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
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
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 #77,677
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
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
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 #77,684
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
1/28/03 10:54:23 PM
|
Sorry I think we are badly miscommunicating, forget it
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 #77,670
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
|
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
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
|
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]
|
Post #78,318
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.
|
