazine, fan site, or artist resume / advertising site. Typically the stuff that is missing are things I am looking for are things that are not included, rather than things have been deleted; not to mention you can always review an article's history.
So why do you give any credit to the speculation that the people detained therein pose a threat or have information about threats?
To be honest I don't have any greater evidence that Guantanamo prison even exists let alone whether the actions of anyone operating it could be justified. Both pieces of information come from the same source. I would totally agree the government needs more oversight, but the reality is that people don't care, and the most that people do care are sitting here on slashdot talking about it, or protesting where it doesn't even matter. Hippies protesting in Santa Cruz is the biggest joke, sorry. Why spend all day "protesting" in a place where everyone is going to agree with you. Now that you really got me thinking, I think the reality is that there are too many other injustices going on in this country that I care a whole lot more about than Guantanamo Bay prison. I have friends joining the war because the economy sucks so bad for them it is the only job they can get. That I can care about. There are too many things to list that I care about more than how many innocent people end up in Guantanamo Bay, as sad as the whole thing is. As far as the country, more people are much worried about whether or not gays get to marry than how many children on either side die in Iraq. That is a pathetic truth. California prop 8 is another injustice I'd rather see resolved first. People are beaten and raped in my greater neighborhood area every month. Why do people care so much about people so far away and not right in their neighborhood? Just saying.
As far as the Gallop poll... that is really sad. But it explains our wonderful democratically elected leaders. Why should they be expected to be so much better than the people that elected them.
detaining people that may pose a terrorist threat or have information about a possible terrorist threat
Is a fiction.
Ok, sorry, still not getting what you are saying in context. Are you saying that the above statement is a lie by Bush, or the liberal media? Is it a lie that they are "detaining people" or a lie that "they pose a threat or have information"? Is it a lie that in the applicable cases that this is "done in the name of national security" or that they are "using the excuse of national security"? Or is it simply a lie that there is even a war going on or that Guantanamo bay exists?
I can see you obviously have a very strong opinion about something, I just can't tell what it is, though I am willing to believe that it was because I was unclear about something. So just to clarify, right now I believe Bush is lying about intelligence information / possible terrorist threats, habeas corpus should be a protected right to all except prisoners of war / enemy combatants in which case follow the Geneva convention, change it, or formally state that it will not be recognized.
And as far as the issues you brought up, I don't know anybody that even thought Saddam even might be related to 9-11, though I believe they might exist. Asbestos mining is dangerous, but that is it; It is always dangerous to mine, but unless you are being extremely stupid or intentionally creating a hazardous situation, PROCESSED asbestos and demolition of asbestos buildings is reasonably safe, and leaving asbestos in your walls is COMPLETELY HARMLESS!!! Anyone claiming otherwise is a lawyer or a moron. I have no idea how safe Guantanamo Bay is keeping us because that information is classified, so anything said about it is speculation, however, I do think that it is CAUSING harm since we are abandoning what we believe in out of fear. The inquisition was political and who cares what they told the public. Jesus == Worst Pokemon Ever; I put theists in the same category as people that take comic books WAY too seriously.
You can't take the sky from me...
Obviously not, but can you please explain some of your statements? Again, it really sounds like you were almost onto something. Please share.
Guess it will be interesting to see how it plays out.