Re: Where's Linux (most profitable companies list)? - Linux

This is a discussion on Re: Where's Linux (most profitable companies list)? - Linux ; JEDIDIAH writes: > On 2008-05-03, raylopez99 wrote: >> Fortune has a list of the twenty most profitable public companies. >> Where's Linux? RHAT? Anything related to Linux? Oh that's right, > > Software is a tool, not a profit center. ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: Re: Where's Linux (most profitable companies list)?

  1. Re: Where's Linux (most profitable companies list)?

    JEDIDIAH writes:

    > On 2008-05-03, raylopez99 wrote:
    >> Fortune has a list of the twenty most profitable public companies.
    >> Where's Linux? RHAT? Anything related to Linux? Oh that's right,

    >
    > Software is a tool, not a profit center.


    What a load of bull****. What do YOU contribute you freeloading
    hypocrite?

    Hint: SW does not write itself.

  2. Re: Where's Linux (most profitable companies list)?

    On 2008-05-06, Hadron wrote:
    > JEDIDIAH writes:
    >
    >> On 2008-05-03, raylopez99 wrote:
    >>> Fortune has a list of the twenty most profitable public companies.
    >>> Where's Linux? RHAT? Anything related to Linux? Oh that's right,

    >>
    >> Software is a tool, not a profit center.

    >
    > What a load of bull****. What do YOU contribute you freeloading
    > hypocrite?
    >
    > Hint: SW does not write itself.


    SW also doesn't "un-write" itself.

    Paying annually for the same tired ideas is just stupid.

    Even Windows users are starting to realize this.

    --

    The social cost of suing/prosecuting individuals |||
    for non-commercial copyright infringement far outweighs / | \
    the social value of copyright to begin with.



    Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    http://www.usenet.com

  3. Re: Where's Linux (most profitable companies list)?

    In comp.os.linux.advocacy, JEDIDIAH

    wrote
    on Tue, 6 May 2008 09:27:46 -0500
    :
    > On 2008-05-06, Hadron wrote:
    >> JEDIDIAH writes:
    >>
    >>> On 2008-05-03, raylopez99 wrote:
    >>>> Fortune has a list of the twenty most profitable public companies.
    >>>> Where's Linux? RHAT? Anything related to Linux? Oh that's right,
    >>>
    >>> Software is a tool, not a profit center.

    >>
    >> What a load of bull****. What do YOU contribute you freeloading
    >> hypocrite?
    >>
    >> Hint: SW does not write itself.

    >
    > SW also doesn't "un-write" itself.
    >
    > Paying annually for the same tired ideas is just stupid.
    >
    > Even Windows users are starting to realize this.
    >


    Several issues with this line of thinking -- first, you
    are partially correct; software indeed does not unwrite
    itself, but it is also written to a version of an API --
    which changes underneath the software on a regular basis.
    (Try finding a current game that runs on SoundBlaster
    DMA=1 IRQ=5 hardware, for example. Good luck.)

    Second, the standard custom support contract price is 1%
    per month, last I looked. In other words, if one buys
    the software for $10,000, the support costs $100/month.
    (Freeware throws some quirks into this model, admittedly.)

    Third, software follows fads, much like everyone else.
    The current fad, or what Microsoft wishes is a fad,
    perhaps, is the so-called "GUI ribbon". Rewrites are
    inevitable if the software was not sufficiently flexible
    to incorporate such new fads in the first place.

    And fourth, software is a profit center if someone
    sells licenses to it. Microsoft does so, and realizes
    a nice profit. Is this Microsoft's fault, or ours for
    being suckers? Or perhaps Microsoft is indeed doing us
    a service, by commoditizing and monopolizing the office
    desktop market, requiring everyone to use the exact same
    format (proprietary though it is)?

    One wonders.

    --
    #191, ewill3@earthlink.net
    Does anyone else remember the 1802?
    ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

  4. Re: Where's Linux (most profitable companies list)?

    On May 6, 8:20*am, "Ezekiel" wrote:
    > Of if the one person say... is found guilty of murdering his wife and goes
    > to prison for life then they're SOL and stuck with an obsolete product that
    > nobody else will maintain.


    Yeah, it reminds me of the North bay silicon valley eccentric guy who
    did just that--and he was in the process of inventing a radical new
    way of storing data (some sort of balanced tree I think it was) that
    he was going to sell to EMC or IBM...good thing they didn't buy
    it...cause he's not gonna finish it.

    RL


  5. Re: Where's Linux (most profitable companies list)?

    On May 6, 9:04*am, The Ghost In The Machine
    wrote:

    >
    > Several issues with this line of thinking -- first, you
    > are partially correct; software indeed does not unwrite
    > itself, but it is also written to a version of an API --
    > which changes underneath the software on a regular basis.
    > (Try finding a current game that runs on SoundBlaster
    > DMA=1 IRQ=5 hardware, for example. *Good luck.)


    Good point, and even with .NET not every source code is portable
    between platforms, notwithstanding what MSFT may claim about the
    language.

    >
    > Second, the standard custom support contract price is 1%
    > per month, last I looked. *In other words, if one buys
    > the software for $10,000, the support costs $100/month.
    > (Freeware throws some quirks into this model, admittedly.)


    That's interesting...didn't know that.

    >
    > Third, software follows fads, much like everyone else.
    > The current fad, or what Microsoft wishes is a fad,
    > perhaps, is the so-called "GUI ribbon". *Rewrites are
    > inevitable if the software was not sufficiently flexible
    > to incorporate such new fads in the first place.
    >


    Yeah, I see fads with the API by MSFT too: MFC now replaced by
    ".Forms".

    > And fourth, software is a profit center if someone
    > sells licenses to it. *Microsoft does so, and realizes
    > a nice profit. *Is this Microsoft's fault, or ours for
    > being suckers? *Or perhaps Microsoft is indeed doing us
    > a service, by commoditizing and monopolizing the office
    > desktop market, requiring everyone to use the exact same
    > format (proprietary though it is)?
    >
    > One wonders.
    >


    That's right--that's my point. MSFT does us a favor by commoditizing
    and monopolizing the Office desktop market. Office (TM) not office.
    And if Google Apps imitates Office (TM), I predict a copyright or
    trademark lawsuit.

    RL

+ Reply to Thread