Re: Future of IT in Lebanon
- From: "josephmouhanna" <josephmouhanna@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2005 10:38:51 GMT
"BM" <m-e-d-a-w-a-r@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:dmlsu2$87m$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[...................]
> Comparing Windows with Linux is not apt. MS labels as Windows not just
> the OS but everything else that ships on a Windows CD. MS does not make
> the distinction between the Windows OS kernel and the added Windows
> utilities. EU took MS to court to get it to un-bundle components from the
> OS.
Since the court case, and compliance negotiations, OEMs can pick and chose
between the various components. They can also pick to include everything,
and of course in its retail box, Microsoft includes everything. If you're
talking about the Media Player, then the dispute is whether the Real Player
should be in the retail box. It's probably not going to happen, because at
the OEM leve, the OEM is free to chose what to include (and yes, this came
as a result of court orders).
>> It's not about the percentage of source code changes, it's about the
>> number of APIs that must be supported in between generations of the OS.
>
> There is a corrolation. To support more API's you need to add more source
> code.
Obviously, added more APIs, without taking any out, adds more code. Not what
I was talking about though. This was in response to your question about how
the percentage of source code changes between OS iterations, as it relates
to Windows security flaws. My point here is that there are applications out
there that use certain APIs, and if the API itself may be flawed, yanking it
out may be a problem by itself. You can add a new call, but the applications
out there that use the existing API should still be allowed to run. With the
number of applications out there, this becomes a massive problem. You could
wipe the slate clean, whic is what Linux did, and you have a better shot at
an initial *clean* kernel. Eventually, your success will catch up with you
(the other point I was trying to make).
> [on open source]
>> This has yet to be proven in the field.
You're taking servers and I'm talking desktops.
> - Linux, some 25-35% of the installed server base (don't know the latest
> stat).
> - Mozilla (BTW 1.5 just out) with some 10% of the market
> - Apache with some 60-70% of the http server installed server base
> - GNU cc
> - Perl
> - PHP
> - and the list goes on
Microsoft had almost no market share in the Server space. It's been gaining
consistently, and both the Microsoft platform and Linux platforms are
growing at the expense of Linux and other servers.
>
>> [..] Also, the Linux community's claim that Windows does not undergo
>> extensive peer review (or peer review, period) is a myth (sorry, but I
>> cannot elaborate).
>
> I know, you will then have to shoot me :-)
No, you'll need to attend the briefings and sign the NDAs :-)
>> [..] Also, don't assume that you cannot diff between versions of Windows
>> (yes, developers who work for private companies know how to use
>> development tools :-))
>
> You *can* diff apples to oranges. Point is that the delta between
> different versions of Linux is small. It is in fact more cost effective
> (storage-wise) to distribute a Linux diff's then to distrubute a whole
> package.
You're assuming that this would not be the case for Microsoft products, and
this is not an assumption you can make. You also have to stay within the
bounds of the OS, i.e. XP, XP Home, Server 2003, etc.
>> I expect it to be easier than stopping at a gas station for a refill, the
>> thing will never need refueling.
>
> Perpetual machine? :-)
Always connected, fed through the *cloud* and does not necessarily look like
a PC.
>> Sure, I have plenty of Windows horror stories. I'm countering your
>> argument of no-complexity at the Linux level :-)
>
> Hm.. I didn't claim that there are no-complexities at the Linux Level.
OK, so we're in agreement, complexity exists on both sides.
>> I can't, it's built into the motherboard. Corporations will continue to
>> make decisions that make business sense.
>
> Then your solution is a Linux friendly motherboard. What makes a piece of
> hardware Linux friendly or not is whether the vendor releases its spec's.
> If it does, a legion of developers will develop device drivers for it that
> could then make the next release of the Linux Kernel.
The motherboard does not have a spec per se, the components do and *all* of
the components' specs are released. In this case, I did not say that the
driver does not exist (it's on the VIA web site). It's available there only
as source code, with minimal instructions. I would have to compile it (the
compiler portion of the install failed), and then figure out how to install
it.
>> I'm not underestimating market dynamics, I was trying to remind you that
>> they exist :-) Paradigm shifts are not always about applications, they're
>> also pretty complex. The jump from horse power to internal combustion
>> engines created a paradigm shift that rippled throughout everyone's
>> lives. The invention of the transistor created a paradigm shift or
>> similar proportions, building on that, the invention of the Integrated
>> Circuit created a paradigm shift, and set the stage for another paradigm
>> shift. This next paradigm shift happened gradually, and it was not about
>> the killer app alone: first came the PC, then came VisiCalc which turned
>> the PC into something more useful than a boat anchor, then came
>> *standardization* (yes, brought to you by none other than the Emperor
>> himself), and that set the stage for mass production of PCs, next came
>> the graphical user interface (brought to you by Xerox, and emulated by
>> Apple, Microsoft and eventually Linux), then came the Internet, at which
>> point, this paradigm shift is somewhat completed.
>
> All examples above are about killer apps by any other name:
>
> - from horse power to internal combustion: killer app engine => car
Killer app is not engine, it's car. An engine is another name for boat
anchor. A car is something I can use as a *consumer*.
> - transistor => small Radio
The paradigm shift was moving from vaccum tubes to semiconductors. The small
radio is an application, and the first real application was by IBM when it
introduced transistor to computer.
> - IC => computer
Consumer electronics are the biggest consumers of ICs, not computers. I was
also saying that the IC is a continuation of the semiconductor paradigm
shift. Applications built on that shift.
I'm not splitting hairs, I'm addressing the many business decisions that
occur when a paradigm shift is taking place. The most important of those is
that if a company or an individual are capable of identifying correctly a
paradigm shift, and another company not recognizing it, then it's possible
for a small company or an individual to slide in and become a market leader.
Apple waltzed in and became a powerhouse out of a garage operation, but it's
not possible today for a garage-based operation to become a major player in
the PC space. IBM on the other hand, did not read the trend properly, and
lost its #1 position to a company started by someone in their dorm room
(Dell).
> Standards are not set by a company. They are set by standard bodies.
I'll have to disagree on this. De facto, standards are set by how well the
market accepts them. There are plenty of standard bodies out there defining
things that hardly anyone will ever use.
> Of course a company could inovate a technology that gets adopted by a
> standards body.
Until it's accepted by the market, it's not a standard.
>> What is the next paradigm shift? is it Linux? no, Linux part of the
>> existing paradigm shift.
>
> Linux is just an app (in the context above).. not a paradigm shift. Open
> source is a paradigm shift.
Yes, the litmus test is whether a nobody can jump in and be a success
exploiting the shift.
[....................]
> Competition drives prices down.
Sometime. Try buying a pair of speakers. Competition is fierce, but no one
is willing to price their product fairly (the markup is astronomical). The
market also contributes to this mess: if I see a pair of inexpensive
speakers, I'm going to think bad (not true).
> Quality drives prices up. People chose (better price vs better quiality)
> based on needs and means.
.... and what the industry as a whole allows them to chose between (see the
speakers example. Another example is jewlery)
> Now you may ask what OS the hosting services run :-) Take a look at the
> server market for the shape of things to come. Currently the breakdown is
> about (don't quote me):
>
> 1/3 Linux
> 1/3 Windows
> 1/? Unix (RS/6000, Solaris, etc.)
> 1/? Other (mainframe, etc.)
>
> The server market is a totally different arena then consumer desktop.
Yes, but it does not mean that *one* OS is going to run the services.
[....................]
> Halo is a MS product.. you won't see it on Linux in our lifetimes.
> http://www.microsoft.com/games/halo/default.asp
You don't think Microsoft will release Linux versions of its products? It
will if the market is large enough. It seleases its office suite for the
MAC.
> Half-Life is apparently on Linux:
> http://lhl.linuxgames.com/
Not exactly. This was an April's fool joke. There are layers that emulate
Windows under Linux, and at least one of them claims that HL2 works fine.
> Here is the website:
> http://laptop.media.mit.edu/
>
> The closest to a spec is apparently a FAQ:
> http://laptop.media.mit.edu/faq.html
Not sure I would call these specs.
>> There's not much available in terms of public specs (to my knowledge). I
>> base my comments in this thread on publicly available information. This
>> is a *proposed* laptop. [..]
>
> Thanks for the info.
>
>> Let's start by defining what Lebanon needs. Lebanon needs a curriculum
>> incorporating the Internet and connectivity as part of the teaching
>> experience. [..]
>
> It is interesting that you frame the need in pedagogic terms.
Hmm. You asked for an evaluation of the MIT laptop for Lebanon. The laptop
*is* exclusively an education-targeted tool, specifically for kids. I don't
know how to frame it any differently in relation to this particular MIT
project.
> I think it is fair to say that there are a variety of needs for multiple
> uses. A housewife need for computing is other than a company CEO need, is
> other than a student need.
Absolutely, but then we're no longer discussing the MIT project.
> Looking at the available info that you stated and I glmipsed from the MIT
> website it looks like this device is a little more than a toy.
Until the ecosystem materializes, it's a very limited toy.
> I frame Lebanon softwre needs in two broad categories by price:
We're off the MIT project topic, but OK.
> - Pay software (PS)
> - Free software (FS)
>
> Both should be available and promoted as viable alternatives to piracy.
Sure.
> All segments of the society could use both. For example schools and
> businesses might have a few PS PC's and many FS PC's.
Sure.
> Of course the price of the hardware has to be affordable.. mass
> production/import of components and local assembly would defray the cost.
> Of course, quality control of some sort is needed so that locally
> assembled PC's would meet some standard qualification test. The test
> could be run by a user at purchase time so that the performance test
> result would help drive the price of the hardware. Laws must be passed to
> protect the consumer so that a minimum warrantee is implied. People who
> assemble PC's could be licensed to ensure compliance with consumer
> protection laws.
There are a number of companies in Lebanon that specialize in refurbishing
PCs and accessories. The resulting products are not impressive.
> As far as infrastructure, the better the merrier. There is an initial
> investment cost that the society has to accept. The funding can be
> privatized if there is a safe return on investments. The government needs
> to get out of the monopoly control business. Communications laws should
> be liberalized to create multi-sourcing competition while ensuring
> consumer protection at the same time.
Sure.
>> BTW, the Linux discussion is very relevant to Lebanon.
>
> Agreed..
[...............]
> For a healthy IT industry to develop, it has to be based on the creation
> of intellectual property (IP) assets and not just consumption of imported
> goods. For this to happen, IP must be protected.
I had this conversation earlier today with someone who's organizing a
Lebanese IT visit to our area next week. I'll meet with them as well next
week, and repeat same.
> Of course there is always going to be (needs to be) a service-based
> component to the IT industry. From my perspective it appears that the
> service component today exceeds 99% of the IT market share.
It's because it's not something that can be stolen. IT comapnies in Lebanon
develop proprietary apps for the Lebanese and Arab markets. They get paid
for the project, education and support. They don't worry about piracy.
> Investments in the IT services segment means importing hardware (devices,
> switches, communications gear, etc.) There is little growh that can be
> achieved with the service segment because the paying base is small (within
> Lebanon geographic confines). Whereas if IP based segment
> (software/hardware/gadget creation) expands then the products are
> exportable and are not limited to the small Lebanon population market.
OK.
>> There should be some hedge betting, but the bulk of resources should be
>> directed toward what makes commercial sense for Lebanon, and sorry
>> Bassem, but the calculated business decision made by the guy in the
>> business suit, is what will put a meal on the table at the end of the
>> day.
>
> The problem is precisely the end-of-the-day, short term, get-rich-quick,
> scope. There needs to be national long term planning where the society's
> long term interest is considered. This type of planning can not be done
> by a business suit looking to put a meal on the table at the end of the
> day.
You assume that the guy in the suit has no clue how to do long term
planning. Not true. A whole lot of people on business suits spend a lot of
time trying to figure out what should be done now, to insure success five
years from now. I'll bring up Microsoft: it has been investing in R&D for
more than eight years, with an eye on entering the market for TV in 2006 or
2007. Another example is the Xbox: it costs Microsoft about $200 more to
build the box than they charge for it (and this is cost of hardware alone),
so the suits there are not thinking this quarter or the next, they're
thinking a number of years to build enough momentum for their future
software sales.
> One Lebanese government national IT planning strategy a few years back was
> to cut a sweetheart deal with a large global software company (that shall
> remain anonymous) to cut the price of software sold to students. That's
> it! Pitiful! And it was only done to pass an IP protection law!
Why keep it anonymous, it's not like the annoucements were not made in the
press. That same comapny (BTW), cut a deal with the Algerians. The Algerian
national program prescribes four PC models (two desktop and two laptops).
They all come bundled with XP and Office 2003.
> bassem
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Future of IT in Lebanon
- From: BM
- Re: Future of IT in Lebanon
- References:
- Future of IT in Lebanon
- From: BM
- Future of IT in Lebanon
- Prev by Date: Re: Hosam Hosam is a Syrian intelligence decoy
- Next by Date: Focus on the covert cooperation between parties who were playing enemies.... 03
- Previous by thread: Future of IT in Lebanon
- Next by thread: Re: Future of IT in Lebanon
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
