New MS policy on Internet Windows Activation

Phoon Hencman · External Since: Sep 22, 2006 Posts: 15

On 2006-09-21 12:52:21 -0400, "Gordon"
<gordon DeleteThis @lgbpcomputing.co.uk.invalid> said:

> have just done a clean re-install of the retail copy of XP Pro that I have
> owned for 4 years, on the same un-changed laptop that it has resided on for
> that four years. The last installation was well over a YEAR ago. It failed
> the internet activation and I ended up having to speak to a customer
> services representative. I asked him why it did not activate over the
> internet. He told me that a new policy just issued is that even with retail
> copies, internet activation is now restricted to ONE instance - any more
> than that has to be over the phone.
>
> That's going to push a lot more people to Linux, isn't it?

No unfortunately. People are too stupid to change sometimes, they'll
just make the phone call. They're into pain obviously using that POS to
begin with.

If this is true, WHAT THE HELL DO MS THINK THEY ARE DOING?
>
>
Screwing the public and they know the public will let them.

Robert Newson · External Since: Apr 03, 2004 Posts: 710

Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
....
Care to comment on my original statement that if MS is going to use /Market
Share/ as opposed to /Insalled Base/ then every PS/3 being sold as a /Linux/
[games] machine is going to cause the percentage of the market share to
Linux to be high?

It'd be interesting to see how the MS Xbox market share compares to the PS/3
[Linux] market share, and what spin MS puts on it.

Robert Newson · External Since: Apr 03, 2004 Posts: 710

Rex Ballard wrote:

....
> on Linux without issues. Keep in mind that multiplayer games started
> on Unix about 20 years ago with a game called Empire.

So what was this multiplayer game of MUD I was playing on the VMS running
DEC-10 at Essex University that was written in 1980[1] by Roy Trubshaw,
Richard Bartle, etc?

[1] well copyrighted that date, so obviously [possibly] developed over the
preceeding year(s)

> It was a
> text-based came,

So was MUD, complete with other games written using the game engine: MIST,
ROCK, etc.

> but those played it got very involved in it and it
> could go for days, or even months, depending on how well you played and
> how many people were in the game.

Each game of MUD allowed upto 36 players at once (DEC-10 used a 36 bit word)
and when all the puzzles had been solved, mobiles [monsters] killed and
treasure collected the game could be reset for another one.

You could get quite a few games in one night's play (it was open for play
from 2am until about 7am). [I became an expert at MIST, being able to make
Wiz - the top level - in 7 "resets".]

> An animated version was created
> later, but many of the principles and concepts are still used today. I
> read recently that someone was trying to enforce a patent on
> multiplayer games. 20 year old technology and someone just filed a
> patent on it.

I wonder where the patent applies.

In MUD it ran on one machine with all the info being transferred internally
and only the display only being sent to the different terminals connected to
the DEC-10 (some/most across JANet).

Wasn't the patent for each remote machine to process the display? Kind of
like taking the text output of the MUD drivers and graphically displaying it?

Or perhaps each remote program getting a message like "x has entered room Y"
and each program updating its copy of the game world?[2]

[2] just like I did with the computerized version of the board game
Stockmarket I wrote back in 1994 for a Pick system - each time anyone did
anything, a message was passed to each player's program[3] telling it what
had been done; mind you, each copy of the MUD program did that on the
DEC-10, but I think it did make use of shared memory for some data storage -
I think it used shared memory to pass the messages.
[3] The message was passed externally to memory (using the filesystem), so
could quite easily have been transferred via a network instead of just on
the local machine.

Rex Ballard · External Since: Feb 22, 2006 Posts: 947

billwg wrote:
> Robert Newson wrote:
> > Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> > ...
> > Care to comment on my original statement that if MS is going to use /Market
> > Share/ as opposed to /Insalled Base/ then every PS/3 being sold as a /Linux/
> > [games] machine is going to cause the percentage of the market share to
> > Linux to be high?
> >
> You have a wrong view of "market share", bob. Market share relates to
> how much of the available market are you selling versus how much your
> rivals are selling.

That is a very legitimate view. After all, if Microsoft is selling
roughly $20 billion in royalties on $200 billion worth of computers,
each year, those are some significant numbers. Of course, if $140
billion of those computers are getting upgraded to Linux, and the other
$60 billion of those computers are being sold at "fire sales", that's
not as good a number.

Of course, Open Source technology provides the access, routers,
servers, and support systems to generate nearly $4 TRILLION in revenue.
But there's no money in open source. Wink

Still you are absolutely right. Those foolish people who put Linux,
and all of that free software like OpenOffice, FireFox, Knote, and so
on, into their computers, have more to spend on things like hardware,
services like broadband access, and of course, a few pieces of really
nice commercial software. Microsoft users are smart, they let the OEMs
mark up the machines $300 extra for Windows, $400 extra for Office, and
then discount the machine $500 if they sign a 3 year agreement to pay
$20/month to MSN, which totals $720, not including any premium
services, revenue earned by Microsoft on advertizing, and of course
Microsoft's ability to collect more information than the CIA, FBI, DHS,
DYFSS, and IRS (or their equivelants in other countries) put together.

> After all, the pupose of business is to make
> money, not establish mindshare in some population group. If you want
> to do that, you need to get into politics.

That's what Ken Lehey said.
And Martha Stewart.
And Arthur Anderson.

Silly politicians, they keep making those horrible laws. Except
copyright laws of course, those are good - especially copyright
licenses, and Digital Millenium Copyright Act.
Those are GOOD laws.

Wink

> A business measures its success by its profits compared to its
> investments.

Which makes OSS really good business. When you are the CUSTOMER,
paying extra for something you can get for much less, is good business.
If a business can save 30% on their IT costs by using OSS unstead of
Windows/Office, then that's money you can invest into things that
generate sales, like finding the customers most likely to make a
purchase, and making the most effecient approach to them - like
Advertizing in GOOGLE!!

Wink

> Market share is only a metric that can be of use in
> determining product development tactics.

Very true.

> For example, a Taurus and a
> Corvette are distinctly different vehicles.

Better yet, the Chevy Camero, and the Honda Civic.

> If GM were to look at the
> Corvette's share of a market comprised of all auto sales, they might
> despair and terminate the Corvette business as being a loser, but they
> do not do that because they can recognize that the Corvette sells to a
> distinct segment of buyers and dominates that segment.

The Camero was a really popular car, especially prior to 1974, and the
Honda Civic was almost a joke. It was a motorcyle engine in a 4 wheel
chassis. But then the gas shortage hit, baby boomers stopped getting
money from daddy, and they had to pay their own expenses.

Suddenly, in less than 2 years, Honda was selling everything they could
deliver, and "Muscle Cars" were sitting in car lots for weeks or even
months.

Chrysler was still trying to sell hot rods and muscle cars to the guys
who fought in WW-II, and wanted Muscle cars in the 1950s and station
wagons in the 1960s, and then bought muscle cars for their kids in the
early 1970s.

> They will rather evaluate the potential of the segment than their share of it.

That's what GM and Chrysler said. All those kids in the 1960s who were
buying VW bugs in college, were buying their own first cars in the
1970s, and with gas jumping from 25 cents/gallon to over $1.25 per
gallon, in less than one year, they were buying cars they could afford
to drive. They sacrificed muscle, style, and even comfort, to be able
to get to and from work every day without spending 1/2 their paycheck
on gas.

> If you have 80% of a market you will make the same decisions that you
> would if you had 99% of the market and they would be different from
> those made if you hade 20% of your product market.

I'll take your word for it. I've worked for many companies that had
20% of their market, but not even AT&T, IBM, or Prudential had 80% or
even 99% of their market.

WordPerfect once had 85% of the word processor market. But then this
little nerd started bundling Windows and Word together in a "package
deal". Lotus 1-2-3 had 85% of the spreadsheet market, but then the
same little nerd put the spreadsheet in the same bundle. Eventually he
was hauled into court, and no matter how hard the DOJ and Microsoft
tried, they couldn't get the Judge to accept a "slap on the wrist"
settlement.

Netscape had 85% of the web browser market, until the same little nerd
decided to defy the same court order that two other judges had
rejected, and then tried to tell the judge that he was stupid and
didn't understand the technology. He understood the law, but the
little nerd had his lawyer tell the appeals court that the judge was
stupid, and explaine their own version of the facts, their own way,
free from cross-examination - and the appeals court completely ignored
the original transcripts.

Is it an applet or an application? Doesn't really matter, when you
knock a dominant player with millions of customers, who is getting
revenues from the services and residuals on advertizing - completely
out of the market by defying the court order. What was really
masterful though, was that the little nerd used the victims own gun to
do the dirty deed (bought Andreeson's Mosaic to kill Andreeson's
Netscape).

> You are looking at market share as some kind of popularity contest
> result and you are not understanding what it means.

I think he understands better than you do. You only see the license
royalties, nothing else seems to matter. You get your pound of flesh
up front, and if the victim lives, you can come back for a few quarts
of blood later. Get those OEMs and milk them like cows. Get those
corporate CIOs on the support plan and milk them until they bleed red
ink. As long as you - er - i mean Microsoft, get's it's royalties,
your as happy as a pig in slop.

> It is a guide for product development and sales tactics
> and is more of a compass than a map.

Very true. Which is why what happens AFTER the sale can be as
important as what happens BEFORE the sale. Microsoft sells to OEMs and
CIOs, they don't care what end-users think. Dell, HP, and Lennovo sell
to end users, and they care deeply what end-users think. When push
from Microsoft meets push-back from End-users, something in the middle
is going to shift. The result is like an earth quake. Lots of rubble
for the previously established order (bankruptcy and bail-outs for
Chrysler, American Airlines, United Airlines, Northwest Airlines...)
and a shift to new technologies (Honda Civics, Jet Blue, and
"air-buses").

> > It'd be interesting to see how the MS Xbox market share compares to the PS/3
> > [Linux] market share, and what spin MS puts on it.
>
> Right now XBox is outselling PS2 and that is the market.

Yes. Xbox is about 1 year old and has already been followed up with
Xbox/360, how's that one doing? PS/2 is older technology and has been
holding the bulk of the user base for years. Sony is usally the first
company to introduce new technologies. They introduced the first VCR,
the first walk-man cassettes, the first portable TVs, and so on. It's
only fitting that they would be the first to introduce the LInux
Desktop machine.

> The conventional wisdom is that MS is in the game box business in order to
> have a nose in the future home network tent.

That makes sense. They want control of the minds, of information
itself. What better way to attain that control, than to gain the
ability to examine not only what we do while working on a PC, but also
what we are doing when we are relaxing. Which commercials do we watch,
which do we ignore. When watching TV, which programs keep us glued to
our seat, and which have us talking on the phone at the same time.

Microsoft may not be able to "read our minds" but good statistical
profiling will let them get the highest possible amount of cash out of
our wallets in the shortest possible time, and at the highest possible
profits, and they can do so without ever having to deal with us
directly. Microsoft makes 85% profit margins, while it's agents, OEMs,
VARs, retailers, 3rd party software companies - are lucky to make 10%
profit.margins.

> What is most interesting
> is that the Home and Entertainment business at MS is more than $4B per
> year, which is a good sized business on its own. Bigger, I think, than
> the linux businesses combined.

Actually not too far. According to one report I saw in January, Linux
is raking in about $4-6 billion/year in support licenses, royalties,
and hardware. Add another $2-4 billion in consulting. And current
estimates are that this will grow to around 16 million in support
licenses, royalties, and hardware, and about 6-8 billion in consulting.
And now they are thinking that this was underestimated.

These days, the customers are telling us to use Linux. Windows isn't
even an option.

Larry Qualig · External Since: Nov 11, 2005 Posts: 1106

Rex Ballard wrote:

> Microsoft users are smart, they let the OEMs
> mark up the machines $300 extra for Windows

Cool. You can now show us the link where we can buy a Linux machine for
$300 less than an equivalent Windows system.

> Very true. Which is why what happens AFTER the sale can be as
> important as what happens BEFORE the sale. Microsoft sells to OEMs and
> CIOs, they don't care what end-users think.

I learned this several jobs ago. You sell products to the people in the
organization who buy them. You can convince the guy in the mailroom
that your widget is the best ever. But it doesn't matter one bit if
your competitor managed to convince the management that his widget is
better.

> Dell, HP, and Lennovo sell
> to end users, and they care deeply what end-users think.

Not quite. Each of these will sell something to end users, but very,
very few of their sales are directly to end users. Example... HP and
Lenovo sell the majority of their equipment as large contract sales to
the likes of CompUSA, BestBuy, Circuit-City, etc. It then the retailers
who sell to the end user. Very few people buy their computer *directly*
from HP.

> >
> > Right now XBox is outselling PS2 and that is the market.
>
> Yes. Xbox is about 1 year old and has already been followed up with
> Xbox/360, how's that one doing?

Xbox is 1-year old? The Xbox was released in 2001. Where have you been?

> Sony is usally the first
> company to introduce new technologies.

A more accurate phrase would be "Sony was was, or used to be, or at one
time... the first company to introduce new technologies." They haven't
been the innovative leader for quite some time.

> They introduced the first VCR,
> the first walk-man cassettes, the first portable TVs, and so on.

Case in point. All of the examples you gave are well over a decade old.
Interesting that there is nothing current on your list. (Memory stick,
Audio CD's with root-kits, mini-Disc player.)

> It's
> only fitting that they would be the first to introduce the LInux
> Desktop machine.

The PS3 is not a Linux Desktop machine. It's a gaming console.

> Microsoft makes 85% profit margins

Their profit margin is 28.5%. The highest that it has ever been is 39%
and 41% and that was in 1999 and 2000 during the peak of the dot-com
era.

thad01 · External Since: Apr 20, 2005 Posts: 812

Rex Ballard <rex.ballard.TakeThisOut@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Yes. The problem is that Microsoft really can't tell anymore, whether
> you are installing it directly on the laptop, or if you are installing
> into a VMWare Image. My guess is that Microsoft has been seeing a
> sudden SURGE in activations of existing licenses, especially OEM
> licenses. Installing Windows into a VM isn't expressly prohibited by
> the license, and provides Windows users with rapid recovery
> capabilities, especially when running as a Linux client.

I've got an extra copy of WindowsXP Pro left over from a consulting
job (thought we needed it, turned out we did not). If I install it
at home, it will almost certainly be in a VMWare image. That is
absolutely my preferred way of running Windows. Not only does it
allow easy backup and recovery of your Windows environment, it allows
you to move it around more easily, and the Linux host can act as a
NAT firewall to the hosted OS.

The thing is, I haven't installed it because Linux does everything
I need. If I end up with a consulting job that really requires it,
I'll install a copy of XP at home, but otherwise my aging copy of
Windows2000 has not outlived its usefulness. I have no compelling
reason to upgrade. I'm finding the same thing among my consulting
clients. Some have moved to XP, but most are still on 2000. It
will be interesting to see how many and how quickly they move to
Vista. Many of my clients already have a sizable install base of
Linux workstations, and that could very well push out of their
engineering groups and into other areas if Microsoft makes the next
migration too painful.

Cheers,

Thad

Dave Barry · External Since: Sep 17, 2006 Posts: 8

[H]omosexual Linux User wrote:
> AFAIK the *pirate* copies of XP floating around, are actually the
> so-called "Corporate Edition" that require *no* activation.

http://groups.google.co.uk/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/9325adcd88...10f?dmo

From: Jim
"Yes, I use Windows on here. Corporate license, thank you very much."

Another frothing, lying, thieving lie-nux user admits his guilt.

thad01 · External Since: Apr 20, 2005 Posts: 812

Rex Ballard <rex.ballard.TakeThisOut@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Wintrolls can point to actual surveys like Statmarket and state that
> Linux is less than 1% of the market.
>
> I can count every single actual deployment of Linux ever done, compared
> to the number of Windows machine actually deployed in the market today,
> and come up with 55 million it 1999, or 200+ million in 2006, giving
> Linux 20% of the market today.

And of course counting Linux installs is problematic because of that
whole 'free' thing. I've worked for a couple of big corporate clients
that had sizable installs of Linux workstations. They were all
installed from a single CD set, often on white box systems
assembled in house or on retasked Windows machines. These installs
fly completely under the radar as far as official counts go. Even
for my own business and home machines, I have a couple of systems
purchased from Penguin Computing but others I built up from parts or
converted from Windows. My colo server is on the backbone and
counted by netcraft, but the rest are behind a firewall and may as
well not exist as far as any market surveys are concerned.

There is a stealth migration taking place. It is happening mainly
behind firewalls, so it is even more hidden than the server migration
that took everyone by surprise. It is still small, but growing, and
there is little MS can do to stop it.

Cheers,

Thad

thad01 · External Since: Apr 20, 2005 Posts: 812

Robert Newson <ReapNewsB RemoveThis @bullet3.fsnet.oc.ku> wrote:
>
> It'd be interesting to see how the MS Xbox market share compares to the PS/3
> [Linux] market share, and what spin MS puts on it.

Well, correct me if I'm wrong, but right now PS3 has a market share of
zero. One hopes for the purposes of platform diversity it does well,
but its a little early to pin our hopes on Sony as the great new Linux
champion. Still, I'm looking forward to the PS3 release and might
even pick one up, if for no other reason than the hardware might be
fun to hack on. Smile

Thad

billwg · External Since: Aug 15, 2006 Posts: 393

Rex Ballard wrote:
> billwg wrote:
> > Robert Newson wrote:

>
> That is a very legitimate view. After all, if Microsoft is selling
> roughly $20 billion in royalties on $200 billion worth of computers,
> each year, those are some significant numbers. Of course, if $140
> billion of those computers are getting upgraded to Linux, and the other
> $60 billion of those computers are being sold at "fire sales", that's
> not as good a number.
>
The only number in your hypothetical series that is important to
Microsoft is $20B, rex, and the actual number is about twice that.
That $40B is what pays for the salaries of the MS employees and the
dividends and accumulated earnings for the stockholders. If the owners
of the computers that the $40B in softare is running on decide to
change to linux, that bodes ill for the reorders down the road, of
course, but nothing pulls the original $40B back.

> Of course, Open Source technology provides the access, routers,
> servers, and support systems to generate nearly $4 TRILLION in revenue.
> But there's no money in open source. Wink

>
Well, rex, the money is not in open source, it is in selling those
systems. I think that you are delusional in your belief that the
importance of any OSS dependency is so high, but that is what makes you
so cute.

>
> > After all, the pupose of business is to make
> > money, not establish mindshare in some population group. If you want
> > to do that, you need to get into politics.
>
> That's what Ken Lehey said.
> And Martha Stewart.
> And Arthur Anderson.
>
> Silly politicians, they keep making those horrible laws. Except
> copyright laws of course, those are good - especially copyright
> licenses, and Digital Millenium Copyright Act.
> Those are GOOD laws.
>
Kind of dopy there, rex. Are you proposing that the purpose of
business is to win friends amongst the dweebs?

>
> WordPerfect once had 85% of the word processor market. But then this
> little nerd started bundling Windows and Word together in a "package
> deal". Lotus 1-2-3 had 85% of the spreadsheet market, but then the
> same little nerd put the spreadsheet in the same bundle. Eventually he
> was hauled into court, and no matter how hard the DOJ and Microsoft
> tried, they couldn't get the Judge to accept a "slap on the wrist"
> settlement.

Well, rex, you are falsely stating the facts. MS Office and Windows
were never bundled by Microsoft. The reason that Lotus and WordPerfect
lost their market shares of the office automation software market was
their gross misjudgement of the probablity that Windows would triumph
over OS/2. They were not very enthusiastic about dignifying Windows
with the GUI versions of their premier products and so delayed any
development for Windows in favor of OS/2 versions. When OS/2 failed to
get off the pad, they were left holding the empty bag and never managed
to gain back the customers who had switched to Word and Excel as the
only available products for Windows.

>
> Netscape had 85% of the web browser market, until the same little nerd
> decided to defy the same court order that two other judges had
> rejected, and then tried to tell the judge that he was stupid and
> didn't understand the technology. He understood the law, but the
> little nerd had his lawyer tell the appeals court that the judge was
> stupid, and explaine their own version of the facts, their own way,
> free from cross-examination - and the appeals court completely ignored
> the original transcripts.
>
Well, rex, you are letting your biases overwhelm your sense of reality!
LOL!!!

Netscape had a virtual lock on browsers at an early stage and were even
offered a sort of non-aggression pact by Sir Gates for the Windows
world. The only kicker was that Netscape would have to make their
money off of upgrades to what MSFT wanted to call a basic capability.
NSCP was a little arrogant in their belief that no one else could get
up the technology curve well enough to challenge their own monopoly so
the deal was rejected and the rest is history. Turned out that
Netscape was a one-trick pony that couldn't stay the course.

> Is it an applet or an application? Doesn't really matter, when you
> knock a dominant player with millions of customers, who is getting
> revenues from the services and residuals on advertizing - completely
> out of the market by defying the court order. What was really
> masterful though, was that the little nerd used the victims own gun to
> do the dirty deed (bought Andreeson's Mosaic to kill Andreeson's
> Netscape).
>
What court order, rex? MS offered Netscape the opportunity to own the
Windows space, but they were spurned. They went to the second choice
and purchased the incredibly nifty IE 1.0 for what ended up as $8M
bucks. A lot of people thought the Spyglass product to be distinctly
inferior to the one from Netscape and MS had to get their own boys to
work in coming up with something better, which they of course did.

> > You are looking at market share as some kind of popularity contest
> > result and you are not understanding what it means.
>
> I think he understands better than you do. You only see the license
> royalties, nothing else seems to matter. You get your pound of flesh
> up front, and if the victim lives, you can come back for a few quarts
> of blood later. Get those OEMs and milk them like cows. Get those
> corporate CIOs on the support plan and milk them until they bleed red
> ink. As long as you - er - i mean Microsoft, get's it's royalties,
> your as happy as a pig in slop.
>
You can look at it that way, rex, but you are missing the true picture.
" Keep your customers satisfied." was Bill Gates' secret plan. The
corporate CIOs were eager for the opportunity to solve a few problems.

> > It is a guide for product development and sales tactics
> > and is more of a compass than a map.
>
> Very true. Which is why what happens AFTER the sale can be as
> important as what happens BEFORE the sale. Microsoft sells to OEMs and
> CIOs, they don't care what end-users think. Dell, HP, and Lennovo sell
> to end users, and they care deeply what end-users think. When push
> from Microsoft meets push-back from End-users, something in the middle
> is going to shift. The result is like an earth quake. Lots of rubble
> for the previously established order (bankruptcy and bail-outs for
> Chrysler, American Airlines, United Airlines, Northwest Airlines...)
> and a shift to new technologies (Honda Civics, Jet Blue, and
> "air-buses").

Ah, rex, you are fantasizing again! You hope, but you never get any
satisfaction!

>

>
> > The conventional wisdom is that MS is in the game box business in order to
> > have a nose in the future home network tent.
>
> That makes sense. They want control of the minds, of information
> itself. What better way to attain that control, than to gain the
> ability to examine not only what we do while working on a PC, but also
> what we are doing when we are relaxing. Which commercials do we watch,
> which do we ignore. When watching TV, which programs keep us glued to
> our seat, and which have us talking on the phone at the same time.
>
What they are buying is "presence" and "expectation", rex. The poor
souls and other sad sacks that populate the linux/OSS worlds do not
seem to understand that, but when it comes time to plunk down some
moola for a game box or a media center or whatever comes next, people
see a familiar brand, like Microsoft, and are likely to feel more
confident in making an early decision.

> Microsoft may not be able to "read our minds" but good statistical
> profiling will let them get the highest possible amount of cash out of
> our wallets in the shortest possible time, and at the highest possible
> profits, and they can do so without ever having to deal with us
> directly. Microsoft makes 85% profit margins, while it's agents, OEMs,
> VARs, retailers, 3rd party software companies - are lucky to make 10%
> profit.margins.
>
> > What is most interesting
> > is that the Home and Entertainment business at MS is more than $4B per
> > year, which is a good sized business on its own. Bigger, I think, than
> > the linux businesses combined.
>
> Actually not too far. According to one report I saw in January, Linux
> is raking in about $4-6 billion/year in support licenses, royalties,
> and hardware. Add another $2-4 billion in consulting. And current
> estimates are that this will grow to around 16 million in support
> licenses, royalties, and hardware, and about 6-8 billion in consulting.
> And now they are thinking that this was underestimated.
>
Well it is a very stealthy cash flow then, rex! You should tell the
IRS about it and maybe you could get a finder's fee on those unreported
and untaxed billions! LOL!!!
Right now, the only visible cash is what is flowing into the hands of
Red Hat, some billion or more a year. Novell has only about 10% of the
linux cash that Red Hat seems to have corralled. No one else is making
a dime.

> These days, the customers are telling us to use Linux. Windows isn't
> even an option.

You think so? I don't.

billwg · External Since: Aug 15, 2006 Posts: 393

Larry Qualig wrote:

>
> Case in point. All of the examples you gave are well over a decade old.
> Interesting that there is nothing current on your list. (Memory stick,
> Audio CD's with root-kits, mini-Disc player.)
>
You are forgetting their latest "hot" seller, larry. Think lithium
batteries.

Roy Schestowitz · External Since: Jun 26, 2005 Posts: 26136

__/ [ Rex Ballard ] on Friday 22 September 2006 16:06 \__

> Linonut wrote:
>> After takin' a swig o' grog, Gordon belched out this bit o' wisdom:
> [snip]
>> > That's going to push a lot more people to Linux, isn't it?
>> > If this is true, WHAT THE HELL DO MS THINK THEY ARE DOING?
>>
>> It's not really true. MS has a dominant position that will be hard to
>> lose, since the majority of people cannot conceive of alternatives.
>>
>> It'll probably give Linux a 1% or 2% boost.
>
> If there is a bear in the bush, but you can't see it, then it's safe to
> go to sleep, right?
>
> You go back to sleep, I'll leave a couple of salmon in your tent, and
> if you're right,
> I'll see you tomorrow.
>
> Wink

If the bear is dual-boot, then you can fall asleep with great comfort. Just
pretend that this bear is Bambi, so long as the forest (OEM's) suggest so.
Ignorance is bliss, but there is no bliss in the mind of the happy camper.
Hopefully, however, the camper can keep a straight face and no make any
sudden movement that rattles the tent and make an observer aware the this
blissful ignorance is unjustified. It's all just an illusion. Now go back to
sleep... if you can manage.

thad01 · External Since: Apr 20, 2005 Posts: 812

Rex Ballard <rex.ballard.DeleteThis@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> If there is a bear in the bush, but you can't see it, then it's safe to
> go to sleep, right?
>
> You go back to sleep, I'll leave a couple of salmon in your tent, and
> if you're right,
> I'll see you tomorrow.

It's OK to go to sleep... as long as you assign an interrupt to wake
you up when the bear initiates a service request. > Smile

Thad

Lawrence D'Oliveiro · External Since: Oct 29, 2004 Posts: 548

In message <1158868616.660768.217610 DeleteThis @k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, Rex
Ballard wrote:

> Sony decided to retaliate against the X-Box, by selling it's PS3 as a
> Linux machine.

This sort of thing mystifies me. All versions of the XBox and PlayStation
have been sold at a loss, which means that more than 100% of the profits
have to come from selling the games. So if the companies start promoting
their games consoles as suitable for things other than those games (whether
as an entertainment centre, running Linux or whatever), it's inevitably
going to mean fewer games sold, which means less profit.

Diversifying from games just doesn't jibe with the loss-leader business
model.

thad01 · External Since: Apr 20, 2005 Posts: 812

Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo.RemoveThis@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
>
> This sort of thing mystifies me. All versions of the XBox and PlayStation
> have been sold at a loss, which means that more than 100% of the profits
> have to come from selling the games. So if the companies start promoting
> their games consoles as suitable for things other than those games (whether
> as an entertainment centre, running Linux or whatever), it's inevitably
> going to mean fewer games sold, which means less profit.
>
> Diversifying from games just doesn't jibe with the loss-leader business
> model.

What this probably means is they see other ways of monetizing that
asset. Music and movie online sales, rented applications, subscription
services, etc. The question is, to what extent will they lock down
the environment to extract revenue from third party application and
service providers. Time will tell.

Thad

Lawrence D'Oliveiro · External Since: Oct 29, 2004 Posts: 548

In message <1158922804.107674.8210.DeleteThis@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>, Rex
Ballard wrote:

>
> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>> In message <1158868616.660768.217610.DeleteThis@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, Rex
>> Ballard wrote:
>>
>> > Sony decided to retaliate against the X-Box, by selling it's PS3 as a
>> > Linux machine.
>>
>> This sort of thing mystifies me. All versions of the XBox and PlayStation
>> have been sold at a loss, which means that more than 100% of the profits
>> have to come from selling the games. So if the companies start promoting
>> their games consoles as suitable for things other than those games
>> (whether as an entertainment centre, running Linux or whatever), it's
>> inevitably going to mean fewer games sold, which means less profit.
>
> But even games aren't that much of a money maker.

Enough to make Sony's PlayStation division profitable. And probably enough
for Nintendo too. But not enough for Microsoft's XBox division.

> On the other hand,
> using a playstation with keyboard as an appliance to sell services -
> pure gold.

What services will Sony be offering?

Jim · External Since: Apr 21, 2005 Posts: 996

Dave Barry came up with this when he headbutted the keyboard a moment ago in
comp.os.linux.advocacy:

> [H]omosexual Linux User wrote:
>> AFAIK the *pirate* copies of XP floating around, are actually the
>> so-called "Corporate Edition" that require *no* activation.
>
>
>
>
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/9325adcd88...10f?dmo
>
> From: Jim
> "Yes, I use Windows on here. Corporate license, thank you very much."
>
>
>
>
>
> Another frothing, lying, thieving lie-nux user admits his guilt.

Are you going to pick a seventeen month old post to try and discredit
everyone? Because if you are, just say so.
--
-*-Some people are like Slinkies; they serve no specific purpose,
but they bring a smile to your face when you push them down the stairs.
-*- Linux Desktops & Clustering Solutions -*- http://dotware.co.uk
-*- Registered Linux user #426308 -*- http://counter.li.org
-*- We now return you to your regularly scheduled broadcast.
-*- Contemplating Knife -*- Which end do the bullets go in again?
-*- I can't wait to get to heaven and meet seventy virgins - I've yet to
meet *one* on *Earth*!
-*- For sale: one (1) Fender Phantom air guitar. £500 ONO
-*- For sale: one (1) Italian WWII bolt-action rifle. .303cal, never fired,
only dropped once. Offers.
-*- That's it. No more coffee for *that* man!

Dave Barry · External Since: Sep 17, 2006 Posts: 8

Jim wrote:
> Dave Barry came up with this when he headbutted the keyboard a moment
> ago in comp.os.linux.advocacy:
>
>> [H]omosexual Linux User wrote:
>>> AFAIK the *pirate* copies of XP floating around, are actually the
>>> so-called "Corporate Edition" that require *no* activation.
>>
>>
>>
>>
> http://groups.google.co.uk/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/9325adcd88...10f?dmo
>>
>> From: Jim
>> "Yes, I use Windows on here. Corporate license, thank you very much."
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Another frothing, lying, thieving lie-nux user admits his guilt.
>
> Are you going to pick a seventeen month old post to try and discredit
> everyone? Because if you are, just say so.

You did a splendid job all by yourself.

Well done, Jimbo. Smile

billwg · External Since: Aug 15, 2006 Posts: 393

Rex Ballard wrote:
>
> If ...

"If ifs and ands were pots and pans...", rex, there might be more linux
users, but linux has been just around the corner since the RHAT IPO and
that's almost a decade ago. Yet they are in fourth or fifth place in
servers and dead last on the desktop.

You construct a lot of hypothetical propositions and then draw some
conclusion, but you are still being totally delusional, rex. Maybe
worse.

>
> Perhaps you've lost touch with the market.

Could be, rex, I only have looked at software sales and internet client
usage.

I have a community website for the subdivison and the stats log shows 1
linux user and that is actually me when I am testing changes. Now that
is not a demographic representation, but it is a complete sample of
some 500 homeowners who live in the same community and consist of
people who are upper middle class and generally able to investigate
alternatives in areas where they have an interest. About 60% of them
are signed up for accounts on the web site. None chose linux. Not
very many more ever heard of linux. We even have 5 residents that I
know of who are IT department managers for various companies and
government agencies.

That doesn't prove anything, of couse, but it tells me that linux
advocates are doing a poor job of getting any recognition much less
acceptance in the general population.

alt · External Since: Oct 03, 2004 Posts: 355

On Fri, 22 Sep 2006 05:45:03 -0500, Robt. Miller wrote:

>
> I did a demo of a "Disposable Windows" machine, an XP VM on SuSE that
> used SuSE Samba shares for the XP data storage - you could totally destroy
> the XP config, click an icon, and in under 5 minutes you'd be back working
> with your previous configuration. We're soon going to experiment with
> Exchange set up the same way.

With the power of computers these days, I can see a lot more people doing
this with their workstations just so they can use legacy Win32-only
software.