That's a really good point. The TCO may in fact be lower. But is the TNBO (Total Net Benefit of Ownership) better, the same or worse?
I have a problem with the TCO concept:
1. TCO only measures cost. It doesn't measure benefit. In any analysis, one must net the costs with the benefits to arrive at point where an informed decision can be made: ie A G3 Mac costs $3000, a similiar WinTel box costs $1500. What's better? Well, what are the benefits of ownership? Let's say the G3 enables you to increase profits by $20000 whereas the WinTel box enables you to increase profits by $5000. NOW the choice is clear. You want the G3. Your net benefit is $17000 versus $3500. The higher cost G3 yields a higher profit. Any analysis of this type has to include benefits as well as costs. If you can't calculate either, then any numbers you come out with are meaningless.
2. This type of analysis includes opportunity costs. Opportunity costs are what you give up to do something else. "If I buy new workstations now, I can't do system upgrades on the servers." That's an example. When a new computer is installed, part of the TCO numbers include the cost of the technicians' time, even though they may be paid to be there anyway. Opportunity costs are therefore a matter of personal opinion.
An analysis of the net cost/benefit give a more accurate number by which to measure the application of different systems. A focus on costs only without an analysis of benefits may result in a low cost operation, but maximum profit may never be attained.
But have they actually improved the hardware relative to a PC's given performance vs. cost? In other words, would I spend an extra $500-$700 for a cute little tangerine box on my desktop? My answer is NO. The hardware platform may be a good one (even the best), but I'm not going to pay a huge price for a marginal increase in hardware quality.
Regarding the operating system, there are other things a true multitasking system can do rather than keep concurrent applications open. Microsoft (and I KNOW this is a bad example) keeps lots of background tasks in the systray that scan the hard drive, re-index files, defrag the disk and notify you of low disk space. Most of this I find useless, but what if you had background tasks that surfed the net for you for movie tickets or graphics, or that downloaded your latest bank statement, or paid bills? What if you could move your PC to the basement next to the water heater and string network cable and windows terminals to various rooms for your family to use?
More powerful machines in the future are probably more likely to run more intelligent and sophisticated background applications than multiple simultaneous desktop applications. Call it bloatware, but in a competitive computer market, differentiation and performance mean survival.
Apple's survival lies in better software. Hardware can be mass produced overseas. Software is more easily shaped to hardware. THAT should be the direction Apple should be going.
Steve Jobs... Let's look at his track record. He was kicked out of Apple in the first place because he couldn't manage it. He founded NexT, but couldn't turn it into a viable company. Not even his GOOD NAME could sell his computers. NexT discontinued its hardware line, then sold it's software line to Apple because it couldn't be sold elsewhere. Here we are going on 5 years since the sale AND STILL NO NEW OPERATING SYSTEM. If I spent $600 million and ended up with nothing, I would be screaming bloody murder (or at least FRAUD). I can't believe it took 5 years and many millions of dollars to create OS X Server from NexT/Rhapsody. Something is very wrong here.
Regarding the Apple Clones. I would rather keep my money in my pocket rather than give it to Apple. The clone manufacturers proved that you can make and sell a Mac for much less money than Apple. With competition, the consumer WINS all the time. By revoking the clone licenses, Apple did all computer users a disservice.
Apple leads the pack? With what? Pretty colors? If I want pretty colors on my PC, a can of spray paint is MUCH cheaper! Serveral cans can yield many more designs. Why stop there? Why not paste bumper stickers on it? The idea of the modular computer has been around since the TRS-80 model III. No floppy drive? We can debate this forever, but doesn't excluding a floppy just remove an option for the consumer?
I submit that Apple's comeback is due largely to a good economy in which people don't mind spending a few extra dollars for an expensive gadget, as useful as it is.
I don't hate the Mac platform; I just question Apple's business choices and motivations.
Here's a good patch for outlook: GET RID OF IT!! USE PINE!!! I can't stand waiting for Outlook/Exchange Server to synchonize and do other things BEFORE I can read my e-mail. I think a Pentium III 500 w/128MB RAM should be sufficient to run a mail client without using much overhead.
But then again, this is Microsoft. They do things in a special way.
For cell phones to be accepted in the USA, the billing system will have to revamped much like it is in Finland and other countries.
In underdeveloped countries, it may be much easier to run signal repeaters rather than traditional phone lines (probably easier maintenance, too).
I once mentioned to my wife that we really don't need a phone anymore since our internet service is through a cable modem and we can use our cell phone just as easily (we have voicemail). She looked at me as if I had grown a third eye. Apparently, the idea was very unconventional to her, leading me to believe that social culture will have to get used to the idea that stationary phones will become dinosaurs.
I can't count the number of times (lately) I've wanted someone to call me, but I've had to be home for the call.
Most people (in the USA) have the idea that a cell phone is an infrequently used, emergency call device. It can be so much more.
If I remember correctly, westward expansion into the North American continent didn't really get moving until two things happened:
1. Railroads - Fast, frequent and CHEAP transportation for passengers and goods filled up the continent faster than anyone could have predicted. Today's rockets are sailing ships. We need the equivalent of a steam engine.
2. Gold - (or another profit motive). The gold rush in 1849 allowed California to fill up with enough people to allow it the apply for statehood. We need an economic motive to push the masses into space.
Individualism is a fine thing. But really, how many people honestly wish to express their individualism and creativity? I've spent a good number of years on this planet and have arrived at the following realization:
1. 80% of everyone takes life as it comes. They don't improve themselves, nor do they seek to destroy themselves. If they could live from hand to mouth forever, they would.
2. 18% of everyone uses the system to better themselves. If there is a way to improve themselves within the system, they'll do it.
3. 1.5% of everyone seeks means outside the system to better themselves. If there is a path other than the beaten one, they'll follow it.
4..5% of everyone CREATE paths that the people in #3 follow. They are the artists, dreamers and risk-takers who have the ability to see things differently.
Individualism is a fine thing for people who wish to take advantage of it. Many people do not. Is this a bad thing? Not necessarily. The vast majority who exist within the system act a brake on those who would implement too many changes too quickly. When in balance, society proceeds and advances smoothly. When out of balance, excess change promotes revolution and anarky and excess inertia promotes stagnation.
Corporations are ways to leverage resources and implement risky idea within a limited liability framework. If all shareholders were directly liable for the actions of their corporations, then there would be no advancement. There would be no exploration, technology, internet, or SLASHDOT (oh my!). Sure there are abuses; everything human is imperfect. But then everything is in a constant state of evolution - even us.
If I remember correctly, there was some concern of a "Domino Effect" with regard to the region around Afghanistan. If the Soviets could exert influence, then they could use it to leverage rights to a warm water port in Iran or Pakistan. Given where N. Korea is today, I'd say the S. Korea chose the right side. A S. Korean Friend of mine would concur. Vietnam started (for the Americans) on the coattails of Hungary and the Berlin Wall incidents. 1968 saw Czechoslovakia. By that time there was a perceived need to contain the Soviets. I guess the spectre of police states cropping up all over the world unnerved some politicans.
It may explain paranoia, but it doesn't explain Afghanistan, Hungary, Poland and Czechoslovakia. It doesn't explain forced collectivization.
Those powers were also helping the government of an ally that had seen 4 years of up until then was the most brutal war in history. WWI brought down the goverments of most of the major players in that war (both sides). From that perspective, I can see how the occupation at Archangel was justified. There was probably a good deal of fear and paranoia (some of it justified) that communist revolution would spread.
There may have been incursions into Russia by various powers.
But does this excuse the events in Hungary and Czechoslovakia in 1956 and 1968, respectively? How about Poland in 1981? Or Afghanistan? Does anyone remember the Berlin Wall?
True, the Germans may have invaded in 1941, but this was after STALIN butchered his own officer corps in a fit of murderous paranoia.
The Soviets have the dishonor of being the only regime in the history of the world to build border fortifications to KEEP THEIR OWN PEOPLE IN!! Say what you will about NATO expansionism, but NATO didn't/doesn't systematically demoralize its own people. In fact ALL of the countries in NATO during the cold war ended up being far better off than their counterparts in the Warsaw Pact.
On earth, places have ALWAYS been named after explorers or their patrons. Why should space be different? I think the people who actually front the money and make the journey have the right to name whatever it is they find anything they want.
Historically, exploration has been driven by political and economic concerns. NASA's first goals were politically driven (beat the Soviets). Various companies launch communications satellites not to better humankind, but to make money. Other space exploration and colonization will be conducted for those same reasons.
Selflessness is a noble motivation, but it doesn't put dinner on the table.
You can educate people until you're blue in the face. Only those who want to learn will learn. When I was a sysadmin, there was certain collection of individuals that would ALWAYS need help changing their passwords when they expired. No amount of education could make the difference. FYI: Some of these people had Master's degrees.
The ASP idea is the next logical step after CGI. Until I had to use it in a big project, I thought ASP on IIS was a good idea. Alas, like most M$ products, it turns flakey with continued use.
On the Linux side of things, I have experimented with PHP and JServ (JAVA) and find them to be welcome alternatives. They both follow the ASP philosophy. As far as server-side Perl is concerned, I haven't used it, but I'm sure a lot of Slashdotters have.
mySQL doesn't cut it - YET...
on
Why Not MySQL?
·
· Score: 1
According to mySQL's documentation, it doesn't support complex joins (inserts), transactions, etc. that make a database ROBUST. It's perfectly fine if you want to use it as a datawarehouse or to serve dynamic webpages because it's lack of robustness translates to an increase in speed. Maybe someday it will be used as a frontline application, but not now or in the near future.
Oh the big, bad, EVIL, corporations are taking over!!!
Give me a break! Corporations are responsible for the greatest increase in the standard of living than anything else. It is because of their existence that we have an internet, television, radio and telephone networks. Corporations have allowed more communication among individuals and groups than any other entity human-kind has created.
Nothing to watch on television because "everything is the same" or ABC is blacked out? I don't know about you, but I just CHANGE THE CHANNEL. My corporate controlled cable provider offers me 70 channels if I don't rent their decoder box, 150 if I do. If I still don't like what they have, I'll just go to my corporate-controlled video rental store and rent something there. Failing that, I can surf the internet on my corporate-controlled broadband connection. If worst comes to worst, I can read a book on my shelf or buy one at the local corporate-controlled bookstore. None of these choices existed for me 25 years ago. As far as free speech is concerned, just where (at least in the US) is it abridged? An adult can say just about anything and not be dragged away by the secret police (as a rule).
People have this idea that corporations are going to take over every aspect of life and replace popular government. That couldn't be further from the truth. Corporations and Government are mutually exclusive entities. Here's why:
1. To receive rights in a corporation, you buy them. A government gives them to you as a birthright.
2. If you do not perform your duty in a corporation, you are exiled (fired). Under a government, such a person becomes homeless, goes on welfare, etc. and becomes a burden to be carried by the rest.
3. If you commit a crime against the corporation (ie theft), you are exiled (fired). In a government, you are incarcerated and become a burden to be carried.
4. Corporations exist to make money. Governments exist to organize people. These are two very different missions.
5. In corporations, the top officers must perform or be fired. Performance is measured by value creation (accurate as measured in monetary units). In government, non-performing top officials can be re-elected or re-appointed. Performance is measured by how stable society feels (can't really be measured as accurately as profit).
What it comes down to, is that corporations are VERY different from governments. Should they attempt to supplant governments, they would have to deal with the non-performing elements of society. Once they started doing that, they would BECOME governments.
"For musicians to so unthinkingly embrace a simplistic, corporatist and greedy position is ominous."
Excuse me, the biggest and most famous acts in the world now are simplistic, corporatist and greedy. The surviving Beatles, Michael Jackson, Madonna, Rolling Stones, etc. are worth hundreds of millions of dollars. Where have YOU been to not have noticed this? When an artist signs a recording contract, HE/SHE HAS ALREADY SOLD OUT. Despite their denials, they are an active part of the big, bad and EVIL corporate system.
"Mostly, Metallica has ensured that poorer kids or people without vast bandwidth will be cut off from acquiring music, from experimenting, from fostering new bands."
I suppose the terms TELEVISON and RADIO are unfamiliar. I'm sure that Metallica used both of them to hear new types of music when they were poor and starting out. I'm also sure that they had enough talent between them all to create a unique sound good enough for the recording industry to take notice.
Please spare us the plight of the oppressed proletariat by the greedy bourgeoisie. It didn't play in Russia and won't here.
Slashdot Mirror
...about anyone else, but **I** would like to know if I had cancer as early as possible.
There's something about living that makes life worth living!
That's a really good point. The TCO may in fact be lower. But is the TNBO (Total Net Benefit of Ownership) better, the same or worse?
I have a problem with the TCO concept:
1. TCO only measures cost. It doesn't measure benefit. In any analysis, one must net the costs with the benefits to arrive at point where an informed decision can be made: ie A G3 Mac costs $3000, a similiar WinTel box costs $1500. What's better? Well, what are the benefits of ownership? Let's say the G3 enables you to increase profits by $20000 whereas the WinTel box enables you to increase profits by $5000. NOW the choice is clear. You want the G3. Your net benefit is $17000 versus $3500. The higher cost G3 yields a higher profit. Any analysis of this type has to include benefits as well as costs. If you can't calculate either, then any numbers you come out with are meaningless.
2. This type of analysis includes opportunity costs. Opportunity costs are what you give up to do something else. "If I buy new workstations now, I can't do system upgrades on the servers." That's an example. When a new computer is installed, part of the TCO numbers include the cost of the technicians' time, even though they may be paid to be there anyway. Opportunity costs are therefore a matter of personal opinion.
An analysis of the net cost/benefit give a more accurate number by which to measure the application of different systems. A focus on costs only without an analysis of benefits may result in a low cost operation, but maximum profit may never be attained.
But have they actually improved the hardware relative to a PC's given performance vs. cost? In other words, would I spend an extra $500-$700 for a cute little tangerine box on my desktop? My answer is NO. The hardware platform may be a good one (even the best), but I'm not going to pay a huge price for a marginal increase in hardware quality.
Regarding the operating system, there are other things a true multitasking system can do rather than keep concurrent applications open. Microsoft (and I KNOW this is a bad example) keeps lots of background tasks in the systray that scan the hard drive, re-index files, defrag the disk and notify you of low disk space. Most of this I find useless, but what if you had background tasks that surfed the net for you for movie tickets or graphics, or that downloaded your latest bank statement, or paid bills? What if you could move your PC to the basement next to the water heater and string network cable and windows terminals to various rooms for your family to use?
More powerful machines in the future are probably more likely to run more intelligent and sophisticated background applications than multiple simultaneous desktop applications. Call it bloatware, but in a competitive computer market, differentiation and performance mean survival.
Apple's survival lies in better software. Hardware can be mass produced overseas. Software is more easily shaped to hardware. THAT should be the direction Apple should be going.
Steve Jobs... Let's look at his track record. He was kicked out of Apple in the first place because he couldn't manage it. He founded NexT, but couldn't turn it into a viable company. Not even his GOOD NAME could sell his computers. NexT discontinued its hardware line, then sold it's software line to Apple because it couldn't be sold elsewhere. Here we are going on 5 years since the sale AND STILL NO NEW OPERATING SYSTEM. If I spent $600 million and ended up with nothing, I would be screaming bloody murder (or at least FRAUD). I can't believe it took 5 years and many millions of dollars to create OS X Server from NexT/Rhapsody. Something is very wrong here.
Regarding the Apple Clones. I would rather keep my money in my pocket rather than give it to Apple. The clone manufacturers proved that you can make and sell a Mac for much less money than Apple. With competition, the consumer WINS all the time. By revoking the clone licenses, Apple did all computer users a disservice.
Apple leads the pack? With what? Pretty colors? If I want pretty colors on my PC, a can of spray paint is MUCH cheaper! Serveral cans can yield many more designs. Why stop there? Why not paste bumper stickers on it? The idea of the modular computer has been around since the TRS-80 model III. No floppy drive? We can debate this forever, but doesn't excluding a floppy just remove an option for the consumer?
I submit that Apple's comeback is due largely to a good economy in which people don't mind spending a few extra dollars for an expensive gadget, as useful as it is.
I don't hate the Mac platform; I just question Apple's business choices and motivations.
Here's a good patch for outlook: GET RID OF IT!! USE PINE!!! I can't stand waiting for Outlook/Exchange Server to synchonize and do other things BEFORE I can read my e-mail. I think a Pentium III 500 w/128MB RAM should be sufficient to run a mail client without using much overhead.
But then again, this is Microsoft. They do things in a special way.
For cell phones to be accepted in the USA, the billing system will have to revamped much like it is in Finland and other countries.
In underdeveloped countries, it may be much easier to run signal repeaters rather than traditional phone lines (probably easier maintenance, too).
I once mentioned to my wife that we really don't need a phone anymore since our internet service is through a cable modem and we can use our cell phone just as easily (we have voicemail). She looked at me as if I had grown a third eye. Apparently, the idea was very unconventional to her, leading me to believe that social culture will have to get used to the idea that stationary phones will become dinosaurs.
I can't count the number of times (lately) I've wanted someone to call me, but I've had to be home for the call.
Most people (in the USA) have the idea that a cell phone is an infrequently used, emergency call device. It can be so much more.
If I remember correctly, westward expansion into the North American continent didn't really get moving until two things happened:
1. Railroads - Fast, frequent and CHEAP transportation for passengers and goods filled up the continent faster than anyone could have predicted. Today's rockets are sailing ships. We need the equivalent of a steam engine.
2. Gold - (or another profit motive). The gold rush in 1849 allowed California to fill up with enough people to allow it the apply for statehood. We need an economic motive to push the masses into space.
Individualism is a fine thing. But really, how many people honestly wish to express their individualism and creativity? I've spent a good number of years on this planet and have arrived at the following realization:
.5% of everyone CREATE paths that the people in #3 follow. They are the artists, dreamers and risk-takers who have the ability to see things differently.
1. 80% of everyone takes life as it comes. They don't improve themselves, nor do they seek to destroy themselves. If they could live from hand to mouth forever, they would.
2. 18% of everyone uses the system to better themselves. If there is a way to improve themselves within the system, they'll do it.
3. 1.5% of everyone seeks means outside the system to better themselves. If there is a path other than the beaten one, they'll follow it.
4.
Individualism is a fine thing for people who wish to take advantage of it. Many people do not. Is this a bad thing? Not necessarily. The vast majority who exist within the system act a brake on those who would implement too many changes too quickly. When in balance, society proceeds and advances smoothly. When out of balance, excess change promotes revolution and anarky and excess inertia promotes stagnation.
Corporations are ways to leverage resources and implement risky idea within a limited liability framework. If all shareholders were directly liable for the actions of their corporations, then there would be no advancement. There would be no exploration, technology, internet, or SLASHDOT (oh my!). Sure there are abuses; everything human is imperfect. But then everything is in a constant state of evolution - even us.
If I remember correctly, there was some concern of a "Domino Effect" with regard to the region around Afghanistan. If the Soviets could exert influence, then they could use it to leverage rights to a warm water port in Iran or Pakistan. Given where N. Korea is today, I'd say the S. Korea chose the right side. A S. Korean Friend of mine would concur. Vietnam started (for the Americans) on the coattails of Hungary and the Berlin Wall incidents. 1968 saw Czechoslovakia. By that time there was a perceived need to contain the Soviets. I guess the spectre of police states cropping up all over the world unnerved some politicans.
It may explain paranoia, but it doesn't explain Afghanistan, Hungary, Poland and Czechoslovakia. It doesn't explain forced collectivization.
Those powers were also helping the government of an ally that had seen 4 years of up until then was the most brutal war in history. WWI brought down the goverments of most of the major players in that war (both sides). From that perspective, I can see how the occupation at Archangel was justified. There was probably a good deal of fear and paranoia (some of it justified) that communist revolution would spread.
There may have been incursions into Russia by various powers.
But does this excuse the events in Hungary and Czechoslovakia in 1956 and 1968, respectively? How about Poland in 1981? Or Afghanistan? Does anyone remember the Berlin Wall?
True, the Germans may have invaded in 1941, but this was after STALIN butchered his own officer corps in a fit of murderous paranoia.
The Soviets have the dishonor of being the only regime in the history of the world to build border fortifications to KEEP THEIR OWN PEOPLE IN!! Say what you will about NATO expansionism, but NATO didn't/doesn't systematically demoralize its own people. In fact ALL of the countries in NATO during the cold war ended up being far better off than their counterparts in the Warsaw Pact.
On earth, places have ALWAYS been named after explorers or their patrons. Why should space be different? I think the people who actually front the money and make the journey have the right to name whatever it is they find anything they want.
Historically, exploration has been driven by political and economic concerns. NASA's first goals were politically driven (beat the Soviets). Various companies launch communications satellites not to better humankind, but to make money. Other space exploration and colonization will be conducted for those same reasons.
Selflessness is a noble motivation, but it doesn't put dinner on the table.
It was for reasons like that I purchased my NexGen machine and the AMD K6-2 machine after that.
AMD is really giving Intel a run for its money in terms of quality, price and performance.
So.... Did the engineers do this on purpose? It seems that Intel is really hell-bent on killing RAMBUS.
A motherboard and RAM swap may not sit too well with sysadmins whose hardware must be up 100% of the time.
Actually, they were infected by the Intelligensia Virus, which causes dumb people to make what they believe to be intelligent, informed decisions..
You can educate people until you're blue in the face. Only those who want to learn will learn. When I was a sysadmin, there was certain collection of individuals that would ALWAYS need help changing their passwords when they expired. No amount of education could make the difference. FYI: Some of these people had Master's degrees.
But if you use Hotmail with Netscape and Linux (like me), a little 'ole VB Script ain't gonna do much.
Why not?
The ASP idea is the next logical step after CGI. Until I had to use it in a big project, I thought ASP on IIS was a good idea. Alas, like most M$ products, it turns flakey with continued use.
On the Linux side of things, I have experimented with PHP and JServ (JAVA) and find them to be welcome alternatives. They both follow the ASP philosophy. As far as server-side Perl is concerned, I haven't used it, but I'm sure a lot of Slashdotters have.
According to mySQL's documentation, it doesn't support complex joins (inserts), transactions, etc. that make a database ROBUST. It's perfectly fine if you want to use it as a datawarehouse or to serve dynamic webpages because it's lack of robustness translates to an increase in speed. Maybe someday it will be used as a frontline application, but not now or in the near future.
Oh the big, bad, EVIL, corporations are taking over!!!
Give me a break! Corporations are responsible for the greatest increase in the standard of living than anything else. It is because of their existence that we have an internet, television, radio and telephone networks. Corporations have allowed more communication among individuals and groups than any other entity human-kind has created.
Nothing to watch on television because "everything is the same" or ABC is blacked out? I don't know about you, but I just CHANGE THE CHANNEL. My corporate controlled cable provider offers me 70 channels if I don't rent their decoder box, 150 if I do. If I still don't like what they have, I'll just go to my corporate-controlled video rental store and rent something there. Failing that, I can surf the internet on my corporate-controlled broadband connection. If worst comes to worst, I can read a book on my shelf or buy one at the local corporate-controlled bookstore. None of these choices existed for me 25 years ago. As far as free speech is concerned, just where (at least in the US) is it abridged? An adult can say just about anything and not be dragged away by the secret police (as a rule).
People have this idea that corporations are going to take over every aspect of life and replace popular government. That couldn't be further from the truth. Corporations and Government are mutually exclusive entities. Here's why:
1. To receive rights in a corporation, you buy them. A government gives them to you as a birthright.
2. If you do not perform your duty in a corporation, you are exiled (fired). Under a government, such a person becomes homeless, goes on welfare, etc. and becomes a burden to be carried by the rest.
3. If you commit a crime against the corporation (ie theft), you are exiled (fired). In a government, you are incarcerated and become a burden to be carried.
4. Corporations exist to make money. Governments exist to organize people. These are two very different missions.
5. In corporations, the top officers must perform or be fired. Performance is measured by value creation (accurate as measured in monetary units). In government, non-performing top officials can be re-elected or re-appointed. Performance is measured by how stable society feels (can't really be measured as accurately as profit).
What it comes down to, is that corporations are VERY different from governments. Should they attempt to supplant governments, they would have to deal with the non-performing elements of society. Once they started doing that, they would BECOME governments.
"For musicians to so unthinkingly embrace a simplistic, corporatist and greedy position is ominous."
Excuse me, the biggest and most famous acts in the world now are simplistic, corporatist and greedy. The surviving Beatles, Michael Jackson, Madonna, Rolling Stones, etc. are worth hundreds of millions of dollars. Where have YOU been to not have noticed this? When an artist signs a recording contract, HE/SHE HAS ALREADY SOLD OUT. Despite their denials, they are an active part of the big, bad and EVIL corporate system.
"Mostly, Metallica has ensured that poorer kids or people without vast bandwidth will be cut off from acquiring music, from experimenting, from fostering new bands."
I suppose the terms TELEVISON and RADIO are unfamiliar. I'm sure that Metallica used both of them to hear new types of music when they were poor and starting out. I'm also sure that they had enough talent between them all to create a unique sound good enough for the recording industry to take notice.
Please spare us the plight of the oppressed proletariat by the greedy bourgeoisie. It didn't play in Russia and won't here.