The push to Advanced Server begins

1/28/03 11:04:38 AM

Not a solution for all . .

. . especially in the small business world, and small business is most business in the U.S.. The main computer system is put in to run primarily a single business management software package. Here we run head on into the phrase, "We only support Red Hat Linux".

It is an unfortunate fact that small business has neither the expertise nor the time and money to go up against their software vendor's refusal to support their packages on any but their chosen platform, no matter how well it runs on others.

[link|http://www.aaxnet.com|AAx]

Post #77,583

by kmself

1/28/03 1:44:19 PM

It's probably 99%

There's little that can't run just as happily on another GNU/Linux\r\ndistro as Red Hat. Particularly if you hold yourself to standard\r\nservices: file, print, mail, web (:80 or :443), DNS, VPN, databases,\r\netc. There's no need to look outside a standard distro for any of\r\nthis.

\r\n\r\n

Where there is an application which specifies itself to be\r\n"Red Hat only":

\r\n\r\n

Watch out. "Only runs on..." is code for "we don't honor open\r\nstandards or test in wide environments". Such applications often lead\r\nto problems down the road in upgrading or modifying the base system.\r\nYou're better off elsewhere.
In all likelihood, it will run without trouble on another\r\ndistribution.
If tweakage is required, for major applications (Oracle,\r\nSAS, etc.), you'll likely find copious and detailed notes on deployment\r\non other platforms.
LSB ensures that there is a flat base for all GNU/Linux\r\ndistros. Debian isn't currently certified, but it's very (or fully)\r\ncompliant with the lsb package. Again, if the vendor is\r\nbuilding to standards (and they damned well should), operating under\r\nanother environment shouldn't be an issue.
It's possible (and perhaps advisable) to set up an RH-only\r\nenvironment for specific critical apps. Frankly I'd suspect this to be\r\nmore likely the case with large firms (who can throw a few hundred grand\r\non a problem) more than your posited small business. There are also\r\nways to do this, via chroot and uml, without additional HW expenditure.\r\nThis also provides the benefit of shielding the RH system behind a more\r\nreadily secured alternative.
"Supported" is code for "we'll offset some of your costs". My\r\nexperience with RH and Debian is that I would spend far more time\r\nwrestling with all other aspects of a RH distro than I would benefit\r\nfrom the "it just works" aspect of Debian, even with the additional cost\r\nof managing an additional package myself. From a total cost standpoint,\r\nDebian wins. Your clients might or might not realize this, I would\r\nstructure my own rates to reflect this fact though.

\r\n\r\n

I can understand vendors wanting to restrict their support costs. I\r\nthink the vendor-specific distro support thing is ultimately\r\nshortsighted. It will cost marketshare.

\r\n

--\r\n Karsten M. Self [link|mailto:kmself@ix.netcom.com|kmself@ix.netcom.com]\r\n [link|http://kmself.home.netcom.com/|http://kmself.home.netcom.com/]\r\n What part of "gestalt" don't you understand?\r\n [link|http://twiki.iwethey.org/twiki/bin/view/Main/|TWikIWETHEY] -- an experiment in collective intelligence. Stupidity. Whatever.\r\n \r\n Keep software free. Oppose the CBDTPA. Kill S.2048 dead.\r\n[link|http://www.eff.org/alerts/20020322_eff_cbdtpa_alert.html|http://www.eff.org/alerts/20020322_eff_cbdtpa_alert.html]\r\n

Post #77,587

1/28/03 2:08:54 PM

Of course it'll run fine on other distros . .

. . but business management software has "idiosyncracies" which require help from the publisher. The problem is at least as bad in small business as in midsize and up.

An example is a client who refurbishes Nortel telephone systems. He uses an accounting program from Data Pro (Infinity Power) with custom forms and other minor mods. Moving to a different package would be traumatic for the company.

When it was necessary to migrate from the DOS/Network version (the new 32-bit recompile to support XP/2000 was way too slow compared to the 16-bit version), we set up the Linux host version with terminal emulation. The client already had been using a Linux Samba server running Caldera Linux.

When Data Pro found out we were on Caldera, they flat out refused to honor a paid-up support contract because it wasn't on Red Hat.

Software companies will grasp any straw to deny support. I've even had them deny support for database problems because we were using a different terminal emulator than they recommend. They said that had to be the cause of the data indexing problem.

[link|http://www.aaxnet.com|AAx]

Post #77,598

by boxley

1/28/03 2:39:14 PM

I have run into the same issues on support contracts

even had one assclown tell me that because we had changed from BNC to cat5 was why his software was failing and we breached the support contract by making the change.
thanx,
bill

will work for cash and other incentives [link|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html|skill set]

"The Mafia was preferable to the state, because it survived by providing services people actually wanted"
Murray Rothbard

Post #77,599

by kmself

1/28/03 2:39:43 PM

It's a free market

\r\n
When it was necessary to migrate from the DOS/Network version (the new 32-bit\r\nrecompile to support XP/2000 was way too slow compared to the 16-bit version),\r\nwe set up the Linux host version with terminal emulation. The client already had\r\nbeen using a Linux Samba server running Caldera Linux.
\r\n\r\n
When Data Pro found out we were on Caldera, they flat out refused to honor a\r\npaid-up support contract because it wasn't on Red Hat.
\r\n\r\n
Software companies will grasp any straw to deny support. I've even had them deny\r\nsupport for database problems because we were using a different terminal\r\nemulator than they recommend. They said that had to be the cause of the data\r\nindexing problem.
\r\n

\r\n\r\n

There are ISVs who'll pull this shit. This creates a market for both\r\nother proprietary ISVs to do a better job of managing the support issue,\r\nor for service-oriented companies to build an enterprise out of\r\nsupporting free software solutions. It'll shake out.

\r\n\r\n

There are lots of people who do lots of things. Darwin will sort 'em\r\nout.

\r\n\r\n

ObLRPD: It's a bunch of RVs, yurts, tepees, and geodesic domes set up\r\nin a field and organized by consensus.

\r\n\r\n

Post #77,577

1/28/03 1:04:05 PM

Re: The push to Advanced Server begins

Andrew, will you be willing to settle, finally, whether you're trolling (in posts like these)? If you are trolling, my congratulations on a job very well done, because it's genuinely difficult to tell whether those selective blindnesses are real or simulated.

Andrew Grygus wrote:

Under this plan, the average purchaser would be able to get bug and security fixes for 6 months from purchase, and then be out of luck.

If one grants the magnificently erroneous assumption that only Red Hat Software, Inc. is capable of properly filling that role, yes. In fact, I used to be a manager at one of several immediately obvious companies that businesses already engage for such services. That's that "capitalism" concept, again.

As in, hello? Have you heard of Linuxcare? Have you heard of IBM Corporation? I'm sorry, but, if you and your customers cannot get your minds around the a la carte support model made possible by open source, then maybe SCO UNIX is a better option.

The phrase..., well..., "evolution in action" keeps coming to mind.

The "community", will now commence rationalizing how this is really a Very Good Thing, while SCO's similar plan for United Linux ($599, $699, $1249, $2199) has already been declared a Very Bad Thing (except SCO has no cut-off dates on fixing their less expensive products).

The term "community", here, seems to refer to anonymous teenage flamers on Slashdot.org. Because I cannot imagine who else.

Microsoft is still trying to move to a subscription basis.

Please consider, Andrew: Does it matter that only Microsoft Corp. can ever even be physically capable of producing patches and updates for its proprietary codebases, or not? Does it matter that Microsoft's new software-rental regime doesn't impose expiration dates merely for bug/security-fix coverage, but also for your legal right to use the software you've paid for -- as opposed to Red Hat Linux, for which your usage entitlement is irrevocable and permanent? (In distinction, RHAS, discussed below, adds some non-redistributable components. But even for those, it's not software rental but rather a perpetual licence grant.) If so, this could just be a highly crucial distinction that you're either missing, or are pretending to miss, as either some display of very dry humour, or to make some indirect point that I'm still missing.

Your point that Red Hat Software, Inc. would love to push as many as possible of its customer base onto RHAS is, of course, obviously true. More wampum for RHS, Inc., if they can swing that. But, as far as I can tell from Web pages about the current version, and based on physical scrutiny of earlier versions, the product still consists of the base RHL distribution with some non-proprietary kernel tweaks, plus a number of non-redistributable proprietary codebases, plus a support contract. Only the support contract is subject to expiration and renewal: All usage rights are indefinite in duration.

The move makes Red Hat "consumer" releases worthless to businesses, most of which don't upgrade server OS more often than 3 to 5 years.

My read: More wampum for Linuxcare, IBM Corp., and others.

People unwilling to buy support a la carte will have failed the Turing Test, and will just have to pay 'til it hurts -- maybe go bankrupt, make way for smarter firms, and like that.

Rick Moen
rick@linuxmafia.com

If you lived here, you'd be $HOME already.

Post #77,600

1/28/03 2:40:35 PM

Re: The push to Advanced Server begins

My viewpoint is a bit different from many others because I serve only Small Business clients, which is a very different world from even midrange companies (IBM's idea of "Small Business"). My largest client probably does well under $20 million a year and has less than 100 employees. This describes the majority of business in the U.S,.

I look at these things from the viewpoint of my clients, and that may seem an unreasonable viewpoint for those steeped in IT, but it is the dominant viewpoint in the outside world.

Small businesses don't deal with a lot of IT vendors and don't have staff to track just who is responsible for exactly what, and they don't have third party support contracts with the likes of IBM. They don't even call me in unless they feel they have no choice. Again, this describes the majority of business in the U.S..

When they buy a product, they expect vendor support for a reasonable period of time. A reasonal period of time is generally considered to be at least 5 years. They still get fine support for NC mills and molding machines that are over 10 years old. Yes, they pay for it, but they don't get it from third parties, they find out who made the product from the label on it and pick up the phone.

Why should computers and software be completely exempt from the reasonable expectations that apply to every other type of product? It's an industry gone mad.

And yes, I put "community" in quotes precisely because I refer to the self appointed "community" that makes all the noise on talkbacks at Linux Today and other Linux forums. I expect actual productive Linux people have more sense.

[link|http://www.aaxnet.com|AAx]

Post #77,624

1/28/03 4:22:46 PM

Right on, Andrew.

From rick:

People unwilling to buy support a la carte will have failed the Turing Test, and will just have to pay 'til it hurts

This is the industry gone mad, where know-it-all techies lord their area of expertise over the aims of the company, usually invoking Capitalism or Evolution to aid their claim. Has it ever occurred to them that just maybe I didn't start my company with the aim of being a computing or insurance or property management or waste management or telecommunications or __________ guru?

-- maybe go bankrupt, make way for smarter firms, and like that.

Tell that to your local hospital when they go tits up because of an ISV's negligence. Preferably while you're under the knife. Oops, sorry, they just went bankrupt. Oh, well, capitalism's a bitch ain't it?

Many fears are born of stupidity and ignorance -
Which you should be feeding with rumour and generalisation.
BOfH, 2002 "Episode" 10

Post #77,657

1/28/03 8:52:50 PM

Oh great, here come the cheerleaders

tseliot wrote:

This is the industry gone mad, where know-it-all techies lord their area of expertise over the aims of the company, usually invoking Capitalism or Evolution to aid their claim. Has it ever occurred to them that just maybe I didn't start my company with the aim of being a computing or insurance or property management or waste management or telecommunications or __________ guru?

Ah, so reality doesn't meet your needs. OK, maybe you can take it back for a refund.

For, tantrums aside, what I described was reality: If you're dumb enough to leave exposed services needlessly Internet-exposed and unpatched/vulnerable for six months on end, your Internet presence will be compromised, with consequent loss to your reputation, public relations, and possibly other vital interests.

It's funny, but when people talk about businesses' need to control risks in other areas where they're not experts, nobody blinks an eye, but when you talk about risk control and abatement concerning Internet connectivity, suddenly people like you pop up trying to claim exemption from real-world concerns, on grounds that you're, well, a Special Person or something.

Tell that to your local hospital when they go tits up because of an ISV's negligence. Preferably while you're under the knife. Oops, sorry, they just went bankrupt. Oh, well, capitalism's a bitch ain't it?

It happens, and people die. The Boeing Company negligently makes a defective airplane, and little girls' and boys' fathers die. The survivors sue: Six of my teenage years got eaten by one such lawsuit. Did you have a point?

Anyhow, I'm sorry, but the notion that businesses can't possibly deal with a fee-for-service business models is just laughable. Not only do they do this every day, both in IT and elsewhere, but I've earned a good living in the past doing exactly that. It's not necessary for businesses to hire IBM Corporation at major-customer rates or even Linuxcare at retail rates[1] to rent whatever relevant Linux expertise they feel they need: Hell, there are [link|http://www.tldp.org/LDP/LDP-Author-Guide/|huge directories] of people who might help (and please note that, because of how Linux works, you can pick from people on other continents, if you wish). Don't like the services of one such person? Stop paying him and pay a different one.

Don't like the complexity made possible by having too many options? Well, I guess there's always SCO UNIX.

[1] A point on which I notice Andrew had no comment.

Rick Moen
rick@linuxmafia.com

If you lived here, you'd be $HOME already.

Post #77,666

by boxley

1/28/03 9:20:09 PM

come on Rick have you ever, never met a client

who refused to listen to you because of cost and you could not make them understand? I have and I regard it as a failure to communicate on my part but it is their dollar and company.
thanx,
bill

Post #77,677

1/28/03 10:26:59 PM

Re: come on Rick have you ever, never met a client

boxley wrote:

Come on Rick have you ever, never met a client who refused to listen to you because of cost and you could not make them understand?

What an utterly bizarre, non-sequitur question.

Of course I have. What's your point?

I'll even give you a sort of example. (There are probably ones that fit more closely, but this one comes immediately to mind.) One client was a California architectural engineering firm with branch offices in Costa Mesa, Portland, and Phoenix. Each office had a LAN that was NetWare-based with an increasing number of NT 4 fileservers. There were WAN links among the offices -- but, every week or so, the routing tables would slowly become badly screwed up, and stay that way until all the routers had be reset. They asked my advice:

Me: "Put in static routes."
Mgmt: "But that would mean we'd have to have someone revise the routing tables whenever we bring onboard a new branch office."
Me: "That's true. But your routing would work."
Mgmt: "But we don't like having to pay someone to revise routes for us."
Me: "I understand that. But having propagation of bogus routes is more expensive."
Mgmt: "But the current system should work."
Me: "No, it can't."
Mgmt: "What do you mean? It used to work."
Me: "Yes, but you're using RIP, and RIP doesn't scale. You've grown to exactly the point where it starts failing. Put in routers that'll do OSPF, or use static routes. The latter is cheaper, and 100% effective."
Mgmt: "But writing routing tables is difficult."
Me: "No, it's not. Here are all the ones you need, free. I did them on the way here."
Mgmt: "We're not convinced RIP doesn't work. Surely there's a way to make it happen."
Me: "Good luck. I'm giving it to you as straight as I know it."

So, they paid an expensive consulting firm to study the problem. A week and a visitation by a squadron of network engineers later, management got a glossy folio report that said: "Put in static routes. RIP doesn't scale."

I guess I didn't charge enough.

Rick Moen
rick@linuxmafia.com

If you lived here, you'd be $HOME already.

Post #77,679

by boxley

1/28/03 10:41:25 PM

Thanks, my point is customers will not stray from

vendor proclamations because of fear, which was one of Andrew's points. From your example I see that you have also run into similar folks.
thanx,
bill

Post #77,684

1/28/03 10:49:10 PM

Re: Thanks, my point is customers will not stray from

boxley wrote:

Thanks, my point is customers will not stray from vendor proclamations because of fear, which was one of Andrew's points.

Could you translate that into English, please? I can't tell what, if anything, that means, but it doesn't seem to resemble anything that Andrew said, in any event.

From your example I see that you have also run into similar folks.

What say?

I ran into folks who would not believe they had to do something that would cost them money for technical assistance, without otherwise changing their existing setup, until they'd paid a much larger consulting outfit than I am a rather large sum of money to hear exactly the same advice I had given them. Kindly explain how this resembles anything Andrew spoke of. Thank you.

Rick Moen
rick@linuxmafia.com

If you lived here, you'd be $HOME already.

Post #77,686

by boxley

1/28/03 10:54:23 PM

Sorry I think we are badly miscommunicating, forget it

Post #77,670

1/28/03 9:32:52 PM

You're in an alternate reality

Most existing small businesses already have an existing software that they use, and it is no trivial matter to change. Besides, for many applications there are no open source alternatives (to give just a few I've researched, solid modeling, PCB layout, and Minitab-like software -- and I'm sure are plenty of other vertical markets are similarly devoid).

So if the software vendor will not support it, fix bugs, etc, THERE IS NO ONE ELSE YOU CAN TURN TO. Sure, you can get Linux help, so what? That won't help with a closed-source vertical market package, especially if the ISV won't fix bugs that have nothing to do with Linux, unless you're running RH. Switch to another package? Sure, that's nice, but it's often a pretty bad option too; switching is expensive, and most small business do not have much margin for extra expenses.

What does unpatched SQL server bug have to do with ISV's only supporting RH? How about sticking on topic.

Fee for service? Isn't that what Andrew does? They have a problem they can't handle, they call him in & pay him. Boy, I guess all these small businesses have never heard about it.

Tony

Post #77,678

1/28/03 10:35:12 PM

1/28/03 10:41:14 PM

Re: You're in an alternate reality

tonytib wrote:

Most existing small businesses already have an existing software that they use, and it is no trivial matter to change.

Speaking of alternate realities, I nowhere suggested that businesses should change software.

Besides, for many applications there are no open source alternatives (to give just a few I've researched, solid modeling, PCB layout, and Minitab-like software -- and I'm sure are plenty of other vertical markets are similarly devoid).

You seem to be furiously arguing with some imaginary debate opponent, since I wasn't talking about "open source alternatives". Perhaps you should go back and re-read? I was addressing Andrew's rather peculiar assertions about Red Hat Linux and Red Hat Advanced Server.

So if the software vendor will not support it, fix bugs, etc, THERE IS NO ONE ELSE YOU CAN TURN TO.

Now, you're not only making irrelevant objections, but shouting, as well. What the hell are you talking about, by the way?

Fee for service? Isn't that what Andrew does? They have a problem they can't handle, they call him in & pay him.

Thank you for making my point for me. In the same sense, Red Hat Software releases don't suddenly become unmaintainable just because somebody's Red Hat Software, Inc. support contract has run out. Sorry, I have no sympathy for people who profess being unable to handle negotiation of contracts for what they want to buy.

What does unpatched SQL server bug have to do with ISV's only supporting RH?

Sorry, I was in a hurry and busy, was writing quickly, and got two conversations confused.

Rick Moen
rick@linuxmafia.com

If you lived here, you'd be $HOME already.

Edited by rickmoen Jan. 28, 2003, 10:41:14 PM EST

Expand All History

Post #77,705

1/29/03 12:20:47 AM

No, you keep missing the point

RH is becoming "the standard" for small businesses looking for MS alternatives because many ISV's making vertical business apps for Linux ONLY support RH.

So, if small biz X runs anything other than RH, they won't get any support from the ISV. Therefore, small biz X will almost certainly likely run RH, because they don't want to pay more for the extra help needed to get ISV app Y running on Debian/SuSE/whatever.

Furthermore, even if they did pay the Linux expert to get it working, it wouldn't help them if they had non-Linux related problems with the app, if the ISV won't help unless they're running RH (which can be the case). So another reason to use RH; after all, they're interested in running a business, not making a IT fashion statement.

So point #1: for most small businesses, RH is the only logical Linux distro. All the Linux experts in the world won't change this. (Of course, if source is available, then other people could provide support & bug fixes.....but this generally isn't the case).

So the small biz now has a choice of running RH supported by RH or supported by someone else. You do have a valid point that others than RH can support RH. However, I suspect RH will increase RHAS sales; the vendor has a lot of built-in advantages.

In summary, I'll give you 1/3; I'll give you non-RH support, but you don't address Andrew's gripes about RH's growing dominance, and "the community" / "great unwashed Linux loudmouths" / whatevers inconsistent treatment of RH & its competitors.

Tony

Post #77,774

1/29/03 10:18:09 AM

Re: No, you keep missing the point

tonytib wrote:

You do have a valid point that others than RH can support RH.

Well, thank you for noticing that what I posted, I guess.

...you don't address Andrew's gripes about RH's growing dominance, and "the community" / "great unwashed Linux loudmouths" / whatevers inconsistent treatment of RH & its competitors.

I'm not sure what the point is, there.

In extreme cases, if some idiot ISV's technical support people say their application is "supported only on Red Hat" and I'm trying to report a bug, I'll just load the most recent RH ISOs onto a spare partition, reboot, replicate the bug, and report it again. Adds about an hour to the process. No RHAS or support contracts needed.

Actually, though, about the only situation where just telling the guy that /etc/rh-release says "n.n" when you're actually running Linux-Mandrake doesn't work is Oracle, and, there, the machine needs to be just a dedicated Oracle/RH box that's used for nothing else, anyway.

The sheep-like tendency of some ISVs and the tendency of some cretinous firms to cite any excuse to deny customer service is duly noted.

But those who don't like "Red Hat's growing dominance" can try instead saying "Actually, I'm running Mandrake, and, if you're unwilling to help me, you're going to lose me as a customer" -- and mean it.

Rick Moen
rick@linuxmafia.com

If you lived here, you'd be $HOME already.

Post #77,756

by drewk

1/29/03 8:52:34 AM

How to intentionally miss a point (new thread)

Created as new thread #77755 titled [link|/forums/render/content/show?contentid=77755|How to intentionally miss a point]

===
Microsoft offers them the one thing most business people will pay any price for - the ability to say "we had no choice - everyone's doing it that way." -- [link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=38978|Andrew Grygus]

Post #77,728

1/29/03 5:12:45 AM

1/29/03 5:14:07 AM

Re: You're in an alternate reality

Could you explain "vertical market"? I'm developing solutions for one such, yet I don't really understand the concept.

(Edit: Marker-Oxley syndrome correction.)

-drl

Edited by deSitter Jan. 29, 2003, 05:14:07 AM EST

Expand All History

Post #77,733

1/29/03 5:55:34 AM

1/29/03 5:56:36 AM

Vertical market vs horizontal

Traditionally, a vertical market VAR (Value Added Reseller) would provide a top-to-bottom solution (hardware through applications to support) for a very narrow market, such as shoe stores. His system would have little or no application outside shoe stores but be complete for that niche.

A horizontal VAR would provide a solution, such as document scanning, that was applicable to a wide variety of businesses, but would not be a complete top-to-bottom solution for any of them.

Today, the term "vertical market" has been weakened and is often used to designate just a major specialized software application for a particular narrow business niche, such as shoe stores, because in today's more modular world, every "vertical solution" has to be integrated with, and get along with, a whole lot of horizontal stuff like spreadsheets, word processing, Internet browsers, etc.

I remember the days (late '80s) when vertical VARS were being forced to deal with this horizontal stuff, and they didn't like it one bit. They were accustomed to computer systems they supplied being used to run their software and only their software. The clients were now insisting that computers were general purpose devices and they wanted to run word processing, general printing, spreadsheets, and the like on the same system.

[link|http://www.aaxnet.com|AAx]

Edited by Andrew Grygus Jan. 29, 2003, 05:56:36 AM EST

Expand All History

Post #78,318

by static

1/31/03 5:24:11 AM

Nice description.

I like it. I shall have to remember it.

Wade, who writes software for a living for a vertical market. :-)

Is it enough to love
Is it enough to breathe
Somebody rip my heart out
And leave me here to bleed

Is it enough to die
Somebody save my life
I'd rather be Anything but Ordinary
Please

-- "Anything but Ordinary" by Avril Lavigne.

Post #77,873

1/29/03 3:07:02 PM

Oh great, here comes the one-man-band.

Oh great, here come the cheerleaders

Oh, forgive me for agreeing with someone else on this board. I'll try to be more like you. It won't happen again.

Ah, so reality doesn't meet your needs. OK, maybe you can take it back for a refund.

Ah, so you are a dyed-in-the-wool status quo man. Nothing changes and all will be well. Same non-sequitur, turned on its head. We're even.

For, tantrums aside, what I described was reality: If you're dumb enough to leave exposed services needlessly Internet-exposed and unpatched/vulnerable for six months on end, your Internet presence will be compromised, with consequent loss to your reputation, public relations, and possibly other vital interests.

As iirc Tony pointed out below, wth? Who was talking about this?

It's funny, but when people talk about businesses' need to control risks in other areas where they're not experts, nobody blinks an eye, but when you talk about risk control and abatement concerning Internet connectivity, suddenly people like you pop up trying to claim exemption from real-world concerns, on grounds that you're, well, a Special Person or something.

Nobody blinks an eye because those "other areas" are managed, as Andrew said, in what have become standard, one might say to the point of being intuitive, ways.

It happens, and people die. The Boeing Company negligently makes a defective airplane, and little girls' and boys' fathers die. The survivors sue: Six of my teenage years got eaten by one such lawsuit. Did you have a point?

Ummm..we were talking about minimizing risk. Can you not connect the dots between risk and damage?

Anyhow, I'm sorry, but the notion that businesses can't possibly deal with a fee-for-service business models is just laughable. Not only do they do this every day, both in IT and elsewhere, but I've earned a good living in the past doing exactly that. It's not necessary for businesses to hire IBM Corporation at major-customer rates or even Linuxcare at retail rates[1] to rent whatever relevant Linux expertise they feel they need: Hell, there are huge directories of people who might help (and please note that, because of how Linux works, you can pick from people on other continents, if you wish). Don't like the services of one such person? Stop paying him and pay a different one.

Social tip: if you find the opinion of your chosen adversary laughable, chance are you've misunderstood his opinion. The issue which *Andrew* brought up, before he was so rudely interrupted, is that support lifetimes are getting shorter. Go to linuxcare's website and look around. They don't want to support anything other than the current versions any more than the vendors themselves do. The issue is not fee-for-service per se but lifetime. A vendor's shortening of the support lifetime affects independents' support lifetimes.

Don't like the complexity made possible by having too many options? Well, I guess there's always SCO UNIX.

Can't argue that one. If it were part of my argument, I would reply.

My point hinged more on your unbelievable assertion that, if a business doesn't perceive the world the way you do, they should wither and die. Is a la carte a viable support model? Sure. Should the survival of my non-technology-related business *depend* upon me grokking that "fact"? You seem to think so. I've seen too many businesses make similar mistakes without actually going bankrupt that I have a hard time understanding religio-fundamentalist Capitalism like yours. Not only that, but I see other options, not only in historical precedent, but in the perception of most business owners. In my book, the momentum of business-as-usual has at least an even chance of drowning out the nouveau business model. Time will tell if those blithering idiots get what they want despite your current reality or evolutionary dogmatism.

Now, if you really think such businesses should cease operations, let's go our separate ways; I wouldn't be willing to discuss this anymore with you. If, on the other hand, you back down from your extremist hyperbole and assume a more moderate position, I'd be happy to hear your further opinion on these subjects.

Many fears are born of stupidity and ignorance -
Which you should be feeding with rumour and generalisation.
BOfH, 2002 "Episode" 10

Post #77,888

1/29/03 3:43:36 PM

Re: Oh great, here comes the one-man-band.

tseliot wrote:

Nobody blinks an eye because those "other areas" are managed, as Andrew said, in what have become standard, one might say to the point of being intuitive, ways.

To you, managed. To me, pretty broken. Fortunately, neither of us needs to be especially concerned about the other's view, right?

Ummm..we were talking about minimizing risk. Can you not connect the dots between risk and damage?

You're either being very vague, changing the subject, or both.

Social tip: if you find the opinion of your chosen adversary laughable, chance are you've misunderstood his opinion.

Or maybe I understand his opinion, think he's trying to troll a technical audience by deliberately dangling purblind arguments in front of it, and find the practice tiresome.

The issue which *Andrew* brought up, before he was so rudely interrupted, is that support lifetimes are getting shorter. Go to linuxcare's website and look around. They don't want to support anything other than the current versions any more than the vendors themselves do.

Well, when the "versions" in question are of a freely redistributable operating system that's available for the cost of duplication, the relevance of this point is unclear. Andrew tried to muddy this obvious point by mixing in RHAS, but that is not relevant.

My point hinged more on your unbelievable assertion that, if a business doesn't perceive the world the way you do, they should wither and die.

I believe what I said was that if a business doesn't perceive the world the way it is, that they probably will wither and die. Such as by refusing to avail themselves of a la carte support when it's the obvious choice, because, well, they never have before and they just don't want to. But please don't let me stop you from constructing straw men and knocking them down at great length. It could be quite entertaining.

Rick Moen
rick@linuxmafia.com

If you lived here, you'd be $HOME already.

Post #77,906

1/29/03 4:37:28 PM

Will, should, doesn't matter.

Now I'm tired of talking to you. You assume too much, belittle opposing views too often, couch it all in language most people read as sarcasm and hyperbole, then try to pass it off as literal when challenged. You either do this on purpose, in which case piss off, or you honestly don't realize it, in which case: this conversation is not the place to address it further; you'll only confuse the original conversation with the meta-discussion.

Have fun.

Many fears are born of stupidity and ignorance -
Which you should be feeding with rumour and generalisation.
BOfH, 2002 "Episode" 10

Post #77,923

1/29/03 5:22:10 PM

Re: Will, should, doesn't matter.

tseliot wrote:

Now I'm tired of talking to you.

So, let me get this straight: You come screaming belligerently into the thread to attribute to me (and argue with) views I don't hold and never stated, and then, when I object to that, pronounce that I'm not worth your time?

Well, OK. I wish you'd decided that before going out of your way to waste my time, but I'll take small gains any way they're offered. 'Bye.

Rick Moen
rick@linuxmafia.com

If you lived here, you'd be $HOME already.

Post #77,934

1/29/03 6:22:28 PM

Small gain, indeed.

So, let me get this straight: You come screaming belligerently into the thread to attribute to me (and argue with) views I don't hold and never stated, and then, when I object to that, pronounce that I'm not worth your time?

You are not worth my time. That's not because you object to misunderstanding, but because you actively work to keep yourself from alleviating it. You state your views and then assume any communication difficulties are Someone Else's Problem.

From your first post in this thread:

...you're trolling...selective blindnesses...magnificently erroneous..."evolution in action"...anonymous teenage flamers...either missing, or are pretending to miss...smarter firms, and like that.

Belligerent? Pot. Kettle. Black.

Many fears are born of stupidity and ignorance -
Which you should be feeding with rumour and generalisation.
BOfH, 2002 "Episode" 10

Post #77,974

1/29/03 9:17:50 PM

Re: Small gain, indeed.

tseliot wrote:

You are not worth my time. That's not because you object to misunderstanding, but because you actively work to keep yourself from alleviating it. You state your views and then assume any communication difficulties are Someone Else's Problem.

You seriously claim not to have made wildly erroneous claims about what views I've stated in preceding posts? Well, then we're done. Again: 'Bye!

Rick Moen
rick@linuxmafia.com

If you lived here, you'd be $HOME already.

Post #78,281

1/31/03 12:22:12 AM

Apology:

Folks (everyone), I was wrong here. I'm sorry for taking what should have been a simple conversation and pissing all over the forum. Please forgive me.

Rick, I admit I misinterpreted your statement(s). I thought I admitted that in my last post; sorry if it wasn't clear. It was not on purpose. Hope you can believe that, although given your last post I don't think you do.

I still disagree with you. I don't like it when you call my friends trolls because you disagree with them. I don't like it when you throw in loaded descriptors like "magnificently erroneous". But I'll do my best to understand your point better next time.

Many fears are born of stupidity and ignorance -
Which you should be feeding with rumour and generalisation.
BOfH, 2002 "Episode" 10

Post #78,282

1/31/03 12:25:31 AM

Think nothing of it.

I regret any part I had in causing this problem. Don't worry about your part in it, but the good gesture is much appreciated.

Rick Moen
rick@linuxmafia.com

If you lived here, you'd be $HOME already.

Post #77,722

1/29/03 4:43:35 AM

Re: The push to Advanced Server begins

I have a third point of view. I am IT God at just such a business, that does aftermarket mods of fleet equipment (snowplows, dump bodies, etc.) I pinch pennies until they are stamps. I deal with marginal equipment. I am stuck with Windows servers because the accounting system runs on it. If not for that, everyone would be on Linux now. The leases on the workstations are up in May and all the new ones will be chosen for future Linux compatibility.

Every thing you said is to-the-letter correct.

-drl

Post #77,741

1/29/03 8:09:56 AM

Software drive OS selection

As you see.

Key problems in the Linux world are lack of key vertical market apps supported that platform. OK, so your OS is open - what are you going to run on it? DNS, Apache, Samba? Which of these is key to your business?

Zero. Its that damn custom accounting package - the bowling scores aggregator, whatever.

At least part of whats holding back development of decent vertical market applications is good UI infrastructure. Gnome? Object Oriented C - crap. KDE? C++ complicated Crap. Gnustep? Half baked and fumbled (don't ask me - Simpson Garfinkel and many other Nexties agree).

I keep hearing capitalism - well capitalism doesn't work on top of anarchy. It requires a government to foster it and lay down common infrastructure. Sans common infrastructure (like a decent UI environment) its going to stay weak.

This is the number one thing holding back adoption of opensource OS's.

Its the apps.

I think that it's extraordinarily important that we in computer science keep fun in computing. When it started out, it was an awful lot of fun. Of course, the paying customer got shafted every now and then, and after a while we began to take their complaints seriously. We began to feel as if we really were responsible for the successful, error-free perfect use of these machines. I don't think we are. I think we're responsible for stretching them, setting them off in new directions, and keeping fun in the house. I hope the field of computer science never loses its sense of fun. Above all, I hope we don't become missionaries. Don't feel as if you're Bible salesmen. The world has too many of those already. What you know about computing other people will learn. Don't feel as if the key to successful computing is only in your hands. What's in your hands, I think and hope, is intelligence: the ability to see the machine as more than when you were first led up to it, that you can make it more.

--Alan Perlis

Post #77,799

1/29/03 11:25:47 AM

Total agreement

Windows unfortunately is a necessity to get my job done. Why? Yep, total lack of many crucial application.

If Apple is smart, this should be a great opportunity for them. After all, it's pretty obvious what the standard is on OS X, and from what I've heard, OS X is very nice for programmers.

My bottom line is that the computer is a tool to get work done, not an end in itself. If a commercial apps lets me get the work done at all, or helps get the job done quicker, then it's worth it.

Tony

Post #77,809

1/29/03 11:39:11 AM

Re: Total agreement

tonytib wrote:

Windows unfortunately is a necessity to get my job done. Why? Yep, total lack of many crucial application.

It might be just me, but I have grave doubts about your ability to identify available tools. But that's OK: I'm sure MS-Windows is good enough for you.

If Apple is smart, this should be a great opportunity for them. After all, it's pretty obvious what the standard is on OS X, and from what I've heard, OS X is very nice for programmers.

Well, it was. Unfortunately, then they took a horrific detour into Java.

Rick Moen
rick@linuxmafia.com

If you lived here, you'd be $HOME already.

Post #77,874

1/29/03 3:10:20 PM

Apple is backing away from Java

They're working hard to make it work well - but the apps Apple is releasing are ObjectiveC apps - not Java. They got so many complaints about the size and startup time of java apps (the TextEdit example first and foremost) that they gave up on releasing them as Java.

The ObjectiveC apis are really quite good and lots of nifty things from the iApps is making its way into the frameworks.

I (mostly) like the direction. Although the xmlisation of Plists is pretty stupid.

Post #77,881

1/29/03 3:30:29 PM

Re: Apple is backing away from Java

Well, that's good. If so, it's an about-face from their earlier direction, which powerfully ticked off my wife and a large number of other Cocoa developers.

Objective-C is very nice, indeed. I wish it would catch on in place of all that C++ hideousness.

Rick Moen
rick@linuxmafia.com

If you lived here, you'd be $HOME already.

Post #77,836

1/29/03 1:20:56 PM

The Software Desert

For "general office", where all you need is a Web browser and an office suite, Linux is well equipped, but the moment you start talking more specific business applications, you're in trouble. Last time I searched, there wasn't even an acceptable replacment for Act!, and I've herard in discussions there still isn't.

Leafing through any specialty technology magazine can be discouraging. Here's just a few of the ones lying around here.

"Accounting Technology": if you can find finished, ready to run Linux equivalents of 2% of the products reviewed and advertised in any particular issue, i'd be very, very surprised.

"Desktop Engineering": you might do a shade better than 2%, but, you might not. Many of the major apps simply aren't being ported, so nor are the dozens of satelite programs that surround them.

"Mailing Systems Technology": even worse.

Now, "Retail Systems Reseller" will actually have a few Linux programs, because SCO Unix was used there, and because retail systems tend to be "cookie cutter" applications rolled out identically to multiple stations, making the hassle of Linux integration worthwhile.

A number of accounting and vertical market packages have been, or are being, ported to Linux from SCO Unix. Problem is, they tend to be old "green screen" style stuff unattractive to a great many buyers in today's market - so even software exists, you many not be able to sell it against much more modern Windows packages.

The permanent status of so many Linux business software development projects seems to be "pre-Alpha".

[link|http://www.aaxnet.com|AAx]

Post #77,850

1/29/03 1:54:33 PM

Re: The Software Desert

Andrew Grygus wrote:

Last time I searched, there wasn't even an acceptable replacment for Act!, and I've herard in discussions there still isn't.

I keep my contact records mostly in LDAP. What, you can't figure out how to use LDAP effectively? Sucks to be you.

But I notice you've gone for the usual shtick of wanting "Linux equivalents" of specific packages you're familiar with, and of names you're familiar with being "ported" -- as opposed to looking for Linux solutions for particular functional problems. The [link|http://www.softorchestra.com/pipermail/linux-consultants/2003-January/000164.html|latter] is of course a saner way to approach the subject. But that, of course, requires your actually studying and comprehending the technology, instead of just showing up on Web forums, bellyaching, and expecting other people to do your legwork for you.

You sure you weren't trying to find comp.os.*.advocacy, and just took a wrong turn? On the whole, I'd recommend you just keep on selling your customers MS-Windows software solutions, good and hard, Andrew.

Rick Moen
rick@linuxmafia.com

If you lived here, you'd be $HOME already.

Post #77,859

1/29/03 2:35:03 PM

It's people like you that do more harm than good

to Linux advocacy.

The goal for most of us is to get our job done, not to futz around with computers or use half-assed tools just because they meet some ideological criteria. Maybe that's not part of you job.

You're also short on specifics. Let's see a list of functional equivalents. You just assert they're there, but don't give any examples.

For example, give an example of usable MCAD parametric solid modeller on Linux that's in the class of Solid Works or Solid Edge. Yeah, there is one (proprietary software, of coure,but I'll let you find it), but it's a piece of crap. Given the choice between using an efficient program on a crappy OS or a crappy program on a decent OS, I'll take the efficient program.

Or, say I need to program my TI 2407 DSP. OK, there's TI's Code Composer Studio for Windows. For Linux, nothing.

Or I need to talk to the Adept robot controller. Gee, the only choice is AdeptWindows, which runs on Windows.

Oh, yeah, and you think changing software is no big deal? What planet are you from? Yeah, let's just change our accounting software today, it shouldn't take anytime at all.

I'm no fan of Windows, but when I recommend or chose components, I choose stuff that gets the job done.

Until you actually answer some questions, you're a troll.

Tony

Post #77,867

1/29/03 2:59:07 PM

Re: It's people like you that do more harm than good

tonytib wrote:

It's people like you that do more harm than good to Linux advocacy.

Why in Sam Blazes do you think I care about "Linux advocacy"? It makes no earthly difference to me what operating system you use, or Mr. Grygus uses, for that matter. This seems to be a [link|http://smh.com.au/articles/2002/12/26/1040511127721.html|very common erroneous assumption] held among proprietary-OS people who have not bothered to think the matter through.

The goal for most of us is to get our job done, not to futz around with computers or use half-assed tools just because they meet some ideological criteria.

Didn't I just get through advising you to stick with MS-Windows? Was there some particular part of that you didn't understand?

Let's see a list of functional equivalents. You just assert they're there....

Excuse me, but you appear to be having difficulty reading and comprehending what I wrote. You might want to go back and try again.

Until you actually answer some questions, you're a troll.

Excuse me, but do you think I'm a fscking free-of-charge technical research service for verbally abusive strangers? I really don't think so.

Rick Moen
rick@linuxmafia.com

If you lived here, you'd be $HOME already.

Post #77,885

1/29/03 3:39:49 PM

Nope, you're a troll...or an idiot (can't read, can't answer

Post #77,882

1/29/03 3:33:49 PM

LDAP?

I keep my contact records mostly in LDAP. What, you can't figure out how to use LDAP effectively? Sucks to be you.

Yeah, but you're a freak.

Users that don't give a rats ass about whats under the hood want a contact manager that looks and acts like a fucking rolodex or a book. Not a weird-assed hirearchical database with shitty choices for labels.

Post #77,886

1/29/03 3:40:42 PM

Give it up, he hasn't learned to read yet

Post #77,895

by boxley

1/29/03 3:59:31 PM

Well I suppose you could always use Radius for CM

I dont know why you would but you could. Perhaps the sendmail alias file as well although it would be easier to put it all in /etc/passwd.
thanx,
bill

Post #77,908

1/29/03 4:43:49 PM

Well, i's pretty evident . .

. . you haven't a clue what Act! is or does if you think an LDAP contact list will suffice to replace it.

The reason Linux need equivalents of popular Windows programs is that these programs have been developed over an extended period of time to provide the functions businesses need in a manner reasonably compatible with the way businesses work. That's why they have been successful.

If Linux can't provide a program with function equivalent to and reasonably similar in use to, Act!, GoldMine or Maxamizer, then it's locked off a very large and very important segment of the small business desktop. The same goes for many other software packages.

[link|http://www.aaxnet.com|AAx]

Post #77,926

1/29/03 5:30:55 PM

Re: Well, i's pretty evident . .

Andrew wrote:

Well, i's pretty evident you haven't a clue what Act! is or does if you think an LDAP contact list will suffice to replace it.

Contact manager, similar to Goldmine. And your pronouncement without any knowledge of the front-end and the schema is obviously in utter ignorance.

But I'm really not surprised that (even more) erroneous assumptions turn out to be (thus) "evident" to you.

The reason Linux need equivalents of popular Windows programs is that these programs have been developed over an extended period of time to provide the functions businesses need in a manner reasonably compatible with the way businesses work. That's why they have been successful.

Sounds a whole more like "Grygus wants" than "Linux needs". And so you're trying to troll other people into doing your software research for you, for free. As noted, I'm not playing.

There are many people whose Linux software questions I will research for free, in order to advance the state of knowledge among the community, among other reasons. But people who pose them the way you do don't get squat. Stick with MS-Windows.

Rick Moen
rick@linuxmafia.com

If you lived here, you'd be $HOME already.

Post #77,931

1/29/03 6:07:34 PM

Lemme second an opinion...

...because you are severely underestimating ACT! by suggesting that it can be functionally replaced with an LDAP contact manager.

I can manage contacts and store info in Evolution. That doesn't give me anyting near the capability of ACT!

ACT! provides forecasting ability, links to the 2 primary so/ho accounting packages to become a very effective CRM tool. Used properly, ACT! is much more than storage of business card info.

If simple contact management were the goal, noone would need anything further than Outlook...which has a Linux alternative.

You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson}

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]

Post #77,975

1/29/03 9:26:09 PM

Re: Lemme second an opinion...

bepatient wrote:

I can manage contacts and store info in Evolution. That doesn't give me anyting near the capability of ACT!

Raises the obvious question, of course, of what functionality the customer's business processes actually call for. As I've already pointed out, [link|http://www.softorchestra.com/pipermail/linux-consultants/2003-January/000164.html|rational requirements analysis] just doesn't revolve around application dicksize wars. Thus my suggestion that this stuff, which you are now proving to be as fond of as Andrew was, would be better moved to comp.os.*.advocacy, where it was presumably intended to go in the first place.

Rick Moen
rick@linuxmafia.com

If you lived here, you'd be $HOME already.

Post #77,985

1/29/03 10:24:20 PM

Generally it is safe to presume . . .

. . they need at minimum the functionallity they are currently using on a daily basis.

[link|http://www.aaxnet.com|AAx]

Post #77,987

1/29/03 10:35:34 PM

Re: Generally it is safe to presume . . .

Andrew wrote:

Generally it is safe to presume they need at minimum the functionallity they are currently using on a daily basis.

Like Solitaire, for example.

Not to mention [link|http://www.softorchestra.com/pipermail/linux-consultants/2003-January/000164.html|embodying crucial business practices in Excel spreadsheet templates].

I get it! Never mind what the business needs to do, to earn a living. Let's just perpetuate whatever capabilities, foibles, and misfeatures their current software has, regardless of whether those are related to the job it should be doing. Quirk-for-quirk compatibility!

Rick Moen
rick@linuxmafia.com

If you lived here, you'd be $HOME already.

Post #77,998

1/29/03 11:19:08 PM

It's the height of arrogance . .

. . to presume you know better the needs of a business than the person(s) who made that business successful. It's also the height of foolishness, 'cause your tenure will be real short.

If a company abuses spreadsheets, they're generally quite open to replacing them with something faster and safer - but if your "better" method doesn't provide the current functionality, you'll be politely reminded where to find the door.

Anyway, I can't recall any small businesses abusing spreadsheets for practically a decade - that's an entertainment for corporate boys. One of my more successfull clients (sales about $70,000 / day) is still quite happy with SuperCalc 3 DOS for all his spreadsheet needs. I installed that for him in 1988. Most of my clients don't use spreadsheets at all.

[link|http://www.aaxnet.com|AAx]

Post #78,005

1/29/03 11:45:03 PM

Re: It's the height of arrogance . .

Andrew wrote:

It's the height of arrogance to presume you know better the needs of a business than the person(s) who made that business successful. It's also the height of foolishness, 'cause your tenure will be real short.

It's the height of online gamesmanship to stipulate that whoever's found to be running crucial business practices out of Excel spreadsheet templates is "the person who made that business successful". More likely, the business might be successful despite that person's efforts to shoot it in the foot.

If a company abuses spreadsheets, they're generally quite open to replacing them with something faster and safer - but if your "better" method doesn't provide the current functionality, you'll be politely reminded where to find the door.

Hey, don't forget to re-implement those Excel AutoOpen viruses, for example.

"Current functionality" often as not, upon examination, turns out to be a trick the secretary found in Excel for Frightfully Clever Persons that has not a lot do do with the job at hand. But I suppose uncritically copying-and-pasting to the sheet of requirements is easier than thinking.

Anyway, I can't recall any small businesses abusing spreadsheets for practically a decade - that's an entertainment for corporate boys.

It was, of course, an example of a broader pattern of customer missteps that alert consultants to business can and should watch for, rather than, for example, perpetuating them as you propose.

This is of course, why I found hysterically funny the claim of your cheerleader "tseliot" that I'm a dyed-in-the-wool status quo man.

Rick Moen
rick@linuxmafia.com

If you lived here, you'd be $HOME already.

Post #78,007

1/30/03 12:38:32 AM

Your ability to descend into absurdity is truly amazing!

I take it this is a survival ploy similar to birds that fake a broken wing to distract predators away from their nest?

[link|http://www.aaxnet.com|AAx]

Post #78,047

1/30/03 9:19:06 AM

Ow....

That hurt... I felt/heard the thump HERE in Michigan...

Yeah, sure Rick gets under people's skin... but then again so do you sometimes Grygus... heck for that matter I get under people's skin...

I am guessing what really is the begging question here... If that customer of your understands his/her business... does that person really understand the faults aligned with hte current "Spreadsheet" solution? Would they be willing to re-address the solution... and perhaps find another tat fits better but doesn't *DO* it exactly that same way... but results are the same?

Both of you, on one hand, are good at cutting to the chase, on the other hand both of you two seem to be able to beat and chant around the proverbial "Burning Bush" rather well, hoping for rain...

[link|mailto:curley95@attbi.com|greg] - Grand-Master Artist in IT

[link|http://www.iwethey.org/ed_curry/|REMEMBER ED CURRY!] [link|http://pascal.rockford.com:8888/SSK@kQMsmc74S0Tw3KHQiRQmDem0gAIPAgM/edcurry/1//|ED'S GHOST SPEAKS!]

Heimatland Geheime Staatspolizei reminds:
These [link|http://www.whitehouse.gov/pcipb/cyberstrategy-draft.html|Civilian General Orders], please memorize them.
"Questions" will be asked at safety checkpoints.

Post #78,112

1/30/03 3:39:59 PM

Re: Ow....

That hurt... I felt/heard the thump HERE in Michigan...

Well, I didn't. It was just the expected descent into content-free verbal abuse. After all, It's Easier Than Thinking!<tm>

I am guessing what really is the begging question here... If that customer of your understands his/her business... does that person really understand the faults aligned with hte current "Spreadsheet" solution? Would they be willing to re-address the solution... and perhaps find another tat fits better but doesn't *DO* it exactly that same way... but results are the same?

Good question. I would say it's properly the job of an IT consultant to bring up exactly such questions (where appropriate), among others.

Rick Moen
rick@linuxmafia.com

If you lived here, you'd be $HOME already.

Post #78,123

1/30/03 4:29:06 PM

Simple Question

Name a good Linux accounting package I can get for less that $10 grand, which is the current investment in Great Plains (not my choice, I inherited it).

-drl

Post #78,127

by imric

1/30/03 4:40:15 PM

Remember to include

the price of setting it up (in time; time IS money) and training employees to use it.

Imric's Tips for Living

Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.

Post #78,128

by imric

1/30/03 4:42:53 PM

ps. Of course

cost savings inherent in licensing differences, etc. should be included, too.

Imric's Tips for Living

Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.

Post #78,138

by boxley

1/30/03 5:00:17 PM

call Andrew and get his

Post #78,141

by pwhysall

1/30/03 5:04:01 PM

This whole thing is now officially Boring As Shit.

Can we end it?

Post #78,148

by boxley

1/30/03 5:43:43 PM

Sorry, Desit asked for replacement of Great Plains

and I have spoken to Andrew about his product for one of my customers in the past, it was just a straight reccomendation not persuant to the main discussion. Which appears to a a squeekfest.
thanx,
bill

Post #78,207

1/30/03 8:50:41 PM

AppGen

[link|http://www.appgen.com/index.html|Appgen Business Software, Inc.]

Appgen\ufffd Custom Suite...
[link|http://www.appgen.com/products/appgen_custom_suite.html|Starting @~$995US] somewhere ~$4000US for all functionality and 25 users.

Appgen\ufffd MyBooks Professional
[link|http://www.appgen.com/products/mybooksprofessional.html|Starting @$249US] for 2 concurrent users. $799 for 10 users... scalable to Custom Suite with 100's of users...

Appgen\ufffd MyBooks
[link|http://www.appgen.com/products/mybooks.html|Starting @$99US] Single user small business wth limited needs.

[link|http://www.appgen.com/products/mybooks_pro_quickbooks.html|Comparison] of MyBooks Pro to Quickbooks and QB Value pack

[link|mailto:curley95@attbi.com|greg] - Grand-Master Artist in IT

[link|http://www.iwethey.org/ed_curry/|REMEMBER ED CURRY!] [link|http://pascal.rockford.com:8888/SSK@kQMsmc74S0Tw3KHQiRQmDem0gAIPAgM/edcurry/1//|ED'S GHOST SPEAKS!]

Post #78,225

1/30/03 10:01:04 PM

Re: AppGen

Does it work? Bottom line.

What database options?

-drl

Post #78,228

1/30/03 10:19:02 PM

Yes... it does work.

Order the $7 CD and look at it. ($$$ Mainly for shipping 2nd Day FedEx) Well worth the $7.

Three customers have looked at it now, three are switching to it. Every companies accountants like it alot. Easy to use, easy to check (audit), easy to backup... There are options. It connect vis ODBC if you want therefore it should connect or work on any DB supporting it's requirements... (obviously MS-SQL isn't the DB of Choice).

I have looked at it on Windows95, Windows98, Windows2K, WindowsXP, Linux (three distros so far)...

It just worken so far...

[link|mailto:curley95@attbi.com|greg] - Grand-Master Artist in IT

[link|http://www.iwethey.org/ed_curry/|REMEMBER ED CURRY!] [link|http://pascal.rockford.com:8888/SSK@kQMsmc74S0Tw3KHQiRQmDem0gAIPAgM/edcurry/1//|ED'S GHOST SPEAKS!]

Post #78,232

by boxley

1/30/03 10:21:57 PM

Give the Gryg a call I am sure he would be willing to answer

any questions you may have. Go to his web site on the bottom of his posts and the contact info is there. He has used it successfully for many years with his clients.
thanx,
bill

Post #78,244

1/30/03 11:12:46 PM

Appgen Custom Suite . .

. . was not at all related to the MyBooks product (which was purchased). I'm sure Appgen has been working to bring them closer, but the transition phase between the two may not be entirely smooth.

Of course, unless you are quite big, or need extensive customization (even whole new modules can be written), you'd opt for the MyBooks product.

[link|http://www.aaxnet.com|AAx]

Post #78,273

1/31/03 12:03:24 AM

Yes... all three...

construction companies need the Job Costing Modules with BoM. They seem to all treat man-hours as inventory... depending on what they ARE doing they bill differently for hours or by the task. Also consumables are bil accordingly.

One company does straight insurance work, amazing they are busting out all over the place... I put in a Dual Athlon machine a while ago for them... they are in process to open whistle stop offices for the crews and also to allow claimants to "view", print, sign-off of quotes, billings, completions and such. Also be able to enter time-cards, print bills, accept payments and other such sundry. Biggey thing is, VPN to connect the LANs together. All going to be connected via 1.5Mb SDSL or better to the same DSL head-end making connections more reliable... at least in theory... 6 remote offices and one main...

Each end going to have a Firewall/VPN, afackup or amanda or even arkeia for backups... back to the main machine...

They have literally grown to be come the preferred contractor for 3 insurance companies in Western Middle Michigan... basically the outline is Lansing, Ludington, Lake Michigan and South Haven.

[link|mailto:curley95@attbi.com|greg] - Grand-Master Artist in IT

[link|http://www.iwethey.org/ed_curry/|REMEMBER ED CURRY!] [link|http://pascal.rockford.com:8888/SSK@kQMsmc74S0Tw3KHQiRQmDem0gAIPAgM/edcurry/1//|ED'S GHOST SPEAKS!]

Post #78,028

1/30/03 6:34:56 AM

Damn, now ACT! is an OS???

Dude...I >was< talking about what the company's business processes called for. We're both talking about rational requirements analysis.

In no way was I suggesting that the alternative had to look or feel just like ACT!...but it has to have the capability to match the functionality.

And some women will tell you...size does matter...especially if they can take it all :-) I've seen ACT! used to potential...I was not talking about unused capability. I was talking about ways that I've seen it used >in real life<.

Your stubborn insistance that Linux can do everything Windows can do is what belongs in comp.os.advocacy. Noone here would disagree on Linux superiority in many areas...but theres a few here who (apparently contrary to your worldly opinion) >dare< to suggest that Linux is >not< capable of fully replacing Windows in all areas. This seems to piss you off.

You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson}

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]

Post #78,029

1/30/03 7:28:15 AM

Re: Damn, now ACT! is an OS???

Dude...I >was< talking about what the company's business processes called for.

Um, no. You still weren't. You were talking about replicating what a particular piece of software does. If you can't tell the difference between that and a business process, I can't help you. Consult a cognitive therapist.

Your stubborn insistance that Linux can do everything Windows can do...

I of course made no such claim. Argue with imaginary debate points much?

Rick Moen
rick@linuxmafia.com

If you lived here, you'd be $HOME already.

Post #78,031

1/30/03 8:07:31 AM

Figured as much.

So, without knowing the need fulfilled by a piece of entrenched software (how do you think it >got< that way)...you've decided that noone else but yourself knows anything about needs analysis and software solutions to match against said needs.

All the while linking to something you wrote that says, in essence ...of course you can't compete with Windows >directly<...there's too many applications.

And you defend this position by claiming that noone else seems to know how to do a proper needs assessment...and that most of your customers are idiots.

And you are doing this to debate against Andrew (who has successful customers that he does >not< think are idiots) and anyone else (who has seen applications fullfil process needs...and in fact greatly improve said processes).

Ok. Great tactic. Since you seem to have no grasp of reality...most everyone will just simply quit debating the point with you. I suppose you could call that victory.

Point taken on the Linux comment...reading back you've made no such direct claim...only derided anyone for saying the opposite. I guess there is technically a difference.

You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson}

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]

Post #78,110

1/30/03 3:31:06 PM

Re: Figured as much.

bepatient wrote:

So, without knowing the need fulfilled by a piece of entrenched software (how do you think it >got< that way)...you've decided that noone else but yourself knows anything about needs analysis and software solutions to match against said needs.

This of course I did not say, either.

All the while linking to something you wrote that says, in essence ...of course you can't compete with Windows >directly<...there's too many applications.

Nor that.

And you defend this position by claiming that noone else seems to know how to do a proper needs assessment...and that most of your customers are idiots.

Nor that.

Point taken on the Linux comment...reading back you've made no such direct claim...only derided anyone for saying the opposite.

Nor that.

You done?

Rick Moen
rick@linuxmafia.com

If you lived here, you'd be $HOME already.

Post #78,164

1/30/03 6:42:41 PM

You didn't?

Do you >read< what you type?

Guess not.

You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson}

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]

Post #78,166

by admin

1/30/03 6:48:18 PM

With apologies...

for the time-sucking link hole I am about to present. Read the whole thread, and apply lessons learned. ;-)

[link|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org/~karsten/IWE-archive/archive/00088425.html|Read me in MY words]...

Link courtesy Karsten; apparently he still owes me a beer.

Regards,

-scott anderson

"Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."

Post #78,170

by boxley

1/30/03 6:58:20 PM

Ahh, the good ole days

Well Rick is no magic man, so he will have to do. Flame on squeek:-)
thanx,
bill

Post #78,204

1/30/03 8:41:06 PM

Oh dear...

...oh my...

wow...

o0o

you had to bring that up.

Thanks for the refresher.

You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson}

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]

Post #78,319

by static

1/31/03 5:31:11 AM

I have a bad feeling about that...

... so much so I'm not going to follow it! :-)

Besides, I've stopped paying close attention to (ahem) "this" kind of thread. Too much "I said, you said" and attempts to get the last word in... or something.

Wade.

Is it enough to love
Is it enough to breathe
Somebody rip my heart out
And leave me here to bleed

Is it enough to die
Somebody save my life
I'd rather be Anything but Ordinary
Please

-- "Anything but Ordinary" by Avril Lavigne.

Post #78,255

1/30/03 11:36:39 PM

Re: You didn't?

bepatient wrote:

Do you >read< what you type? Guess not.

I was actually going to say that it's above you to make shit up and attribute it to me for lack of anything more substantive to say, therefore the more parsimonious and charitable explanation is that you're hopelessly confused and not able to read correctly -- but then I realised that would be wildly optimistic.

Rick Moen
rick@linuxmafia.com

If you lived here, you'd be $HOME already.

Post #78,394

1/31/03 12:10:33 PM

Maybe my universal translator is broken.

my quote

And you defend this position by claiming that noone else seems to know how to do a proper needs assessment...and that most of your customers are idiots.

your quotes

Raises the obvious question, of course, of what functionality the customer's business processes actually call for. As I've already pointed out, rational requirements analysis just doesn't revolve around application dicksize wars. Thus my suggestion that this stuff, which you are now proving to be as fond of as Andrew was, would be better moved to comp.os.*.advocacy, where it was presumably intended to go in the first place.

I went on to say that customers have a tendency, if allowed, to
overdefine and mis-define the requirements. They've gotten used to tool
Foo; their horizons are narrowed; they've gotten used to what's wrong
with it and what it just can't do, and are no longer even aware that
they're working around those things. When asked what is required,
they'll often as not say "something just like like Foo". The
possibility of doing something different or better gets excluded from
discussion.

1st paragraph translation...you decide you need to tell me, without knowledge of what I processes I have seen fulfilled by a particular piece of software....that I am engaging in OS advocacy because I have seen a application that fulfills a particular business process...an application that has no Linux equivalent (at this time). And this is supposed to be translated exactly how? My take on it was exactly what I wrote...that you, without knowledge of the application (obviously), my knowledge of business process analysis nor the business in question...dismiss the need for an ACT! equivalent solution as simple OS advocacy....in other words...you arrogantly assume that I know nothing about this process and and simply engaging in application dicksize wars.

This is NOT saying that the various capabilities in the business process cannot be met by hobbling together functionality from several applications under another OS. I'm certain that, with a little work, it would be possible. Would >that< be a suggestion you make to a SO/HO? Sure we can do that...it'll take us a few months to program and a few thousands of dollars in expense...but we could certainly meet the needs of your process and replace that $199 piece of software.

2nd quote block...I translate as...the customer, left to its own devices, doesn't know what they need. eg...the customer is an idiot.

Now...

Do I >have< to take every line of my post and break it down to match your posts?

You may >think< that you are not saying these things...but damn near everyone here is translating your posts exactly that way.

And with that...I politely bow out of these discussions. They have already gone nowhere...and promise much more of the same in the future.

You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson}

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]

Post #78,476

1/31/03 4:29:18 PM

Re: Maybe my universal translator is broken.

bepatient wrote:

1st paragraph translation...you decide you need to tell me, without knowledge of what I processes I have seen fulfilled by a particular piece of software....that I am engaging in OS advocacy because I have seen a application that fulfills a particular business process...an application that has no Linux equivalent (at this time). [etc., etc.]

I'm sorry to hear about your utter (but, I suspect, quite willful) supposed lack of comprehension of simple English -- in as much as that is nothing at all like what I wrote -- but that is not really my problem.

Rick Moen
rick@linuxmafia.com

If you lived here, you'd be $HOME already.

Post #78,550

1/31/03 10:16:10 PM

whatever

You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson}

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]

Post #77,936

1/29/03 6:35:52 PM

Sorry buddy - can't stick with Windows . .

. . we run OS/2 in this office (yes, really).

I do plenty of product research, hours per day, and I don't want you doing research for me because i believe you lack some basic concepts of what my small business clients need, especially what they would need to transition from Windows to Linux.

I've equipped plenty of clients with Linux / Samba servers, and they occasionally ask if they could use Linux on the desktop, but they can't, without far too much cost and disruption.

One client, with a Concurrent DOS system (5 terminals) I'd installed in 1986, got all new stuff for Year 2000. I put in a Linux server, a Linux based accounting system (Appgen) and Linux on the desktop with StarOffice, Netscape, etc. (later transitioned to Mozilla).

This was possible because they had no previous Windows investment. Even so, in mid 2002 I had to redo their Linux workstations to Windows (server and accounting remain Linux), because so much business was now being done with email and attachments of many virieties, many in Microsoft format.

Even with Sylpheed (very excellent email program) and StarOffice 5.2 (latest at the time) and Adobe Acrobat, it just wasn't up to handling the attachment situation (including returning complex forms in the same format they arrived in) without almost daily assistance from me.

Yes, I'm still looking for clients I can reasonably put on Linux desktops, but it doesn't seem a lot closer than it did two years ago.

[link|http://www.aaxnet.com|AAx]

Post #77,945

1/29/03 7:14:36 PM

AppGen...

I just began converting ovre small businesses to the Suite they have... runs on Linux, Mac, Windows.

I am wondering exactly HOW well the companies are liking it?

My initial comments back from the customer is "NICE... very"

MYOB just dropped any support for Canada... matter of fact they pulled out of that market completely. I was talking to ... Sarah I think??? She was extremely excited about the oppourtunities MYOB just *GAVE* them.

I seem to like AppGen very Well... It is easy to support, easy to backup, "It Just Runs!"

You have similar Experience with Customers and AppGen?

[link|mailto:curley95@attbi.com|greg] - Grand-Master Artist in IT

[link|http://www.iwethey.org/ed_curry/|REMEMBER ED CURRY!] [link|http://pascal.rockford.com:8888/SSK@kQMsmc74S0Tw3KHQiRQmDem0gAIPAgM/edcurry/1//|ED'S GHOST SPEAKS!]

Post #77,948

1/29/03 7:31:15 PM

My Appgen experience is with . . .

. . their main product, which costs a few thousand $$ per installation but is highly customizable (at unusually low cost for the customs). I don't recommend it for companies that are real small and don't need customization, it's best for companies large enough that different individuals do various accounting and data entry tasks.

I haven't tried the MyBooks software (which they purchased a couple years ago) but would be happy to hear about successes with it. They were also handling MoneyDance (Java), but have dropped that.

[link|http://www.aaxnet.com|AAx]

Post #77,951

1/29/03 7:49:53 PM

Yeah... that's the one...

Job costing module is very good... very good... inventory and such too...

[link|mailto:curley95@attbi.com|greg] - Grand-Master Artist in IT

[link|http://www.iwethey.org/ed_curry/|REMEMBER ED CURRY!] [link|http://pascal.rockford.com:8888/SSK@kQMsmc74S0Tw3KHQiRQmDem0gAIPAgM/edcurry/1//|ED'S GHOST SPEAKS!]

Post #77,977

1/29/03 9:31:33 PM

Re: Sorry buddy - can't stick with Windows . .

Andrew wrote:

I do plenty of product research, hours per day, and I don't want you doing research for me because i believe you lack some basic concepts of what my small business clients need, especially what they would need to transition from Windows to Linux.

By an utterly amazing coincidence, I'd already concluded that you either lacked some basic faculties required of someone doing rational analysis (let alone a client), or were trolling. In all charity, I've been willing to assume the latter. But I'm willing to go for either one.

Speaking of which, you'll note that I'm cleverly declining your current attempt to troll debate on "desktop Linux" in the broad sense.

Rick Moen
rick@linuxmafia.com

If you lived here, you'd be $HOME already.

Post #78,293

1/31/03 1:08:50 AM

Re: Sorry buddy - can't stick with Windows . .

What was your experience with AppGen?

-drl

Post #78,302

1/31/03 2:10:09 AM

Appgen

Remember, once again, I have experience only with the product now known as Appgen Custom Suite, not with MyBooks. Our original implementations were done in late 1999 as part of year 2000 conversions.

The product is divided into modules with full accounting controls between modules. In other words, the journals can be reviewed before posting is ordered. This allows extensive accounting control, but is not what is expected today in small businesses with a "full charge bookkeeper" doing most functions. Custom programming can be done to post modules automatically, but it is not built in. If I recall, there is auto linkage between Sales Order and Inventory Control to keep inventory up to the minute.

The product does not have as many options and reports as a hard wired package would, because some customization is presumed. This should be considered in the cost of integration, some programming may be required right off.

On the other hand, customization is very quick and economical compared with other packages, because the Appgen product was originally an Application generator for rapid development. The company bought the accounting system from a VAR who developed it using Appgen. Every Appgen VAR now has the complete accounting source and the application generator.

An example of the customization done for one of our clients is handling of inventory items that are actually retail start-up kits. The kit may be discounted at sale, and the customer needs all components individually priced to know their costs. Also, there may be shortages of a particular kit component.

At invoicing, the clerk enters one part number and quantity. If there is a discount, that is entered. The program then back calculates the discount into component prices and prints a fully itemized invoice with individually discounted component prices. Shortages are also handled, but I don't remember quite how.

This sort of thing is completely impossible with "canned" accounting software, but not difficult with Appgen.

Another thing this business does is purge the previous years inventory part numbers each year and enters new ones for the current year's catalog. This is also impossible with most accounting software.

I am no longer closely involved with Appgen because I have outsourced most of the day-to-day and programming to a highly experienced and efficient Appgen programmer at EGData. It's just much more efficient for me as I have my hands full with networking, servers, and selling stuff.

[link|http://www.aaxnet.com|AAx]

Post #78,326

1/31/03 7:13:59 AM

Thanks... I could not have said it better...

Actually since I haven't done the VAR thing YET... I can;t comment on it period... but that is shortly down the road...

That's a bit of a cash outlay for me *RIGHT* this minute...

They are sending me a the full package for evaluation (note this is not the Demo CD for $7)

Hopefully it's the answer I have been wanting...

[link|mailto:curley95@attbi.com|greg] - Grand-Master Artist in IT

[link|http://www.iwethey.org/ed_curry/|REMEMBER ED CURRY!] [link|http://pascal.rockford.com:8888/SSK@kQMsmc74S0Tw3KHQiRQmDem0gAIPAgM/edcurry/1//|ED'S GHOST SPEAKS!]

Post #78,115

by Another Scott

1/30/03 3:47:50 PM

Did Andrew ask what you used? (new thread)

Created as new thread #78114 titled [link|/forums/render/content/show?contentid=78114|Did Andrew ask what you used?]

Post #77,883

1/29/03 3:34:35 PM

As to capitalism..

..I may do something really radical. I have good "ins" at IBM and I might be able to "evaluate" an AS/400 system with an accounting package, to "foster adoption by small businesses". This would completely free me from MS, and I have the OK to do as I see fit.

I have a really amazing opportunity, since the owner has his own "ins" with the NTEA. This is an enormous market.

-drl

Post #78,223

1/30/03 9:54:32 PM

The push to Advanced Workstation begins

[link|http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/53/29113.html|Reg says it all]

Let's hope this works out better than this "discussion" does...

[link|mailto:curley95@attbi.com|greg] - Grand-Master Artist in IT

[link|http://www.iwethey.org/ed_curry/|REMEMBER ED CURRY!] [link|http://pascal.rockford.com:8888/SSK@kQMsmc74S0Tw3KHQiRQmDem0gAIPAgM/edcurry/1//|ED'S GHOST SPEAKS!]

Post #78,251

1/30/03 11:26:10 PM

Yup, looks like Red Hat is responding to the outcry.

They don't have any products yet, of course, but looks like they will.

[link|http://www.aaxnet.com|AAx]

Post #78,257

1/30/03 11:39:03 PM

Re: Yup, looks like Red Hat is responding to the outcry.

Andrew wrote:

Yup, looks like Red Hat is responding to the outcry. They don't have any products yet, of course, but looks like they will.

See, it's part of that "supply and demand" thing, which I was likewise going to get around to explaining to you.

Rick Moen
rick@linuxmafia.com

If you lived here, you'd be $HOME already.

Post #78,265

by boxley

1/30/03 11:48:13 PM

come on squeek, there is a perfectly good flame area

join the group over there. Your excellent technical posts are welcome here but degeneration should be moved to the proper forum.
thanx,
bill

Post #78,279

1/31/03 12:20:42 AM

Re: come on squeek, there is a perfectly good flame area

come on squeek, there is a perfectly good flame area

As Mr. Lincoln said, I'm sure it's the sort of thing that will be enjoyed by those who enjoy that sort of thing.

I have no problem with the existence of a padded-walled room for those with uncontrollable urges. Indeed, it seems an excellent administrative idea to give those folks a ghetto where they may act out in seclusion, without disturbing the rest of society. But I just can't see a reason to stoop that low, myself.

Rick Moen
rick@linuxmafia.com

If you lived here, you'd be $HOME already.

Post #78,288

by boxley

1/31/03 12:36:19 AM

My dear squeek

while you are snug in your warm hole (mmmm) enjoying your little nuggets gleaned from the excrement of dinosaurs, beware the fleas waiting about your eyes, arse and mouth seeking sustenance from your leavings. You will ingest such a flea one day giving you your fleating moment of flame.
thank you very much,
bill

Post #78,331

1/31/03 8:13:03 AM

Stoop - or just low all the time?

Because it seems like 1 in maybe 10 of your posts are flame-free.

You're just pissing off everyone else by flaming in the wrong forum.

Its that online etiquette thing I keep meaning to explain to you.

Post #78,474

1/31/03 4:24:27 PM

Re: Stoop - or just low all the time?

Because it seems like 1 in maybe 10 of your posts are flame-free.

Respect is earned, sonny. Your confusing of (merited) disrespect with flames is understandable: We'll explain this to you when you're older.

You're just pissing off everyone else by flaming in the wrong forum.

"Mommy, he forced me to misbehave!"

Rick Moen
rick@linuxmafia.com

If you lived here, you'd be $HOME already.

Post #78,513

1/31/03 7:41:11 PM

Boy you're a slow learner

You've only been on usenet - what since 1990 based on googling. And all that energy wasted on sci.skeptic....tsk tsk. I think the most boring of usenet forums. (You'd find my early stuff in net.singles around 1983 or so).

Have you still not learned where the flame forums are and what they're for?

I'm guessin youngsters like you plain missed your netiquette lessons although I did find one author mention you being elevated to global status in his killfile - I really do sympathize there - so little of what you write is worth the reading when mixed so liberally with gasoline and set alight.

Tip - flames - (what you are pleased to call your "well earned disrespect") are much more appreciated in the flames forum.

There will be more lessons as educational opportunities arise.

Post #78,593

2/1/03 2:04:03 AM

Re: Boy you're a slow learner

Todd, my lad --

So, now you're trying to not only do the ad-hominem crap and try to sound self-righteous about it, but are essaying some kinda whacko armchair-stalker shtick, too? Do you have absolutely no life?

And I'm sorry, but your feeble stab at tu-quoque lacks interest.

Rick Moen
rick@linuxmafia.com

If you lived here, you'd be $HOME already.

Post #78,686

2/1/03 7:33:55 PM

My 2 cents

I speak as a technical user. I don't sell tech, I sell
results. I've been burned by vendor dependancy, so I
will go out of my way to avoid it.

In the case of RH AS support vs RH Consumer, it is a matter
of what do you compare it against?

In the "good old days" of SCO Unix, I'd spend about $3K
per server for the software, then another $2K per server
per year for support. That was it. No choice at all.
Oh, actually, the $2K was for the cheap support. I
could spend a lot more.

So now most of my dual Xeon servers have RH 7.x. My latest
IBM dual Xeon has RH AS. And it runs better. Why?
I dunno. I have 2 very smart sysadmins who are quite
happy using it, and it costs far less to just slap it
in the other boxes than struggle over the differences.

We are HAPPY paying $800 for the disk and than $1K per year
per server. JEEZ! This stuff is saving me FAR more as I pull
processing of the IBM Z800 and the Sun boxes. And it is still
far cheaper than SCO Unix ever was.

While a specific vendor may say "RH Only", it is a matter of
cost for them to support anything. You may say it is lazy or short
sighted. I say I'd rather have them say RH only and charge me
$1000 per year for support, than have them add 10% of support
staff to suppor the rest, and charge me $1100 to cover the
cost of the additional personnel.

So, as time goes on, and someone starts abusing the position,
ie: RH quadruples the support price, then we start looking
at alternatives. And not just for support, but for the OS
itself. That was NEVER a choice when SCO doubled the support
cost on me, until Linux came along.

AG, you have an oxymoronic phrase that pretty much convers
it all:

The move makes Red Hat "consumer" releases worthless to businesses

They are businesses, NOT consumers. They use tools to make money.
They need to judge the value of the tool relative to the value
of the income assoicated with it. RH says that anything other than
RH AS is not for business. Hell, it's FREE on the web. Why should
there be any constraint on what service they offer long with it?

You mention support for support "NC mills and molding machines" for
10 years. I assume (not really knowing) that these are expensive
machines that don't change very often, and the price to replace
them with something else far outweighs a chunk of support cost.

Linux is the reverse. There is a huge pressure to push forward,
replace with the latest and greatest, and the price for the
replacement is less than the price for support. It would be
insane to maintain support for 5 years of Linux "consumer" releases.
There can be a release every 6 months. And if RH doesn't, SUSE,
Mandrake, Debian, etc, etc, will. So RH HAS to.

Post #78,706

2/1/03 9:48:29 PM

That's why monopoly is so easy.

You clearly state you prefer software publishers support only Red Hat, because your cost might be slightly higher if they supported other distributions.

You say you will only look at alternatives after Red Hat raises their costs over your threshold of pain.

When does a monopoly raise prices above the threshold of pain? Only after there are no longer viable alternatives. When you still had alternatives to chose from, Microsoft Office was cheap, and Microsoft wasn't at all picky about licensing. Now it's $500 per seat (and going up) and they are plenty picky about licensing. Are you starting to investigate alternatives now?

Most purchasers chose the path of least resistance. "Microsoft is causing problems for WordPerfect, so it's a little more hassle to use, so lets just go with Microsoft and avoid the hassle". Save a little now, pay a lot later.

Yes, there were alternatives to SCO. Esix Unix was better, far more complete, very standards compliant, and cost a lot less, but software vendors refused to support it, and customers said, "We are HAPPY paying $3000 for the disk and then $2K per year per server. JEEZ! This stuff is saving me FAR more as I pull processing off of Unisys", so soon there were no alternatives.

To prevent monopoly, customers must actually buy alternatives and demand support. Yes, I know, it may be a little more hassle now, and cost a touch more, now, but it'll save a lot in the future. Yes, I used Esix Unix, and had several clients who did, but most took the path of least resistance, paying a lot more for SCO.

If commercial Linux does not end up with a Red Hat monopoly, it will have a former monopolist to thank for that. IBM has a very intimate understanding of the mechanics of monopoly, and has stated firmly they want to see at least two Linux distributions with international support structures, but no more than three. United Linux will probably stay with us, because IBM will make sure people buy it.

[link|http://www.aaxnet.com|AAx]

Post #78,727

2/2/03 1:35:14 AM

Disagree

Please tell me exactly what is different
from RH AS that I can't get from anyone else
other than the cluster manager. And If I
choose not to use that, what locks me in?

If it is a matter of the deal with the
application vendor, again, that is a choice.

We've all been burned before. We've hopefully
learned not to go down that path of absolute
dependance. But you HAVE to make a choice.
Sometimes you choose wrong, sometimes for
the short term, sometimes you win.

As annoying as Rick is, he is right. This is
reality. Make a choice and move on.

Post #78,764

2/2/03 12:52:56 PM

No, you cannot make a choice and move on.

The choice has already been made for you by the many who follow the sacred Path of Least Resistance.

[link|http://www.aaxnet.com|AAx]

Post #78,783

2/2/03 3:42:19 PM

Not worthy of a response

Other than to berate the fact that it is not
worthy of a repsonse.

Did you address any points?

No.

Post #78,777

2/2/03 2:47:50 PM

I don't buy your arguement here Broom...

Please tell me exactly what is different from RH AS that I can't get from anyone else other than the cluster manager. And If I choose not to use that, what locks me in?

Cluster Management? You mean to tell me that CLuster management is the only things RHAS gives you?

Wow, the Enterprise Kernel (big-mem 5GB+) and a higher resolution scheduler... more in line for what I would term OLTP biased vs. Workstation biased. Also by default the the sysctl set "busy IO defaults" to more inline with a "server style" non-foreground aimed machine or a "transactional-services" machine. It also has alot of semaphores and much more ability to address and use SWAP more effectively using the vm they have stuck with since pre-2.4.10. The forwardported that VM into 2.4.18... kinda why so many companies are having difficulty with responsiveness and memoery sharing on RedHat machines.

You may have capable admins, but it go without saying that unless you know exactly what a specific product gives you, you can't know how to tweak it. I have always said there are some VERY good things about most of the RedHat Kernels, then again I wouldn't want some of the "hacks" they have in there if I were to put it into production.

Fer instance, early in the 2.4 realm (RH7.1) the 2.4.2 kernel had a BIG problem with syncing data on filesystems... most any file-system but main upon dismount of Reiser Filesystems and it did also have difficulty with EXT2 FS also. A hack they made... seemed to affect only certain system configs.

[link|mailto:curley95@attbi.com|greg] - Grand-Master Artist in IT

[link|http://www.iwethey.org/ed_curry/|REMEMBER ED CURRY!] [link|http://pascal.rockford.com:8888/SSK@kQMsmc74S0Tw3KHQiRQmDem0gAIPAgM/edcurry/1//|ED'S GHOST SPEAKS!]

Post #78,781

2/2/03 3:37:30 PM

2/2/03 3:46:08 PM

Yes you do

In the list of what you said, what is the RH AS ONLY feature?

All of them are available to the enterprising admin who wants to add it himself. They are just packaging it. None is proprietary to RH, and if RH decides to add a true proprietary hook for a specific app, and then I chose to use that app, then I would do so knowingly.

But RIGHT NOW, there is nothing so special that I can't do it myself. I just choose to pay them to do it.

I also choose NOT to tweak it myself. As TonyTib pointed out, we got a business to run. As I add specific tweaks they are more and more likely to lock me into something (I consider) non vanilla and painful to migrate away from.

Note: I don't consider modifying semaphores that type of tweak. I'm perfectly happy have that stuff in the boot scripts (or wherever else my adin has put it). Alto, you always have to modify the atd launch for multi-cpu.

Edited by broomberg Feb. 2, 2003, 03:46:08 PM EST

Expand All History

Post #78,784

2/2/03 3:55:30 PM

What I mean by tweaking...

Doesn't mean I am recompiling the kernel with Modifications... What mostly I am talking about tweaking are "soft setable" IO tweaks... Allowable buffering, caching, sharing, locking, garbage collection, etc... If you don't monitor the machine for at least a while and bump settings up or down to match they way the machine flexes you aren;t doing justice to the hardware.

I'll let the "I just pay them to package it" statement, just that IF they do indeed add some things that LOCK you in... make sure you can get out from under that...

[link|mailto:curley95@attbi.com|greg] - Grand-Master Artist in IT

[link|http://www.iwethey.org/ed_curry/|REMEMBER ED CURRY!] [link|http://pascal.rockford.com:8888/SSK@kQMsmc74S0Tw3KHQiRQmDem0gAIPAgM/edcurry/1//|ED'S GHOST SPEAKS!]

Post #78,787

2/2/03 4:35:14 PM

See, we DO agree

Kills ya, doesn't it?

Post #78,788

by boxley

2/2/03 4:36:20 PM

pragmatic vs logical decision

What is the least I can pay now and still switch horses in the future if needed. Business decision.
thanx,
bill

will work for cash and other incentives [link|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html|skill set]

questions, help? [link|mailto:pappas@catholic.org|email pappas at catholic.org]

Post #78,728

2/2/03 2:12:47 AM

Re: My 2 cents

broomberg wrote:

RH AS is not for business. Hell, it's FREE on the web.

You know, I believe I posted earlier a claim that RHAS included some non-redistributable components, but now I'm not sure. RH's Web site is completely unenlightening on the subject, but I gather from elsewhere that all the contents are lawful to redistribute. I hear that one can gather all the SRPMs. Thus, if you wish, as a non-customer, you can do that, build as many as that will build right away, boot the partial system, then rebuild the rest. In theory, you could then construct ISOs, and distribute those. Nobody bothers to do that, but I see no reason they couldn't. (If I were a customer, I could check the product details for any proprietary claims to shipped binary CD contents. At a distance, I can't easily tell.)

My recollection is that almost all of the differences traditionally lay in RHAS's "enterprise" kernel RPM (which is always available in source form, as required by the licence given the binary's distribution to outside parties). That was where RH offered many of its patches first, such as their version of the "bigmem" patch to malloc up to 4 GB RAM on i386 -- but their "enterprise" kernels were only a little less dodgy than their regular ones, until the day they hired most of VA Linux's laid-off software engineering department. Now, at least their NFS and eepro100 support isn't as unreliable, but I'm still not convinced their kernels are particularly good.

It would beinsane to maintain support for 5 years of Linux "consumer" releases. There can be a release every 6 months. And if RH doesn't, SUSE, Mandrake, Debian, etc, etc, will. So RH HAS to.

The way things are shaping up, one thing you'll need to pay significant dinero for on a periodic basis is a guaranteed stable application interface for proprietary binary userspace software. You may recall that RH's unsubtle moves with the so-called "gcc 2.96" were directed towards hastening stabilisation of support for C++ -derived binary modules. That was all about shrink-wrapped software.

People (including lwn.net) bitch from time to time about the Debian Project "ending support" (updates) for numbered versions (Debian 2.1/slink, 2.2/potato, 3.0/woody...), and I always thought those complaints were Unclear on the Concept of that distribution, in that, if you just keep doing "apt-get update; apt-get dist-upgrade" as intended, you'll progress smoothly through stable=slink to stable=potato to stable=woody to stable=sarge, etc., and at every step is "supported" in the intended sense. But, as reliable as that is, it may or may not stably support binary-only software you want to run on it. That's part of what RH offers for money -- and SuSE, which for practical purposes is the sole substance behind United Linux.

The real long-term threat to RH dominance in this area isn't SuSE/United Linux, nor IBM's well-intentioned but mostly clumsy and ineffectual arm-twisting, by the way, but rather the LSB. Which, by coincidence, I'm hoping to give some help to, soon (technical writing and such). Not that I personally care a lot about guaranteed support for proprietary Linux i386 binaries, but it's a worthwhile task to re-level that playing field.

Rick Moen
rick@linuxmafia.com

If you lived here, you'd be $HOME already.

Post #78,830

2/3/03 12:02:25 AM

Out of context

Look at the line above what you quoted!!!

I am under the impression RH AS is purely pay, but my admin claims that is only if you want the support. It may be the tweaked kernel is downloadable but AS "as a total package" is not.

Post #78,843

2/3/03 1:37:04 AM

2/3/03 1:37:58 AM

Re: Out of context

bloomberg wrote:

Look at the line above what you quoted!!!

Huh? Um, OK, if you insist. But I suspect you're under the impression that I was disputing what you said. I wasn't doing that.

The sentences immediately preceding the quoted sentence were as follows: "They are businesses, NOT consumers. They use tools to make money. They need to judge the value of the tool relative to the value of the income assoicated with it."

OK, those sentences parse correctly, and seem to logically connect and make sense. But I'm unclear on what your current point about them is.

I am under the impression RH AS is purely pay, but my admin claims that is only if you want the support. It may be the tweaked kernel is downloadable but AS "as a total package" is not.

Well, if you guys own a copy, then you could settle the factual question about proprietary rights through inspection, as opposed to speculating or going by inference and likelihoods. Perhaps you wouldn't mind doing that. As I said, nothing on RH's Web site really properly addresses the question, except in suggesting (without ever quite nailing down) that the recurring fees are for service and support.

Everything I've seen suggests very strongly that 100% of RHAS is lawfully available and redistributable, and that RH offers all of it for public ftp in SRPM format. What I've seen also suggests that nothing prevents people compiling those RPMs and redistributing the binary results. Whether anything on the RHAS boxed-set binary CDs is somehow encumbered (e.g., compilation copyright a la OpenBSD?) nonetheless is an open question of fact.

Rick Moen
rick@linuxmafia.com

If you lived here, you'd be $HOME already.

Edited by rickmoen Feb. 3, 2003, 01:37:58 AM EST

Expand All History

Post #78,879

2/3/03 9:05:22 AM

Missed it again

RH says that anything other than
RH AS is not for business. Hell, it's FREE on the web.

I was referring to the "consumer" versions in a silly obscure way. "anything other". The whole discussion was triggered by RH withdrawing support for the Non-AS versions. And since I still believed you could not download AS, I didn't catch the confusing possibility that someone would think I could be referring to AS.

But yes, we essentially agree. I just don't like to be misquoted, even when the misquote makes me look smarter than I am.

Post #78,920

2/3/03 11:11:02 AM

Now hang on a minit thar buddy...

I just don't like to be misquoted, even when the misquote makes me look smarter than I am.

And Who just do YOU think you are misleading people like that... we all know ewe's dumberer than granite!!!

"It's a joke, son, a joke..."

[link|mailto:curley95@attbi.com|greg] - Grand-Master Artist in IT

[link|http://www.iwethey.org/ed_curry/|REMEMBER ED CURRY!] [link|http://pascal.rockford.com:8888/SSK@kQMsmc74S0Tw3KHQiRQmDem0gAIPAgM/edcurry/1//|ED'S GHOST SPEAKS!]

Post #78,943