Linux Market Share - Linux

This is a discussion on Linux Market Share - Linux ; Is unimportant to me. I wonder why I read this group for that reason. This place harps on it. I've been using Linux for years. I've set up Linux boxen for folks who love the product, including multinational corps. Who ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: Linux Market Share

  1. Linux Market Share

    Is unimportant to me. I wonder why I read this group for that reason.
    This place harps on it.

    I've been using Linux for years. I've set up Linux boxen for folks who
    love the product, including multinational corps. Who cares except me? And
    maybe the corp? I've created things based on Linux OSs that have allowed
    me to feed my family and fix up my motorcycle and house. I've automated
    a ton of crap that my tenants use, like the NNTP server and house
    entertainment server.

    Could I have done that using proprietary systems? Yup. But I wouldn't
    have fixed up my bike and house. I might not have even fed my family any
    more than KD with their pricing systems.

    Linux is _good_. OSS is _good_. Excellent products can be built with the
    tools provided with some effort and very little if not no cash outlay.

    **** marketshare, there's enough for me. Enough for me to have
    competition too! The Linux guy competing against me lives about 2k away,
    and is a better coder, but (I think) a less capable system designer. He
    gets his clients and I get mine. If mine need a really good coder, *I*
    call him, if he needs a really custom system, he calls me. We compete,
    but we help eachother out too.

    --
    Knowledge without common sense is folly.

    www.websterscafe.com

  2. Re: Linux Market Share

    "Handover Phist" stated in post
    slrnfsmvtq.3lm.jason@jason.websterscafe.com on 3/2/08 9:35 PM:

    > Is unimportant to me. I wonder why I read this group for that reason.
    > This place harps on it.
    >
    > I've been using Linux for years. I've set up Linux boxen for folks who
    > love the product, including multinational corps. Who cares except me? And
    > maybe the corp? I've created things based on Linux OSs that have allowed
    > me to feed my family and fix up my motorcycle and house. I've automated
    > a ton of crap that my tenants use, like the NNTP server and house
    > entertainment server.
    >
    > Could I have done that using proprietary systems? Yup. But I wouldn't
    > have fixed up my bike and house. I might not have even fed my family any
    > more than KD with their pricing systems.
    >
    > Linux is _good_. OSS is _good_. Excellent products can be built with the
    > tools provided with some effort and very little if not no cash outlay.
    >
    > **** marketshare, there's enough for me. Enough for me to have
    > competition too! The Linux guy competing against me lives about 2k away,
    > and is a better coder, but (I think) a less capable system designer. He
    > gets his clients and I get mine. If mine need a really good coder, *I*
    > call him, if he needs a really custom system, he calls me. We compete,
    > but we help eachother out too.


    I have no problem with that view - but the very things that keep Linux's
    desktop market share low (or at least some of them) are things that effect
    all desktop users.


    --
    "If you have integrity, nothing else matters." - Alan Simpson




  3. Re: Linux Market Share

    Handover Phist writes:

    > Is unimportant to me. I wonder why I read this group for that reason.
    > This place harps on it.
    >
    > I've been using Linux for years. I've set up Linux boxen for folks who
    > love the product, including multinational corps. Who cares except me? And
    > maybe the corp? I've created things based on Linux OSs that have allowed
    > me to feed my family and fix up my motorcycle and house. I've automated
    > a ton of crap that my tenants use, like the NNTP server and house
    > entertainment server.


    You equate setting up an nntp server with feeding your family? Why TF
    would you need your own nntp server? I used leafnode for ages but it fed
    no one. I would also be interested to hear which SW helped you to fix
    your bike? I find a tin of oil and a puncture repair kit often helps.

    >
    > Could I have done that using proprietary systems? Yup. But I wouldn't
    > have fixed up my bike and house. I might not have even fed my family any
    > more than KD with their pricing systems.


    KD? BTW most OSS SW that you need for that runs on Windows too. Are you
    confusing Linux for OSS? I bet you are.

    >
    > Linux is _good_. OSS is _good_. Excellent products can be built with the
    > tools provided with some effort and very little if not no cash outlay.


    Correct. But you seem to miss the idea of "Free". What did you give
    back? Which system did you design which are now on the market for free?
    One will be enough. In fact, one single link to one bit of QA would be
    enough.

    >
    > **** marketshare, there's enough for me. Enough for me to have


    Gregory, is that you? "**** market share, I'm alright jack"

    > competition too! The Linux guy competing against me lives about 2k
    > away,


    In what way competing? To see who can feed their families the most?

    > and is a better coder, but (I think) a less capable system designer. He
    > gets his clients and I get mine. If mine need a really good coder, *I*
    > call him, if he needs a really custom system, he calls me. We compete,
    > but we help eachother out too.


    In what way?

    It seems to me that you do want market share. At least enough so the guy
    down the road can help you out.

    You sound like Roy. All big ideas and little ability to implement.

    See http://www.iuron.com for more information on how not to get the bearded
    masses to come running.

  4. Re: Linux Market Share

    Hadron wrote:

    > Handover Phist writes:
    >
    >> Is unimportant to me. I wonder why I read this group for that reason.
    >> This place harps on it.
    >>
    >> I've been using Linux for years. I've set up Linux boxen for folks who
    >> love the product, including multinational corps. Who cares except me? And
    >> maybe the corp? I've created things based on Linux OSs that have allowed
    >> me to feed my family and fix up my motorcycle and house. I've automated
    >> a ton of crap that my tenants use, like the NNTP server and house
    >> entertainment server.

    >
    > You equate setting up an nntp server with feeding your family? Why TF
    > would you need your own nntp server? I used leafnode for ages but it fed
    > no one. I would also be interested to hear which SW helped you to fix
    > your bike? I find a tin of oil and a puncture repair kit often helps.


    He needs it for his tenants they also get an entertainment server. Can't
    you read?


    >> Linux is _good_. OSS is _good_. Excellent products can be built with the
    >> tools provided with some effort and very little if not no cash outlay.

    >
    > Correct. But you seem to miss the idea of "Free". What did you give
    > back? Which system did you design which are now on the market for free?
    > One will be enough. In fact, one single link to one bit of QA would be
    > enough.


    You don't have to give back. Where DO you get these weird ideas?
    You really must have too much time on your hands.

    >> **** marketshare, there's enough for me. Enough for me to have

    >
    > Gregory, is that you? "**** market share, I'm alright jack"


    No it is not me. You can't read an nntp header can you?

    Looks like Jason is another linux user of like mind. You of course are a
    minority, being incapable of configuring linux correctly and droning on and
    on about too much choice.

    Market share? Linux is free.

    >> competition too! The Linux guy competing against me lives about 2k
    >> away,

    >
    > In what way competing? To see who can feed their families the most?


    No, to see who provides the best service to their customers. I suppose
    running a business is another subject outside your ability to comprehend.

    [more pathetic whining deleted]

    --
    Regards,

    Gregory.
    Gentoo Linux - Penguin Power

  5. Re: Linux Market Share

    Hadron :
    > Handover Phist writes:
    >
    >> Is unimportant to me. I wonder why I read this group for that reason.
    >> This place harps on it.
    >>
    >> I've been using Linux for years. I've set up Linux boxen for folks who
    >> love the product, including multinational corps. Who cares except me? And
    >> maybe the corp? I've created things based on Linux OSs that have allowed
    >> me to feed my family and fix up my motorcycle and house. I've automated
    >> a ton of crap that my tenants use, like the NNTP server and house
    >> entertainment server.

    >
    > You equate setting up an nntp server with feeding your family? Why TF


    Yep.

    > would you need your own nntp server? I used leafnode for ages but it fed


    Some folks want one. I provide that. Maybe they want groups from
    different servers, I can provide that.

    > no one. I would also be interested to hear which SW helped you to fix
    > your bike? I find a tin of oil and a puncture repair kit often helps.


    Didn't need a puncture repair kit, needed rear drum brakes and new
    mufflers. The SW that helped me do that was a custom build rdesktop
    client system.

    >>
    >> Could I have done that using proprietary systems? Yup. But I wouldn't
    >> have fixed up my bike and house. I might not have even fed my family any
    >> more than KD with their pricing systems.

    >
    > KD? BTW most OSS SW that you need for that runs on Windows too. Are you
    > confusing Linux for OSS? I bet you are.


    I'm one of those dumbasses who uses the words 'Linux' and 'OSS' fairly
    interchangeably. I do know the difference though.

    >>
    >> Linux is _good_. OSS is _good_. Excellent products can be built with the
    >> tools provided with some effort and very little if not no cash outlay.

    >
    > Correct. But you seem to miss the idea of "Free". What did you give
    > back? Which system did you design which are now on the market for free?
    > One will be enough. In fact, one single link to one bit of QA would be
    > enough.


    http://www.thain.org.

    >>
    >> **** marketshare, there's enough for me. Enough for me to have

    >
    > Gregory, is that you? "**** market share, I'm alright jack"


    Nope.

    >> competition too! The Linux guy competing against me lives about 2k
    >> away,

    >
    > In what way competing? To see who can feed their families the most?


    To see who makes the best product. We sit down over beers and discuss
    business and our products about four to five times a year.

    >> and is a better coder, but (I think) a less capable system designer. He
    >> gets his clients and I get mine. If mine need a really good coder, *I*
    >> call him, if he needs a really custom system, he calls me. We compete,
    >> but we help eachother out too.

    >
    > In what way?
    >
    > It seems to me that you do want market share. At least enough so the guy
    > down the road can help you out.
    >
    > You sound like Roy. All big ideas and little ability to implement.


    I implement well enough to make a good living, to reiterate the point.

    > See http://www.iuron.com for more information on how not to get the bearded
    > masses to come running.


    --
    It would be illogical to kill without reason
    -- Spock, "Journey to Babel", stardate 3842.4

    www.websterscafe.com

  6. Re: Linux Market Share

    Robin T Cox wrote:
    > On Mon, 03 Mar 2008 04:35:11 +0000, Handover Phist wrote:


    >> Is unimportant to me.

    >
    > For me it's not market share that matters, but whether the market is
    > a free one in which there is fair competition.


    That's exactly it, in a nutshell.

    > Cartels and monopolies are against the public interest, since they
    > featherbed mediocrity and drive up prices.
    >
    > So it is important to identify, report and debate each and every
    > obstacle to consumer choice, and every sneaky effort that's made to
    > take unfair advantage of the consumer.


    The problem is that, so far, regulatory bodies have mainly sought to
    undo the damage that monopolies create with remedial action against the
    violators /after/ the fact, once the damage is already done. What really
    needs to be done is a change in international business laws, to prevent
    monopoly abuse to begin with, so that monsters like Microsoft and Intel
    can never even be born. This applies equally in other industries too
    (e.g. Wal-Mart).

    I recall Ballmer boastfully announcing recently that he intended buying
    a large number of companies this year, effectively upping the ante, like
    it was some kind of expectation in order to be successful (or at least
    be perceived as such). That kind of thinking has to end, along with the
    whole ideology of corporate expansionism.

    There needs to be regulations in place that force companies to veer more
    towards subsistence, and away from greed, otherwise the ultimate outcome
    will be a world controlled by a handful of companies like Microsoft, and
    when that happens - you can truly kiss goodbye to your freedom. We're
    not that far from that dystopian nightmare /now/.

    --
    K.
    http://slated.org

    ..----
    | 'When it comes to knowledge, "ownership" just doesn't make sense'
    | ~ Cory Doctorow, The Guardian. http://tinyurl.com/22bgx8
    `----

    Fedora release 8 (Werewolf) on sky, running kernel 2.6.23.8-63.fc8
    03:11:25 up 74 days, 47 min, 5 users, load average: 0.05, 0.02, 0.00

  7. Re: Linux Market Share

    [H]omer wrote:
    > Robin T Cox wrote:
    >
    >> Cartels and monopolies are against the public interest,
    >> since they featherbed mediocrity and drive up prices.
    >>
    >> So it is important to identify, report and debate each and
    >> every obstacle to consumer choice, and every sneaky effort
    >> that's made to take unfair advantage of the consumer.

    >
    > The problem is that, so far, regulatory bodies have mainly
    > sought to undo the damage that monopolies create with remedial
    > action against the violators /after/ the fact, once the damage
    > is already done. What really needs to be done is a change in
    > international business laws, to prevent monopoly abuse to
    > begin with, so that monsters like Microsoft and Intel can
    > never even be born. This applies equally in other industries
    > too (e.g. Wal-Mart).
    >
    > I recall Ballmer boastfully announcing recently that he
    > intended buying a large number of companies this year,
    > effectively upping the ante, like it was some kind of
    > expectation in order to be successful (or at least be
    > perceived as such). That kind of thinking has to end, along
    > with the whole ideology of corporate expansionism.
    >
    > There needs to be regulations in place that force companies to
    > veer more towards subsistence, and away from greed, otherwise
    > the ultimate outcome will be a world controlled by a handful
    > of companies like Microsoft, and when that happens - you can
    > truly kiss goodbye to your freedom. We're not that far from
    > that dystopian nightmare /now/.


    There was a study done by the US Government prior to WW-2, that
    concluded fair and reasonable pricing was assured when there were
    10 or more independent companies providing the same need.

    For example, if you wonder why your automobile prices seem so
    high, take a look. We have General Motors selling Toyotas, Ford
    selling Mazdas and Kias, Damlier (until recently) selling
    Chryslers; Honda, Nissan, Mitsubishi, Suzuki, Isuzu. Daihatsu is
    now a company of Toyota. Overall, I would say there are less
    than 10 independent companies worldwide.

    In a similar vein, about 15 years ago, we had many companies
    selling computer software office suites. There were WordPerfect,
    Lotus, Multi-Mate, WordStar, Microsoft, ClarisWorks, and a host
    of others. Since products were competing with each other, costs
    were kept reasonable.

    Now, there are less than 10. About the only true competition to
    Microsoft Office is OpenOffice and commercial value added
    variant, StarOffice. IBM is trying to have a go with its Lotus
    product. WordPerfect manages to show a presence on a few store
    shelves.

    This is why Microsoft Office is so expensive. Without true
    competition, the corporation is free to charge what ever they
    feel the market will stand. It is also why it can lower the cost
    to create a barrier to entry for competition, essentially
    destroying it in a spirit of monopoly maintenance.

    And you are correct regarding corporations now permitted to
    purchase companies, essentially eliminating competition, which
    goes against the spirit of anti-trust and encourages monopolies.

    Currently the only true competition against Microsoft operating
    systems for desktop and servers are Linux, Unix and variants, and
    Apple. Selling Microsoft operating systems in China for $3 per
    license is competing with other essentially "free" efforts such
    as Linux and Unix, continuing monopoly maintenance.

    Thus, it is important that Governments such as the EU take steps
    to ensure free and open competition. Such as that Ms. Kroes has
    taken against Microsoft for monopoly maintenance, maintaining
    barriers to entry are bold and good.

    --
    HPT

  8. Re: Linux Market Share

    High Plains Thumper wrote:

    > This is why Microsoft Office is so expensive.


    MS Office is not expensive, and it never was. I've been buying it since
    1994, and the price has barely changed or it's dropped.

    Office Standard Full Version was $500 in 1995
    http://www.nysscpa.org/cpajournal/19...95/f421195.htm
    Office Standard Full Version is $325 today
    http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw...andard&x=0&y=0

    Access upgrades were $110 in 2003 (last one I bought), and they're $110 in
    2008. Adjusting for inflation, Office is a good bit cheaper today than 5-10
    years ago.


    > Without true
    > competition, the corporation is free to charge what ever they
    > feel the market will stand.


    heh!



    > Thus, it is important that Governments such as the EU take steps
    > to ensure free and open competition.


    Then you won't mind if the EU "Competition Commission" forces Linux vendors
    and OSS developers to charge a fair market value for their software?

    Of course you mind - you're a cola hypocrite and all you really care about
    is that MS is penalized for being preferred 90 to 1 over Linux.




+ Reply to Thread