FUD: Get the facts Windows v Linux

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by thing, Oct 31, 2004.

  1. thing

    thing Guest

    Lets see latest advert Windows 2003 v Red Hat 2.1, Windows 2300 wins,
    wow, so we are comparing an obsolete 2.1 version with MS's latest
    flagship....Why not compare RHAS3 I wonder? maybe because the
    differences are not so big, or worse?

    Or SuSe's version based on the 2.6 kernel?

    Lol, Yet more lacking of credibilty....

    Are you watching Nathan?

    regards

    Thing
     
    thing, Oct 31, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. thing wrote:
    > Lets see latest advert Windows 2003 v Red Hat 2.1, Windows 2300 wins,
    > wow, so we are comparing an obsolete 2.1 version with MS's latest
    > flagship....Why not compare RHAS3 I wonder? maybe because the
    > differences are not so big, or worse?
    >
    > Or SuSe's version based on the 2.6 kernel?
    >
    > Lol, Yet more lacking of credibilty....
    >
    > Are you watching Nathan?


    Which study are you referring to?
     
    Nathan Mercer, Oct 31, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. In article <QBWgd.24121$>, thing <> wrote:
    >Lets see latest advert Windows 2003 v Red Hat 2.1, Windows 2300 wins,
    >wow, so we are comparing an obsolete 2.1 version with MS's latest
    >flagship....Why not compare RHAS3 I wonder? maybe because the
    >differences are not so big, or worse?
    >
    >Or SuSe's version based on the 2.6 kernel?
    >
    >Lol, Yet more lacking of credibilty....
    >

    *SNIP*

    Nothing they do can beat comparing Windows on Intel to Linux on a
    zSeries and then stating that Linux has a higher dollar-per-transaction
    cost than Windows does. That was the ultimate slimebag "study", and I
    think that it was a very stupid one since even the most obtuse CIO can
    work out that it's FUD, when they have it explained to them what a
    zSeries actually is.

    --
    Matthew Poole Auckland, New Zealand
    "Veni, vidi, velcro...
    I came, I saw, I stuck around"

    My real e-mail is mattATp00leDOTnet
     
    Matthew Poole, Oct 31, 2004
    #3
  4. thing

    Gordon Guest

    On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 16:08:49 +1300, thing wrote:

    > Nathan Mercer wrote:
    >> thing wrote:
    >>
    >>> Lets see latest advert Windows 2003 v Red Hat 2.1, Windows 2300 wins,
    >>> wow, so we are comparing an obsolete 2.1 version with MS's latest
    >>> flagship....Why not compare RHAS3 I wonder? maybe because the
    >>> differences are not so big, or worse?
    >>>
    >>> Or SuSe's version based on the 2.6 kernel?
    >>>
    >>> Lol, Yet more lacking of credibilty....
    >>>
    >>> Are you watching Nathan?

    >>
    >>
    >> Which study are you referring to?

    >
    > When I clicked on the advert to take me to go look it was not there....
    >
    > Guess it got hanked....


    Okay so, just when did Red Hat reach 2.1? ;-) You are talking about the
    server version yes?
     
    Gordon, Oct 31, 2004
    #4
  5. thing

    thing Guest

    Nathan Mercer wrote:
    > thing wrote:
    >
    >> Lets see latest advert Windows 2003 v Red Hat 2.1, Windows 2300 wins,
    >> wow, so we are comparing an obsolete 2.1 version with MS's latest
    >> flagship....Why not compare RHAS3 I wonder? maybe because the
    >> differences are not so big, or worse?
    >>
    >> Or SuSe's version based on the 2.6 kernel?
    >>
    >> Lol, Yet more lacking of credibilty....
    >>
    >> Are you watching Nathan?

    >
    >
    > Which study are you referring to?


    When I clicked on the advert to take me to go look it was not there....

    Guess it got hanked....

    regards

    Thing
     
    thing, Oct 31, 2004
    #5
  6. thing

    Peter Guest

    thing wrote:
    > Lets see latest advert Windows 2003 v Red Hat 2.1, Windows 2300 wins,
    > wow, so we are comparing an obsolete 2.1 version with MS's latest
    > flagship....Why not compare RHAS3 I wonder? maybe because the
    > differences are not so big, or worse?


    Actually, there's a good side to this. Companies that are smart enough to
    see through the FUD will get an advantage over those who pay the Micro$oft
    tax. Like, survival of the fittest.


    Peter
     
    Peter, Oct 31, 2004
    #6
  7. thing

    Mackin Guest

    Gordon wrote:

    > On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 16:08:49 +1300, thing wrote:
    >
    >> Nathan Mercer wrote:
    >>> thing wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> Lets see latest advert Windows 2003 v Red Hat 2.1, Windows 2300 wins,
    >>>> wow, so we are comparing an obsolete 2.1 version with MS's latest
    >>>> flagship....Why not compare RHAS3 I wonder? maybe because the
    >>>> differences are not so big, or worse?
    >>>>
    >>>> Or SuSe's version based on the 2.6 kernel?
    >>>>
    >>>> Lol, Yet more lacking of credibilty....
    >>>>
    >>>> Are you watching Nathan?
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> Which study are you referring to?

    >>
    >> When I clicked on the advert to take me to go look it was not there....
    >>
    >> Guess it got hanked....

    >
    > Okay so, just when did Red Hat reach 2.1? ;-) You are talking about the
    > server version yes?


    The current version of RH Enterprise is v3, released in September 2003.
    http://www.redhat.com/software/rhel/21features/

    Mackin
     
    Mackin, Oct 31, 2004
    #7
  8. thing

    Guest

    On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 17:51:25 +1300, Mackin wrote:

    >>>>> Lets see latest advert Windows 2003 v Red Hat 2.1, Windows 2300 wins,
    >>>>> wow, so we are comparing an obsolete 2.1 version with MS's latest
    >>>>> flagship....Why not compare RHAS3 I wonder? maybe because the
    >>>>> differences are not so big, or worse?
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Or SuSe's version based on the 2.6 kernel?
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Lol, Yet more lacking of credibilty....
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Are you watching Nathan?
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> Which study are you referring to?
    >>>
    >>> When I clicked on the advert to take me to go look it was not there....
    >>>
    >>> Guess it got hanked....

    >>
    >> Okay so, just when did Red Hat reach 2.1? ;-) You are talking about the
    >> server version yes?

    >
    > The current version of RH Enterprise is v3, released in September 2003.
    > http://www.redhat.com/software/rhel/21features/


    RedHat 2.1 was released many years ago. The latest release of RedHat is
    Fedora Core 3.0 beta.

    RedHat Enterprise Server is a different distro, albeit by the same
    corporation - as different a product as Windows 2003 Datacentre is from
    Windows NT/XP.


    Divine

    --
    "Outlook is the security equivalent of wearing condoms with the ends cut
    off - for greater comfort and ease of use."
     
    , Oct 31, 2004
    #8
  9. thing wrote:
    > Nathan Mercer wrote:
    >
    >> thing wrote:
    >>
    >>> Lets see latest advert Windows 2003 v Red Hat 2.1, Windows 2300 wins,
    >>> wow, so we are comparing an obsolete 2.1 version with MS's latest
    >>> flagship....Why not compare RHAS3 I wonder? maybe because the
    >>> differences are not so big, or worse?
    >>>
    >>> Or SuSe's version based on the 2.6 kernel?
    >>>
    >>> Lol, Yet more lacking of credibilty....
    >>>
    >>> Are you watching Nathan?

    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> Which study are you referring to?

    >
    >
    > When I clicked on the advert to take me to go look it was not there....
    >
    > Guess it got hanked....


    Is it the Forrester report "Windows Users Have Fewer Vulnerabilities"

    mentioned on http://microsoft.com/getthefacts ??

    Cheers
    Nathan
     
    Nathan Mercer, Oct 31, 2004
    #9
  10. thing

    thing Guest

    Gordon wrote:
    > On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 16:08:49 +1300, thing wrote:
    >
    >
    >>Nathan Mercer wrote:
    >>
    >>>thing wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>Lets see latest advert Windows 2003 v Red Hat 2.1, Windows 2300 wins,
    >>>>wow, so we are comparing an obsolete 2.1 version with MS's latest
    >>>>flagship....Why not compare RHAS3 I wonder? maybe because the
    >>>>differences are not so big, or worse?
    >>>>
    >>>>Or SuSe's version based on the 2.6 kernel?
    >>>>
    >>>>Lol, Yet more lacking of credibilty....
    >>>>
    >>>>Are you watching Nathan?
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>Which study are you referring to?

    >>
    >>When I clicked on the advert to take me to go look it was not there....
    >>
    >>Guess it got hanked....

    >
    >
    > Okay so, just when did Red Hat reach 2.1? ;-) You are talking about the
    > server version yes?


    Yes.

    For the "open versions" this page details some dates,

    http://fedora.redhat.com/about/history/

    Ive done some googling and failed to find a release date for 2.1, I
    would hunch at 2002.

    regards

    thing
     
    thing, Oct 31, 2004
    #10
  11. thing

    thing Guest

    Peter wrote:
    > thing wrote:
    >
    >>Lets see latest advert Windows 2003 v Red Hat 2.1, Windows 2300 wins,
    >>wow, so we are comparing an obsolete 2.1 version with MS's latest
    >>flagship....Why not compare RHAS3 I wonder? maybe because the
    >>differences are not so big, or worse?

    >
    >
    > Actually, there's a good side to this. Companies that are smart enough to
    > see through the FUD will get an advantage over those who pay the Micro$oft
    > tax. Like, survival of the fittest.
    >
    >
    > Peter
    >


    yes I agree, if Linux was as bad as MS says it would not be where it is
    today. It would not, in the future in Bill Gates own words come down to
    linux and NTx in the datacentres of the future if it was rubbish and
    expensive.

    The battle between the 2 OSes seems to be coming down to marketing and
    perception, not the real capabilities of the 2.

    regards

    Thing
     
    thing, Oct 31, 2004
    #11
  12. thing

    Enkidu Guest

    On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 22:50:13 +1300, Nathan Mercer <>
    wrote:
    >
    >Is it the Forrester report "Windows Users Have Fewer Vulnerabilities"
    >
    >mentioned on http://microsoft.com/getthefacts ??
    >

    The one that says this? Laughable!

    "Don’t change the code.

    The easiest way to mitigate risks is not to change the code. Of the
    140 companies we surveyed, 22% said they changed the code, perhaps
    that is not a surprise. But 46% said they looked at the code and
    didn’t change it.5 How do their companies know they didn’t change the
    code? It is 4 p.m., your Web site is down, it’s the busiest time of
    the day, the programmer can see the code causing the problem
    and he doesn’t change it to fix the problem? Of the 14 direct customer
    interviews we did, only one company said it had a formal audit process
    in place to ensure the code didn’t get changed. We recommend every
    company installing open source components involve their internal IT
    audit department, schedule regular periodic audits, and treat open
    source as they would any custom code in their environment."

    In the vast majoity of organisations any programmer who did that would
    get booted. But anyway, what does this imply for the closed source
    version?

    "It is 4 p.m., your Web site is down, it’s the busiest time of the
    day, the programmer can't see the code causing the problem
    and he can’t do anything to fix the problem."

    The spectre of programmers "fiddling with code" is a figment of the
    marketing divisions of the closed-source manufacturers of software.

    In the real world, changes are only made to a development system and
    only get moved to production when they have been tested and signed
    off. In the real world a programmer would only look at the code to
    understand what the code is doing. In the real world the programmer
    would be coding in a higher language and would not normally go down
    below the language level.

    Cheers,

    Cliff
     
    Enkidu, Oct 31, 2004
    #12
  13. <snip>

    >
    > yes I agree, if Linux was as bad as MS says it would not be where it is
    > today. It would not, in the future in Bill Gates own words come down to
    > linux and NTx in the datacentres of the future if it was rubbish and
    > expensive.
    >
    > The battle between the 2 OSes seems to be coming down to marketing and
    > perception, not the real capabilities of the 2.
    >
    > regards
    >
    > Thing
    >


    Ah.... the "p" word: "perception". Guess what ? People have made purchasing
    decisions based on perception since the year dot. Why ? Because "perception
    is reality". Three or four years ago the general marketplace "perception"
    was that Linux was free (as in beer), stable (when compared to NT4) and
    secure. The reality in 2004 is that the Linux distro's that the majority of
    businesses are using (RH and Novell) are not free, the reliability gap has
    closed to nil and *non comissioned* reports from well-respected research
    companies such as Forrester show that Linux is not more secure. However, as
    always in these discussions, one person's "information" is another's "FUD"
    and I'm not expecting passionate Linux and open source advocates to suddenly
    change their thinking as a result of reading the studies at
    www.microsoft.com/getthefacts

    What we are finding though is that customers prefer fact-based conversations
    (as compared to the emotional variety of a few years back) and are entirely
    capable of finding and distilling information from different sources in
    order to find the solution that's best for their business. Frankly, the
    picture I see painted occasionally by some nz.comp posters of customers
    being "fooled" into making wrong decisions by "marketing" is a complete
    fallacy. While a network engineer might be interested in the fact that one
    OS can get a file from 'a' to 'b' two milliseconds faster than another, the
    CIO may be more concerned about vendor viability or legacy application
    support while indemnification might be top-of-mind with the CEO and CFO. The
    bottom line is that the "capabilities" of a piece of software are one
    component in a much bigger picture when it comes to a purchasing decision
    and ensuring that all parties in the decision have a favourable "perception"
    of the overall solution is the key to a successful sale and a happy
    customer.

    As an aside, if anybody's ever keen to get together with myself and Nathan
    in Auckland and/or Wellington to discuss these studies I'm more than happy
    to arrange it. Both of us enjoy a good, "robust" conversation and I'm sure
    we can sneak some beer and pizza onto one of our credit cards (i.e.
    Nathan's) :)

    Brett Roberts
    Microsoft NZ
     
    Brett Roberts, Nov 1, 2004
    #13
  14. thing

    thing Guest

    Brett Roberts wrote:
    > <snip>
    >
    >>yes I agree, if Linux was as bad as MS says it would not be where it is
    >>today. It would not, in the future in Bill Gates own words come down to
    >>linux and NTx in the datacentres of the future if it was rubbish and
    >>expensive.
    >>
    >>The battle between the 2 OSes seems to be coming down to marketing and
    >>perception, not the real capabilities of the 2.
    >>
    >>regards
    >>
    >>Thing
    >>

    >
    >
    > Ah.... the "p" word: "perception". Guess what ? People have made purchasing
    > decisions based on perception since the year dot. Why ? Because "perception
    > is reality". Three or four years ago the general marketplace "perception"
    > was that Linux was free (as in beer), stable (when compared to NT4) and
    > secure. The reality in 2004 is that the Linux distro's that the majority of
    > businesses are using (RH and Novell) are not free,


    Check out Debian's %, FreeBsd's % (yes not Linux but essentially OSS)

    the reliability gap has
    > closed to nil and *non comissioned* reports from well-respected research
    > companies such as Forrester show that Linux is not more secure.


    I think we could argue this one all day, there have been some serious
    questions and holes put into the Forrester report. I like some of the
    off the cuff comments from security pro's on MS's drive to convince end
    users that MS is more secure, it brougth laughter. I do not see it
    working, at least short term.

    However, as
    > always in these discussions, one person's "information" is another's "FUD"
    > and I'm not expecting passionate Linux and open source advocates to suddenly
    > change their thinking as a result of reading the studies at
    > www.microsoft.com/getthefacts


    Wrong target audiance, I am sure you realise what a waste of breadth
    that would be.

    ;]

    I would assume it is more like the large majority in the middle.

    > What we are finding though is that customers prefer fact-based conversations
    > (as compared to the emotional variety of a few years back) and are entirely
    > capable of finding and distilling information from different sources in
    > order to find the solution that's best for their business. Frankly, the
    > picture I see painted occasionally by some nz.comp posters of customers
    > being "fooled" into making wrong decisions by "marketing" is a complete
    > fallacy. While a network engineer might be interested in the fact that one
    > OS can get a file from 'a' to 'b' two milliseconds faster than another, the
    > CIO may be more concerned about vendor viability or legacy application
    > support while indemnification might be top-of-mind with the CEO and CFO. The
    > bottom line is that the "capabilities" of a piece of software are one
    > component in a much bigger picture when it comes to a purchasing decision
    > and ensuring that all parties in the decision have a favourable "perception"
    > of the overall solution is the key to a successful sale and a happy
    > customer.


    Yes, so why then do we have so much of this "get the facts" campaign?
    Why does MS feel that is has to counter the reality/perception that
    linux is more secure, faster, cheaper, etc etc. Linux has not really
    done any marketing campaigns selling these points, so this suggests that
    these are real world experiences passed on by word of mouth, yet MS
    seems to be countering them with adverts that lack foundation. Adverts
    that quite frankly are providing as much entertainment as the Goon's
    show...

    The Munich, Paris and Newham? were interesting results, one for, one
    sort of ho hum well maybe some bits and one against open source. It
    would have seem to have come down to, getting away from the reliance one
    one eco-system, politics and how much discount.....

    Yet really the first thought should have been, what will do the job?
    Assuming all three decided OSS could 'do it well enough'/'just the same
    as'/'better than' MS it seems to have come down to politics and $.

    MS can counter $ with discounts (ouch), how does it challenge the
    politics? how does its present campaign address this?

    The Munich change is looking more and more like a huge pivot point, at
    this and the other 2 examples, MS seems to have countered with a $
    discount to keep the business with mixed results, what messages should
    this be telling you?

    > As an aside, if anybody's ever keen to get together with myself and Nathan
    > in Auckland and/or Wellington to discuss these studies I'm more than happy
    > to arrange it. Both of us enjoy a good, "robust" conversation and I'm sure
    > we can sneak some beer and pizza onto one of our credit cards (i.e.
    > Nathan's) :)


    > Brett Roberts
    > Microsoft NZ


    Just get Adrian Watkins to drop 2 Hell's pizzas or so on my desk next
    time he trundles up the Kelburn parade.

    regards

    thing
     
    thing, Nov 1, 2004
    #14
  15. thing

    Matthias Guest

    Brett Roberts wrote:

    > As an aside, if anybody's ever keen to get together with myself and Nathan
    > in Auckland and/or Wellington to discuss these studies I'm more than happy
    > to arrange it. Both of us enjoy a good, "robust" conversation and I'm sure
    > we can sneak some beer and pizza onto one of our credit cards (i.e.
    > Nathan's) :)


    Actually, would you and/or Nathan be at all interested in giving a talk
    and having one of those "robust" conversations at a Linux users group
    meeting in Hamilton some time next year?

    -- Matthias
     
    Matthias, Nov 1, 2004
    #15
  16. <snip>

    >> Ah.... the "p" word: "perception". Guess what ? People have made
    >> purchasing decisions based on perception since the year dot. Why ?
    >> Because "perception is reality". Three or four years ago the general
    >> marketplace "perception" was that Linux was free (as in beer), stable
    >> (when compared to NT4) and secure. The reality in 2004 is that the Linux
    >> distro's that the majority of businesses are using (RH and Novell) are
    >> not free,

    >
    > Check out Debian's %, FreeBsd's % (yes not Linux but essentially OSS)


    very few (if any) companies are betting their businesses on Debian and/or
    Free BSD. Commercial users want support and "one throat to choke" hence the
    reason that RH and Novell have the vast majority of Linux marketshare in
    this area.

    >
    > the reliability gap has
    >> closed to nil and *non comissioned* reports from well-respected research
    >> companies such as Forrester show that Linux is not more secure.

    >
    > I think we could argue this one all day, there have been some serious
    > questions and holes put into the Forrester report. I like some of the off
    > the cuff comments from security pro's on MS's drive to convince end users
    > that MS is more secure, it brougth laughter. I do not see it working, at
    > least short term.


    Who said we were in it for the short term ? The Forrester report was not
    commissioned by Microsoft and it brought howls of indignation from the open
    source community. I suspect that some of it was a little too close to the
    bone for some people's comfort.

    >
    > However, as
    >> always in these discussions, one person's "information" is another's
    >> "FUD" and I'm not expecting passionate Linux and open source advocates to
    >> suddenly change their thinking as a result of reading the studies at
    >> www.microsoft.com/getthefacts

    >
    > Wrong target audiance, I am sure you realise what a waste of breadth that
    > would be.
    >
    > ;]
    >


    I still enjoy the occasional "philosophical debate" on the topic but I long
    ago gave up losing sleep over this aspect. Customers are the ones who count
    the most so those are the people I (and everybody else here) concentrate on.

    > I would assume it is more like the large majority in the middle.
    >
    >> What we are finding though is that customers prefer fact-based
    >> conversations (as compared to the emotional variety of a few years back)
    >> and are entirely capable of finding and distilling information from
    >> different sources in order to find the solution that's best for their
    >> business. Frankly, the picture I see painted occasionally by some nz.comp
    >> posters of customers being "fooled" into making wrong decisions by
    >> "marketing" is a complete fallacy. While a network engineer might be
    >> interested in the fact that one OS can get a file from 'a' to 'b' two
    >> milliseconds faster than another, the CIO may be more concerned about
    >> vendor viability or legacy application support while indemnification
    >> might be top-of-mind with the CEO and CFO. The bottom line is that the
    >> "capabilities" of a piece of software are one component in a much bigger
    >> picture when it comes to a purchasing decision and ensuring that all
    >> parties in the decision have a favourable "perception" of the overall
    >> solution is the key to a successful sale and a happy customer.

    >
    > Yes, so why then do we have so much of this "get the facts" campaign? Why
    > does MS feel that is has to counter the reality/perception that linux is
    > more secure, faster, cheaper, etc etc. Linux has not really done any
    > marketing campaigns selling these points, so this suggests that these are
    > real world experiences passed on by word of mouth, yet MS seems to be
    > countering them with adverts that lack foundation. Adverts that quite
    > frankly are providing as much entertainment as the Goon's show...
    >


    You are kidding, right ? A few years back many people genuinely believed
    that "Linux is free as in beer, 100% reliable and 100% secure" thing on the
    "if we hear it enough times it must be true" basis. I would argue that the
    pragmatism that's developed across the board from customers to the media
    since then is in some small way a result of Microsoft providing information
    to challenge some of those myths. You might find the adverts entertaining
    but I can assure you that there are a HUGE number of downloads from the GTF
    site and I have first-hand experience of winning deals against Linux using
    the materials available there. You're not the target market for this stuff.

    > The Munich, Paris and Newham? were interesting results, one for, one sort
    > of ho hum well maybe some bits and one against open source. It would have
    > seem to have come down to, getting away from the reliance one one
    > eco-system, politics and how much discount.....
    >
    > Yet really the first thought should have been, what will do the job?
    > Assuming all three decided OSS could 'do it well enough'/'just the same
    > as'/'better than' MS it seems to have come down to politics and $.
    >
    > MS can counter $ with discounts (ouch), how does it challenge the
    > politics? how does its present campaign address this?
    >


    I think you will find that most people (i.e. "citizens" and "taxpayers")
    simply want their respective governments to choose IT solutions on the basis
    of what's best for them and really don't give a rat's derriere for "the
    politics". The Paris and Newham decisions were interesting and let's wait
    and see with regard to Munich. Microsoft's stated policy with regard to
    public sector procurement has always been one of vendor neutrality i.e. pick
    the best solution for the task at hand.

    > The Munich change is looking more and more like a huge pivot point, at
    > this and the other 2 examples, MS seems to have countered with a $
    > discount to keep the business with mixed results, what messages should
    > this be telling you?
    >


    When it comes to discounts I would suggest you don't believe everything you
    read in the press. As with most things there's always more to the story than
    meets the eye.

    >> As an aside, if anybody's ever keen to get together with myself and
    >> Nathan in Auckland and/or Wellington to discuss these studies I'm more
    >> than happy to arrange it. Both of us enjoy a good, "robust" conversation
    >> and I'm sure we can sneak some beer and pizza onto one of our credit
    >> cards (i.e. Nathan's) :)

    >
    >> Brett Roberts
    >> Microsoft NZ

    >
    > Just get Adrian Watkins to drop 2 Hell's pizzas or so on my desk next time
    > he trundles up the Kelburn parade.
    >
    > regards
    >
    > thing
    >


    That's no fun - turn up at MSNZ one evening for that "discussion" and we'll
    cram you full of the stuff there :) Good taste in pizza by the way, now
    there's a classic example of a company who understands that (a) keeping
    customers happy isn't a matter of being the cheapest and (b) that marketing
    can be a good thing when it comes to winning customers.
     
    Brett Roberts, Nov 1, 2004
    #16
  17. "Matthias" <> wrote in message
    news:iEhhd.1696$...
    > Brett Roberts wrote:
    >
    >> As an aside, if anybody's ever keen to get together with myself and
    >> Nathan in Auckland and/or Wellington to discuss these studies I'm more
    >> than happy to arrange it. Both of us enjoy a good, "robust" conversation
    >> and I'm sure we can sneak some beer and pizza onto one of our credit
    >> cards (i.e. Nathan's) :)

    >
    > Actually, would you and/or Nathan be at all interested in giving a talk
    > and having one of those "robust" conversations at a Linux users group
    > meeting in Hamilton some time next year?
    >
    > -- Matthias


    You bet
     
    Brett Roberts, Nov 1, 2004
    #17
  18. "Matthias" <> wrote in message
    news:iEhhd.1696$...
    > Brett Roberts wrote:
    >
    >> As an aside, if anybody's ever keen to get together with myself and
    >> Nathan in Auckland and/or Wellington to discuss these studies I'm more
    >> than happy to arrange it. Both of us enjoy a good, "robust" conversation
    >> and I'm sure we can sneak some beer and pizza onto one of our credit
    >> cards (i.e. Nathan's) :)

    >
    > Actually, would you and/or Nathan be at all interested in giving a talk
    > and having one of those "robust" conversations at a Linux users group
    > meeting in Hamilton some time next year?
    >
    > -- Matthias


    oops.... I hit "send" before giving you my email address which is:

    brettrobatmicrosoftdotcom

    If you can give us 3 or 4 weeks notice that would be great
     
    Brett Roberts, Nov 1, 2004
    #18
  19. thing

    thing Guest

    Brett Roberts wrote:

    8><--- for now.

    >
    > That's no fun - turn up at MSNZ one evening for that "discussion" and we'll
    > cram you full of the stuff there :) Good taste in pizza by the way, now
    > there's a classic example of a company who understands that (a) keeping
    > customers happy isn't a matter of being the cheapest and (b) that marketing
    > can be a good thing when it comes to winning customers.
    >


    (a) Yes, agreed.

    So why did Ballmer decide to offer big discounts?

    ;]

    (b) Did Hell really market? or was it word of mouth reputation? look at
    Domino's and (the opposition I forget who) spend on prime time
    advertising. Most people I know get Hell's because others have said its
    better than Domino's (or pizzahut or the opposition I forget who).

    So in (b) we could almost say we have a parallel, a difference between
    Hell's and Domino's and linux v MS.

    Having watched the price war in J'ville the parallels are interesting...

    regards

    thing
     
    thing, Nov 1, 2004
    #19
  20. "thing" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Brett Roberts wrote:
    >
    > 8><--- for now.
    >
    >>
    >> That's no fun - turn up at MSNZ one evening for that "discussion" and
    >> we'll cram you full of the stuff there :) Good taste in pizza by the
    >> way, now there's a classic example of a company who understands that (a)
    >> keeping customers happy isn't a matter of being the cheapest and (b) that
    >> marketing can be a good thing when it comes to winning customers.

    >
    > (a) Yes, agreed.
    >
    > So why did Ballmer decide to offer big discounts?
    >
    > ;]


    I'm not sure, he didn't call me to discuss it. I would suggest though that
    you re-read my "don't believe all that you read" comment. It's good advice.

    >
    > (b) Did Hell really market? or was it word of mouth reputation? look at
    > Domino's and (the opposition I forget who) spend on prime time
    > advertising. Most people I know get Hell's because others have said its
    > better than Domino's (or pizzahut or the opposition I forget who).
    >
    > So in (b) we could almost say we have a parallel, a difference between
    > Hell's and Domino's and linux v MS.
    >
    > Having watched the price war in J'ville the parallels are interesting...


    I suspect you are confusing "marketing" with "advertising" - they are
    different beasts. Hell Pizza have a well-known brand, a strong value
    proposition, offer a wide range of products, provide good customer service
    and have customers recommending their products. To me, that is good
    marketing. That, in conjunction with the fact that they don't do very much
    prime-time TV advertising, leads me to agree with you that there there are
    some definite parallels between them and Microsoft :)

    >
    > regards
    >
    > thing
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
     
    Brett Roberts, Nov 1, 2004
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Gazwad

    Re: FUD anyone?

    Gazwad, Aug 30, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    430
    Gazwad
    Aug 30, 2003
  2. Chris Hope

    Novell Responds to Get The Fud

    Chris Hope, Nov 5, 2004, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    335
    Dave - Dave.net.nz
    Nov 7, 2004
  3. thing2
    Replies:
    20
    Views:
    680
    Chris Wilkinson
    Feb 14, 2006
  4. Replies:
    0
    Views:
    449
  5. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    You Want FUD, Here’s FUD

    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Jan 23, 2010, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    363
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro
    Jan 23, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page