On Wed, 28 Mar 2001, Josh Cohen wrote:
> oh please.
> If we're talking about "bonafide" real companies using it,
> the license to machine ratio is low, since the support
> from redhat (or other) is important to them.
Support from redhat, unlike support from M$, is not tied to a particular
machine.
> If we're talking about the freewheeling people
> who dont care about support, then it may be higher.
> But I still think that today, even for someone
> who might copy, its cheaper and less hassle to buy
> your own redhat for $29...
Most of the linux installations were put in without the knowledge (or
blessing) of MIS management in many cases. There are plenty of print,
file, and webservers out there running linux, completely unbeknownst to
the beancounters.
> Finally, NT/2k costs alot, did it ever occur that the licence count
> for it might be low as well? People pirate 2K a LOT. Most enlightened
> noncommercial linux users I know paid for a redhat CD to support the
> cause but went right ahead and burned a copy of 2k.
So why risk a lawsuit that you'd probably lose? Or are you completely
unaware of all the spyware M$ has embedded in that product?
>
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Nick Seidenman [mailto:nicks@argate.net]
> >Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2001 11:15
> >To: geeks@lig.net
> >Cc: Josh Cohen; Eugene.Leitl@lrz.uni-muenchen.de; Karl Anderson;
> >Adam@knownow.com; FoRK@XeNT.CoM
> >Subject: Re: [Geeks] Big Blue Wages Open Warfare, was: Re:
> >[Jeff Covey @
> >Freshmeat] We Are Losing the Browser War
> >
> >
> >
> >They're table indicating license shipments is misleading. ONe linux
> >"license" can mean HUNDREDS (and in a few cases THOUSANDS) of installed
> >machines. It's more ubiquitous than they're willing to admit in this
> >article.
> >
> >On Wed, 28 Mar 2001, Stephen D. Williams wrote:
> >
> >> "Stephen D. Williams" wrote:
> >> >
> >> ...
> >> > We've been through the kind of monopoly that MS would tend
> >to become,
> >> > IMHO, with the old ATT and IBM. Competition has been a
> >huge boon to
> >> > consumers since those monopolies or near monopolies,
> >respectively, were
> >> > overcome.
> >>
> >> I should have pointed out that the new IBM's moves are one of the
> >> reasons that I'm optimistic about Linux, Java, XML, etc. in the near
> >> term. I'm not, yet, worried about their regressive
> >tendancies (although
> >> I wish they'd kill or open source Lotus Notes).
> >>
> >> >From Business 2.0 coverstory, April 2001 (not available online yet):
> >>
> >> Big Blue Wages Open Warfare
> >>
> >> "IBM, the $88 billion behemoth, is committing itself to one
> >of the most
> >> radical shifts in its corporate history: a move away from proprietary
> >> systems and toward an open computing environment. Don't
> >expect peace,
> >> love, and flowers however. The future of IBM is at stake. And,
> >> perhaps, the future of the entire computer industry."
> >>
> >> "... by CEO Lou Gerstner. It's hugely ironic that he is
> >committing the
> >> company to what may become the most radical shift in its
> >77-year history
> >> -- a tough questioning of the proprietary lock-in model and a warm
> >> embrace of open computing."
> >>
> >> "open computing is now central to Big Blue's future."
> >>
> >> "Indeed, it is the lack of control -- the lack of
> >proprietary lock-in --
> >> that makes IBM's strategy revolutionary."
> >>
> >> "Gerstner is basically doing a technology hedge."
> >>
> >> "In addition to sinking $1 billion into Linux development
> >this year, IBM
> >> will invest $300 million over three years to create Linux-related
> >> training, education, and consulting services."
> >>
> >> "If IBM can afford to be agnostic, it still must persuade
> >customers that
> >> it is not simply attempting a different sort of lock-in.
> >IBM's take is
> >> that Microsoft and Sun, which are trying to sell services of
> >their own,
> >> cannot be trusted because their ultimate aim is to lock
> >customers into
> >> Windows and Solaris."
> >>
> >> Worldwide server operating environments:
> >>
> >> New Software license shipments by platform, 1999 and 2000 (thousands)
> >>
> >> 1999 2000 1999-2000 growth%
> >> WinNT/2k 2,086 38.4% 2,508 40.9% 20.2%
> >> Linux 1,322 24.3% 1,645 26.9% 24.4%
> >> Netware 3-5 1,064 19.6% 1,030 16.8% -3.1%
> >> Combined Unix 826 15.2% 826 13.5% 0.0%
> >> Other NOS 140 2.6% 116 1.9% -17.4%
> >> Total 5,438 100.1% 6,125 100.0 12.6%
> >>
> >> Solaris in 1999 had 22.5% of Unix market, in 2000 it's 31.7%.
> >>
> >> So NT/2K has 40.9% in 2000, Linux/Unix has 40.4% in Unit Shipments.
> >> This should mean that installed servers are much higher for
> >Linux/Unix
> >> due to copying and lower incidence of new OS shipments being
> >counted for
> >> existing servers.
> >>
> >> sdw
> >> --
> >> sdw@lig.net http://sdw.st
> >> Stephen D. Williams
> >> 43392 Wayside Cir,Ashburn,VA 20147-4622 703-724-0118W
> >703-995-0407Fax
> >> Dec2000
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Geeks mailing list
> >> Geeks@lig.net
> >> http://www.lig.net/mailman/listinfo/geeks
> >>
> >
> >----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Nick Seidenman, CISSP
> > Senior Security Consultant
> > Hyperon, Inc.
> > www.hyperon.com
> >
> >
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nick Seidenman, CISSP
Senior Security Consultant
Hyperon, Inc.
www.hyperon.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Apr 27 2001 - 23:15:08 PDT