- Site menu:
- Latest Discussions
- Latest Newswire
- Archives
- Submit Story
- Story HOWTO
- Syndicate
- E-mail Alerts
IDC: Linux server shipments shrink as enterprises consolidate ...
|
|
|
Comments (47)
27 earlier comments in the full thread.
I'm with Jim on this one. I would not be willing to provide support for a nominal fee under the auspices of a for-profit company. Pastors get paid to build volunteer communities, and I could go for that. But I have no interest in volunteering for a for-profit enterprise.
abe,
Professionals aren't necessarily much better than the unwashed masses I was talking about.
I've worked with many a cheapskate doctor who aren't comfortable with anything but what they can buy from a big-name store, supposedly because they have less risk of being left to their own devices for IT support. These people will readily admit that they are not computer literate. But that doesn't mean they are stupid or that they want to be treated like they are. One doctor I helped move offices 7 years ago was still using MS-DOS 6. Why? Because she didn't want to spend the $1500 to upgrade the billing package she had - it still worked so why bother?. And I've found just as many lawyers to be much the same. In the construction engineering firms - if it isn't Autocad, forget it.
The idea with FOSS has always been where there's an itch, scratch it. So the question we need to answer is: Where do the professionals and students shop for IT needs? Where do they itch? We cannot reasonably expect them to come to us - we need to meet them on their turf. And their turf is in the big name retailers: Office Depot, Office Max, CompUSA, etc.
Professionals aren't necessarily much better than the unwashed masses I was talking about.
I've worked with many a cheapskate doctor who aren't comfortable with anything but what they can buy from a big-name store, supposedly because they have less risk of being left to their own devices for IT support. These people will readily admit that they are not computer literate. But that doesn't mean they are stupid or that they want to be treated like they are. One doctor I helped move offices 7 years ago was still using MS-DOS 6. Why? Because she didn't want to spend the $1500 to upgrade the billing package she had - it still worked so why bother?. And I've found just as many lawyers to be much the same. In the construction engineering firms - if it isn't Autocad, forget it.
The idea with FOSS has always been where there's an itch, scratch it. So the question we need to answer is: Where do the professionals and students shop for IT needs? Where do they itch? We cannot reasonably expect them to come to us - we need to meet them on their turf. And their turf is in the big name retailers: Office Depot, Office Max, CompUSA, etc.
> There is a very large population out there that uses a dial-up service like NetZero and PeoplePC as their only internet connection.
For a significant portion of that population, dialup is their ownly available option. :(
For a significant portion of that population, dialup is their ownly available option. :(
Quoting:Sorry, I just don't agree.That is the prerogative of everyone but it doesn't mean everyone agrees with you either. How do you explain the many people who contribute to K/Ubuntu and spend much of their time on its forum? Aren't many of them volunteers?
Quoting:Professionals aren't necessarily much better than the unwashed masses I was talking about.But usually these groups are more enlightened about the issues and more receptive to new ideas. Then again, what else could we do? we can't win them all, can we?
Quoting:I don't think that's the way to do itYou haven't given me a good reason why not, do you have a better approach? We have been trying to break that cycle by enticing the major OEMs and haven't been very successful. Or at least, it hasn't been easy or quick enough in our opinion. MS has been more successful in keeping those OEMs in their corner by offering them lucrative incentives. FOSS doesn't have that luxury. So what do you suggest we do?
Quoting:The idea with FOSS has always been where there's an itch, scratch it. needs?Not any more for an itch, and the itch could be different than just needing a software tool or feature. It could be saving money, better and more reliable software, not to be dependent on a convicted monopolist, and the list goes on.
Quoting:So the question we need to answer is: Where do the professionals and students shop for IT where they already shop?Office Depot, Office Max, CompUSA, etc. all follow and go along with the major OEMs, so it is the same problem as the OEMs. Why not have a new OEM that can work with these outfits? Besides, why does it have to be one of these outfits any way if it has been difficult to convince them to come along?
Quoting: >Why not have a new OEM that can work with these outfits?
I think that's probably the best solution. The next question is: How do we get that? What would it take for the corporate buyers for these guys to take on a Linux-based OEM?
Quoting:The next question is: How do we get that? What would it take for the corporate buyers for these guys to take on a Linux-based OEM?Hmm, I thought I gave my initial suggestion. I guess that was good enough. Well, here is another one.
Variuos Linux distributors get together and pool in some of the resource and offer supported hardware and contribute to a software support network (volunteers included). That would also be open for FOSS investors. Heck form a company with share holders from the community with some sort of rules and guidlines. when FOSS becomes largely popular, don't you think there will be various support centers created offering support for a fee? It is a fact of life, it exists already but to a limited extent and will expand. And why does it have to be the same old guys?
> How do you explain the many people who contribute to K/Ubuntu and spend much of their time on its forum? Aren't many of them volunteers?
Abe, you keep mixing up the volunteers in the 'not for profit', and the 'justifiably paid employees' of a Corporation. I'd have no problem with volunteering support for K/Ubuntu, or even Open SuSe or Fedora. Canonical, Red Hat, and Novell are quite another matter. Corporate entities are out to make a profit for the stockholder, and as such need to remember the axiom "It's the cost of doing business". That's a phrase that all of them would all love to forget, but true none the less.
Abe, you keep mixing up the volunteers in the 'not for profit', and the 'justifiably paid employees' of a Corporation. I'd have no problem with volunteering support for K/Ubuntu, or even Open SuSe or Fedora. Canonical, Red Hat, and Novell are quite another matter. Corporate entities are out to make a profit for the stockholder, and as such need to remember the axiom "It's the cost of doing business". That's a phrase that all of them would all love to forget, but true none the less.
Quoting:you keep mixing up the volunteers in the 'not for profit',People have the choice not to volunteer, no one twisting any arms.
Quoting:Corporate entities are out to make a profit for the stockholder,...Do you have a problem with Corporations making money? Again, the main goal here is to get FOSS to proliferate even with the help from Corporations who want to make money. You have got to give them some incentive to help. Making reasonable money is better than kickbacks given by you know who.
Please, don't give me the line of "Either you are with us or against us!"
LXer is owned by a corporation. Is LXer only out to make a profit for its stockholders (a.k.a. owners)? Are the editors "volunteers" or are they "justifiably paid employees"? Is WebMarket, Inc. a "not-for-profit"? Many "not-for-profits" are extremely lucrative for the individuals running them. It is merely an accounting distinction, not a moral one, though it is usually put into practice under moral auspices. "Not-for-profit" does not mean "not-out-to-make-money"...the truth is quite the opposite.
(I'm not implying anything negative about LXer, I'm just making an illustration for the sake of argument.)
(I'm not implying anything negative about LXer, I'm just making an illustration for the sake of argument.)
> Do you have a problem with Corporations making money?
As a rule, no, but, I do think that we always have to be suspicious of Corporate motivations.
> Please, don't give me the line of "Either you are with us or against us!"
No, that line is all yours Abe ;-)
As a rule, no, but, I do think that we always have to be suspicious of Corporate motivations.
> Please, don't give me the line of "Either you are with us or against us!"
No, that line is all yours Abe ;-)
Quoting:(I'm not implying anything negative about LXer, I'm just making an illustration for the sake of argument.)
Tuxtom, Thanks for mentioning it. It illustrates the point very well.
If I might add, take Mozilla for instance, last year they made over $60 million from Google proceeds. FireFox is all built by volunteers who some of them got rewarded and others didn't
Kubuntu is built by volunteers just like Fedora. Although they get some funding from Canonical but I don't think Canonical controls them.
There are many other examples.
If people want to volunteer for a for-profit company, that is fine with me. Programmers can also volunteer for Microsoft if they want.
I'm skeptical that you'd have a lot of people saying "let me donate my time so you can make money off of the code written by other people." Perhaps they would, but as an empirical matter, I doubt it.
I'm skeptical that you'd have a lot of people saying "let me donate my time so you can make money off of the code written by other people." Perhaps they would, but as an empirical matter, I doubt it.
Quoting:No, that line is all yours Abe ;-)
Hay Thanks, I need to use that some times!
Quoting:but, I do think that we always have to be suspicious of Corporate motivations.
No doubt, I strongly agree
> (I'm not implying anything negative about LXer, I'm just making an illustration for the sake of argument.)
All you're illustrating is the convolution of the legal structure, and, of how some people pervert it to their own benefit. Some will do that no matter what the label. Again, it pays to be suspicious.
At this point, I guess you have to go on past history, and to some extent on gut feeling. LXer passes that test with flying colors for me. Not so much with Canonical.
All you're illustrating is the convolution of the legal structure, and, of how some people pervert it to their own benefit. Some will do that no matter what the label. Again, it pays to be suspicious.
At this point, I guess you have to go on past history, and to some extent on gut feeling. LXer passes that test with flying colors for me. Not so much with Canonical.
> If I might add, take Mozilla for instance
Ooh... that one still smarts...
I well remember Netscape starting the Mozilla project to save their dieing business. In that case the scam of getting people to work for free backfired and Mozilla became the dominant survivor... ironic in the extreme. Still, that was not fair treatment of the volunteers, and, I still have very mixed feelings about Mozilla, even though they've long ago cleaned up their act.
Ooh... that one still smarts...
I well remember Netscape starting the Mozilla project to save their dieing business. In that case the scam of getting people to work for free backfired and Mozilla became the dominant survivor... ironic in the extreme. Still, that was not fair treatment of the volunteers, and, I still have very mixed feelings about Mozilla, even though they've long ago cleaned up their act.
"All you're illustrating is the convolution of the legal structure, and, of how some people pervert it to their own benefit..."
That statement just about sums up whichever side of the issue one happens to find oneself on. I, too, am suspicious of corporate motivations, but I am equally suspicious of any hard-line, far-right or far-left motivations...including the protestations of the more fervent proponents of the FOSS movement.
That statement just about sums up whichever side of the issue one happens to find oneself on. I, too, am suspicious of corporate motivations, but I am equally suspicious of any hard-line, far-right or far-left motivations...including the protestations of the more fervent proponents of the FOSS movement.
>If people want to volunteer for a for-profit company, that is fine with me. Programmers can also volunteer for Microsoft if they want.
As it is, people working on free software projects without pay are volunteering to work for IBM, RedHat, Novell, Canonical, the company I'm working at for the next few weeks, and any other corporation that packages, installs, sells services around, or uses free software.
As it is, people working on free software projects without pay are volunteering to work for IBM, RedHat, Novell, Canonical, the company I'm working at for the next few weeks, and any other corporation that packages, installs, sells services around, or uses free software.
> As it is, people working on free software projects without pay are volunteering to work for IBM, RedHat, Novell, Canonical, the company I'm working at for the next few weeks, and any other corporation that packages, installs, sells services around, or uses free software.
Quite true, but they are not volunteering to work as what would essentially be "unpaid employees". They are simply giving away the software and allowing companies to benefit from it.
Quite true, but they are not volunteering to work as what would essentially be "unpaid employees". They are simply giving away the software and allowing companies to benefit from it.
> As it is, people working on free software projects without pay are volunteering to work for IBM, RedHat, Novell, Canonical,
No, they are hiring IBM, RedHat, Novell, and Canonical to distribute and maintain their software for free.
No, they are hiring IBM, RedHat, Novell, and Canonical to distribute and maintain their software for free.
>No, they are hiring IBM, RedHat, Novell, and Canonical to distribute and maintain their software for free.
And not feeling bad if people make a profit in the process.
There are lots of organizational arrangements. There are non-profits where the organization may not make any money, but the administrators rake in big bucks. There are companies that make handsome profits and still manage to do Lots of Good Stuff -- more than many non-profits.
Making money ain't evil. We all do it or we don't have a place to live, food to eat, and a way to take care of our kids.
The real question when you volunteer is whether you are doing the good that you think you are doing.
And not feeling bad if people make a profit in the process.
There are lots of organizational arrangements. There are non-profits where the organization may not make any money, but the administrators rake in big bucks. There are companies that make handsome profits and still manage to do Lots of Good Stuff -- more than many non-profits.
Making money ain't evil. We all do it or we don't have a place to live, food to eat, and a way to take care of our kids.
The real question when you volunteer is whether you are doing the good that you think you are doing.
Post a comment
A free account is needed to post. Write your comment here first: your text is kept in this browser while you sign up or log in, and is waiting for you when you come back.
Your message:Markdown: **bold**, *italic*, [text](https://link), - lists, > quotes, $x^2$ for math. Formatting help
Sign up and post (it is free) or Log in and post