If your MAC address was used as your IP address, it would be a routing nightmare.
This statement is absolutely correct. You assume that he's speaking of IPv6, where your MAC address is part of your IP address. What this person is saying is that routing would be a nightmare if the ONLY identification for your computer on a wide-area network was its MAC address (and nothing else). Border routers' routing tables would be just a bit too large, I think.
This quote, including the hyperlink, is straight from the article:
The cost of the operating system is only a small percentage of the overall total cost of ownership (TCO). In general Windows NT has proven to have a lower cost of ownership than UNIX. Previous studies have shown that Windows NT has 37 percent lower TCO than UNIX.
Why is this dumb? Because the study they link to is entitled: Windows NT Server Compared to Solaris on SPARC
Well, let's see here.. that almost relates.. no wait; it doesn't. Except for the fact that you're talking about Sun SPARC hardware, and buying Solaris, and paying for Solaris support, costs for software/hardware upgrades for proprietary Sun hardware, etc. I think that on the whole, every single cost associated with Solaris is going to be much higher than those incurred under Linux. This isn't to say that Solaris is bad, only to show that it's a crystal-clear example of comparing apples and oranges.
Nonetheless, why would you link to a Solaris study when you're debunking Linux myths? Do they think we're too stupid to click on their so-called (not even 3rd-party) studies' links and read their titles?
I think that even if I bought every single point that Microsoft tried to purvey in their article, I would say that Microsoft merely proved this: `Linux isn't better than Windows, dammit! We swear! It sucks as much as NT does!' I certainly don't think that and it's reminiscent of fragments of lame flame-wars on the 'OS' newsgroups. It's also a far cry from "not competition" as Microsoft's European fruity execs were contending earlier this year.
On the whole, I think that the favorable bias toward Intel has significantly lessened in the private sector. The bias I speak of is merely the blind "Intel is inherently good.. I've heard of them, and my buddy has a Pentium." For simplicity, if you divide the home computer consumers into two groups: informed and uninformed.
I think it's safe to say that most of the informed users realize the decent price:performance ratio that AMD-based systems offer. Either that, or they're already hardcore AMD or hardcore Intel, but they can usually backup their preference with reasons (quality or otherwise).
On to the uninformed clueless folks. The main factor conributing to their increasing lack of Intel bias is the salespeople that tend to not be Intel-pushing maniacs anymore. Comments like, "Well, AMDs aren't as good; they're cheap & have compatibility problems," are less common on a sales floor, as they're usually replaced with, "For a lower cost, you can get equal performance. Same thing, sometimes better, less money." Another contributing factor is that clueless people's friends are no longer saying, in response to, "What kinda computer should I buy?", "Just make sure it's a real Pentium."
There are also more AMD systems for sale, percentage-wise, on any given retail floor. That is, if Joe's PC shop is selling computers, 25-60% of them might be AMD-based, vs. 0-25% 5 years ago.
So where's the problem?
Big companies don't dig anything but `the best'. It is rare to see a highly technical person who is also in direct control of any large portion of a Fortune 500 budget. When the buyer has hundreds of thousands of dollars in a budget that doesn't have much of anything to do with their own pocketbook, they often tend to choose Intel over AMD, because at the moment, most people tend to compare it to Nike vs. Brand X Shoes. It isn't that Brand X shoes won't necessary last as long, or aren't as cool looking, but "everyone knows Nike's are the best." They've used Intel for as long as they can remember, and they also remember when AMDs tended to not be great at all. They also like the Intel guys dancing around in their jumpsuits on TV.. and they're too good to shop at Wal-Mart, so why would they buy AMDs?
So, that's my take on the whole scene: commercial folks don't dig AMD-based systems as much as the wide array of home users do. I'd love to see the breakdown of usage of AMDs across the commercial and private markets, but I think that my evaluation is a functional representation of reality in many instances (and probably common knowledge to most Slashdot folks).
RAM prices were headed upwards, and were already almost double prices from a month ago, long before the earthquake struck. They really haven't increased noticeablt since the earthquake. Any price fluctuation attributable to the earthquake will not show up to the end-user until domestic resources of RAM (which are merely stockpiles of foreign resources) are used up. This, of course, is merely my evaluation of the market. I would humbly recommend you do a bit more market research before jumping to conclusions about Acts of God.
The author continuously quotes, "refusing to sell PCs without an OS is still conditional sales."
It seems to me, that the following would be an equally valid (or invalid, as it may be) statement: "refusing to sell PCs without a hard drive is still conditional sales."
In my humble opinion, any law that causes the second statement to be evaluated `true' is a bit.. strict (?).
I'm all for the notion of No-OS PCs, but I don't think this article does a great job of it's accusation of illegal practices.
Along these lines, shouldn't a manufacturer be able to sell whatever they want? Obviously, being forced into doing something a particular way by Microsoft is bad. Obviously, if they would sell computers with operating systems (or Linux pre-installed) or cars without demo tapes, that would be great. But to support a law that is as vague as the 'conditional sale' clause is purveyed to be is a bit ridiculous.
As I'm not familiar with the terms of this `conditional sale' law, this is mostly a guess based on an assumption, but I'm hoping to learn from the responses.
It makes you wonder if there should be a limit to the length of comments? I'd say that's exceptionally mild.
It makes me know in my heart of hearts (not to mention my ever-loving soul), that no one ought to be afforded the right to post such a long, freaky message.
That article is hopelessly lost with regard to any tangible information. There are 2 sentences of news in an article about background information. It reads like a dictation of some hopeless rumour from a confused geek.
Slashdot Mirror
If your MAC address was used as your IP address, it would be a routing nightmare.
This statement is absolutely correct. You assume that he's speaking of IPv6, where your MAC address is part of your IP address. What this person is saying is that routing would be a nightmare if the ONLY identification for your computer on a wide-area network was its MAC address (and nothing else). Border routers' routing tables would be just a bit too large, I think.
This quote, including the hyperlink, is straight from the article:
The cost of the operating system is only a small percentage of the overall total cost of ownership (TCO). In general Windows NT has proven to have a lower cost of ownership than UNIX. Previous studies have shown that Windows NT has 37 percent lower TCO than UNIX.
Why is this dumb? Because the study they link to is entitled: Windows NT Server Compared to Solaris on SPARC
Well, let's see here.. that almost relates.. no wait; it doesn't. Except for the fact that you're talking about Sun SPARC hardware, and buying Solaris, and paying for Solaris support, costs for software/hardware upgrades for proprietary Sun hardware, etc. I think that on the whole, every single cost associated with Solaris is going to be much higher than those incurred under Linux. This isn't to say that Solaris is bad, only to show that it's a crystal-clear example of comparing apples and oranges.
Nonetheless, why would you link to a Solaris study when you're debunking Linux myths? Do they think we're too stupid to click on their so-called (not even 3rd-party) studies' links and read their titles?
I think that even if I bought every single point that Microsoft tried to purvey in their article, I would say that Microsoft merely proved this: `Linux isn't better than Windows, dammit! We swear! It sucks as much as NT does!' I certainly don't think that and it's reminiscent of fragments of lame flame-wars on the 'OS' newsgroups. It's also a far cry from "not competition" as Microsoft's European fruity execs were contending earlier this year.
On the whole, I think that the favorable bias toward Intel has significantly lessened in the private sector. The bias I speak of is merely the blind "Intel is inherently good.. I've heard of them, and my buddy has a Pentium." For simplicity, if you divide the home computer consumers into two groups: informed and uninformed.
I think it's safe to say that most of the informed users realize the decent price:performance ratio that AMD-based systems offer. Either that, or they're already hardcore AMD or hardcore Intel, but they can usually backup their preference with reasons (quality or otherwise).
On to the uninformed clueless folks. The main factor conributing to their increasing lack of Intel bias is the salespeople that tend to not be Intel-pushing maniacs anymore. Comments like, "Well, AMDs aren't as good; they're cheap & have compatibility problems," are less common on a sales floor, as they're usually replaced with, "For a lower cost, you can get equal performance. Same thing, sometimes better, less money." Another contributing factor is that clueless people's friends are no longer saying, in response to, "What kinda computer should I buy?", "Just make sure it's a real Pentium."
There are also more AMD systems for sale, percentage-wise, on any given retail floor. That is, if Joe's PC shop is selling computers, 25-60% of them might be AMD-based, vs. 0-25% 5 years ago.
So where's the problem?
Big companies don't dig anything but `the best'. It is rare to see a highly technical person who is also in direct control of any large portion of a Fortune 500 budget. When the buyer has hundreds of thousands of dollars in a budget that doesn't have much of anything to do with their own pocketbook, they often tend to choose Intel over AMD, because at the moment, most people tend to compare it to Nike vs. Brand X Shoes. It isn't that Brand X shoes won't necessary last as long, or aren't as cool looking, but "everyone knows Nike's are the best." They've used Intel for as long as they can remember, and they also remember when AMDs tended to not be great at all. They also like the Intel guys dancing around in their jumpsuits on TV.. and they're too good to shop at Wal-Mart, so why would they buy AMDs?
So, that's my take on the whole scene: commercial folks don't dig AMD-based systems as much as the wide array of home users do. I'd love to see the breakdown of usage of AMDs across the commercial and private markets, but I think that my evaluation is a functional representation of reality in many instances (and probably common knowledge to most Slashdot folks).
RAM prices were headed upwards, and were already almost double prices from a month ago, long before the earthquake struck. They really haven't increased noticeablt since the earthquake. Any price fluctuation attributable to the earthquake will not show up to the end-user until domestic resources of RAM (which are merely stockpiles of foreign resources) are used up. This, of course, is merely my evaluation of the market. I would humbly recommend you do a bit more market research before jumping to conclusions about Acts of God.
I'm confused.
The author continuously quotes, "refusing to sell PCs without an OS is still conditional sales."
It seems to me, that the following would be an equally valid (or invalid, as it may be) statement: "refusing to sell PCs without a hard drive is still conditional sales."
In my humble opinion, any law that causes the second statement to be evaluated `true' is a bit.. strict (?).
I'm all for the notion of No-OS PCs, but I don't think this article does a great job of it's accusation of illegal practices.
Along these lines, shouldn't a manufacturer be able to sell whatever they want? Obviously, being forced into doing something a particular way by Microsoft is bad. Obviously, if they would sell computers with operating systems (or Linux pre-installed) or cars without demo tapes, that would be great. But to support a law that is as vague as the 'conditional sale' clause is purveyed to be is a bit ridiculous.
As I'm not familiar with the terms of this `conditional sale' law, this is mostly a guess based on an assumption, but I'm hoping to learn from the responses.
It makes you wonder if there should be a limit to the length of comments? I'd say that's exceptionally mild.
It makes me know in my heart of hearts (not to mention my ever-loving soul), that no one ought to be afforded the right to post such a long, freaky message.
That article is hopelessly lost with regard to any tangible information. There are 2 sentences of news in an article about background information. It reads like a dictation of some hopeless rumour from a confused geek.