Fee for client depends on usage. With an internet server license (such as for a web server or web application server) there is no fee per seat.
And to reiterate there's these costs with linux;
(1) Training - Everyone must be retrained on an OS that is not only not as intuitive as windows, but is not as standardized. Secretaries must learn new apps, new hotkeys, etc. This will take years for a majority of the end-users (some of which who are just now becoming comfortable with the fact that they have a computer on their desk) and the closer you get to the people doing the money making work for the company, the further you get from IT-trained people who couldn't care less about switching to a new OS. (2) Support - while you must pay support for windows networks, the support is drastically higher to pay trained linux specialists, and a high percentage of windows users can fix their own problems. (3) Applications - Sure, the peoplesoft/oracle merger may aid the top end of the corporate market switch to linux, but let's face it; StarOffice is -not- microsoft office. Anyone who thinks it is has never seen a sales staff work a 72 hour shift on a single powerpoint presentation. Nor have they really seen a truly useful.xls spreadsheet.
Per person, this adds up to huge savings in the microsoft world - not just monetarily, but in time. Sure, the linux servers may have a week longer uptime... but the 20 sales users that rely on that data that they can't figure out how to merge into staroffice don't give a shit.
(A) "slowly taking over" the market is not and will never be dominating the corporate IT market. While perhaps for mail servers linux has potential, enterprise application servers running 2000 or 2003 are rolling out by truckloads in corporate IT.
(B) Paying a linux admin the extra $10-25k a year more than makes up for the disparate cost for server licenses. Client licenses are eaten up by the cost of the client - training and downtime (due to inadequate understanding) differences for each person that uses it.
Linux is -not- currently a major player in the corporate world, and certainly not over the past decade has it been anywhere near the cash cow that windows has been both for microsoft - but especially for it's customers.
Fair enough, but that's much more of an -if-, not a when. Companies don't like to shift their entire corporation to an unknown risk when there's a clear and present solution staring them in the face.
"If Gates didn't charge so much for windows, many people and companies would have hundreds of billions of dollars in cash that they gave to MS, and some of that money would be donated."
-->Not likely. Remember that Gates makes most of his money off corporate use.
And what one doesn't spend on windows, a company would spend on linux - remember that linux is not taking over the corporate IT market because of training costs and other costs that comes with linux over windows. The costs that/. linux-fanatics hate to admit exist but are huge concerns for business IT decisions.
So no, I don't think that linux made a single steak cheaper for anyone. However, I can easily make the argument that the windows revolution, ethical or no, has dramatically reduced costs and increased profitability of many companies.
Now, if you're going to argue that increased profit == more money to charity, the least you can do is consider money made due to windows role in business, vs money made due to linux... call me back when you realize how lopsided that argument gets.
So there's no windows clusters doing the same?
I think you'd be surprised. I've never seen a linux cluster in a laboratory, but I sure do see a lot of windows boxes there.
Yes, yes, yes, I get the economics behind it... what I don't get is why the personal attack. Like MS or not, the Gates family has been rather philanthropic - ESPECIALLY compared to others. I mean, where's steve jobs or paul allen or that oracle nitwit's money going to? Space programs for millionaires?
And all this "linux community already donates" bullshit - find me a single ethiopian that would take open source operating systems over a steak, and I'll be happy to concede my point. There's money and profitability (even ethically) in the microsoft way, and the figurehead of the movement has been foremost in the world for charitable donations... and yet/.'s gotta trash the man.
Only/. could make $29B in charitable donations into a negative. You're all jealous you didn't do it first.
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has sought to ban illegal downloading on any state computers, including those owned by the state university systems.
Are they talking about State University networks or just their computers?
-->Says pretty clearly "OWNED by the state univ". However, this could easily be interpreted as routers, and the Univ. as an ISP is perfectly in their rights to deny you illegal activity on their network - regardless of if you paid for it or not; read your TOS from any ISP.
It could actually enable one to script custom syntax parsers. You could write schemas to enforce all syntax and typing...
Plus, when the new version of the language is released, you could just run one giant transform to bring all your source up to the latest version.
But I'm with you... it seems a bit excessive. And sounds like a great potential for abuse.
Sorry, but companies don't pour money into security, they pour money into performance. Your average CEO doesn't care about script kiddies versus clients, and does not understand how one can detract from the other.
If you're looking to the skies for a sign, you should have been paying more attention to the plague of locusts that has been spreading across the middle east.
Slashdot Mirror
Retail for a server license isn't that much...
.xls spreadsheet.
Fee for client depends on usage. With an internet server license (such as for a web server or web application server) there is no fee per seat.
And to reiterate there's these costs with linux;
(1) Training - Everyone must be retrained on an OS that is not only not as intuitive as windows, but is not as standardized. Secretaries must learn new apps, new hotkeys, etc. This will take years for a majority of the end-users (some of which who are just now becoming comfortable with the fact that they have a computer on their desk) and the closer you get to the people doing the money making work for the company, the further you get from IT-trained people who couldn't care less about switching to a new OS.
(2) Support - while you must pay support for windows networks, the support is drastically higher to pay trained linux specialists, and a high percentage of windows users can fix their own problems.
(3) Applications - Sure, the peoplesoft/oracle merger may aid the top end of the corporate market switch to linux, but let's face it; StarOffice is -not- microsoft office. Anyone who thinks it is has never seen a sales staff work a 72 hour shift on a single powerpoint presentation. Nor have they really seen a truly useful
Per person, this adds up to huge savings in the microsoft world - not just monetarily, but in time. Sure, the linux servers may have a week longer uptime... but the 20 sales users that rely on that data that they can't figure out how to merge into staroffice don't give a shit.
(A) "slowly taking over" the market is not and will never be dominating the corporate IT market. While perhaps for mail servers linux has potential, enterprise application servers running 2000 or 2003 are rolling out by truckloads in corporate IT. (B) Paying a linux admin the extra $10-25k a year more than makes up for the disparate cost for server licenses. Client licenses are eaten up by the cost of the client - training and downtime (due to inadequate understanding) differences for each person that uses it. Linux is -not- currently a major player in the corporate world, and certainly not over the past decade has it been anywhere near the cash cow that windows has been both for microsoft - but especially for it's customers.
Fair enough, but that's much more of an -if-, not a when. Companies don't like to shift their entire corporation to an unknown risk when there's a clear and present solution staring them in the face.
"If Gates didn't charge so much for windows, many people and companies would have hundreds of billions of dollars in cash that they gave to MS, and some of that money would be donated."
/. linux-fanatics hate to admit exist but are huge concerns for business IT decisions.
-->Not likely. Remember that Gates makes most of his money off corporate use.
And what one doesn't spend on windows, a company would spend on linux - remember that linux is not taking over the corporate IT market because of training costs and other costs that comes with linux over windows. The costs that
So no, I don't think that linux made a single steak cheaper for anyone. However, I can easily make the argument that the windows revolution, ethical or no, has dramatically reduced costs and increased profitability of many companies.
Now, if you're going to argue that increased profit == more money to charity, the least you can do is consider money made due to windows role in business, vs money made due to linux... call me back when you realize how lopsided that argument gets.
Worse still, the charitable-donation-bashers seem to get modded up. Makes me ill...
So there's no windows clusters doing the same? I think you'd be surprised. I've never seen a linux cluster in a laboratory, but I sure do see a lot of windows boxes there.
Yes, yes, yes, I get the economics behind it... what I don't get is why the personal attack. Like MS or not, the Gates family has been rather philanthropic - ESPECIALLY compared to others. I mean, where's steve jobs or paul allen or that oracle nitwit's money going to? Space programs for millionaires? And all this "linux community already donates" bullshit - find me a single ethiopian that would take open source operating systems over a steak, and I'll be happy to concede my point. There's money and profitability (even ethically) in the microsoft way, and the figurehead of the movement has been foremost in the world for charitable donations... and yet /.'s gotta trash the man.
Only /. could make $29B in charitable donations into a negative. You're all jealous you didn't do it first.
Wow, this guy gives away half his hard-earned personal worth, and you're still mocking him.
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has sought to ban illegal downloading on any state computers, including those owned by the state university systems. Are they talking about State University networks or just their computers? -->Says pretty clearly "OWNED by the state univ". However, this could easily be interpreted as routers, and the Univ. as an ISP is perfectly in their rights to deny you illegal activity on their network - regardless of if you paid for it or not; read your TOS from any ISP.
It could actually enable one to script custom syntax parsers. You could write schemas to enforce all syntax and typing... Plus, when the new version of the language is released, you could just run one giant transform to bring all your source up to the latest version. But I'm with you... it seems a bit excessive. And sounds like a great potential for abuse.
The IQ is about the same... No wait, Mars is winning.
it -is- a big freakin' desert.
Depends; does the affleck die in the end or in the beginning? INQUIRING MINDS WANT TO KNOW.
Considering the only weapon we've got on those rovers is the RAT... it's more like mildly irritate now, ask questions MUCH later...
If we tell GWB it's a WMD, maybe we'll finally get a real space program...
Well, because then they might have to actually -recover- my stolen lexus.
Go read the bill of rights again. The cops can tail "some car driving down the road". They can't track your (specifically you) movements.
Oh god. First it's "They don't do anything to fix all the viruses!" Now it's "Fixing the viruses will squash all the anti-virus companies". I 3 /.
Sorry, but companies don't pour money into security, they pour money into performance. Your average CEO doesn't care about script kiddies versus clients, and does not understand how one can detract from the other.
Phonnneee hoommmeeee... eeeee ttttttt
Eh, why not. They ruined Fat Albert already, why can't they ruin Voltron along with it.
This puts 'flaming metrosexual' into a whole new light, eh?
If you're looking to the skies for a sign, you should have been paying more attention to the plague of locusts that has been spreading across the middle east.
Why build a synth to do that when there's always http://www.sidstation.com/ and http://www.hardsid.com/ ? I have a hardSID quattro and it's amazing.
Hah... the SIDStation came out a few years before the iPod... http://www.sidstation.com/