Rockin' on without Microsoft

[laurentius]

Excatly Sir Ralph

[Asher]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
AFAIK, no warning is necessary. They can just pop up at your doorstep one cheery morning.

Why don't you read the license then. I just told you it's in the license, and you seem to ignore that.

http://news.com.com/2100-1012_3-5050986.html

The company also expanded its product warranties for licensing customers from 90 days to a year and expanded the minimum notice given to customers regarding software audits from 15 days to 30 days.

[Asher]

Originally posted by laurentius
Um, why are you Microsoft-lovers always so bully. Clearly this guys knows his business better than you. you laugh at him because his not in the IT business.

I laugh at people in the IT business, actually. It's on the same lines as pump jockeys.

I laugh at him not because he's not in IT, but because he clearly didn't do it for the best interest of his company: He'd replace computers with an abacus if that's what it would take.

But suddenly it's a stunning endorsement that Linux is better than an abacus...

[Asher]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph
If people like Asher ("Sweet, a guitar-stringe maker talking about computers.") or skywalker ("Wow, I'll listen to him about what software I use. Whew! A GUITAR-STRING MAKER! What a computer whiz!") talk disdainful about people in other branches, it's not only highly arrogant, it's like insulting their future customers. To despise his own customers is certainly not good for one's business.

It's not despising the customers, it's admitting that someone who makes guitar strings and admitted that he'd use an abacus instead of windows probably isn't the best example of someone switching to Linux.

It's not hating him, it's laughing at him for his stupid political agenda, just like McNealy. You need to get over that **** when you run a business and use what's best for you and your people.

I've nothing against the man, I just have to wonder what idiots look to him for computer advice.

I also fail to understand what IT to do with anything. I despise IT departments, too. They're usually filled with morons like Urban Ranger who think they're the sh*t, like Nick Burns from SNL...

Who would you think is more apt to discuss investing: Me, or an investment banker? Sure, I could talk about it and say how I made a few bucks off of buying MS stock, but that doesn't make me a model for everyone else, nor an expert that needs to be praised...

[Harovan]

Originally posted by Asher
It's not despising the customers, it's admitting that someone who makes guitar strings and admitted that he'd use an abacus instead of windows probably isn't the best example of someone switching to Linux.

Yet one more who wouldn't recognize an analogy even if it jump in his face. Ok, I explain his sentence slowly, for a concrete-headed MS fan: "I said, 'I don't care if we have to buy 10,000 abacuses,'" is an exaggeration and means to his IT department, that he doesn't care what they buy (he has to rely on their knowledge anyway) just it shall be anything except Microsoft products.

It's not hating him, it's laughing at him for his stupid political agenda, just like McNealy. You need to get over that **** when you run a business and use what's best for you and your people.

You laugh at others, others laugh at you. And can you please prove that MS products are "the best for you and your people"?

I've nothing against the man, I just have to wonder what idiots look to him for computer advice.

Nobody asks him for advice what software to use. He's nothing but an example, that it is easily possible to run a Microsoft free business and even save lots of money. But a lot of things what he says, makes sense. For what does a secretary need a web browser? What does she need a new PC for, just because the new MS software needs again 300% more resources for 10% more features (which no one needs anyway, because MS Office is already bloated) and her old computer won't run with that monster? Who will pay the losses the company had while cleaning the latest email worm/virus/whatever? And so on.

Who would you think is more apt to discuss investing: Me, or an investment banker?

I would trust neither of them. The investment banker, because of his bias (most of them depend on a certain bank, they just don't admit it), and you because of your self admitted lack of knowledge.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph
Yet one more who wouldn't recognize an analogy even if it jump in his face. Ok, I explain his sentence slowly, for a concrete-headed MS fan: "I said, 'I don't care if we have to buy 10,000 abacuses,'" is an exaggeration and means to his IT department, that he doesn't care what they buy (he has to rely on their knowledge anyway) just it shall be anything except Microsoft products.

I obviously recognize the analogy, and it doesn't invalidate anything I've said. Maybe I will explain MY position slowly: When someone says that they won't judge applications based on their usefuless and productivity, but by who made them, it's not a very wise business decision.

You laugh at others, others laugh at you. And can you please prove that MS products are "the best for you and your people"?

Nope, but I've never asserted that either.
My point was, he didn't evaluate applications based on their merit, but who made them.
That's simply a dumb business move. He could've looked at the strengths and weaknesses, then chosen Linux, and it would've been a wise move -- but he's admitted himself that he didn't care, as long as it wasn't MS products. Stupid.

Nobody asks him for advice what software to use.

Are you kidding? Kids on Slashdot are saying he should run a consulting company on promoting people switching to Linux and helping them with it. He's willingly had his company and himself put on a frontpage of a major tech news site extolling virtues on what software to use, when he's clearly not qualified to make such a call. The least they could've done is talk to his CTO.

[Harovan]

Originally posted by Asher
I obviously recognize the analogy, and it doesn't invalidate anything I've said. Maybe I will explain MY position slowly: When someone says that they won't judge applications based on their usefuless and productivity, but by who made them, it's not a very wise business decision.

Granted, but MS pissed him and he has every right to boycott them. If somebody treated me that way, he would be out of business for me too. And it looks as if he was successful.

Are you kidding? Kids on Slashdot are saying he should run a consulting company on promoting people switching to Linux and helping them with it. He's willingly had his company and himself put on a frontpage of a major tech news site extolling virtues on what software to use, when he's clearly not qualified to make such a call. The least they could've done is talk to his CTO.

Kids on Slashdot are ... well ... kids on slashdot. I wouldn't take them any serious, even if I were you. In fact, I even ceased to read Slashdot regularly for that reason. But again, if he steps on the table and yells "Look at me, I did it", and there are people who listen to him, it's his damn right to do so and their right to listen to him or not. Do you deem Bill Gates himself "qualified to make such a call"? He may be a business genius, but he's an absolute embryo when it comes to programming. The only thing he's perfectly able to do is to fill his own pocket. Why, pray tell, should I listen to him?

[Verto]

And people say MS has a monopoly...

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph
Granted, but MS pissed him and he has every right to boycott them. If somebody treated me that way, he would be out of business for me too. And it looks as if he was successful.

No one said he didn't have the right; we just said he was stupid.

[JohnT]

I'm not too sure why this guy is necessarily being considered a "bad businessman" by a few in this thread. While his decision was likely hasty and made without a full analysis of the facts, there is nothing "unbusinesslike" about suddenly canceling ones license(s) or orders just because one company does not care for the practices of another - that's part of the self-regulating feature of capitalism that we Righties are always trumpeting, is it not?

Asher, if a trade organization (one, apparently, with the ability to levy fines on non-member organizations) caused me $60,000 in extra costs, you can damn sure I would never deal with the principal members of that organization if I had a choice about it. For example, if the Automobile Allegience Bureau (made up agency), backed heavily by the Ford Motor Company slapped me with a $2,500 "fine" for not paying the "Used Car Licensing Fee" for buying a 1997 F-150, you can bet your ass that I'm not buying Ford products anymore, especially when I buy my next new car.

While I support intellectual rights in theory, the creaking edifice that we have left over from the Era of Paper will have to be amended to make sense of new realities - for example, software companies are going to have to get off their high horse regarding the "one license per machine" idea. Profitable in theory, but in the long run I think it very detrimental to the goodwill of the public towards the enforcing company, which will have even a greater negative impact on sales and margins.

[JohnT]

One of the problems is that the software concerns are using publishing models to control sales of their products, but they are not using publishing pricing models to ease the pain of that control.

For example, I had need a year or so ago to price a extra licenses for FoxPro v2.5, a 1992 DOS based database app. that my parents company was dependent upon to run a couple of crucial processes in the corporation.

$300. $300!!!! For a SINGLE license to an 11 year old program written for an OS that was definitely obsolete a mere 7 years ago and probably obsolete 15 years ago! The same damn price they were selling them when they first got the license (I checked accounting records).

Can you imagine if books never went down from their hardback costs, regardless of how little read or old the book is? What if the books were only printed in the original language, never to be translated*? What if others were forbidden to tack on commentary and notes to the books? If this were to be the case, the only copies of the Canterbury Tales you would be able to fine were non-annotated, leather bound copies in the original Old English that cost about $49.95 (or higher, if you want to adjust for inflation since the Middle Ages).

The above sort of situation is about where the software industry is now. Unfortunately for the entertainment industry, they are undergoing the painful realization that they are not just in the entertainment industry, but in the software industry as well. But that's a topic for another thread.

*Yes, XP can "do" DOS, but one still has to learn DOS as well as XP.

[Mr. Nice Guy]

Originally posted by JohnT
I'm not too sure why this guy is necessarily being considered a "bad businessman" by a few in this thread. While his decision was likely hasty and made without a full analysis of the facts, there is nothing "unbusinesslike" about suddenly canceling ones license(s) or orders just because one company does not care for the practices of another - that's part of the self-regulating feature of capitalism that we Righties are always trumpeting, is it not?

Asher, if a trade organization (one, apparently, with the ability to levy fines on non-member organizations) caused me $60,000 in extra costs, you can damn sure I would never deal with the principal members of that organization if I had a choice about it. For example, if the Automobile Allegience Bureau (made up agency), backed heavily by the Ford Motor Company slapped me with a $2,500 "fine" for not paying the "Used Car Licensing Fee" for buying a 1997 F-150, you can bet your ass that I'm not buying Ford products anymore, especially when I buy my next new car.

While I support intellectual rights in theory, the creaking edifice that we have left over from the Era of Paper will have to be amended to make sense of new realities - for example, software companies are going to have to get off their high horse regarding the "one license per machine" idea. Profitable in theory, but in the long run I think it very detrimental to the goodwill of the public towards the enforcing company, which will have even a greater negative impact on sales and margins.

I second that.

[Asher]

While his decision was likely hasty and made without a full analysis of the facts, there is nothing "unbusinesslike"

"unbusinesslike" does not equate to "bad businessman".

The decision was brash and uneducated.

And it's not "60,000 in extra costs" -- it's 60,000 in costs he tried to get out of.

[JohnT]

"The decision was brash and uneducated."

You do not know that. You only know that you opine that the decision was "brash and uneducated." There is nothing in the article that states that he got pissed at MS on day 1, ripped out his servers on day 2, and then started looking for alternatives. That would be brash... but supporting an alternative that will eliminate the worry and hassle of such bullshiite practices as software audits, fines, and the publication of such audits and fines in a demeaning manner is not brash.

[Asher]

Originally posted by JohnT
You do not know that.

Someone says he'll deal with anything as long as it's not made by a certain company is acting brashly, particularly when it's not his field. I thought that's why he had a CTO.

It is absolutely brash -- if he looked into alternatives, did a study on TCO and productivity with the alternatives, then it would not be.

But that's not what happened -- he got busted and publically tarred & feathered for pirating software (which happens to be illegal), and suddenly demands that within six months, there's no Microsoft software on any of his systems.

Brash is undoubtedly fitting, knee-jerk reaction from a business owner who got where they are by simply making good products, but not necessarily being good at running their business.

[monkspider]

You're a great guy Ash, and you know a lot about a lot of different things. But I don't think anyone here is ever going to take you seriously on the subject of Microsoft. It would be like listening to, say, Fez's opinions on Spain.

[Asher]

That's okay, I recognize that most people in the world aren't very bright.

If people don't take me seriously about MS stuff, they can stop asking me MS stuff.

[uh Clem]

That's okay, I recognize that most people in the world aren't very bright.

One more than you think.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Asher
It is absolutely brash -- if he looked into alternatives, did a study on TCO and productivity with the alternatives, then it would not be.

Am I the only one who found it absurd that you, Glonkie, who has zero experience running a business, criticised business decisions of Ernie Ball, who's probably been in business twice as long as you have lived, as "brash and unbusinesslike?"

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Asher
Why don't you read the license then. I just told you it's in the license, and you seem to ignore that.

Because what happens in real life is not the same way as your dearly beloved EULA?

This is not the first time I read these horror stories.

[laurentius]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


Am I the only one who found it absurd that you, Glonkie, who has zero experience running a business, criticised business decisions of Ernie Ball, who's probably been in business twice as long as you have lived, as "brash and unbusinesslike?"

No you are one of the many

[JohnT]

Originally posted by Asher

Someone says he'll deal with anything as long as it's not made by a certain company is acting brashly, particularly when it's not his field. I thought that's why he had a CTO.

It is absolutely brash -- if he looked into alternatives, did a study on TCO and productivity with the alternatives, then it would not be.

But that's not what happened -- he got busted and publically tarred & feathered for pirating software (which happens to be illegal), and suddenly demands that within six months, there's no Microsoft software on any of his systems.

Brash is undoubtedly fitting, knee-jerk reaction from a business owner who got where they are by simply making good products, but not necessarily being good at running their business.

Asher, you do NOT know if the studies were conducted or not. Please argue from the facts on hand and stop conjecturing.

Now if it is your opinion that Linux is worse than Windows, fine: I actually agree with you. But to chastise the man's business acumen based upon this story really shows a lack of understanding of how decisions are made and executed at the top levels.

[Mr. Nice Guy]

I don't think this man was guilty of pirating; it was likely the people under him that were guilty for not keeping track of things.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Am I the only one who found it absurd that you, Glonkie, who has zero experience running a business, criticised business decisions of Ernie Ball, who's probably been in business twice as long as you have lived, as "brash and unbusinesslike?"

I never called it unbusinesslike, I called it uneducated.

When somebody makes a decision for a business based purely on emotion, rather than reason and knowledge, then it's a poor business decision.

It doesn't matter that I haven't run my own business (aside from being President of a Junior Achievement company for one years back in high school, but that hardly counts), because it's a common sense thing.

It's pigheaded decisions like that which can drive your company in the wrong direction, like McNealy is doing with Sun on his absurd anti-MS campaign, and like how Andressen did to Netscape with his anti-MS campaign.

[Asher]

Originally posted by JohnT
Asher, you do NOT know if the studies were conducted or not. Please argue from the facts on hand and stop conjecturing.

It's not conjecturing, it's made perfectly clear from the interview: He got busted for piracy, and immediately declared (no doubt in a fit of fury) that they stop using MS products within six months.

But to chastise the man's business acumen based upon this story really shows a lack of understanding of how decisions are made and executed at the top levels.

I understand how they're made, that doesn't mean they're made properly.

Business decisions should not be made on emotion, but after some research into whether it'll be best for the company to make it.

I perfectly understand many businesses make brash decisions like this and ask questions later, which is why I never called it "unbusinesslike" (I have no idea where you and UR both pulled that word), but it is absolutely quite brash and retarded.

Most companies can figure out how to keep track of licenses, it doesn't speak highly of a company when they can't figure out what "1 license per computer" means. Then feign ignorance and (successfully) paint MS as the bad guy, when it was their company breaking the law and their company that got busted for it.

You'll have to forgive me for not putting too much weight in your business-running strategies and opinions, because I'm sure we all remember your family-run business...

[JohnT]

You know Asher, if you weren't such a prissy little poseur I'd take offense at your sudden ad hominems... but you are, so I won't. Aren't I a big guy?

Let me tell you a story about how things work in the world that I live in: The CFO of Ford Motor Company from the mid-1960's to 1982 was J. Edward Lundy whom came on board with Robert MacNamara, et al. Anyway, back in the mid 1960s, when Xerox was the growth company of the day, they needed a bunch of seasoned executives, and quick, so they went headhunting. One of their main targets was Ford, and they hit Lundy's financial guys pretty hard... iirc, as many as 20 people went to Xerox over a 3 year period.

Well, Ed was pissed. And because Ed had (and kept) the ear and confidence of Henry Ford II as no man ever did, Ed was able to enact some small revenge by tying Ford Motor to a photocopying process that was NOT based on Xerox technology, one that was slower, messier, and far more problematic... and he kept the entire corporation tied to this process until he retired in the early 1980s.

A decision that cost the company 10s of millions in wasted productivity a year, made because 1 guy was mad... a man whom, being one of the original "Whiz Kids," had a reputation for rational management and decisions based upon quantifiable factors. A decision that kept one other company afloat for 15 years after it should've gone under.

And million dollar decisions like this are made every day... and they are not all wrong or bad decisions (unlike Lundy's actions).

And Asher, if I may, please let me point out the fact that you are ignoring one piece of information, and falsifying another.

You are ignoring that the man was humiliated by the BSA in a national advertising campaign that specifically branded him as a criminal for having improperly licensed software on a mere 8% of his computers.

You are lying through your disingenuous teeth when you claim that:

Most companies can figure out how to keep track of licenses, it doesn't speak highly of a company when they can't figure out what "1 license per computer" means.

Had you bothered to actually read the article rather than immediately Google info that supports your side you would've noted that

How did that happen?
We pass our old computers down. The guys in engineering need a new PC, so they get one and we pass theirs on to somebody doing clerical work. Well, if you don't wipe the hard drive on that PC, that's a violation. Even if they can tell a piece of software isn't being used, it's still a violation if it's on that hard drive.

So, it is not one license per computer, it is one license per user. Retard.

[Asher]

Originally posted by JohnT
You know Asher, if you weren't such a prissy little poseur I'd take offense at your sudden ad hominems... but you are, so I won't. Aren't I a big guy?

Nearly sig material.

And Asher, if I may, please let me point out the fact that you are ignoring one piece of information, and falsifying another.

You are ignoring that the man was humiliated by the BSA in a national advertising campaign that specifically branded him as a criminal for having improperly licensed software on a mere 8% of his computers.

Question: was he a criminal for not having properly licensed software on some of his computers?
Case closed...

I am ignoring it, because it's not relevant. Should we take pity on a child murderer if he was publically branded a criminal for killing only 25% of his children?

You are lying through your disingenuous teeth when you claim that:

Quote:

Most companies can figure out how to keep track of licenses, it doesn't speak highly of a company when they can't figure out what "1 license per computer" means.

Had you bothered to actually read the article rather than immediately Google info that supports your side you would've noted that

Quote:

How did that happen? We pass our old computers down. The guys in engineering need a new PC, so they get one and we pass theirs on to somebody doing clerical work. Well, if you don't wipe the hard drive on that PC, that's a violation. Even if they can tell a piece of software isn't being used, it's still a violation if it's on that hard drive.

So, it is not one license per computer, it is one license per user. Retard.

It is one license per user, but that license is transferrable to any user as long as it's only one user at once. "Retard."

Think about it...does MS charge you for every user on your WinXP installation?

Look: If you keep the PC and give it down to the clerical people, and it still has Windows, and then you install Windows back onto the new PC used by the engineering department -- but still have the same number of licenses -- what do you think happens?

I'll let you condescending business freaks figure that one out, because this condescending computer freak thinks his point is made.

[mrmitchell]

Should we take pity on a child murderer if he was publically branded a criminal for killing only 25% of his children?

So in Canada, software piracy is worse than child murderer? Man, you guys must REALLY be MSbots then

[Asher]

Of course, children is simply annoying. But software...software is useful!

[JohnT]

The machines were transferred to another employee (yet again in the article). One employee was using the machine, it got transferred to employee #2 and therefore was somehow "non-compliant."

Let me quote yet again:

The guys in engineering need a new PC, so they get one and we pass theirs on to somebody doing clerical work. Well, if you don't wipe the hard drive on that PC, that's a violation.

(Didn't I quote this exact passage in the previous post?)

How is that different from:

It is one license per user, but that license is transferrable to any user as long as it's only one user at once. "Retard."

The machine and the software on the machine got transferred. From one employee to another. Just like you said.

Are you sure you know what happened to this guy? You might want to read the article with a more open mind.