Submitted by Unix isn’t a flashy market. But what distinction there is has been going to Sun Microsystems lately, by making its Unix-based Solaris operating system available as open-source software. Last week, IBM moved to put its AIX Unix operating system back on everybody’s radar by revealing plans to create a development center on its Austin, Texas, campus to speed up AIX development.
I certainly know that IBM contributes to all things Open Source, and that they can spend money on whatever they deem appropriate from a competitive standpoint.
That being said, I still wish that this story announced that IBM was spending $200 million toward a new Linux development center, instaead of AIX.
They spend millions on AIX and billions on Linux. I wouldn’t worry too much about it.
And just where do you get that IBM spends billions on Linux? How about sharing with the rest of us.
“And just where do you get that IBM spends billions on Linux? How about sharing with the rest of us.”
This is very well known:
http://news.com.com/2100-1001-249750.html
http://news.com.com/2100-1001-825723.html
http://linuxplanet.com/linuxplanet/interviews/4768/2/
http://www.forbes.com/execpicks/2003/07/30/cx_mh_ld_0730ibm.html
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/01_33/b3745097.htm
It costs a lot to employ engineers, and provide them with everything they need…
“And just where do you get that IBM spends billions on Linux? How about sharing with the rest of us.”
and 1 more link:
http://www-1.ibm.com/linux/ltc/localization.shtml
This shows a map of the 38 Linux Technology Centers, and says that they employ 650 people.
One billion does not equal billions of dollars, from the original post “They spend millions on AIX and billions on Linux.”. The engineers you talk about were paid out of that billion dollars.
And I am reasonably sure that the technology centers link employs people who work on a lot more than Linux. I am willing to bet there are people who support AIX, Tivoli, MQ Series, DB2, and other IBM products as well. A total of 650 people world-wide is not that many when you think of it.
I think you are mistaking the reason for the technology centers.
The technology center for Linux is to enable partners and IBM engineers employed to work on Linux to port over as well as create new means and features and function for Linux as well as to allow Linux to run well on IBM hardware. They do also work on certains softwares, ie. EVMS and others that works on other platforms.
These people employed in LTC, do not work on other softwares you mentioned, AIX, Tivoli, MQ Series, DB2 etc. etc.etc. Maybe for software testing or something else, but this is usually handled by the said division.
These people sometimes work with the other groups to enable porting or support on Linux but they are not allowed to talk to each other on technologies of the different platforms. To do so means to go through a lot of red tape as well as an oversight committee.
How do you think the SCO case is trying to make this out, by saying that engineers working on AIX are talking to Linux engineers and allowing for them to transfer technology from AIX/UNIX to Linux.
This is in fact not true, as AIX engineers are not supposed to talk to the Linux engineers about their products, and the means to do so.
Do you know this for sure, or are you just speculating? And how much experience do you have with IBM Global Services? At least I worked on a project where I dealt with IBM for just over a year, so I am not limited to reading and guessing about what IBM does.
For all of the noise made about IBM’s support of Linux it still comes down to that 650 people to me indicates a weak commitment, considering not too long ago IBM announed that they were going to lay off 15,000 people.
While I was eating breakfast I thought of some other things. One, how do you think Linux got the ability to create LPAR’s if they didn’t talk to AIX engineers? At some point the Linux team would have to draw on some background information from the mainframe and UNIX groups to make it work.
I also don’t think you understand how IBM works, do you (and others) really believe that IBM has all 650 people toiling away on the Linux kernel? It is more likely that they have engineers from the various groups (storage, applications, security) who have a Linux background. And when IBM sells a Linux “solution” it all comes from IBM (hardware and software). Talk about vendor-lock-in!
Oh and since you didn’t answer the question the last time we had an exchange, are you the real fluffybunny or did you just grab the name because you thought it was cool?
“While I was eating breakfast I thought of some other things. One, how do you think Linux got the ability to create LPAR’s if they didn’t talk to AIX engineers? At some point the Linux team would have to draw on some background information from the mainframe and UNIX groups to make it work.”
LPARs are an abstraction created, and implemented in the firmware. The Linux kernel people have to haggle with the firmware people over the hcalls, and likewise, the AIX people have to haggle with the firmware people over the hcalls.
And the kernel has to recognize the abstraction in order for an LPAR to be created.
Perhaps because as Linux is just a piece of crap, it needs more money to do something usable than AIX.
——> [ ]
Edited 2005-12-20 21:07
It’s really not difficult to find an earnings report:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9731750/from/RL.5/
Do you really believe IBM spends “billions” on linux? Now THAT would be philanthropy!
To be fair, IBM cannot let AIX stagnate while it builds up Linux. AIX is still their bread and butter, and Solaris hasn’t exactly been moving at a snail’s pace!
“To be fair, IBM cannot let AIX stagnate while it builds up Linux. AIX is still their bread and butter, and Solaris hasn’t exactly been moving at a snail’s pace!”
I don’t believe IBM has any intention of allowing AIX to stagnate, and I would say this investment speaks clearly of their future direction.
It’s all about making money for IBM, even if they have to support their enemies, or jump off a cliff to do so.
IBM can not be trusted. This is the best example of why. The billions to linux is marketing to get ibm global services in the door. Maybe they are going to spend 200 million on open sourcing AIX but I doubt it. It looks like they are getting ready to abandon Linux. They are supporting solaris on blade centers for christ sake. We should not trust them
Trust? What does trust have anything to do with it? You are getting to use an OS for free so shut up! Its IBM’s money they do whatever they want with it! Honestly when is the last time you have contributed to the Linux community as much as IBM has? I am not defending IBM or anything like that. IT is just that I dont get what trust has to to with IBM spending money on AIX development and on Linux.
Maybe IBM isn’t getting the ROI that they were expecting with Linux and decidied to spend some of their money on AIX instead. And maybe their customers are not satisfied with Linux on Power and want AIX instead.
Either way it sends an interesting message to the world.
while IBM touted the $200 million it will invest in the center over two years, that figure includes a lot of existing IBM AIX developers, customer-relations specialists, and partner-relations staffers
So it’s a move to consolidate rather than any real new investment. It does however make for good free publicity.
I thought it had one foot in the grace, like IRIX and the rest…. weird.
How ’bout they make AIX for x86 so we can run it on our nice brand spanking new intelMacs ?
IBM is not too concerned with the home market. They abandoned their home PC line a few years ago and are strictly business machines now. That said, the business market is what AIX is for. MacTel machines seem to be geared much more towards the home-user though which is not the market AIX is geared for. Also the architectures and directions for POWER and x86 chips seem to be taking vastly different directions. x86 is heading more towards higher efficiency at lower clock speeds where POWER is going much more twoards very high clock speeds (POWER6 is supposed to be ~5-5.5 GHz). This could present some incredible challenges in OS design if trying to optimize for vastly different CPU performance scenarios.
Believe it or not, Linux isn’t the solution to all problems, especially when it comes to supporting older customers that have been using big iron IBM systems longer than Linux has existed. There’s a huge amount to say for backwards system compatibility, which Linux simply doesn’t have for existing AIX users.
If IBM serves their customers, they make more money. If they serve ideology for the sake of serving ideology, that doesn’t promise them anything more than publicity amongst the geeks of the world. A huge portion of IBM’s older customers want more of the same reliable stuff they’ve been using: AIX and other things, for such markets as banking.
IBM exists to make money, and to make money, they need to provide what the customer wants, whether that’s AIX, Linux, Solaris, whatever, and the services associated with supporting that. If that’s evil, then I guess all entities that like to stay financially solvent long-term are evil. As long as there’s profit to be made servicing Linux, IBM will support it. As long as there’s profit to be made servicing and selling AIX, they’ll do it. If people insist on Solaris support and are willing to make it profitable, sure, they can and will do that, too: after all, they’ve supported Windows-based systems in the past, even while selling and promoting all their other solutions. It’s all about making paying customers happy, not making whining geeks happy who don’t control budgets.
Jonathan Thompson
Why has everything got to be about Linux? Why should we replace the Microsoft monoculture with a GNU/Linux monoculture?
Linux dominationists share the “one world order” mindset with the Microsoft diehards.
Linux dominationists share the “one world order” mindset with the Microsoft diehards.
Well said.
I don’t see GNU/Linux as a monoculture. The open nature of the software means that it can be modified to no end without paying royalties and entirely different software can result from that. If anything GNU/Linux makes it easier to create diversity.
“Why should we replace the Microsoft monoculture with a GNU/Linux monoculture?”
As I said above, my standpoint is that Linux is not a monoculture. I’m also intrigued at how you could imply that a Windows monoculture is any better than a “GNU/Linux monoculture”, at least with Linux competition isn’t crushed illegally as soon as it poses a threat.
“Linux dominationists share the “one world order” mindset with the Microsoft diehards.”
Don’t mistake the odd overzealous fan with the entire community, I for one welcome different operating systems but still preffer Linux. In no way am I contributing to killing off other operating systems and in no way do I invision a world with only one operating system, no matter what it is.
In my home there is no monoculture, there are Windows boxes and Linux boxes all safely behind a router and with individual firewalls on each machine to boot. I would even like to add at least one Mac to my home network when I have enough money to justify the expense.
Besides, the reason people asked why IBM wasn’t investing in Linux instead was because AIX wasn’t mentioned in so long the assumption was that IBM had already dropped it, and IBM has put a lot of support into Linux so it was assumed that IBM had chosen Linux as a replacement.
” at least with Linux competition isn’t crushed illegally as soon as it poses a threat.”
Yeah… In Linux competition is only crushed by the fact that they have to compete with something that is free. But for some reason, it seems to be ok that Linux drives commercial competetion down the toilet, but it is not ok for Microsoft to do the same thing. Don’t you think there is a bit of a double-standard going here?
Huh? Linux does not drive “commercial competetion down the toilet”. In fact according to IDC the overall Linux market is expected to reach over 35 Billion by 2008 and is the fastest growing segment of the global server market by a considerable margin. In any case, the conventional justification for competitive markets is not that it makes it easier to earn a buck, but rather that it makes it easier for the consumer to save a buck.
“Huh? Linux does not drive “commercial competetion down the toilet”.”
Of course it does. Look at what it did to commercial UNIX.
“segment of the global server market by a considerable margin.”
No disagreement there. But the vast majority of the “global server market” running on Linux was never paid for in any way, shape, or form.
“In any case, the conventional justification for competitive markets is not that it makes it easier to earn a buck, but rather that it makes it easier for the consumer to save a buck.”
Sure. And that’s the conventional justification for those in the U.S. who claim that outsourcing to India, China, Russia, etc. is good for our economy. It makes it easier for consumers to save a buck. And yes, it does make it easier for consumers to save a buck. But it also puts people out of work, and causes factories to close, and companies to scale back on benefits, and give paycuts, and sometimes even go bankrupt.
So at what point does the consumer saving a buck become not worth the cost to other peoples welfare?
Edited 2005-12-20 23:50
_Of course it does. Look at what it did to commercial UNIX._
Efficient markets are a bitch. Compete or die.
_But the vast majority of the “global server market” running on Linux was never paid for in any way, shape, or form._
The “unpaid for” segment of the Linux market passes entirely under the radar screen. The measurable part of the market (the 35 billion dollar part) consists of that which is paid for.
_And that’s the conventional justification for those in the U.S. who claim that outsourcing to India, China, Russia, etc. is good for our economy. It makes it easier for consumers to save a buck. And yes, it does make it easier for consumers to save a buck. But it also puts people out of work, and causes factories to close, and companies to scale back on benefits, and give paycuts, and sometimes even go bankrupt._
It is good for the economy. Perhaps not good for individual software engineers in the US (or widget welders in the rust belt), but good for the economy as a whole.
“It is good for the economy. Perhaps not good for individual software engineers in the US (or widget welders in the rust belt), but good for the economy as a whole.”
It doesn’t matter how cheap things are if people don’t have jobs and can’t afford to buy them. A good economy cannot survive skyrocketing unemployment.
And I can’t agree with turning a highly skilled occupation (software engineer) into a commodity where the average starting pay is less than the average starting pay for an apprentice plumber.
Edited 2005-12-21 00:14
_And I can’t agree with turning a highly skilled occupation (software engineer) into a commodity where the average starting pay is less than the average starting pay for an apprentice plumber._
Guess what? Nobody has any choice whatsoever in this. Comparative advantage (a basic economic principle) simply favors pushing many forms of software development to areas with significantly lower costs of living (given that there is a sufficient level of education to make it possible). The only other alternatives are protectionist tarif schemes, which history has shown to give rise to market distortions with highly unfavorable results. Not to mention that it would be almost impossible to impose import tarifs on software, given the the ease with which digital products are distributed.
“Guess what? Nobody has any choice whatsoever in this.”
Yes, they do.
“he only other alternatives are protectionist tarif schemes”
Which is a perfectly legitimate and appropriate response to the fact that a lot of these services are being dumped into the U.S. market at artifically low costs–which by the way, is illegal for U.S. companies to do because it violates anti-trust laws. So the playing field is not even level. Foreign companies are allowed to sell products in the U.S. at much lower prices than U.S. companies could legally sell them for even if they wanted to.
“Not to mention that it would be almost impossible to impose import tarifs on software, given the the ease with which digital products are distributed.”
We should be punishing companies that outsource their programming. Not rewrarding them for saving money like we currently do.
_Which is a perfectly legitimate and appropriate response to the fact that a lot of these services are being dumped into the U.S. market at artifically low costs–which by the way, is illegal for U.S. companies to do because it violates anti-trust laws._
Nonsense. “Dumping” may violate trade agreements, but you’ll first have to demonstrate that such activity is happening. As far as I’m aware, there is no such evidence. It’s simply far cheaper to employ software engineers in India and Russia than it is in the US. Lower costs, lower prices. That US engineering firms can’t compete isn’t evidence of dumping. And the anti-trust issue is a red herring as it only pertains under certain specific conditions to companies who command a monopoly position in a particular market.
“Nonsense. “Dumping” may violate trade agreements, but you’ll first have to demonstrate that such activity is happening. As far as I’m aware, there is no such evidence.”
You didn’t take macro-economics 101 did you? It is widely known that product dumping into the U.S. is practiced by many foreign companies. Japanese electronics companies for example, are notorious for doing it (and covering the losses through government sponsorship).
“And the anti-trust issue is a red herring as it only pertains under certain specific conditions to companies who command a monopoly position in a particular market.”
No. it doesn’t. Selling products below cost in order to eliminate competition violates anti-trust laws. It doesn’t matter whether you are already a monopoly or not.
You quite obviously have a very poor understanding of economic theory. Dumping may have been widely alleged, but it has rarely been proven. And it is almost impossible in theory to sustain such a charge in the case of something like software where the only tangible expenses are labor costs which will not rise in linear fashion along with a growing market. Engineering costs are rougly the same whether you have one customer or 100 million customers. And selling cheap on the expectation of thereby gaining a growing market share is a perfectly legal business strategy.
And you’re simply wrong about anti-trust laws. Selling below cost is a common business practice in tight commodity markets. Ever heard of a loss leader? Or perhaps you’d care to quote the relevant parts of the Sherman/Clayton acts, or relevant case law, which would demonstrate otherwise.
Edited 2005-12-21 01:15
“You quite obviously have a very poor understanding of economic theory. Dumping may have been widely alleged, but it has rarely been proven.”
My understanding of economic theory is quite good, thank you. But you understanding of how global business operates when they want to push products into the United States is very poor.
“And you’re simply wrong about anti-trust laws. Selling below cost is a common business practice in tight commodity markets.”
You cannot sell below cost when your specific purpose for doing so is to destroy your competition. Product dumping is illegal.
Selling products below cost in order to eliminate competition violates anti-trust laws. It doesn’t matter whether you are already a monopoly or not.
Really makes me wonder how microsoft is selling the xbox 360 at a $120 loss, or how the playstation 3 is going to be sold at a ~$150 dollar loss…
“Really makes me wonder how microsoft is selling the xbox 360 at a $120 loss, or how the playstation 3 is going to be sold at a ~$150 dollar loss…”
It’s not the same thing, because in both cases the losses are being made up by the fact that accessories sold for the same product turn them a profit.
This is different than IBM dumping typewriters on the market to drive other typewriter makers into bankruptcy. Or Kia dumping automobiles on the U.S. market just to drive U.S. automakers into bankruptcy.
_So at what point does the consumer saving a buck become not worth the cost to other peoples welfare?_
Theoretically such a tipping point may exist, but it hasn’t been observed in practice. This is no different than all of the highly skilled craftsman put out of work in the earlier years of the 20th century by vastly more efficient industrial processes. Maturing markets may make for a bumpy ride at times, but thus far it still seems to be the road which leads to the greatest expansion of wealth and quality life for the greatest number.
“Theoretically such a tipping point may exist, but it hasn’t been observed in practice.”
It most certainly has been observed in practice. GM, who is often considered an economic indicator of the health of the entire U.S. economy, is almost certainly going to file bankruptcy. Why? A lot of it has to do with the fact that they can’t compete with low cost imports from Japan and Korea. And often, those imports are dumped in the United States at less than what it costs to make them in order to destroy U.S. competition.
Rubbish. GM was already once bailed by the Federal Government back in the 70’s in spite of trade legislation which was designed to protect their place in the market. GM should have been allowed to die a long time ago. In any case, my point stands: the median standard of living and aggregate wealth in the US is up considerably from where it was in GM’s heydays.
Edited 2005-12-21 00:40
“GM was already once bailed by the Federal Government back in the 70’s in spite of trade legislation which was designed to protect their place in the market. ”
You are thinking of Daimler chrysler. GM has never been bailed out by the government.
I’m going to assume you are not from the U.S., since you seem to have a very anti U.S. attitude. And most people in the U.S. do not think it is a good thing that our jobs are going overseas (although for obvious reasons, people in other countries would think it is a great thing).
Most people don’t like it… Although at the same time, most don’t do a damn thing about it.
I stand corrected. It was indeed Chrysler not GM. In any case, it’s not particularly relevant. As I said, the point still stands. The US economy grew leaps and bounds in the 80’s and 90’s in spite of the removal of almost all protectionist trade schemes.
I am indeed from the US and, no, I’m not anti-US whatsoever. Reread what I’ve written. The US will be, on the whole, be a net beneficiary of large segments of the software engineering market going elsewhere. Cheaper software will provide more than sufficient economic stimulus to the economy over the long run to counteract any losses associated with losing programming jobs to overseas competitiors. And were US companies locked into using only more expensive US engineered software, they would suffer a competitive disadvantage relative to their competitors in other countries, which would have severe negative consequences for the economy as a whole.
I understand and sympathize whith those who are being displaced. Nobody likes to be “phased out”, but it would extraordinarily foolish to sacrifice the viability and health of the whole economy to salvage one segment of it.
On the Boston Holocaust Memorial, there is a famous quote by Martin Niemoeller:
“They came first for the Communists, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn’t speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time no one was left to speak up.”
I can’t help but have that quote come to mind when I think of what is happening to jobs in the United States. Everyone thinks it is a good thing to ship jobs overseas, as long as it means they can buy products cheaper… A good thing that is, until they are the ones losing their job because it got shipped overseas.
“I understand and sympathize whith those who are being displaced. Nobody likes to be “phased out”, but it would extraordinarily foolish to sacrifice the viability and health of the whole economy to salvage one segment of it.”
Except it is not just one segment. First it was low end factory jobs… No one cared because they were just unskilled labor… Then it was electronics manufacturing jobs… Again, no one cared, because they were just trade jobs that people could be trained to do very quickly. Then it was auto manufacturing. Again, no one cared, because those are still “just factory workers. Not my job. And my college degree protects me”. Then it was airline mechanics.. Hmm.. Moving up into jobs that require at least an associates degree or technical eduction.. But again, a lot of people took the attitude “Well, it’s not my job… and my four year college degree protects me.” Now it is software engineers… And suddenly people are forced to realize that their college degree does not protect them anymore. And that even their master’s degree education doesn’t protect them from having their jobs shipped overseas.
I think people are turning a blind eye to a growing and serious problem in the United States, because basically they are taking the attitude of “It’s not my job. Sure it is sad that those people lost their job because of cheaper stuff from overseas… But I’m going to buy the cheaper stuff from overseas anyway. After all, my graduate degree protects me against outsourcing. It’s only blue collar work that is getting outsourced.”
The outsourcing of software development has proven the fallacy of that argument. Even highly skilled, high education jobs that require graduate degrees are being outsourced.
The problem is that the United States is basically turning into a nation where there will be three kinds of jobs: Upper management (who makes the decision to outsource). A few highly skilled, highly educated jobs that simply can’t be outsourced by their nature (doctors, nurses, etc.), and extremely low end unskilled labor that simply can’t be outsourced (burger flippers, cashiers, etc).
Is that really what you want?
Edited 2005-12-21 02:03
The US economy grew by leaps and bounds in the 80’s because the government racked up an astronomical debt.
The US economy grew by leaps and bounds in the 90’s because consumers racked up an astronomical debt.
The clay feet of the whole economy is maintained by mass delusion at this point, it will be quite ugly when reality sets in…
Can you explain to us how an economy functions when few can afford to buy anything because they are:
A) out of work
B) owe 120% or more of their income to debt payback?
C) both of the above?
Exactly.
And that’s what the “Outsourcing is good for the economy because it results in cheaper products” advocates don’t seem to understand. It doesn’t matter much how cheap something is. You can’t afford to buy it if you have been out of work for a year. Cheaper products don’t much matter if people are living in poverty. It also doesn’t matter much when taxes go up because we have to support more people on the welfare system cause they can’t get jobs.
“The US economy grew by leaps and bounds in the 80’s because the government racked up an astronomical debt.”
Bush’s “War on terror” is actually racking up even more debt that we did in the 80s during the cold war. We are accumulating debt right now faster than ever.
And yes, it is going to very ugly when reality sets in. When the entire U.S. economy crashes. For some reason the United States thinks it is invincible, and too strong to end up collapsing… Well, that’s what the Soviet Union thought. That’s also what the Egyptian Empire thought, and the Greek Empire, and the Romans, and the Persians. And no doubt every other large empire throughout history. I’m sure none of them ever concieved of what would happen do them.
And by comparision standards, the United States hasn’t even come close to reaching the kind of longevity that other strong nations throughout history have. The Egyptian empire laste over 3,000 years. The United States has been here only a little over 200.
Yes, it is going to be very scary when reality finally sets in, and when all this spending catches up to us.
The United States has been here only a little over 200.
Actually, the US only got involved in the ‘world politics’ in the last 50 years, up until then it was a benign power which kept to itself, worked with other nations, but pretty much kept to itself.
As for the US – it pretty much only has itself to blame – a people that are insular and ignorant of issues beyond their borders, a governmental structure which lacks accountability when things go wrong – aka, the Iraq War and the constant push ‘n shuffle of responsibility between politicians – all forgetting that the VAST majority voted for the war in the first place! and hypocracies which place higher value on complaining about side shows like same sex marriage and abortion, than the REAL issues like reducing government debt, creating new jobs, decreasing costs on businesses, freeing up the labour market, and reducing red tape.
It most certainly has been observed in practice. GM, who is often considered an economic indicator of the health of the entire U.S. economy, is almost certainly going to file bankruptcy. Why? A lot of it has to do with the fact that they can’t compete with low cost imports from Japan and Korea. And often, those imports are dumped in the United States at less than what it costs to make them in order to destroy U.S. competition.
Question: Why are companies, forced in the US to not only pay the outragious taxes, but then pay for the healthcare and superannuation of its employees when in ever other country (those funny little nations in that mystical ‘over seas’ realm) seem to get those nifty things paid for via the TAX THEY PAY TO THE GOVERNMENT EACH WEEK IN THEIR PAY AS YOUR EARN TAXATION!!!!!!!
If GM is dying, its dying because of crap leadership from the top of the US administration, and nothing to do with ‘cheap imports’.
“Question: Why are companies, forced in the US to not only pay the outragious taxes, but then pay for the healthcare and superannuation of its employees when in ever other country”
A: It is not “every other country”
B: Some US companies have higher profits than the GDPs of some entire countries. So at least part of this system works.
C: Yeah… Socialized medicine is great… If you don’t mind waiting a month or more before you can even see a doctor because of lower availability. Since socialized healthcare plans typically have rather stingy caps on what they will pay for any given services (and the clinics have to eat the rest of the cost), clinics can’t afford to hire as many doctors. And this means you have to wait a lot longer to even get seen for an appointment (like literally a month)
Socialized medicine is not all it is cracked up to be.
Socialized medicine is not all it is cracked up to be.
Oh pulease, I’m sitting in New Zealand, both the public and private sit side by side, if I want to have quicker response, more cover etc. I can pay for some health insurance, if I want faster operation times then I can go through the private health system – the public and private operate side by side as to allow the INDIVIDUAL to make the choice on which he or she would prefer to go to.
And you still haven’t addressed as to WHY companies should be paying for things other than simply the wage/salary to which their employee is entitled to? again, it isn’t the responsibility of the company to pay for things out side their core focus areas, and they SHOULDN’T be forced into paying for these things either.
If a company CHOOSES then offer those perks, then different story, but the fact is, these companies in the US are forced to, via legislation to PAY for these costs – believe me, if I were forced to pay for the health care of my workers I certainly wouldn’t hire any fat people, smokers, people with high blood pressure, drink alcohol etc. etc. If the government thinks it has the right to impose undue costs onto business, I in turn should be given the right to descriminate against those who will cost me the employer money in the long run.
“If the government thinks it has the right to impose undue costs onto business, I in turn should be given the right to descriminate against those who will cost me the employer money in the long run.”
So tell me then. Do businesses in New Zealand not pay any taxes? If they don’t, you must have extremely high personal income tax, and property tax rate. And probably very high sales tax rates as well.
We have three core taxes; GST, PAYE and Business tax – the business tax is a tricky one as you would have to take into account tax write offs.
On income tax, I pay 19.5% on the income I earn, and GST is sitting at 12.5% – there are no property taxes, no capital gains taxes (except on properties that have been held for less than 8 years), no stamp duties, no special taxes on share trading, no estate taxes.
Three core taxes, and thats it – it pails in comparison to the ‘tax on every damn thing’ that seems to exist in the US – pay roll tax, which punishes the employer for every employee he/she employs, to property tax, to a special social security tax etc.
When you look at the Economic Freedom Index, from the US Right Wing Think Tank, Heritage Foundation, NZ sits in the fifth position, equal to that of Ireland – the USA, however, is located in the 12th position – doesn’t say too much about the economic policies of the US at this current point in time.
Oh, and since I can’t reply directly to my message, I’ll do a follow up; personally, I favour a 10% tax on the first 38,000 and 20% on anything above 38,000, with a GST sitting at 15-16% and business tax sitting at 5%.
Sometimes is necessary to be a little radical to get things done – too bad with GWB majority in the upper and lower house, he hasn’t leveraged this position to push through some radical reforms in terms of taxation, spending etc.
Of course it does. Look at what it did to commercial UNIX.
*looks around* hmm, I still see UNIX shipments growing, their margins aren’t a high as they used to, but thats competition, UNIX is now being challenged, so they’ve lowered their price; considering that they’re now shipping MORE UNIX systems than they did in the past, with a mild 2% drop in revenue, I’d say they’re not doing too bloody bad considering the circumstances.
uh… I’m not sure where you are getting your numbers. But I would be very interested in seeing sources. They’ve suffered far more than a 2% drop in revenue. And commercial UNIX shipments are not growing (with the exception of Solaris, which is only growing because they have matched Linux’s price and made it free)
Solaris SPARC shipments are UP, POWER based server shipments are UP, HP shipments are UP the *ONLY* company *NOT* shipping more is SGI, but they were never in the ‘UNIX Business for the enterpise’ matrix anyway.
2% was the steepest decline, but they still, out sell, in terms of revenue, than Linux or Windows server combined. Linux and Windows are low margin, high volume gear, the UNIX vendors get the gist and are adjusting accordingly – SUN is making their OS available on Opteron and making Opteron a corner stone of their stratergy, and IBM are working with Linux to spur the adoption of the POWER architecture – so its actually all good for UNIX vendors.
UNIX shipments are based on MACHINE shipments NOT software shipments, there is a BIG difference.
“Solaris SPARC shipments are UP, POWER based server shipments are UP, HP shipments are UP”
I didn’t ask for more unsupported assertions from you. I asked for a citation. I want a source for your claims because quite simply, I don’t believe them. I think Sun’s Sparc shipments down. Not up. And HP’s Unix program is the joke of the industry. I seriously doubt HP’s unix program is doing better. They might be selling more servers with Linux preloads. But actual Unix (HP UX) servers? i highly doubt it.
Again, I didn’t ask you to make more unsupported claims. I asked you to provide a citation for the claim you originally made.
“Yeah… In Linux competition is only crushed by the fact that they have to compete with something that is free.”
Well in that case there wouldn’t be Microsoft and Apple today would there. There wouldn’t be Adobe or Intuit or Corel, the list goes on. There are even several Linux distributions that cost money and they are doing well, take Mandriva and Linspire for example. People don’t simply use Linux because it’s free, that is part of the appeal but the real reason they use it is because they like it.
“But for some reason, it seems to be ok that Linux drives commercial competetion down the toilet, but it is not ok for Microsoft to do the same thing. Don’t you think there is a bit of a double-standard going here?”
Microsoft broke laws, they leveraged their existing OEM customers and user base to commit anti-competitive acts against several companies throughoug their history. Microsoft killed off products that were both better and less expensive than their own rather than compete fairly and have to innovate to keep a dominant market position.
“People don’t simply use Linux because it’s free, that is part of the appeal but the real reason they use it is because they like it.”
Hobbiests don’t use it because it is free. Most businesses that use it do use it because it is free. Look at most Linux case studies of large businesses that are using it. What is the most common reason? Not technical surperiority. Not open source. But “Cause it saved money”.
“Most businesses that use it do use it because it is free. Look at most Linux case studies of large businesses that are using it. What is the most common reason? Not technical surperiority. Not open source. But “Cause it saved money”.”
Companies get some distributions for free, other’s they have to buy boxes sets and they do actually fork over for that, but the real money flow is in commercial support. Companies that can afford it don’t stop at just getting Linux, they also pay for support so they have someone to turn to when things go wrong, and someone to call on the carpet when things really go wrong. There is money flow and it is significant.
The businesses that don’t pay for support are sometimes still willing to buy a copy of the distribution they want to use. The reason they don’t pay for support is because they cannot afford it, in which case were they to use any other OS they wouldn’t be paying much if anything for that either.
Saving money is different from getting something entirely for free. Companies can still make a profit from offering something(s) for less than the competitors, and if the competitors don’t want to lower their prices then they can just sweaten the deal on their higher prices by offering something more.
“ther’s they have to buy boxes sets and they do actually fork over for that, but the real money flow is in commercial support.”
Sure. and those businesses that to pay for commercial support are supporting all the ones that don’t. Hence why Red Hat’s lowest level of support contract is more expensive than Sun’s higest level of support contract.
“The reason they don’t pay for support is because they cannot afford it, in which case were they to use any other OS they wouldn’t be paying much if anything for that either.”
That’s not true. A lot of them don’t buy support simply because they don’t think they will need it, even though they could easily afford it.
“Companies can still make a profit from offering something(s) for less than the competitors,”
They can. But as I aid, Red Hat doesn’t. Red Hat’s lowest level of support is more expensive than Sun’s highest level of support.
The vast majority of Linux distros running on servers, are not paid for. If they were, then Red Hat should have a lot more market capitalization value than they do considering how popular Red Hat Linux is.
“Sure. and those businesses that to pay for commercial support are supporting all the ones that don’t.”
It’s obvious you’re going to argue this all week just for fun, so this is my last answer and after that you’ll be arguing with yourself.
Companies build business models around providing a product for free and then making money off the services that people then pay for to accompany the free product. In this case the free product is a Linux distribution and the service people pay for can be any combination of the following:
– Access to a special package repository
– Priority access to new software
– Service by phone and e-mail
– Early access to new versions
People and companies will often try a free product before paying anything, this introduces them to the product and gives them a good chance to find out that they like it. If they do like it they’ll often pay for some subscriber extras if they can afford it, if not they’ll often pay for a boxed set to reward the company for making a good product. The fact that the product is available freely for an indefinite period of time doesn’t stop people from paying for it, if anything it encourages them to keep using the product and increases the already good chances that perspective customers will pay for it.
If people don’t pay for the product other costomers don’t pay extra to cover for that. Free versions are given away through low cost means, usually as a download which by being hosted on several third party mirrors and costs very little compared to income.
“That’s not true. A lot of them don’t buy support simply because they don’t think they will need it, even though they could easily afford it. “
Saying “A lot of them” isn’t true either. Sure some people can afford to pay for support but don’t because they don’t need it. Either way, as I’ve stated above the ones who don’t pay don’t cost the company much either, and they could easily become paying customers when presented with the bonuses of what a marginal amount of money can get them. Even if people only buy a boxed copy of the distribution with printed manuals, extra software on a CD, and nice looking profesionally made CDs that’s still enough to support the company and please the customer.
“They can. But as I aid, Red Hat doesn’t. Red Hat’s lowest level of support is more expensive than Sun’s highest level of support. “
Actually that proves what I’ve said, Sun is trying to make more money by selling for less than Red Hat, and assuming customers feel the product is worth the price they’ll bite. If Red Hat offers more features, better support or some other bonus with their higher price then they can price higher and still have lots of customers. The point is that most people care more about what they are getting for the price than what the price itself is.
“The vast majority of Linux distros running on servers, are not paid for.”
Actually the vast majority of comercially run Linux servers are on payed support contracts. I’ve spent a long time looking at different commercially run web hosting services, all the ones that offer Linux also have contracts with the distributiors that offer support contracts.
You’re saying that looks like nothing more than a wild assumption, or at best hearsay.
“If they were, then Red Hat should have a lot more market capitalization value than they do considering how popular Red Hat Linux is.”
Again this either a wild assumption or hearsay.
You think you know how much Red Hat is making off sold support contracts, as well as how many people use Red Hat Linux on servers? I highly doubt that.
Red Hat also isn’t the only distribution providing Linux, they wouldn’t get payed for people using Novell Linux, Novell would. The same goes for people using Linspire, if they want support they don’t pay Red Hat, they pay Linspire.
“It’s obvious you’re going to argue this all week just for fun, so this is my last answer and after that you’ll be arguing with yourself.”
Translation: You know you can’t win the argument, so you are going to get the last word in and then try to convince me not to respond because you won’t be looking. Nice tactic.
“Companies build business models around providing a product for free and then making money off the services that people then pay for to accompany the free product. In this case the free product is a Linux distribution and the service people pay for can be any combination of the following:”
Sounds great in theory. In reality, it rarely works. JBoss converts only about 3% to 5% of their users into paying customers. And that is on the high end. The typical rate of conversion is even lower. That means if you give your software away for free, only about3% of the people who use it will actually buy support contracts. You have to have a truely massive user base for that to be sustainable… Or you have to do one of the following:
A: Overcharge the customers that do pay to make up for the ones that aren’t. This is why Red Hat’s lowest level support plan is more expensive than Sun’s highest level support plan.
B: Cut your development costs by relying on volunteer developers to do most of the development for you. And like outsourcing, this plays a big role in reducing developers to commodity status who’s skills are not worth very much monetary value (and that’s for the ones that can actually get jobs).
“If they do like it they’ll often pay for some subscriber extras if they can afford it, if not they’ll often pay for a boxed set to reward the company for making a good product.”
As I said, on average, the people who actually pay for the extras is about 3% to 5% of the users. Make no mistake about it. Human beings are cheapskates. They are much quicker to punish then reward.
Saying “A lot of them” isn’t true either.
Yes it is true. When the average conversion from free user to subscriber is only 3%
“If Red Hat offers more features, better support or some other bonus with their higher price then they can price higher and still have lots of customers.”
But they don’t offer either more features, or better support. Sun’s support is superior to Red Hat. The reason Red Hat is so much more expensive is what I have already said. Only a very small percentage of their users are supporting the entire Red Hat company. I don’t know what Red Hat’s conversion rate to paying customer is. But as I said, the average is only 3%
“Actually the vast majority of comercially run Linux servers are on payed support contracts.”
Novell operates at a loss. So does MySQL and JBoss. In other words, it is a myth that businesses are making money off the “open source / service and support model”. Novell is losing money on SuSE, MySQL is losing money on MySQL, and JBoss is losing money on JBoss. Red Hat managed to finally make some money after 10 years of losses. But nearly half of it was from investment income. And it is also after having closed several offices and laying off quite a bit of its staff after the Linux FAD burst and its stock value crashed. VALinux also had to lay off over 35% of its staff after its stock value crashed.
“You’re saying that looks like nothing more than a wild assumption, or at best hearsay.”
So then don’t take my word for it:
http://www.forbes.com/intelligentinfrastructure/2005/06/15/jboss-ib…
Now matter how much the open source people want to deny it, making money off the service and support model is the exception, not the rule. It took Red Hat 10 years to make any money at all. And even then they only made $20 million after you take out investment income.
SuSE was losing money, and so is Novell. Turbolinux went bankrupt. So did Mandrake (And Mandrake was outselling Red Hat for awhile). MySQL operates at a loss, so does JBoss. And Red Hat and VA stock crashed bigtime, causing investors to lose billions of dollars. The stock value of Red Hat today is worth only about 1/10th of what it was during the peek of the Linux hype. VA Linux stock is worth less than 1/100th of what it was during the peak of the Linux hype.
Edited 2005-12-21 05:19
Linux can’t become a monoculture.
it would require far to much. As long as there is at least one distribution per country there will never be a monoculture strong enough to spread viruses like windows does. There are far to many subtle variations in each one for such an event to occur.
Besides with Linux any company could produce a unique OS to go with their computer hardware. Optimized for that hardware, Like Apple Does for OS X. Dell and Linspire, HP and novell, Red Hat and Levono.
that would produce a long term viable hardware market. Unlike the current offerings where hardware makers get 1-2% profit and mSFT gets 400% because bill Gates says hardware should be free. Even though it costs more to produce a million PC’s than it costs to produce a million copies of Windows.
Oh you mean redhat. I hate redhat, too.
Don’t you think there is a bit of a double-standard going here?
Not to mention how the Linux crowd whine about people breaking their precious GPL, while Linux steals from over 200 patents. Linux has become the enemy it supposedly despises. In a way it’s even worse. At least with Microsoft you can point the finger at someone. With Linux, everyone is quick to point the finger elsewhere. Hypocrites. Thieves. Liars.
Aside from legacy motive (and I speak as an AIX operator and a diehard Linux fan) there are a LOT of features and things AIX on Power has that Linux lacks, such as dynamic resizing of LPARs, tightly (and i mean real tight) integrated LVM and SCSI support, and a decent, unified system configuration interface.
The world of proprietary UNIX does offer several advantages Linux generally does not give out, and while I’d prefer that, in the interest of improving FOSS, they’d dedicate that money to an IBM Linux distro, the fact is that there is still quite a bit of customer demand for AIX. It is really a nice OS for business and for its hardware. Perhaps this was a cheaper(because the foundations for a lot of wanted features are already there) and more cost-effective (because AIX costs an arm, leg and left nut) maneuver.
Mostly agree, however AIX itself is not that expensive, it’s just that you have to buy IBM hardware to run it on.
Althought I’m not a fan of the AIX default shell (csh), AIX is a damn solid OS and has some really cool features of all of the ‘Nix variants I administer
The default shell on AIX is ksh.
“Not to mention how the Linux crowd whine about people breaking their precious GPL, while Linux steals from over 200 patents”
Pointless rumor. Can you even list a SINGLE one of them?
“”Not to mention how the Linux crowd whine about people breaking their precious GPL, while Linux steals from over 200 patents”
Pointless rumor. Can you even list a SINGLE one of them?”
I can’t name a single one of them.
I’m absolutely positive some of the largest Unix vendors and others, including Microsoft, can name many.
The “dirty little secret” is they will go after Linux when the time is right, and not until.
This is a future battle which won’t rear it’s ugly head until the need arises, or circumstances require such action.
”
I’m absolutely positive some of the largest Unix vendors and others, including Microsoft, can name many. ”
Ya and you know they have patents on Linux.
“The “dirty little secret” is they will go after Linux when the time is right, and not until. ”
how did you happen to know their dirty secret. work for them?
“”The “dirty little secret” is they will go after Linux when the time is right, and not until. ”
“how did you happen to know their dirty secret. work for them?”
No, I don’t work for them. They don’t need me.
The same developers who created some of this stuff DO work for them, and they keep hiring more of them on a daily basis.
Never a better professional witness, than the person dealing with their own work.
If they had played their cards right, Apple might have let them in on the big server end, with OSX. AIX is so–20th century.
wow, you are a moron.
I have a pretty good idea that if anyone sued the Linux community, Sun would step in front of the suit with a massive indemnity. They gave the first hint of that with OpenSolaris. they’re the hidden white knight in all this wrangling, you just watch.
“I have a pretty good idea that if anyone sued the Linux community,”
Nobody will sue the Linux community. Cease and desist, will be the method behind the madness. You can’t sue someone without anything to loose, but you can certainly make them cease operations at the corporate level.
Will this ever happen? I’ll guess along with ya, but my guess is there will be some serious issues to be dealt with at some point.
Indemnity by itself means little. There is nobody who could monetarily support such a claim, including IBM, who wouldn’t.
“Nobody will sue the Linux community. Cease and desist, will be the method behind the madness. You can’t sue someone without anything to loose,”
Well, they can sue entities and key figures for damages. Obviously, Red Hat would be one likely target. the Free Software Foundation would be another (since they are largely responsible for the GNU tools). Certain key individuals could also find themselves named.
“Well, they can sue entities and key figures for damages. Obviously, Red Hat would be one likely target. the Free Software Foundation would be another (since they are largely responsible for the GNU tools). Certain key individuals could also find themselves named.”
No, and for a lot of reasons….
The key figures as you put it are a lot less key than you assume. Red Hat isn’t a target because their pockets are shallow in the grand scheme of things. The FSF is a non-profit “thingy”, taken seriously only by those who are willing to take them seriously.
“The key figures as you put it are a lot less key than you assume. Red Hat isn’t a target because their pockets are shallow in the grand scheme of things.”
Red Hat’s pockets are shallow yes. But if they get sued for more than they can afford out of pocket, their insurance picks up the tab. If they get sued for higher than their insurance policy, then they have to pick it up out of pocket again. If they can’t, they have to file for chapter 11 or chapter 13 bankruptcy protection.
The problem here is that you are assuming financial gain would be only motive for suing Red Hat. But it’s not. Forcing them into bankruptcy would be another very real motive.
IBM moved to put its AIX Unix operating system back on everybody’s radar by revealing plans to create a development center on its Austin, Texas, campus to speed up AIX development.
So they can continue to add new AIX code into Linux.