MS cut the cost of their package by cutting the support offered and the products on offer. They were offering *less* for less. SuSE is not reported as having done that. Also, in the initial offers the difference was only a couple of million dollars, and that meant SuSE won out because their offer had better merits and thus was the better deal for the money.
I liken it to buying a new PC. Sure I could buy a Lindows PC with a 6GB reconditioned hard drive and crap video card for $200USD, or I could pay $2000USD for a vastly better machine. You can't really compare the two on price alone until you understand the differences between the two. Hell, I can't even buy the GeForce card of my dreams for $200!
The fact they paid more will reflect the fact that the deal includes more.
You can't measure TCO with a simple figure like the total cost of the package, you have to compare like for like. It is entirely possible that the Linux package included more and higher value items than MS and that contributed to the realisation that the SuSE deal was a better package. We don't know the exact details of the deal, but you can be sure it included database servers and the like (which don't come cheap), so it is possible that SuSE were quoting to put in more of these, or offering greater value through more training and better support agreements.
As for using SuSE, wouldn't you prefer to support your local enconomy? They could've easily gone with RedHat or many other distros and still be using Linux, but it makes sense to support SuSE because SuSE will provide better support for them. Even simple issues like localisation will be lessened by using a company from the same culture that speaks the same language as you.
In the case of the City of Munich who were running Windows NT 4.0 they were forced into this position by MS retiring support for NT. MS has a position of retiring support for all products after 5 years. This means Munich cannot buy new copies of NT when they hire staff, nor can they call MS for support when there are issues with the OS. If they buy a new PC it will come with MS XP or perhaps (if they can get it) Windows 2000. This prevents them from being able to support a single desktop environment since they must now support at least two desktops. Effectively, this will double their support costs for those desktops in terms of application testing and roll-outs.
I wrote some multimedia software about 10 years agon that still runs on all the latest versions of Windows now. It's all about how you engineer the solution:-) Also helps the APIs are all still present as MS layer more and more APIs on top of the old ones.
Hell, with Linux you could simply mount/usr/local from network servers and upgrades would be seemless and instaneous. As long as you have decent servers and gigabit ethernet it should run well.
They have entered a licence agreement with SuSE and IBM. SuSE will doubtless supply them with a current desktop that supports their hardware for the duration of the agreement. They will also be able to install the base system from 6 years back if that is *their* policy.
If you're going to troll, at least try it with a well reasoned or remotely defensible statement.
You're soooo wrong, companies do give a rats arse about having the source code. My clients all *demand* the source code to their products (bespoke) to ensure they have control. Why do you think source code escrow agencies exist? It's simple enough
CODE = CONTROL
Now, companies do also like to have someone to point a finger at and someone to take responsibility, and that is where IBM, HP, Dell and all those other companies come into it. All the major companies IT except MS are now suppporting or looking at supporting Linux.
As for relying on Bob, I've found him to be the very acme of reliability. I put in some bug reports for Mono the other day and the guys there responded within an hour and it was patched and in CVS before the end of the day. You won't even get off the phone to MS tech support in that amount of time.
Open Source code has been proven to be of equal quality to professional, mature, closed source applications in recent studies. Where are you getting the idea that it's not? Are you even using any?
Maybe, but the option is completely theirs. Nobody can force them to do anything through lack of support, because if they want it fixed bad enough, they can always hire someone to do it instead of having to upgrade everything
And it won't cost them $35 million dollars in upgrade fees to hire that one programmer either...or if it does, I want to put in my bid for the position now;->
Well, since you obviously have 0.0 clues about what a distro is, let me inform you. The SuSE distro is based on Open Source products which are maintained by volunteers outside of SuSE. SuSE simply package it all together and put a nice shrink wrap on it. Those packages will continue to get independant support from their development base even if SuSE were to go belly up, so yes, they will keep getting fixed after the support contract is over.
As for digging through the kernel, why on earth would they? Thousands of voluteers do it for them presently and will continue to do so. Certainly, if they *wanted* to hire some programmers for some very specific additions to be written they could do that, but it is not a requirement.
With Open Souce it doesn't matter if SuSE decide to stop supporting the product since any other company out there can provide that support in the place of SuSE. The City of Munich could hire programmers to extend the applications, add features, remove features and provide bug and security patching. That is *not* possible with a copy of Windows/Office that is out of support. That is "the point".
You are guilty of using the SCO(TM) trademark without permission in an online forum, prepare to meet our lawyers or you can settle out of court for 1 billion dollars!
I have six computer systems in my bedroom, mostly low spec, but also a pair of Athlons, and you better believe it's well and truly enough to heat that small room. My 19" monitor also whacks out a ton of heat too.
I'm fairly certain that this has it's origins in the original IBM PC. IBM cut a deal with MS to offer the OS for the machines. They then made it so you couldn't ship an IBM PC without an OS on it. You did have one or two choices, PC DOS or MS DOS. Dealers weren't allowed to ship without one of these since IBM reasoned that you could use the machine without at least one of them - therefore if you bought a machine without an OS you must've pirated the OS!
Dell may have cut another deal with MS at some stage, but at least until the MS anti-trust case Dell would have still paid for the MS licence on that machine, even if it shipped without the software.
Nothing beats the taste of a Cuban cigar, except maybe a Cuban cigar lit with a $100 bill...with a gram of coke up one nostril and a $1000 hooker sitting on your lap.
Companies aren't allowed to sell IBM/PC compatible computers without an OS. The only way to buy one like this is to build it from parts. Even OEMs are obliged to bundle an OS with it (guess which one). They typically get that OS for less than 17USD, so it's no big deal. I owuld be very suprised if you have managed to never buy a PC without an OS...and might even call your character into question;-)
Fuck it, I'd pay £45 for a GNU/Linux "game". They could put out a loader, charge for it like the filthy fuckers did for DVD playback, and just accept that people (few but some) want Linux on the XBox.
Slashdot Mirror
Heheh ;-)
Dude, I knew that back in 1980...I guess sarcasm is dead after all.
I've been running PR0N ever since I was twelve and it hasn't BSOD'ed once!
TROFF isn't an OS, it's where the Windows developers spend their days rather than coding...or is that trough?
I liken it to buying a new PC. Sure I could buy a Lindows PC with a 6GB reconditioned hard drive and crap video card for $200USD, or I could pay $2000USD for a vastly better machine. You can't really compare the two on price alone until you understand the differences between the two. Hell, I can't even buy the GeForce card of my dreams for $200!
The fact they paid more will reflect the fact that the deal includes more.
As for using SuSE, wouldn't you prefer to support your local enconomy? They could've easily gone with RedHat or many other distros and still be using Linux, but it makes sense to support SuSE because SuSE will provide better support for them. Even simple issues like localisation will be lessened by using a company from the same culture that speaks the same language as you.
You could always switch to Debian. Linux is all about choice.
In the case of the City of Munich who were running Windows NT 4.0 they were forced into this position by MS retiring support for NT. MS has a position of retiring support for all products after 5 years. This means Munich cannot buy new copies of NT when they hire staff, nor can they call MS for support when there are issues with the OS. If they buy a new PC it will come with MS XP or perhaps (if they can get it) Windows 2000. This prevents them from being able to support a single desktop environment since they must now support at least two desktops. Effectively, this will double their support costs for those desktops in terms of application testing and roll-outs.
I wrote some multimedia software about 10 years agon that still runs on all the latest versions of Windows now. It's all about how you engineer the solution :-) Also helps the APIs are all still present as MS layer more and more APIs on top of the old ones.
Hell, with Linux you could simply mount /usr/local from network servers and upgrades would be seemless and instaneous. As long as you have decent servers and gigabit ethernet it should run well.
If you're going to troll, at least try it with a well reasoned or remotely defensible statement.
CODE = CONTROL
Now, companies do also like to have someone to point a finger at and someone to take responsibility, and that is where IBM, HP, Dell and all those other companies come into it. All the major companies IT except MS are now suppporting or looking at supporting Linux.
As for relying on Bob, I've found him to be the very acme of reliability. I put in some bug reports for Mono the other day and the guys there responded within an hour and it was patched and in CVS before the end of the day. You won't even get off the phone to MS tech support in that amount of time.
Open Source code has been proven to be of equal quality to professional, mature, closed source applications in recent studies. Where are you getting the idea that it's not? Are you even using any?
And it won't cost them $35 million dollars in upgrade fees to hire that one programmer either...or if it does, I want to put in my bid for the position now ;->
As for digging through the kernel, why on earth would they? Thousands of voluteers do it for them presently and will continue to do so. Certainly, if they *wanted* to hire some programmers for some very specific additions to be written they could do that, but it is not a requirement.
With Open Souce it doesn't matter if SuSE decide to stop supporting the product since any other company out there can provide that support in the place of SuSE. The City of Munich could hire programmers to extend the applications, add features, remove features and provide bug and security patching. That is *not* possible with a copy of Windows/Office that is out of support. That is "the point".
They're not suing Linux or Linus, they're suing IBM - and I don't think anybody is going to confuse IBM with hippies ;-)
Hastur Hastur Hastur...hahaah, nothing happe....arhrhrhs, noooooo, Shub Niggurath!!!
You are guilty of using the SCO(TM) trademark without permission in an online forum, prepare to meet our lawyers or you can settle out of court for 1 billion dollars!
I have six computer systems in my bedroom, mostly low spec, but also a pair of Athlons, and you better believe it's well and truly enough to heat that small room. My 19" monitor also whacks out a ton of heat too.
I'm fairly certain that this has it's origins in the original IBM PC. IBM cut a deal with MS to offer the OS for the machines. They then made it so you couldn't ship an IBM PC without an OS on it. You did have one or two choices, PC DOS or MS DOS. Dealers weren't allowed to ship without one of these since IBM reasoned that you could use the machine without at least one of them - therefore if you bought a machine without an OS you must've pirated the OS!
Dell may have cut another deal with MS at some stage, but at least until the MS anti-trust case Dell would have still paid for the MS licence on that machine, even if it shipped without the software.
Nothing beats the taste of a Cuban cigar, except maybe a Cuban cigar lit with a $100 bill ...with a gram of coke up one nostril and a $1000 hooker sitting on your lap.
Companies aren't allowed to sell IBM/PC compatible computers without an OS. The only way to buy one like this is to build it from parts. Even OEMs are obliged to bundle an OS with it (guess which one). They typically get that OS for less than 17USD, so it's no big deal. I owuld be very suprised if you have managed to never buy a PC without an OS...and might even call your character into question ;-)
Is that you Bill?
Fuck it, I'd pay £45 for a GNU/Linux "game". They could put out a loader, charge for it like the filthy fuckers did for DVD playback, and just accept that people (few but some) want Linux on the XBox.