Tim Kossack wrote: > - a customer could care less if he's free to redistribute > rhel under certain terms, because he wants to simply _use_ that stuff, > and easily and with the least hassle. > but even if that would be important for some customers, it a) is not for > others and b) it's not an excuse to have poorer usability/plugs that the > comp. This is the crux of your problem is you have a POOR definition of usability. ANY meaningful definition of usability can not include whether or not a product includes support for feature X or plugin Y. I personally like this definition of usability http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20030825.html: <quote> Usability has five quality components: * Learnability: How easy is it for users to accomplish basic tasks the first time they encounter the design? * Efficiency: Once users have learned the design, how quickly can they perform tasks? * Memorability: When users return to the design after a period of not using it, how easily can they reestablish proficiency? * Errors: How many errors do users make, how severe are these errors, and how easily can they recover from the errors? * Satisfaction: How pleasant is it to use the design? There are many other important quality attributes. A key one is utility, which refers to the design's functionality: Does it do what users need? Usability and utility are equally important: It matters little that something is easy if it's not what you want. It's also no good if the system can hypothetically do what you want, but you can't make it happen because the user interface is too difficult. To study a design's utility, you can use the same user research methods that improve usability. </endquote> You want to have a discussion about the UTILITY of red hat's products. You want to have a discussion of the UTILITY of a purely open-source distribution compared to a hybrid distribution. And a discussion of the utility of a purely open-source distribution is a discussion of whether or not a customer values of the benefits open source solutions provides long-term as compared to the short-term gains of choosing a proprietary technology that locks them into one vendor. And I would argue...that Red Hat is actually creating for itself a strong long-term sales strategy by championing open source solutions and offering something marketably different. What you see as a short-term weakness...I see as a long term strength....its just a question of marketing and education. >sun has sold how many jds to china again (millions)?! >and yes, i'm really interested who will make (esp. compared to his size) >more inroads into the corporate desktop market, especially into small to >midsize companies... why people buy crappy products...in the millions...might not actually be related to the technical merits of the product at all. It could very well be that those customers of jds in china...are pre-existing Sun customers who own Sun server solutions, and have a strong pre-existing business relationship with Sun. Large purchasing decisions are NEVER as clear cut as simply picking the best technology. If it were...everyone would be running plan9....though i would imagine, in the future everyone in china will be running red flag linux by government mandate. -jef"the utility of this discussion has reached negative numbers"spaleta
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
