M$’s Licensing Costs Are Only The Tip Of The Iceberg Of IT – Look Below

“goes against one of the arguments used more frequently to promote Free Software (which, in and by itself, is intrinsically weak, and therefore not used as the main one by the most experts) that is licensing costs. The graph clearly show that such costs (the leftmost column) are only a small part of the total. From left to right the columns show “software license costs”, “immaterial goods” (whatever that means…), “software acquisition and development”, “litigation and other legal expenses” (as much as licenses..), “software assistance and maintenance””
 
See Hacker proves with Open Data that Microsoft license costs don’t matter – Stop! at Zona-M
Open Data in Italy has been used to spread the FUD that licensing costs of That Other OS are insignificant. It’s true that licensing costs are just the tip of the iceberg of the costs of IT with That Other OS. There’s also the cost of re-re-reboots, malware, downtime, complexity, lock-in and reliance on overly expensive Intel processors for the heavy lifting needed with That Other OS. There’s also training and support.

Many examples of migrations from TOOS to GNU/Linux have saved a bundle:

  • the licensing,
  • the complexity of the licensing, the constraints imposed like number of connected PCs, CALs etc.
  • ease of maintenance: apt-get update;apt-get upgrade works, unlike the breakage and rolling back of upgrades frequently required by users of TOOS.
  • lock-in – Ask users of XP how much it costs to migrate to another OS. Munich spent $millions migrating away from NT to GNU/Linux and still saved $millions.
  • convenience – Extremadura was able to migrate tens of thousands of PCs to GNU/Linux over a weekend. Compare that with multi-year efforts by those sticking with TOOS.
  • training – most migrations to GNU/Linux find training requirements are minimal, even less than retraining required for TOOS simply because the software is less complex and easier to install, maintain and to use.

So, the proper place to look at M$’s licensing costs is at acquisition time when they may be 50% of an outlay. Hiding them behind year(s) of operating costs is deceptive. Then there’s the fact that those licensing costs represent an infinite sum going forward. For that huge cost what do you get? Permission to use the hardware you own, rent or buy. How silly is that? Should NYC pay me licensing fees to use the Brooklyn Bridge? Should a child pay me for the privilege of watching YouTube videos which Google provides for $0? Should anyone pay M$ to read their e-mail? Nope. Those are silly expenditures. Neither I, you nor the government of Italy should pay M$ or its “partners” a single penny, let alone $billions of Euros.

Software does cost time/money to develop and distribute but the costs of developing and distributing software can be many times less than with TOOS. The world can and does make its own software. The world does not need to pay M$ many times over for the privilege of using hardware which becomes less expensive year after year. The world does not owe M$ a living.

Look at it from the supply-side. SUN Microsystems years ago considered buying Wintel PCs and licensing TOOS and M$’s office suite for thousands of employees. They were able to buy a company producing StarOffice, a competitive office suite for less money. They contributed the software as FLOSS around 2000 and that software today has evolved into LibreOffice, a modern office suite developed, improved and supported by hundreds of contributors to LibreOffice.org. Folks needing an office suite can use LibreOffice for $0 and if they want to pay money in lieu of licensing costs they can contribute manpower or money to The Document Foundation which supports the work.

The same is true of Linux and GNU. The world needs an operating system and instead of paying M$ for its restrictive licences can have a licence to a complete OS for desktop or server for $0, the cost of a download. A few large organizations and many individuals contribute modifications to the Linux kernel and the GNU utilities to keep it going. That’s all that’s needed. M$ and “partners” are an unnecessary burden on the process of providing the world with software. GNU/Linux will also run on ARM, MIPS, Sparc and several other types of hardware while TOOS mostly runs on the expensive Intel stuff.

Wake up! Don’t be fooled by statements that M$’s licensing is just a minor cost of doing business with IT. Look at M$’s financial statements. Look at their margins. Look at how many employees they have on the payroll. The world can do much more for much less. I know it. I’ve done it, replacing XP on old PCs in schools and getting much-improved IT for a tiny cost. In one case, I installed a new school with an amazing system with three times as many seats and twice the hardware of comparable sized schools using TOOS. The difference was licensing. The cost of operating the resulting system was many times less than the cost of trying to “fix” TOOS.

About Robert Pogson

I am a retired teacher in Canada. I taught in the subject areas where I have worked for almost forty years: maths, physics, chemistry and computers. I love hunting, fishing, picking berries and mushrooms, too.
This entry was posted in technology and tagged , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

52 Responses to M$’s Licensing Costs Are Only The Tip Of The Iceberg Of IT – Look Below

  1. oiaohm says:

    Please note Robert I stated 3 turbine temperature of 90% efficiency.

    1000-1500C, 200 C and less area. These are material temperature requirements.

    Let’s lets take formula
    maximum efficiency = (Tmedium – Tdischarge)/Tmedium
    1500C/1773K=Tdischarge of 178K what is -97C by the maths
    Problem is measured discharge is ~200C or ~400K.

    There is a problem we know turbines with a burn temp 1500C do get 80 to 90 percent efficiency. Its all about fuel air mix and the burning method.

    Gas Turbines are continuous-burning combustion cycle. This means a factor is time. Fuel burn time in low temperature turbine is quite a large amount of time. It also means the gas turbine is not responsive to change speed.

    High performance jet engines on aircraft need to be responsive. Very high performance power generation turbines also need to be responsive. A turbine in electric drive train car/truck with batteries does not responsive as batteries do the responsive bit.

    Robert Pogson basically if you wanted to directly drive a truck from a turbine effectively you would be looking at using Tantalum hafnium carbide. Of course cost comes into factor Tantalum carbide is good enough to do a Micro-turbine with a long burn window. The longer you make your burn window the more important you have calculated to reduce turbulence. Of course you don’t want no turbulence in a turbine engine as this equals fuel not mixing with air. You think how much work is done with ICE designs to attempt to inject fuel to get perfect fuel to air mix. Gas turbines get around the issue by extending burn time and turbulence mixing the fuel and air. 1/1000 of a mm in the wrong place in a Gas Turbine can cause a 30 percent drop in efficiency due to turbulence inside engine being wrong so causing fuel not to mix with air properly.

    Yes a sub 200C turbine using carbon based fuels is even less responsive than the 1000-1500c turbines.

    By the way the claim about Gas tubines only being 1/3 efficiency traces back to before we knew about buckyball production. The total power in carbon based fuels we had wrong as well. Yes material limits back then forbid getting to 4000C where you burn buckyballs.

    Yes the old school teaching complete disregards the differences lower performance gas turbines have due to longer burn window so more time to extract the power so not needing as high of temperature. Thinking that low speed ICE desiel engines are also the most fuel burning ICE desiel engines.

    Gas Turbines depend on continuous-burning not explosions. Maximum efficiency maths for a turbine has 22 core factors. So its not a simple 2 value math. Explosion based engines 2 factors is enough to get close.

  2. oiaohm wrote, “Tantalum hafnium carbide (an alloy) is used in heat exposed parts aircraft turbines and high performance gas turbines it melts at 4,215C or 4488K”

    Quoting Wkikpedia: “Hafnium reserves have been infamously estimated to last under 10 years by one source if the world population increases and demand grows. In reality, since hafnium occurs with zirconium, hafnium can always be a byproduct of zirconium extraction to the extent that the low demand requires.”

    Price is around $1/g, cheaper than gold, but don’t expect the world to be overrun by such turbines soon. The chief source is as an impurity in Zirconium. The price will have to increase a lot to create an industry.

  3. oiaohm says:

    If Tdischarge = 300K, 90% requires Tmedium = 3000K, about the temperature of an oxyacetylene cutting torch, well beyond what turbines can handle. e.g. Titanium melts at 1941K. MgO2 melts at 2852K.
    No problem you don’t know your materials. High performance aircraft turbines don’t use either of those materials for the heat exposed areas.

    Titanium and MgO2 are used in inlet fans to pressurize.

    Tantalum hafnium carbide (an alloy) is used in heat exposed parts aircraft turbines and high performance gas turbines it melts at 4,215C or 4488K. So sorry 3000K is cool breeze to right material. All 4000C+ turbines use Tantalum hafnium carbide. 3000K in is buckyballs production temperature.

    Not only do you have to-do the thermal maths like you just did but you have to-do the fire burn maths. O2 + Fuel+Heat. When you produce buckyballs that is carbon reacting with carbon sucking up heat and not burning. At 3000K you will be losing 1/3+ of your carbon based fuel potential power in buckyball production. 2000 C ~2273k to 4000C~4273k is basically a no go zone. To be correct you can be closer to 4000K still not be producing buckyballs that bady. So basically you had to go at least a 1000K hotter than where you where your maths were suggesting to get 90 percent.

  4. oiaohm wrote, “Turbines in theory promise up to 95 percent. Real world turbines give 90 to 80.”

    Let’s see: maximum efficiency = (Tmedium – Tdischarge)/Tmedium

    If Tdischarge = 300K, 90% requires Tmedium = 3000K, about the temperature of an oxyacetylene cutting torch, well beyond what turbines can handle. e.g. Titanium melts at 1941K. MgO2 melts at 2852K.

  5. oiaohm wrote, “Robert Pogson thing you have missed is turbine to battery to electric drive train has a set of loses. Stupid enough the loss charging battery and storage losses still puts the truck operating in city at the same or better than the best diesel conventional highway driving. “

    I understand hybrids. I drive one. They have zero advantage on the highway. Originally, we were discussing the efficiency of diesel v turbine and you keep changing the subject. Diesels are more efficient.

  6. oiaohm says:

    Robert Pogson thing you have missed is turbine to battery to electric drive train has a set of loses. Stupid enough the loss charging battery and storage losses still puts the truck operating in city at the same or better than the best diesel conventional highway driving. The hybrid has fairly level performance. Most gains are city where normal engines designs have trouble.

    A direct turbine engine for highway could do a lot better than the hybrid does but you end up in the same set of problems.

    More ships are coming electric drive with gas turbine generators. Cruse ships and Cargo ships are long haul items. Even in long haul there is fuel saving to be got. Historically turbines have required higher purity fuel than a normal diesel engine. But since the improvements in modeling of turbines the issues that caused turbines not to be able to use variable grades of fuel have been solved.

    Mind you gas turbine is not the end. Gas turbine has spin up and spin down problems so mandating fairly large batteries. If we can work out the tech of Fuel Cells there is the possibility of ground based beating aircraft cleanly again.

    ==TFA is nothing about the advantages of turbines except power/weight ratio. It’s about hybrid vehicles in city traffic.==
    The converted truck is still the same weight as the unconverted one using gas turbines and electrical due to the size battery you have to have to maintain turbine operational effectiveness. So –turbines except power/weight ratio.– not the difference when you look at total picture. The saving is not because the truck is lighter. The savings is the system is more operationally effective.

    The electrical drive in those trucks only has 2 forwards gears. This is due to the massive torque of an electrical engine. Yes electrical drive major-ally simplify drive train. The problem is how to make the power to run electrical drive train.

    Electrical drive train in boats equals shorter propeller shaft length requirements. Electric motors don’t need air to operate.

    Piston based engines long term basically doomed. Turbine engines in ships, cars,trucks and trains could also be doomed long term.

    The physics say a ground/water craft should be able to beat an Aircraft due to not having to pay the lift cost. Problem is we are not going to do that using piston engines. Turbines will get us close. But clean defeat will require something better than Turbines.

    Fuel cells in theory promise 83 percent but on average only give 40 percent. Turbines in theory promise up to 95 percent. Real world turbines give 90 to 80. For Fuel Cells to push Micro-turbines.

  7. oiaohm wrote, “Read the fedex usage here. You don’t plug them into the power grid ever. You fill the truck it burns the fuel charing the battery to reduce the loaded weight. Basically usage of turbine/electrics trucks is identical to using a normal truck. You fill it at service stations and use it like normal truck only difference is gauges are different and the lower overall fuel consume.”

    Sigh. No, you read it: “FedEx trucks rarely cruise on the highway. They spend their days in stop-and-go traffic, where conventional engines are not at their best, constantly and inefficiently moving through gears.”

    TFA is nothing about the advantages of turbines except power/weight ratio. It’s about hybrid vehicles in city traffic.

  8. oiaohm says:

    Robert Pogson fedx are using those turbine based trucks long haul fully turbine charged.
    The hybrid trucks described in TFA are city-bound, running off a charged battery for half the day. They are getting a huge chunk of power from the electrical utilities.
    Yes they can choose to charge from electrical utilities when that able but they are still more effective when using the turbine to charge the batteries compare to a conventional equal.
    http://www.wired.com/2014/09/fedex-wrightspeed-diesel-ev-trucks/
    Read the fedex usage here. You don’t plug them into the power grid ever. You fill the truck it burns the fuel charing the battery to reduce the loaded weight. Basically usage of turbine/electrics trucks is identical to using a normal truck. You fill it at service stations and use it like normal truck only difference is gauges are different and the lower overall fuel consume.

    The turbine when its in operation generates more than enough power to be charging the batteries and running the drive train.

    http://www.primemovermag.com.au/news/article/tesla-cofounder-unveils-heavy-duty-electric-powertrain

    Now they are working on going to bigger trucks.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_mover_(locomotive)
    Besides the combination of electric powertrain with turbine power generation comes from railways. Basically diesel locomotive with piston based engines you don’t see new at all any more. They are diesel turbines. The issue has been getting the turbines smaller. Some of the early locomotives with diesel turbines half the locomotive was turbine. The issue was electric engines + diesel turbine was larger than conventional engine block size to proved the same performance. Today with instruction of micro tubines and more compact electric motors its now possible to fit same performance or more into the same space as a conventional engine block design.

    We are also seeing gas turbines generators with electric drivetrain being used in new cargo ships.

  9. oiaohm wrote, “Air cooled turbines are generating all the power trucks and trains need while consuming less fuel than conventional Diesel engines do.”

    Nonsense. The hybrid trucks described in TFA are city-bound, running off a charged battery for half the day. They are getting a huge chunk of power from the electrical utilities. The turbine is basically used to prevent stopping when the battery drains. They are essentially electric vehicles with a turbine backup.

  10. oiaohm says:

    http://www.hybridcars.com/wrightspeed-combines-gas-turbine-and-batteries-for-big-fuel-savings/
    If any of what you claim was true trucks and trains would be using this tech but they’re not. Diesel rules.
    Did you miss this prior link. Air cooled turbines are generating all the power trucks and trains need while consuming less fuel than conventional Diesel engines do.

    Then you’re no longer talking about jet engines. They can’t afford the weight of water-cooling compared to cargo.

    Primitive logic thinking liquid has to equal water. There is a dirty little trick you find in turboprop and turbofan engines cooling in aircraft. Fuel-cooled oil cooler (FCOC) is a item you find in turboprop and turbofan engines on aircraft so Fuel is an cooling liquid instead of water. The fuel in the wings of aircraft is not exactly warm so you need to preheat it. So heat for preheating fuel you take from the turbine blades themselves to prevent them from melting. You are right about the idea of not wanting any more weight. Of course fuel cooling does not exactly work well at lower altitudes for a long time.

    You don’t find this beast in road as your cars/truck fuel tank is not cold enough in most places to use a FCOC.

    Sorry gas turbines do exist that operate as low as 600C and lower.
    http://www.energy.siemens.com/hq/en/fossil-power-generation/gas-turbines/sgt-800.htm
    Problem is they are barely better than a convention engine at 54-56 percent efficiency. You are looking at the 4000C+, 1000-1500C areas for good percentages as well as the odd area 200C and less area.
    http://www.alstom.com/products-services/product-catalogue/power-generation/gas-power/gas-turbines/gt13e2-gas-turbine/
    Yes low temperature super effective designed in turbine do exist. Yes this is a sub 200C one but its 80% efficiency.

    Some of the sub 200C types you do find in turboprop aircraft.

    turbofan and turboprop are highly common engines.

    The catch with gas turbine is they efficient at maximum power output. This is why on road you see hybrid gas turbine with electric. Electric give you more speed options than gas turbine gives.

    I like when people trying to protect old engine design bring up compression ratios. Average turbofan engine compression ratio in 1995 was 40 to 1. Normal diesel engine will be luck to approach 25 to 1. Yet on the low side a gas turbine might be 14 to 1. This is the problem old school engine has no advantage in compression ratio vs a turbine design.

    The nasty reality here Turbine engines operate over broader temperature ranges and pressure ratios to what a conventional engine can.

    Of course there is a downside. Turbine engines like fixed speed operations.

    Turbine engine directly connected to drive train of car just would not work well not enough RPM where turbine engine will work fuel effective. Turbine engines is close to top speed or crappy performance. The reality is Turbine engine can run generators no problems.

  11. oiaohm wrote, “We now have turbines with liquid cooling. This is what I am talking about is the tech has moved on.. “

    Then you’re no longer talking about jet engines. They can’t afford the weight of water-cooling compared to cargo.

    If any of what you claim was true trucks and trains would be using this tech but they’re not. Diesel rules.

  12. oiaohm wrote, “claim diesel engine can operate at higher temperatures than a jet engine can stand is bogus. “

    Nonsense. You can cool cylinders better with water than vanes with air. Further heating cycle failure is a major cause of turbine failures. The cooler they run, the longer they last. Ever heard of compression ratio? Diesels win hands down. They reach 800C at injection. Most jets can’t even run at 800C.

  13. oiaohm says:

    1000 °C Micro turbines run at this level. 1832 F. At first that seams colder but there is a down good reason for stopping Micro turbines at this temperature.

    The fuel is burned properly in a diesel engine and at a higher temperature than a jet engine can stand.
    Reality is no it does not burn cleaner at all higher temperatures and the claim diesel engine can operate at higher temperatures than a jet engine can stand is bogus.

    The middle range temperature diesel engine does not equal cleanly burnt. The problem in the diesel engine is that is either too hot or too cold. 2000 C or 3632F is when you start growing buckyballs at a decent rate. Burn temp for buckyballs made in volume is the melting point of diamond 4000C or 7232F

    . ~4000F is too hot to burn clean since its over 3632F the goes to too cold burn properly because its under 7232F so the buckyballs come out the exhaust.

    So for a nice clean 100% burn with reasonably cheap materials 1000C in a turbine. If going for the not cheap option are Ceramic gas turbine with liquid cooling that have exhaust temperatures of 4000-4500C. Yes the internal burning temp is even higher. Yes a liquid cooled Ceramic gas turbine can burn up buckyballs.

    Turbine blades are not liquid cooled and cannot stand up to the high temperatures of a diesel engine.
    Lets point out another bit of out of date bogus. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbine_blade
    Cooling of components can be achieved by air or liquid cooling.
    Note reference 19 on that page year 2010/2011. Liquid cooled Turbines start appearing 2003. Some Turbine Blades are liquid cooled. Normally not done unless absolutely required due to leakage risks and excessive weight. Adding weight to turbine blades start undermining how effective the turbine will be.

    Reality liquid cooling of the old diesel engine design is not a particular advantage any more. We now have turbines with liquid cooling. This is what I am talking about is the tech has moved on..

    Turbulence is entropy, wasted energy, nothing more. It is not a stable eddy.
    Not exactly waste. Turbulence Entropy rates effect how effectively fuel mixes with air so effecting burn rates. The Turbulence at exhaust is not doing nothing its mixing the any unburnt with air so making it burn off. So catalytic converter or exhaust turbulence pick one. Yes exhaust turbulence is lighter and just as effective as getting clean burning and way less cost on performance.

    Also Turbulence is entropy like where a electron is around an atom. Turbulence is predictable random just like how predictions of where a electron will be around an atom. This is the problem the idea that everything has to be stable means you cannot design a well performing engine.

    So Turbulence in particular shapes will 100 percent of time make eddies in particular places.

    Basically air-cooled gas turbines will be under 1500C operational temperature on average and liquid cooled gas turbines will be over 400oC So completely avoiding the pollution production temperatures where old school diesel engine operate in.

    There have been a lot of changes in the last 10 years Robert Pogson.

  14. Deaf Spy says:

    This is nonsense.
    Correct, Robert. Fifi is as ignorant about combustion engines as about everything else.

  15. oiaohm wrote, “The reason why a common water cooled diesel engines don’t burn fuel properly is their temperature is too low. “

    This is nonsense. The fuel is burned properly in a diesel engine and at a higher temperature than a jet engine can stand. Turbine blades are not liquid cooled and cannot stand up to the high temperatures of a diesel engine. Thermodynamic efficiency is higher for higher temperature cycles. Flame temperatures can reach ~4000F. The average temperature of the charge can reach 800C.

    oiaohm wrote, “Turbulence is a useful tool if you can control it to reduce or increase friction in places.”

    Turbulence is entropy, wasted energy, nothing more. It is not a stable eddy.

  16. oiaohm says:

    You just can’t run a turbine at the same temperatures as a water-cooled diesel engine.
    Number 1 you don’t want to. The reason why a common water cooled diesel engines don’t burn fuel properly is their temperature is too low.

    –no catalytic converter 0r no particulate filter–
    http://www.hybridcars.com/wrightspeed-combines-gas-turbine-and-batteries-for-big-fuel-savings/
    This is a micro turbine in truck.

    Turbine is able to yield 93 percent as rotational force. Still end up ending between 90 to 80 percent as electricity.

    You can’t eliminate turbulence from the exhaust of a turbine.
    This point you here a lot.

    http://www.aem.umn.edu/~kmahesh/research_asci.html
    2008 is when better modeling for turbine based engines appears. True you cannot eliminate turbulence loses from a turbine engine completely. But with careful design you can get it under 5 percent. To do the careful design you require the 2008 computer modeling. 2009 is when we see the first high efficiency Micro turbine.

    There is a problem over look something back pressure of a catalytic converter and particulate filter on a normal water-cooled diesel engine exceed the loss in to turbulence in a modern design turboprop or gas turbine by a large margin.

    Well, you can’t replace thermodynamics. That doesn’t change. It’s the science of heat and what happens to it.
    Problem is getting more effectiveness out of a turbine engine is not changing the rules of thermodynamics its having the means to understand more what is happening due to thermodynamics and fluid-dynamics due to better computer models of thermodynamics and fluid-dynamics.

    The 30 percent jet engine limit was show to be wrong by the Concorde at Mach 2 when it was getting 80 percent efficiency. This was lucky design. When was the fact of 80 percent efficiency discovered 1969 with the Concorde test flights.

    The reality is it was only after the new computer models in 2008 yes almost 40 years latter that engine designers could at long last see why a Concorde engine worked so well. In fact Concorde engine is not perfect with a few minor design alterations it could have got to 90% at top speed.

    When Concorde was retired in 2003 computer models were starting to unlock the secrets of its engines.

    First secret in a Concorde engine is Turbulence is not always bad so design absolutely to avoid Turbulence could be kicking your self in your privates. In fact another thing has this fact the golf ball. The golf ball dimples covers the surface in a layer of Turbulence that in effect reduces air drag because the air closer to the ball is moving slower due to air to air not being that effective at transferring force.

    Robert Pogson as soon as you said “Turbulence is wasted energy” I knew you were out of date. Turbulence is a useful tool if you can control it to reduce or increase friction in places. If your turbine engine design does not include exploiting turbulence correctly you are screwed.

    Modeling Turbulence is not easy. Yes the idea that a normal diesel engine could not be beaten by a turbine comes from when we could not model turbulence and alter the design to take advantage of it.

  17. oiaohm wrote, “As science of engine design improves we need to be replacing our engines.”

    Well, you can’t replace thermodynamics. That doesn’t change. It’s the science of heat and what happens to it. You just can’t run a turbine at the same temperatures as a water-cooled diesel engine. Even the ceramics that can stand the temperature soften and weaken at those temperatures. You can’t eliminate turbulence from the exhaust of a turbine. Turbulence is wasted energy so you can never get anywhere near the energy that’s present in the exhaust converted to useful work. Air-friction is not useful work anyway.

  18. oiaohm says:

    Something else about commercial jets is the true age of the flying engines design.

    Most people are not aware every 5 years a commercial jet has its engines taken off and replaced. The engines taken off are turned to company that made them for rebuild. In rebuild the engine is update to modern design.

    Note Robert comment about take off being
    –Of course, a jet-engine has about zero efficiency at takeoff.–
    Stupid as it sounds before the introduction of multi gear gearboxs (Multi gears between the fan and the turbine) a turbo prop had the highest efficiency at take off or it worst. Depending on the fixed gearing or lack of gearing it either was like trying to climb a hill in top gear or at cruising trying to use a low gear at highspeeds either way not healthy. Top gear is required when turbo prop is at cursing height due to the lower air pressure so the fan has to spin faster to push the same volume of air. Of course using Top Gear while in higher airpresure is trying to push too much air through the engine so back pressure resistance at worse this will break stuff. Turns out it was cracking the fan into bits.

    The top gear has a problem as the tips of the fan are likely to hit supersonic. Yes 2010 change in design of engines is making life for those near airports better.

    Problem I have got is we know how to get a 5 year old engine onto 15 year old+ aircraft without major problem. Its no where as simple with cars and trucks on roads. Cars and Trucks were not designed with the idea that the engines would have to be regularly replaced and upgraded. As tech improved the time that Commercial Aircraft passed existing road populations of cars and trucks was going to happen due to this lack of upgradeable.

    Cars and Trucks need to learn some things from Aircraft to catch back up again. 2010 aircraft learn a key lesson cars worked out years ago.

    Something to remember –Concorde at Mach 2 is running an 80% efficiency rating.– Exhaust pushers are not incapable of efficiency problem is the speed required for 80% is Mach2. The huge costs getting to Mark2 and maintaining an airframe to fly at Mach2 means you don’t want to do that.

    Doing 6o-75% using a high-bypass turbofan engine with multi speed gearbox is more than possible and is what the current engines do.

    This is the problem modern design jets have turbofan engines that match or exceed a lot of common diesel engine.

    The 30% figure you had Robert is for a turbojet engine. This has a bipass figure 0 to 1. Common engines turbofan these days are 5 or higher to 1. So for every 1 L leaving the turbojet part of the turbofan engines at least 5L of normal unburnt air is pumped passed the engine. This makes a fairly huge differences in power effectiveness at lower speeds.

    Something that was commonly over looked 30 percent was exhaust push. The spinning of the turbojet engine that a turbofan exploits give you 30 to 45 percent more.

    Yes the excuse that jet aircraft are worse than trucks, cars and busses on the road is currently not correct. If we weed out the older design trucks, cars and busses and make them use improved tech the old status of flying being the worst could be restored.

    If you use a jet turbine engine to generate electricity from diesel its between 85 to 90 percent effectiveness . Take out the cost of the batteries and the electronic drive train you come back to between 60-75% effectiveness.

    The insanity at the moment is the best tech for on the ground and the best tech in the air are fairly much identical on numbers. Problem is on ground we don’t have the best deployed. Yet airlines are managing to deploy the best.

    Finger pointing at airlines is overlooking the major issue. As science of engine design improves we need to be replacing our engines. The question is how can replacing/upgrading engines be cost effective.

  19. oiaohm says:

    Robert Pogson you are badly wrong modern turbofans are not around the 30 percent.
    http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2013/04/130423-reshaping-flight-for-fuel-efficiency/
    The difference putting gearing in the engines is quite a bit.

    You normally hear the name Turboprops not jet.

    If you compare a diesel bus with 50 passengers or a train with 500 passengers versus an exhaust-pusher, the question is moot.
    This was moot. The basics of Physics say a exhaust-pusher should be losing to car on ground. The problem is Turboprops are exact that. They use a jet turbine to spin props to get more pull in air.

    True cargo ship vs aircraft the aircraft always loses.

    Diesel bus using old design engines don’t keep up with modern day aircraft. Now a modern diesel bus using a turbine generator with electric drive train kick a modern day aircraft ass.

    Basically modern day aircraft are surprising effective. Old legacy ground base is worse than using an Aircraft except for cargo boats.

  20. oiaohm says:

    http://www.hybridcars.com/wrightspeed-combines-gas-turbine-and-batteries-for-big-fuel-savings/
    –Naturally, the fact that the natural habitat of an aircraft is about 9,000 feet up in thin air with no friction on the rubber — as opposed to the natural habitat of an automobile, which is at ground level with considerable friction involved — has nothing at all to do with this fuel effectiveness of which you speak, Fifi.–

    DrLoser really how many times are you going screw up before you give up.

    Reality shock horror to most people Gas Turbine for generating electricity is normal feature of a jet as a backup power system for the controls. Being fuel infective here is life or death. When you take the Gas Turbine tech out of aircraft and apply this tech to road there is fairly massive gains to be made.

    Gas turbines don’t need catalytic converter or mufflers because 1 they can be not noisy or produce any unburnt waste. Yes both in fact cost you fuel effectiveness.

    –Aircraft are surprisingly fuel effective. Mostly because aircraft makers spend billions each year competing for who can get the most mileage for the least dollars in fuel.–

    Yes just think for one min if Jet engines did not burn clean and you need to put converters on them then the aircraft simply would not fly.

    Aircraft improved the engine. Cars/Trucks for a long time just added crap on to cover up the design faults that 1 increase weight 2 requires more power. Normal piston engine block is insanely heavy.

    3,000+ lbs for a Toyota Corolla is interesting. Particularly when you work out that car weight could be halved or more without losing any structural strength or altering size using the more expensive materials aircraft use. A car Toyota Corolla size weighting 1000~lbs is possible.

    Also DrLoser is a idiot. Lift is not free. On the ground yes you have rolling friction in the air you have loss due to the amount of force you have to direct into maintaining flight.

    If someone here does not understand basic physics of the problem its DrLoser.

    –up in thin air with no friction on the rubber– Yet you have to maintain lift. Cost of maintaining lift is quite high.

    Also Drloser as normal get aircraft fly height wrong. 28-35,000ft is cruising height for commercial aircraft.

    Next is something super warped. Did you know that you can reduce a car on grounds airfiction to that of a Jet flying at 28-35,000ft by putting golf ball like dimples all over it.
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/06/140624110718.htm

    There is a little catch if you put that pattern on an aircraft it would not fly. The airflow disruptions would destroy lift. Now a car destroying lift so it wheels stay on the ground is good.

    Basically idiots like DrLoser who don’t know the physics of the problem think a car on ground and a aircraft in air for resistance have a difference.

    Aircraft and car with correct design for airflow and lift/down force requirements (air resistance+lift force cost+ground friction=total cost) total cost are identical.

    Yes natural habitat of Aircraft and Cars are different. But the differences get quite interesting. Aircraft spend fortune working on aerodynamics with lift requirement resistance reduction. Big problem here car/truck companies applied the same data Aircraft companies designed. Like the idea smoother the better. Smoother the better in fact only applies to Aircraft. Cars/trucks correctly roughened is better by huge margin.

  21. DrLoser wrote, “There are fundamental physical facts involved here, Fifi. But unfortunately you appear to have picked yours out of the wrong fundament.”

    Well, one physical fact is that both diesel-powered and jet-turbines are heat-engines with fundamental limits on efficiency. A diesel engine approaches ~50% energy-efficiency while a jet-turbine struggles around 30%. Of course, a jet-engine has about zero efficiency at takeoff. Just saying… If you compare a diesel bus with 50 passengers or a train with 500 passengers versus an exhaust-pusher, the question is moot. If I really wanted to rub it in I could dig up the numbers for a diesel-powered container-ship crossing the Pacific carrying my tractor…

  22. DrLoser says:

    Aircraft are surprisingly fuel effective. Mostly because aircraft makers spend billions each year competing for who can get the most mileage for the least dollars in fuel.

    Naturally, the fact that the natural habitat of an aircraft is about 9,000 feet up in thin air with no friction on the rubber — as opposed to the natural habitat of an automobile, which is at ground level with considerable friction involved — has nothing at all to do with this fuel effectiveness of which you speak, Fifi.

    Equally, the fact that a Boeing 737 (a reasonable example to pick) carries a maximum of 100,000 lbs of self-weight for around 100 passengers (assuming a very conservative 70% seat occupancy) — as opposed to, say, a Toyota Corolla with a self-weight of 3,000+ lbs and a typical occupancy of 1.5 people — has nothing at all to do with this fuel effectiveness either, does it?

    There are fundamental physical facts involved here, Fifi. But unfortunately you appear to have picked yours out of the wrong fundament.

  23. oiaohm says:

    Robert Pogson “That nice Kittyguy” is from what I can tell Exploit guy renamed showing his true destructive colors.

    There is a old saying When the cat is away the mice will play.

    The cat reference is That nice Kittyguy profile image at TMR is a cat is the fact “no modrators” means he can run wild.

    I would recommend for this sites own safety deleting all three posts Robert Pogson. Yes yours mine and nice Kittyguys. We have no reason to provide advertisement platform to site vandalism.

  24. That nice Kittyguy wrote, “cat” but the meaning is not clear to me.

    Checking my dictionary, about the only thing relevant is a lifted anchor. I suppose that would set a boat adrift too. “Cathead Cat”head`, n. (Naut.)
    A projecting piece of timber or iron near the bow of vessel, to which the anchor is hoisted and secured. Webster, 1913”

    Not sure if that is the meaning but it sounds about right.

  25. That nice Kittyguy says:

    lol tm repository stream is now cat because there is no modrators

  26. oiaohm says:

    –kurkosdr wrote, “Airliners however do own their own lounges and landing slots”–
    Reality over 90 percent of the time they don’t own the lounges or landing slots. They rent them from the airport who owns them. Of course kurkosdr false fact to attempt to win arguement.

    Yes the hissy fit when Australian Government declared Airports had to find space for new carriers at Airports remind of this fact. Every building at a Airport in Australia is first owned by Airport. You rent space.

    There is also a practical reason for the unified ownership at airports. Airport security need to be able to move around effectively. As representative of the owner they can.

    There are a few cases of a airline owning a airport out right.

    http://cleantechnica.com/2010/08/09/cars-cause-global-warming-more-than-planes-study-finds/
    Mind you its horible. Old design cars cause more pollution than flying a modern aircraft the same distance. Horrible is some of the old aircraft are more fuel effective than some of the cars that are still allowed on the road.

    Aircraft are surprisingly fuel effective. Mostly because aircraft makers spend billions each year competing for who can get the most mileage for the least dollars in fuel.

  27. kurkosdr wrote, “Airliners however do own their own lounges and landing slots”

    They don’t own the air that holds up their planes and powers their engines. Why should they be allowed to free-load like that? [SARCASM] I’ve always thought it amusing that governments regulate the pollution concentrations allowed by 4 cylinder automobiles but allow an airliner to shove people into their seats by throwing fuel out the back of the engines… Ditto, for space-rockets. Some engines met their limits simply by diluting the exhaust with air… I’m sure Nature was pleased. [SARCASM]

  28. GRUMBLE…

    Just had a terrible thunderstorm followed by 6h power-outage. Not happy bailing the sump manually for hours. Must have backup… or a tiny shack in the bush…

  29. kurkosdr says:

    Kurkosdr would have us believe that every trucking company should own its own set of roads.

    That’s because it’s not possible to. Airliners however do own their own lounges and landing slots, and use the competitive advantages they offer to compete.

  30. kurkosdr wrote, ” with FLOSS, 1000 other companies will have access to the product of labor with out paying any of the labor costs “.

    That’s not a problem at all. It’s just more efficient to pay only part of the cost of inputs. Not all users of FLOSS will be competitors to a particular company. Even if users were, it’s smart to get your competitor to pay some of you IT development costs including design, production and distribution. It’s “outsourcing” without “outpaying”. e.g. roads. Kurkosdr would have us believe that every trucking company should own its own set of roads. Obviously it’s no problem at all that every trucking company, taxpayer, etc. pay for the roads a trucking company uses. It’s not an issue of competition but efficiency. Every company benefits from improved efficiency. Every company that doesn’t use FLOSS to improve efficiency is obviously at a competitive disadvantage.

  31. oiaohm says:

    kurkosdr –It may be legal, but it’s not the smart thing to do. Because with FLOSS, 1000 other companies will have access to the product of labor with out paying any of the labor costs (aka the MeeGo “business model”)–
    https://sailfishos.org/
    Interesting not so any more. Early access to party things requires registration.

    This is the direct decent-ant of Meego. The one import thing for those 1000 companies who though it would be simple to take Meego and not give anything back end up in the classic open source trap. Tizen is the same.

    FOSS licenses clearly only say you have to release the source code first to your clients.

    Depends on the NDA. Time limited NDA on top of a FOSS license are quite safe.

    kurkosdr if you want example of screw up from hell caused by NDA look at historic 3d Graphics driver. The problem was some of the companies that Graphics companies had signed NDA with went belly up. Evil part is a NDA contract does not die when the company does. One problem is if the company dies behind the NDA then the terms of the NDA can never ever be changed.

    There is another side to a NDA that is stupid. Yes you can sign a NDA to see Windows source code. Problem is you are not allowed to ship any fixes.

    NDA with particular FOSS licenses work. NDA with Proprietary Licenses normally turn into disasters. Yes there has been a lot of stupid usages of NDA.

    Microsoft NDA with Windows source is so classic is not funny. The result is government attackers know a hell load about Windows to design attacks. Defenders cannot do much about it because they cannot ship windows Modifications. Yes signing a NDA or using software that has a bad NDA is a stupid.

  32. kurkosdr says:

    “Not necessarily. 10 companies could each develop for one application they all use and share with others. That’s perfectly legal with FLOSS. ”

    It may be legal, but it’s not the smart thing to do. Because with FLOSS, 1000 other companies will have access to the product of labor with out paying any of the labor costs (aka the MeeGo “business model”)

    But hey! The army of volunteers will descent from the sky, as was the case with MeeGo!

    Companies are stoopid for going with NDAs instead.

  33. oiaohm says:

    You want simple name of the problem its Quality Assurance.

    People pay Microsoft or some other company then they think they don’t need to run there own on going Quality Assurance. processes. The reality is even using closed source you can configure it wrong.

    As soon as companies skip out on doing Quality Assurance and expect someone else to-do it we end up in a case no one does it.

  34. oiaohm says:

    Robert Pogson there are issues like Openssl where huge number of companies have been depending on it for credit card processing and the like and none of them were investing in the upkeep end result was security nightmares.

    But there is also the mirror case of like the Australian tax-office running out of date and no longer maintained cisco system vpn system.

    Both are a result in lack of investment is software maintenance process.

    Robert think if it this way.
    1 company makes some software and release it open source and stop using it themselves.
    1000 other companies use it. Problem none them run a maintenance process or provide that program with resources. End result if that package has security issues they get hit.

    With a maintenance process companies end up running closed source software past end of life as well. Because they have not invest the money in testing out and preparing replacements.

    –The important thing is to make sure every useful package is supported.–
    100 percent agree. There is a requirement for those who find a program closed or open to take responsibility for it. To make sure it maintained/replaced the ways it should be. Maybe we need a few laws to enforce this.

  35. oiaohm wrote, “A company should pay for the software they use.”

    Not necessarily. 10 companies could each develop for one application they all use and share with others. That’s perfectly legal with FLOSS. With GNU/Linux, companies exist in the millions and can easily afford the thousands of packages needed. FLOSS scales. It is much more efficient than paying for thousands of packages. The important thing is to make sure every useful package is supported. Various foundations/fundraising schemes do that one way or another. Hiring programmers will certainly make sure they don’t starve and everything gets done.

  36. oiaohm says:

    The reality what would increase FOSS investment would be a legal requirement to protect user data and take responsibility for making sure all software a company is using is maintained/up to date.

    Of course this would also be a god send to Microsoft and other as companies using old non supported OS’s are forced to update as well.

    This is not exactly a tax as such. A company should pay for the software they use. If the software is open source they should fund development. If software is closed source should replace it when end of life and pay any require maintenance contracts. The cost difference still would be 10 to 1. Yes 10 dollars for closed source for 1 dollar that has to be invested in FOSS for the same result.

    Using FOSS and funding FOSS development is still cheaper than using closed source.

  37. kurkosdr made a lot of sense until he mentioned, ” if it goes wrong”.

    By its very nature, there is less to go wrong with FLOSS than That Other OS and lot of non-Free software. Just what can go wrong that can’t easily be fixed? I’ve been using GNU/Linux for 15 years and never saw or heard of such problems. OTOH. Every place I worked with TOOS had huge continuing problems that never could be fixed except by buying the next version, which brought a whole new wave of problems. My “favourite”s were things like malware competing for CPU time or bandwidth to the extent that reinstallation was about the only solution, BSODs, failures to boot and re-re-reboots. Oh, the memories! OTOH, I’ve dealt with hundreds of GNU/Linux systems that just went on working as expected. At my last place, I went from reinstalling XP more than once a week to never having to install another GNU/Linux machine on the same hardware in the same place… So, to write about stuff going wrong with GNU/Linux just makes little sense. Sure, I know it’s possible, but the software is designed to work unlike TOOS and the stuff that runs on it. Those guys get paid when the software quits, remember?

    Remember Extremadura? They migrated tens of thousands of machines over the weekend and rarely had a problem. Munich took forever, but they were Germans, the same folks that made the Tiger tank which failed more often than the Allies damaged them. All the problems that Munich had were due to lock-in to TOOS, nothing to do with going to GNU/Linux. Folks who start out with GNU/Linux rarely even think of going to TOOS. It makes no sense. Folks who don’t migrate to GNU/Linux are responding to FUD rather than reality.

  38. DrLoser referred to, “whether you invested in the construction of the Brooklyn Bridge”.

    I’m so glad you got my point. What did M$ invest in our networks to limit the number of PCs we could run on them? Read the EULA. What did M$ invest in our PCs to prevent us using them as thin or thick clients? Read the EULA about remote access. Our hardware is not M$’s property and they have no right to demand payment and agree to the restrictions on use of our hardware. Forcing people to agree to the EULA in order to use hardware is slavery.

  39. kurkosdr wrote, “The idea that the gumberment should fund software when there aren’t enough volunteers and donations”.

    Instead, you want government to pay many times over the true cost of IT by supporting M$ and Oracle etc. at huge premiums??? Look, the whole idea of FLOSS is that no one organization, not even the government, need pay the whole cost of software development. That’s one of M$’s divide-and-conquer strategies, splitting up large organizations which could easily provide their own software in whole or part, thus keeping them dependent and lucrative. Linux, for instance, has a few thousand developers spread over hundreds of organizations, all getting the full benefit for a small investment. Then there’ LibreOffice, FireFox, … Sure, governments may need other software than those high-volume items, but it’s just silly to have 200 countries paying M$ instead of hiring a few programmers each to get the job done. There are supposedly >1000M users of TOOS. We know that Linux is produced for a lot less than $10 per user spread over that number of users. Why should the world pay more than the cost of production? Why should not governments hire a few programmers instead of spending $billions on licensing per annum? Even for highly specialized applications, governments don’t need to produce all the code from scratch. They have gigabytes of FLOSS code they can merge under FLOSS licences. They just need to code algorithms and interfaces and leave the rest to the world of FLOSS programmers.

  40. dougman wrote, “No one in their right mind would want government to build software, just take a gander at healthcare.gov.”

    Well, that was contracted out. It may well have been done better in-house. Lots of web-developers/IT guys work for government and do a good job. As I recall, the same government that signed those contracts hired a few good men and fixed it just fine. I’m not sure what the problems were but a few bugs and lack of scalability were in the news. There was nothing particularly seriously wrong except they didn’t test it at scale to find the problems before the rollout. They could have started in NH and a few small states before the big bang and been just fine or they could have designed and implemented a simulator at the same time.

    The real problem with healthcare.gov was not software or hardware but the stupid design of the regulatory system. The Canadians got it right: single payer, and a tiny bureaucracy allowing money to be invested in healthcare rather than insurance companies galore who refused to deal with folks across state lines. It’s so retarded to fail to have universal healthcare but instead protect the insurance industry.

  41. ram says:

    My personal observation is that the vast majority of companies I knew using Linux 15 years ago are still profitable and still in business. On the other hand almost all the companies I knew from that time wedded to Microsoft products have folded and the few surviving remainder are deeply indebted. The next financial crises will probably take ones with negative cash flows out for good.

  42. oiaohm says:

    kurkosdr 90 percent of FOSS developers are full time employees at 1 company/government or another who job is to develop and extend FOSS software for them. Of course we are indirectly paying their wages.

  43. oiaohm says:

    kurkosdr Linux Thick, Windows Thin or Linux Thin, Windows Thin don’t show the issues with compatibilities. Basically proper mixed environment many companies have done Migrations without issues.

    I agree deploying like Munich is unrealistic.

    Basically there is a mixed environment and their is a mixed environment.

    The two mixed I talked about are not exactly uncommon.

    http://au.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-0782144284.html
    Main reason for not having Linux Thick Clients and Windows thin clients is FUD.

    –Docx and pptx support.–

    MS Office has no problems running on a terminal server or any of the other thin-client solutions.

    dougman one of the reasons why security businesses are going virtual machine Windows is VM Snapshots allowing the instance to be rolled back to before user did anything.

    –aka that we should all pay a “software” tax that will go towards producing FOSS, instead of paying for what we need.–
    kurkosdr wait idiot you already do. Biggest customer of Redhat is the USA government. Look at the Linux Support Companies around the World and their biggest customers are governments.

    Only a idiot thinks we are not already paying a software tax for FOSS. The reality is Well maintained FOSS is free because in a lot of cases you have ready paid for it by companies you deal with or government taxs and they are not asking you to pay twice.

    dougman is right internal development by governments has caused more screw-ups than one can dream. IBM doing the medical payroll for Australian hospitals was another mother of screw up. NIH is very much a hazard. Shared development between many entities normally is less error prone.

  44. dougman says:

    Eh?

    No one in their right mind would want government to build software, just take a gander at healthcare.gov.

  45. kurkosdr says:

    @DrLoser

    Ssshh… you are touching upon the most sacred of freetard values. The idea that the gumberment should fund software when there aren’t enough volunteers and donations, aka that we should all pay a “software” tax that will go towards producing FOSS, instead of paying for what we need.

  46. dougman says:

    LOL…Docx and pptx support are your stated incompatibilities? I was hoping to you would state something Windows specific, but sure lets run with that.

    As a business, you are free to use what ever file format you like. However, sending and receiving M$ Office files is a known malware vector, (Eg. CustomerList.docx.exe) NO thank you!

    Anytime I sent out documents, there were always in PDF. If, something needed to be changed they would call me to make edits.

    In fact it was common practice for me to *ignore* emailed files unless the person told me that they sent them. The bottom line is, simply do not click attachments in emails, even if you think you know where they came from — the sender, even if it’s a friend or colleague, could simply be the previous victim of infection.

    But if you are using Linux to begin with, EXE files do not work.

  47. DrLoser says:

    Permission to use the hardware you own, rent or buy. How silly is that? Should NYC pay me licensing fees to use the Brooklyn Bridge?

    That rather depends upon whether you invested in the construction of the Brooklyn Bridge, Robert. It’s just a wild fantasy of mine, really, but you didn’t did you?

    Since you don’t have skin in that game, I think you will find for once that we are all unanimous on this particular question.

    No, Robert, there is no earthly reason why NYC should pay you licensing fees to use the Brooklyn Bridge. It’s deeply peculiar that you even mentioned it. And, let’s face it, you’ve been getting the services of the Brooklyn Bridge for free, even though you’ve never once used it.

    This is not a joke, by the way. The same basically applies to Microsoft Windows. You don’t use it, but hundreds of millions of others do. And you don’t pay those hundreds of millions a dime, any more than you pay the tens of millions of companies who rely upon access to the Brooklyn Bridge.

    Hard to see why you would care about the cost to those third parties, really. Unless you’re going to propose a FLOSS bridge across the East River. What a wonderful idea that would be. Go on, try it. By the way, you need to apply to the NYC Department of Transportation (DOT), not to NYC directly. It’s a small matter, I know, but I’d hate to see your letter of proposal go astray amid the bureaucracy.

    Now, that Brooklyn Bridge thing? It has always been free to users, hasn’t it?

    Well, no, actually.

    When the Brooklyn Bridge first opened, it cost a penny to cross by foot, 5 cents for a horse and rider and 10 cents for a horse and wagon. Farm animals were allowed at a price of 5 cents per cow and 2 cents per sheep or hog. Under pressure from civic groups and commuters, the pedestrian toll was repealed in 1891. The roadway tolls were then rescinded in 1911 …

    It wasn’t free for anybody but pedestrians for the first 28 years of its existence. To make that plain in Windows terms … you will recall that Windows 10 is presently no-cost for domestic use … that would be since, roughly, Windows 95.

    And since 1911, the cost has been borne by the New York taxpayer. Which is fine by you, because you are not a New York taxpayer.

    And the cost of a Windows license has similarly been borne by other people, perhaps taxpayers, perhaps not, but certainly not by you, Robert.

    What an instructive comparison the Brooklyn Bridge has turned out to be. Not only have I proved that you have no clue what you are talking about, but it’s readily apparent that “free” is not good enough for you.

    Oh no. You harbor a secret desire to be paid for using Debian, don’t you? Just like you dream of getting a “licensing fee” simply for the theoretical possibility of using a bridge that you have never even seen.

    Go for it!

  48. kurkosdr says:

    Oh, let’s hear about these incompatibilities!

    Docx and pptx support. Someday. No I don’t care if it’s evil (it is), and neither does random business.

    Apps. You have to find an app with a Win and dekstop linux version. And yes, businesses use apps outside the repositories that don’t run inside a browser. Shock as it may be to the dougmans of this world.

    Your employees need to know both OSes. Also, Canonical doesn’t have a well-known programme on par with ECDL, training is up to you. Better stick with Win7.

  49. dougman says:

    Re: “you have a “mixed environment” with incompatibilities”

    Oh, let’s hear about these incompatibilities! Spit them out!!.. I know you are just dying to tell everyone about them.

    Re: “risk of a full-on “migration” with investors and/or stockholders breathing down your neck and quick to blame you if it goes wrong.”

    Considering the ratio of private to public businesses in the U.S. is 1000:1. Tell us, what investors/stockholders partake in the realm of private businesses?

    I never met any investors, that concerned themselves on the day to day business activities. Typically the ones that do are the C-types and board members, if any.

  50. kurkosdr says:

    there is even = there is either

  51. kurkosdr says:

    There’s also training and support.

    Lololol, Microsoft thinks there will be tons of businesses floking to Windows 10, under the vague promises of “better security and performance”, and “better cloud integration”.

    To give you a sense of how insane this thougth is, Windows 10 changed so much UI-wise, that everything from the start menu, to the control panel to the Mail and calculator apps are different. So, there is even the retraining costs, or business slowing (not to a crawl, but to some degree) while users try to figure things out and pass tips to each other).

    Microsoft has forgot their roots. For example, they forgot how Control Panel’s classic view helped businesses upgrade more easily.

    PS: Windows 8.x changed just the start menu, which could be easily restored back to normal with Classic Shell. And even that change was enough to make it an enterprise failure.

    —-

    Most businesses will just stay with Win7, and even buy Win7 licenses. Asking them to “just try gnu/linux” is unrealistic, because there is the risk of either rolling Desktop Linux as a pilot on a few machines, which means you have a “mixed environment” with incompatibilites and the like, or take the risk of a full-on “migration” with investors and/or stockholders breathing down your neck and quick to blame you if it goes wrong.

    And as long as old business are mostly win-centric, so will be the new ones. Inertia, document exchange, readily available support people… you get the idea.

  52. dougman says:

    With Google offering simplified services replacing M$ normal software stack, then hiring a part-time person to manage the LAN. One could easily do business sans M$ and make out like a fat cat.

    “Oh, you got a virus? Thats terrible, but since we started using Linux, those problems went away!”

Leave a Reply