Posted on 11/06/2003 11:28:52 AM PST by antiRepublicrat
Is there any significance to what Web server/platform combinations 2004 presidential candidates are using?
As we swing into the thick of the 2004 electoral playoffs, it's interesting to see what kinds of platforms are running under the candidates' official campaign Web sites. Netcraft has a handy feature called "What's that site running?" that lets us see combinations of Web servers and OS platforms. So here's a quick rundown, in alphabetical order:
As of this writing, November 5, 2003, the RNC has an uptime of 4.26 days (maximum of 39.04) and a 90-day moving average of 16.91. The DNC has an uptime of 445.02 days (also the maximum) and a 90-day moving average of 395.38 days.
Draw your own conclusions.
Bush demanded the proof too, and I gave it to him. Then he ran off on a tangent since his bet had been called.
The best that I can tell is that Microsoft bid ~27M euros and the unnamed Linux competitor bid ~30M euros. That doesn't sound like Microsoft offered up anything at a loss.
Microsoft's bid was originally much higher until they dipped into the slush fund and made unprecedented licensing compensation to beat Linux. You haven't been reading, have you? Question: If you can beat a free software bid, and licensing for your software normally costs millions, wouldn't you say they offered at a loss?
You still don't get it. If you normally sell software for millions, but can undercut a bid using free software, you are obviously giving a way LOTS of software and/or services. They can do this because they have a "beat Linux" slush fund specifically for this purpose. You still haven't answered if you think the big trucking firms were right in shutting out the independents.
Man, you really are dense. For one, this is the first Mac-based system in the Top 500 ever, and it showed up at #3. Usually, they use Alpha, Intel, AMD or custom processors. Second, these are hard-core computer scientists setting up these systems, writing custom code to get them working optimally, not what you view as the little old man in a library-like office surrounded by books.
But very few businesses would entrust their enterprises to 'em. Even you, with your day job supporting PCs, have to admit that.
The main reason they don't is because Windows is entrenched, it's habit. But, many businesses are running mission-critical enterprise apps on essentially Macs. It's called FreeBSD, a UNIX variant (I bet you've never heard of UNIX in the enterprise, right?), which is what the Mac operating system is based on.
BTW, have you noticed that NONE of these top systems run Windows? There's a good reason for that.
Now you're showing that you DEFINITELY don't know what you're talking about. If there were even the slightest sentiment about the IBM/Nazi connection, IBM would most definitely lose the contract. I lived in Germany for 14 years in and supporting our Army -- I know German sentiment towards anything Nazi.
Unfortunately for you, I have been reading... And I haven't seen your evidence of a "slush fund". (and no, repeating "slush fund" over and over isn't evidence.)
Question: If you can beat a free software bid, and licensing for your software normally costs millions, wouldn't you say they offered at a loss?
I ask for proof... And it sounds like you want me to prove it for you? LOL!
MS's bid was 27M euros; and the unnamed OSS bidder was ~30M euros. Yet with no knowledge of the details, you claim that MS's offer was at a loss. That's why I'm not taking you seriously.
If you're trying to make the case that MS isn't allowed to give their software away for free and make their profits from services, go for it. It might be mildly entertaining to watch you try this route.
MS's bid was 27M euros; and the unnamed OSS bidder was ~30M euros.
It was originally much higher, but they dipped into the fund and played with licensing to get it lower. The still charged a lot for licensing, and that's why they had to dip into the fund to pay for services.
The link you provided seemed like a fairly decent article. The article paints a picture of a company which is trying to adapt to a new type of competition and succeed. Nothing was particularly shocking for me.
Unfortunately (for you), the author didn't claim that MS was breaking the law. If that's your reference for this, then you should keep searching. It did point out that Europe's laws are different, and that "dominant" companies face certain restrictions when competing there. But MS looks like it did the homework in advance with the lawyers, and they were careful to not sell their software at a loss.
From the article...
The discounts were "not to exceed" the royalties that Microsoft received from the makers of the PCs, he said. In other words, managers could give away the software free, if necessary, but were not authorized to offer a discount amounting to more than Microsoft was actually receiving in royalties.
I'll ask again... Where's the evidence of illegal discounts?
So I take it you retract your position that the slush fund doesn't exist. Note also that they are also allowed to give free services in order to win contracts.
I never said illegal, I said it raises questions of legality. The laws for government contracting are quite strict, which is probably why I haven't heard of Microsoft dipping into the fund to win government contracts. On the other hand, it could be because the government is so insanely MS-centric and doesn't even consider alternate bidders (as regulations generally require of all other things).
In any case, their motive isn't to compete, it is to kill. MS cannot stamp out Linux like it did Netscape, so they have to try a different tactic -- sell services at a loss if necessary to undercut Linux-based bids in order to keep it out of the enterprise. MS is already trying to kill it on other ends, with examples of its "Embrace, Extend, Eliminate" philosophy.
In the end, the point is that MS's actions are competetive, but go too far into the realm of anti-competitiveness.
Your reference didn't mention a slush fund. Besides, the article clearly stated that Microsoft had no intention of selling at a loss. A "fund" implies that a bank account exists somewhere. In this case, we're only talking about an intention to sell at a discount. That can be accomplished without a single penny in any "account". "Funds" are used for buying, not selling.
In any case, their motive isn't to compete, it is to kill.
I've never heard of a business that wants their competition to survive.
...sell services at a loss if necessary to undercut Linux-based bids in order to keep it out of the enterprise.
Point out the part in your reference that backs up this claim. (Hint: It doesn't.) Your reference article was actually a pretty good article. I'll give you credit for that. But the article was quite clear that nothing was sold at a loss.
I never said illegal, I said it raises questions of legality.
Well, you said that you would deny any contract awards to Microsoft if their "slush fund" was used. Presumed guilty until proven innocent???...
Or money earmarked within a company for a specific purpose.
I've never heard of a business that wants their competition to survive.
But since it serves the public to keep competition, various anticompetitive actions are illegal, or at least unethical. There is good reason that your beloved Microsoft is a convicted monopolist.
Nice bringing up my RFP comment. It might be difficult to discern specific targeting from simple specifications. For example, if you demand that your mail or web server must have continuous uptimes measured in months while maintaining the latest security patches, that's both an understandable objective criteria and a criteria that could be considered to be purposely excluding Microsoft products.
So do I. But for some reason MS acolyte (l)users seem to think all of their products are great, and that MS is on top because of technical superiority.
If the product/service isn't sold at a loss, then no money needs to pre-exist. Funds are used for buying, not selling. I didn't think an MBA was required to understand this.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.