Do you think most iTMS buyers really understand this? Legal fineprint exists for Cover-Your-Ass purposes, not consumer education.
Right now iTMS works with their iPod, but the iPod is the only digital music player they have. That will change in the future, and most iTMS will be quite suprised.
I thought slashdot was full of highly paid experts who were paid teh big dollars for their mastery of Ruby On Rails, Linux WMV Playback, and Ejecting Stuck Zipdisks? Surely they're all driving 3-series paid for in cash?
because the Music Industry wants that to be possible. Riiiight.
Everything about iTunes Music Store is completely 100% approved by the RIAA.
If you don't understand that, there's something that's seriously not working correctly in your brain. Sorry. It shows just the lack of very basic, fundemental conceptions of society's legal frameworks.
Burning a CD from iTunes and then ripping it back to MP3 is trivial.
(A) It's not trivial compared to dealing with music files. Let's see you do this with 100s of songs and see how long it takes.
(B) It sucks. Have you tried it? The quality is horrible. RIAA/DRM tracks (iTMS) are intentionally low enough bit rate to make this an unattractive option.
It's terrible because the iPod is only the tip of the iceburg. You now own one (1) device that plays digital music files. In five years, every last single piece of consumer electronics (phone, stereo, car stereo, television, game console, etc etc) will play digital music. Unless, of course, you bought that music in the "wrong" place -- in which case people find that they have been screwed out of something they paid for.
So one of either two things happens. Either Apple licenses their stuff to a lot of people at a very cheap Microsoft-style price, OR the proprietary DRM backlash is going to hit back hard.
The DRM is as lax as possible while still keeping the music industry from having a fit.
The DRM is exactly what the Music Industry specified. Please don't pretend otherwise, there's absolutely no evidence.
When you are sued by the MPAA, I'm sure the judge will be fascinatingly entertained by your novel and intriguing views regarding the cultural legitimacy of information sharing. Or not.
I've been there too -- "Microsoft was nice enough to send us all this software... WHAT?"
One thing you might want to look into is the "Action Pack" which provides 5 Production licenses for pretty much all MS software for $200/year. It's aimed at solution delivery shops, but I don't think they are too rigerous about checking.
The article is not useful for those who are trying to decide what to use.
Nor would it be if it included your castoff servers.
What you really meant to say was "The article is not useful because it hurt my feelings. MOMMY, make the bad man stop telling me how much money Windows brings in."
You're right most businesses don't care about that. It's very cost-effective to replace old UNIX servers with expensive support plans with cheap Linux/x86 servers, even considering that hard needs to be replaced more often.
Now if you were to claim that Linux servers have a longer lifespan than Windows servers, I'd pretty much say you were full of it. Same hardware, roughly the same lifespan.
How many Windows desktops end up as Windows servers? Probably just as many if not more than Linux servers.
Considering that Linux is almost universally supported by every hardware vendor, on every size and scale of server hardware, I don't see the point in surveying ghetto operations and Mom's Basements that run "servers" on old Dell desktops.
Linux and UNIX revenues are only two different numbers, so feel free to add them together if you like. However, tracking the decline of the traditional UNIX/RISC market is valuable information for many people.
I think you missed a big factor -- which is that Microsoft knows their server market -- Intranet -- and concentrates products there -- ActiveDirectory, Exchange, SMS, File+Print, and so on.
Meanwhile, the *nix world concentrates on Internet hosting and Enterprise Applications (Java/Oracle/etc).In most cases Windows servers don't even compete with Unix servers because the strength of the application-set is almost entirely different. Many or even most companies actually buy both, depending on their needs (shocker!)
Novell is really the only straight-on competitor to MS, and they've been fading for some time, and haven't totally positioned SUSE as a NetWare replacement (yet).
As I mentioned elsewhere, it's based on user surveys. So it probably does include piracy (BitTorrent, production MSDN,etc), as well as free Linux distros.
You are ridiclous. Throwing out that accusation without a shred of proof is just pure zealot batshit.
This is a survey that traditionally has show Unix and Mainframes way ahead in revenue. If anything, the overall impression should be that x86 OSes (Windows and Linux) are quickly burying the larger systems.
Since people are apparently too lazy to go to Dell.com and look for themselves, here's the what the menu looks like:
[ ] Windows Server® 2003 R2, Standard x64 Edition,Includes 5 CALs [add $599 or $16/month] [ ] Windows Server® 2003 R2, Enterprise x64 Edition, Includes 25 CALs [add $2,471 or $66/month] [ ] Red Hat Enterprise Linux ES v4, 1YR Red Hat Network Subscription, EM64T [add $262 or $7/month] [ ] Red Hat Enterprise Linux ES v4, 3YR Red Hat Network Subscription, EM64T [add $785 or $21/month] [ ] SUSE Linux Enterprise Server 9 EM64T, 2 CPU, 1 YR Sub (Non-Factory Install) [add $202 or $6/month] [ ] SUSE Linux Enterprise Server 9 EM64T, 2 CPU, 3YR Sub (Non-Factory Install) [add $560 or $15/month] [X] No Operating System [Included in Price] <-- This is the default
Microsoft actually makes products designed for small businesses and storefront integration shops, whereas Linux distributors focus almost exclusively on the Enterprise Fortune 500 market. MS-SBS is pretty much a "install-and-go" type product for single-server environments, There's also tons of training and marketing support for the integrator.
I don't think there's any equivalent in the Linux world that doesn't require a lot of *nix talent for customization. (And the actual amount of *nix talent in the small biz market is practically zero.)
So, as long as the Linux world is so focused on Wall Street, it shouldn't be a suprise that Windows is outselling them on Main Street.
It seems like this study gets published about every two weeks on Slashdot, and everyone has misconceptions about it.
The funny thing is that people's reactions are entirely based on the headline. If Slashdot runs the story as "Linux Server Revenue Up!", half the comments are about Microsoft going out of business or whatever. If they run the larger Windows numbers in the headline, everyone complains.
Anyway -- Here's a laundry list of objections that will no doubt appear:
+ This study doesn't count the servers I have running Gentoo/Debian/etc -- Most of the revenue reported is actually hardware, so yes it does
+ How would they know what I'm running on my servers? I didn't get a preinstalled OS -- User surveys, statistical methods, etc. It's not an exact count.
+ My *nix servers have 234 CPUs and run more applications than my Windows servers -- Because the survey counts $$$ and not CPU or box counts, this sorta works itself out, but I guess this is valid.
+ We put Linux on our i486-33 Servers -- Who cares? IDC doesn't, they're counting new server revenue.
The real problem was that AOL bought Netscape and they didn't understand the market or the technology. They should have kept a team working on current-gen technology to keep up the fight with IE while letting Mozilla grow in the background with another team.
Didn't AOL buy Netscape to get this expetise? And Netscape told them "Oh, Screw Communicator v5. Eric Raymond told us that with Open Source(TM), this Gecko/XUL stuff will be ready in a year, and Microsoft is going down!!"
Honestly, I think AOL realized Nutscrape was full of shit pretty quickly and only kept them around because pending of the anti-trust $ettlment.
You sir, were moderated unjustly. If you read Moore's original paper, he's speaking directly about marketing.
(And while Moore's Law is phrased as an engineering challenge, Intel has historically used it as a form of "planned obsolecence" to drive demand for new CPUs.)
Slashdot Mirror
Do you think most iTMS buyers really understand this? Legal fineprint exists for Cover-Your-Ass purposes, not consumer education.
Right now iTMS works with their iPod, but the iPod is the only digital music player they have. That will change in the future, and most iTMS will be quite suprised.
I thought slashdot was full of highly paid experts who were paid teh big dollars for their mastery of Ruby On Rails, Linux WMV Playback, and Ejecting Stuck Zipdisks? Surely they're all driving 3-series paid for in cash?
Right, you didn't say anything useful at all. Good for you! Here's a sticker.
PS: You == Mac Zealot
One more thing:
because the Music Industry wants that to be possible. Riiiight.
Everything about iTunes Music Store is completely 100% approved by the RIAA.
If you don't understand that, there's something that's seriously not working correctly in your brain. Sorry. It shows just the lack of very basic, fundemental conceptions of society's legal frameworks.
Sounds like just another rant from someone who doesn't like the fact that Apple succeeded in something.
Sounds like you guys are a bunch of zealots with sand in their panties because somebody said something bad about their favorite consumer brand.
Burning a CD from iTunes and then ripping it back to MP3 is trivial.
(A) It's not trivial compared to dealing with music files. Let's see you do this with 100s of songs and see how long it takes.
(B) It sucks. Have you tried it? The quality is horrible. RIAA/DRM tracks (iTMS) are intentionally low enough bit rate to make this an unattractive option.
It's terrible because the iPod is only the tip of the iceburg. You now own one (1) device that plays digital music files. In five years, every last single piece of consumer electronics (phone, stereo, car stereo, television, game console, etc etc) will play digital music. Unless, of course, you bought that music in the "wrong" place -- in which case people find that they have been screwed out of something they paid for.
So one of either two things happens. Either Apple licenses their stuff to a lot of people at a very cheap Microsoft-style price, OR the proprietary DRM backlash is going to hit back hard.
The DRM is as lax as possible while still keeping the music industry from having a fit.
The DRM is exactly what the Music Industry specified. Please don't pretend otherwise, there's absolutely no evidence.
Actually, the main reason Napster was shut down is because they spelled out their intent in their business plan and numerous email messages.
When you are sued by the MPAA, I'm sure the judge will be fascinatingly entertained by your novel and intriguing views regarding the cultural legitimacy of information sharing. Or not.
I've been there too -- "Microsoft was nice enough to send us all this software ... WHAT?"
One thing you might want to look into is the "Action Pack" which provides 5 Production licenses for pretty much all MS software for $200/year. It's aimed at solution delivery shops, but I don't think they are too rigerous about checking.
Depend on the 2D and 3D capabilities of the card, but probably true on machines which have a supported 3D card.
Or a 2D accellerated card. Which will start to disappear after Windows Vista ships.
More or less: Microsoft offered IBM a discount to drop OS/2, and IBM took the offer.
The article is not useful for those who are trying to decide what to use.
Nor would it be if it included your castoff servers.
What you really meant to say was "The article is not useful because it hurt my feelings. MOMMY, make the bad man stop telling me how much money Windows brings in."
You're right most businesses don't care about that. It's very cost-effective to replace old UNIX servers with expensive support plans with cheap Linux/x86 servers, even considering that hard needs to be replaced more often.
Now if you were to claim that Linux servers have a longer lifespan than Windows servers, I'd pretty much say you were full of it. Same hardware, roughly the same lifespan.
How many Windows desktops end up as Windows servers? Probably just as many if not more than Linux servers.
Considering that Linux is almost universally supported by every hardware vendor, on every size and scale of server hardware, I don't see the point in surveying ghetto operations and Mom's Basements that run "servers" on old Dell desktops.
Linux and UNIX revenues are only two different numbers, so feel free to add them together if you like. However, tracking the decline of the traditional UNIX/RISC market is valuable information for many people.
I think you missed a big factor -- which is that Microsoft knows their server market -- Intranet -- and concentrates products there -- ActiveDirectory, Exchange, SMS, File+Print, and so on.
Meanwhile, the *nix world concentrates on Internet hosting and Enterprise Applications (Java/Oracle/etc).In most cases Windows servers don't even compete with Unix servers because the strength of the application-set is almost entirely different. Many or even most companies actually buy both, depending on their needs (shocker!)
Novell is really the only straight-on competitor to MS, and they've been fading for some time, and haven't totally positioned SUSE as a NetWare replacement (yet).
As I mentioned elsewhere, it's based on user surveys. So it probably does include piracy (BitTorrent, production MSDN,etc), as well as free Linux distros.
in this Microsoft funded survey, Microsoft wins
You are ridiclous. Throwing out that accusation without a shred of proof is just pure zealot batshit.
This is a survey that traditionally has show Unix and Mainframes way ahead in revenue. If anything, the overall impression should be that x86 OSes (Windows and Linux) are quickly burying the larger systems.
Where does *BSD go? And what about OS X server
Both are probably lost within the margin of error. Sorry.
Since people are apparently too lazy to go to Dell.com and look for themselves, here's the what the menu looks like:
[ ] Windows Server® 2003 R2, Standard x64 Edition,Includes 5 CALs [add $599 or $16/month]
[ ] Windows Server® 2003 R2, Enterprise x64 Edition, Includes 25 CALs [add $2,471 or $66/month]
[ ] Red Hat Enterprise Linux ES v4, 1YR Red Hat Network Subscription, EM64T [add $262 or $7/month]
[ ] Red Hat Enterprise Linux ES v4, 3YR Red Hat Network Subscription, EM64T [add $785 or $21/month]
[ ] SUSE Linux Enterprise Server 9 EM64T, 2 CPU, 1 YR Sub (Non-Factory Install) [add $202 or $6/month]
[ ] SUSE Linux Enterprise Server 9 EM64T, 2 CPU, 3YR Sub (Non-Factory Install) [add $560 or $15/month]
[X] No Operating System [Included in Price] <-- This is the default
(many options removed for clarity purposes)
Microsoft actually makes products designed for small businesses and storefront integration shops, whereas Linux distributors focus almost exclusively on the Enterprise Fortune 500 market. MS-SBS is pretty much a "install-and-go" type product for single-server environments, There's also tons of training and marketing support for the integrator.
I don't think there's any equivalent in the Linux world that doesn't require a lot of *nix talent for customization. (And the actual amount of *nix talent in the small biz market is practically zero.)
So, as long as the Linux world is so focused on Wall Street, it shouldn't be a suprise that Windows is outselling them on Main Street.
It seems like this study gets published about every two weeks on Slashdot, and everyone has misconceptions about it.
The funny thing is that people's reactions are entirely based on the headline. If Slashdot runs the story as "Linux Server Revenue Up!", half the comments are about Microsoft going out of business or whatever. If they run the larger Windows numbers in the headline, everyone complains.
Anyway -- Here's a laundry list of objections that will no doubt appear:
+ This study doesn't count the servers I have running Gentoo/Debian/etc
-- Most of the revenue reported is actually hardware, so yes it does
+ How would they know what I'm running on my servers? I didn't get a preinstalled OS
-- User surveys, statistical methods, etc. It's not an exact count.
+ My *nix servers have 234 CPUs and run more applications than my Windows servers
-- Because the survey counts $$$ and not CPU or box counts, this sorta works itself out, but I guess this is valid.
+ We put Linux on our i486-33 Servers
-- Who cares? IDC doesn't, they're counting new server revenue.
The real problem was that AOL bought Netscape and they didn't understand the market or the technology. They should have kept a team working on current-gen technology to keep up the fight with IE while letting Mozilla grow in the background with another team.
Didn't AOL buy Netscape to get this expetise? And Netscape told them "Oh, Screw Communicator v5. Eric Raymond told us that with Open Source(TM), this Gecko/XUL stuff will be ready in a year, and Microsoft is going down!!"
Honestly, I think AOL realized Nutscrape was full of shit pretty quickly and only kept them around because pending of the anti-trust $ettlment.
You sir, were moderated unjustly. If you read Moore's original paper, he's speaking directly about marketing.
(And while Moore's Law is phrased as an engineering challenge, Intel has historically used it as a form of "planned obsolecence" to drive demand for new CPUs.)