Even if I'm wrong, though, can you argue that your position is anything other than foolish overconfidence?
Look in the mirror buddy. You're the one who is a little overconfident. Don't you think IBM has some connections too? Is Microsoft the only company with political clout? I don't think so.
When someone calls me and wants a new system, I spec out hardware, software, and professional services. As I said before, the cost I quote for a Linux-based (Mandrake) vs Small Business Server 2003 is the same assuming a few small things (similiar hardware on the server, under 25 users, etc). Unless we are talking about more than 25 users (very small portion of my client base), the costs are practically the same.
You don't pay licensing fees for Linux, plain and simple. You pay for support but you can always get your support from somewhere else for cheaper. There is a competitive market for it.
But what does this provide for a benefit? I am going to go out and buy a Mac for a server?
Does it have to be a server? What about clients? What if you inherit heterogenious clients? This is not as simple as just pricing out a new setup in comparison with Linux. Not all companies have IT budgets that allow them to just throw down cash at will. Smally businesses can greatly benefit from Linux.
This most often works against Linux. Most business use one or two vertical apps that most often available only for Windows. Having all the great other software is great but not if you can't get the one or two apps you need.
So if Exchange doesn't suit your needs then I guess you can just choose Sendmail, Postfix, or Exim then. Right? No you can't.
Wow. Really? Can you give me three examples of this?
The stock market rewards scalability. It is cheaper for Microsoft to add customer number n+1 than it is for IBM. Microsoft enjoys higher margins.
That has exactly what to do with how large a company is?
If Microsoft wanted to buy IBM it would be possible.
I highly doubt it.
The whole point I was arguing with the parent was that Microsoft cannot just take on IBM and their patents and win. It's not going to happen. IBM has many more patents. IBM has many lawyers. IBM pulls in a lot more money. than Microsoft every year. No matter who is bigger, depending on what statistic you are looking at, they are both very large companies and if they get into a patent war with each other, IBM has the upper hand. This is the total opposite of what the parent was saying.
1. Multiple architectures? Windows supports all the architectures I've ever wanted to run it on.
Good for you. You're not the only one in the world though.
2. Source code availability? I've never wanted the code to something that didn't provide it.
Again, your personal preferences are not necessarily representative of anyone else.
3. Lots of open source software runs on Windows. How is that not competing?
A lot does not.
Linux's complexity isn't an unjustly bad wrap. Seeing as you have to delve into the command prompt to configure most things (or wrap your mind around 200+ line config files), compared to the windows GUI configuration it's positively archaic.
Seriously have you ever used Linux? Do you really think that is the norm? If so you are sadly mistaken.
It's not a false statement in the slightest.
Yes it is, you just don't know it.
However, every single one of your points is false (except 'Microsoft doesn't come close to being even half as complex' - exactly. it's nowhere near as complex as linux). Surprised?
I would have to say every one of your arguments is totally invalid.
So tell me then, when in the hands of a competent administrator, what the tangible business reasons to go with Linux vs. SBS2003 in your typical environment?
Licensing fees, multiple architecture support, diversity of applications, and so on and so forth. Money is a big issue with small companies and licensing fees can be a huge problem. I have a friend who just opened up his own business and he's spent thousands of dollars already on licensing. Support for different architectures can be important if you have different machines but want a homogenous environment. Applications make the biggest difference though. There are not as many choices of major applications for Windows. On Linux I have a choice of several highly polished applications, where in Windows, many times there is only one, Microsoft's offering. If Microsoft doesn't offer what I need then I'm out of luck.
The concept from MS's point-of-view is going to be: "wait, why bother with all that, when we can give you 90% of the flexibility with only 10% the time and complexity".
There is no way that Microsoft gives you 90% the flexibility that Linux does. They don't even give you half the flexibility. Where is support for multiple architectures, source code availablity, and multiple competing applications? As for complexity, Linux has a bad rap for no good reason. Microsoft doesn't come close to being even half as complex.
If that really is Microsoft's point of view then they are in for a big surprise when people learn how false those statements are.
Why hire other people to do things differently when you can do things the same way with the staff you have?
That's not what happened and that is rarely what ever happens. Small companies don't have their own staff. They hire someone to do it for them. If they hire a MS shop to do a Linux job then that is their own stupidity. It has nothing to do with Linux.
Are you ESL? Those sentences aren't comprehensible at all. I suggest you learn about "pronouns", and try again. Or if you can't handle pronouns, then just repeat the statement with each word "it" replaced with the actual noun you meant.
Are you fucking retarded? What kind of question is that? "It" refers to "the building". I did make one mistake which of course makes me some kind of idiot. I should have said "if the attack was from the bottom". Get a clue.
People don't care what's under the hood... if they did, we wouldn't be using hideously inefficient Carnot Cycle engines to run our vehicles and most of our power plants after all this time. It's good enough that the car starts every morning and gets them to work on time.
That's a little different. Expense comes into play when you talk about physical things like cars and engines. Engine designs are the way they are because it's cheap to build them that way. You could build the most efficient engine in the world but if it costs a million dollars to produce then what's the point? No matter how much time you spend developing code, it is effortless to reproduce it. People don't care what's under the hood of IE because most don't even know an alternative exists.
The collapse was caused by fuel burning through supports. That would've happened almost anyplace the plane hit
Nope, not true at all. It couldn't possibley fall on top of itself if it was from the bottom up. Those very words imply that it is hit from the top. The weakened structure at the top caused the floors to fall on top of each other, further weakening the structure and causing the buildings to fall.
There was no special precision needed to hit well enough to collapse the building. In fact, the attackers didn't even know it would collapse!
Prove it.
Yes... and that supports my position too. It was claimed that the hijackers were skilled pilots, because they hit in the precise place to cause fast collapse. But to do that, you'd have to hit low.
Obviously...since they hit high and they still fell down. Your statement makes no sense and you still don't understand what caused the towers to fall.
What's more important to you: stopping a murderer or keeping your hands clean of blood?
That's all well and good if that's the way it happens but it isn't. Instead we prop up dictators and attempt to dislodge democratically elected governments because they don't agree with our economic policies.
That's actually not correct at all. If you read anything about how the towers fell you would know that the main reason was that the ignited jet fuel weakened the structure and caused it to fall on top of itself, from the top down. The other obvious point is that it's a little difficult to get an airliner much lower than they were in NYC.
That's funny, because I did see the flight paths and they weren't along the coastline at all, ok maybe one was close but the other two contradict your story.
The real issue here anyway is that terrorists aren't dumb. We can argue all day long whether the ones that piloted the planes were dumb or not but the fact is that Al Qaeda is already using encryption and other schemes to hide their transmissions. They do have technologically sophisticated people working for them. It's just a copout to call them idiots.
Your reference to Bill Maher should have been a reference to Bill Hicks. It was Hicks' line as your link illustrates but also, Hicks is much funnier.
Oh I didn't realize they were already on the flight path towards those buildings. From what I read they actually had to turn the planes around to hit their targets.
This seems like another attempt to make ourselves feel better about the situation by belittling the enemy. It may help psychologically but it's still bullshit. It reminds me of people calling the terrorists cowards right after 9/11. Because cowards often give their lives for their beliefs..err...not. Demented? Sick? Perverse and evil? Sure, all of those things, but not stupid and cowardly.
In fact most, if not all, the terrorists that attacked the US on 9/11 could have been caught using traditional law enforcement means if they didn't all have their heads up their asses. Some of them used their real names! That's enough to make me cringe. We're just giving more power to incompetent government agencies.
Maybe if we stuck to being big and not bad we wouldn't be so hated. The United States is not nearly as bad as a lot of other countries but the difference is that we stick our heads in everywhere while most of those little dictatorships only terrorize their own people. Hegemony will always create ill will. No one likes to be dominated, especially the US. Just look at the relationship between the US and the UN. The US doesn't want the UN to make any decisions that directly affect the US economically, politically, or criminally. Other countries feel the same way about the US, considering the US's incredible influence, as the US feels about the UN. It's not that they hate our freedom or our economy or our way of life in general. Those who suggest that are living outside of reality.
just like everyone hates Walmart and Starbucks and the big companies. why because they are big.
Actually I hate Walmart because they pay low wages, overwork their salaried managers, demonstrate sexist practices, are unethical, and drive small businesses out of town. I hate starbucks because all I want is a fucking large coffee, not a grande house blend or whatever the hell they call it. To be honest I don't actually hate starbucks, their actually a pretty good company but the pretentious fuckers who frequent/work there really put me off.
...oh and no corporation should have personhood. That idea is just ludicrous.
To be fair, fingerprints are well known aspect of catching criminals. Despite that, people are still busted because they left fingerprints behind.
No one argued that all criminals are smart. It's obvious that Al Qaeda has some intelligent people involved though, considered everything they have accomplished. Unfortunately for the rest of us intelligence and depravity are not mutually exclusive.
Slashdot Mirror
Look in the mirror buddy. You're the one who is a little overconfident. Don't you think IBM has some connections too? Is Microsoft the only company with political clout? I don't think so.
You don't pay licensing fees for Linux, plain and simple. You pay for support but you can always get your support from somewhere else for cheaper. There is a competitive market for it.
But what does this provide for a benefit? I am going to go out and buy a Mac for a server?
Does it have to be a server? What about clients? What if you inherit heterogenious clients? This is not as simple as just pricing out a new setup in comparison with Linux. Not all companies have IT budgets that allow them to just throw down cash at will. Smally businesses can greatly benefit from Linux.
This most often works against Linux. Most business use one or two vertical apps that most often available only for Windows. Having all the great other software is great but not if you can't get the one or two apps you need.
So if Exchange doesn't suit your needs then I guess you can just choose Sendmail, Postfix, or Exim then. Right? No you can't.
Wow. Really? Can you give me three examples of this?
See above.
That has exactly what to do with how large a company is?
If Microsoft wanted to buy IBM it would be possible.
I highly doubt it.
The whole point I was arguing with the parent was that Microsoft cannot just take on IBM and their patents and win. It's not going to happen. IBM has many more patents. IBM has many lawyers. IBM pulls in a lot more money. than Microsoft every year. No matter who is bigger, depending on what statistic you are looking at, they are both very large companies and if they get into a patent war with each other, IBM has the upper hand. This is the total opposite of what the parent was saying.
Good for you. You're not the only one in the world though.
2. Source code availability? I've never wanted the code to something that didn't provide it.
Again, your personal preferences are not necessarily representative of anyone else.
3. Lots of open source software runs on Windows. How is that not competing?
A lot does not.
Linux's complexity isn't an unjustly bad wrap. Seeing as you have to delve into the command prompt to configure most things (or wrap your mind around 200+ line config files), compared to the windows GUI configuration it's positively archaic.
Seriously have you ever used Linux? Do you really think that is the norm? If so you are sadly mistaken.
It's not a false statement in the slightest.
Yes it is, you just don't know it.
However, every single one of your points is false (except 'Microsoft doesn't come close to being even half as complex' - exactly. it's nowhere near as complex as linux). Surprised?
I would have to say every one of your arguments is totally invalid.
IBM's revenue for 2003 was 89 billion. Microsoft's was 34 billion. I guess it's all how you look at it.
Licensing fees, multiple architecture support, diversity of applications, and so on and so forth. Money is a big issue with small companies and licensing fees can be a huge problem. I have a friend who just opened up his own business and he's spent thousands of dollars already on licensing. Support for different architectures can be important if you have different machines but want a homogenous environment. Applications make the biggest difference though. There are not as many choices of major applications for Windows. On Linux I have a choice of several highly polished applications, where in Windows, many times there is only one, Microsoft's offering. If Microsoft doesn't offer what I need then I'm out of luck.
There is no way that Microsoft gives you 90% the flexibility that Linux does. They don't even give you half the flexibility. Where is support for multiple architectures, source code availablity, and multiple competing applications? As for complexity, Linux has a bad rap for no good reason. Microsoft doesn't come close to being even half as complex.
If that really is Microsoft's point of view then they are in for a big surprise when people learn how false those statements are.
That's not what happened and that is rarely what ever happens. Small companies don't have their own staff. They hire someone to do it for them. If they hire a MS shop to do a Linux job then that is their own stupidity. It has nothing to do with Linux.
IBM is still larger than Microsoft and IBM still holds more patents than Microsoft.
Are you ESL? Those sentences aren't comprehensible at all. I suggest you learn about "pronouns", and try again. Or if you can't handle pronouns, then just repeat the statement with each word "it" replaced with the actual noun you meant. Are you fucking retarded? What kind of question is that? "It" refers to "the building". I did make one mistake which of course makes me some kind of idiot. I should have said "if the attack was from the bottom". Get a clue.
That's a little different. Expense comes into play when you talk about physical things like cars and engines. Engine designs are the way they are because it's cheap to build them that way. You could build the most efficient engine in the world but if it costs a million dollars to produce then what's the point? No matter how much time you spend developing code, it is effortless to reproduce it. People don't care what's under the hood of IE because most don't even know an alternative exists.
Nope, not true at all. It couldn't possibley fall on top of itself if it was from the bottom up. Those very words imply that it is hit from the top. The weakened structure at the top caused the floors to fall on top of each other, further weakening the structure and causing the buildings to fall.
There was no special precision needed to hit well enough to collapse the building. In fact, the attackers didn't even know it would collapse!
Prove it.
Yes... and that supports my position too. It was claimed that the hijackers were skilled pilots, because they hit in the precise place to cause fast collapse. But to do that, you'd have to hit low.
Obviously...since they hit high and they still fell down. Your statement makes no sense and you still don't understand what caused the towers to fall.
That's all well and good if that's the way it happens but it isn't. Instead we prop up dictators and attempt to dislodge democratically elected governments because they don't agree with our economic policies.
Thanks asshole. I know my grammar. It was a mistake, but at least you feel better about yourself.
That's actually not correct at all. If you read anything about how the towers fell you would know that the main reason was that the ignited jet fuel weakened the structure and caused it to fall on top of itself, from the top down. The other obvious point is that it's a little difficult to get an airliner much lower than they were in NYC.
It seems I did get a little off track. All the posts bleed into each other when you've had a long day.
The real issue here anyway is that terrorists aren't dumb. We can argue all day long whether the ones that piloted the planes were dumb or not but the fact is that Al Qaeda is already using encryption and other schemes to hide their transmissions. They do have technologically sophisticated people working for them. It's just a copout to call them idiots.
Your reference to Bill Maher should have been a reference to Bill Hicks. It was Hicks' line as your link illustrates but also, Hicks is much funnier.
This seems like another attempt to make ourselves feel better about the situation by belittling the enemy. It may help psychologically but it's still bullshit. It reminds me of people calling the terrorists cowards right after 9/11. Because cowards often give their lives for their beliefs..err...not. Demented? Sick? Perverse and evil? Sure, all of those things, but not stupid and cowardly.
Exactly
In fact most, if not all, the terrorists that attacked the US on 9/11 could have been caught using traditional law enforcement means if they didn't all have their heads up their asses. Some of them used their real names! That's enough to make me cringe. We're just giving more power to incompetent government agencies.
Maybe if we stuck to being big and not bad we wouldn't be so hated. The United States is not nearly as bad as a lot of other countries but the difference is that we stick our heads in everywhere while most of those little dictatorships only terrorize their own people. Hegemony will always create ill will. No one likes to be dominated, especially the US. Just look at the relationship between the US and the UN. The US doesn't want the UN to make any decisions that directly affect the US economically, politically, or criminally. Other countries feel the same way about the US, considering the US's incredible influence, as the US feels about the UN. It's not that they hate our freedom or our economy or our way of life in general. Those who suggest that are living outside of reality.
just like everyone hates Walmart and Starbucks and the big companies. why because they are big.
Actually I hate Walmart because they pay low wages, overwork their salaried managers, demonstrate sexist practices, are unethical, and drive small businesses out of town. I hate starbucks because all I want is a fucking large coffee, not a grande house blend or whatever the hell they call it. To be honest I don't actually hate starbucks, their actually a pretty good company but the pretentious fuckers who frequent/work there really put me off.
No one argued that all criminals are smart. It's obvious that Al Qaeda has some intelligent people involved though, considered everything they have accomplished. Unfortunately for the rest of us intelligence and depravity are not mutually exclusive.
Yeah and the planes just navigated themselves into the trade center and the pentagon.
Grandparent should have added: 'whose prime minister isn't kissing Bush's ass'.
Gnu Zealand.