Rockin' on without Microsoft

[monkspider]

You're a great guy Ash, and you know a lot about a lot of different things. But I don't think anyone here is ever going to take you seriously on the subject of Microsoft. It would be like listening to, say, Fez's opinions on Spain.

[Asher]

That's okay, I recognize that most people in the world aren't very bright.

If people don't take me seriously about MS stuff, they can stop asking me MS stuff.

[uh Clem]

That's okay, I recognize that most people in the world aren't very bright.

One more than you think.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Asher
It is absolutely brash -- if he looked into alternatives, did a study on TCO and productivity with the alternatives, then it would not be.

Am I the only one who found it absurd that you, Glonkie, who has zero experience running a business, criticised business decisions of Ernie Ball, who's probably been in business twice as long as you have lived, as "brash and unbusinesslike?"

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Asher
Why don't you read the license then. I just told you it's in the license, and you seem to ignore that.

Because what happens in real life is not the same way as your dearly beloved EULA?

This is not the first time I read these horror stories.

[laurentius]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


Am I the only one who found it absurd that you, Glonkie, who has zero experience running a business, criticised business decisions of Ernie Ball, who's probably been in business twice as long as you have lived, as "brash and unbusinesslike?"

No you are one of the many

[JohnT]

Originally posted by Asher

Someone says he'll deal with anything as long as it's not made by a certain company is acting brashly, particularly when it's not his field. I thought that's why he had a CTO.

It is absolutely brash -- if he looked into alternatives, did a study on TCO and productivity with the alternatives, then it would not be.

But that's not what happened -- he got busted and publically tarred & feathered for pirating software (which happens to be illegal), and suddenly demands that within six months, there's no Microsoft software on any of his systems.

Brash is undoubtedly fitting, knee-jerk reaction from a business owner who got where they are by simply making good products, but not necessarily being good at running their business.

Asher, you do NOT know if the studies were conducted or not. Please argue from the facts on hand and stop conjecturing.

Now if it is your opinion that Linux is worse than Windows, fine: I actually agree with you. But to chastise the man's business acumen based upon this story really shows a lack of understanding of how decisions are made and executed at the top levels.

[Mr. Nice Guy]

I don't think this man was guilty of pirating; it was likely the people under him that were guilty for not keeping track of things.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Am I the only one who found it absurd that you, Glonkie, who has zero experience running a business, criticised business decisions of Ernie Ball, who's probably been in business twice as long as you have lived, as "brash and unbusinesslike?"

I never called it unbusinesslike, I called it uneducated.

When somebody makes a decision for a business based purely on emotion, rather than reason and knowledge, then it's a poor business decision.

It doesn't matter that I haven't run my own business (aside from being President of a Junior Achievement company for one years back in high school, but that hardly counts), because it's a common sense thing.

It's pigheaded decisions like that which can drive your company in the wrong direction, like McNealy is doing with Sun on his absurd anti-MS campaign, and like how Andressen did to Netscape with his anti-MS campaign.

[Asher]

Originally posted by JohnT
Asher, you do NOT know if the studies were conducted or not. Please argue from the facts on hand and stop conjecturing.

It's not conjecturing, it's made perfectly clear from the interview: He got busted for piracy, and immediately declared (no doubt in a fit of fury) that they stop using MS products within six months.

But to chastise the man's business acumen based upon this story really shows a lack of understanding of how decisions are made and executed at the top levels.

I understand how they're made, that doesn't mean they're made properly.

Business decisions should not be made on emotion, but after some research into whether it'll be best for the company to make it.

I perfectly understand many businesses make brash decisions like this and ask questions later, which is why I never called it "unbusinesslike" (I have no idea where you and UR both pulled that word), but it is absolutely quite brash and retarded.

Most companies can figure out how to keep track of licenses, it doesn't speak highly of a company when they can't figure out what "1 license per computer" means. Then feign ignorance and (successfully) paint MS as the bad guy, when it was their company breaking the law and their company that got busted for it.

You'll have to forgive me for not putting too much weight in your business-running strategies and opinions, because I'm sure we all remember your family-run business...

[JohnT]

You know Asher, if you weren't such a prissy little poseur I'd take offense at your sudden ad hominems... but you are, so I won't. Aren't I a big guy?

Let me tell you a story about how things work in the world that I live in: The CFO of Ford Motor Company from the mid-1960's to 1982 was J. Edward Lundy whom came on board with Robert MacNamara, et al. Anyway, back in the mid 1960s, when Xerox was the growth company of the day, they needed a bunch of seasoned executives, and quick, so they went headhunting. One of their main targets was Ford, and they hit Lundy's financial guys pretty hard... iirc, as many as 20 people went to Xerox over a 3 year period.

Well, Ed was pissed. And because Ed had (and kept) the ear and confidence of Henry Ford II as no man ever did, Ed was able to enact some small revenge by tying Ford Motor to a photocopying process that was NOT based on Xerox technology, one that was slower, messier, and far more problematic... and he kept the entire corporation tied to this process until he retired in the early 1980s.

A decision that cost the company 10s of millions in wasted productivity a year, made because 1 guy was mad... a man whom, being one of the original "Whiz Kids," had a reputation for rational management and decisions based upon quantifiable factors. A decision that kept one other company afloat for 15 years after it should've gone under.

And million dollar decisions like this are made every day... and they are not all wrong or bad decisions (unlike Lundy's actions).

And Asher, if I may, please let me point out the fact that you are ignoring one piece of information, and falsifying another.

You are ignoring that the man was humiliated by the BSA in a national advertising campaign that specifically branded him as a criminal for having improperly licensed software on a mere 8% of his computers.

You are lying through your disingenuous teeth when you claim that:

Most companies can figure out how to keep track of licenses, it doesn't speak highly of a company when they can't figure out what "1 license per computer" means.

Had you bothered to actually read the article rather than immediately Google info that supports your side you would've noted that

How did that happen?
We pass our old computers down. The guys in engineering need a new PC, so they get one and we pass theirs on to somebody doing clerical work. Well, if you don't wipe the hard drive on that PC, that's a violation. Even if they can tell a piece of software isn't being used, it's still a violation if it's on that hard drive.

So, it is not one license per computer, it is one license per user. ******.

[Asher]

Originally posted by JohnT
You know Asher, if you weren't such a prissy little poseur I'd take offense at your sudden ad hominems... but you are, so I won't. Aren't I a big guy?

Nearly sig material.

And Asher, if I may, please let me point out the fact that you are ignoring one piece of information, and falsifying another.

You are ignoring that the man was humiliated by the BSA in a national advertising campaign that specifically branded him as a criminal for having improperly licensed software on a mere 8% of his computers.

Question: was he a criminal for not having properly licensed software on some of his computers?
Case closed...

I am ignoring it, because it's not relevant. Should we take pity on a child murderer if he was publically branded a criminal for killing only 25% of his children?

You are lying through your disingenuous teeth when you claim that:

Most companies can figure out how to keep track of licenses, it doesn't speak highly of a company when they can't figure out what "1 license per computer" means.

Had you bothered to actually read the article rather than immediately Google info that supports your side you would've noted that

How did that happen?
We pass our old computers down. The guys in engineering need a new PC, so they get one and we pass theirs on to somebody doing clerical work. Well, if you don't wipe the hard drive on that PC, that's a violation. Even if they can tell a piece of software isn't being used, it's still a violation if it's on that hard drive.

So, it is not one license per computer, it is one license per user. ******.

It is one license per user, but that license is transferrable to any user as long as it's only one user at once. "******."

Think about it...does MS charge you for every user on your WinXP installation?

Look: If you keep the PC and give it down to the clerical people, and it still has Windows, and then you install Windows back onto the new PC used by the engineering department -- but still have the same number of licenses -- what do you think happens?

I'll let you condescending business freaks figure that one out, because this condescending computer freak thinks his point is made.

[mrmitchell]

Should we take pity on a child murderer if he was publically branded a criminal for killing only 25% of his children?

So in Canada, software piracy is worse than child murderer? Man, you guys must REALLY be MSbots then

[Asher]

Of course, children is simply annoying. But software...software is useful!

[JohnT]

The machines were transferred to another employee (yet again in the article). One employee was using the machine, it got transferred to employee #2 and therefore was somehow "non-compliant."

Let me quote yet again:

The guys in engineering need a new PC, so they get one and we pass theirs on to somebody doing clerical work. Well, if you don't wipe the hard drive on that PC, that's a violation.

(Didn't I quote this exact passage in the previous post?)

How is that different from:

It is one license per user, but that license is transferrable to any user as long as it's only one user at once. "******."

The machine and the software on the machine got transferred. From one employee to another. Just like you said.

Are you sure you know what happened to this guy? You might want to read the article with a more open mind.