nasir66shaikh
11-27-2002, 03:34 AM
Following is an extract from an editorial in the TOI (Times Of India) newspaper and my comments on the interesting subject raised by them.
TOI, India - 22Nov2002 remarks -
“Madhya Pradesh chief minister Digvijay Singh announced that all of MP government's schemes would use Linux software. In Mr Singh's words, it was not a question of Microsoft versus Linux but of choosing between free software and a monopoly. Others have pointed out that basic PC hardware is today available for about Rs 15,000 while Microsoft software costs around Rs 10,000. Assuming a million PCs get sold in India with free software, that would save the country Rs 1,000 crores.
Mr Gates' counter was that Windows actually saved more money for its users than open-source systems.
His logic: Comprehensive software reduces costs by avoiding add-on pieces of software, and also saves money in terms of speed of development or by being able to run on less expensive hardware. Ultimately though, perhaps the real issue is not so much one of saving costs as creating value in the mind of the consumer, which he will be willing to pay for. Hence Microsoft's recent emphasis on "trustworthy computing". ”
I would really like to understand how using Windows can actually save money. I would have liked to see some Linux expert tear apart his argument. However since nobody took up the subject let me try and take up Bill's points one by one.
Comprehensive Software - Is a concept that exists in Linux where you get the OS alongwith Office, Publishing, Networking, Email server, File and Print Server, Proxy server, Databases, VNC, Encryption, Scanning, Photo Editing and everything under the sun for a price that is less than a third of the cost of Windows OS. In case his maths is weak I would like to total up the cost of all the above and some more that I would have to use in Windows to show what the real difference is. So if somebody has to actually worry about add-on softwares, it should be Microsoft. I wonder why newspeople allow such blatant lies to be spread. The gentleman was so easily accesible for interviews yet nobody bothered to even ask any tough questions.
Speed of development - I wish Windows could match the speed of development shown by Linux where new releases come out every 6 months from the Distribution Companies and Linus himself keeps updating his software every day under his style of “release early release often” The same style is followed by most other Linux based softwares. Microsoft has also not shown any initiative in resolving a host of problems which have consistently caused crashes, BSOD on their windows versions as well as other softwares like IE where fixes have not been released for major problems even months after these have been identified. We have even seen Microsoft refer to some problems as features. As and when these features have been attended, Microsoft actually expected us to buy the software.
Less Expensive Hardware - I wish Bill's men actually told him how much hardware is really required to run Windows and compare that to Linux. It has been proven time and again that Linux can be used on hardware that was obsolete by just adding a little RAM and it would run the latest version. However anyone using Windows would immediately understand that their state of the art equipment purchased just a year ago would not suffice for the next release of Windows.
Trustworthy Computing - For a company which has been consistently violating (stretching) the law, and using many wrong methods in destroying their competitors and showing no sympathy for the paying customer, I dont see how they expect anyone to trust them.
Creating Value - The only method of creating value that I see Microsoft adopt is advertising their products flashily and making it one more product for the numbed masses to aspire to. I believe that the concept of Free Software is much more suitable to our society. Microsoft has also made changes to their data formats in every release which makes some of the files made by newer versions not readable by older softwares. So it implies that if I am forced to buy one new computer, I have to upgrade all my older computers by buying their new release software just to ensure compatibility. Of course in upgrading the old computers to new software, I will also face a problem with hardware compatibility since newer releases would not work on the old hardware. So I guess, I just have to buy a whole lot of new computers to keep pace with the development going on at Microsoft.
I would rather use a product which gives me real value for money.
Bill had also commented in one interview that cost of Windows is very low when compared to the cost of hardware and communication cost for a country like India. Well he is only partly right. Cost of accessing internet is definitely high. But it would definitely help if we can keep the cost of hardware and software low enough for it to be realistic for the masses. And that is not possible if they used Microsoft Windows.
Maybe I missed something and my fellow Linux users can help me on this argument.
TOI, India - 22Nov2002 remarks -
“Madhya Pradesh chief minister Digvijay Singh announced that all of MP government's schemes would use Linux software. In Mr Singh's words, it was not a question of Microsoft versus Linux but of choosing between free software and a monopoly. Others have pointed out that basic PC hardware is today available for about Rs 15,000 while Microsoft software costs around Rs 10,000. Assuming a million PCs get sold in India with free software, that would save the country Rs 1,000 crores.
Mr Gates' counter was that Windows actually saved more money for its users than open-source systems.
His logic: Comprehensive software reduces costs by avoiding add-on pieces of software, and also saves money in terms of speed of development or by being able to run on less expensive hardware. Ultimately though, perhaps the real issue is not so much one of saving costs as creating value in the mind of the consumer, which he will be willing to pay for. Hence Microsoft's recent emphasis on "trustworthy computing". ”
I would really like to understand how using Windows can actually save money. I would have liked to see some Linux expert tear apart his argument. However since nobody took up the subject let me try and take up Bill's points one by one.
Comprehensive Software - Is a concept that exists in Linux where you get the OS alongwith Office, Publishing, Networking, Email server, File and Print Server, Proxy server, Databases, VNC, Encryption, Scanning, Photo Editing and everything under the sun for a price that is less than a third of the cost of Windows OS. In case his maths is weak I would like to total up the cost of all the above and some more that I would have to use in Windows to show what the real difference is. So if somebody has to actually worry about add-on softwares, it should be Microsoft. I wonder why newspeople allow such blatant lies to be spread. The gentleman was so easily accesible for interviews yet nobody bothered to even ask any tough questions.
Speed of development - I wish Windows could match the speed of development shown by Linux where new releases come out every 6 months from the Distribution Companies and Linus himself keeps updating his software every day under his style of “release early release often” The same style is followed by most other Linux based softwares. Microsoft has also not shown any initiative in resolving a host of problems which have consistently caused crashes, BSOD on their windows versions as well as other softwares like IE where fixes have not been released for major problems even months after these have been identified. We have even seen Microsoft refer to some problems as features. As and when these features have been attended, Microsoft actually expected us to buy the software.
Less Expensive Hardware - I wish Bill's men actually told him how much hardware is really required to run Windows and compare that to Linux. It has been proven time and again that Linux can be used on hardware that was obsolete by just adding a little RAM and it would run the latest version. However anyone using Windows would immediately understand that their state of the art equipment purchased just a year ago would not suffice for the next release of Windows.
Trustworthy Computing - For a company which has been consistently violating (stretching) the law, and using many wrong methods in destroying their competitors and showing no sympathy for the paying customer, I dont see how they expect anyone to trust them.
Creating Value - The only method of creating value that I see Microsoft adopt is advertising their products flashily and making it one more product for the numbed masses to aspire to. I believe that the concept of Free Software is much more suitable to our society. Microsoft has also made changes to their data formats in every release which makes some of the files made by newer versions not readable by older softwares. So it implies that if I am forced to buy one new computer, I have to upgrade all my older computers by buying their new release software just to ensure compatibility. Of course in upgrading the old computers to new software, I will also face a problem with hardware compatibility since newer releases would not work on the old hardware. So I guess, I just have to buy a whole lot of new computers to keep pace with the development going on at Microsoft.
I would rather use a product which gives me real value for money.
Bill had also commented in one interview that cost of Windows is very low when compared to the cost of hardware and communication cost for a country like India. Well he is only partly right. Cost of accessing internet is definitely high. But it would definitely help if we can keep the cost of hardware and software low enough for it to be realistic for the masses. And that is not possible if they used Microsoft Windows.
Maybe I missed something and my fellow Linux users can help me on this argument.