I think that's pretty much right. Two suggestions though...
Firstly, the more you put into the process the more you'll get out of it so be prepared to come up with a good RFP. If you're not an expert in clusters then you might well not know the answers to some of these questions so be prepared to take advice from suppliers. Sure, some of them may try and rip you off but most will be honest and helpful which will make the dodgy ones pretty easy to spot. Alternatively, look for some external, independent help to work with you on both writing the RFP and selecting a supplier.
Secondly, once you've got an RFP don't send to every company you can find. Pick a few - say 5 or 6 - good ones, send it to them, and then be prepared to spend some considerable time talking to them and answering their questions. You'll get much better responses that way. Alternatively, have short, very initial discussions with a larger number and then reduce that down to a short list as early on as you can.
Part of my job involves responding to RFPs. We're usually pretty busy so we have to prioritise which RFPs we respond to and how much time we put into the response.
The ones we put most effort into are, quite frankly, the ones which we think we stand a good chance of winning. Those are usually the ones which the client has done their homework on and come up with a good spec of what they want to achieve (but not necessarily how they want to achieve it), and done a reasonable amount of pre-selection of suppliers before expecting them to invest lots of time responding.
The ones tend to politely decline are those that have been sent to everyone and his dog as, from experience, it suggests that the client doesn't really know what they're after, doesn't really know how to judge between suppliers, and/or isn't really bothered about who they choose and will just go with the lowest bidder.
Having said all that, though, I work in a different field so some of this might not apply. On the whole, though, it's worked when I've been commissioning work and finding suppliers so I think the basic principles work!
Because the majority - about 75% - of revenue comes from desktop software.
Assuming that the increasing trend towards using Linux on the Desktop continues there is going to come a time when there is more money to be made by selling Linux users MS Office than trying to keep everyone locked into Windows. Given the availability of Open Office et al there's a definite case to be made for doing that sooner rather than later - giving users the option now before they've properly tried Open Office is better than trying to win them back later.
I can't actually see it happening, but that's mainly because of the personalities involved and the internal politics at MS. Can you see our dear friend Mr Gates being able to let go of his vision of world run by Windows?
Having said that, though, you could make exactly the same arguments for and against MS Office for the Mac, which the last time I checked was available from all good computer stores...
I'm still trying to understand how... Makes this software something from depths of hades.
It doesn't. But it does mean that an otherwise useful / good / promising bit of software isn't maintained or developed as much as it could be.
The real thing for me - and by the sounds of it quite a few other people - is that I just don't really understand DJB's reasons. If he released it under a commercial license I could see that he'd want to keep the money. If he's worried about maintaining the 'purity' of the original work, he can keep distributing the 'official' version as is but allow other people to patch it. If he doesn't like the GPL there's about a million other licenses he could use, etc, etc.
Of course he wrote it so it's his software, his copyright and he can do what ever he likes with it. I just don't quite understand what he gains from not letting people improve upon it and then distribute any improvements in a more convenient way.
That doesn't make DJB the devil incarnate or anything - it's just a shame, that's all.
Personally I don't subscribe to a newspaper. I bought one on Saturday though, and as far as I'm aware I can keep as long as I want and read it as many times as I want without having to pay anybody anymore money.
I subscribe to cable, my cell phone, power company, etc because I get continuing service from them which I can't buy outright as it isn't an asset. And last time I went on holiday I stayed in a hotel as it was much cheaper than buying a house and then selling it again at the end of the week.
I do, however, like buying computers and software outright as they are assets which I feel I should be able to buy once and use as many times as I want, like I do my TV, my stereo, my microwave. If kept going to the same place on holidy, maybe I'd buy a house there. Be nice if I at least had the option, wouldn't it?
You may have a point in what you say, but next time I'd at least make sure the examples you use are relevant.
They've got to have a technical bent in the first place if they are going to own a machine capable of playing games.
That's only true if you define 'technical bent' pretty damn loosely. Last time I checked you didn't need a PhD to plug your playsation in...
Fact is, enjoying games has nothing to do with understanding the technology behind them. Ever seen an 8 year old play Super Monkey Ball? Is he or she likely to understand what a vertex shader is? No. But they still manage to have fun trying to get a monkey in a plastic ball through an obstacle course.
Because in an ideal world the choices a user makes about which applications to run shouldn't be dictated by the operating system their computer runs
OK, I know that is somewhat idealistic, but hear me out. When someone goes to do something they want to be able to use what they think is the best tool for the job. It doesn't really matter on what grounds they've made that choice - whether it's objetively better, whether it's the one they've always used and are comfortable with, whether it's that latest in thing, whatever. They want to be able to run their chosen app on their chosen OS.
Personally, I don't really care whether someone uses MS Office or Open Office as long as their happy using what they're using. I would, however, like to be able run Dreamweaver, Fireworks and Photoshop reliably under Linux because then I have the option. If other people are happy running open source equivalents then great. But regardless of whether Gimp is better than Photoshop, I know which I'm better at using Photoshop so that's what I'd rather use.
Working on Windows compatability is a way of reducing lock-in and promoting competition as it removes restrictions of what can run where. That way the best products should be most successful, not merely the ones that have already got market share or have managed to tie people in whether they like it or not.
Why not try reading one the many fine articles that are linked to above? For example, the BBC says:
"Were the fridge ever to crack open, the vast sounds generated within would not escape because the intense noise can only be generated in the pressurised gas locked inside the cooling system.
5. Bury Slag in a secure waist disposal site under a minimum of 6' of cement
Waist - noun - the part of the human trunk between the bottom of the rib cage and the pelvis.
If the DOD guys dispose of the waists how to they keep their pants from falling down?
Re:How long until broadband speeds up for mainstre
on
New Internet Speed Record
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
10Mbit/sec Ethernet has been around since, what, 1980 and is still 20 times faster than my ADSL line, so I expect we'll all be flying around in our personal jet packs first...
I'm not trying to be a pain in the ass or knocking what you're trying to do, but I don't get the point of the experiment.
I'm sure that there is one, and I'm too dumb to work it out, so could someone explain it to me? I can see the point in protein folding, SETI etc but I can't figure out what the end result of this is.
If someone could explain it to me, I might donate some CPU time...
Fortunately, contrary to what you claim, basic design isn't hard: color harmony, typography, and layout follow basic rules and you can use a cookbook if you really can't figure it out yourself.
That may be true, but the same can be said about most things. For instance, basic programming isn't that hard: there are basic rules that you can follow and you can use one of the dozens of cookbooks out there if you really can't figure it out for yourself. Does that mean that if I read a book or go on a course or two that I'm as good as an expert with 20 years experience?
Come to think of it, brain surgery doesn't look that hard. I mean, all you have to do is cut the top of somebody's head off, make a quick snip here and quick snip there and then sew it back up. Hey presto, I'm a brain surgeon!
Just because some web designers build crappy, unusable sites doesn't mean that they all do, and it sure as hell doesn't mean that building good sites is easy...
As someone who's run a web design agency for the last five years, I couldn't agree more.
It's very tempting to try and offer as wider range of services as possible to clients, but in reality your much better doing a few things well. That way you'll establish a great track record, have happy clients, get recommended to people, etc.
The danger of diversifying into too many things is that you end up being a jack of all trades but a master of none, and are going to find it very difficult to differentiate yourself from all the other wannabe web designers out there. At that point you run the risk of competing on price against all the college kids who are doing sites from their bedrooms. That, quite frankly, is a mugs game.
By the sounds of it you currently have good, strong coding skills and create professional backends for sites. Play to that strength.
My advice would be to play to that strength and partner with a designer or design-led web company. They'll have a complementary problem to you - they'll be able to design great looking sites, but when it comes to backend functionality they'll be stuffed.
By joining forces you can both benefit and attract bigger clients, more interesting projects, etc. Sure you'll have to split the profits, but the end result will be that your both making more money and producing better sites.
World wide, yes, but in the US, which is by far the Xbox's main market, it's got Nintendo beat. I think the last numbers I saw were 10 million to 5 million, but that's a few months old.
Yeah, but if you can pick and choose what you define as your main market pretty much anything can be market leader.
I mean, for all I know the N-Gage might be the device of choice among 25 to 35 year old, college-educated, one legged, hump-back dwarfs. It's still getting it's ass-kicked in every other market.
Given that disputing a patent is an expensive, drawn out process doesn't it make more sense to keep the number of disputes to a minimum by being careful what patents we grant in the first place.
I don't see why searching for prior art is impossible. Expensive and time consuming yes, but impossible?
A patent effectively grants the holder a monopoly on exploiting an idea, or anything based on that idea, for a considerable period of time. Here in the UK it's 20 years, which is pretty long time by the standards of most commercial agreements.
Given that, I figure getting a patent should be a time consuming and expensive process, if for no other reason to prevent people applying for - and potentially getting - trivial or ridiculous patents.
If the idea/invention is worth protecting by a patent - if it's genuinely revolutionary, or will take years of further development to bring to market - then by all means spend the time and money necessary to patent it. But anything that acts as a barrier to patenting an idea that some has whilst cleaning their teeth in the morning ("one click ordering" for instance) has got to be a good thing.
Slashdot Mirror
Firstly, the more you put into the process the more you'll get out of it so be prepared to come up with a good RFP. If you're not an expert in clusters then you might well not know the answers to some of these questions so be prepared to take advice from suppliers. Sure, some of them may try and rip you off but most will be honest and helpful which will make the dodgy ones pretty easy to spot. Alternatively, look for some external, independent help to work with you on both writing the RFP and selecting a supplier.
Secondly, once you've got an RFP don't send to every company you can find. Pick a few - say 5 or 6 - good ones, send it to them, and then be prepared to spend some considerable time talking to them and answering their questions. You'll get much better responses that way. Alternatively, have short, very initial discussions with a larger number and then reduce that down to a short list as early on as you can.
Part of my job involves responding to RFPs. We're usually pretty busy so we have to prioritise which RFPs we respond to and how much time we put into the response.
The ones we put most effort into are, quite frankly, the ones which we think we stand a good chance of winning. Those are usually the ones which the client has done their homework on and come up with a good spec of what they want to achieve (but not necessarily how they want to achieve it), and done a reasonable amount of pre-selection of suppliers before expecting them to invest lots of time responding.
The ones tend to politely decline are those that have been sent to everyone and his dog as, from experience, it suggests that the client doesn't really know what they're after, doesn't really know how to judge between suppliers, and/or isn't really bothered about who they choose and will just go with the lowest bidder.
Having said all that, though, I work in a different field so some of this might not apply. On the whole, though, it's worked when I've been commissioning work and finding suppliers so I think the basic principles work!
Assuming that the increasing trend towards using Linux on the Desktop continues there is going to come a time when there is more money to be made by selling Linux users MS Office than trying to keep everyone locked into Windows. Given the availability of Open Office et al there's a definite case to be made for doing that sooner rather than later - giving users the option now before they've properly tried Open Office is better than trying to win them back later.
I can't actually see it happening, but that's mainly because of the personalities involved and the internal politics at MS. Can you see our dear friend Mr Gates being able to let go of his vision of world run by Windows?
Having said that, though, you could make exactly the same arguments for and against MS Office for the Mac, which the last time I checked was available from all good computer stores...
According to the specs, it weighs over 200lbs and draws 1.6KW of power.
Good job oil prices are starting to come down, ain't it?
It doesn't. But it does mean that an otherwise useful / good / promising bit of software isn't maintained or developed as much as it could be.
The real thing for me - and by the sounds of it quite a few other people - is that I just don't really understand DJB's reasons. If he released it under a commercial license I could see that he'd want to keep the money. If he's worried about maintaining the 'purity' of the original work, he can keep distributing the 'official' version as is but allow other people to patch it. If he doesn't like the GPL there's about a million other licenses he could use, etc, etc.
Of course he wrote it so it's his software, his copyright and he can do what ever he likes with it. I just don't quite understand what he gains from not letting people improve upon it and then distribute any improvements in a more convenient way.
That doesn't make DJB the devil incarnate or anything - it's just a shame, that's all.
I subscribe to cable, my cell phone, power company, etc because I get continuing service from them which I can't buy outright as it isn't an asset. And last time I went on holiday I stayed in a hotel as it was much cheaper than buying a house and then selling it again at the end of the week.
I do, however, like buying computers and software outright as they are assets which I feel I should be able to buy once and use as many times as I want, like I do my TV, my stereo, my microwave. If kept going to the same place on holidy, maybe I'd buy a house there. Be nice if I at least had the option, wouldn't it?
You may have a point in what you say, but next time I'd at least make sure the examples you use are relevant.
Fact is, enjoying games has nothing to do with understanding the technology behind them. Ever seen an 8 year old play Super Monkey Ball? Is he or she likely to understand what a vertex shader is? No. But they still manage to have fun trying to get a monkey in a plastic ball through an obstacle course.
You figure it out.
OK, I know that is somewhat idealistic, but hear me out. When someone goes to do something they want to be able to use what they think is the best tool for the job. It doesn't really matter on what grounds they've made that choice - whether it's objetively better, whether it's the one they've always used and are comfortable with, whether it's that latest in thing, whatever. They want to be able to run their chosen app on their chosen OS.
Personally, I don't really care whether someone uses MS Office or Open Office as long as their happy using what they're using. I would, however, like to be able run Dreamweaver, Fireworks and Photoshop reliably under Linux because then I have the option. If other people are happy running open source equivalents then great. But regardless of whether Gimp is better than Photoshop, I know which I'm better at using Photoshop so that's what I'd rather use.
Working on Windows compatability is a way of reducing lock-in and promoting competition as it removes restrictions of what can run where. That way the best products should be most successful, not merely the ones that have already got market share or have managed to tie people in whether they like it or not.
Waist - noun - the part of the human trunk between the bottom of the rib cage and the pelvis.
If the DOD guys dispose of the waists how to they keep their pants from falling down?
10Mbit/sec Ethernet has been around since, what, 1980 and is still 20 times faster than my ADSL line, so I expect we'll all be flying around in our personal jet packs first...
I'm not trying to be a pain in the ass or knocking what you're trying to do, but I don't get the point of the experiment. I'm sure that there is one, and I'm too dumb to work it out, so could someone explain it to me? I can see the point in protein folding, SETI etc but I can't figure out what the end result of this is. If someone could explain it to me, I might donate some CPU time...
That may be true, but the same can be said about most things. For instance, basic programming isn't that hard: there are basic rules that you can follow and you can use one of the dozens of cookbooks out there if you really can't figure it out for yourself. Does that mean that if I read a book or go on a course or two that I'm as good as an expert with 20 years experience?
Come to think of it, brain surgery doesn't look that hard. I mean, all you have to do is cut the top of somebody's head off, make a quick snip here and quick snip there and then sew it back up. Hey presto, I'm a brain surgeon!
Just because some web designers build crappy, unusable sites doesn't mean that they all do, and it sure as hell doesn't mean that building good sites is easy...
The danger of diversifying into too many things is that you end up being a jack of all trades but a master of none, and are going to find it very difficult to differentiate yourself from all the other wannabe web designers out there. At that point you run the risk of competing on price against all the college kids who are doing sites from their bedrooms. That, quite frankly, is a mugs game.
By the sounds of it you currently have good, strong coding skills and create professional backends for sites. Play to that strength.
My advice would be to play to that strength and partner with a designer or design-led web company. They'll have a complementary problem to you - they'll be able to design great looking sites, but when it comes to backend functionality they'll be stuffed.
By joining forces you can both benefit and attract bigger clients, more interesting projects, etc. Sure you'll have to split the profits, but the end result will be that your both making more money and producing better sites.
Yeah, but if you can pick and choose what you define as your main market pretty much anything can be market leader.
I mean, for all I know the N-Gage might be the device of choice among 25 to 35 year old, college-educated, one legged, hump-back dwarfs. It's still getting it's ass-kicked in every other market.
Lies, damn lies, statistics, blah, blah, blah...
A patent effectively grants the holder a monopoly on exploiting an idea, or anything based on that idea, for a considerable period of time. Here in the UK it's 20 years, which is pretty long time by the standards of most commercial agreements. Given that, I figure getting a patent should be a time consuming and expensive process, if for no other reason to prevent people applying for - and potentially getting - trivial or ridiculous patents.
If the idea/invention is worth protecting by a patent - if it's genuinely revolutionary, or will take years of further development to bring to market - then by all means spend the time and money necessary to patent it. But anything that acts as a barrier to patenting an idea that some has whilst cleaning their teeth in the morning ("one click ordering" for instance) has got to be a good thing.