| Thursday,
April 27, 2006 Subject: Maybe that should
have been run past the focus groups first.
Nintendo has today announced the official name of
their new console, previously under the project name Revolution, will be
called Wii. Rhymes with we.
That's right. By this time next year, Nintendo expect
people of all ages to be asking their friends if they'd like to come over
and play with their Wii.
Thus parts the Seventh Seal...
http://revolution.nintendo.com/
Eric
=
David comments:
Alternative English: Whee!
French: Oui
Portuguese: Uy (tr: Ugh)
=
And Eric adds:
Also 'good' in Japanese but in the US and UK, they got
big problems. I imagine a press conference where a flustered executive
demands that his translator explain what's so damn funny.
How many people going to a store asking for a Wii are
going to be pointed towards the restrooms?
===========
Now for a serious
discussion about Linux and desktops. See
reference in view for a start.
Begin with a Linux enthusiast who is, let
us say, not high on Microsoft:
Enderle is a Microsoft shill. No one I know takes him
seriously, including pro-Microsoft people. His articles, including this one,
are always packed with mistakes, distortions, and flat-out lies.
He and with Laura DiDio are laughingstocks.
Which is conclusion, not argument.
re: the Enderle column mentioned in Wednesday's mail
(
http://www.technewsworld.com/story/50091.html ), he mentions some
reasons I take issue with.
(a) Microsoft's ability to pour co-op dollars onto the
OEMs to support advertising, support, etc. This is something of a
cart-and-horse issue; if MS hadn't had such a thorough stranglehold on the
market over the last decade, using questionable marketing techniques, those
funds wouldn't be available to grease the vendors with.
(b) the idea that "because Linux is different,
customers tend to place more service calls -- at $85 a call" - how many
people actually call the PC vendor, as opposed to calling the neighborhood
teenage geek, checking online info, etc? And especially given the ghetto
mentality of the non-Windows users (Mac OR Linux), how many of them just
work through the problem on their own? This one in particular seems like a
strawman argument.
The biggest holdup to my mind to wider adoption of
Linux is simply inertia; the vendors could easily provide driver support to
that platform if they saw a market there, and the "multiple versions"
argument is arguable given the Linux Standard Base configuration that all
the major players are subscribing to. Mr. Enderle's argument seems to boil
down to the Linux vendors lacking the deep pockets to bribe the OEMs to load
their software.
-- Bob Halloran
Jacksonville FL
==
Subject: Linux as a desktop OS
I read Rob Enderle's article; many of his comments are
reasonable. However, I don't agree with his conclusion.
He starts off on weak ground: he simply asserts that
OS/2 failed because IBM was not "willing to do what is necessary to win".
For a new product to replace an entrenched product,
the new one cannot merely be an adequate replacement; it must be better, and
better enough to overcome the inertia of the entrenched product. (If you run
Windows, chances are you know someone else who is running Windows and can
give you advice; that's the "network effect".)
While OS/2 had some technical advantages over Windows,
most companies did not consider it a better product for the desktop. Windows
ran well on the computers that companies actually had at the time, and
Windows ran the companies' standard DOS applications well. OS/2 required
shocking (at the time) amounts of RAM and all-new applications. The
technical advantages of OS/2 did not offset the practical disadvantages.
Thus, Windows won.
With Windows as entrenched as it is, businesses really
don't care if they have to pay an extra $100 or so per computer for Windows.
That's less than they pay an employee in a day.
But once a Linux desktop is set up, it just works.
It's easy to keep it updated, it doesn't get worms and viruses and spyware,
and sneaky web pages can't do things that could crash the whole computer. It
takes a nontrivial amount of admin work to keep a Windows system clean and
working correctly. If businesses come around to the opinion that Linux saves
their employees time, they really won't care if they have to pay for support
phone calls instead of getting them for free. (And both IBM and Novell would
be happy to offer paid support.)
The fact that Linux is free certainly doesn't hurt. In
the short term, it may not make much difference... but when any organization
once standardizes on Linux, it will be difficult for any for-profit product
to displace it again.
Mr. Enderle is, I think, correct that a fragmented
Linux market hurts Linux and helps the entrenched product, i.e. Windows.
However, I think the Linux market is already shaking out. There will always
be ten thousand little random versions of Linux (some of them really
interesting), but in the very near future there will just be three or four
really big ones. (My picks for the winners: Red Hat, Ubuntu, and Novell. For
home users, Ubuntu by a landslide.)
Mr. Enderle is correct again when he points out that
shrill advocates are not an asset. (I recall that you have borne the brunt
of displeased Mac fanatics in the past when you wrote something faintly
negative about a Macintosh, and that didn't encourage you to write more
about Macs.)
There are already a few companies who have
standardized on Linux for desktops. They are currently odd and rare, but
they are blazing the trail. Companies can contemplate doing what other
companies have done. The day may yet come when Linux on the desktop is
mainstream.
If Microsoft really wants to protect Windows from
Linux, they should:
* Make sure that Vista is stable and secure. If both
Windows and Linux are adequate on the desktop, that means Windows wins.
* Make sure that the upgrade from XP to Vista is
easier and less expensive than an upgrade from XP to Linux.
* Try to convince customers to adopt
Microsoft-proprietary technologies that are not available on Linux. (E.g. A
company can lock itself into Windows for *years* by building a company
application that requires Active X plugins to use.)
-- Steve R. Hastings
"Vita est" steve@hastings.org
http://www.blarg.net/~steveha
My experience with OS/2: I was an
enthusiast, and I worked with some of IBM's really sharp technical people,
but their executives were for the most part dumber than dirt, and their
marketing decisions were appropriate to, well, I grew up saying saying
things are now considered insensitive and not PC. Let's say they were not
optimum. They did little outreach to the developer community while Microsoft
worked its tail off to help developers, and the lack of drivers is what made
using OS/2 more appropriate for hobbyists than serious computer users. I
know. I tried. Believe me I tried. Recall that I wrote the lead column (back
page column, actually) for OS/2 Professional magazine.
Technical merits were not the decision
criterion for most who adopted Windows over OS/2. Had IBM chosen to put more
resources into OS/2 and done some aggressive marketing with the developer
community, we'd all be using OS/2 now.
Continued below
==============
Subject: No Child Gets
Ahead...Or Sand Down a Rathole
More for the education thread, Dr. Pournelle:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/cc/?id=110008293
"Spending on public schools nationwide has skyrocketed
to $536 billion as of the 2004 school year, or more than $10,000 per pupil.
That's more than double per pupil what we spent three decades ago, adjusted
for inflation--and more than we currently spend on national defense ($494
billion as of 2005). But the argument behind lawsuits in 45 states is that
we don't spend nearly enough on schools. Spending is so low, these litigants
claim, that it is in violation of state constitutional provisions requiring
an "adequate" education. And in almost half the states, the courts have
agreed."
"A firm led by two education professors, Lawrence
Picus and Allan Odden, was paid $350,000 to put a price tag on what would be
considered adequate [for Arkansas]. They...recommended policy changes, but
the only thing that really mattered, at least as far as the court was
concerned, was the bottom line--bringing the total to $4 billion, or $9,000
per pupil [from $7,000+]."
"One might think that relying on court-ordered experts
would be more rational and responsible than leaving spending decisions to
politicians. The exact opposite is the case. For all of their defects,
legislators can be held responsible for wasting taxpayer dollars, while
courts and the consultants they mandate generally cannot. This gives courts
and consultants license to use pseudoscience to drive education spending
higher, where legislators might be more skeptical and frugal."
"If spending more is the answer to inadequate
education, it should be the case that schools that spend more per pupil, all
else being equal, have higher student achievement.
"As it turns out, they don't. The vast majority of
social science studies find no relationship between spending and student
achievement. My [JAY P. GREENE's] own analysis of schools in Arkansas finds
that schools with more money perform no better than schools with less once
student and community background characteristics are controlled. And the
fact that per pupil spending has doubled over the past three decades while
student achievement has remained stagnant ought to give us a clue that
simply spending more won't fix schools. The shortcomings of schools are not
generally attributable to the lack of resources, but to a lack of incentives
to use resources effectively."
Enjoy!
Charles Brumbelow
Tarquin the Proud advised those who would
set up a dictatorship to cut off the heads of the tallest poppies to make
all equal except the king. Think of colleges of education and gatekeepers.
===============
Subject: Orwell citation is in Notes on Nationalism
Dear Dr Pournelle,
With reference to '"You must be an intellectual. No
ordinary person would have said an outrageous thing like that," said George
Orwell once...' (in <http://www.jerrypournelle.com/mail/mail411.html#Green>
),
When someone asks you for the Orwell citation, be
advised that it can be found in his essay "Notes on Nationalism". Orwell's
actual words were: "One has to belong to the intelligentsia to believe
things like that: no ordinary man could be such a fool."
Here's the context; "... The average intellectual of
the Left believed, for instance, that the war was lost in 1940, that the
Germans were bound to overrun Egypt in 1942, that the Japanese would never
be driven out of the lands they had conquered, and that the Anglo-American
bombing offensive was making no impression on Germany.
He could believe these things because his hatred for
the British ruling class forbade him to admit that British plans could
succeed. There is no limit to the follies that can be swallowed if one is
under the influence of feelings of this kind.
I have heard it confidently stated, for instance, that
the American troops had been brought to Europe not to fight the Germans but
to crush an English revolution.
One has to belong to the intelligentsia to believe
things like that: no ordinary man could be such a fool..."
That particular epigram is a favourite of mine too.
Many know of it in some other form, usually something like "You have to be
an intellectual to believe such nonsense. No ordinary person could be such a
fool."
Regards, TC
-- Terry Cole System Administrator, OU Physics
Thanks. As I understand it, Orwell liked
this sentiment and used it more than once, which explains variants.
============
Subject: "Doctor Doom" or "The
World Is All a Tom Clancy Novel"
Well, Dr. Pianka did speak at the
Texas Academy of Sciences annual meeting a few weeks ago. He did mention
the possibility of most of human life being wiped out by biological effects.
Beyond that, things get murky.
As nearly as I can tell, on one hand you have Forrest
Mims (one of the founders of MITS, who is also both a wide-ranging general
scientist with a number of key research results and an Intelligent Design
advocate). On the other, you have Eric Pianka, who appears to be a
scientifically accomplished and only slightly eccentric biologist at the
University of Texas. Dr. Pianka's personal website shows no evidence of
wild-eyed murderous Green tendencies.
http://uts.cc.utexas.edu/~varanus/eric.html
At any rate, according to Wikipedia, Pianka says he
was not advocating anything; he was simply predicting what would happen if
certain biological trends continue (basic Malthusianism). Wikipedia has some
links to other sites on the topic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Pianka
The Texas Academy of Science (the people who gave the
award) appear to say that Pianka's talk was severely misunderstood. However,
the source for this information is itself a pro-evolution advocacy blog
(some of the comments at the bottom of the next link are really vicious),
the blogger claimed the email was forwarded to him, and he didn't bother to
publish the email headers, so it's difficult to evaluate the veracity of the
quote. The email is signed "David S. Marsh" and Dr. Marsh heads the
Biological Sciences section of the Texas Academy of Sciences.
http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/04/texas_academy_o.html
That site also has some links to other sites, of
varying quality. Money quote from the email (if true):
"TAS neither condones nor vilifies Dr. Pianka’s
statements. We would like to state, however, that many of Dr. Pianka’s
statements have been severely misconstrued and sensationalized."
It sounds like Pianka's talk became a proxy for the
war of words between the Intelligent Designers and the Evolutionists. It
also is an object lesson in the ability of the Internet to obscure truth. I
lean towards Pianka's side, but I would hate to defend either side in court
if all I had available was the Internet evidence.
But if a scientist really did advocate killing 90% of
humans with Ebola, then that's another thing Tom Clancy predicted along with
planes hitting buildings. Maybe I'll go re-read "Rainbow Six" now, just to
be ready...
Steve Setzer
==============
Subject: Paging John Christian Falkenberg
Dear Sir:
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2006/04/23/peace_corp/?page=full
When I first read your Falkenberg stories, I thought
they were a thought experiment. Now they may really happen. Institution of
the CD Laws of War is discussed, of course, with the usual implication: that
they won't be enforced, because after all the whole reason they are hired in
the first place is because the CD... oops, I mean the UN... won't intervene.
More discussion here:
http://oxblog.blogspot.com/2006/04/humanitarian-mercenaries-rebecca.html
The next steps are, of course, obvious. Ask
Constantinople how well private military contractors helped them out in the
Fourth Crusade.
I have libertarian correspondents who advocate
complete privatization of the military. I point them to the Falkenberg books
to let them find out why that's a bad idea.
And finally, a short plot question. The Chinese were
notably absent from the CoDominium tales despite their prominence in 1970's
Cold War politics. What gives? Did the US-Russian alliance subdue them?
--Catfish N. Cod
The first story of the CoDominium series
was written in 1968. It was not unreasonable to assume that the US and USSR
would divide China into spheres of influence. While that became less likely
after Nixon went to China, it wasn't impossible; had Carter been reelected
it would have been probable that the USSR would survive, and there was a lot
of accomodationist sentiment in the US; even Kissinger thought the Cold War
was lost and it was his job to ease the pain as we came to detente with the
Soviets. The CoDominium has become alternate history now, of course, but it
had a long run.
============
Subject: Enderle
(see above)
Jerry: I've always considered Rob Enderle to be a self
serving, steaming pile of Microsoft toady, but you asked for comments:
Rob's points:
* Clear OEM resources to match or exceed those
currently provided by Microsoft. This would include R&D support and
co-marketing dollars.
Rob is evidently confused by the fact that "Linux" is
composed of lots of different software from lots of different sources. The
end product is the responsibility of the "Distribution". There's lots of
distributions, and all of them put together will never match MSs resources.
R&D support, mostly for the kernel only, is through OSDL (open source
development lab) which is mostly funded by IBM, Intel, and AMD (which means
that they get their features in the kernel, typically biased towards server
hardware).
* Embrace existing desktop requirements (roadmaps,
application support, proprietary drivers, consistent patch releases
schedules and documentation, clear escalation lines for support).
Again, "distribution" responsibilities. All of the
major dists offer paid support. Most of them offer proprietary drivers.
Applications? I run Debian (sarge), and there are ~16000 packages available
from the Debian archive. In addition, there are many applications offered
for Linux (such as VMWare) that aren't in the Debian archive. Debian, e.g.,
has vastly superior documentation to MS, it comes with the distribution, and
it's free.
* Seek out reasonable advocates who will take
direction from their executives and not from other advocates.
Does Rob want to be sought out? Is Rob saying he takes
direction from MS executives?
* Make it profitable for the OEM.
Like MS? Force OEMs to buy a license for every
computer they sell? Give discounts to favored (strong enough to be
independent) OEMs like DELL, so they are economically advantaged over their
competition? In other words, act like an abusive monopolist? I don't
understand the point: Linux can be had for free, there are no license issues
that require tracking. Standard images can be ghosted on as many computer
hard drives as you want. There is a free software counterpart to Ghost,
allowing network image installs, etc.. How can it not be "profitable" for an
OEM? (always assuming you can sell the computers!)
Rob apparently wants Linux to become MS.
Chris
"The government consists of a gang of men exactly like
you and me. They have, taking one with another, no special talent for the
business of government; they have only a talent for getting and holding
office. Their principal device to that end is to search out groups who pant
and pine for something they can't get and to promise to give it to them.
Nine times out of ten that promise is worth nothing. The tenth time it is
made good by looting A to satisfy B. In other words, government is a broker
in pillage, and every election is sort of an advance auction sale of stolen
goods." H. L. Mencken
==
Subject: OS/2 vs. Windows
Here are the major reasons why OS/2 failed, as I see
them.
* A forced choice
It was needlessly difficult to write applications that
could be compiled equally well under Windows and OS/2. IBM insisted on an
API for OS/2 that was incompatible with the Windows API. Thus, few
applications were developed for both; and most of the companies that picked
just one platform picked Windows. (You have already told the story of how
IBM tried to charge for developer kits while Microsoft gave them away; that
sure didn't help.)
* OS/2 revolutionary, Windows evolutionary
To adopt OS/2 meant buying new computers with lots of
RAM, and all new applications.
Businesses that already had standardized on DOS
applications were not happy with the way DOS apps ran in the OS/2
"compatibility box" (aka the "Chernobyl Box" because a badly behaved DOS app
could crash the whole computer). This was fixed, eventually... but Windows
3.0 could run a bunch of DOS apps side by side with excellent performance,
and the DOS apps were in protected virtual machines and couldn't take down
the computer.
It might have been better to forget about OS/2 on the
286 and go straight to the 386; then OS/2 would have competed better with
Windows. I believe IBM felt that they had promised customers that OS/2 would
run on a 286, and they wanted to keep that promise, but it really cost them
in the fight against Windows. The eventual 386 version of OS/2 was just too
late.
I was going to list more reasons, but really those
cover it. Businesses had to choose between the lightweight Windows, which
ran their existing DOS apps well, or the heavyweight OS/2, and buying all
new applications. -- Steve R. Hastings
IBM's "promise" of a multi-tasking OS for
the 286 was certainly a factor. Gordon Letwin at Microsoft came up with a
very clever kludge that allowed you to go in and out of protected mode on
the 286 but it really was a kludge, and it was astonishing that it worked at
all. I agree completely that IBM ought to have gone directly to the 386. On
the other hand, recall that this was the company that called the PC division
"entry level", and sold the deliberately crippled PC Junior. Many bought the
Junior because it was IBM and then lost all confidence in IBM as a small
computer source. My editor at Pocket Books was one of them. He'll never buy
another IBM product again, even after all these years.
IBM didn't really believe in the PC
market, and wasn't willing to put the resources into it because, after all,
it really was just "entry level."
Gates had the vision of a PC in every
office, in every home, and in every classroom. IBM did not have anything
like that vision. That's really the reason that Gates won out.
=
Subject: Linux as a desktop OS
I'm always amused when IT oriented folks discuss the
relative merits of Windows/Linux/OSX. Much discussion of technological
innovation, stability, market share, better management of [fill in
appropriate jargon], etc.
I suspect you will find that the biggest issue is this
- the computer for most people is a tool. It is not a hobby. It is not a
career. It is not an object of fascination. It is a means by which to get
other things done. Nothing else is truly relevant for most. It either works
or it does not. When it does not work and you cannot get it to work you
start looking for a new tool.
For the longest time, Windows has been pretty much the
only tool in the shed. Macs, while spiffy in many ways and very high on the
"just works" scale, tended to be VERY pricey for the uses that most people
wanted the tool. Therefore smaller market share.
Now in recent years, due in large part to the constant
connectivity and broadband access in homes and businesses, Windows has been
subject to many many things that cause it to work poorly or not work at all.
Constant security patches. Anti-virus software. Firewalls. Anti-spyware
software. Rootkits.
When a tool stops working well, people start looking
for a new tool. People have heard about this thing called Linux. They give
it a try, and the IT press goes nuts thinking that the general public is
shifting away from windows and why it should/shouldn't.
...and most non-IT people that give Linux a try give
up quickly and go back.
It all boils down to a very simple and basic fact:
People want to use their computers. People do not want to administer their
systems.
If you can understand the difference between those two
statements, you may understand why people would not and will not switch to a
"better" platform. Microsoft has understood that, or at least they used to.
Apple did, but wouldn't let go of their business model. OS/2 did not. Linux
has not.
For those of us that enjoy spending time fiddling with
our machines - fine! It is our hobby/job/black-hole-of-time-and-money. For
most other home and business users they don't care about the pricing
strategy or technology or efficient memory management - they care that they
can surf the web, get their email, and write their letters without having to
reboot a few times.
So while all of the comments and analysis of the OS
business are interesting, what the market eventually boils down to is "does
it sell" and that only happens if the average user can and will use it.
Just my 2 cents.
Regards, Scott Cardinal
Well put. I have said much the same
things, and of course my column in BYTE is subtitled "The User's Column." I
originally got a computer to help with writing. I started writing about them
because I like them, but using them is more important.
=
Subject: Enderle
Some of the judgments about this guy in e-mail seem a
bit harsh, but I do now know this guy so he may have earned such enmity. I
do know that he seems to have missed a rather telling point.
Microsoft is not '$100' per desktop. Here at least, it
is more like $1,128.51 per desktop with our current number of users. That
includes the right to have a Windows desktop, connect to Windows Servers,
connect to and use the Exchange Server, and also the right to use a copy of
Microsoft Office.
Now I admit, our environment is a little unusual - we
have Linux loaded on almost all the desktop computers, and simply use a
Citrix client to connect to a couple of terminal servers. We paid Microsoft
for all the necessary CALS and software licenses and such 3.5 years ago.
Recently we decided to upgrade.
Not a one of those dratted CALS could be upgraded to
Windows 2003 licenses -meaning we had to rebuy them all. To the tune of very
close to a quarter of a million dollars.
That ain't bad for a big company you say? We have
about 195 employees. Spending $200K+ every three years is not something we
intend to do for a third time. While it is true that with both purchases, we
purchased upgrade rights, those are only good for three years, and then you
pretty much wind up buying them again. Even if you just renew the licenses
and upgrade rights, it is close to the cost of buying the lics yet again.
We will definitely move away from Microsoft over the
next three years. Maybe to Linux, maybe to something else. But away from
Microsoft. They were great back in the 1980's and even in the Early 1990s.
They are somewhat less than great now. Too Stupid To Describe is the phrase
that comes to mind.
Yours,
-Paul
Very Interesting. Thanks!
TOP
CURRENT
VIEW Thursday |
