 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/10/22/what_is_linux_worth/
'Nuff said ;-)
John
--
"Eppur si muove" - Galileo Galilei
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 22 Oct 2008 17:41:25 +0100, Doctor John wrote:
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/10/22/what_is_linux_worth/
>
> 'Nuff said ;-)
>
> John
Cost != Worth. ;-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Oct 2008 17:41:25 +0100, Doctor John wrote:
>
>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/10/22/what_is_linux_worth/
>>
>> 'Nuff said ;-)
>>
>> John
>
> Cost != Worth. ;-)
>
> Jim
I know that :-)
Just pointing out to those who expect to pay nothing what the actual
value of what they're getting is.
BTW FWIW I invariably recommend SuSE Enterprise to clients who prefer to
install Linux for the first time.
John
--
"Eppur si muove" - Galileo Galilei
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Doctor John wrote:
> Just pointing out to those who expect to pay nothing what the actual
> value of what they're getting is.
Value and cost are two entirely different things. That's kind of the point.
(Also, his estimates apparently leave out the cost of developing UNIX
before Linux was started. But that's just an aside.)
"The important thing is that Linux distributions have a very large
inherent value" -- Wrong word. The word there is "cost", not "value."
Put it this way: the "value" of one Fedora is supposedly $10b. Would
anyone pay $300m today for the source code and exclusive right to
distribute something new that does exactly what Linux does right now? I
doubt it.
Would anyone pay $300m today for the source code and exclusive right to
distribute something that does exactly what MS Windows and Office do
right now? I bet you could find a taker for that.
Linux has value, but you can't equate the value with the cost if you're
not selling it. It doesn't matter how much it cost if people don't
want it even when you're giving it away free. (Indeed, for something
like software, it's almost impossible to equate cost with value either.)
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Orchid XP v8
Subject: Re: Linux really costs a _lot_ more than $40
Date: 22 Oct 2008 15:46:14
Message: <48ff8306@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Value and cost are two entirely different things. That's kind of the point.
Director: What's the matter?
Doctor: Do you know, it's the damnest thing... I can't seem to find my
sonic screwdriver...
Director: Are you seriously proposing to dismantle a £50,000,000 machine
with a screwdriver?
Doctor: It's not worth 50,000,000 *peas* if it doesn't *work*, is it?
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 22 Oct 2008 20:11:39 +0100, Doctor John wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Wed, 22 Oct 2008 17:41:25 +0100, Doctor John wrote:
>>
>>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/10/22/what_is_linux_worth/
>>>
>>> 'Nuff said ;-)
>>>
>>> John
>>
>> Cost != Worth. ;-)
>>
>> Jim
>
> I know that :-)
> Just pointing out to those who expect to pay nothing what the actual
> value of what they're getting is.
I figured you did realise this, but some lurkers might not make that
connection. :-)
It is true - and particularly interesting to me as well - that some
people think if something's free there's no value to it. That's actually
why sometimes it makes sense to charge for something you might give
away. For example, I have held summits for instructors the last couple
of years and we've held them as no-cost events. Attendance was not as
good as we'd hoped, so this year in our discussions, we're talking about
it being a no-cost event with a cancellation fee or with a nominal
registration fee in general.
Even though the information presented would be of a similar nature to
those past events, the draw and engagement changes if people have to pay,
even a small fee.
> BTW FWIW I invariably recommend SuSE Enterprise to clients who prefer to
> install Linux for the first time.
My wife and I appreciate that - that helps us pay our bills. ;-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
>
> My wife and I appreciate that - that helps us pay our bills. ;-)
>
> Jim
De nada :-)
John
--
"Eppur si muove" - Galileo Galilei
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 escreveu:
> Darren New wrote:
>
>> Value and cost are two entirely different things. That's kind of the
>> point.
>
> Director: What's the matter?
>
> Doctor: Do you know, it's the damnest thing... I can't seem to find my
> sonic screwdriver...
>
> Director: Are you seriously proposing to dismantle a £50,000,000 machine
> with a screwdriver?
>
> Doctor: It's not worth 50,000,000 *peas* if it doesn't *work*, is it?
All this talk about things worth shit reminded of "Le Vin de Merde", a
chep new wine label from France:
http://www.whytraveltofrance.com/2008/09/17/le-vin-de-merde/
Linux works just fine as long as you do not depend on Microsoft
technologies, in which case you'll be whining to no end about
incompatibilities, bugs, missing features and whatever...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Darren New
Subject: Re: Linux really costs a _lot_ more than $40
Date: 23 Oct 2008 13:58:04
Message: <4900bb2c@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis wrote:
> Linux works just fine as long as you do not depend on Microsoft
> technologies,
More correctly, it works just fine if it supports all your hardware and
none of the programs you want to use were written by companies or people
who depended on Microsoft technologies. (E.g., if you want to play a
game and the game author depended on DirectX, you're pretty much SOL.)
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: nemesis
Subject: Re: Linux really costs a _lot_ more than $40
Date: 23 Oct 2008 14:24:15
Message: <4900c14f@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New escreveu:
> nemesis wrote:
>> Linux works just fine as long as you do not depend on Microsoft
>> technologies,
>
> More correctly, it works just fine if it supports all your hardware and
> none of the programs you want to use were written by companies or people
> who depended on Microsoft technologies. (E.g., if you want to play a
> game and the game author depended on DirectX, you're pretty much SOL.)
>
True. And here's the secret about getting your compatible hardware
without much ado:
http://www.linux-drivers.org/
Check before you buy new hardware or if you plan to install Linux on
your current hardware. Most core stuff work out of the box, but
new-fangled peripherals are quite often difficult to support because
they target Windows and the Linux drivers may have to do some reverse
engineering to support it. If it is hardware compatible with a
well-known standard, like USB, it's very much well supported. Little
known hardware specific for Windows will most likely never be supported...
If you want games, Unix is not for you, unless it is nethack or conway's
game of life. ;)
Povray works fine on Linux, though. :)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
