Subject: Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: Alpha release Linux/GNU/X unix clone on CDROM for PCs From: rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) Date: Sat, 28 Nov 1992 02:43:06 GMT
In article <1f3hrqINNho5@smurf.sti.com> westes@smurf.sti.com (Will Estes) writes:
>In article <duck.722767414@nuustak> duck@nuustak.csir.co.za (Paul Ducklin) writes:
>>Thus spake westes@smurf.sti.com (Will Estes):
>>>This is a bit embarrassing to have to point out, but did you realize
>>>that Microsoft is selling Windows/NT on CD-ROM for $69? I mean, is
>>>Microsoft's proprietary 32-bit operating system even more free than free GNU
>>>UNIX? :)
>>
>>Get real.
>>
>>Microsoft Windows (non-NT) is also very cheap. But have you worked out how
>>much it costs you to buy more than Solitaire? Ever priced the Windows
>>SDK and a suitable compiler? For $99, the convenience of "everything"
>>you need for Linux all in one place is more than worth it. After all,
>>your friends can borrow your CD and copy/install it. The Linux CD is
>>*not* an "entry level" disc. It's the Real Thing[TM] -- and you get
>>the source code, a decent compiler, X, GhostScript, TeX...need more be said.
>
>The Windows/NT SDK includes Windows, Windows/NT, and POSIX subsystems,
>as well as the complete Win32 SDK and C++ compiler, as well as a
>complete 16 and 32-bit implementation of TCP/IP, as well as some LAN
>Manager server capability, all for $69. You can buy the GNU utilities
>for the POSIX subsystem from a third party, but you are correct that this
>costs more. And the POSIX subsystem is not UNIX, by a long shot, but it's
>also pretty clear that within a year someone will be selling a viable UNIX
>subsystem (or maybe porting Linux) to run under Windows/NT.
Windows NT, which will be released as Windows 3.1 NT, will mainly be sold
as a server OS for systems running Windows 3.1 on a network.
Windows NT is not released. Microsoft, in marketing literature, has stated
that the final release price of Windows 3.1 NT will be "less than $495".
>>Microsoft's proprietary 32-bit operating system is just that: proprietary.
>>But you're right it's "embarrassing" -- embarrassing for you that you
>>should compare apples and monosodium glutamate...and seriously, at that.
>
>I think you trivializing the point. The point is that Microsoft might
>well use its economies of scale to price its 32-bit OS as a commodity and
>still manage to make a substantial profit. This makes it possible for
>reasonable people to make an argument that their total cost to purchase,
>develop for, support, and use Windows/NT would be equal to or less than
>a totally free package such as Linux. The economics of such a
>comparison should encompass issues like support.
In order Windows 3.1 NT to have the same rate of sales as Windows 3.x,
they will have to convince vendors to ship it with systems. And these
systems have have to have 16megs of memory and a large hard disk.
Remember, Microsoft can show high numbers for sales of Windows 3.1 because
an awful lot of people got it whether they wanted it or not.
>Now I know that in your mind there is no comparison, Linux is going to
>be cheaper for *you* to buy, develop for, and support. Fine. But if we
>asked that same question to the guys who head MIS at the Fortune 1000,
>or to people in the Federal Government, I don't think we would get the
>same answer. And note that this is *just* the economic comparison; we
>haven't even addressed the issue of which platform offers the widest
>selection of applications. Unfortunately, there just isn't a
>comparison there. Most UNIX workstation vendors are porting to
>Windows/NT, and even Linux may end up getting a port as a Windows/NT
>subsystem. And which platform supports Word For Windows, Excel, etc. at
>$99 bucks a pop for upgrades?
There actually aren't many UNIX vendors porting to Windows 3.1 NT.
The leading spreadsheet is Lotus 123, it runs on UNIX.
The leading word processor is Word Perfect, it runs on UNIX.
Go and look at a third part commercial software catalog for SCO UNIX.
The basic office system in a federal government office is a PC clone
running MSDOS with Multimate and Lotus 123 as the applications.
>Please note that I want Linux to succeed like crazy! A world where Bill
>Gates controls all of our choices really does scare me. But I think I
>am making a legitimate point about the economics of NT versus Linux that
>will affect how much market share Linux can grab.
Only marketing and media weasels think that Bill Gates controls the
computer industry.
>Personally, I wish the FSF were a company that understood what a market
>is and sold Linux as a cheap UNIX with support. What the world really
>needs is a solid UNIX that is approachable as a system for end-users
>(i.e., the mass-market). That's sort of what Jobs has tried to do with
>NeXTStep '486, but he is blowing it by pricing it at $999. I simply
>find it frustrating that Bill Gates is the only person in the industry
>who seems to understand how to sell an operating system for naive
>end-users as a commodity. I think an important part of making Linux a
>long-term success is to correctly identify what is Bill Gates' market,
>and to hit him where it hurts. I'm afraid Linux doesn't do that, yet.
Bill Gates' market is still MSDOS, as that is the way most PC clones are
configured and sold. It is the slim requirements of MSDOS that have driven
down the price of PC hardware.
A 486 PC with 4 megs of memory and a 100 meg drive will be USELESS for NT.
--Rick Kelly rmk@rmkhome.UUCP unixland!rmkhome!rmk rmk@frog.UUCP