MESSAGE
| DATE | 2002-04-29 |
| FROM | Ruben I Safir
|
| SUBJECT | Subject: [hangout] Re: compatibility (fwd)
|
----- Forwarded message from Ruben I Safir -----
>From ruben-at-mrbrklyn.com Mon Apr 29 01:32:17 2002
Received: (from ruben-at-localhost)
by www2.mrbrklyn.com (8.11.2/8.11.2/SuSE Linux 8.11.1-0.5) id g3T5WHZ01757;
Mon, 29 Apr 2002 01:32:17 -0400
From: Ruben I Safir
Message-Id: <200204290532.g3T5WHZ01757-at-www2.mrbrklyn.com>
Subject: Re: compatibility
In-Reply-To: <1020055191.4306.45.camel-at-hornet> from jonathan jacobs at "Apr 29,
2002 00:39:51 am"
To: jonathan jacobs
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2002 01:32:17 -0400 (EDT)
CC: Ruben I Safir
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL60 (25)]
"Experts estimated the damage from the Love Letter virus has topped $2 billion but could reach $10 billion by next week as variants of the malicious worm continued to surface... Computer Economics Inc. estimated that 45 million users received the virus in its first day of circulation."
- Computer Reseller News, May 5, 2000
"Lloyd's of London has estimated the worldwide damage caused by the Love Bug too be over $15 billion, said Rep. Constance Morella, R-Md., chairwoman of [a congressional] subcommittee."
- Associated Press, May 11, 2000
"This week a House of Representatives committee was told that 98 percent of large companies were hit by the ILOVEYOU virus... ILOVEYOU wiped out the MP3 digital musical collections of thousands of Napster users and scared thousands more into shutting off their file trading libraries last weekend."
- Messaging Today, May 12, 2000
"Gartner Group, a technology consultancy, said... a virus can cost a business $100 to $250 per computer to clean up."
-Reuters, May 16 2000
"Computer viruses cost business $12 billion in 1999, according to Computer Economics Inc. The computer consulting firm said that this amount is based on lost productivity, network downtime, and the expense involved in eliminating the virus"
- Intel Bulletin, January 21, 200
> Marketing approach:
>
> - In this culture,you can only gracefully tell people that they're
> idiots if idiots if you can point to a superhero who is
> doing/buying/using what you're suggesting they're idiots for NOT using.
> For example, these morons are all driving SUV's that get 7MPG and
> complaining about the gas prices. Almost any compact station wagon would
> suit they're needs BETTER, last longer, cost less to repair, be safer on
> the road, and be cheaper to operate. And, initially, some of the car
> companies tried to tell them exactly that. But people didn't buy the
> smart thing and those same car companies went into the SUV business.
>
> So, "you don't need exchange" may not work as well as an opening salvo
> as "you get all of this AND it is compatible with exchange" would work.
>
> It is always (particularly in difficult times) difficult to get people
> to choose a radical solution over the solution that everybody else is
> using.
>
> - As soon as you say something like "the functionality of exchange is
> built inside the o/s", their eyes get a glassy look and they start
> looking at their watches. I like short, pointed, affirmative, sentences,
> like:
> * Many of the really big companies are using it for ,because
> * It's twice as fast
> * It's 100 times as stable
> * It costs half as much to maintain
> * Its COMPATIBLE
>
> This is why I WAS HAPPY about the article that started all of this,
> because:
> - it was on IBM letterhead;
> - it said Boeing, among others, had adopted a GNU/Linux solution.
>
> So, what I READ in that article was:
> "the BOEING corporation has chosen a GNU/LINUX solution for its
> MASSIVELY COMPLICATED collaboration problems. And, they've managed to
> stay compatible with their old, useless, Microsoft software as they
> phase it out."
>
> The average CEO may not know much about software, but he thinks the guys
> at Boeing are pretty smart. He happily entrusts his life to their
> products several times a year. If they're engineers are trusting this
> stuff, maybe it's worth checking out.....
>
> I don't think anybody is trying to sell "just like Microsoft but
> better". I do think that being able to claim "compatibility" or, better
> yet "backwards compatibility" is a good thing.
>
> - As to the IT departments: well many of the people involved in those
> are very, very heavily invested in Microsoft: financially, personally,
> and professionally. That is another issue.
>
> No one (except, perhaps, for the people at Mandrake and Ximian) is
> suggesting that GNU/Linux become more like Microsoft.
>
----- End of forwarded message from Ruben I Safir -----
____________________________
New Yorker Linux Users Scene
Fair Use -
because it's either fair use or useless....
|
|
