Re:I seriously want to know!
on
OpenIPO and Lindows
·
· Score: 1, Insightful
It's one of the few Linux firms that actually has a marketing department to tell people that they exist. Average people have never heard of SUSE, Mandrake, Slackware, Knoppix, etc. I'm betting only a tiny percentage of average people have ever heard of Red Hat and know that they make software.
Re:Surprised by Wealth! Then by Total Loss!
on
OpenIPO and Lindows
·
· Score: 1
This is another stock I'm kicking myself for not shorting. I mean, really.... It didn't get any easier than LNUX. But, while Lindows won't be *quite* such an easy target, I'm sure that many many smart people will make a mint shorting it. I can't wait for all of the Linux fanatics to drive it through the roof the first day!!
Mod me down if you must, but I hope that a majority of the IPO dollars are spent refining the GUI AND THE FUNCTIONALITY to be more similar to Windows.
I hope so too, since I'm going to be shorting, and this company is going to be nothing but a big lawsuit target for all kinds of copyright & trademark infringements. Hell, leave the name "Lindows", make a "Start" button, and put a big MS logo on the desktop.
Great opportunity to make $$$
on
OpenIPO and Lindows
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
Short it! I mean, c'mon, this company is run by some juvenile jackass who thought that "Lindows" would be a great name, and actually started to try to defend it. That's the kind of stunt that some college kid could pull, not a CEO of a publicly traded company. I know that I'm waiting for it to peak (day 1), then I'm shorting the hell out of this. Lindows will be long gone within a year or two.
So, instead of having to only keep a record of how much I sold and sending in a check on the sales tax on that you want me to keep 50 times that much accounting.
Absolutely.
Already, Internet based stores have such an incredibly low overhead, and they have such a profound on brick & mortar stores that actually do contribute to the community and local government, I think that this is a very small thing to ask for. Hell, it's all computerized already, so it's not that tough to do.
Did this stupid fucking guy ever think that people wanted to use particular computers just because they worked better than others in the lab, or had different programs installed, or weren't infected with viruses, etc? That's a shitty "study" if he jumps to the conclusion that this happens because people anthromorphise computers. All he can conclude from this study is that students using computer lab computers tend to prefer specific ones.
The business reports it, plain and simple, just like they do with retail stores. It couldn't be any easier. And the online businesses should just keep track of what state everything goes to. A Net tax is easy, and should absolutely, definitely be enforced.
The developers are getting donations and the like for the contributions they are making by working for free. This is plain ridiculous, people are putting in their free time to help develop software that will benefit everyone, and giving it away for free.
Look. The developers decided to work for free. That's their decision. Just because they decided to work for free, doesn't mean that they're above the law. It don't work like that. If they didn't want to be part of a legal quagmire, well, shit, they shouldn't have did the work in the first place. That's life. That's like me cutting your grass for free because I like to (not because you asked), then when I run over your dog with the lawnmower, somebody (like you) is supposed to say, "Aw, poor guy. He's cutting that guy's grass for free. Let him run over the dog with the lawnmower". Just because they work for free does not give them legal immunity.
There are a few cases in which capitalsm does not work, true. But in case you haven't noticed, the most capitalistic societies in the world are also the most successful, and their people tend to have the highest standards of living. Overall, Capitalism has been shown throughout history to be a huge success.
From VA Linux's most recent 10Q filing with the SEC: We rely on a combination of copyright, trademark and trade-secret laws, employee and third-party nondisclosure agreements, and other arrangements to protect our proprietary rights.
I actually saw it. It sucked. They were a couple of kids who pretty much said, "take the cover off and install the chip". Not the sharpest knives in the drawer, those kids. But thanks for the info.
Actually, the parent was talking about 100 CD's. 100(CD's) x 650(MB) = 65000/60(minutes in an hour, assuming MP3s at 1 MB/minute for 128 bps) = 1083 hours! So no, I really meant 1083 hours for 100 CD's full of MP3's. And that's conservative, considering you can squeeze more than that on most modern CD-R's
I agree. When I'm out jogging for 1083 hours straight (assuming an average of 1 meg/minute, 650 MB/CD), it's great lugging around those extra 100 CD's. Of course, mere mortals that only jog for an hour or two would be perfectly happy with one MP3 CD, but who are we kidding? I need a 5000GB IPOD for my 45 day long workouts!
I agree. I'd rather pay an OSS for software that I run my business with than just download some Sourceforge project. I used to be a programmer, I understand OSS, yet there is still much more security in using a product with which I have an actual contract with a company that I know is going to stay around for at least a while. Hell, I'd even be willing to pay something close to what I pay now for business software (I pay $800/station for POS software, as one example).
For example, I think that the most used OSS financial package is GNUCash (which is still woefully inadequate for business use). They made GNUPOS to tie in with it (which is a requirement for me.... POS tied into financials). If I wanted OSS, but something more mainstream, I would've used GNUPOS. However, it's now a dead project. If I had used GNUPOS a few years ago, I'd be sunk now. Absolutely fucked. I'd have to go buy a new package, install it, learn it, and transfer over 4800 inventory items along with details to this new package. THIS is why I want to pay for software, whether it is OSS or closed source.
I'd *love* to see a nice, step by step explination as to how to mod my PS2, speaking of hacking. As is, I had to ship it to a guy who did it (and he did a perfect job putting in a DMS3 chip), but I would've liked to be able to do it myself. As is, there's virtually no information on how to solder those little tiny connections yourself out on the web that I could find.
Windows Update goes automatically, and no, my users don't break stuff. The machines are set up properly, and they're not using local email. So no, no problems whatsoever. Basic virus + regular updates, and the machines run fine (We've got 6 machines). But of course, if I were to spend hundreds of hours installing and configuring Linux, then tens of thousands of hours writing custom apps, then I could get a 100% guarantee that my employees couldn't break those machines, too right? Damn, sign me up for that deal! Sweet! I mean, reall. Why spend a hundred bucks or so a workstation + an hour setting up when I can spend $0 per workstation, and hundreds of my completely worthless hours getting it bulletproof? Boy, that's a really smart business decision. What was I thinking?
But for Open Source systems, you don't have to pay to upgrade, so it's nice to have the latest stuff, and it's free so, why not?
OK, just pretend for a minute that you run a business. Let's say it, oh, I dunno, manufactures thimbles. You have critical computers that run the machines. Are you honestly going to shut down your business to upgrade because it's "nice to have the latest stuff"? You're going to pay your employees to sit on their hands while you or your IT guy upgrades because "it's nice to have the latest stuff", and production is going to go to zero while you're doing this. Every second those machines are down, you're losing money. Now assume there was a tiny hitch in the upgrade. The computers aren't stable, or now they can't talk to your machines anymore. Ooops. You're fucked. And not in a "Darn, I gotta spend Saturday rebuilding my computer so I can play my games again", but in a "Fuck, we can't meet payroll this week because we didn't sell nearly as many thimbles as we normally do, and on top of it, we lost several large customers because we couldn't deliver."
THAT is reality. THAT is why companies generally don't upgrade because "it's nice to have the latest stuff" unless they're swimming in extra money. THAT is why there is a very serious consequence and expense to switching software.
And considering the cost of training and switching versus the recurring costs of Windows licenses...
You got screwed. We don't have any kind of "recurring licenses". We paid once for W2K, and it's our to use for as long as we'd like. I can still go down to my local computer store and buy more if I'd like. It's a one time cost. I don't know what kind of Windows you're talking about...
That is under the straw-man assumption that every company buys every upgrade that comes out which is simply not true. It's rarely *needed* at all. Buying every upgrade is on par with buying a new car every year because there's a new model out, which is insane. Our company bought W2K back in 2002, and we'll use it until there's a very real reason not to. Right now, I see little reason not to, since I know that if I need to buy new business software, chances are that it'll work fine with W2K for many years to come. I don't even forsee changing most of our business apps any time soon. Upgrading for the sake of upgrading is ridiculous. That's a stupid business decision that can't be the basis of any argument any more than deciding what the best way to throw cash off of the tops of buildings is.
What about the switching cost every time a new version of Windows, Office or Microsoft Product X comes out? In any large company those costs are substantial.
They're substantial in any small company, too. Luckily, there's nobody forcing you to upgrade every time a new version of "MS X" comes out. But if you want to argue this silly, meaningless point, I've seen about a dozen different Linux "upgrades" just since the last Windows came out. Hell, Mandrake is on version 10. They've only been around a few years, and I don't think that there have been 10 versions of Windows in the 20 years that it's been in existence. Redhat is on a 6 month upgrade cycle. How is that not expensive?
Simple solution, fire a MSCE and hire a RHCE. And if your company doesn't have support now, why are you expecting it for free for Linux? In order for there to be cost here, you'd have to claim that Linux is MORE expensive to install and maintain, not just that it costs money to install and maintian.
We're talking about SWITCHING cost. There is ALWAYS a cost to switching platforms/software, etc. You're talking about operating costs. Completely different.
There's only a cost if that time exceeds the amount of time users waste dealing with typical MS problems like Outlook viruses and the like. I expect you might actually see a cost here, but for a large organization, it could probably be offset by the cost savings in maintenance.
We don't spend any time with "typical MS problems like Outlook viruses and the like". We don't use Outlook for anything, and we have virus programs running. I'm not sure what problems that you are referring to. Our computers are zero maintenance, except when we have to do something like change the toner in the printer.
It's not a problem, and not a mess for us. Why are we any worse off for buying software and using it? You really haven't made any point whatsoever. What does Torvald have to do with it (and I think you meant "Linus Torvald")? Why am I worse off?
Slashdot Mirror
It's one of the few Linux firms that actually has a marketing department to tell people that they exist. Average people have never heard of SUSE, Mandrake, Slackware, Knoppix, etc. I'm betting only a tiny percentage of average people have ever heard of Red Hat and know that they make software.
Do you really think that anybody who paid that much for LNUX can afford to cry in their beer?
This is another stock I'm kicking myself for not shorting. I mean, really.... It didn't get any easier than LNUX. But, while Lindows won't be *quite* such an easy target, I'm sure that many many smart people will make a mint shorting it. I can't wait for all of the Linux fanatics to drive it through the roof the first day!!
Mod me down if you must, but I hope that a majority of the IPO dollars are spent refining the GUI AND THE FUNCTIONALITY to be more similar to Windows.
I hope so too, since I'm going to be shorting, and this company is going to be nothing but a big lawsuit target for all kinds of copyright & trademark infringements. Hell, leave the name "Lindows", make a "Start" button, and put a big MS logo on the desktop.
Short it! I mean, c'mon, this company is run by some juvenile jackass who thought that "Lindows" would be a great name, and actually started to try to defend it. That's the kind of stunt that some college kid could pull, not a CEO of a publicly traded company. I know that I'm waiting for it to peak (day 1), then I'm shorting the hell out of this. Lindows will be long gone within a year or two.
You obviously have never tried to run a business.
+5 Funny.
I own several successful brick & mortal retail stores, along with a new Net based store.
So, instead of having to only keep a record of how much I sold and sending in a check on the sales tax on that you want me to keep 50 times that much accounting.
Absolutely.
Already, Internet based stores have such an incredibly low overhead, and they have such a profound on brick & mortar stores that actually do contribute to the community and local government, I think that this is a very small thing to ask for. Hell, it's all computerized already, so it's not that tough to do.
Did this stupid fucking guy ever think that people wanted to use particular computers just because they worked better than others in the lab, or had different programs installed, or weren't infected with viruses, etc? That's a shitty "study" if he jumps to the conclusion that this happens because people anthromorphise computers. All he can conclude from this study is that students using computer lab computers tend to prefer specific ones.
The business reports it, plain and simple, just like they do with retail stores. It couldn't be any easier. And the online businesses should just keep track of what state everything goes to. A Net tax is easy, and should absolutely, definitely be enforced.
The developers are getting donations and the like for the contributions they are making by working for free. This is plain ridiculous, people are putting in their free time to help develop software that will benefit everyone, and giving it away for free.
Look. The developers decided to work for free. That's their decision. Just because they decided to work for free, doesn't mean that they're above the law. It don't work like that. If they didn't want to be part of a legal quagmire, well, shit, they shouldn't have did the work in the first place. That's life. That's like me cutting your grass for free because I like to (not because you asked), then when I run over your dog with the lawnmower, somebody (like you) is supposed to say, "Aw, poor guy. He's cutting that guy's grass for free. Let him run over the dog with the lawnmower". Just because they work for free does not give them legal immunity.
There are a few cases in which capitalsm does not work, true. But in case you haven't noticed, the most capitalistic societies in the world are also the most successful, and their people tend to have the highest standards of living. Overall, Capitalism has been shown throughout history to be a huge success.
From VA Linux's most recent 10Q filing with the SEC:
We rely on a combination of copyright, trademark and trade-secret laws, employee and third-party nondisclosure agreements, and other arrangements to protect our proprietary rights.
I actually saw it. It sucked. They were a couple of kids who pretty much said, "take the cover off and install the chip". Not the sharpest knives in the drawer, those kids. But thanks for the info.
Actually, the parent was talking about 100 CD's. 100(CD's) x 650(MB) = 65000/60(minutes in an hour, assuming MP3s at 1 MB/minute for 128 bps) = 1083 hours! So no, I really meant 1083 hours for 100 CD's full of MP3's. And that's conservative, considering you can squeeze more than that on most modern CD-R's
I agree. When I'm out jogging for 1083 hours straight (assuming an average of 1 meg/minute, 650 MB/CD), it's great lugging around those extra 100 CD's. Of course, mere mortals that only jog for an hour or two would be perfectly happy with one MP3 CD, but who are we kidding? I need a 5000GB IPOD for my 45 day long workouts!
I agree. I'd rather pay an OSS for software that I run my business with than just download some Sourceforge project. I used to be a programmer, I understand OSS, yet there is still much more security in using a product with which I have an actual contract with a company that I know is going to stay around for at least a while. Hell, I'd even be willing to pay something close to what I pay now for business software (I pay $800/station for POS software, as one example).
For example, I think that the most used OSS financial package is GNUCash (which is still woefully inadequate for business use). They made GNUPOS to tie in with it (which is a requirement for me.... POS tied into financials). If I wanted OSS, but something more mainstream, I would've used GNUPOS. However, it's now a dead project. If I had used GNUPOS a few years ago, I'd be sunk now. Absolutely fucked. I'd have to go buy a new package, install it, learn it, and transfer over 4800 inventory items along with details to this new package. THIS is why I want to pay for software, whether it is OSS or closed source.
I'd *love* to see a nice, step by step explination as to how to mod my PS2, speaking of hacking. As is, I had to ship it to a guy who did it (and he did a perfect job putting in a DMS3 chip), but I would've liked to be able to do it myself. As is, there's virtually no information on how to solder those little tiny connections yourself out on the web that I could find.
I get my Net connection from a free public source, and I play streaming radio through my stereo. What's the big deal?
Keep in mind that the FCC is owned by Clear Channel. The penalties will be severe, I'm sure.
Windows Update goes automatically, and no, my users don't break stuff. The machines are set up properly, and they're not using local email. So no, no problems whatsoever. Basic virus + regular updates, and the machines run fine (We've got 6 machines). But of course, if I were to spend hundreds of hours installing and configuring Linux, then tens of thousands of hours writing custom apps, then I could get a 100% guarantee that my employees couldn't break those machines, too right? Damn, sign me up for that deal! Sweet! I mean, reall. Why spend a hundred bucks or so a workstation + an hour setting up when I can spend $0 per workstation, and hundreds of my completely worthless hours getting it bulletproof? Boy, that's a really smart business decision. What was I thinking?
But for Open Source systems, you don't have to pay to upgrade, so it's nice to have the latest stuff, and it's free so, why not?
OK, just pretend for a minute that you run a business. Let's say it, oh, I dunno, manufactures thimbles. You have critical computers that run the machines. Are you honestly going to shut down your business to upgrade because it's "nice to have the latest stuff"? You're going to pay your employees to sit on their hands while you or your IT guy upgrades because "it's nice to have the latest stuff", and production is going to go to zero while you're doing this. Every second those machines are down, you're losing money. Now assume there was a tiny hitch in the upgrade. The computers aren't stable, or now they can't talk to your machines anymore. Ooops. You're fucked. And not in a "Darn, I gotta spend Saturday rebuilding my computer so I can play my games again", but in a "Fuck, we can't meet payroll this week because we didn't sell nearly as many thimbles as we normally do, and on top of it, we lost several large customers because we couldn't deliver."
THAT is reality. THAT is why companies generally don't upgrade because "it's nice to have the latest stuff" unless they're swimming in extra money. THAT is why there is a very serious consequence and expense to switching software.
And considering the cost of training and switching versus the recurring costs of Windows licenses...
You got screwed. We don't have any kind of "recurring licenses". We paid once for W2K, and it's our to use for as long as we'd like. I can still go down to my local computer store and buy more if I'd like. It's a one time cost. I don't know what kind of Windows you're talking about...
That is under the straw-man assumption that every company buys every upgrade that comes out which is simply not true. It's rarely *needed* at all. Buying every upgrade is on par with buying a new car every year because there's a new model out, which is insane. Our company bought W2K back in 2002, and we'll use it until there's a very real reason not to. Right now, I see little reason not to, since I know that if I need to buy new business software, chances are that it'll work fine with W2K for many years to come. I don't even forsee changing most of our business apps any time soon. Upgrading for the sake of upgrading is ridiculous. That's a stupid business decision that can't be the basis of any argument any more than deciding what the best way to throw cash off of the tops of buildings is.
What about the switching cost every time a new version of Windows, Office or Microsoft Product X comes out? In any large company those costs are substantial.
They're substantial in any small company, too. Luckily, there's nobody forcing you to upgrade every time a new version of "MS X" comes out. But if you want to argue this silly, meaningless point, I've seen about a dozen different Linux "upgrades" just since the last Windows came out. Hell, Mandrake is on version 10. They've only been around a few years, and I don't think that there have been 10 versions of Windows in the 20 years that it's been in existence. Redhat is on a 6 month upgrade cycle. How is that not expensive?
Simple solution, fire a MSCE and hire a RHCE. And if your company doesn't have support now, why are you expecting it for free for Linux? In order for there to be cost here, you'd have to claim that Linux is MORE expensive to install and maintain, not just that it costs money to install and maintian.
We're talking about SWITCHING cost. There is ALWAYS a cost to switching platforms/software, etc. You're talking about operating costs. Completely different.
There's only a cost if that time exceeds the amount of time users waste dealing with typical MS problems like Outlook viruses and the like. I expect you might actually see a cost here, but for a large organization, it could probably be offset by the cost savings in maintenance.
We don't spend any time with "typical MS problems like Outlook viruses and the like". We don't use Outlook for anything, and we have virus programs running. I'm not sure what problems that you are referring to. Our computers are zero maintenance, except when we have to do something like change the toner in the printer.
It's not a problem, and not a mess for us. Why are we any worse off for buying software and using it? You really haven't made any point whatsoever. What does Torvald have to do with it (and I think you meant "Linus Torvald")? Why am I worse off?