That's true. But we were discussing the shortcomings of the OSS model vs. the "commercial" model. If a closed-source software project is killed, of course your point is valid. But until then, while the project is "hot" and actively supported, the "commercial" model has a tendency to work better, at least in some areas. Mainly because there is commercial pressure to keep things going the way the customer wants them... without that pressure, things usually don't go where you want them. That's actually what has been said a lot about OSS. OSS tends to go its own way without caring much for your needs.
Your argument about killed projects is interesting, but in my opinion, it's not strictly restricted to OSS; some closed-source projects have been abandoned, but released as open-source as a convenience for the user base. If you sign a big contract with some software vendor, you may even require that it be a clause in the contract: if the vendor ever goes out of business, have them legally forced to release the software as open source...
And finally, as I said earlier, there is a problem with OSS, economically speaking, if it was to become the only way software was distributed. The software business is quickly becoming one of the (if not THE) biggest business fields world wide. Software is everywhere. There has to be a way of using a clear, viable economic model, or else we're in big trouble. The ideal of just sharing stuff without any money doesn't seem to have proven to work very well. What I'm saying is that I'm very unsure about the consequences; I just don't know, but it's something to think about.
You're right, and thanks for pointing that out. How dumb is it really to sign a contract with Sony, then get the money and later break the contract: that's exactly what this artist has done. If this artist didn't want to have anything to do with Sony, they should simply have gone with some other label. But nooo: Sony's contracts are probably more juicy, no matter what some of you say. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
I just want to say that I think for most "minor" artists that don't sell a lot of records, they get the most money from the initial fixed sum allocated by the contract (advance money, as the parent said) - any extra money made on sales may never reach the artist if they don't sell enough, because the editor will cover its costs before giving a percentage to the artist; that's usually the deal. So for a "minor" artist, it's like they don't really care what happens once they have signed the contract: it won't make a difference, financially speaking; so they might as well do something to gain some popularity (like helping the public to circumvent copy protection): even if that means lost sales, it's pretty much the same. Unless, of course, they want to maintain a good relationship with the editor...
If artists really want to bypass all the DRM crap, then they'll need not to sign with the companies promoting it. But "spitting in your own soup" isn't going to help matters, methinks.
perhaps it is up to the users who need such software to be maintained in a "professional" manner to find some way to fund the developers in a professional manner. The fact that the software is Free is a side issue.
I hear you, but I personally don't see it as just a side issue. What you describe here is certainly interesting, but it is arguably a very special and new business model that has not much to do with traditional commercial models. Tell me if I'm mistaken, but you're basically implying that we could (should?) switch from a "if you need it, buy it" kind of business to a "if you need it, fund it" model. As I said, interesting, but it does have some weird implications in my opinion. Not sure that this is a viable model if we extended it to every business in existence. And something not to forget here, is that the software business is getting one of the most important of this century. I'm just not sure how it would all work out. Again, the "free" aspect is no side issue, the way I see it. OSS essentially works as well as it does because lots of people are willing to help for no money in return - not necessarily all the people working on it, but a lot of them. If money was part of the equation, a lot of OSS projects would have gone dead before you would have known them... Another issue in that vein that could arise in the future is just what I talked about: some major OSS projects get some people a lot of money, and most people actually working on them no money at all. There could be a day when the OSS developers worldwide would get sick of that...
As for the non-free software not maintained properly, of course you're right. That's why I talked about open standards. If the software packages you use are based on open standards (file formats, protocols,...), whether they are commercial, OSS or whatever isn't that much of a problem, because you know that at least someone can write software to replace them - or make the migration to another package relatively painless.
But basically, when I talked about projects not being actively maintained, I'm sure I'm not the only one having seriously considered some OSS project in a professional setting, just to get frustrated a few months later and realize the project is not maintained fast enough - and you don't have the resources to maintain it yourself... this is something that would not happen with software from a well-established company. And this is not always predictable: you must know that a lot of OSS projects are like roller coasters: very active at some point, then almost dead for months, then active again...
As much as I think the RIAA has not done what it would take to embrace the digital age yet, and as much as I think they are obviously trying to make examples out of these trials, rather that just apply the law... I'd like to say, even if that's not popular right now, that sharing and using creations (books, music, movies, software...) without the proper license and the author's consent (given or implied) is illegal. Yet, the IP laws are clearly being violated all the time at an ever growing rate.
So either some of you are really advocating changing the IP laws - in this case, you'd better get into politics or at least vote for the right persons next time - or you just want to ignore the law. Which one is it? Do you think breaking the law is acceptable just because it doesn't seem to do much harm? Even if it didn't do any harm (which is questionable), would that be a good reason to break the law? So how come a lot of people get all upset when the RIAA is just trying to enforce the law? Again, if you have a problem with the law, do what it takes to have it changed. In any case, how is it the RIAA's fault?
Your examples are good, obvious ones. You could have cited GCC too, which is one of the best compiler suites that I know of.
The guy has a point, though. Not all OSS is high quality, far from it. And last but not least, not all of it is maintained on a decently regular basis. I know a lot of OSS projects, some of which quite good, which have gone unmaintained, or are maintained once in a blue moon - that is unprofessional. And that's the very nature of OSS: you can't blame the developers for not maintaining their projects as much as they should, because, well, they have a life to lead and money to make to sustain it! As someone pointed out, a developer, at the end of the day, wants to be able to make money from his work... I'm in that place too: as much as I love OSS, and use a lot of it, I am not in a place in my life right now where I can afford to contribute and not get any money in return... maybe when I'm retired? (And I think a lot of us can relate.)
Actually, the examples you mentioned have more or less all something in common: they are backed by either a foundation or a commercial company! That's actually how they can survive and keep their level of quality. Again, a lot of project are poorly maintained or just plain disappear... of course, you might say, since it's OSS, someone else can pick up where it was left off. But in reality, does it happen a lot? It does sometimes, but I'd venture that it's not the destiny of most small to medium-sized OSS projects...
All in all, we're always back to the same issue: how do we work for free and still make money? Obviously the "making money off support" is not always workable, especially for the smaller companies. Besides, that would essentially mean, for a small company, providing custom solutions; something that is very demanding (all of us fellow independant engineers should relate...) Also, some software solutions do not need extensive support compared to some others. Then, imagine you have a great software package that pretty much works "off the box" for everyone. How do you make money?
As great as OSS is, there is a point where just "sharing" stuff with others is not enough. Actually, if you're not paid for your creative work (software), but for the additional support, doesn't that imply, in the end, that creative work has no value in itself? One of the key problems, in my opinion, and not just with software. Nowadays, more and more people find it perfectly normal not to pay for music and movies - and pay for solutions to access it. I'm afraid we would run as much risk to eventually see only the biggest companies (or foundations, or whatever) survive, than we do with sofware patents. Two different approaches... but are the consequences all that different? Not necessarily.
Again in my opinion, open standards are much more important than open source software. They guarantee our freedom. OSS is not the only way to promote them, although it has taken a big part in it so far.
No practical device that can make reading ebooks a confortable experience exists yet... But I do believe it's going to change with the new e-Ink displays.
I have used similar "tricks" on a regular basis when developing graphical software packages, so yes, there are a lot of cases where you can - and should - avoid using trig functions.
First off, you can go back to sleep in peace, for I am neither hurt nor feel inadequate (and if I did after reading your vomit-like prose, *that* would be definitely inadequate). And Linux is definitely not "my OS". I wonder what "owning an OS" would mean anyway...
Lol, yet another big troll like I love them, who doesn't know any better than insulting people and does not care to do some basic research on the topic... I should not even reply to this, but what the heck, this could at least help readers decide for themselves before giving the benefit of the doubt to the ruder one.
Just to name one company, which, by the way, is implanted worldwide: FSMLabs. Its activity revolves around RTLinux and RT-BSD. And you'd have found its name very quickly if you had cared to look at the site I mentioned a little bit. It even has the news about RTLinux the original author of this Slashdot article talks about... Anyway, even though RTLinux seems to be used most in research projects, it does have practical industrial and medical applications as well. Just take a look there, for instance: http://www.fsmlabs.com/case-studies.html
Of course, you may not feel the need to check this out, nor check out your own sources. Heck, you don't even feel compelled to post as anything else than an anonymous coward...
I don't use MSN messenger anymore. It's impossible to use behind a decently configured router, especially the latest version, and MS is perfectly aware of it. Talk about security. Don't make me laugh with fighting firewalls with trillian. MSN Messenger uses uPnP, wich is my worst nightmare - I have always steered clear of Windows firewalls anyway. A good old router is perfectly fine if you want true security. But uPnP? It's exactly like putting sophisticated locks all over your house's doors and giving the keys to all your neighbors, the mailman, some guys that beg for money down the street, and a couple more guys that you know from the local bars.:))
The population is growing. It can't be that unsafe.
This is in no way insightful. The growing of a population is not a sign of environmental safety. Actually, this can be quite the opposite: a survival strategy to ensure the species' future in spite of the unsafe conditions. Maybe one of the reasons the poorest populations ensure their survival by having so many children. We can see it all over the world.
Well, I don't quite agree with you, although I see your point. The communist ideal is that property doesn't exist... which was the whole idea of the post I was replying to, actually. You're right in saying that not exactly "nobody" owns anything, because there are the copyrights (and patents) holders, but if there are only a very few, influent corporations who can, in fact, own something, isn't that the exact same in the end? When a few, anonymous entities such as big corporations are enforcing a regime where the individuals cannot own anything, that becomes a form of decentralized communist regime to me. Something to think about...
When we tell kids about a time when it used to be possible for people "own" things.
Quite strange actually. Is our society becoming a communist one, where no one actually owns anything, but a few gigantic corporations decide what you can do with what and for how long? A very weird, twisted form of communism indeed... What do you guys think?
Why would you want MS to embrace another platform than Win32(/64)? If I want U*ix, I'll use U*ix. I don't need to wait around for MS. Saying that Win32 is inherently unfunctional is pretty wild, though. I think it's functional enough. At least, on the desktop... although I think Linux/FreeBSD is getting there, and I feel more and more like switching to that for my desktop needs. I already run a professional server and also a "media" server at home on Linux.
But you know, the main strategy of MS has not been exactly interoperability per se. They don't care to interoperate, unless the interoperability gives them that many more customers. I think their whole success is based on having had the "wisdom" to always be compatible on some level with the old technologies, whereas most of its competitors strove to market strong innovations. Innovation has always been last on MS's list, compatibility, first. That explains, amongst other things, why it's a lot more successful commercially than Apple. So, if some compatibility level with U*ix, maybe built in the next Windows version (and not as an add-on of some kind) proves to be able to attract a new, significant user base, then MS will do it. Not because they want to interoperate with others for the technological beauty of it, but to gain market.
A world that would revolve around criminal investigation - that would actually be a world that revolves around criminals... if you think about it. I don't want to live in a world where everything revolves around that and where everyone is considered a potential criminal. Sounds like some people have never read "1984". Anyway...
Very good points you're making here. Good certification tests include *skill questions* on top of just pure knowledge. You can't pass them if you don't know how to do your stuff. So it's not just "textbook" questions... Now the only thing is to actually promote good certifications; not despise them altogether. And as I said in my other post, you can't really judge someone's skills during just a job interview. That makes no sense. A good certification can, at least better. So that's a plus... and saves time on technical interviews too.
Showing what you can do! Certifications are one step ahead of degrees. They certify people on specific skills, whereas degrees establish a foundation of your knowledge, so to speak. And despite what you seem to say, you *will* fail at a decent certification test if you don't know what you're talking about. One can't be just "good at tests". That's a rather stupid assertion. Medical schools make heavy use of multiple choice-tests to evaluate students, and if that was easy to pass without any medical knowledge, we certainly would know about it. Also, any good certification program will be much, much more thorough than any job interview can be: so that's a big help too for a potential employer. Just because there are a few people out there that are good without having any degree or certification (yes, that exists) doesn't mean that certifications are useless. That was basically your main point, and it's obviously very flawed logic.
To begin with, if you actually have a router and it's properly configured, nothing can get trough but exactly what you allowed. (This is my config.) So what's the point of distinguishing activity based on port numbers? Truth is, most people (on the 'desktop') don't want to be bothered with a (properly-configured) router. Heck, I quit using MSN messenger because the new version (7) wouldn't work at all behind a router (and this is actually acknowledged by MS).
None of these matter as much to me as Performance/$$.
Then you're obviously clueless, because power consumption equates to a lot of money. TCO (Total Cost of Ownership) is a notion that is to be considered here. You should take a look at some companies' electricity bills.
Slashdot Mirror
That's true. But we were discussing the shortcomings of the OSS model vs. the "commercial" model. If a closed-source software project is killed, of course your point is valid. But until then, while the project is "hot" and actively supported, the "commercial" model has a tendency to work better, at least in some areas. Mainly because there is commercial pressure to keep things going the way the customer wants them... without that pressure, things usually don't go where you want them. That's actually what has been said a lot about OSS. OSS tends to go its own way without caring much for your needs.
Your argument about killed projects is interesting, but in my opinion, it's not strictly restricted to OSS; some closed-source projects have been abandoned, but released as open-source as a convenience for the user base. If you sign a big contract with some software vendor, you may even require that it be a clause in the contract: if the vendor ever goes out of business, have them legally forced to release the software as open source...
And finally, as I said earlier, there is a problem with OSS, economically speaking, if it was to become the only way software was distributed. The software business is quickly becoming one of the (if not THE) biggest business fields world wide. Software is everywhere. There has to be a way of using a clear, viable economic model, or else we're in big trouble. The ideal of just sharing stuff without any money doesn't seem to have proven to work very well. What I'm saying is that I'm very unsure about the consequences; I just don't know, but it's something to think about.
You're right, and thanks for pointing that out. How dumb is it really to sign a contract with Sony, then get the money and later break the contract: that's exactly what this artist has done. If this artist didn't want to have anything to do with Sony, they should simply have gone with some other label. But nooo: Sony's contracts are probably more juicy, no matter what some of you say. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
I just want to say that I think for most "minor" artists that don't sell a lot of records, they get the most money from the initial fixed sum allocated by the contract (advance money, as the parent said) - any extra money made on sales may never reach the artist if they don't sell enough, because the editor will cover its costs before giving a percentage to the artist; that's usually the deal. So for a "minor" artist, it's like they don't really care what happens once they have signed the contract: it won't make a difference, financially speaking; so they might as well do something to gain some popularity (like helping the public to circumvent copy protection): even if that means lost sales, it's pretty much the same. Unless, of course, they want to maintain a good relationship with the editor...
If artists really want to bypass all the DRM crap, then they'll need not to sign with the companies promoting it. But "spitting in your own soup" isn't going to help matters, methinks.
I hear you, but I personally don't see it as just a side issue. What you describe here is certainly interesting, but it is arguably a very special and new business model that has not much to do with traditional commercial models. Tell me if I'm mistaken, but you're basically implying that we could (should?) switch from a "if you need it, buy it" kind of business to a "if you need it, fund it" model. As I said, interesting, but it does have some weird implications in my opinion. Not sure that this is a viable model if we extended it to every business in existence. And something not to forget here, is that the software business is getting one of the most important of this century. I'm just not sure how it would all work out. Again, the "free" aspect is no side issue, the way I see it. OSS essentially works as well as it does because lots of people are willing to help for no money in return - not necessarily all the people working on it, but a lot of them. If money was part of the equation, a lot of OSS projects would have gone dead before you would have known them... Another issue in that vein that could arise in the future is just what I talked about: some major OSS projects get some people a lot of money, and most people actually working on them no money at all. There could be a day when the OSS developers worldwide would get sick of that...
As for the non-free software not maintained properly, of course you're right. That's why I talked about open standards. If the software packages you use are based on open standards (file formats, protocols, ...), whether they are commercial, OSS or whatever isn't that much of a problem, because you know that at least someone can write software to replace them - or make the migration to another package relatively painless.
But basically, when I talked about projects not being actively maintained, I'm sure I'm not the only one having seriously considered some OSS project in a professional setting, just to get frustrated a few months later and realize the project is not maintained fast enough - and you don't have the resources to maintain it yourself... this is something that would not happen with software from a well-established company. And this is not always predictable: you must know that a lot of OSS projects are like roller coasters: very active at some point, then almost dead for months, then active again...
As much as I think the RIAA has not done what it would take to embrace the digital age yet, and as much as I think they are obviously trying to make examples out of these trials, rather that just apply the law... I'd like to say, even if that's not popular right now, that sharing and using creations (books, music, movies, software...) without the proper license and the author's consent (given or implied) is illegal. Yet, the IP laws are clearly being violated all the time at an ever growing rate.
So either some of you are really advocating changing the IP laws - in this case, you'd better get into politics or at least vote for the right persons next time - or you just want to ignore the law. Which one is it? Do you think breaking the law is acceptable just because it doesn't seem to do much harm? Even if it didn't do any harm (which is questionable), would that be a good reason to break the law? So how come a lot of people get all upset when the RIAA is just trying to enforce the law? Again, if you have a problem with the law, do what it takes to have it changed. In any case, how is it the RIAA's fault?
Your examples are good, obvious ones. You could have cited GCC too, which is one of the best compiler suites that I know of.
The guy has a point, though. Not all OSS is high quality, far from it. And last but not least, not all of it is maintained on a decently regular basis. I know a lot of OSS projects, some of which quite good, which have gone unmaintained, or are maintained once in a blue moon - that is unprofessional. And that's the very nature of OSS: you can't blame the developers for not maintaining their projects as much as they should, because, well, they have a life to lead and money to make to sustain it! As someone pointed out, a developer, at the end of the day, wants to be able to make money from his work... I'm in that place too: as much as I love OSS, and use a lot of it, I am not in a place in my life right now where I can afford to contribute and not get any money in return... maybe when I'm retired? (And I think a lot of us can relate.)
Actually, the examples you mentioned have more or less all something in common: they are backed by either a foundation or a commercial company! That's actually how they can survive and keep their level of quality. Again, a lot of project are poorly maintained or just plain disappear... of course, you might say, since it's OSS, someone else can pick up where it was left off. But in reality, does it happen a lot? It does sometimes, but I'd venture that it's not the destiny of most small to medium-sized OSS projects...
All in all, we're always back to the same issue: how do we work for free and still make money? Obviously the "making money off support" is not always workable, especially for the smaller companies. Besides, that would essentially mean, for a small company, providing custom solutions; something that is very demanding (all of us fellow independant engineers should relate...) Also, some software solutions do not need extensive support compared to some others. Then, imagine you have a great software package that pretty much works "off the box" for everyone. How do you make money?
As great as OSS is, there is a point where just "sharing" stuff with others is not enough. Actually, if you're not paid for your creative work (software), but for the additional support, doesn't that imply, in the end, that creative work has no value in itself? One of the key problems, in my opinion, and not just with software. Nowadays, more and more people find it perfectly normal not to pay for music and movies - and pay for solutions to access it. I'm afraid we would run as much risk to eventually see only the biggest companies (or foundations, or whatever) survive, than we do with sofware patents. Two different approaches... but are the consequences all that different? Not necessarily.
Again in my opinion, open standards are much more important than open source software. They guarantee our freedom. OSS is not the only way to promote them, although it has taken a big part in it so far.
No practical device that can make reading ebooks a confortable experience exists yet... But I do believe it's going to change with the new e-Ink displays.
I have used similar "tricks" on a regular basis when developing graphical software packages, so yes, there are a lot of cases where you can - and should - avoid using trig functions.
First off, you can go back to sleep in peace, for I am neither hurt nor feel inadequate (and if I did after reading your vomit-like prose, *that* would be definitely inadequate). And Linux is definitely not "my OS". I wonder what "owning an OS" would mean anyway...
Lol, yet another big troll like I love them, who doesn't know any better than insulting people and does not care to do some basic research on the topic... I should not even reply to this, but what the heck, this could at least help readers decide for themselves before giving the benefit of the doubt to the ruder one.
Just to name one company, which, by the way, is implanted worldwide: FSMLabs. Its activity revolves around RTLinux and RT-BSD. And you'd have found its name very quickly if you had cared to look at the site I mentioned a little bit. It even has the news about RTLinux the original author of this Slashdot article talks about... Anyway, even though RTLinux seems to be used most in research projects, it does have practical industrial and medical applications as well. Just take a look there, for instance: http://www.fsmlabs.com/case-studies.html
Of course, you may not feel the need to check this out, nor check out your own sources. Heck, you don't even feel compelled to post as anything else than an anonymous coward...
and you don't know what tools you need? :D
Uh huh. So you say. I think you should take a look at that: http://www.linuxdevices.com/
Apparently, lots of people don't realize yet how much Linux is being used commercially in the embedded market, and its use is just growing.
Good job Ballmer!
I don't use MSN messenger anymore. It's impossible to use behind a decently configured router, especially the latest version, and MS is perfectly aware of it. Talk about security. Don't make me laugh with fighting firewalls with trillian. MSN Messenger uses uPnP, wich is my worst nightmare - I have always steered clear of Windows firewalls anyway. A good old router is perfectly fine if you want true security. But uPnP? It's exactly like putting sophisticated locks all over your house's doors and giving the keys to all your neighbors, the mailman, some guys that beg for money down the street, and a couple more guys that you know from the local bars. :))
This is in no way insightful. The growing of a population is not a sign of environmental safety. Actually, this can be quite the opposite: a survival strategy to ensure the species' future in spite of the unsafe conditions. Maybe one of the reasons the poorest populations ensure their survival by having so many children. We can see it all over the world.
Well, I don't quite agree with you, although I see your point. The communist ideal is that property doesn't exist... which was the whole idea of the post I was replying to, actually. You're right in saying that not exactly "nobody" owns anything, because there are the copyrights (and patents) holders, but if there are only a very few, influent corporations who can, in fact, own something, isn't that the exact same in the end? When a few, anonymous entities such as big corporations are enforcing a regime where the individuals cannot own anything, that becomes a form of decentralized communist regime to me. Something to think about...
Quite strange actually. Is our society becoming a communist one, where no one actually owns anything, but a few gigantic corporations decide what you can do with what and for how long? A very weird, twisted form of communism indeed... What do you guys think?
Now this is a sign of maturity, isn't it? Explains a lot, actually...
If it "just works" like MS claims Windows does, then it's perfectly normal that it gets viruses.
Why would you want MS to embrace another platform than Win32(/64)? If I want U*ix, I'll use U*ix. I don't need to wait around for MS. Saying that Win32 is inherently unfunctional is pretty wild, though. I think it's functional enough. At least, on the desktop... although I think Linux/FreeBSD is getting there, and I feel more and more like switching to that for my desktop needs. I already run a professional server and also a "media" server at home on Linux.
But you know, the main strategy of MS has not been exactly interoperability per se. They don't care to interoperate, unless the interoperability gives them that many more customers. I think their whole success is based on having had the "wisdom" to always be compatible on some level with the old technologies, whereas most of its competitors strove to market strong innovations. Innovation has always been last on MS's list, compatibility, first. That explains, amongst other things, why it's a lot more successful commercially than Apple. So, if some compatibility level with U*ix, maybe built in the next Windows version (and not as an add-on of some kind) proves to be able to attract a new, significant user base, then MS will do it. Not because they want to interoperate with others for the technological beauty of it, but to gain market.
A world that would revolve around criminal investigation - that would actually be a world that revolves around criminals... if you think about it. I don't want to live in a world where everything revolves around that and where everyone is considered a potential criminal. Sounds like some people have never read "1984". Anyway...
Very good points you're making here. Good certification tests include *skill questions* on top of just pure knowledge. You can't pass them if you don't know how to do your stuff. So it's not just "textbook" questions... Now the only thing is to actually promote good certifications; not despise them altogether. And as I said in my other post, you can't really judge someone's skills during just a job interview. That makes no sense. A good certification can, at least better. So that's a plus... and saves time on technical interviews too.
Showing what you can do! Certifications are one step ahead of degrees. They certify people on specific skills, whereas degrees establish a foundation of your knowledge, so to speak. And despite what you seem to say, you *will* fail at a decent certification test if you don't know what you're talking about. One can't be just "good at tests". That's a rather stupid assertion. Medical schools make heavy use of multiple choice-tests to evaluate students, and if that was easy to pass without any medical knowledge, we certainly would know about it. Also, any good certification program will be much, much more thorough than any job interview can be: so that's a big help too for a potential employer. Just because there are a few people out there that are good without having any degree or certification (yes, that exists) doesn't mean that certifications are useless. That was basically your main point, and it's obviously very flawed logic.
"experanced", yeah...
Something between esperance and rancid? ;-)
This is Open Source fusion, right? :D
To begin with, if you actually have a router and it's properly configured, nothing can get trough but exactly what you allowed. (This is my config.) So what's the point of distinguishing activity based on port numbers? Truth is, most people (on the 'desktop') don't want to be bothered with a (properly-configured) router. Heck, I quit using MSN messenger because the new version (7) wouldn't work at all behind a router (and this is actually acknowledged by MS).
Then you're obviously clueless, because power consumption equates to a lot of money. TCO (Total Cost of Ownership) is a notion that is to be considered here. You should take a look at some companies' electricity bills.