Yes, but only to a certain extent. If something is too cheap or even *gasp* free, they'll immediately assume that it's crap in the vast majority of cases.
I was reading in No Logo (Naomi Klein) that a lot of products that have a consumer and corporate version are basically the same thing but the latter has a higher price-tag just so the corporate world doesn't think it's buying cheap consumer grade stuff. Hell, I even think slashdot had a story about that not so long ago.
A few random security flaws found. Imagine if it was worth thousands of dollars to you to find and exploit these flaws so you searched and found them months ago as part of your full-time work...
I don't have to imagine it; we can see how well it works with microsoft products.
They have paid programmers so there is no exploits and flaws in their software, right?
AMD doesn't have as many factories and as big a budget as Intel, so it's normal that it takes them longer to do something; but then again, they didn't need 90nm as bad as Intel did because they don't have as much overheating issues.
I think that AMD's transition is going pretty smoothly according to their schedule.
Intel is still paying for their decision to go with the netburst architecture IMHO.
They wanted to be able to crank the megahurtz and use that as a PR device (well, not only that but it helped them).
Of course they are also having problem with the 90nm tech (as is IBM -- I think that only AMD has been mostly clear sailing with that), but most of their problems have come from netburst and lack of competitiveness in the budget sector (Celerons get killed by much faster and cheaper AMD chips).
The other issue is the lock-in that the GPL creates. Most corporations prefer the freedom of the BSD-style license.
The BSD license has some things going for it, but if we look at what corporations are backing Linux and what are backing *BSD, it seems that the GPL "lock-in" doesn't bother IBM, Novell, etc.. In fact, it might encourage them since after adding lots of code to Linux, a third party can't just take the code, add a bit to it and then sell it as proprietary software -- they must give back, just like people before them did, and I'd say that's pretty fair.
All good points. I was merely pointing out that people can already do that with their existing hardware; I doubt that most firewall and router computers out there use more than a few % of their CPU capacity, yet they all drink a lot of juice. This could be partially avoided.
Maybe if you don't know what they are doing and why they are doing it, you should read on it instead of saying that because it doesn't immediately jump at you it's pointless.
For an interesting (and fairly simple) read, I suggest Carl Sagan's Pale Blue Dot. It covers many many things including why space exploration is important for us (for example, we found out about the ozone layer and what CFCs were doing by looking at Mars and about the Greenhouse effect by looking at Venus -- stuff that was totally unrelated at first).
Exactly. On the subject, I highly recommend Naomi Klein's _No Logo_ book. It's in depth and very interesting.
Corporations realized about 15 years ago that selling products was a dead end and that it was too hard to add sufficient "added value" anyway, and consumers didn't see much different between the different brand's products in blind tests, so instead of selling products, they are now selling brands.
Which brings us to the point that it's just impossible to know how many copies of Linux are out there..
It's like trying to know the number of people having sex tonight; you can make some pretty good guesses and take surveys, but it's a free and (mostly) private thing (well, in most cases anyway:P).
Yea, because no one is going to buy a low cost Linux computer at Walmart and slap a pirate version of Windows on it. Nope. Never gona happen.
I'm sure it happens, but I'm also fairly sure that the majority of people running Linux didn't buy a computer with Linux pre-installed; which means that in the majority of cases they were counted as a Windows license sold but aren't running it.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, but only to a certain extent. If something is too cheap or even *gasp* free, they'll immediately assume that it's crap in the vast majority of cases.
I was reading in No Logo (Naomi Klein) that a lot of products that have a consumer and corporate version are basically the same thing but the latter has a higher price-tag just so the corporate world doesn't think it's buying cheap consumer grade stuff. Hell, I even think slashdot had a story about that not so long ago.
I wonder why the corporate take-up of AMD has been so slow?
As with microsoft, a lot of it has to do with politics, arm-twisting and inertia.
Also, people like to pay more to get the same (or inferior) thing because, of course, in the corporate mind paying more = better product.
Just wait until Patrick adds a Slack package of 1.7.2 to Slackware-current and get it off a mirror.
A few random security flaws found. Imagine if it was worth thousands of dollars to you to find and exploit these flaws so you searched and found them months ago as part of your full-time work...
I don't have to imagine it; we can see how well it works with microsoft products.
They have paid programmers so there is no exploits and flaws in their software, right?
Yeah, and it doesn't keep track of all the crappy albums and movies that people avoided buying because they sampled first.
Anyway, I strongly suggest that people read Lawrence Lessig's Free Culture book (available for from online).
I can add about 500 albums to it.
I think Moore's Law has finally run out of steam.
Moore's law is about the number of transistors, not about the surface area they occupy.
I think that the dual-core chips that have been announced will keep the number of transistors increasing rapidly for a while.
well then AMD is even worse off than I thought.
Why are you saying that?
AMD doesn't have as many factories and as big a budget as Intel, so it's normal that it takes them longer to do something; but then again, they didn't need 90nm as bad as Intel did because they don't have as much overheating issues.
I think that AMD's transition is going pretty smoothly according to their schedule.
Intel is still paying for their decision to go with the netburst architecture IMHO.
They wanted to be able to crank the megahurtz and use that as a PR device (well, not only that but it helped them).
Of course they are also having problem with the 90nm tech (as is IBM -- I think that only AMD has been mostly clear sailing with that), but most of their problems have come from netburst and lack of competitiveness in the budget sector (Celerons get killed by much faster and cheaper AMD chips).
Sounds neato. Thanks for the info, I guess I should check the news on the official website more often.
Hopefully the x.org guys will do faster work than the XFree86 guys. I mean, the end result is pretty good, but it just moved way too slow.
The other issue is the lock-in that the GPL creates. Most corporations prefer the freedom of the BSD-style license.
The BSD license has some things going for it, but if we look at what corporations are backing Linux and what are backing *BSD, it seems that the GPL "lock-in" doesn't bother IBM, Novell, etc.. In fact, it might encourage them since after adding lots of code to Linux, a third party can't just take the code, add a bit to it and then sell it as proprietary software -- they must give back, just like people before them did, and I'd say that's pretty fair.
Don't be so hard on yourself -- I don't mind. *insert smiley*
All good points. I was merely pointing out that people can already do that with their existing hardware; I doubt that most firewall and router computers out there use more than a few % of their CPU capacity, yet they all drink a lot of juice. This could be partially avoided.
Care to elaborate on the reasons why you say these things?
Even without a (more expensive) mobile processor, you can always underclock and undervolt a processor.
btw, I'm also curious to know what mobo you use.
Maybe if you don't know what they are doing and why they are doing it, you should read on it instead of saying that because it doesn't immediately jump at you it's pointless.
For an interesting (and fairly simple) read, I suggest Carl Sagan's Pale Blue Dot. It covers many many things including why space exploration is important for us (for example, we found out about the ozone layer and what CFCs were doing by looking at Mars and about the Greenhouse effect by looking at Venus -- stuff that was totally unrelated at first).
Exactly. On the subject, I highly recommend Naomi Klein's _No Logo_ book. It's in depth and very interesting.
Corporations realized about 15 years ago that selling products was a dead end and that it was too hard to add sufficient "added value" anyway, and consumers didn't see much different between the different brand's products in blind tests, so instead of selling products, they are now selling brands.
Yes, well; the important thing now is to keep X.org moving and innovating (unlike what XFree86 has done recently).
Which brings us to the point that it's just impossible to know how many copies of Linux are out there..
:P).
It's like trying to know the number of people having sex tonight; you can make some pretty good guesses and take surveys, but it's a free and (mostly) private thing (well, in most cases anyway
Yea, because no one is going to buy a low cost Linux computer at Walmart and slap a pirate version of Windows on it. Nope. Never gona happen.
I'm sure it happens, but I'm also fairly sure that the majority of people running Linux didn't buy a computer with Linux pre-installed; which means that in the majority of cases they were counted as a Windows license sold but aren't running it.
As with BSD, the way I see it, the important thing is not so much the size of Linux/OSS/etc's market share, but the importance of its influence.
Linux and OSS' influence has been growing quite fast lately, probably faster than its "official marketshare", whatever advantage that could give it.
It's not because someone runs windows that he doesn't run OSS (mozilla, OpenOffice, etc), and that's a step in the right direction.
I'm also sure that lots of people who built their own computers from parts and install linux never get counted.
Seeing how Dean got his ass KICKED and all that.
Seeing how he was a nobody with 432 suporters and $100,000 in the bank when he started, I'd say that he did pretty well.
The best way to find out is to try both. Most distros come loaded with both (hey, they are free!) so do the testing yourself.
Personally, I much prefer KDE. It's getting better and faster all the time, and after it's customized to one's liking, it's great.