Re: Rapport from installation of Ubuntu 7.10 on amd64

On Sat, 02 Feb 2008 15:55:55 +0100, Herbert Kleebauer <klee@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Betov wrote:

Saying that "they are no more concerned with the OS side" is saying
that they know that the game is over.

Yes, over and won. Not over and lost.


Strategicaly, the only thing they could do about "mediacorportation"
would be to buy Google. Unfortunately for them, this does not seem
a possible thing.

Google will go the same way as Netscape went when Microsoft decides
to enter the arena. Everything Google owns becomes worthless every
few years (the computer hardware and the collected information). The
only long-term value is then name "Google". But I think the name
"Microsoft" isn't worth less.


I think that the real problem comes with the oncoming of low-cost
PCs: Under 300 Euros, it is evidently no more possible to deliver
a 100 Euros OS, and giving it for free, just to keep a vanishing
market place, will never do, IMO.

There are also cars for under 10000 Euros but most people buy
one for over 30000 even if they have to do this on credit. And
nobody want's to tell others that he just bought a poor man's
computer with a free OS. You only get what you pay for and if it
doesn't cost anything, it isn't worth anything. And as long as
this opinion doesn't change, there is no problem for MS, Apple
or Rolex.

To some extent you may be right here, as seen from the consumer side. But seen from the development side, the issue is completely reversed, A free library has immense value. Next is of course that once the better OS is free, then ppl will demand what is best. (not what is more expensive). Rolex dont sell only because it is expensive, neither does Porsche or Mercedes-Benz. They sell also because of quality (or perceived quality) and certainly because of beauty. Allways when you have higher quality, and a unique product you can sell it at a high price. But you cannot sell *** that is not unique at a high price. You are incorrect if you think the OS war is won, by microsoft. MS is a commersial big company, which means, even it is rich it is very woundrable to competition, because it has shareholders to keep happy. Linux now (or soon) have the better product at a price noone can match. If captalism works, this is the certain death of commersial consumer OS, espesially when the quality is as low as the MS os, whos "quality" only holds true for propaganda, but that in reality is a undecent hack, and contain millions of line of code to make you physically sick. An OS that is as safe as commiting suiside. And Os that spy on the customer. An OS that cost more after the initial purchace. An OS that was never out of Beta. An OS that is utterly insecure and that a hacker can defeat in 5 minutes after it is fully patched, by sending you an email, and that has more security updates than you can count or control in a lifetime. Vista has been broken many times allready. This is a LOW quality os. It is also inefficient, and duck stupid in usage. You have to work hard to make something as bad as this OS. So to compare it to highquality consumer products is absurd. Windows is an _extremly_ low quality product.



--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
.