Agreed - too many times reporters confuse "the public has a right to know" with "look at me! I'm such a good reporter I found out something no one else knew!"
I imagine unfettered access will be gone as early as the end of the week - anyone want to bet that a Chinese embassy worker or their children here in the US won't notice this story?
RFQ is fishing for prices for a solution defined by the requestor, an RFP is a solicitation for A SINGLE, specified solution, defined by the responding organization.
RFP is the equivalent to "I'm shopping for a car that can carry my family comfortably and has god gas mileage".
An RFQ is the equivalent to "I'm shopping for a red Mustang with convertible top, high-output engine, leather seats and premium sound system".
This RFQ is how the Gov't establishes pricing for a planned purchase, it is not an ITB (invitation to bid) which would be the purchase step, nor is it an RFP where the Gov't puts out a concept and asks respondents to devise and price a solution - Google apparently thinks an RFQ is an RFP, and that an RFP is the same thing as an ITB:
You seem confused, no doubt blinded by your irrational hatred of anything to do with Microsoft...
RFQ is not a sign that MS won the contract, it is the way the Gov't establishes price - it is not a binding contract to buy anything, that would be an IFB (Invitation To Bid).
RFQ is not a sign that MS won the contract, it is the way the Gov't establishes price - it is not a binding contract to buy anything, that would be an IFB (Invitation To Bid).
RFQ is not a sign that MS won the contract, it is the way the Gov't establishes price - it is not a binding contract to buy anything, that would be an IFB (Invitation To Bid).
Seriously, if an RFQ can't limit the acceptable technology, what is the point? If a Gov't agency put out an RFQ for AutoCAD, do they really have to entertain a quote from Google Sketch?
If they put out an RFQ for pick-up trucks, must they analyze quotations for Suburbans?
Get past Google bs. Microsoft, and the stupidity of this outrage is obvious.
I suspect someone confused RFP with RFQ - one is to pick a solution (RFP) and one is to price a solution you've decided on (RFQ) - they are not interchangeable.
No, they are going after manufacturers that infringe on their patents, they are not "suing their customers" as you put it.
The vast majority of phone consumers don't think of the OS in the phone, they think of the functions, what their friends have, and what the subsidy from their carrier will be when picking a phone. It is a small, small, minority of smartphone buyers make OS selection their prime, over-riding criteria for picking a smart phone.
"this would be an excellent situation to use to show the average representative in Congress why, exactly, software patents should be abolished. "Here are two companies that are not using Microsoft products, and not stealing secrets from Microsoft, and in fact not using any Microsoft property at ALL, whose businesses are being interfered with because Microsoft was granted some software patents and they're using them as bargaining chips. This situation is ridiculous and should be addressed. (Etc, etc)".
You forgot to preface your "proposal" with the requirement that the reader assume that patents are not property of the patent holder, because right now patents ARE the property of the patent holder.
How does your argument stand up against a more conventional patent, say for a physical device? Let's say I invent a lettuce harvesting machine and then start to sell it, then another company comes along and builds their own lettuce harvester using my design. According to your criteria, the other company hasn't used any of my property, so if I go after them to defend my case and get their infringing harvester off the market OR to pay me a license fee for each harvester built, you'd say that proves patents are wrong/evil/in need of reform?
Patents protect not only the actual manifestation of an idea or invention, but they also protect the idea.
Microsoft plans to impose royalty fees on Taiwan-based vendors of Android handsets for using its patents in e-mail, multimedia and other functions, with Acer and Asustek Computer being targets
Which is NOT how the slashdot story describes the article.
Seems like every time Microsoft and a Linux vendor are involved, the narrative is predictable.
Microsoft holds software patents, and it feels the devices infringe those patents. The infringing use of those patents is what is being sued over, not the Linux OS.
Debate the merits/problems with software patents if you want, but the issue here is infringement. Microsoft is also suing Motorola for similar infringement, and at least one manufacturer (HTC) is paying fees to license the patents. Seems like a non-story blown all out of proportion because it involves Linux and Microsoft.
Point taken, but understand the economics of this - if you are buying a couple systems, sure deals can be struck and money saved. But, when you ramp up to orders of a hundred or more systems in any reasonable period of time (two weeks), I can't see where the savings are... Dell systems get cheaper as volume goes up, but the local white box guy will not be able to trim any cost as the numbers increase, except profit margin, and there isn't much there to cut if they are competing with Dell or HP...
These are current users of Linux, they tend to report bugs and contribute code at amazingly higher proportion than the general linux user population, are members of a Linux user organization AND choose to respond to the survey. Not one respondent that does not run Linux - you don't join a users group if you don't run the OS/application...
If you want to survey the industry, reach out to the Forbes 500 and ask them what the run in the server room, on the desktop this year (as a percentage), and what they did last year and what their plans are for next year. That will tell you everything you need to know about the state of Linux adoption in the commercial sector.
Any survey that equates General Electric's response with Pete's totally cool web design and PC repair service is meaningless.
No shop of any real size (take the 500 employee threshold cited in the survey) is 100% linux not all desktops and servers, not even Red Hat I suspect. There are always certain applications that require Windows or Mac.
Also, are these 100% Linux users not planning to expand/grow (more employees)?
As a poll taken by the Linux Foundation based on the answers of two hundred of it's largest members that responded, what I found suprising is that less than half of them plan on increasing their use of Linux - these are the biggest supporters of Linux, and 50%+ ARE NOT PLANNING TO INCREASE THEIR USE OF LINUX!
These are Linux's biggest supporters (they joined the foundation, they replied to the survey, and they are of a certain size) - if half of them aren't increasing use of Linux, to me that is the interesting number. If 50%+ of the largest members of the Oracle Users Group said they were not going to increase use of Oracle DB that would be the story, why is the spin backwards here? Oh yeah, Linux Foundation wrote the press release, slashdot partitas it...
Building machines to sAve money ceased making sense about 4 years ago, like SpaghettiPattern, I build systems by choice, and fully understanding it likely cost more than a comprable Dell box. People that attempt to rationalize building PCs these days don't talk about savings, they talk about choosing the co potent to get a certain benefit (better PS, upgraded video card, better chassis). For basic office work, a business class PC should last five or more years without any failures. They would likely last longer, but there comes a point where a failure is almost certain to happen, and in most cases you want to avoid the unscheduled down-time, loss of the system.
PCs are a cutthroat business, and if you think you can do a better job than Dell's robots, fine, but I doubt you're right.
First off, about those 'transferable' licenses for the O/S - you are talking about RETAIL licenses, and they can be twice as expensive as an OEM license, and you'll have to manage a library of 1,000 distinct licenses - not one corporate key for all installs.
I'll bet your organization has a software agreement with MS for an upgraded O/S (like professional or Enterprise), as well as server CALs and MS Office licenses - software agreements SAVE MONEY over retail purchases, and are pox. 1,427% easier to manage.
The Dell warranties are a place you can save money - first idea is to drop them and be prepared to invest in spare parts. I work in a K-12 school district and we get the warranties because we can't get funding to stock a spare parts bin for our 1,500 macs & pcs. One thing we do is we are all enrolled in Dell's warranty Parts Direct (or whatever they call it now), and we get the repair parts for free, AND we get paid to perform the warranty work (money back to our district - it isn't much, but every little bit helps).
You think you'll save a lot of money, but you won't - I guarantee it. You haven't accounted for all the time you'd have to invest in each box (it will take one employee
There are at least two reasons people want to publish books - they want to create a book (vanity press/amateur author) or they want to make money/living as an author (commercial publisher/working author), each one has it's purpose, and there is extremely little overlap (ALMOST none). You can PUBLISH a book without a major publishing house, but you can't SELL volumes of books without a serious marketing effort, be it corporate, viral, whatever.
One final note: if you self-publish, good luck ever getting a reputable publishing company to look twice at you. Yes, it can happen. I was able to find seven cases in the history of publishing where it happened, though I personally know of three cases where the author was rejected explicitly for it.
That is very interesting - I wouldn't have thought of that, but thinking it through it does make a certain sense; on the one hand, I could see submitting a self-published book as a tour-de-force example of what you are capable of without a publisher, and if the product was good enough, a publisher might think they could improve it, market it, and would sign you up. On the other hand, any subsequent books you wrote for the publisher would require marketing, and that marketing would benefit not only the publisher's books, but also any self-published works (AKA "the competition").
Out of curiousity, I wonder if authors are submitting their spec work to agents, publishers, etc. in e-reader formats to facilitiate reading, or are they using conventional word processor/computer files - I am assuming authors/agents don't ship around reams of paper any more...
Taken the other way, $2.99 is no more than many magazines, the decision to purchase the book at that price is low risk. esp. if you are a fan of the author's previous works. I'd like to see him ramp the pricing up for the same book in actual printed book format, from say Amazon, Lulu.com, etc. comparing costs. To generate the same profit per item, what would the 80,000 word book have to sell for (omiting his fetishist "bonus material" only available on the Kindle)? That would be an interesting comparison.
YouTube provides free access to content - will Amazon provide free passage for self-ePublished authors? I doubt it, since AMazon will incur a very real data charge for downloading the self-ePublished book to the Kindle if access over 3G network, and I'm not sure Amazon wants to futher fragment the market to breakdown what's available over "free" wi-fi vs. "free to you, not Amazon" 3G network.
As for the author, he provides a 50,000 foot view of the process (we choose Amazon Createspace), but never gives any real justification of discussion of alternatives. I assume he researched alternatives, why not include his "notes" in the article?
It is apparent this author is working at a different level than the average self-publishing author (The book is exclusively on Kindle for 12 months? What kind of benefit does that give Amazon? Kindle? How was that negotiated?)
Also, his article is a bit premature, this should have been written AFTER Halloween, when he could discuss the reality of his decisions, not just the possibilities - they gave out 260 advance copies, and expect 100 on-line (friendly) reviews, did they get them? Did they translate into sales?
This article describes the decisions and design of his lemonade stand, and how those decisions will improve sales, profitability, etc. but was written the night before he goes out on the street corner and sells his first glass of Lemonade.
You could have told us the story was on the Huffington Post - that article was as much promotion for the book as it was anything else.
So, to re-cap, this is the "new publishing" model:
1) become a famous, published author with 13 books published, have sold one book as a movie 2) work with three other famous/published authors 3) write the book collaboratively 4) save all your process documents as special 'e-filler' material 5) crowd source the editing to friends & co-authors 6) give away a couple hundred advance copies to friendly reviewers (to stuff the Amazon review space prior to publication) 7) price the book so low (less than many magazines), to capture impulse buyers 8) keep a larger portion of a lower book price (divided four ways) for a book available to only those reader/customers that buy ebooks at Amazon. 9) in 12 months make the book available to other buyers (other ebook retailers, physical books, etc)
That's great - now, can someone help me with step one?
Personally, I find how-to articles that walk you through the mechanics of publishing your own writing into a physical book more interesting, because some day I might have a large enough collection of random thoughts and writings that I want to give to friends and family members - I don't imagine I'd be able to convince anyone I don't personally know to read, never mind buy, a book I might write.
Slashdot Mirror
Agreed - too many times reporters confuse "the public has a right to know" with "look at me! I'm such a good reporter I found out something no one else knew!"
I imagine unfettered access will be gone as early as the end of the week - anyone want to bet that a Chinese embassy worker or their children here in the US won't notice this story?
This will be past-tense ASAP!
It's an RFQ, not an RFP - there is a difference!
RFQ is fishing for prices for a solution defined by the requestor, an RFP is a solicitation for A SINGLE, specified solution, defined by the responding organization.
RFP is the equivalent to "I'm shopping for a car that can carry my family comfortably and has god gas mileage".
An RFQ is the equivalent to "I'm shopping for a red Mustang with convertible top, high-output engine, leather seats and premium sound system".
This RFQ is how the Gov't establishes pricing for a planned purchase, it is not an ITB (invitation to bid) which would be the purchase step, nor is it an RFP where the Gov't puts out a concept and asks respondents to devise and price a solution - Google apparently thinks an RFQ is an RFP, and that an RFP is the same thing as an ITB:
See: http://www.onvia.com/b2g-resources/article/responding-to-an-ifb-rfp-rfq-do-you-know-the-difference
You seem confused, no doubt blinded by your irrational hatred of anything to do with Microsoft...
RFQ is not a sign that MS won the contract, it is the way the Gov't establishes price - it is not a binding contract to buy anything, that would be an IFB (Invitation To Bid).
See:http://www.onvia.com/b2g-resources/article/responding-to-an-ifb-rfp-rfq-do-you-know-the-difference
RFQ is not a sign that MS won the contract, it is the way the Gov't establishes price - it is not a binding contract to buy anything, that would be an IFB (Invitation To Bid).
See:http://www.onvia.com/b2g-resources/article/responding-to-an-ifb-rfp-rfq-do-you-know-the-difference
RFQ is not a sign that MS won the contract, it is the way the Gov't establishes price - it is not a binding contract to buy anything, that would be an IFB (Invitation To Bid).
See:http://www.onvia.com/b2g-resources/article/responding-to-an-ifb-rfp-rfq-do-you-know-the-difference
How many people have firm opinions that the government did something wrong here - show of hands please?
How many people know the differences between an RFQ, RFP, and an IFB? Why did so many hands go down?
Seriously, an RFQ is a tool to arrive at market price for a defined solution, and it is non-binding.
An RFP is a request for respondents to define a solution, the Gov't is open to various solutions.
And an IFB is an Invitation To Bid - this is where the Gov't picks a vendor for a defined solution based on price.
Every response i see here has these three different documents conflated... I suggest you look here for guidance:
http://www.onvia.com/b2g-resources/article/responding-to-an-ifb-rfp-rfq-do-you-know-the-difference
Utah would like to disagree and get back the nearly 25% of the state the federal Gov't took in the last days of Clinton's presidency...
Corrupt is in the eye of the one who's land was seized...
I never knew Google was a Microsoft VAR/Reseller.
Seriously, if an RFQ can't limit the acceptable technology, what is the point? If a Gov't agency put out an RFQ for AutoCAD, do they really have to entertain a quote from Google Sketch?
If they put out an RFQ for pick-up trucks, must they analyze quotations for Suburbans?
Get past Google bs. Microsoft, and the stupidity of this outrage is obvious.
I suspect someone confused RFP with RFQ - one is to pick a solution (RFP) and one is to price a solution you've decided on (RFQ) - they are not interchangeable.
No, they are going after manufacturers that infringe on their patents, they are not "suing their customers" as you put it.
The vast majority of phone consumers don't think of the OS in the phone, they think of the functions, what their friends have, and what the subsidy from their carrier will be when picking a phone. It is a small, small, minority of smartphone buyers make OS selection their prime, over-riding criteria for picking a smart phone.
As "proof," I submit the following YouTube "I Want an iPhone" video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FL7yD-0pqZg
You forgot to preface your "proposal" with the requirement that the reader assume that patents are not property of the patent holder, because right now patents ARE the property of the patent holder.
How does your argument stand up against a more conventional patent, say for a physical device? Let's say I invent a lettuce harvesting machine and then start to sell it, then another company comes along and builds their own lettuce harvester using my design. According to your criteria, the other company hasn't used any of my property, so if I go after them to defend my case and get their infringing harvester off the market OR to pay me a license fee for each harvester built, you'd say that proves patents are wrong/evil/in need of reform?
Patents protect not only the actual manifestation of an idea or invention, but they also protect the idea.
From The Fine Article:
Which is NOT how the slashdot story describes the article.
Seems like every time Microsoft and a Linux vendor are involved, the narrative is predictable.
Microsoft holds software patents, and it feels the devices infringe those patents. The infringing use of those patents is what is being sued over, not the Linux OS.
Debate the merits/problems with software patents if you want, but the issue here is infringement. Microsoft is also suing Motorola for similar infringement, and at least one manufacturer (HTC) is paying fees to license the patents. Seems like a non-story blown all out of proportion because it involves Linux and Microsoft.
Point taken, but understand the economics of this - if you are buying a couple systems, sure deals can be struck and money saved. But, when you ramp up to orders of a hundred or more systems in any reasonable period of time (two weeks), I can't see where the savings are... Dell systems get cheaper as volume goes up, but the local white box guy will not be able to trim any cost as the numbers increase, except profit margin, and there isn't much there to cut if they are competing with Dell or HP...
APOLOGIES!
I got my numbers confused, instead of half, it's one-fourth of respondents, not half. I read this before my morning caffeine.
The point is the same, as pointed out here: http://zgp.org/~dmarti/business/hands-up-who-likes-me/ this is the definition of a self-serving survey.
These are current users of Linux, they tend to report bugs and contribute code at amazingly higher proportion than the general linux user population, are members of a Linux user organization AND choose to respond to the survey. Not one respondent that does not run Linux - you don't join a users group if you don't run the OS/application...
If you want to survey the industry, reach out to the Forbes 500 and ask them what the run in the server room, on the desktop this year (as a percentage), and what they did last year and what their plans are for next year. That will tell you everything you need to know about the state of Linux adoption in the commercial sector.
Any survey that equates General Electric's response with Pete's totally cool web design and PC repair service is meaningless.
No shop of any real size (take the 500 employee threshold cited in the survey) is 100% linux not all desktops and servers, not even Red Hat I suspect. There are always certain applications that require Windows or Mac.
Also, are these 100% Linux users not planning to expand/grow (more employees)?
That last line should say "...Slashdot parroted it."
My iPhone didn't think I meant to write parroted...
As a poll taken by the Linux Foundation based on the answers of two hundred of it's largest members that responded, what I found suprising is that less than half of them plan on increasing their use of Linux - these are the biggest supporters of Linux, and 50%+ ARE NOT PLANNING TO INCREASE THEIR USE OF LINUX!
These are Linux's biggest supporters (they joined the foundation, they replied to the survey, and they are of a certain size) - if half of them aren't increasing use of Linux, to me that is the interesting number. If 50%+ of the largest members of the Oracle Users Group said they were not going to increase use of Oracle DB that would be the story, why is the spin backwards here? Oh yeah, Linux Foundation wrote the press release, slashdot partitas it...
Building machines to sAve money ceased making sense about 4 years ago, like SpaghettiPattern, I build systems by choice, and fully understanding it likely cost more than a comprable Dell box. People that attempt to rationalize building PCs these days don't talk about savings, they talk about choosing the co potent to get a certain benefit (better PS, upgraded video card, better chassis). For basic office work, a business class PC should last five or more years without any failures. They would likely last longer, but there comes a point where a failure is almost certain to happen, and in most cases you want to avoid the unscheduled down-time, loss of the system.
PCs are a cutthroat business, and if you think you can do a better job than Dell's robots, fine, but I doubt you're right.
I'd second that opinion.
First off, about those 'transferable' licenses for the O/S - you are talking about RETAIL licenses, and they can be twice as expensive as an OEM license, and you'll have to manage a library of 1,000 distinct licenses - not one corporate key for all installs.
I'll bet your organization has a software agreement with MS for an upgraded O/S (like professional or Enterprise), as well as server CALs and MS Office licenses - software agreements SAVE MONEY over retail purchases, and are pox. 1,427% easier to manage.
The Dell warranties are a place you can save money - first idea is to drop them and be prepared to invest in spare parts. I work in a K-12 school district and we get the warranties because we can't get funding to stock a spare parts bin for our 1,500 macs & pcs. One thing we do is we are all enrolled in Dell's warranty Parts Direct (or whatever they call it now), and we get the repair parts for free, AND we get paid to perform the warranty work (money back to our district - it isn't much, but every little bit helps).
You think you'll save a lot of money, but you won't - I guarantee it. You haven't accounted for all the time you'd have to invest in each box (it will take one employee
There are at least two reasons people want to publish books - they want to create a book (vanity press/amateur author) or they want to make money/living as an author (commercial publisher/working author), each one has it's purpose, and there is extremely little overlap (ALMOST none). You can PUBLISH a book without a major publishing house, but you can't SELL volumes of books without a serious marketing effort, be it corporate, viral, whatever.
That is very interesting - I wouldn't have thought of that, but thinking it through it does make a certain sense; on the one hand, I could see submitting a self-published book as a tour-de-force example of what you are capable of without a publisher, and if the product was good enough, a publisher might think they could improve it, market it, and would sign you up. On the other hand, any subsequent books you wrote for the publisher would require marketing, and that marketing would benefit not only the publisher's books, but also any self-published works (AKA "the competition").
Out of curiousity, I wonder if authors are submitting their spec work to agents, publishers, etc. in e-reader formats to facilitiate reading, or are they using conventional word processor/computer files - I am assuming authors/agents don't ship around reams of paper any more...
Taken the other way, $2.99 is no more than many magazines, the decision to purchase the book at that price is low risk. esp. if you are a fan of the author's previous works. I'd like to see him ramp the pricing up for the same book in actual printed book format, from say Amazon, Lulu.com, etc. comparing costs. To generate the same profit per item, what would the 80,000 word book have to sell for (omiting his fetishist "bonus material" only available on the Kindle)? That would be an interesting comparison.
YouTube provides free access to content - will Amazon provide free passage for self-ePublished authors? I doubt it, since AMazon will incur a very real data charge for downloading the self-ePublished book to the Kindle if access over 3G network, and I'm not sure Amazon wants to futher fragment the market to breakdown what's available over "free" wi-fi vs. "free to you, not Amazon" 3G network.
As for the author, he provides a 50,000 foot view of the process (we choose Amazon Createspace), but never gives any real justification of discussion of alternatives. I assume he researched alternatives, why not include his "notes" in the article?
It is apparent this author is working at a different level than the average self-publishing author (The book is exclusively on Kindle for 12 months? What kind of benefit does that give Amazon? Kindle? How was that negotiated?)
Also, his article is a bit premature, this should have been written AFTER Halloween, when he could discuss the reality of his decisions, not just the possibilities - they gave out 260 advance copies, and expect 100 on-line (friendly) reviews, did they get them? Did they translate into sales?
This article describes the decisions and design of his lemonade stand, and how those decisions will improve sales, profitability, etc. but was written the night before he goes out on the street corner and sells his first glass of Lemonade.
You could have told us the story was on the Huffington Post - that article was as much promotion for the book as it was anything else.
So, to re-cap, this is the "new publishing" model:
1) become a famous, published author with 13 books published, have sold one book as a movie
2) work with three other famous/published authors
3) write the book collaboratively
4) save all your process documents as special 'e-filler' material
5) crowd source the editing to friends & co-authors
6) give away a couple hundred advance copies to friendly reviewers (to stuff the Amazon review space prior to publication)
7) price the book so low (less than many magazines), to capture impulse buyers
8) keep a larger portion of a lower book price (divided four ways) for a book available to only those reader/customers that buy ebooks at Amazon.
9) in 12 months make the book available to other buyers (other ebook retailers, physical books, etc)
That's great - now, can someone help me with step one?
Personally, I find how-to articles that walk you through the mechanics of publishing your own writing into a physical book more interesting, because some day I might have a large enough collection of random thoughts and writings that I want to give to friends and family members - I don't imagine I'd be able to convince anyone I don't personally know to read, never mind buy, a book I might write.