O, I see. You don't have a clue about what you are talking about.
Thank you for reinforcing the stereotype of arrogance that keeps OSS on the fringes. Clearly I have not done OSS development - hence my questions. I have a minimal understanding of the OSS development model, and so I ask questions from the context of what I know, which is more traditional development. Apparently I have some reading to do so that I am *worthy* of conversing in this forum. Please forgive my naive and silly questions.
Oh, and the next time someone asks me if they should use Linux and OSS, I'll be sure to tell them they should do that *only* if they are expert in the OSS development model, or are willing to hire experts to set it up and manage it for them - so they won't annoy important people like you. Or conversely they could just plunk down $500 for a PC with Windows pre-loaded and let Microsoft manage it for them.
And then how do you get the bug fix distributed to all your desktops? Is part of the project to replicate Microsoft's update mechanism? Are they planning on maintaining their own source tree for all applications and the OS? If not, then will they simply be forced to accept whatever the OSS community deems appropriate? Or will their "gun-for-hire" person have to negotiate with the community to check his/her changes into the public source tree?
That is what is meant when someone talks about independance in the OSS community.
I don't see alot of "independence". I see many new dependencies on different entities.
From everything I've read, the margins in computer parts are razor thin. That means that what we pay for "cheap, generic" hardware is very similar to what they pay in China where they're manufactured. I routinely buy boxes w/PS made in China for about $29. Cheap MB's are $50. China doesn't make their own CPUs so they would have to pay $80 or better for those. DIMMs will run $50. HDs will run $50. Optical drives $20. Mouse/Kbd $20. So we have about $300 worth of cheap hardware. Even if their cost was only $200 (and I highly doubt it's that low), the OEM XP license for volume manufacturers is about $40, which is ~20% of the hardware cost. So, this means the Windows license cost is a small percentage of the overall hardware cost, even in China.
And my guess is that chinese salaries and income are not going to buy many microsoft's licenses...
Come on! If they can afford the hardware they can afford the measley "Microsoft tax" - it's a small percentage of the cost of a machine. That said, I too thinkthat Microsoft is probably taking the long view with China (they are quite good at taking the long view, which is one of the keys to their success). They most likely will turn a deaf ear to the blatant copying in China with the hope that they can be (remain as) the entrenched standard if/when China gets around to enforcing copyrights. At that point they can begin to generate revenue.
In the markets I have seen the entire office suite going for 10 Yuan (1 US dollar = 8 Yuan).... With this being the situation, I find it hard to believe that Microsoft will fail to dominate this market.
But at $0 per copy I don't think that is what Microsoft (nor IBM) has in mind.
Seriously, until China has *and* enforces IP property rights and copyrights, all software is effectively "Free". So, why wouldn't China use Windows, along with all those free applications like Photoshop, Office, etc...
The white paper may predict sales by the "Microsoft ecosystem" of over $40 billion in six of Europe's biggest economies
If I were an EU IT purchaser, or bean-counter, or CIO, this number would give me pause. It might get me to thinking if there was a better alternative. It might convince me to do a thorough analysis of the benefits of Vista relative to its enormous price tag. In short, this could backfire bigtime!
I think they should only submit (and hence keep) the papers that got a B or better. After all, if kids are dumb enough to plagarize C (or worse) papers, let them.
So can anyone explain why, other than reasons cult members typically use, I should help Microsoft in getting Vista ready?
As a Windows application developer I appreciate frequent and early looks at the OS so I can build and test my code against it. This is far, far better than getting blindsided by upset user calls when Vista hits the street and my apps all break. So I guess the short answer to your question is, self-preservation. Now, if you are not a Windows application developer then I guess I can understand your sentiment. I suppose it's also safe to assume you are not a systems admin with Windows-based boxes, and you don't support users who *might* end up using Vista. If all of these assumptions are true then you can safely ignore the betas - I don't think MS is really interested in your opinion anyhow if that is the case.
Ummm, the discussion was about having to spend real money on ammo, not "game" money. And ironically, CounterStrike is about the only game where there isn't any way to trade real money for items, so your example is severely lacking on both counts.
Imagine a game like Halo - not only do you have to buy the weapons, but you also have to buy the ammo. And when it's all gone you'll need to buy more. Frightening to even contemplate, but it's probably the future.
Record labels also promote the music they distribute through direct advertising, image management
You are confusing business model with tactics intended to implement/support the model. You cited a bunch of expenses that record labels incur in order to support their business model, which is to distribute music. They don't make money by paying for advertising... they make money by selling (distributing) music. Ditto for Walmart. Their TV ads and print ads are expenses designed to stimulate sales.
I couldn't find their 10 year return, but their 5 year is 3.12%. The S&P 500 Index 5 year return is 4.65%.
For reference, a few well-known, "non-socially responsible" funds to look at:
Fidelity Contra 5 year: 10.09%
Fidelity Balanced 10 year: 11.30%
Fidelity Contra 5 year: 8.94%
Fidelity Balanced 10 year: 11.30%
So the first 2 examples of green funds that I found underperform a simple broad-based index, and significantly underperform some well-known broad-based equity funds (one of which is a balanced fund which sacrifices capital appreciation to boost income).
I will grant you your point, however, challenging my assertion that *all* green funds have poor returns, since you found a (rather nice) counter-example. But I believe that generally these types of socially-conscious funds inevitably wind up sacrificing returns for "principals".
My point is that Walmart's value added *IS* their distribution channel. They don't make anything - they distribute products. That's what they do, and iTunes electronic distribution of movies threatens (one aspect) of that. So, since Walmart's business model is basically a distribution channel, that has EVERYTHING to do with it.
Another business whose primary "value added" is their distribution channel (record labels come to mind) trying to fight technological changes that make their business model obsolete. Methinks we've seen this before, and we'll see it again.
Besides being a great investment with a likely massive return
The concept is not new. "Green" mutual funds have been around forever. They all have the same thing in common... poor returns. Now, this doesn't make it a bad idea, and perhaps with Clinton's name attached to it that may boost awareness somewhat, but I think anyone who invests in this fund needs to think of it as "doing the right thing" for a small return, rather than treating it like a "real" investment. Of course knowing how ambitious the Clintons are, once can't help but suspect this is more about Hilary's run in 2008 than it is about saving the planet.
Would you choose an ad-supported online version of Microsoft Office over other free options like OpenOffice or Google Apps for Your Domain?
Assuming the files were identical to Office files, this would be a nice option. I could work "online" on the documents, and then if I was traveling or otherwise disconnected from the net, I could pull the files down and work on them on my laptop, then push them back up when I regained connectivity. Of course the files would have to be *identically* formatted. If I had to go through some translation there is really no benefit versus using something else like Google's offerings in conjunction with my local Office install.
I know the lost information is the real story, but as far as taxpayer's dollars being wasted/lost - 1100 ThinkPads is about $2M dollars. The federal government's "burn rate" is about $4.2M per minute (based on a 2.25 trillion annual budget, which was the 2005 outlays), so this constitutes less than 30 seconds of spending.
Now Microsoft is deciding they don't care about the companies they partnered with to get Plays For Sure out there; they're not going to support their own partners or any of the customers of those partners.
Baloney. Microsoft has said nothing about eliminating support for older (pre-existing) WMA files in Windows Vista. All they said was that their Zune player does not support the older content. This is in fact a very reasonable thing to do. They are not abandoning anybody. I am quite sure, given their track record of maintaining backwards compatibility (you can still run most DOS programs from the 80's on XP) that they will continue to support the older WMA formats. Now there are many things you can criticize Microsoft for, but backwards compatibility is not one of them. In fact, the whole industry (especially the OSS crowd) could learn alot from them about that particular topic.
Celeron D, 256MB, 80GB HD, CDRW, 6-in-1 media reader, 17" Monitor, All-in-one printer - $149. That's why Apple's marketshare is slipping. They've done wonders to lower their prices, but the Wintel world has not been standing still.
Slashdot Mirror
O, I see. You don't have a clue about what you are talking about.
Thank you for reinforcing the stereotype of arrogance that keeps OSS on the fringes. Clearly I have not done OSS development - hence my questions. I have a minimal understanding of the OSS development model, and so I ask questions from the context of what I know, which is more traditional development. Apparently I have some reading to do so that I am *worthy* of conversing in this forum. Please forgive my naive and silly questions.
Oh, and the next time someone asks me if they should use Linux and OSS, I'll be sure to tell them they should do that *only* if they are expert in the OSS development model, or are willing to hire experts to set it up and manage it for them - so they won't annoy important people like you. Or conversely they could just plunk down $500 for a PC with Windows pre-loaded and let Microsoft manage it for them.
And then how do you get the bug fix distributed to all your desktops? Is part of the project to replicate Microsoft's update mechanism? Are they planning on maintaining their own source tree for all applications and the OS? If not, then will they simply be forced to accept whatever the OSS community deems appropriate? Or will their "gun-for-hire" person have to negotiate with the community to check his/her changes into the public source tree?
That is what is meant when someone talks about independance in the OSS community.
I don't see alot of "independence". I see many new dependencies on different entities.
Munich is paying the price for not being dependent on a certain platforms (windows) and certain software.
Come on! They will be dependent on a different platform (Linux) and different software (OO, etc).
But most/all of the cost is consulting ...
Ditto for a Vista upgrade.
From everything I've read, the margins in computer parts are razor thin. That means that what we pay for "cheap, generic" hardware is very similar to what they pay in China where they're manufactured. I routinely buy boxes w/PS made in China for about $29. Cheap MB's are $50. China doesn't make their own CPUs so they would have to pay $80 or better for those. DIMMs will run $50. HDs will run $50. Optical drives $20. Mouse/Kbd $20. So we have about $300 worth of cheap hardware. Even if their cost was only $200 (and I highly doubt it's that low), the OEM XP license for volume manufacturers is about $40, which is ~20% of the hardware cost. So, this means the Windows license cost is a small percentage of the overall hardware cost, even in China.
And my guess is that chinese salaries and income are not going to buy many microsoft's licenses...
Come on! If they can afford the hardware they can afford the measley "Microsoft tax" - it's a small percentage of the cost of a machine. That said, I too thinkthat Microsoft is probably taking the long view with China (they are quite good at taking the long view, which is one of the keys to their success). They most likely will turn a deaf ear to the blatant copying in China with the hope that they can be (remain as) the entrenched standard if/when China gets around to enforcing copyrights. At that point they can begin to generate revenue.
In the markets I have seen the entire office suite going for 10 Yuan (1 US dollar = 8 Yuan). ... With this being the situation, I find it hard to believe that Microsoft will fail to dominate this market.
...
But at $0 per copy I don't think that is what Microsoft (nor IBM) has in mind.
Seriously, until China has *and* enforces IP property rights and copyrights, all software is effectively "Free". So, why wouldn't China use Windows, along with all those free applications like Photoshop, Office, etc
Wow, you don't have to install OSS stuff - it just magically inhabits the machine? Well then, bring on the savings. What was I thinking?
because STICKING with them costs you serious folding money
The XP license fee is $99 (US) retail, and about $30 (US) OEM. Not quite what I would call serious folding money.
The white paper may predict sales by the "Microsoft ecosystem" of over $40 billion in six of Europe's biggest economies
If I were an EU IT purchaser, or bean-counter, or CIO, this number would give me pause. It might get me to thinking if there was a better alternative. It might convince me to do a thorough analysis of the benefits of Vista relative to its enormous price tag. In short, this could backfire bigtime!
Europe should puts its $40 Billion behind an open source operating system
Thereby creating another monopoly.
I think the best way to encourage OSS is to turn in people who have illegal copies of software.
I think they should only submit (and hence keep) the papers that got a B or better. After all, if kids are dumb enough to plagarize C (or worse) papers, let them.
So can anyone explain why, other than reasons cult members typically use, I should help Microsoft in getting Vista ready?
As a Windows application developer I appreciate frequent and early looks at the OS so I can build and test my code against it. This is far, far better than getting blindsided by upset user calls when Vista hits the street and my apps all break. So I guess the short answer to your question is, self-preservation. Now, if you are not a Windows application developer then I guess I can understand your sentiment. I suppose it's also safe to assume you are not a systems admin with Windows-based boxes, and you don't support users who *might* end up using Vista. If all of these assumptions are true then you can safely ignore the betas - I don't think MS is really interested in your opinion anyhow if that is the case.
Ummm, the discussion was about having to spend real money on ammo, not "game" money. And ironically, CounterStrike is about the only game where there isn't any way to trade real money for items, so your example is severely lacking on both counts.
Imagine a game like Halo - not only do you have to buy the weapons, but you also have to buy the ammo. And when it's all gone you'll need to buy more. Frightening to even contemplate, but it's probably the future.
Record labels also promote the music they distribute through direct advertising, image management
... they make money by selling (distributing) music. Ditto for Walmart. Their TV ads and print ads are expenses designed to stimulate sales.
You are confusing business model with tactics intended to implement/support the model. You cited a bunch of expenses that record labels incur in order to support their business model, which is to distribute music. They don't make money by paying for advertising
Source: http://www.greencentury.com/funds/performance.aspx
E quity-Fund/index.htm
Green Century Balanced Fund 10 year return: 7.71%
Green Century Equity Fund 10 year return: 6.93%
S&P 500 Index Fund 10 year return: 8.31%
The numbers look alot worse if you consider 1, 3 or 5 year returns.
Here's another one: http://www.domini.com/domini-funds/Domini-Social-
I couldn't find their 10 year return, but their 5 year is 3.12%. The S&P 500 Index 5 year return is 4.65%.
For reference, a few well-known, "non-socially responsible" funds to look at:
Fidelity Contra 5 year: 10.09%
Fidelity Balanced 10 year: 11.30%
Fidelity Contra 5 year: 8.94%
Fidelity Balanced 10 year: 11.30%
So the first 2 examples of green funds that I found underperform a simple broad-based index, and significantly underperform some well-known broad-based equity funds (one of which is a balanced fund which sacrifices capital appreciation to boost income).
I will grant you your point, however, challenging my assertion that *all* green funds have poor returns, since you found a (rather nice) counter-example. But I believe that generally these types of socially-conscious funds inevitably wind up sacrificing returns for "principals".
Distribution channels have nothing to do with it
My point is that Walmart's value added *IS* their distribution channel. They don't make anything - they distribute products. That's what they do, and iTunes electronic distribution of movies threatens (one aspect) of that. So, since Walmart's business model is basically a distribution channel, that has EVERYTHING to do with it.
Another business whose primary "value added" is their distribution channel (record labels come to mind) trying to fight technological changes that make their business model obsolete. Methinks we've seen this before, and we'll see it again.
Besides being a great investment with a likely massive return
... poor returns. Now, this doesn't make it a bad idea, and perhaps with Clinton's name attached to it that may boost awareness somewhat, but I think anyone who invests in this fund needs to think of it as "doing the right thing" for a small return, rather than treating it like a "real" investment. Of course knowing how ambitious the Clintons are, once can't help but suspect this is more about Hilary's run in 2008 than it is about saving the planet.
The concept is not new. "Green" mutual funds have been around forever. They all have the same thing in common
Would you choose an ad-supported online version of Microsoft Office over other free options like OpenOffice or Google Apps for Your Domain?
Assuming the files were identical to Office files, this would be a nice option. I could work "online" on the documents, and then if I was traveling or otherwise disconnected from the net, I could pull the files down and work on them on my laptop, then push them back up when I regained connectivity. Of course the files would have to be *identically* formatted. If I had to go through some translation there is really no benefit versus using something else like Google's offerings in conjunction with my local Office install.
I know the lost information is the real story, but as far as taxpayer's dollars being wasted/lost - 1100 ThinkPads is about $2M dollars. The federal government's "burn rate" is about $4.2M per minute (based on a 2.25 trillion annual budget, which was the 2005 outlays), so this constitutes less than 30 seconds of spending.
Celeron D, 256MB, 80GB HD, CDRW, 6-in-1 media reader, 17" Monitor, All-in-one printer - $149. That's why Apple's marketshare is slipping. They've done wonders to lower their prices, but the Wintel world has not been standing still.