What exactly is the magic bit that you learn in a lecture that can't be learned by reading the text and learning to do the problems?
...Nothing...
Believe it or not, with the right book and some practice you can learn darn near anything. Heck, I even learned to Juggle from "Juggling for the Complete Klutz." A book can be a guide in exactly the same way that a professor can be a guide.
Even when there isn't a definitive work on the subject there is always a definitive set of written material. IMHO the job of the professor is to guide the students toward the written material that is most likely to be useful. That might be a text book, or it might be the Linux Kernel Mailing List.
The advantage that the professor has is experience. You know what sources are worth studying, and more importantly you know several sources that aren't worth my time. I have taken both conventional classes and online classes that were essentially nothing more than an assortment of reading assignments followed by tests (or other assignments). For my money I would much rather take the online course.
That being the case, I have taken courses where the ability to ask question and receive an immediate answer was helpful. I have also taken courses where class discussion lead to some interesting insights. However, as a teacher yourself my guess is that you can attest to the fact that these discussions invariably follow along certain veins. Professor's don't open a topic for discussion without being pretty sure where the discussion will lead. A few questions in a written assignment could easily lead someone outside of the classroom setting along a similar thought path.
Once again. As a professor, when you want to further your knowledge on a subject, you don't (generally speaking) attend a lecture. Why should you believe that your students learn differently than you do?
If the presentation notes didn't make sense without the presentation, then there is little reason to include the notes. I can understand that. However, the only reason that lectures can be more effective than reading assignments is that you can ask questions in a lecture. A taped lecture is the worst possible way to learn. Not only does it waste time listening to the speaker the first time, but it is impossible to review a taped lecture.
Now, if I was learning dance steps, then a taped lecture might be handy. However, for everything else, give me a reading assignment.
What do you bet that when these professors want to learn something new they don't sign up for a class and listen to some old codger lecture them? There is a reason that University courses generally use a text book, and the reason is that it is far easier to transmit information via the written word than to go find someone to teach you every time you want to learn something.
Many Professors feel that they have some sort of special message that can only be transmitted in a lecture. Like Moses they want you to climb up a mountain so that they can write "truth" on the a stone (with chalk instead of a fiery finger). Frankly, that's just crap. The reason to go to class is that the professor hasn't read the textbook that he made you purchase in 15 years. The test will be taken from his or her lectures, and will cover material that may not be in the book. Professors that penalize for non-attendance, more often than not, do so because they got tired of finding out that several of their A students every semester never darkened the door of their classroom. That kind of revelation is hard on their ego. I had plenty of classes where missing a lecture was dangerous because you were almost certainly going to miss out on important information. However, none of these professors required attendance. If you wanted to get a poor grade in their class, that was perfectly fine with them. The lectures that I was required to attend were without exception a waste of time.
Now, I am not saying that professors aren't helpful folks, but I would strongly disagree with any professor that thinks that he or she can engender a will to actually learn in his or her students simply by requiring them to show up to the lectures. That's ridiculous.
If you really want to motivate a student, make the assignments and tests difficult. Forcing them to come to class is just an exercise of your authority over your students. It's nothing more than a power trip.
If I can learn the material from the book, I am not one bit interested in a lecture. I had an online class where we had to watch videos of the lectures, and it was the biggest waste of time ever. I spent most of my time doing homework for another class while the teacher droned on in the background. Back when I was young and single the social aspects of going to class were interesting, but they are not interesting to me anymore, and neither is it interesting to listen to an accounting professor talk for 40 minutes so that I can winnow out the two paragraphs of information that his monologue contains.
Fortunately most of my online classes have consisted of little more than reading assignments and tests (with the occassional written assignment). I have taken 4 300-level English courses at 3 institutions (I have moved around quite a bit:), and the one I took online was far and away the most educational.
It's possible that I am an exception to the rule. I have always felt that I learned better from a book than from a teacher, but that doesn't mean that I want to watch another pre-recorded lecture.
Re:SCO still packs a punch?
on
SCO SCO SCO!
·
· Score: 1
SCO management has plenty of time before the trial (two years) to unload stock. Not to mention the fact that it is not illegal to hype your company. If that were the case then the management of every tech company on the planet would be in jail. It's not SCO's fault if the buyers don't do their due diligence. The only thing that they have done that is even potentially illegal is pretend they have a case against IBM, and plenty of other folks (like Microsoft) are even willing to go along with the charade. SCO has a better chance of succeeding with their suit against IBM then some of the dot com companies had of making an actual profit (it's still a ridiculously slim chance).
In the meantime the negative Linux publicity is almost certainly good for SCO's proprietary UNIX business. So SCO's management is covered by that angle as well.
All SCO management has to do is pretend that they believe that they actually have a case, and then jump through the SEC hoops when they "diversify their holdings," and they are home free. Remember, VA Linux insiders that sold when LNUX stock was ridiculously high were not breaking the law, they were simply taking advantage of a market that thought LNUX stock was worth a huge premium. Nothing illegal about that. SCO management simply has to pull off a similar feat (and then they have to keep a straight face when they say that they have a chance of winning the IBM lawsuit).
Re:SCO still packs a punch?
on
SCO SCO SCO!
·
· Score: 1
There's no difference. All of the really large dot com implosions were also publicly traded companies. That's how the money was generated. The management of these companies (and the angel investors) hyped the companies up, and rubes threw money at the publicly traded stocks. VA Linux once sold at over $300 a share, and it wasn't illegal for VA Linux insiders to sell shares, they just had to follow SEC rules. Heck, Ballmer just dropped a ton of shares in MSFT. My guess is that he has seen the writing on the wall and knows that investors are eventually going to catch on that MSFT is not worth a price/earnings ratio of nearly 30. That's not illegal either.
SCO management will have plenty of time before now and the trial to unload stock (much of which they were essentially given at special prices of $0.001 a share). If they follow the SEC rules and do a good job of pretending to really believe they have a case, then they will get out scott free.
The rubes that bought SCOX when it went up over $9.00/share this last time, on the other hand, are going to lose big time.
Re:Has SCO got anything right so far ?
on
SCO SCO SCO!
·
· Score: 1
SCO hasn't been ham-handed at all. Their stock is up 500% and for the first time in a long time customers are thinking that perhaps SCO is a better deal than Linux. Once you stop pretending that SCO actually thinks they have a chance at winning this case their current actions make much more sense.
It will be several years before this case goes to court. That's more time than many dot com boomers had, and they still managed to drive their stock price through the roof and then cash out (legally).
Re:SCO still packs a punch?
on
SCO SCO SCO!
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
It's not illegal to "diversify your holdings," nor is it illegal to sue IBM and hold a pile of press conferences. Plenty of companies during the dot com boom made a lot of money legally doing precisely the same thing. DrKoop.com had less chance of generating money than SCO, and no one got sent to the slammer for that debacle.
All SCO management has to do is pretend that they really believe that they have a business plan, and then jump through the hoops the SEC has set up for the sale of stock by insiders. When the court case goes to trial in two years SCO will lose, but it will be very hard to blame management. After all, they hired the best (Boies). Sometimes the courts simply aren't in your favor.
Re:SCO still packs a punch?
on
SCO SCO SCO!
·
· Score: 1
Before the announcement of the IBM suit SCOX was hovering right around $1.00. It then surged up to over $9.00 and when Novell dropped their bomb on SCO SCOX dropped back to around $6.00.
However going from $1.00 per share to $6.00 per share is still a very hefty increase.
Re:SCO still packs a punch?
on
SCO SCO SCO!
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Caldera (now SCO) will not exist two years from now when the lawsuit with IBM comes to trial unless something can be done to stop the onslaught of Linux on their proprietary UNIX marketshare. In short, SCO has very little to lose.
In fact, SCO's current scheme is sheer genius. They field lie after lie and watch their stock price shoot through the roof. Even after the colossal smackdown that Novell put on SCO SCOX stock is still priced at over $6.00 a share. That's basically a five-fold increase over where the stock was before they declared the lawsuit against IBM. Even better SCO management has managed to keep their story in the spotlight with their wide array of wacky allegations. This not only helps keep their stock price high, but it probably is even helping their commercial UNIX business. I would bet that several SCO customers that were looking at a migration to Linux will now choose to stay pat with UnixWare or OpenServer.
Don't be fooled. SCO isn't trying to win a court case. If they were, they would be using the same tactics that IBM is currently using. Their legal counsel is pretty sharp. He undoubtedly has told the SCO management team that their responses to the press are evidence. If SCO really thought that they had a chance at winning their court case they wouldn't be giving press conferences every five minutes.
SCO's management almost certainly plans to hype the stock to the moon, and then quietly sell their stake in SCOX. Since they have several years before their case goes to court, they have plenty of time to slowly get rid of their holdings.
I agree with you 100%. Heck, I will even go so far as to say that in many cases replacing proprietary software with Free Software is a loser over the long term. There are plenty of commercial software systems that are good deals, and there are Free Software systems that do not measure up.
However, the second the commercial software folks start talking about accountability (especially with regards to Microsoft) I can't help but cry foul. Microsoft sells their software "as is" they are not remotely liable for their software, and if you want a decent service contract you have to purchase one on top of your licensing agreement, and you probably have to get the contract from someone besides Microsoft. Purchasing a commercial contract is also no guarantee that the software in question will be developed in the future. The company I work for currently is in the middle of a JD Edwards ERP installation, and today PeopleSoft announced they will be purchasing JD Edwards.
What do you bet that future JD Edwards "upgrades" will involve paying huge money for a completely different product?
Like I said, there are plenty of hidden costs associated with switching to Free Software. However, service, support, and longterm viability of your software all play into the hands of Free Software adoptees.
Oh please, no one has ever sued Microsoft for lack of "service," and it is not because Microsoft products are perfect either.
Not only that, but Microsoft has done just about every other unfriendly thing that a software vendor can do. They have stopped development of projects, created spurious incompatibilities, and sold bugs as "features." If the government paid IBM (or RedHat or whomever) half of what they currently spend on Microsoft software they could almost certainly get a real service contract for a huge pile of Free Software, and if they didn't like the service they got, they could take that money next year and hire someone else without having to switch software.
I agree that there are costs to switching to Free Software, and I definitely agree that Free Software can't currently fill everyone's computer needs, but your arguments against Linux amount to nothing more than FUD. There are plenty of valid reasons for not choosing Linux. However, service, support, and longterm viability are all parameters that favor Linux.
Once clusters become ubiquitous, Microsoft will start aggresively pushing Windows 200X Server Cluster Edition, fighting an enemy it has already much experience with.
The problem with that theory is that Microsoft isn't winning against Linux, it's losing.
Microsoft has years of experience competing with large UNIX systems, mainframes, and even (to some extent) super computers. The fact that the Windows PC is essentially the center of the computer experience speaks volumes about Microsoft's ability to compete against these more traditional competitors. Microsoft already knows how to kick IBM, SGI, Cray, and Sun where it hurts, but they have yet to come up with a tactic that works against Linux.
Besides which, even if Microsoft did get a toehold in this market, it isn't likely to be a very lucrative one for them. In order to compete with an already entrenched Linux Beowulf cluster Microsoft is going to have to price their software very competitively. In fact, even if Microsoft gave their software away many of the folks currently using Linux clusters would stick with the demon that they know. After all, these customers will have already built up a substantial amount of Beowulf software that they most likely will not want to rewrite.
Microsoft has lost this particular market niche. Fortunately for them, they didn't really want it in the first place.
The real problem is that Microsoft doesn't really want to sell a souped up PDA. Microsoft doesn't make any money selling Windows CE devices (Microsoft just lowered the price of Windows CE yet again), and they face a lot of competition from other operating systems. After all, if your device doesn't need to run MS Office, then you probably can get away with using some other operating system.
The Tablet PC and the prototype Athens PC are nothing more than a vain attempt by Microsoft and a few PC manufacturers to raise margins on PC hardware again. They figure that if they can create a device that is cool enough that end users will pay a premium for said device instead of simply buying a PC from Dell (or some other low-cost PC provider).
The problem with this theory is that the two commodity PC formats (PC and laptop) fit most computer uses quite well. Microsoft was hoping that users would pay a premium for a laptop that you could draw on. It turns out that they were mistaken.
The good news is that Linux doesn't need to win all the battles. In fact, with Microsoft's overwhelming market share we don't hardly need to win any to gain ground.
Microsoft, on the other hand, has to maintain revenue growth if they are going to keep their investors happy. They can't afford to lose any customers, and they either have to actually gain customers, or they have to charge existing customers less. When the economy recovers and it becomes clear that Microsoft is not going to recover along with it then investors will finally see the light and Microsoft's price/earnings ratio will fall from its present near 30 level to much closer to 10. When it becomes clear that Microsoft is vulnerable to Linux then the fun will really begin.
Right now CIOs believe that Microsoft is invincible. Disabuse them of that belief and Linux Total World Domination is inevitable.
Actually government adoption of Free Software makes a lot of sense. After all, the German government gets to tax the consultants that set up and customize their Linux systems, while licensing fees end up in the U.S. For government entities building the local economy is an important consideration. You don't build the local economy by sending millions to Redmond Washington (unless, of course, you live in Redmond).
Also, governments are really the only entity that can mandate document formats. It doesn't matter how big your company is, if the government wants their information in OpenOffice format you don't send them an MS Word document.
Most importantly, however, is the fact that a lot of the really large computer installations (where Linux has a definite advantage) are government owned. For small businesses Linux steeper learning curve works against it. In large organizations the openness, flexibility, and scriptability of Linux make it very cost effective to administer.
Yes, and I can listen to the radio for free. Heck, I can listen to the radio in my car, or while I am jogging too.
The whole point of purchasing music is to have it around handy so you can listen to it when the idiots on the radio are busy playing some other crap. This would work with Real's service too, as long as you spent all of your time in front of your broad-band-equipped computer, and you remembered to pay your $9.95 a month.
Sorry, but a 10-spot a month to listen to music at my computer does not sound like much of a deal. On the other hand, to me Apple's service doesn't sound like much of a deal either. My guess is that Apple users are just used to getting ripped off.
SCO has absolutely nothing to lose by pretending that they still believe that they have a case. Heck, my guess is that those Yahoos have known all along that they don't have a case. For example, their executives didn't go on the talk show circuit when they were in court against Microsoft. The reason for this. They knew that what they said would be used against them in court. Contrast that with the media circus that the IBM suit has become.
My guess is that management is more concerned about the SCOX stock price, then the actual court case. They are just trying to make a buck on the implosion of their company.
That's just pure unadulterated @#$!!. SCO sent out threatening letters to 1500 companies many of whom don't have contracts with SCO. If this case is about breach of contract then what in the heck is SCO doing intimidating these customers.
The fact of the matter is that SCO is simply trying to run up their share price so that SCO management can make a buck on the implosion of their company.
The real problem is that Microsoft has structured their company around huge markups for Windows and MS Office. They can't really afford to have these products become a commodity.
Think about it for a moment. Microsoft does not have a very good history of treating their customer well. In fact, most Microsoft customers (even the large customers) feel like Microsoft has put a ring through their nose so that Bill can yank them around with a cord. The reason that they put up with Microsoft's antics is that they have seen what has happened to Microsoft's past competitors. No one wants to risk their business on software that isn't going to exist in 18 months.
Now put the shoe on the other foot. Let's imagine a world in which Microsoft actively participates in a commodity market. Let's imagine, just for a moment, that Microsoft published their specifications for their document formats and made it easy for OpenOffice and Corel PerfectOffice to read and write MS formats perfectly. All of a sudden one of the major reasons for buying MS Office disappears. If file compatibility issues go away then the largest differentiator between the office suites is price, and Microsoft's product is more than twice as expensive as Corel's PerfectOffice (and OpenOffice is essentially free).
This trend would almost certainly hurt Microsoft's bottom line, and MSFT stock would drop out of the sky. Microsoft is supposed to be a growth company. Any shrinkage in revenue growth will send investors scrambling to sell. It is very likely that investors would push the price/earnings ratio from up around 30 to just under 10. In that sort of an environment, where MSFT stock had fallen out of the sky and where non-Microsoft software was gaining marketshare Microsoft would soon find that most of their leverage with companies was gone. Microsoft would no longer be able to force new licensing schemes on their customers, or bully the PC makers. Instead it would be Microsoft's customers and partners who would begin to play hardball.
In short, the last thing on the planet that Microsoft wants is the commoditization of office suite formats. Microsoft beat Netscape in the Internet game because they could afford to give Internet Explorer away. Microsoft can't afford to give MS Office away. Doing so would destroy the company.
The problem with flop (or bogomips, or whatever), is that they really only measure the processor speed. HP, IBM, and Sun would are using these measures to paper over the fact that their expensive servers are not anywhere near price competitive with Intel or AMD servers when it comes to raw processor power.
To some extent their rules are justifiable as there is more to computer performance than processor speed, but the primary reason for coming up with these bogus units is that it makes it more difficult to compare performance with vanilla x86 machines.
Munich is a government. If they tell you to send them an OpenOffice.org document, you won't send them an MS Word document. Bureaucracies don't have to be flexible.
That's the reason that Microsoft is pushing so hard not to lose government contracts. Microsoft knows that governments are the one entity that can force people towards new document formats.
Slashdot Mirror
I am taking some courses from Brigham Young University and I have been very happy with most of the classes, and you can't beat the price.
What exactly is the magic bit that you learn in a lecture that can't be learned by reading the text and learning to do the problems?
...Nothing...
Believe it or not, with the right book and some practice you can learn darn near anything. Heck, I even learned to Juggle from "Juggling for the Complete Klutz." A book can be a guide in exactly the same way that a professor can be a guide.
Even when there isn't a definitive work on the subject there is always a definitive set of written material. IMHO the job of the professor is to guide the students toward the written material that is most likely to be useful. That might be a text book, or it might be the Linux Kernel Mailing List.
The advantage that the professor has is experience. You know what sources are worth studying, and more importantly you know several sources that aren't worth my time. I have taken both conventional classes and online classes that were essentially nothing more than an assortment of reading assignments followed by tests (or other assignments). For my money I would much rather take the online course.
That being the case, I have taken courses where the ability to ask question and receive an immediate answer was helpful. I have also taken courses where class discussion lead to some interesting insights. However, as a teacher yourself my guess is that you can attest to the fact that these discussions invariably follow along certain veins. Professor's don't open a topic for discussion without being pretty sure where the discussion will lead. A few questions in a written assignment could easily lead someone outside of the classroom setting along a similar thought path.
Once again. As a professor, when you want to further your knowledge on a subject, you don't (generally speaking) attend a lecture. Why should you believe that your students learn differently than you do?
If the presentation notes didn't make sense without the presentation, then there is little reason to include the notes. I can understand that. However, the only reason that lectures can be more effective than reading assignments is that you can ask questions in a lecture. A taped lecture is the worst possible way to learn. Not only does it waste time listening to the speaker the first time, but it is impossible to review a taped lecture.
Now, if I was learning dance steps, then a taped lecture might be handy. However, for everything else, give me a reading assignment.
What do you bet that when these professors want to learn something new they don't sign up for a class and listen to some old codger lecture them? There is a reason that University courses generally use a text book, and the reason is that it is far easier to transmit information via the written word than to go find someone to teach you every time you want to learn something.
Many Professors feel that they have some sort of special message that can only be transmitted in a lecture. Like Moses they want you to climb up a mountain so that they can write "truth" on the a stone (with chalk instead of a fiery finger). Frankly, that's just crap. The reason to go to class is that the professor hasn't read the textbook that he made you purchase in 15 years. The test will be taken from his or her lectures, and will cover material that may not be in the book. Professors that penalize for non-attendance, more often than not, do so because they got tired of finding out that several of their A students every semester never darkened the door of their classroom. That kind of revelation is hard on their ego. I had plenty of classes where missing a lecture was dangerous because you were almost certainly going to miss out on important information. However, none of these professors required attendance. If you wanted to get a poor grade in their class, that was perfectly fine with them. The lectures that I was required to attend were without exception a waste of time.
Now, I am not saying that professors aren't helpful folks, but I would strongly disagree with any professor that thinks that he or she can engender a will to actually learn in his or her students simply by requiring them to show up to the lectures. That's ridiculous.
If you really want to motivate a student, make the assignments and tests difficult. Forcing them to come to class is just an exercise of your authority over your students. It's nothing more than a power trip.
I couldn't disagree more strongly.
If I can learn the material from the book, I am not one bit interested in a lecture. I had an online class where we had to watch videos of the lectures, and it was the biggest waste of time ever. I spent most of my time doing homework for another class while the teacher droned on in the background. Back when I was young and single the social aspects of going to class were interesting, but they are not interesting to me anymore, and neither is it interesting to listen to an accounting professor talk for 40 minutes so that I can winnow out the two paragraphs of information that his monologue contains.
Fortunately most of my online classes have consisted of little more than reading assignments and tests (with the occassional written assignment). I have taken 4 300-level English courses at 3 institutions (I have moved around quite a bit :), and the one I took online was far and away the most educational.
It's possible that I am an exception to the rule. I have always felt that I learned better from a book than from a teacher, but that doesn't mean that I want to watch another pre-recorded lecture.
SCO management has plenty of time before the trial (two years) to unload stock. Not to mention the fact that it is not illegal to hype your company. If that were the case then the management of every tech company on the planet would be in jail. It's not SCO's fault if the buyers don't do their due diligence. The only thing that they have done that is even potentially illegal is pretend they have a case against IBM, and plenty of other folks (like Microsoft) are even willing to go along with the charade. SCO has a better chance of succeeding with their suit against IBM then some of the dot com companies had of making an actual profit (it's still a ridiculously slim chance).
In the meantime the negative Linux publicity is almost certainly good for SCO's proprietary UNIX business. So SCO's management is covered by that angle as well.
All SCO management has to do is pretend that they believe that they actually have a case, and then jump through the SEC hoops when they "diversify their holdings," and they are home free. Remember, VA Linux insiders that sold when LNUX stock was ridiculously high were not breaking the law, they were simply taking advantage of a market that thought LNUX stock was worth a huge premium. Nothing illegal about that. SCO management simply has to pull off a similar feat (and then they have to keep a straight face when they say that they have a chance of winning the IBM lawsuit).
There's no difference. All of the really large dot com implosions were also publicly traded companies. That's how the money was generated. The management of these companies (and the angel investors) hyped the companies up, and rubes threw money at the publicly traded stocks. VA Linux once sold at over $300 a share, and it wasn't illegal for VA Linux insiders to sell shares, they just had to follow SEC rules. Heck, Ballmer just dropped a ton of shares in MSFT. My guess is that he has seen the writing on the wall and knows that investors are eventually going to catch on that MSFT is not worth a price/earnings ratio of nearly 30. That's not illegal either.
SCO management will have plenty of time before now and the trial to unload stock (much of which they were essentially given at special prices of $0.001 a share). If they follow the SEC rules and do a good job of pretending to really believe they have a case, then they will get out scott free.
The rubes that bought SCOX when it went up over $9.00/share this last time, on the other hand, are going to lose big time.
SCO hasn't been ham-handed at all. Their stock is up 500% and for the first time in a long time customers are thinking that perhaps SCO is a better deal than Linux. Once you stop pretending that SCO actually thinks they have a chance at winning this case their current actions make much more sense.
It will be several years before this case goes to court. That's more time than many dot com boomers had, and they still managed to drive their stock price through the roof and then cash out (legally).
It's not illegal to "diversify your holdings," nor is it illegal to sue IBM and hold a pile of press conferences. Plenty of companies during the dot com boom made a lot of money legally doing precisely the same thing. DrKoop.com had less chance of generating money than SCO, and no one got sent to the slammer for that debacle.
All SCO management has to do is pretend that they really believe that they have a business plan, and then jump through the hoops the SEC has set up for the sale of stock by insiders. When the court case goes to trial in two years SCO will lose, but it will be very hard to blame management. After all, they hired the best (Boies). Sometimes the courts simply aren't in your favor.
Before the announcement of the IBM suit SCOX was hovering right around $1.00. It then surged up to over $9.00 and when Novell dropped their bomb on SCO SCOX dropped back to around $6.00.
However going from $1.00 per share to $6.00 per share is still a very hefty increase.
Caldera (now SCO) will not exist two years from now when the lawsuit with IBM comes to trial unless something can be done to stop the onslaught of Linux on their proprietary UNIX marketshare. In short, SCO has very little to lose.
In fact, SCO's current scheme is sheer genius. They field lie after lie and watch their stock price shoot through the roof. Even after the colossal smackdown that Novell put on SCO SCOX stock is still priced at over $6.00 a share. That's basically a five-fold increase over where the stock was before they declared the lawsuit against IBM. Even better SCO management has managed to keep their story in the spotlight with their wide array of wacky allegations. This not only helps keep their stock price high, but it probably is even helping their commercial UNIX business. I would bet that several SCO customers that were looking at a migration to Linux will now choose to stay pat with UnixWare or OpenServer.
Don't be fooled. SCO isn't trying to win a court case. If they were, they would be using the same tactics that IBM is currently using. Their legal counsel is pretty sharp. He undoubtedly has told the SCO management team that their responses to the press are evidence. If SCO really thought that they had a chance at winning their court case they wouldn't be giving press conferences every five minutes.
SCO's management almost certainly plans to hype the stock to the moon, and then quietly sell their stake in SCOX. Since they have several years before their case goes to court, they have plenty of time to slowly get rid of their holdings.
I only wish that my toddler would stick, at least then he would spend some time in one spot. My little boy bounces off the ceiling.
I agree with you 100%. Heck, I will even go so far as to say that in many cases replacing proprietary software with Free Software is a loser over the long term. There are plenty of commercial software systems that are good deals, and there are Free Software systems that do not measure up.
However, the second the commercial software folks start talking about accountability (especially with regards to Microsoft) I can't help but cry foul. Microsoft sells their software "as is" they are not remotely liable for their software, and if you want a decent service contract you have to purchase one on top of your licensing agreement, and you probably have to get the contract from someone besides Microsoft. Purchasing a commercial contract is also no guarantee that the software in question will be developed in the future. The company I work for currently is in the middle of a JD Edwards ERP installation, and today PeopleSoft announced they will be purchasing JD Edwards.
What do you bet that future JD Edwards "upgrades" will involve paying huge money for a completely different product?
Like I said, there are plenty of hidden costs associated with switching to Free Software. However, service, support, and longterm viability of your software all play into the hands of Free Software adoptees.
Oh please, no one has ever sued Microsoft for lack of "service," and it is not because Microsoft products are perfect either.
Not only that, but Microsoft has done just about every other unfriendly thing that a software vendor can do. They have stopped development of projects, created spurious incompatibilities, and sold bugs as "features." If the government paid IBM (or RedHat or whomever) half of what they currently spend on Microsoft software they could almost certainly get a real service contract for a huge pile of Free Software, and if they didn't like the service they got, they could take that money next year and hire someone else without having to switch software.
I agree that there are costs to switching to Free Software, and I definitely agree that Free Software can't currently fill everyone's computer needs, but your arguments against Linux amount to nothing more than FUD. There are plenty of valid reasons for not choosing Linux. However, service, support, and longterm viability are all parameters that favor Linux.
The problem with that theory is that Microsoft isn't winning against Linux, it's losing.
Microsoft has years of experience competing with large UNIX systems, mainframes, and even (to some extent) super computers. The fact that the Windows PC is essentially the center of the computer experience speaks volumes about Microsoft's ability to compete against these more traditional competitors. Microsoft already knows how to kick IBM, SGI, Cray, and Sun where it hurts, but they have yet to come up with a tactic that works against Linux.
Besides which, even if Microsoft did get a toehold in this market, it isn't likely to be a very lucrative one for them. In order to compete with an already entrenched Linux Beowulf cluster Microsoft is going to have to price their software very competitively. In fact, even if Microsoft gave their software away many of the folks currently using Linux clusters would stick with the demon that they know. After all, these customers will have already built up a substantial amount of Beowulf software that they most likely will not want to rewrite.
Microsoft has lost this particular market niche. Fortunately for them, they didn't really want it in the first place.
The real problem is that Microsoft doesn't really want to sell a souped up PDA. Microsoft doesn't make any money selling Windows CE devices (Microsoft just lowered the price of Windows CE yet again), and they face a lot of competition from other operating systems. After all, if your device doesn't need to run MS Office, then you probably can get away with using some other operating system.
The Tablet PC and the prototype Athens PC are nothing more than a vain attempt by Microsoft and a few PC manufacturers to raise margins on PC hardware again. They figure that if they can create a device that is cool enough that end users will pay a premium for said device instead of simply buying a PC from Dell (or some other low-cost PC provider).
The problem with this theory is that the two commodity PC formats (PC and laptop) fit most computer uses quite well. Microsoft was hoping that users would pay a premium for a laptop that you could draw on. It turns out that they were mistaken.
The good news is that Linux doesn't need to win all the battles. In fact, with Microsoft's overwhelming market share we don't hardly need to win any to gain ground.
Microsoft, on the other hand, has to maintain revenue growth if they are going to keep their investors happy. They can't afford to lose any customers, and they either have to actually gain customers, or they have to charge existing customers less. When the economy recovers and it becomes clear that Microsoft is not going to recover along with it then investors will finally see the light and Microsoft's price/earnings ratio will fall from its present near 30 level to much closer to 10. When it becomes clear that Microsoft is vulnerable to Linux then the fun will really begin.
Right now CIOs believe that Microsoft is invincible. Disabuse them of that belief and Linux Total World Domination is inevitable.
Actually government adoption of Free Software makes a lot of sense. After all, the German government gets to tax the consultants that set up and customize their Linux systems, while licensing fees end up in the U.S. For government entities building the local economy is an important consideration. You don't build the local economy by sending millions to Redmond Washington (unless, of course, you live in Redmond).
Also, governments are really the only entity that can mandate document formats. It doesn't matter how big your company is, if the government wants their information in OpenOffice format you don't send them an MS Word document.
Most importantly, however, is the fact that a lot of the really large computer installations (where Linux has a definite advantage) are government owned. For small businesses Linux steeper learning curve works against it. In large organizations the openness, flexibility, and scriptability of Linux make it very cost effective to administer.
Yes, and I can listen to the radio for free. Heck, I can listen to the radio in my car, or while I am jogging too.
The whole point of purchasing music is to have it around handy so you can listen to it when the idiots on the radio are busy playing some other crap. This would work with Real's service too, as long as you spent all of your time in front of your broad-band-equipped computer, and you remembered to pay your $9.95 a month.
Sorry, but a 10-spot a month to listen to music at my computer does not sound like much of a deal. On the other hand, to me Apple's service doesn't sound like much of a deal either. My guess is that Apple users are just used to getting ripped off.
SCO has absolutely nothing to lose by pretending that they still believe that they have a case. Heck, my guess is that those Yahoos have known all along that they don't have a case. For example, their executives didn't go on the talk show circuit when they were in court against Microsoft. The reason for this. They knew that what they said would be used against them in court. Contrast that with the media circus that the IBM suit has become.
My guess is that management is more concerned about the SCOX stock price, then the actual court case. They are just trying to make a buck on the implosion of their company.
That's just pure unadulterated @#$!!. SCO sent out threatening letters to 1500 companies many of whom don't have contracts with SCO. If this case is about breach of contract then what in the heck is SCO doing intimidating these customers.
The fact of the matter is that SCO is simply trying to run up their share price so that SCO management can make a buck on the implosion of their company.
The real problem is that Microsoft has structured their company around huge markups for Windows and MS Office. They can't really afford to have these products become a commodity.
Think about it for a moment. Microsoft does not have a very good history of treating their customer well. In fact, most Microsoft customers (even the large customers) feel like Microsoft has put a ring through their nose so that Bill can yank them around with a cord. The reason that they put up with Microsoft's antics is that they have seen what has happened to Microsoft's past competitors. No one wants to risk their business on software that isn't going to exist in 18 months.
Now put the shoe on the other foot. Let's imagine a world in which Microsoft actively participates in a commodity market. Let's imagine, just for a moment, that Microsoft published their specifications for their document formats and made it easy for OpenOffice and Corel PerfectOffice to read and write MS formats perfectly. All of a sudden one of the major reasons for buying MS Office disappears. If file compatibility issues go away then the largest differentiator between the office suites is price, and Microsoft's product is more than twice as expensive as Corel's PerfectOffice (and OpenOffice is essentially free).
This trend would almost certainly hurt Microsoft's bottom line, and MSFT stock would drop out of the sky. Microsoft is supposed to be a growth company. Any shrinkage in revenue growth will send investors scrambling to sell. It is very likely that investors would push the price/earnings ratio from up around 30 to just under 10. In that sort of an environment, where MSFT stock had fallen out of the sky and where non-Microsoft software was gaining marketshare Microsoft would soon find that most of their leverage with companies was gone. Microsoft would no longer be able to force new licensing schemes on their customers, or bully the PC makers. Instead it would be Microsoft's customers and partners who would begin to play hardball.
In short, the last thing on the planet that Microsoft wants is the commoditization of office suite formats. Microsoft beat Netscape in the Internet game because they could afford to give Internet Explorer away. Microsoft can't afford to give MS Office away. Doing so would destroy the company.
The problem with flop (or bogomips, or whatever), is that they really only measure the processor speed. HP, IBM, and Sun would are using these measures to paper over the fact that their expensive servers are not anywhere near price competitive with Intel or AMD servers when it comes to raw processor power.
To some extent their rules are justifiable as there is more to computer performance than processor speed, but the primary reason for coming up with these bogus units is that it makes it more difficult to compare performance with vanilla x86 machines.
Munich is a government. If they tell you to send them an OpenOffice.org document, you won't send them an MS Word document. Bureaucracies don't have to be flexible.
That's the reason that Microsoft is pushing so hard not to lose government contracts. Microsoft knows that governments are the one entity that can force people towards new document formats.