Re: Free UNIX for non-commerical use.

From: Anthony Mandic (o3_at_hotmail.com)
Date: 07/27/03 

Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2003 22:07:47 +1000

Yuan wrote:

> > > > Why? Do Microsoft do this?
> > > >
> > > 50 UK pounds for Windows 2000 student license,
> >
> > Which isn't exactly free.
> >
> Cheaper than most Unix OS.

        And how much for a Unix license for a student?

> > > My second copy of Windows 2000 was given to me for free by MS UK.
> >
> > That's sounds more like it. So they do do it.
> >
> So? it's a special case.

        Is it? Why didn't you state that when you first mentioned it then?

> > Ah! So that explains his troll post.
> >
> No, it's just a simple fact that second hand HP kits are not as popular as
> Sun kits, hence the seller can only demand less.

        No, its a troll post. "Kirbu" was doing his usual bitching and
        moaning because he can't get it for free.

> > > BUT, you can downloads Solaris ISO from Sun but not HP-UX.
> >
> > That's good. So what?
> >
> You don't like to excersise your brain cells do you?

        At least I make an effort to spell.

> So you can downloads the ISO, use your favourite CD buring software, and put
> a few blank CD-R into your CD-RW, burn from those ISO into bootable CDs as
> installation medias, and install Solaris from those CDs, it works out much
> cheaper than buying the media set from the vendors.

        Which has nothing what so ever to do with the fact that you
        can do it with Sun but not HP. Do try and learn how to reason
        logically.

> > > People get used to the hardwares and softwares they use,
> >
> > So? That doesn't explain how they go from being a home user/student
> > to being in a management position with purchasing power. Unless ...
> > whoever hired them was a complete and utter idiot.
> >
> So you were never a student and you were never a home user?

        Like most everyone else, I was both. What I use nowadays, I
        never used then. Hence I don't see how your (and "Kirbu"'s)
        statement is anything other than specious. If you can't back
        it up with some facts and figures it remains specious.

> > > I can't get over using Outlook Express as my default news client,
> >
> > My condolences.
> >
> My consolences to you too.

        Why? I don't have to concern myself with virii and the other
        plagues OE brings with it. If you're happy with it, good luck
        to you.

> > > > Exactly how many home users go from there immediately to
> > > > management positions with buying power?
> > > >
> > > Not a lot, but guess how MS become so dominent.
> >
> > I'm not here to guess. So don't patronise me with specious
> > statements. Show me facts and figures.
> >
> The same as your non-constructive "so?", "your point being?" comments.

        I'm not the one stating conjecture as fact. If you want to
        do that, you'd better be prepared to defend your stance when
        challenged.

> Students buy cheap MS products ---> students grow up only knowing
> how to use Windows.

        Do they buy such cheap products? Show us the figures. I gather
        you mean "knowing how to use" loosely. Try working at a helpdesk
        sometime where the users use MS day in and day out. After that
        much experience do they "know how to use" it?

> > Linux isn't HP. And quoting someone else's misinformed statement
> > doesn't make it any less misinformed. Show me some proof. How do
> > those who come to prefer HP do so when they don't use it as a
> > student or home user?
> >
> He only uses Linux as a fact to show you how it becomes popular.
> That's the proof you want.

        Try again. His use of it only shows it popular to him. Not to
        anyone else.

> > > lets suppose we all buy from a reseller,
> > > a SS10/20 and U2 can take more than 1 CPU, even
> > > a dual CPU U60 goes for under 1000pounds now.
> >
> > So? How does that constitute an 8 CPU system? At most its only 2.
> >
> Up to 8 CPUs means you can use it on systems with up to 8 CPUs,
> means you can installed it on a dual CPU or quad CPU system, as the
> bew license only allows you to install Solaris on a single CPU machine
> without paying extra.

        Which Sun has probably reasoned is adequate for the majority of
        circumstances. But the only way to know is to see the figures.

> > > Microsoft = software company = sell softwares for $$$.
> > > Sun, HP, IBM, SGI = hardware companies who sell their own softwares =
> > > selling hardwares for living, not softwares.
> >
> > Your point being?
> >
> Are you wasting people's time?

        I'm asking to see some facts. All I'm seeing is baseless conjecture,
        specious arguments and opinions. So who's wasting whose time?

> So Sun, SGI, IBM, HP don't need to rely on software sales for their profit.

        And MS and Linux don't need to rely on hardware sales for their
        profit. Circular argument. So where are we now? Back to square
        one yet?

> Are we short of x86 vendors? are we short of manufacturers producing Intel
> based machines?

        Do we need to be?

> Of course not! Windows runs on x86, with plenty of x86 vendors out there,
> they don't need to worry about having no systems to run Windows on.
> But Irix runs on MIPS, if SGI drops hardware production, and they are the
> main
> manufactorer for MIPS machines, what's the use for developing the OS when
> there is clearly no market for it.

        And you're missing the point. Anything will run on anything if
        ported. You don't need MIPS to have SGI, etc. etc. etc. If SGI's
        OS was worthwhile, it would get ported. No?

> > You haven't presented anything by way of a concrete argument
> > yet. All I'm seeing is conjecture. How about you show me the
> > money?
> >
> http://www.hp.com/hpinfo/investor/financials/annual/2002/graphics2002.pdf
> starting from page 5.

        I haven't got all day to wait for this trash to download.
        Cite the actual figures and then compare to MS's revenues
        for the same period.

> > > I am the only person in the entire department of EE.Eng with a copy of
> SCO
> > > UnixWare
> >
> > My, aren't you lucky. But so what?
> >
> Only supporting "But I don't think any home user or student would
> care less whether or not SCO was given away now." statement using
> the "figures" you asked for.

        Perhaps, perhaps not. We won't know unless they tried.

> 1 out of 400+ EE students, researchers and staffs use SCO UnixWare.
> Without this 1, department will still be running, we will still produce
> research works.

        And would they be able to do it irrespective of what other
        hardware and software they have/use?

> No harm done as it can be replaced by another flavour of OS, mainly Solaris.

        Then the choice doesn't really matter for you?

> > > Those are just my opinions
> >
> > They certainly are. And that's the trouble. Too much baseless
> > opinion and no facts.
> >
> m.....interesting, aren't you all about your own baseless opnions and no
> facts?

        No, I'll all about asking to see some facts for a change.
        I haven't really stated any opinions yet and I've not quoted
        any facts. I'd like to see someone convince me one way or the
        other.

> Don't see you saying anything constructive in this thread at all, only "so
> what?", "your point is?", "How do you conclude that?"

        That's my way of getting you to prove your arguments. If you
        can't back them up, they're not facts. And I'll question every
        point till its proved or disproved.

-am © 2003