Re: Future of IT in Lebanon

"BM" <m-e-d-a-w-a-r@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:dmogj3$o53$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[.....................]
> My point was that each iteration MS code changes a lot [win3 -> win95 ->
> winnt -> win2k -> winxp]
>
> The contrast to Linux is that the linux kernel changes little between
> versions, so little that it is more storage cost effective to distribute
> source diffs.
>
> The deeper point that I was making is that the large volume of source
> changes between major releases explains (in part) why Windows is defect
> prone.

Are you saying that if a program (forget about the nature of the program)
does not change much in 10 years is better or more secure than a program
where a lot of change occurred? I don't understand the science of this
assumption on its face value, as it does not take into consideration the
nature of change, reasons behind it and potential gains in security,
performance and features. To flat out say that Linux progammers were made
and the mold was broken, would fall into the realm of religion. So, in a
world, where designers, architects and programmers are actually smart people
who know what they're doing, what's left is the factors I listed,
essentially the state of the art of the hardware preventing the development
of an impregnable OS that will still perform reasonably well.

The vulnerability issue can be settled with a single test: the system is
either secure, and in that case exploitation is not possible, or it's not,
and in that case, even a single exploitation could be indicative of bigger
things to come, if hackers had the time and inclination to go to town on the
kernel or anything else around it. Linux security has been breached and
Windows security has been breached, therefore there's no reason to believe
that the problem can get worse on Linux, giving time and inclination.
Inclination may also be lacking as it seems as if some folks out there are
simply anti-Microsoft. Personally, I think that position is unfair and does
not take into consideration the simple fact that Microsoft made the
industry, and without its business tactics (whether or not you agree with
them), the industry, at a minimum, would be 5-10 years behind where it is
today.

[....................]
>
> The above statement "This has yet to be proven in the field" is yours, not
> mine. The context was open source, not server of desktop.

Yet, you responded with server numbers.

> At any rate:
>
>>>- Mozilla (BTW 1.5 just out) with some 10% of the market
>
> Mozilla is a desktop app.

Is this related to Linux, or Open Source? Open Source exists on Windows as
well, whether or not Microsoft or others participate. Either way, Mozilla is
an application and *not* a kernel and the browser runs on both server and
desktop. If it's about free distribution, most browsers (IE included) are
free.

>> Microsoft had almost no market share in the Server space.
>
> Microsoft first shot at server segment came with NT.

Actually OS2, 17+ years ago. Hardware platforms premitting a reasonable
server, but not mission critical suitable, did not arrive until about
1992-1993.

> It's been a decade since NT. Linux is a little over a decade old. Length
> of time is comparable (slight edge to Linux) as far as funding behind the
> OS, Window has a big edge.

Actually, the Linux kernel is essentially a freely distributable version of
Unix. Unix predates Windows by at least a decade. Linux is a combination of
Linus's name and UNIX. UNIX *was* one of the most popular OS'es for
mini-computers. Linus Trevold ported it to the 80386 architecture and made
it available freely as source code. Also, how are you coming up with your
funding estimate? Are you counting the funding that went into Unix over the
past 30 years? how about the thousands of unpaid coders who contribute? Do
you think more man power went into Windows than Linux or the other way
around?
[........................]
> Note Solaris went this week open source :-)

They will disappear as a hardware provider if they do not. Note that they
also provide Windows-platform servers. Once the Intel processors caught up
with Sun's processors in terms of speed (Intel is mass market, so price is a
constant and is related to what an average home/business user can spend on a
computer), Sun could not justify its pricing and margins. They had Java
left, and tried to limit J2EE and extract royalties, they tried selling
Windows-platform PCs, and now they think they found an angle: buy
higher-performance CPUs from Sun at a low price (but not as low as the Intel
platform). They've been hinting at this latest move for quite some time.

[..................]
> Not having signed any NDA, I have no idea what the Windows source looks
> like. I am making an educated guess based on the changed functionality as
> a user. As to staying within bounds, that's precisely my point. With
> Linux you don't have to stay within bounds to make a usable diff.

The issue is far more complex than a guess can allow, and sorry, but an
educated guess cannot be made here without taking into consideration the
evolution of the Intel platform, and to having started required to support a
fully operational OS on a system with no hard disk and double floppies, and
then future requirements to continue supporting somethign as weak as an
8-bit system. Design decisions are driven at times by the realities of the
commercial market. Note that Linux was a server OS and it's only now
(barely) making it to the desktop (but not for the mass market yet).

>> The motherboard does not have a spec per se,
>
> Why not, they grow on trees? :-)

No, they do not have *individual* specs. The spec is called the Hardware
Design Guide version 20xx (where xx stands for the year). It is published by
Microsoft and created by the hardware vendors who convene with Microsoft.
The spec is a collection of the sub-components that make up the motherboard
and the possible internal and external buses. How to implement depends on
the type of chipsets used, the South Bridge, the North Bridge, etc. Even
embedding on the motherboard is a bit misleading, as the embedded part will
behave just like an add-in card as far as the system is concerned (and the
OS): it communicates through one of the common I/O buses.

> That's exactly my point. If VIA were to release its hardware spec then
> there would be third party Linux drivers for it. As it is, you have to
> rely on what the vendor releases on the vendor terms.

VIA has the specs, white papers, implementation notes, etc. on its web site:
http://www.via.com.tw/en/resources/download-center/chipsets/

I'm sure someone in the Linux development community has figured out how to
find the web site :-)

>>>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.
>
> Market proves an innovation, a standards body makes it standard. "Defecato
> standards" by a monopoly say more about the monopoly than about the
> standard.

You don't have to be a monopoy to set a defacto standard. Example: Sun
created Java and has yet to relinquish its grip (even though the semblance
of a community is maintained as a fig leaf).

>> There are plenty of standard bodies out there defining things that hardly
>> anyone will ever use.
>
> Yet there are standards that are the basic block of everything we use
> today from ASCII, to communication protocols going through how many rings
> are on a shower curtain :-)

What you're saying does not negate what I'm saying. Setting curtain rings
aside, and using the motherboard (seeing it's part of this discussion now),
hundreds of millions of motherboards were sold, and they are *all* built to
defacto standards that are not defined by official standards bodies.

>> Until it's accepted by the market, it's not a standard.
>
> This sounds like a religious argument.

If a tree fell in the forest, and no one saw it fall, did it really fall?
There are professional standard-setters, and then there is reality (not
religion).

[.....................]
> MAC is a different story. Aside from the technical merits, MAC is a fig
> leaf for MS in its dispute with the DoJ.

Microsoft started developing for the MAC fifteen years before the DoJ
lawsuit. The reason is exactly what I stated: money. If you look at the
publicly available information, you'll see that Microsoft was making a lot
of money off MACs. People think that Microsoft is an evil empire driven by
plotters and sub-plotters. Reality is far simpler than this.

>> Not sure I would call these specs.
>
> I didn't call them specs.

Good then we're in agreement.

>> 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.
>
> When I saw what the laptop offered, I lost interest.

OK, but I was responding to your request to analyze the laptop suitability
for Lebanon. Given it's a pure educational program, the only point of
reference for Lebanon would be the educational.

[................]
> Thanks.. we need to repeat it until it sinks. I read today at Intel is
> openming a $3.5 US Billion chip manufactoring plant in Israel.

Intel is also setting up a small fund ($35M I believe) for technology
startups in the Arab World. Intel designed the 808x family of products in
Israel and has been designing some of its flag products in the processor,
networking and security space in Israel for over 20 years, it also has (and
had for a while) significant fabrication facilities in Israel. It makes
economical and technological sense for Intel to do that. Salaries are not
lower in Israel, but very highly skilled and abundant engineers are
available, as a result of Israel having spent big time on its education
programs since the inception of the State of Israel. Israel's airplanes use
avionics completely developed inside Israel.
[.................]
> Custom development.. limited market... small shops.. small vision.

I don't blame the developers, I blame the abscence of law enforcement and
the economic conditions.

>> You assume that the guy in the suit has no clue how to do long term
>> planning.
>
> No.. I am sure he must have gone to some planing school.. that's not the
> point. The point is that he/she is driven to make instant gains. As such
> he/she can not afford long term plans because long term plans don't "put a
> meal on the table at the end of the day", to use your expression.

There are short term planners and there are long term planners. Any decent
size company would have both, as well as people who consolidate the two
positions. There is also such a thing as product lifecycles.

>> 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.
>
> Sure, if they have deep pockets and are worried about their position in
> five years to come.

Worrying about where you need to be in five years if something every
successful company must do. Silicon Valley is littered with the carcasses of
companies that could not grow beyond a single product.

>> 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.
>
> Deep pockets permit companies to exercise a dumping strategy (selling
> below cost). Dumping is illegal in some other industries.

Microsoft's position is actually based on the industry concensus: to sell
game consoles, the consoles have to provide performance levels beyond the
desktop (the XBOX 360's CPU is more powerful than Intel's most powerful
CPU), and wait until you see what Sony is coming out with in a couple of
months. They also have to be at or below a certain price (the sweet spot),
else the market will never happen. So, they all agree to sell concoles below
cost to create a software market (games). If you're a diabetic, you can get
a free test machine, but you have to buy the test strips. If you go to the
movies, they charge you for the contents of the cup, but the cup itself is
free, etc.

[...................]
> Because the point was not about the behemoth that cut the deal but the
> lack of vision on the part of the (then) government to have a winning IT
> strategy in Lebanon.

A winning IT strategy is being presented to the Lebanese government. You'd
hope they listen. I will write a report on the IT delegation's visit
(they're here on the 9th).

> bassem


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Linux Market share?
    ... >number is almost microscopic (since most Linux servers are configured ... many of the servers now ... >> captured by some product provider to that market. ... >> which is the market area that Microsoft was found to have monopoly power ...
    (alt.os.linux.suse)
  • Re: [Slightly OT] Re: Ranter or evangelist?
    ... The only way to estimate the marketshare of Linux is reading the headers ... "Estimates for the desktop market share of Linux range from less than one ... In comparison, Microsoft operating systems ... on vastly more hardware than Microsoft Windows, ...
    (Fedora)
  • Re: Linux? Youre kidding right????????
    ... > Why on earth would anyone consider using Linux? ... Microsoft Office documents. ... Their Windows Applications are actually Linux ... server on the market. ...
    (alt.os.linux)
  • Re: Microsoft Taking Official Petitions to Keep XP Alive
    ... > You must be a newbie to the business. ... Novell does sell Linux SUSE and would not doubt ... > major chunck of their business activitied evaporated in market share ... > Now I am not saying Microsoft is going out of business. ...
    (rec.radio.shortwave)
  • Re: Ranter or evangelist?
    ... understand the importance of market share for Linux? ... understand how important it is for them that Linux gets as little as ... Microsoft lawyers get rid of their problems with the European Community ... in Dirac format, a format that nobody will ever use since it's not ...
    (Fedora)
Quantcast