Okay, so I see that I missed that it took two days to have "SAP" up on Windows, not a couple of hours. My bad.
I stick by my statements about the lack of specific information in this "story." What exactly was Crest trying to get running on a single host (reference to "the machine")? An SAP implementation landscape typically spans many hosts, and it can be a heterogenious environment; in fact, up until recent versions there were a few Win32-only components, such as the IGS server and the ITS web-enablement middleware, so heterogenious SAP environments are quite common.
This thread seems especially pointless, even for/. -- there is not enough information to infer anything at all. There is no such product as "SAP", so no one could have installed "SAP" on Win32, Linux or any other OS. There is, however, an SAP AG that is a vendor of an imense suite of ERP products.
I am currently involved in an SAP Netweaver '04 implementation at one of the largest SAP customers in the SF Bay area. I have to admit that I have no experience with SAP software on a Linux platform -- my experience is with ERP 2004/Netweaver 2004 on Wintel and Solaris. Even so, I think I am accurate in stating that any significant part of the suite that you install on either of these platforms would not be useful in just a few hours. You probably won't have finished installing the base components, the patches, the service packs and the relevant business packages until towards the end of the first day. And then you still would not have even begun the lengthy task of configuring all the backend architecture to play together. And keep in mind, this is NOT a single server business solution, even for the smallest SMB customer!
So, what exactly does it mean if someone claims to have "SAP running" on a box in a couple of hours? It sounds kind of like a mail server with no network interface -- runs like a champ for months on end, no problems!
Maybe I'm missing some deeper insight, but this so-called "news" tells me nothing about SAP, Linux, Windows or Crest Electronics. Nada. Zilch. Click the back button and keep scrolling folks, there's nothing to see here.
Another cool client-side Java applet is the so-called "Netlet" that Sun uses in their SunONE Portal Server product... It allows the client to establish a secure tunnel to protected network applications without the hassle of VPN. You get to have multiple reverse proxied client-server connections over https. Quite nifty, and good performance too!
My company uses this in conjunction with certain fat clients (like Lotus Notes) and Citrix-hosted apps quite succesfully. The latter lets us provide SAP GUI sessions to remote users with a near zero footprint on the client (not counting the Citrix ICA browser plugin).
Why is it that whenever MS or Java are mentioned, otherwise rational people suddenly get hyper-religious, as though an avenging god will strike down those infidels who code for any but the "chosen platform"?
This sort of begs the question, "should there even be such a thing as a software economy?" Perhaps software belongs under the heading "service industry."
[Oooohhh, I'm gonna get flamed for this. Where did I put those asbestos boxers?]
I keep seeing this "feed on the little guys to build a warchest and tackle the big boys later" discussion whenever IP topics come up -- about once every ten minutes, it seems). This, combined with the customary huge delay between patent issue and onset of enforcement makes me wonder about the legality of such selective enforcement in general.
I'm not one to propose an overhaul to our legal code, but this seems to be symptomatic of a system where "might makes right" (or wrong, as the case may be).
I can't fault the IP owner for seeing the little guy as easy pickin's or the big deep pockets player as someone to fear. One can't fight back, and the other can hold you off until your legal council resigns due to lack of funds.
Info from Sillydog.org:
The release notes for Navigator 2.0 are here. You can see the mention of Frames as a new way to present documents. Unfortunately, the link to the demo is broken -- perhaps Netscape kept an archival copy.
Version 2.0 of Netscape Navigator came out in March of 1996.
I'm sure you would buy more product at lower prices -- that's an economic certainty. But let's take a closer look at your proposal.
An average record album cost about $2.99 in the late 1950's (I collect them, and the prices are listed on many inner sleeves from LP's of the period). Let's pick 1958 as a starting point.
And you want to pay $8 per CD. Assuming that the average CD offers a 45 minute program, you want to pay about $0.17 per minute. Now, I'm sure that manufacturing costs have dropped appreciably over the years, and accross recording formats. But that is only one piece of the cost structure. There are royalties, advertising and distribution costs (let's assume for the moment that payola has remained fixed over this period;-)
Although the greed of music industry disgusts me, I think that what you propose is fairly ludicrous. Even if my numbers are seriously out of whack, $8/unit is even more so. What part of the cost of a CD should be cut out to support your 50% accross-the-board discount?
Most subscription systems are based on offering what seems to be a good deal, with the assumption that the buyer will most of the time not collect 100% of the goods.
Most people pay a fixed rate for bandwidth per month. And for many of these customers the cost per usage is pretty high, because they just don't use that much (mostly email, some IM, a couple of 30 minute surfing sessions daily, with the occasional mp3/avi/etc...). In order to present a true cost per usage package, a provider would first have to admit/reveal that the current pricing structure is a really bad deal.
It's like getting a fantastic deal on a gym membership, and then only going twice a month.
Now, which bandwidth providers do you suppose would volunteer to cut their margins even further?
These guys are right on the money (a pun, get it?).
Free speech poses huge security risks as well. And of course, those rights are under attack -- it's the patriotic thing to do, right? We can't have people expressing ideas and opinions in open, uncontrolled forums all willy-nilly -- anything could happen!
Well, I think that we should all rally 'round the flag, snuff out all this non-productive Free Speech and Open Source nonsense, and go sign up for our M$ Passport accounts. And you may want to get in line for that personal id barcode tatoo too, because you'll be needing it sooner or later.
Slashdot Mirror
Okay, so I see that I missed that it took two days to have "SAP" up on Windows, not a couple of hours. My bad.
I stick by my statements about the lack of specific information in this "story." What exactly was Crest trying to get running on a single host (reference to "the machine")? An SAP implementation landscape typically spans many hosts, and it can be a heterogenious environment; in fact, up until recent versions there were a few Win32-only components, such as the IGS server and the ITS web-enablement middleware, so heterogenious SAP environments are quite common.
This thread seems especially pointless, even for /. -- there is not enough information to infer anything at all. There is no such product as "SAP", so no one could have installed "SAP" on Win32, Linux or any other OS. There is, however, an SAP AG that is a vendor of an imense suite of ERP products.
I am currently involved in an SAP Netweaver '04 implementation at one of the largest SAP customers in the SF Bay area. I have to admit that I have no experience with SAP software on a Linux platform -- my experience is with ERP 2004/Netweaver 2004 on Wintel and Solaris. Even so, I think I am accurate in stating that any significant part of the suite that you install on either of these platforms would not be useful in just a few hours. You probably won't have finished installing the base components, the patches, the service packs and the relevant business packages until towards the end of the first day. And then you still would not have even begun the lengthy task of configuring all the backend architecture to play together. And keep in mind, this is NOT a single server business solution, even for the smallest SMB customer!
So, what exactly does it mean if someone claims to have "SAP running" on a box in a couple of hours? It sounds kind of like a mail server with no network interface -- runs like a champ for months on end, no problems!
Maybe I'm missing some deeper insight, but this so-called "news" tells me nothing about SAP, Linux, Windows or Crest Electronics. Nada. Zilch. Click the back button and keep scrolling folks, there's nothing to see here.
So two out three moderators recognize sarcasm.
You failed to account for poor taste. Not everyone mods sarcasm up just because it's sarcastic.
Another cool client-side Java applet is the so-called "Netlet" that Sun uses in their SunONE Portal Server product... It allows the client to establish a secure tunnel to protected network applications without the hassle of VPN. You get to have multiple reverse proxied client-server connections over https. Quite nifty, and good performance too!
My company uses this in conjunction with certain fat clients (like Lotus Notes) and Citrix-hosted apps quite succesfully. The latter lets us provide SAP GUI sessions to remote users with a near zero footprint on the client (not counting the Citrix ICA browser plugin).
Why is it that whenever MS or Java are mentioned, otherwise rational people suddenly get hyper-religious, as though an avenging god will strike down those infidels who code for any but the "chosen platform"?
This sort of begs the question, "should there even be such a thing as a software economy?" Perhaps software belongs under the heading "service industry."
[Oooohhh, I'm gonna get flamed for this. Where did I put those asbestos boxers?]
I keep seeing this "feed on the little guys to build a warchest and tackle the big boys later" discussion whenever IP topics come up -- about once every ten minutes, it seems). This, combined with the customary huge delay between patent issue and onset of enforcement makes me wonder about the legality of such selective enforcement in general.
I'm not one to propose an overhaul to our legal code, but this seems to be symptomatic of a system where "might makes right" (or wrong, as the case may be).
I can't fault the IP owner for seeing the little guy as easy pickin's or the big deep pockets player as someone to fear. One can't fight back, and the other can hold you off until your legal council resigns due to lack of funds.
Info from Sillydog.org:
The release notes for Navigator 2.0 are here. You can see the mention of Frames as a new way to present documents. Unfortunately, the link to the demo is broken -- perhaps Netscape kept an archival copy.
Version 2.0 of Netscape Navigator came out in March of 1996.
Perceived value is a nice idea, but it will seldom get you merchandise for less than cost. (Loss-leaders not withstanding)
I'm sure you would buy more product at lower prices -- that's an economic certainty. But let's take a closer look at your proposal.
An average record album cost about $2.99 in the late 1950's (I collect them, and the prices are listed on many inner sleeves from LP's of the period). Let's pick 1958 as a starting point.
Now, we go to the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis - Consumer Price Index Calculator where we learn that this same LP would have cost a little over $18 in 2001. That album had about 40 minutes worth of program, which equates to about $0.45 per minute of recording time.
And you want to pay $8 per CD. Assuming that the average CD offers a 45 minute program, you want to pay about $0.17 per minute. Now, I'm sure that manufacturing costs have dropped appreciably over the years, and accross recording formats. But that is only one piece of the cost structure. There are royalties, advertising and distribution costs (let's assume for the moment that payola has remained fixed over this period ;-)
Although the greed of music industry disgusts me, I think that what you propose is fairly ludicrous. Even if my numbers are seriously out of whack, $8/unit is even more so. What part of the cost of a CD should be cut out to support your 50% accross-the-board discount?
Most subscription systems are based on offering what seems to be a good deal, with the assumption that the buyer will most of the time not collect 100% of the goods.
Most people pay a fixed rate for bandwidth per month. And for many of these customers the cost per usage is pretty high, because they just don't use that much (mostly email, some IM, a couple of 30 minute surfing sessions daily, with the occasional mp3/avi/etc...). In order to present a true cost per usage package, a provider would first have to admit/reveal that the current pricing structure is a really bad deal.
It's like getting a fantastic deal on a gym membership, and then only going twice a month.
Now, which bandwidth providers do you suppose would volunteer to cut their margins even further?
These guys are right on the money (a pun, get it?).
Free speech poses huge security risks as well. And of course, those rights are under attack -- it's the patriotic thing to do, right? We can't have people expressing ideas and opinions in open, uncontrolled forums all willy-nilly -- anything could happen!
Well, I think that we should all rally 'round the flag, snuff out all this non-productive Free Speech and Open Source nonsense, and go sign up for our M$ Passport accounts. And you may want to get in line for that personal id barcode tatoo too, because you'll be needing it sooner or later.