Of course, they are pushing Linux: The cost of Windows OS software is a significant percentage of the cost of a physical server. Most servers are dedicated to running a specialty product, so why spend money on tons of components that are not being used on that specific server anyway? A Web server just needs freeware Apache and it's far more secure than its IIS counterpart. Why buy COM+,.Net and all the other non-secure garbage you don't want? Doug Hettinger www.SoftwareObjectz.com
...so no, there is no possibility that it, or any other privately owned software company will ever have more than a token share of any horizontally focused market space. It's already been decided - why do we keep asking qustions about events with known, predetermined outcomes? Doug Hettinger www.SoftwareObjectz.com
Save your company some money; if you have Windows desktops connected to the internet, don't even bother to put locks on the doors as you've already guaranteed access by outsiders. Doug Hettinger www.SoftwareObjectz.com
I SlashDot funded by MS now? I've always heard this, but discounted it as rumor. But, with all the MS advertising, it must be dependent on some MS $$$ - either directly or indirectly. Doug Hettinger www.SoftwareObjectz.com
...existed because the monoply quasi-governmental companies were simply so much better than anyone else could put together. Is there no lesson to learn here? Everyone in the biz knows this is a government granted monoply, why no regulation as in the case of every other government grante monopoly? When the trial was going on, there was only domainance in a couple product spaces (OS's and desktop software), now it's across the board. Looks like the legislators need some succinct advice in what's going on and how much worse the problem has become. Doug Hettinger www.SoftwareObjectz.com
If there were such a concept as objective application of anti-trust laws, would this not be a trigger of an inquiry? Unbelievable. Doug Hettinger www.SoftwareObjectz.com
It's amazing people still think their business can remain viable without paying protection fees to MS. Why doesn't somneone just run some numbers and see what corps who sided squarely against purchasing MS products on a large-scale have survived? The stat would never be published. Doug Hettinger www.SoftwareObjectz.com
...to refresh their interest in anti-trust. It's interesting that even though the market share has increased and dominance of every product line that requires Windows has been establsihed, the anti-trust issue has quietly gone away. Maybe MS is meeting their surveillance quotas and not subject to the same anti-trust laws as all other industries. Looks like big brother has found a reliable little brother to do the snooping.
Doug Hettinger
www.SoftwareObjectz.com
I actually said "Pioneer new markets of untapped revenue" - not "pioneer or develop new technology". They have a way of effectively packaging stuff that was invented by some obscure or out of favor group and delivering it via the greased channels that exist in whatever market is being worked. You are very astute in your observations. I still remember the documentary about the Xerox Palo Alto facility on PBS - it's played quite a bit. One of the lead developers or designers was ordered to show Steve Jobs everyhting - so he could use it in a new venture (Apple). History has shown it does not pay a software company to pioneer anything significant as it will simply be usurped by an organization with existing marketing channels to the core customer base. Doug Hettinger
It seems like the efforts of the R&D are used more to pioneer new markets of untapped revenue. The idea being to market novelty - not really perfect any technology. Once the novelty has worn off, let some other vendor move in and perfect what they pioneered. Well, the desktop and Office apps are good and very standard. But it appears that Linux is catching up here. I mean, there's most stuff you need in the OpenOffice spreadsheet - it's not far away from Excel. But on the server side, they sell the concept of a server, not a rigorously developed server OS.
Aside from the desktop, which I do use as my primary desktop for professional type tasks like bookkeeping and other business apps that are windows apps. But I've now found Linux to be a more secure way to access the web. I look back and marvel at the fact that I used to put my banck records and other private stuff on a Windows box that was connected to the web.
It's pretty good. I think we're referring to the level of devs that are, or were, drawn to ASP during the web bbom and viewed it as a programming language and wrote massive chunks of logic in VBScript. Now that is funny, admit it.
But he's right, use of ASP and/or ActiveX is usually a pretty good sign that the people were pretty inexperienced - especially when the site is intended for an internet audience. I guess it comes from historical roots - ASP == A Simple Place.
This seems like a huge conflict of interest. Sounds a little bit like buying protection from the local mob. Maybe not as harsh since the threat is real and not originating from them. However, it just seems to be an admission that the flagship product is fundamentally flawed and not secure enough for general use.
You're right, it's got to be a bigger savings than that. Alos, alot of times the analysis involves consideration of whether that money spent is going off to a far away place or if it will be recycled in the local economy in the form of wages spent on that company's own product or service - or others in the community. The first wave of PC's and the initial implmentation of web-based brochures and forms are solid examples of savings that cannot be ignored. But the subsequent releases seem to be far less compelling - and generally represent a net cash drain on the "investing" company.
That is correct and I agree with that. So long as the cost-benefit analysis is confined to estimation of expense displacement and/or reduction, the analysis of the proposed IT investment is probably valid - provided the numbers aren't completely off-base. The problem comes when the managers are sold on the vision and implication that the investment will have some indirect magical effect on Revenue. Unless the system is directly related to marketing, it will just be another cost - kind of like an IT Systems Tax.
...so there is always going to be an elaborate multi-layered marketing campaign in place to ensure those oaying the cash aren't officially informed that it's just like a broker churning a customer's brokerage account. Some of the purchasing managers probably don't want to know as they are placed from corp to corp by the software makers in order to gain huge sales and keep the cost-cutters away. Think of Sgt Schultz saying "I Know Nothing". As long as any high-budget print or TV article doesn't explain the situation, it all works OK. Most managers don't bother to look at tech-oriented web-sites, just the ones bought by the advertisers, who shape the content. The level of complexity makes it all work. How could you fault someone for making a bankrupting spending decision when the decsision was so complex?
In less complex situations, the phenomena he describes would be easier to detect and label and guard against. Unfortunately, the IT industry has its own media and does a great job of minimizing those that question blank-check budgets for IT systems. But, the fact remains that a dollar spent on each version upgrade of an IT system or platform is simply one dollar less profit for that period. Some corps are wising up and slashing costs by using Linux and other low-cost platform alternatives.
I agree - code first. After going through so many large projects where all the up-front dollars were essentially wasted due to the fact that chages are always made in the development cycle. When I think of UML diagramming, I think of the old-school Object Oriented Design approaches to client-server development and how it used to be fassionable to pay a close to a dozen high-rate contractors to philsoophize on the merits of alternate approaches to object design. Back in those days, cost was not an issue and every company thought they had the edge since they had all the OO visionaries huddled together in their conference room. Of course, things have changed and companies don't want to just blow money for the sake of blowing money. IT expenditures rarely increase revenue, so the focus should be on how to cut the cost of the plaform and the cost of the applications. Heavy use of UML is often the cause for outsourced efforts being as expensive as local development - boatloads of UML diagrams are normally required to properly instruct offshore teams. The new modern model is to cut out all non-value-add activities, including UML, and go from business user or func-req directly to source code development. Doug Hettinger www.SoftwareObjectz.com
UML Is a throwback to When Cost Was No Issue
on
How Do You Use UML?
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
When I think of UML diagramming, I think of the old-school Object Oriented Design approaches to client-server development and how it used to be fassionable to pay a close to a dozen high-rate contractors to philsoophize on the merits of alternate approaches to object design. Back in those days, cost was not an issue and every company thought they had the edge since they had all the OO visionaries huddled together in their conference room. Of course, things have changed and companies don't want to just blow money for the sake of blowing money. IT expenditures rarely increase revenue, so the focus should be on how to cut the cost of the plaform and the cost of the applications. Heavy use of UML is often the cause for outsourced efforts being as expensive as local development - boatloads of UML diagrams are normally required to properly instruct offshore teams. The new modern model is to cut out all non-value-add activities, including UML, and go from business user or func-req directly to source code development. Doug Hettinger www.SoftwareObjectz.com
I used to be opposed to this whole idea of having anything important on a machine other than my own. However, having had so many security breaches on my Windows based machines, I think the hosted solution might be a better alternative. I mean, if the largest and richest software maker can do no better than it has, and takes security and privacy no more seriously than is apparent, why should I trust its desktop any more than a hosted service solution. I like the way the Windows and controls seem to get prettier every release, but it seems to represent the lock everyone knows how to pick. Maybe the value of the data obtained is more valuable than the incremental revenue that would result from making the Windows desktop secure and private. www.SoftwareObjectz.com
...is indeed a huge headache. I'm just now getting into using FireFox and it appears to be far more secure than Internet Explorer. I can;t believe that I once kep checking accounts and other details of my life on a PC that had a fully equipped Maximum Surveillance Internet Explorer installed. Betwen LavaSoft SpyWare detection messsage and Norton Intrusion Attempt Detected, a Windows PC seems to be a guarantee of an unknwon supervisor possibly monitoring all activities of the machine. This has to be the strongest case for Linux on the client. www.SoftwareObjectz.com
It should be clear to anyone plagued by security problems - as am I - due to use of Windows and Internet Explorer that MS apparently does not employ the top-tier dev talent. There are probably a few reasons for this. First, MS no longer awards stock options. This used to be the big draw to work there. Second, there is so much bureaucracy that it would be difficult for a truly talented but otherwise not-connected techie to become known within the organization. And lastly, it no longer has a positive connotation among young techie types. It should be no wonder that they no longer excel in most fields of software. The MS of today is a completely different company from the MS of ten years, or even five years ago. Just like the Dallas Cowboys or a host of other real-world examples. Same brand, different product. www.SoftwareObjectz.com
Slashdot Mirror
Of course, they are pushing Linux: The cost of Windows OS software is a significant percentage of the cost of a physical server. Most servers are dedicated to running a specialty product, so why spend money on tons of components that are not being used on that specific server anyway? A Web server just needs freeware Apache and it's far more secure than its IIS counterpart. Why buy COM+, .Net and all the other non-secure garbage you don't want? Doug Hettinger www.SoftwareObjectz.com
...so no, there is no possibility that it, or any other privately owned software company will ever have more than a token share of any horizontally focused market space. It's already been decided - why do we keep asking qustions about events with known, predetermined outcomes? Doug Hettinger www.SoftwareObjectz.com
I'm a firm believer in the duck test. Why doesn't the site management level with patrons on this one? Doug Hettinger www.SoftwareObjectz.com
Save your company some money; if you have Windows desktops connected to the internet, don't even bother to put locks on the doors as you've already guaranteed access by outsiders. Doug Hettinger www.SoftwareObjectz.com
I SlashDot funded by MS now? I've always heard this, but discounted it as rumor. But, with all the MS advertising, it must be dependent on some MS $$$ - either directly or indirectly. Doug Hettinger www.SoftwareObjectz.com
...existed because the monoply quasi-governmental companies were simply so much better than anyone else could put together. Is there no lesson to learn here? Everyone in the biz knows this is a government granted monoply, why no regulation as in the case of every other government grante monopoly? When the trial was going on, there was only domainance in a couple product spaces (OS's and desktop software), now it's across the board. Looks like the legislators need some succinct advice in what's going on and how much worse the problem has become. Doug Hettinger www.SoftwareObjectz.com
If there were such a concept as objective application of anti-trust laws, would this not be a trigger of an inquiry? Unbelievable. Doug Hettinger www.SoftwareObjectz.com
It's amazing people still think their business can remain viable without paying protection fees to MS. Why doesn't somneone just run some numbers and see what corps who sided squarely against purchasing MS products on a large-scale have survived? The stat would never be published. Doug Hettinger www.SoftwareObjectz.com
...to refresh their interest in anti-trust. It's interesting that even though the market share has increased and dominance of every product line that requires Windows has been establsihed, the anti-trust issue has quietly gone away. Maybe MS is meeting their surveillance quotas and not subject to the same anti-trust laws as all other industries. Looks like big brother has found a reliable little brother to do the snooping. Doug Hettinger www.SoftwareObjectz.com
No sweat, I'm glad you clarified what I was trying to say.
I actually said "Pioneer new markets of untapped revenue" - not "pioneer or develop new technology". They have a way of effectively packaging stuff that was invented by some obscure or out of favor group and delivering it via the greased channels that exist in whatever market is being worked. You are very astute in your observations. I still remember the documentary about the Xerox Palo Alto facility on PBS - it's played quite a bit. One of the lead developers or designers was ordered to show Steve Jobs everyhting - so he could use it in a new venture (Apple). History has shown it does not pay a software company to pioneer anything significant as it will simply be usurped by an organization with existing marketing channels to the core customer base. Doug Hettinger
It seems like the efforts of the R&D are used more to pioneer new markets of untapped revenue. The idea being to market novelty - not really perfect any technology. Once the novelty has worn off, let some other vendor move in and perfect what they pioneered. Well, the desktop and Office apps are good and very standard. But it appears that Linux is catching up here. I mean, there's most stuff you need in the OpenOffice spreadsheet - it's not far away from Excel. But on the server side, they sell the concept of a server, not a rigorously developed server OS. Aside from the desktop, which I do use as my primary desktop for professional type tasks like bookkeeping and other business apps that are windows apps. But I've now found Linux to be a more secure way to access the web. I look back and marvel at the fact that I used to put my banck records and other private stuff on a Windows box that was connected to the web.
It's pretty good. I think we're referring to the level of devs that are, or were, drawn to ASP during the web bbom and viewed it as a programming language and wrote massive chunks of logic in VBScript. Now that is funny, admit it.
But he's right, use of ASP and/or ActiveX is usually a pretty good sign that the people were pretty inexperienced - especially when the site is intended for an internet audience. I guess it comes from historical roots - ASP == A Simple Place.
This seems like a huge conflict of interest. Sounds a little bit like buying protection from the local mob. Maybe not as harsh since the threat is real and not originating from them. However, it just seems to be an admission that the flagship product is fundamentally flawed and not secure enough for general use.
You're right, it's got to be a bigger savings than that. Alos, alot of times the analysis involves consideration of whether that money spent is going off to a far away place or if it will be recycled in the local economy in the form of wages spent on that company's own product or service - or others in the community. The first wave of PC's and the initial implmentation of web-based brochures and forms are solid examples of savings that cannot be ignored. But the subsequent releases seem to be far less compelling - and generally represent a net cash drain on the "investing" company.
That is correct and I agree with that. So long as the cost-benefit analysis is confined to estimation of expense displacement and/or reduction, the analysis of the proposed IT investment is probably valid - provided the numbers aren't completely off-base. The problem comes when the managers are sold on the vision and implication that the investment will have some indirect magical effect on Revenue. Unless the system is directly related to marketing, it will just be another cost - kind of like an IT Systems Tax.
What is the 4 year old dig you are referring to?
...so there is always going to be an elaborate multi-layered marketing campaign in place to ensure those oaying the cash aren't officially informed that it's just like a broker churning a customer's brokerage account. Some of the purchasing managers probably don't want to know as they are placed from corp to corp by the software makers in order to gain huge sales and keep the cost-cutters away. Think of Sgt Schultz saying "I Know Nothing". As long as any high-budget print or TV article doesn't explain the situation, it all works OK. Most managers don't bother to look at tech-oriented web-sites, just the ones bought by the advertisers, who shape the content. The level of complexity makes it all work. How could you fault someone for making a bankrupting spending decision when the decsision was so complex?
In less complex situations, the phenomena he describes would be easier to detect and label and guard against. Unfortunately, the IT industry has its own media and does a great job of minimizing those that question blank-check budgets for IT systems. But, the fact remains that a dollar spent on each version upgrade of an IT system or platform is simply one dollar less profit for that period. Some corps are wising up and slashing costs by using Linux and other low-cost platform alternatives.
I agree - code first. After going through so many large projects where all the up-front dollars were essentially wasted due to the fact that chages are always made in the development cycle. When I think of UML diagramming, I think of the old-school Object Oriented Design approaches to client-server development and how it used to be fassionable to pay a close to a dozen high-rate contractors to philsoophize on the merits of alternate approaches to object design. Back in those days, cost was not an issue and every company thought they had the edge since they had all the OO visionaries huddled together in their conference room. Of course, things have changed and companies don't want to just blow money for the sake of blowing money. IT expenditures rarely increase revenue, so the focus should be on how to cut the cost of the plaform and the cost of the applications. Heavy use of UML is often the cause for outsourced efforts being as expensive as local development - boatloads of UML diagrams are normally required to properly instruct offshore teams. The new modern model is to cut out all non-value-add activities, including UML, and go from business user or func-req directly to source code development. Doug Hettinger www.SoftwareObjectz.com
When I think of UML diagramming, I think of the old-school Object Oriented Design approaches to client-server development and how it used to be fassionable to pay a close to a dozen high-rate contractors to philsoophize on the merits of alternate approaches to object design. Back in those days, cost was not an issue and every company thought they had the edge since they had all the OO visionaries huddled together in their conference room. Of course, things have changed and companies don't want to just blow money for the sake of blowing money. IT expenditures rarely increase revenue, so the focus should be on how to cut the cost of the plaform and the cost of the applications. Heavy use of UML is often the cause for outsourced efforts being as expensive as local development - boatloads of UML diagrams are normally required to properly instruct offshore teams. The new modern model is to cut out all non-value-add activities, including UML, and go from business user or func-req directly to source code development. Doug Hettinger www.SoftwareObjectz.com
I used to be opposed to this whole idea of having anything important on a machine other than my own. However, having had so many security breaches on my Windows based machines, I think the hosted solution might be a better alternative. I mean, if the largest and richest software maker can do no better than it has, and takes security and privacy no more seriously than is apparent, why should I trust its desktop any more than a hosted service solution. I like the way the Windows and controls seem to get prettier every release, but it seems to represent the lock everyone knows how to pick. Maybe the value of the data obtained is more valuable than the incremental revenue that would result from making the Windows desktop secure and private. www.SoftwareObjectz.com
...is indeed a huge headache. I'm just now getting into using FireFox and it appears to be far more secure than Internet Explorer. I can;t believe that I once kep checking accounts and other details of my life on a PC that had a fully equipped Maximum Surveillance Internet Explorer installed. Betwen LavaSoft SpyWare detection messsage and Norton Intrusion Attempt Detected, a Windows PC seems to be a guarantee of an unknwon supervisor possibly monitoring all activities of the machine. This has to be the strongest case for Linux on the client. www.SoftwareObjectz.com
It should be clear to anyone plagued by security problems - as am I - due to use of Windows and Internet Explorer that MS apparently does not employ the top-tier dev talent. There are probably a few reasons for this. First, MS no longer awards stock options. This used to be the big draw to work there. Second, there is so much bureaucracy that it would be difficult for a truly talented but otherwise not-connected techie to become known within the organization. And lastly, it no longer has a positive connotation among young techie types. It should be no wonder that they no longer excel in most fields of software. The MS of today is a completely different company from the MS of ten years, or even five years ago. Just like the Dallas Cowboys or a host of other real-world examples. Same brand, different product. www.SoftwareObjectz.com