It's always good to see...
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| dinotrac Sep 28, 2007 6:28 AM EDT |
an unbiased source presenting the unvarnished truth. |
| jdixon Sep 28, 2007 6:46 AM EDT |
I think you forgot your sarcasm tags Dino. :) |
| hchaudh1 Sep 28, 2007 6:56 AM EDT |
Yep! I was at Novell's headquarters just this morning. All I could see was shaven headed buddhist monks praying blissfully for world peace. |
| NoDough Sep 28, 2007 7:01 AM EDT |
I don't see how you can say that about this article. Sure, he may happen to agree with your position, but where are the hard figures to back up his position. This is purely an op/ed. What's more, the numbers which the author provides as evidence of declining Linux business actually show it is increasing. To wit: let's start with some arbitrary number to use as Novell's Linux sales, say 10,000 units. Then we'll apply the year-over-year growth numbers from the article. 10,000 units + 659% = 75,900 units an increase of 65,900 units 75,900 units + 114% = 162,426 units an increase of 86,526 units 162,426 units + 95% = 316,731 units an increase of 154,305 units I'm sorry, explain to me again how this is a slowdown in sales. Edit: Well, had I noticed that it was Dino posting, I would have surely caught the sarcasm. Yep. Dino, I agree. The author is off his rocker. |
| dinotrac Sep 28, 2007 7:02 AM EDT |
>I think you forgot your sarcasm tags Dino. :) If you have to tag it, it's no good! |
| dinotrac Sep 28, 2007 7:10 AM EDT |
>I'm sorry, explain to me again how this is a slowdown in sales. NoDough - Don't you see? It's a slowdown in the percentage growth! By now, if they were REALLY growing, they'd be increasing at an annual rate of at least 2,000%. Let's see : 659% + 659% = 1318% * 75,900 = 1,362,000 units, plus the original 75,900 = 1,437,900 which should have been followed up with: 659% + 659% + 659% =1977 % * 1,437,900 = 28,427,283 units add in the original 1,437,900, and you get 29,865,183 units. Now THAT would be some growth. Seriously, your lack of analytical skills shocks me. |
| NoDough Sep 28, 2007 7:23 AM EDT |
>> Seriously, your lack of analytical skills shocks me. Yeah, what was I thinking. It's only just now that I've realized that every business I've ever known has been a complete failure. |
| dinotrac Sep 28, 2007 7:31 AM EDT |
>Yeah, what was I thinking. It's only just now that I've realized that every business I've ever known has been a complete failure. Exactly. |
| NoDough Sep 28, 2007 8:15 AM EDT |
I posted my math as a comment to the author's post. He has responded to me, and you gotta read it! http://boycottnovell.com/2007/09/27/novell-spin/ |
| hchaudh1 Sep 28, 2007 8:27 AM EDT |
@NoDough Actually the reply is not by the poster. And two, it makes sense to me. But I am not aware of which quarters exactly are those percentages taken from? If anyone could provide that, it would be great. You could be right in the sense that Novell's Linux market is getting to be saturated and so the percentage increase numbers are down. On the other hand, Roy could be right also in that after cashing in the Novell vouchers, Novell's new client acquisitions are slowing down. I guess it will be clearer next year or in a couple more quarters. |
| Bob_Robertson Sep 28, 2007 8:56 AM EDT |
> Don't you see? It's a slowdown in the percentage growth! Hey! That's what Congress uses to say they are "cutting" budgets! |
| NoDough Sep 28, 2007 9:04 AM EDT |
HC, I think you are missing the point. The percentages are misleading. It's easy to double your customer base when you have only one customer. It's much more difficult to double your customer base if you have 1000 customers. Yet, the post is attempting to fabricate a problem by using the increase in Novell's customer base to say the percentage of increase is down. Well, duh! If your customer base continues to grow, the percentage of increase will always be down. It's still growth. Put another way. Novell's Linux Growth was 95% last year. Microsoft's net income for FY2006 was up only 11.6% over FY2005. Wow! Novell must be kicking Microsoft's butt. Can MS survive another year? You can see how disingenuous that comparison is. The people at BoycottNovell are doing the same with Novell's numbers. I don't have a problem with them criticizing the MS/Novell deal. I have a problem with them manipulating the truth to support their case. Bob, >> Hey! That's what Congress uses to say they are "cutting" budgets! Exactly! My grandmother used to say, "Figures never lie. But liars often figure." |
| hchaudh1 Sep 28, 2007 9:30 AM EDT |
@NoDough I agree with you. That's why I said, "You could be right in the sense that Novell's Linux market is getting to be saturated and so the percentage increase numbers are down." But then again, I think what they are trying to say is also that the initial increase in customer base came from clients cashing in the MS vouchers, which is dwindling now. The point being, we can know for sure only in the coming quarters. Which is what Duncan is trying to say when he said, "The trend is clear, and if it contiinues, first quarter next year will be negative several hundred percent even if the base growth continues". While I don't agree with the "negative several hundred percent" part, but it does mean that Novell's growth is slowing down. Even though the number of customers has increased. That is, the initial kick from the MS vouchers have played themselves out. They gave Novell an edge initially, but they won't likely be of much help in sustaining growth over a longer period of time. After all, at one point, the law of diminishing returns will set in. |
| jdixon Sep 28, 2007 9:35 AM EDT |
> The point being, we can know for sure only in the coming quarters. The other point being, both camps are biased (Novell and Boycott Novell) and the truth lies somewhere in the middle. Which is usually the case when comparing biased statements. |
| dinotrac Sep 28, 2007 9:53 AM EDT |
>I posted my math as a comment to the author's post. He has responded to me, and you gotta read it! Hey, NoDough: It's easy to see that your problem is that you tried to apply math to finances, which we all know is impossible and thus pointless. On a serious note: May we all take a moment of silence to mourn the passing of American education. |
| hchaudh1 Sep 28, 2007 10:07 AM EDT |
Haha! Oh the biting wit! Its too much for me to take. Yes we all know that 2+2 is always = 4 in the world of financial statements and PR talk. Why, all those people who lost money to Enron never took math 101 in school. Or as deemed by Dino, went to an American school, oh, the horror! Move along people nothing to see here. No discussion, no debate. Dino says we are stupid. Deal with it! |
| dinotrac Sep 28, 2007 10:50 AM EDT |
>No discussion, no debate. Dino says we are stupid. Deal with it! I never said anybody was stupid - though Duncan's blind hatred may render him functionally equivalent. However, it's easy to see the basis for my sadness, if you look again at NoDough's hypothetical accounting for a starting point of 10,000 units. Year 1 growth: 65,900 units Year 2 growth: 86,526 units Year 3 growth: 154,305 units Look at that 154, 305 units in the third year and consider that most companies would consider 20% growth to be a very aggressive target. That 154,305 is almost identical to the 154,070 units that would result from 15 straight years of 20% growth. Not only that, but at 95%, they're still a long way from slowing down to a merely very aggressive 20% growth rate. The only kind of business that wouldn't love those numbers operates out of Colombia. |
| Abe Sep 28, 2007 11:23 AM EDT |
Quoting:I guess it will be clearer next year or in a couple more quarters. I agree with hchaudh1 above statement. We can't tell for sure from the numbers cited whether the growth is due to a single event (MS vouchers) or a tend that Novell (NoDough and Dino) wants us to believe. The numbers from NoDough are based on the assumption that this is a natural trend, well is it? I don't see a solid proof and you can't come up with one unless you wait for at least another year. On the other hand, citing the MS voucher as the event that caused this high increase is very probable. Dino is trying to sneak one by us thinking we all are American school graduates and also fails to realize that it is not the school that makes a difference, it is the student. :) Nice try! |
| NoDough Sep 28, 2007 11:32 AM EDT |
Quoting:The numbers from NoDough are based on the assumption that this is a natural trend, well is it? I don't see a solid proof and you can't come up with one unless you wait for at least another year. Huh? I wasn't using trend analysis at all. It was the poster on the other forum using trend analysis (incorrectly) to claim that Novell's growth will drop into the negatives (which, of course, will still be positives) next year. I was using historical figures to make the point that their trend analysis is bunk. [Edit] Or, more precisely, FUD. [/Edit] Furthermore, I couldn't care less what you believe, as long as you don't go about lying to everyone to convince them of the same. |
| dinotrac Sep 28, 2007 11:35 AM EDT |
**Note** Edited for snideness reduction. I was a bit over the top in the original version. Abe - I'm not trying to sneak anything by you. I am trying to help you understand simple math. Let's see if I can make this even simpler: 154,000 is more than 17,000. It is, in fact, lots more. That requires no trend, no assumptions about the future. 154,000 is greater than 17,000. Over a three year period, 17,000 would represent 20% annual growth (starting from 10,000), a rate that few companies would complain about. Now here's the thing -- try hard to comprehend this -- at the level of grown ALREADY ACHIEVED -- based on the growth numbers that Duncan accepts -- Novell sales could stay flat for 12 straight years and still be at the same level as if they had grown by 20% for 15 straight years. Actually, it would be much better than that. If they grew by 20% per year, they would achieve that 154,000 level only in the last year. By achieving it in the third year, they would actually sell 1,000,000 more units than that. That's with zero growth for the next 12 years. See? No trend required. Just a little simple arithmetic. |
| Abe Sep 28, 2007 12:08 PM EDT |
Quoting:Can you wrap your head around that concept? It's hard, but I have confidence in you.Yes Dino, I think I can. So what, MS distributed 154,000 vouchers in one year. What about next year, To knowledge, MS is stopped this program. What happens now? Quoting:Now here's the thing -- try hard to comprehend this -- at the level of grown ALREADY ACHIEVED -- based on the growth numbers that Duncan accepts -- Novell sales could stay flat for 12 straight years and still be at the same level as if they had grown by 20% for 15 straight years. So what, they made a one big time killing (I am not sure which way the killing went). It is one event spike, wouldn't you say! We just have to wait till next year to see what the growth rate would be. May be MS would buy another lot of vouchers. You just don't look at the numbers, you need to look for what generated the numbers. Quoting:Actually, it would be much better than that. If they grew by 20% per year, they would achieve that 154,000 level only in the last year. By achieving it in the third year, they would actually sell 1,000,000 more units than that. That's with zero growth for the next 12 years. If they grew seems to be an awful big if to me. |
| hchaudh1 Sep 28, 2007 12:22 PM EDT |
@dino That exactly is where the problem is. You and NoDough are assuming that when Novell says that it has had 695, 194 and 95% growth, it actually means that. We don't know what those numbers mean. If this is all true, how come I don't see Novell's stock shooting through the roof. The way you just described it, it is probably the most successful company in the history of the world. How come despite its grossly huge growth numbers, its revenues still only grew from 236 mil to 243 mil, i.e. just 7 mil when compared to the same period last year (3rd quarter) despit a growth in installed base as illustrated by you. How come its 3rd quarter loss is still 3.4 mil (down from 6.4mil last year, but still). They seem to be pulling in these immense growth numbers out of a hat. Anyone can throw numbers out the wazoo, but where are these numbers coming from? |
| NoDough Sep 28, 2007 12:28 PM EDT |
Abe, No one is contesting the point that the growth may be a one-time spike caused by the vouchers. The point is that the author and another poster on the site are manipulating Novell's growth percentages (note: they're not even referencing actual growth figures) to manufacture FUD. What's more, they're doing it in a way that even an uneducated sap like me can see through it. It's wrong when MS uses lies and FUD to accomplish their goals. However, it's not wrong because they are MS. It's wrong because it's wrong. Therefore, it's also wrong when BoycottNovell does it. Oh, and by the way, you are the first person to question whether Novell has grown. Even BoycottNovell and their anti-Novell bias doesn't contest the growth. |
| jdixon Sep 28, 2007 12:33 PM EDT |
> How come despite its grossly huge growth numbers, its revenues still only grew from 236 mil to 243 mil, i.e. just 7 mil when compared to the same period last year (3rd quarter) despit a growth in installed base as illustrated by you. Because their growth is in their Linux business, which still only compromises about 10% (as a quick, unverified guess) of their total revenues. |
| dinotrac Sep 28, 2007 12:33 PM EDT |
hc - >How come despite its grossly huge growth numbers, Ummm..... I believe that was an increase in Linux sales. Looking at the most recently reported numbers, Linux revenue was up 77% to $21,000,000. Invoicing is up 95%, to $38,000,000, so there is substantial revenue not yet realized. At any rate, you can see that Linux is an important and growing, but still relatively small part of Novell. |
| schestowitz Sep 28, 2007 2:00 PM EDT |
The name of the site is regretted and it would have been called NovellWatch if it were down to me at the start. I have always liked Novell and I still do (I keep a close eye on them); it's the /DEAL/ that I dislike, and in this case, deception by PR folks raises people's expectations without valid basis (as in "damn lies and stats"). It's seems unlikely that Novell can ever sneak out of the deal, let alone eliminate its harms, which are irreversible (and Andreas told us in the mailing list that the deal is irrevocable). |
| tracyanne Sep 28, 2007 2:34 PM EDT |
The only statement that is correct isQuoting:The comparison is thus much more accurate if done against the same period last year, thus accounting for seasonal variations. Each quarter is compared against the same quarter the previous year, not against the previous quarter. But none of the sales comparison figures are of that type, they are quarter against previous quarter, and thus invalid. Personally I think these blokes are a bunch of wankers. |
| Abe Sep 28, 2007 5:41 PM EDT |
NoDough,
Quoting:No one is contesting the point that the growth may be a one-time spike caused by the vouchers.If you read my 1st post, you will see that is exactly what I was referring to I wasn't defending the analysis of "boycottnovell", what I said is I agree with hchaudh1's statement below "I guess it will be clearer next year or in a couple more quarters." Quoting:let's start with some arbitrary number to use as Novell's Linux sales, say 10,000 units."arbitrary number" is not accurate to show a trend like Dino wants us to believe. Quoting:Oh, and by the way, you are the first person to question whether Novell has grown. Even BoycottNovell and their anti-Novell bias doesn't contest the growth. I wasn't doubting Novell's increase in Linux sales, what I was saying is that a good portion of Novell's high percentage of their Linux sales could easily be attributed to the vouchers MS distributed. We wont know for sure until be see the sales next couple years. Quoting:as long as you don't go about lying to everyone to convince them of the same.I am hoping you were saying this generically, otherwise, what is it that you believe I lied about? |
| dinotrac Sep 29, 2007 4:39 AM EDT |
>No one is contesting the point that the growth may be a one-time spike caused by the vouchers. That's not true. I absolutely contest that, and for a simple reason: Some number of continuing sales, possibly a very high number, are likely to result from those vouchers. Remember my lovely little discussion about getting the equivalent of 20% annualized growth for 15 years in 3 year's time? Novell need only retain a significant percentage of those voucher customers for the deal to be a big win. Even 1 out of three represents a quintupling of their Linux business. To call that a bad deal for Novell is to be an idiot. |
| Abe Sep 29, 2007 7:00 AM EDT |
Quoting:That's not true. I absolutely contest that, and for a simple reason:So, you agree that Novell's Linux sales growth is a direct result of the deal, right? What is important for Novell is to maintain their growth because the voucher growth obviously not enough. So, How is Novell going to do that? Make another deal when all the vouchers are redeemed? They can't since MS stopped the voucher program due to the new terms of GPL3. Quoting:Novell need only retain a significant percentage of those voucher customers for the deal to be a big win."Need to" doesn't mean they will, it is speculation. We will have to wait and see. Quoting:Even 1 out of three represents a quintupling of their Linux business.That means losing 2 out of three customers, that is not growth, that is losing market share. Even economics 101 tells you that. May be you need to go back to school to help you stop making idiotic statements. :) |
| NoDough Sep 29, 2007 7:35 AM EDT |
Dino, >> No one is contesting the point that the growth may be a one-time spike caused by the vouchers. > That's not true. I absolutely contest that, and for a simple reason: OK. My mistake. Abe, >I am hoping you were saying this generically, otherwise, what is it that you believe I lied about? Yes, I was speaking generically with loose reference to BoycottNovell. >>let's start with some arbitrary number to use as Novell's Linux sales, say 10,000 units. >"arbitrary number" is not accurate to show a trend like Dino wants us to believe. Now, if you continue insisting that my numbers were trend analysis I may have to change my mind, or at least call you bull-headed. Repeated: MY NUMBERS DO NOT NOR ATTEMPT TO SHOW A TREND. Furthermore, it doesn't matter what arbitrary number you start with because the factual figures used are percentages. The percentages will affect any number by the same _percentage_. These are, on your part, either errors in logic or purposeful misrepresentations. Either way, please stop it. > "I guess it will be clearer next year or in a couple more quarters." I hadn't previously responded to this statement because, "Well, Duh!" There seems to be every attempt to misdirect my original point, which is that BoycottNovell is using something worse than lies and worse than damn lies to support their case. They are using poor manipulations of statistics. That was my only point and it drives me crazy when I make a simple point and the others in the argument scream "Yeah, but the price of tea in China..." |
| Abe Sep 29, 2007 2:58 PM EDT |
Quoting:MY NUMBERS DO NOT NOR ATTEMPT TO SHOW A TREND.Dino is referring to a trend and I was trying to answer both of you. Sorry for the confusion. Quoting:There seems to be every attempt to misdirect my original point........No, we aren't misdirecting. All what we were saying is it needs time to see whether the deal helped Novell to increase and maintain its market share in Linux sales or not, that is all. Quoting:They are using poor manipulations of statistics.Yes they are. They are using the analytical methods that is used in determining the rate at which a virus (biological or computer) is spreading. They didn't realize that computers don't multiply on their own like virus. When a virus growth rate decreases, that means it is dieing away. That is what they are trying to incorrectly insinuate. So lighten up please. |
| dinotrac Sep 29, 2007 5:38 PM EDT |
>Dino is referring to a trend and I was trying to answer both of you. Sorry for the confusion. The only confusion is yours. I am not referring to a trend and neither is NoDough. Why you keep bringing trends up is beyond me. >All what we were saying is it needs time to see whether the deal helped Novell to increase and maintain its market share in Linux sales or not, that is all. Hmmm. I think this is the first mention of market share in this thread. Are you participating in two threads at once? That would explain your introduction of topics such as trends and market share. |
| Abe Sep 30, 2007 11:59 AM EDT |
Quoting: Year 1 growth: 65,900 units Year 2 growth: 86,526 units Year 3 growth: 154,305 units I believe this is from one of your posts. That is called a trend if you didn't know. Quoting:I think this is the first mention of market share...Do a find in FF and you will see that "Novell's Linux market" was mentioned couple times before. |
| dinotrac Sep 30, 2007 1:35 PM EDT |
>That is called a trend if you didn't know. Goodness, Abe, if you think that represents a growth trend for Novell, you are welcome to say so. Nobody else has made that claim. What NoDough did was simply transform and restate figures that appeared in the original article to turn percentages into absolute units. He didn't make any claims of a trend. You, of course, are free to do that -- but I don't know why you would. There is no reason be believe that they represent a trend. >Do a find in FF and you will see that "Novell's Linux market" I'll give you a pass on that, but barely. If the Linux market truly is saturated, then it stands to reason that Novell's growth can come only at the expense of others, and that means increasing market share. A more optimistic -- and, I think, realistic -- view is that the Linux market is growing. That means you can't presume increased unit sales = increased market share as others may be growing too. |
| jdixon Sep 30, 2007 3:43 PM EDT |
> That means you can't presume increased unit sales = increased market share as others may be growing too. And, in point of fact, that appears to be Novell's real problem. Even starting from their smaller base, they don't seem to be able to keep pace with Red Hat. |
| Abe Oct 01, 2007 6:10 AM EDT |
Quoting:Goodness, Abe, if you think that represents a growth trend for Novell, ... No I didn't say it is a Novell's trend. What I was saying is you are using this "hypothetical accounting" that to me looks like a "hypothetical trend". This thread has been diverted into so many directions it is useless to carry on any further. Read my post to NoDough. No, we aren't misdirecting. All what we were saying is it needs time to see whether the deal helped Novell to increase and maintain its market share in Linux sales or not, that is all. |
| Abe Oct 01, 2007 6:50 AM EDT |
Before you put more posts on this thread, read the good article on Groklaw that talks about the very subject being discussing and more. Here is the link http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20070930081040440 Enjoy. |
| dinotrac Oct 01, 2007 7:05 AM EDT |
>a "hypothetical trend". Gosh, Abe, you really are a creative soul. Perhaps you need a trip to the dictionary to learn what a hypothesis is. For that matter, a trend. Then maybe you can share with us why you believe there is a trend here. |
| dinotrac Oct 01, 2007 7:09 AM EDT |
>Before you put more posts on this thread, Umm...so what, exactly, did that article have to do with this thread? Standard Groklaw blather. Yes, Novell is selling in the same market as Red Hat. Novell sales are sales that Red Hat would like to have but won't get because Novell got them. This is called competition. Feel free to look that up in your dictionary while you're reading up on hypotheses and trends. |
| Abe Oct 01, 2007 7:29 AM EDT |
Quoting:Umm...so what, exactly, did that article have to do with this thread?This is what. I happen to trust, believe and value Andy Updegrove opinion and analysis much more than some others. He actually talks about that same thing I brought up "sales leveling and the initial spike" due to the vouchers. Novell is getting money from MS for something. Novell is doing something for MS. Doing something for MS in return for money can only be a bad thing for FOSS. We know all along what MS intentions and objects are. Hay, that is my opinion, take it or leave it. Novell is getting money, they claim, market share, although you will note Andy Updegrove challenges that story, pointing out that sales leveled off after the initial spike. |
| dinotrac Oct 01, 2007 7:43 AM EDT |
>Novell is getting money, they claim, market share, although you will note Andy Updegrove challenges that story, pointing out that sales leveled off after the initial spike. Did they go down, or just level off? Did those earlier sales go away, or do they still use Novell? Biased folks spin things to suit avoid truths they don't like. |
| jdixon Oct 01, 2007 7:51 AM EDT |
> Did they go down, or just level off? That's the $64,000 question, Dino. And I think Abe and others are correct in saying we'll have to wait and see to determine the answer to that one. I also think they're correct in viewing Novell's spin on things with a degree of scepticism (hmm, I see Firefox doesn't like the sc variant of scepticism). There's little doubt that boycottnovell is going overboard about the matter though. Added: I should note that I personally hope they go up substantially, as I own 15 shares of Novell stock that's been languishing in the $5-8 range for some time now, and I'd like to see them go to something like $15 or better. |
| Abe Oct 01, 2007 7:51 AM EDT |
Quoting: Did they go down, or just level off? Did those earlier sales go away, or do they still use Novell?I don't have the time and resources to look that up for you, but I happen to trust Andy's sources, analysis and judgment. I leave it to you to do your own and decide. Quoting:Biased folks spin things to suit avoid truths they don't likeIt goes both ways, doesn't it? |
| jdixon Oct 01, 2007 8:00 AM EDT |
> It goes both ways, doesn't it? Always, Abe. Always. |
| dinotrac Oct 01, 2007 8:13 AM EDT |
>It goes both ways, doesn't it? If you're implying that I have a bias, I invite you to provide a basis for it. I have no skin in the Novell game. I own no stock and have no Novell products. I do have one workstation up on Opensuse (not Novell) Linux and am of the opinion that Novell took a really nice Linux distro and made it worse. That would certainly bias me in Novell's favor, right? |
| jdixon Oct 01, 2007 8:35 AM EDT |
> If you're implying that I have a bias... Dino, everyone has a bias. That goes with being human. And there's no denying that you have tended to take Novell's side in the Microsoft agreement discussions. That, by definition, is a bias. That said, no, you're not a Novell or Microsoft shill, nor do you have any financial interest in the matter that I know of. You're merely being human and bringing your already existing assumptions and experiences to that matter. That's what we do. All of us, myself included. I don't think Abe was pointing at you with that statement. More likely the Novell spokesmen. These are paid PR people. It's unwise to take anything they say at face value. |
| Abe Oct 01, 2007 8:49 AM EDT |
Quoting:If you're implying that I have a bias, I invite you to provide a basis for it.... No Dino, it wasn't directed at you at all because I knew you were referring to bias by analysts and corporate officers. That was why I said I trust Andy Updegrove. Of course he has preference and favoritism, but all in all he is pragmatist. In regards to your bias, I agree with what JDixson said. Believe me I am like you and may be less in terms self serving objectives. I don't deal with stocks not even of the company I work for. I just don't believe in stocks and interest. They are inhumane. I used Suse for many years (like 5) and continued to use it even after it was purchased by Novell. I stopped when they made the deal with MS and I am sure you do see my reasons by now. |
| jdixon Oct 01, 2007 9:00 AM EDT |
> I just don't believe in stocks and interest. They are inhumane. That would be an interesting discussion in an of itself, but this isn't really the place for it. It's probably needless to say that I disagree. |
| Abe Oct 01, 2007 9:07 AM EDT |
Quoting:It's probably needless to say that I disagree.I consider that a personal choice and doesn't deserve any discussion. |
| azerthoth Oct 01, 2007 9:25 AM EDT |
Well, I do have to say that I agree with the assessment that dino does indeed operate under a bias. It's shameful that he insists on cold hard facts instead of opinions. I as well as many others have gone head to head with Mr. D. and right or wrong the only way you can score any points is with accurate analysis of facts. Say what you will. boycottnovell has and continues to post what could be considered borderline slander. For some of you who insist (rightly so) of including past histories in dealing with certain other companies, take that same advice when dealing with people who are "on your side". Even when he is turning his attention painfully my way, I still prefer to be able to argue what actually is rather than an opinion of what is or should be. Facts are fact and opinions are ... you know the rest of that one. |
| dinotrac Oct 01, 2007 10:11 AM EDT |
azerthoth - **blush** Just remember: I'm merely brilliant, not infallible! |
| tuxchick Oct 01, 2007 10:12 AM EDT |
oh no, here comes the group hug. /me runs |
| jdixon Oct 01, 2007 10:37 AM EDT |
> It's shameful that he insists on cold hard facts instead of opinions. Azerthoth: OK. I've largely stayed out of this, but I think my point about personal biases was reasonably clear, and yet you don't seem to be happy with it. So, taking the facts as we know them... Fact 1. Novell's Linux sales have been growing, both before and after the Microsoft deal. Fact 2. It appears, based on figures released by Novell spokesmen, that their Linux sales have grown faster in the time frame immediately following the Microsoft deal. Fact 3. We have no idea at what rate Novell's Linux sales will grow in the future. Please not that Fact 2 does not demonstrate in any way that there is a causal relationship between the Microsoft deal and the increase in sales. While that's a reasonable assumption to make, it's not provable with the information we have. I believe BoycottNovell's main position on the above is that Fact 2 is due to the onetime sales of the Microsoft coupons, and will not be repeated. Beyond that I found their arguments impossible to follow (to be fair, I didn't try too hard), but I think the gist of it was that statements by Novell spokespeople should not be trusted. Both seem to be reasonable positions, though rather extremely and poorly stated. The first is a conclusion which will proven correct or not over the next year or so and the second is a standard rule which should apply to all company spokespeople. Now, is there anything in the above with which you, Abe, or Dino have problems. Please note that it's perfectly reasonable for people of different backgrounds to reach different conclusions about the future when presented with the same facts. Finally, I think it's a good idea to actually define bias for those who might disagree with my usage of the term. I'll use the http://www.m-w.comcgi-bin/dictionary?sourceid=Mozilla-search... definition, since that's readily available via Firefox's search box. The relative definition is: 3 a : BENT, TENDENCY b : an inclination of temperament or outlook; especially : a personal and sometimes unreasoned judgment... Note that the definition does NOT say that the bias is wrong or that it even has to be unreasonable. Merely that it is a tendency or inclination. |
| dinotrac Oct 01, 2007 10:39 AM EDT |
/me runs Come back here, you old TC, you. You get some love, too. Mandatory PC disclaimer: "Love" is used in a purely platonic, gender-neutral fashion that makes no reference to briefs, boxers, or any other form of undergarment. In the event I have inadvertently made reference to a form of undergarment with which I am hitherto unaware, I will do my best to inflate until I explode, flinging little bits of dino and trac against the walls, ceiling and floor. |
| Abe Oct 01, 2007 11:09 AM EDT |
Quoting:Fact 1. Novell's Linux sales have been growing, both before and after the Microsoft deal. Fact 2. It appears, based on figures released by Novell spokesmen, that their Linux sales have grown faster in the time frame immediately following the Microsoft deal. Fact 3. We have no idea at what rate Novell's Linux sales will grow in the future. I have no issue with any of them three and I don't believe I raised any issues in my previous posts either. As a matter of fact, my main point was agreeing on "Fact 3." which was initially brought by hchaudh1. But I did present my perspective about "Fact 2.". In my opinion, the artificial high increase (spike) in Novell's Linux sales we see was due to the voucher offer by MS. That was my major point, but unfortunately, Dino being a former lawyer, kept slip sliding to other matters. |
| azerthoth Oct 01, 2007 12:15 PM EDT |
JD, I wasnt leveling anything directly at you. Basicly I started out with commenting on dino's apparent bias and then kind of got on a roll. |
| jdixon Oct 01, 2007 1:47 PM EDT |
> I wasnt leveling anything directly at you. I wasn't offended, Azerthoth. I just didn't like the way you seemed to blow off my point, which is that all of us have biases. Pretending that they're for "cold hard facts" misses the point entirely. It's our interpretation of the facts that reflects our biases. Dino has consistently taken Novell's side in these discussions, to the point of calling many folks who disagree with the Microsoft deal irrational (my apologies if that's not quite your phrasing, Dino). While that's a valid viewpoint, and may even be correct, it's still a bias, and has proven to be a consistent one. I've consistently thought the deal was a bad idea, even if it has short term good results for Novell, which is also a bias. |
| dinotrac Oct 01, 2007 2:13 PM EDT |
>it's still a bias, Sounds like you don't actually understand what a bias is. I get up every morning and say "good morning" to somebody. I am very consistent about that. I say good morning to my wife, to my kids, and to the crew down at Starbucks. In no way does that reflect a bias on my part towards morning. I like morning, but I like afternoon, too. It just so happens that, when I get up, it happens to be morning. Refusing to budge when the facts clearly don't support you may or may reflect a bias. It might be a bias that makes you unwilling to consider opposing facts. It might be cussed stubbornness. Going with the facts and demanding the same of others, however, is not a bias. If I seem to be consistently on Novell's side (I'm not, by the way), it's because the attackers are along the lines of the boycottnovell folks. When it comes to matter of opinion, I have a very definite bias. I like freedom and I dislike hypocrites. I especially dislike people who shout freedom -- but only so long as its the freedom they approve of, which, in the end, is not freedom at all. |
| jdixon Oct 01, 2007 5:57 PM EDT |
> Sounds like you don't actually understand what a bias is. I think my understand of what does and does not constitute a bias on the part of others is fairly good, Dino. I may not be quite as good at spotting it in myself. Fortunately, my wife is quite willing to point out my failings to me. I think you're using a different definition of bias. > If I seem to be consistently on Novell's side (I'm not, by the way) I assume that's true, but it's not demonstrated by the conversations here, at least with regards to the Novell/Microsoft deal. > ...it's because the attackers are along the lines of the boycottnovell folks. Abe has not demonstrated himself to be "along the lines of the boycottnovell folks". Nor has hchaudh1. Nor have I. |
| dinotrac Oct 01, 2007 6:55 PM EDT |
Abe hasn't? That's a joke, right? More complete answer: This thread started from a boycottnovell article and the arguments within. In that regard, everything I have said has been in opposition to those arguments. You don't have to love Novell to despise dishonest arguments. That is, unless you have no personal integrity. |
| jdixon Oct 01, 2007 7:00 PM EDT |
> That's a joke, right? Do you really think the folks at BoycottNovell would bother discussing the matter with you the way Abe has? They'd call you a Novell shill and kick you off the site. They'd be mistaken, of course, but as far as I can tell that's what they'd do. |
| dinotrac Oct 01, 2007 7:08 PM EDT |
>Do you really think the folks at BoycottNovell would bother discussing the matter with you the way Abe has? No, but we were talking bias, not civility. Abe is a passionate but civil kind of guy. |
| jdixon Oct 02, 2007 5:03 AM EDT |
> No, but we were talking bias, not civility. It always been my experience that an extreme bias on a subject results in incivility to those who disagree. I think the BoycottNovell folks might fall into that category. Abe obviously doesn't. Oh, and I saw this: http://www.ozyandmillie.org/d/20071002.html this morning and thought you might appreciate it. :) |
| dinotrac Oct 02, 2007 5:22 AM EDT |
>an extreme bias on a subject results in incivility It can, but need not. Though infected by many years in yankeeland, I come from the south and from a southern family. There are some old southern traditions of grace and courtesy, including the all-pupose "That's just not the way we do things around here". Which is a soft-spoken, smiling and gracious "fornicate you and the horse you rode in on". I'm sure many other places have similar traditions. Abe, btw, is not quite extreme. Just a bit hard-headed. |
| jdixon Oct 02, 2007 6:15 AM EDT |
> There are some old southern traditions of grace and courtesy, Tis true that I live a bit too close to Yankee land for my comfort. That may be influencing my viewpoint. A "bias", so to speak. :) > Just a bit hard-headed. That could be said of a number of us. |
| Abe Oct 02, 2007 6:48 AM EDT |
Keep going guys, I am enjoying this. Thanks for the complements by the way. Hard-headed! may be at times, but mostly very reasonable. On the other hand, look to who is talking. |
| dinotrac Oct 02, 2007 6:59 AM EDT |
>On the other hand, look to who is talking. I could be hard-headed if I weren't right all the time. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!