Re: [cobalt-developers] nice knowing you all!

[corliss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

On Fri, 22 Sep 2000, Dennis wrote:

> Its not "ability to", its "desire to".

I think it's both.  You have realise that x86 systems are more cost
effective because of economies of scale.  Sun doesn't have the same room to
breathe there, to cut margins and make it up on quantity.

> The real issue is,  do big companies want to have the future of their
> product lines decided by the likes of alan cox? 

?  And McNealy's better?  How about Gates?  That's the most ridiculous
statement I've seen yet.  Especially if you consider just what you've gotten
for you money from Torvalds/Cox compared to the other two.

> I really have trouble believing that linux is responsible for cobalts
> success (is a company that loses millions of dollars a year a
> "success"?...interesting times we are in, arent they?)

Cobalt cashed in on the Linux hype.  To deny otherwise would beggar reality.
They may not be completely profitable yet, but they've certainly benefited
from the early hype surrounding the OS.

> considering that anyone with minor linux knowledge could build a much more
> powerful box for half the price themselves, it seesm that the "solution" is
> what people buy, not the box. The box is slow, overpriced and buggy.

Then you have absolutely no understanding of just what Cobalt is selling.
They're not selling the basic services themselves, they're selling the ease of
use interface on top of a complete out of the box solution.  But even if they
weren't, that argument still wouldn't float.  That is, unless, you place $0
value on your time building, installing, and configuring an equivalent
solution.  Ease of use and ease of deployment are certainly a valuable
commodity.

	--Arthur Corliss
	  Programmer/Administrator
	  Gallant Technologies (http://www.gallanttech.com/)