Either way RedHat gets the contract. After all, RedHat already has the traction with the suits. In a lot of cases, especially skunkworks projects that later become official projects, the techs end up with a lot of say. The fact that RedHat is freely available to test with is a big deal.
Per seat licensing certainly hasn't helped Caldera despite the fact that Caldera controls the remnants of SCO's vast VAR channel. For that matter per seat licensing didn't help SCO in the face of a massive Linux onslaught.
RedHat has become the de-facto Linux standard by writing cool software and giving it away. Caldera, SuSE, and TurboLinux have all created distributions that were better than RedHat's, but RedHat's distribution was freely available, and you could build on RedHat's free tools (because you had the source) and so RedHat won.
Ransom Love has got to be the thickest member of the Linux community. RedHat has beaten Caldera time and again by giving away software, and yet he still refuses to learn. The only way that these companies have a chance of unseating RedHat is to out-RedHat them. They need to give away even more cool software so that they can become the standard.
Exactly right. This is nothing more than yet another wacky hare-brained Caldera scheme to get people to pay more for Free Software without having to actually do more. United Linux is nothing more than a binary version of the LSB plus some additional, fairly basic, packages. Each of the distributions that is participating will have these packages installed and available. Clearly this is not a revolutionary idea. Caldera, and their new compadres are trying to set this package up to be the "new standard" because they know that otherwise folks will continue to use RedHat as the de-facto standard.
However, Caldera continues to overlook the reason that RedHat became the de-facto standard. That reason is simple. They wrote cool software and gave it away. Because of RedHat's policy of writing GPLed software, their software became the standard and their technology has been adopted by pretty much every other distribution (in one form or another). By and large Linux users, and Linux customers in general, aren't interested in being locked into a single distribution. Nor are they interested in paying per seat licensing fees. Apparently they also aren't interested in purchasing support from companies that sell distributions that rely on such tactics.
You would think that years of being beaten over the head with a clue stick by the folks at RedHat would have knocked some sense into Mr. Love, but apparently some folks are just amazingly slow learners.
Yes, previous versions of StarOffice were less than perfect (as is the new version). However, the biggest problem is that StarOffice used to have very serious problems reading MS Office files. The new versions do a much better job of handling MS Office files, and in a school setting, where the administrators can easily mandate formats such compatibility isn't such a big deal anyhow.
The point is that StarOffice is getting closer and closer to the "good enough" stage, and the price just can't be beat. Institutions are going to at least take a look at it. Especially institutions that already have Linux or Solaris based computer labs (and there are more of those than you might think).
The reason that Apple computers never took hold in the business community was that they were always a lot more expensive than PCs. StarOffice, on the other hand, has the advantage of being considerably less expensive than MS Office.
Who knows what sort of deal Microsoft gave (gives) your school. It is also possible that the University simply absorbed the cost. Your school might have been able to add a wing to the library but purchase MS Office instead. Either way switching to StarOffice would probably save your school a tremendous amount of cash on a yearly basis. You can bet that the "powers that be" will at least look into a switch.
If Microsoft thinks that they can take on Dell in the hardware business they are likely in for a shock. And if they use the fact that they don't have to pay for software to undercut Dell, Hpaq, etc. then they are likely to push the hardware OEMs, who have been their biggest allies, over to the software alternatives.
The quickest way for Microsoft to get HP, Dell, IBM, and anyone else that makes PCs to jump on the Linux bandwagon in a serious manner is to turn the XBox into a PC replacement. If Dell started marketing and supporting fully pre-loaded Linux boxes with all of the basic software you would need for hundreds less than a comparably equipped Windows machine, the migration would begin.
The problem is that Microsoft is headed full speed ahead down the wrong path. Microsoft concentrated on creating expensive (but very cool) hardware instead of creating quality games. Both Sony and Nintendo have less powerful systems that are less expensive to make, and they still have excellent games. The XBox, on the other hand, can basically be considered an expensive "Halo" player. Because of the XBox's lack of games, it is very unlikely that it will gain significant marketshare from its rivals, and without significant marketshare the XBox is never going to become the dominant platform for third party game developers. As it now stands Microsoft will only get exclusive games if it pays for (or at the very least heavily subsidizes) their development. Since these games are aimed at a narrow market, they probably even manage to lose money on a regular basis.
This is not to say that Microsoft can't win. But they definitely can't win with the most expensive console on the market. They need to get their consoles into people's houses, and the only way that most folks are going to take a purchasing a console that may never become a force in the industry is if they can get the console at a very low price. A low-priced console would give Microsoft the chance to get their box into people's homes and it would then allow them to make money doing what they do best, writing software.
As long as Microsoft treats the market as a hardware arms race they will get beat bloody by their far more savvy competitors.
Historically Microsoft has invaded markets by offering a low-priced alternative to an entrenched competitor and has used its Windows leverage to make the switch worthwhile. The XBox is not less expensive than its competitors, and Windows is practically irrelevant in this case.
More importantly, Microsoft isn't even "wearing away" at Sony's marketshare. Sony continues to dominate, while each and every XBox sold loses Microsoft money. Microsoft can't even claim that XBox games sales have been brisk enough to make up the difference. Sony is outselling Microsoft on both fronts.
The real question is why should developers spend the time and effort on XBox games, especially the all important XBox-only games? After all, why create an XBox game when you can target the much larger PS2 market and have a better chance of raking in the cash?
The real reason that the XBox has such a small selection of titles is that it has such a small install base that it isn't worth pursuing. It costs a great deal of money to create a video game, and the independent developers aren't willing to risk their capital pursuing a platform that may or may not take off. They might offer an XBox version of their game (as that requires a relatively small additional expense), but they aren't likely to chain themselves to the future of the XBox. This is especially true considering that they know that Microsoft can afford for the XBox to fail. That is why nearly all of the XBox exclusive games are Microsoft funded. Only Microsoft can afford to make that kind of a bet.
What Microsoft needs are fabulous Xbox-exclusive games, and it just hasn't gotten them yet. Without Xbox-exclusive games most gamers are just going to stick with what they have (PS2).
The fact that Microsoft can afford to bleed cash until the XBox2 comes out is irrelevant. Unless they can win marketshare from Sony and Nintendo they will simply continue to bleed cash on their next incarnation.
That's a clever idea. Just tell the accountants to, and I quote, "make more money." I bet the accountants had never thought of that. Never mind that the economy is sluggish, and that Microsoft is doubling the cost of software for most small businesses. We'll just pass around a memo telling the employees to "make more money" and that will solve the problem.
You can almost guarantee that the largest expense in a business of this size is labor, and so if it isn't possible to magic up some "more money" then someone will likely lose their job. In a small company, where everyone knows everyone else, this is generally considered a bad thing.
If, on the other hand, the company can instead simply economize on their software purchases, they not only get to retain their valuable employee, but they free themselves from Microsoft's upgrade treadmill.
You also might want to make it clear that if a workable alternative software plan isn't found that the company is going to have to "let someone go" to pay for the increasing cost of software. My guess is that the employees will be a lot less likely to drag their feet over trivial issues if the alternative is to see one of their coworkers lose their job.
It's not every day that you meet someone as ignorant as you that is actually literate. Congratulations!
Welfare benefits wealthy folks because it keeps the poor, huddled masses from amassing a revolution and forcefully taking Microsoft's/Bill Gates billions.
Nine tenths of the world's population would give anything to live in the United States, and you are ignorant enough to think that the only thing keeping the "masses" from armed revolt is Welfare. You, my friend, need to lay of the ganga for a bit and get some fresh air. Only a small minority of people are on Welfare for any extended period of time. If this small bunch of misfits and losers ever actually organized they would find themselves facing 95% of the population that actually likes it here in the U.S.
Needless to say the gene pool would get some needed cleansing in that uprising.
Medicare benefits wealthy folks because it keeps the peons alive and well enough to perform manual labor for minimum wage, thereby increasing stockholder profit.
Never mind that it would be cheaper to simply hire foreign workers. Your explanation doesn't even begin to explain why "the establishment" would waste good money on sick peons. The reason we have Medicare is that the "people" voted for it.
Public schools benefit wealthy folks by giving them a (semi)educated workforce to perform menial labor for a (semi)living wage, thereby increasing stockholder profit. Also, it can be used to indoctrinate them into capitalism, thereby ensuring the wealthy folks' continued success.
You need to go live somewhere in the world where they don't have public education (or poor public education). In the United States it is more than possible to get an education inexpensively. I should know. I am currently putting myself through college while working full time. Put a little work into our system and you would be surprised what it gets you. Next thing you know you aren't working for minimum wage.
Guess what friend, life isn't fair. Someone will always be richer than you, happier than you, better looking than you, and smarter than you. On the flip side you could have been born in the Andean mountains, or in Afghanistan, or any number of other places that are far worse than the United States. Those folks dream of being able to take advantage of Medicare, or Welfare, and they would kill to get your "minimum wage." The world doesn't owe you anything.
I have outfitted my $100 Visor Handspring with a Compact Flash springboard module and now I can carry around over 100M of books in my shirt pocket. The darn thing is even backlit so that I can read in the dark. What's more I can search for keywords, and annotate the books to my hearts content.
What really settled it for me was when I started reading Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs on my Visor and could do the example programs in LispME.
Needless to say I prefer my Visor over the dead tree version for any book that is text heavy.
Re:You cannot deny GCC is the heart of free softwa
on
The Stallman Factor
·
· Score: 2
And without gcc egcs probably wouldn't exist at all.
Wal-Mart doesn't make conditions worse. Wal-Mart offers the most precious of commodities to members of a third-world nation, a job that pays cold hard cash. I suppose that instead of hiring children you would rather that these children begged for a living? These children are going to be working no matter what happens, they might as well have somewhat decent jobs.
I have spent enough time in South America to know one thing. The people who work in foreign owned "sweatshops" are regarded as some of the most fortunate in the country. The reason that manufacturers in Peru can get away with paying their workers such a lousy wage is that people are desperate for jobs, and the only way to fix this problem is to increase the number of jobs available. What Peru needs is more foreign investment, not less.
Chile is a prime example of what can happen to a country that cleans up the local corruption (mostly), and invites foreign investment. As anyone who has visited these two countries recently can tell you there is no comparing their economies.
Not that I think it is likely that I will convince you that you are wrong. Your attitude is a good example of why it is that Americans are not particularly well-received througout the world. We are happy to send money to Sally Struthers so that the poor can have enough to subsist, but if these poor show signs of trying to become self-reliant we are the first to boycott the goods from their factories.
The answer to that is simple, and some of it is even covered in the article.
Microsoft is big and rich, but they still have a very high P/E ratio. If they can't keep up their double digit growth then the boys on Wall Street are very likely to downgrade their stock price. Since the personal fortunes of most Microsoft employees (and all Microsoft executives) is deeply intertwined with the stock price that would be a catastrophe. Now that PC sales have tapered off Microsoft can no longer rely on PC growth to fuel revenue growth. Couple that with the fact that Linux has decimated their lucrative UNIX-to-Windows migration scheme and you can see why Microsoft is squeezing their customers harder than ever. After all, the only way to grow revenues without growing the market is to charge your customers more.
The whole point of the article was to point out how strange it is for Microsoft to keep such an enormous pile of wealth tied up in cash and short range investments. The primary reason that Microsoft continues to build up cash reserves (instead of offering a dividend to its investors) is that Microsoft wants to pretend that it is still in the rapid growth phase of its existence instead of the stable growth phase.
Cry me a river. I myself have spent some time living in the Peruvian Andes in a village that didn't have running water or electricity and that relied on human (and to a small extent animal) power for everything, and I wouldn't wish that existence on anyone. Even the worst sweatshops in Lima have better living conditions than those of the typical Andean subsistance farmer. Not too mention the fact that the workers in Lima are far less likely to be harrassed by terrorists, drug-lords, or government soldiers.
The low end of the technology ladder is a crappy place to be. I don't see you giving up your car, your computer, and all the other trappings of civilized life to go live in the bush. Why should it surprise you that third world folk want to live like you do?
Yes, instead of piles of inefficient cottage industries making every conceivable consumer good in every location there are a few much more efficient factories and a bulk transportation system to move the goods around. In the end the more efficient (read cheaper) process wins.
I hate to rain on your parade, but there is almost certainly a net decrease in energy usage due to globalization. The real drawback to globalization is that it creates jobs in developing nations and it allows them to waste money on cheap consumer goods as well. The increased pollution is mostly due to the fact that more people want to live in the 21st century. If we left these folks out of the global economy they probably would be happy with a new homemade spear and a freshly-sharpened wooden plow. Instead, they want a car, a Big Mac, and an XBox.
No. Real Estate has income potential just like stocks do. The price of a piece of real estate should be proportional to its ability to generate income. Otherwise, it is likely to drop in value.
Or, in other words, your lot my not send you a check, but your tenants had very well better send you a check. Even a home mortgage saves you a given amount of rent each month.
Now, there are some things that are truly speculative. Art, for example, often times can be sold for far more than its intrinsic value. However, selling these sorts of items requires that you find someone else who is willing to pay the inflated price. If they don't, you get a value deflation similar to when the Beanie Baby craze died down.
Car software-automobile analogies suck, but yours sucks more than most. Especially since getting the "blueprints" for most cars is as easy as popping off to your local car-parts store. Heck, some people even go through the trouble of building (or rebuilding) a car from the ground up. Most people are more than happy to leave the assembly of their new car to someone else, but only an idiot would buy a car with the hood welded shut.
The government doesn't necessarily want to be in the business of creating software, they simply want to be able to guarantee that the software they purchase fits their needs now and in the future.
I used to feel the same way, until I started using my Visor to read books. I have no problems reading books from my Visor, it is lighter than most books, it is with me constantly, and with the Compact Flash springboard module I just bought I can carry 128M worth of books wherever I go. Using the Weasel Reader (GPLed ebook reader) my Visor even turns the pages for me. Not to mention the fact that my Visor is backlit so that I can read at night without bothering my wife.
Now, the Visor is horrible for documents with a lot of diagrams, but it is great for novels.
No, the fact of the matter is that schools have been taking advantage of Microsoft for some time now. They take their dontated computers, and they run whatever Microsoft OS they want without a single solitary care about licenses. In the past Microsoft was unwilling to pay the price for the bad publicity they were bound to get from this sort of a move, but now times are tight, and $500K is not chump change.
These school districts are screwed. They have 25,000 computers, but they can't afford to pay for the software that runs on them. Even worse, six months is probably not enough time to do anything about the problem. Almost no matter what happens these schools are out a half million for this school year.
If the schools act now, they can have Linux installed in time to save themselves from paying the same whopping fee next year. Otherwise, their only alternatives are to A) fire teachers, B) drastically reduce the number of PCs deployed.
Slashdot Mirror
Either way RedHat gets the contract. After all, RedHat already has the traction with the suits. In a lot of cases, especially skunkworks projects that later become official projects, the techs end up with a lot of say. The fact that RedHat is freely available to test with is a big deal.
Per seat licensing certainly hasn't helped Caldera despite the fact that Caldera controls the remnants of SCO's vast VAR channel. For that matter per seat licensing didn't help SCO in the face of a massive Linux onslaught.
RedHat has become the de-facto Linux standard by writing cool software and giving it away. Caldera, SuSE, and TurboLinux have all created distributions that were better than RedHat's, but RedHat's distribution was freely available, and you could build on RedHat's free tools (because you had the source) and so RedHat won.
Ransom Love has got to be the thickest member of the Linux community. RedHat has beaten Caldera time and again by giving away software, and yet he still refuses to learn. The only way that these companies have a chance of unseating RedHat is to out-RedHat them. They need to give away even more cool software so that they can become the standard.
Exactly right. This is nothing more than yet another wacky hare-brained Caldera scheme to get people to pay more for Free Software without having to actually do more. United Linux is nothing more than a binary version of the LSB plus some additional, fairly basic, packages. Each of the distributions that is participating will have these packages installed and available. Clearly this is not a revolutionary idea. Caldera, and their new compadres are trying to set this package up to be the "new standard" because they know that otherwise folks will continue to use RedHat as the de-facto standard.
However, Caldera continues to overlook the reason that RedHat became the de-facto standard. That reason is simple. They wrote cool software and gave it away. Because of RedHat's policy of writing GPLed software, their software became the standard and their technology has been adopted by pretty much every other distribution (in one form or another). By and large Linux users, and Linux customers in general, aren't interested in being locked into a single distribution. Nor are they interested in paying per seat licensing fees. Apparently they also aren't interested in purchasing support from companies that sell distributions that rely on such tactics.
You would think that years of being beaten over the head with a clue stick by the folks at RedHat would have knocked some sense into Mr. Love, but apparently some folks are just amazingly slow learners.
Yes, previous versions of StarOffice were less than perfect (as is the new version). However, the biggest problem is that StarOffice used to have very serious problems reading MS Office files. The new versions do a much better job of handling MS Office files, and in a school setting, where the administrators can easily mandate formats such compatibility isn't such a big deal anyhow.
The point is that StarOffice is getting closer and closer to the "good enough" stage, and the price just can't be beat. Institutions are going to at least take a look at it. Especially institutions that already have Linux or Solaris based computer labs (and there are more of those than you might think).
The reason that Apple computers never took hold in the business community was that they were always a lot more expensive than PCs. StarOffice, on the other hand, has the advantage of being considerably less expensive than MS Office.
Who knows what sort of deal Microsoft gave (gives) your school. It is also possible that the University simply absorbed the cost. Your school might have been able to add a wing to the library but purchase MS Office instead. Either way switching to StarOffice would probably save your school a tremendous amount of cash on a yearly basis. You can bet that the "powers that be" will at least look into a switch.
If Microsoft thinks that they can take on Dell in the hardware business they are likely in for a shock. And if they use the fact that they don't have to pay for software to undercut Dell, Hpaq, etc. then they are likely to push the hardware OEMs, who have been their biggest allies, over to the software alternatives.
The quickest way for Microsoft to get HP, Dell, IBM, and anyone else that makes PCs to jump on the Linux bandwagon in a serious manner is to turn the XBox into a PC replacement. If Dell started marketing and supporting fully pre-loaded Linux boxes with all of the basic software you would need for hundreds less than a comparably equipped Windows machine, the migration would begin.
The problem is that Microsoft is headed full speed ahead down the wrong path. Microsoft concentrated on creating expensive (but very cool) hardware instead of creating quality games. Both Sony and Nintendo have less powerful systems that are less expensive to make, and they still have excellent games. The XBox, on the other hand, can basically be considered an expensive "Halo" player. Because of the XBox's lack of games, it is very unlikely that it will gain significant marketshare from its rivals, and without significant marketshare the XBox is never going to become the dominant platform for third party game developers. As it now stands Microsoft will only get exclusive games if it pays for (or at the very least heavily subsidizes) their development. Since these games are aimed at a narrow market, they probably even manage to lose money on a regular basis.
This is not to say that Microsoft can't win. But they definitely can't win with the most expensive console on the market. They need to get their consoles into people's houses, and the only way that most folks are going to take a purchasing a console that may never become a force in the industry is if they can get the console at a very low price. A low-priced console would give Microsoft the chance to get their box into people's homes and it would then allow them to make money doing what they do best, writing software.
As long as Microsoft treats the market as a hardware arms race they will get beat bloody by their far more savvy competitors.
Historically Microsoft has invaded markets by offering a low-priced alternative to an entrenched competitor and has used its Windows leverage to make the switch worthwhile. The XBox is not less expensive than its competitors, and Windows is practically irrelevant in this case.
More importantly, Microsoft isn't even "wearing away" at Sony's marketshare. Sony continues to dominate, while each and every XBox sold loses Microsoft money. Microsoft can't even claim that XBox games sales have been brisk enough to make up the difference. Sony is outselling Microsoft on both fronts.
The real question is why should developers spend the time and effort on XBox games, especially the all important XBox-only games? After all, why create an XBox game when you can target the much larger PS2 market and have a better chance of raking in the cash?
The real reason that the XBox has such a small selection of titles is that it has such a small install base that it isn't worth pursuing. It costs a great deal of money to create a video game, and the independent developers aren't willing to risk their capital pursuing a platform that may or may not take off. They might offer an XBox version of their game (as that requires a relatively small additional expense), but they aren't likely to chain themselves to the future of the XBox. This is especially true considering that they know that Microsoft can afford for the XBox to fail. That is why nearly all of the XBox exclusive games are Microsoft funded. Only Microsoft can afford to make that kind of a bet.
What Microsoft needs are fabulous Xbox-exclusive games, and it just hasn't gotten them yet. Without Xbox-exclusive games most gamers are just going to stick with what they have (PS2).
The fact that Microsoft can afford to bleed cash until the XBox2 comes out is irrelevant. Unless they can win marketshare from Sony and Nintendo they will simply continue to bleed cash on their next incarnation.
That's a clever idea. Just tell the accountants to, and I quote, "make more money." I bet the accountants had never thought of that. Never mind that the economy is sluggish, and that Microsoft is doubling the cost of software for most small businesses. We'll just pass around a memo telling the employees to "make more money" and that will solve the problem.
You can almost guarantee that the largest expense in a business of this size is labor, and so if it isn't possible to magic up some "more money" then someone will likely lose their job. In a small company, where everyone knows everyone else, this is generally considered a bad thing.
If, on the other hand, the company can instead simply economize on their software purchases, they not only get to retain their valuable employee, but they free themselves from Microsoft's upgrade treadmill.
Saving money is always easier than making it.
You also might want to make it clear that if a workable alternative software plan isn't found that the company is going to have to "let someone go" to pay for the increasing cost of software. My guess is that the employees will be a lot less likely to drag their feet over trivial issues if the alternative is to see one of their coworkers lose their job.
It's not every day that you meet someone as ignorant as you that is actually literate. Congratulations!
Nine tenths of the world's population would give anything to live in the United States, and you are ignorant enough to think that the only thing keeping the "masses" from armed revolt is Welfare. You, my friend, need to lay of the ganga for a bit and get some fresh air. Only a small minority of people are on Welfare for any extended period of time. If this small bunch of misfits and losers ever actually organized they would find themselves facing 95% of the population that actually likes it here in the U.S.
Needless to say the gene pool would get some needed cleansing in that uprising.
Never mind that it would be cheaper to simply hire foreign workers. Your explanation doesn't even begin to explain why "the establishment" would waste good money on sick peons. The reason we have Medicare is that the "people" voted for it.
You need to go live somewhere in the world where they don't have public education (or poor public education). In the United States it is more than possible to get an education inexpensively. I should know. I am currently putting myself through college while working full time. Put a little work into our system and you would be surprised what it gets you. Next thing you know you aren't working for minimum wage.
Guess what friend, life isn't fair. Someone will always be richer than you, happier than you, better looking than you, and smarter than you. On the flip side you could have been born in the Andean mountains, or in Afghanistan, or any number of other places that are far worse than the United States. Those folks dream of being able to take advantage of Medicare, or Welfare, and they would kill to get your "minimum wage." The world doesn't owe you anything.
I have outfitted my $100 Visor Handspring with a Compact Flash springboard module and now I can carry around over 100M of books in my shirt pocket. The darn thing is even backlit so that I can read in the dark. What's more I can search for keywords, and annotate the books to my hearts content.
What really settled it for me was when I started reading Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs on my Visor and could do the example programs in LispME.
Needless to say I prefer my Visor over the dead tree version for any book that is text heavy.
And without gcc egcs probably wouldn't exist at all.
Wal-Mart doesn't make conditions worse. Wal-Mart offers the most precious of commodities to members of a third-world nation, a job that pays cold hard cash. I suppose that instead of hiring children you would rather that these children begged for a living? These children are going to be working no matter what happens, they might as well have somewhat decent jobs.
I have spent enough time in South America to know one thing. The people who work in foreign owned "sweatshops" are regarded as some of the most fortunate in the country. The reason that manufacturers in Peru can get away with paying their workers such a lousy wage is that people are desperate for jobs, and the only way to fix this problem is to increase the number of jobs available. What Peru needs is more foreign investment, not less.
Chile is a prime example of what can happen to a country that cleans up the local corruption (mostly), and invites foreign investment. As anyone who has visited these two countries recently can tell you there is no comparing their economies.
Not that I think it is likely that I will convince you that you are wrong. Your attitude is a good example of why it is that Americans are not particularly well-received througout the world. We are happy to send money to Sally Struthers so that the poor can have enough to subsist, but if these poor show signs of trying to become self-reliant we are the first to boycott the goods from their factories.
That is such a fat load of crap it is amazing. Which wealthy folks does Welfare benefit, or Medicare, or public schools for that matter?
The answer to that is simple, and some of it is even covered in the article.
Microsoft is big and rich, but they still have a very high P/E ratio. If they can't keep up their double digit growth then the boys on Wall Street are very likely to downgrade their stock price. Since the personal fortunes of most Microsoft employees (and all Microsoft executives) is deeply intertwined with the stock price that would be a catastrophe. Now that PC sales have tapered off Microsoft can no longer rely on PC growth to fuel revenue growth. Couple that with the fact that Linux has decimated their lucrative UNIX-to-Windows migration scheme and you can see why Microsoft is squeezing their customers harder than ever. After all, the only way to grow revenues without growing the market is to charge your customers more.
The whole point of the article was to point out how strange it is for Microsoft to keep such an enormous pile of wealth tied up in cash and short range investments. The primary reason that Microsoft continues to build up cash reserves (instead of offering a dividend to its investors) is that Microsoft wants to pretend that it is still in the rapid growth phase of its existence instead of the stable growth phase.
Cry me a river. I myself have spent some time living in the Peruvian Andes in a village that didn't have running water or electricity and that relied on human (and to a small extent animal) power for everything, and I wouldn't wish that existence on anyone. Even the worst sweatshops in Lima have better living conditions than those of the typical Andean subsistance farmer. Not too mention the fact that the workers in Lima are far less likely to be harrassed by terrorists, drug-lords, or government soldiers.
The low end of the technology ladder is a crappy place to be. I don't see you giving up your car, your computer, and all the other trappings of civilized life to go live in the bush. Why should it surprise you that third world folk want to live like you do?
Yes, instead of piles of inefficient cottage industries making every conceivable consumer good in every location there are a few much more efficient factories and a bulk transportation system to move the goods around. In the end the more efficient (read cheaper) process wins.
I hate to rain on your parade, but there is almost certainly a net decrease in energy usage due to globalization. The real drawback to globalization is that it creates jobs in developing nations and it allows them to waste money on cheap consumer goods as well. The increased pollution is mostly due to the fact that more people want to live in the 21st century. If we left these folks out of the global economy they probably would be happy with a new homemade spear and a freshly-sharpened wooden plow. Instead, they want a car, a Big Mac, and an XBox.
No. Real Estate has income potential just like stocks do. The price of a piece of real estate should be proportional to its ability to generate income. Otherwise, it is likely to drop in value.
Or, in other words, your lot my not send you a check, but your tenants had very well better send you a check. Even a home mortgage saves you a given amount of rent each month.
Now, there are some things that are truly speculative. Art, for example, often times can be sold for far more than its intrinsic value. However, selling these sorts of items requires that you find someone else who is willing to pay the inflated price. If they don't, you get a value deflation similar to when the Beanie Baby craze died down.
Car software-automobile analogies suck, but yours sucks more than most. Especially since getting the "blueprints" for most cars is as easy as popping off to your local car-parts store. Heck, some people even go through the trouble of building (or rebuilding) a car from the ground up. Most people are more than happy to leave the assembly of their new car to someone else, but only an idiot would buy a car with the hood welded shut.
The government doesn't necessarily want to be in the business of creating software, they simply want to be able to guarantee that the software they purchase fits their needs now and in the future.
Wrong book my friend, you are thinking of Better Than Life one of the Red Dwarf books by Grant Naylor.
Good book though...
I used to feel the same way, until I started using my Visor to read books. I have no problems reading books from my Visor, it is lighter than most books, it is with me constantly, and with the Compact Flash springboard module I just bought I can carry 128M worth of books wherever I go. Using the Weasel Reader (GPLed ebook reader) my Visor even turns the pages for me. Not to mention the fact that my Visor is backlit so that I can read at night without bothering my wife.
Now, the Visor is horrible for documents with a lot of diagrams, but it is great for novels.
No, the fact of the matter is that schools have been taking advantage of Microsoft for some time now. They take their dontated computers, and they run whatever Microsoft OS they want without a single solitary care about licenses. In the past Microsoft was unwilling to pay the price for the bad publicity they were bound to get from this sort of a move, but now times are tight, and $500K is not chump change.
These school districts are screwed. They have 25,000 computers, but they can't afford to pay for the software that runs on them. Even worse, six months is probably not enough time to do anything about the problem. Almost no matter what happens these schools are out a half million for this school year.
If the schools act now, they can have Linux installed in time to save themselves from paying the same whopping fee next year. Otherwise, their only alternatives are to A) fire teachers, B) drastically reduce the number of PCs deployed.