[plug] [link] a lawyer Switches

[Craig Ringer]

>> Well, its a better approach for /everybody/ concerned than making many
>> custom systems.
> 
> This is just so much marketdroid crap. It demonstrably better only for IBM, and
> the inhibitors are there for IBM's bottom line, at the cost of the customers
> bottom line.

Ever run a real network? Ever had to upgrade server hardware? Its 
something to avoid if you can. In this way if nothing else, the customer 
benefits. Its also likely to result in better support when there's only 
a few hardware variants to support, and maybe parts will be available 
for longer. Look, if you don't like it you don't actually have to buy 
from IBM - but many people do, because they think that in the end its a 
better offering.

> If anything, it is more expensive for IBM to build these systems, but this is more
> than made up for by the methods they have for extorting more money from their
> clients.  It is inefficient, in that extra, useless, hardware has to be
> manufactured, and installed.  How this saves anyone money is nothing but the
> marketing departments wet dream, and has no bearing on anything actually happening
> out here in reality.

I expect that a lot of such hardware is used in the end, as customers 
need more grunt from their servers. Its just not utilized immediately. 
Normally when buying server gear you plan future expansion into the 
initial purchase, resulting in a server you're not using all the 
capability of but have paid all the cost of. With IBM's model, you don't 
have to until you need to.

> I find this similar to microsoft attempting to limit the bitrate of MP3's that you
> can burn on your machine, in order to promote WMA.  Care to defend this practice
> by claiming that it is a 'better approach for everybody concerned' ?
> 
> http://slashdot.org/articles/01/04/12/1159253.shtml

That sounds like an /entirely/ different matter. IBM isn't trying to 
force the user to a different system they control better by restricting 
theirs. Its an attempt to exert control over users to force them to 
behave other than they would prefer - as opposed to simply a different 
model for providing a product/service. I honestly don't see any 
similarity beyond the fact that both rely on artificially limiting their 
offerings to achieve their ends. The ends are utterly different.

>>Think about it this way. IBM doesn't sell you a physical computer, they
>>sell you computing capacity. 
> 
> "Think about it this way.  Microsoft doesn't sell you a physical computer, they
> sell you computing capacity."

Well, they sell you an OS that enables you to use the computing capacity 
of your machine. Its only one choice of many, same way IBM is only one 
choice of many. I'd tend to argue that with MS you pay them to /disable/ 
your machine, by comparison to other OSs, though. That said, the same 
applies for both - don't like it, find something you do like. And that's 
about the only similarity I can find - I just don't see the sense in 
your statement above. MS doesn't sell you capacity, they sell you 
software. A copy of windoze w/o a PC that you've bought from your own 
funds is utterly useless. (of course its not much better with a PC). I 
just don't get what you're trying to say.

> Actually, I am in the habit of installing whatever I like on computers that I own
> and control in order to extract the maximum value I can from my investment.  That
> is why I purchased the physicial computer the first place instead of a unit of
> 'computing capacity'.  If IBM or Microsoft, Intel, AMD or Sony or whoever try to
> limit the value of that investment thru artificial means, no amount of marketing
> apologetics will convince me that they are acting in my best interest.

Like any company, they're acting in /their/ best interests, something to 
always be aware of. However, for some companies and for some purposes, 
it is better to just buy capacity and hand off the management of it to 
someone else. Let them absorb the depreciation costs of the hardware and 
worry about upgrades etc - you just buy what you need from them. Its an 
extension of existing IT outsourcing. Computers depreciate, hardware 
upgrades can involve significant costs, downtime, and "settling-in" 
time, and can fail. Given the choice, and if the price was right, I'd 
just fork out the cash for the computing capacity we (work) needed, and 
I'd be /glad/ that we didn't have to own the hardware. OTOH, for a home 
machine you couldn't possibly persuade me to do any such thing.

Basically, different people and organisations have different needs. 
There is nothing inherently "wrong" about IBM's model, they are simply 
selling computing power as a service rather than selling computer 
hardware for the customer to run. Its no good for a home user, but 
mighty handy for a corporate datacenter. Sure, the hardware is capable 
of more than they'll let you use - but then, your ADSL connection (if 
you have such) is probably shaped to 512k too. Do you think that's 
"wrong" or is it simply practical business operation to provide what the 
customer pays for, not more. If the servers providing the computing 
power were in one huge datacenter somewhere, would it be wrong for them 
to sell you only, say (gross simplifcation) 1000 teraflops/month when 
the datacenter was capable of 1000 times that much?

Now, I object if someone tries to /force/ me to use a system that limits 
what I can do with it. DVD regioning, for example, is a perfect example. 
I'm not getting it cheaper (rather the opposite, actually), I don't have 
the choice not to use it in favour of an alternative, and its designed 
solely to prevent me doing things I'd otherwise do (play it under my OS 
of choice, for example). OTOH, if I could pay a monthly fee to get 
superior video display in my machine that I could upgrade at need and 
was competitive with buying a new video card outright, I'd do it. 
Because it doesn't tell me what I can and can't do, except by my own choice.

I think you might be making a bigger issue of this than needs be. In the 
end, they're not forcing you into anyhing nor restricting you against 
your will - because you /can/ tell them to get stuffed and choose 
somebody else. But you can use them if they're the best for your needs.

Craig Ringer