[Tfug] Cheap Memory

[johngalt1]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Claude Rubinson" <rubinson>
To: <tfug at tfug.org>
Sent: Monday, December 17, 2007 7:44 PM
Subject: Re: [Tfug] Cheap Memory


> On Mon, Dec 17, 2007 at 07:18:07PM -0700, johngalt1 wrote:
>> I'd say that coder was lazy, incompetent, or incredibly
>> self-centered. The jist of it is that the coder can crap
>> out
>> an un-optimized POS. Then, if the user has a problem
>> running
>> the app, their hardware needs upgrading. (they need to
>> pay
>> more money to make the app work)
>>
>> In economics class they called that an externalized cost
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marginal_cost#Negative_externalities_of_production
>
> It's not actually that simple.  The company is going to
> need to pay
> more money to make the app work either way.  Remember:
> "good, fast,
> cheap: pick 2."  It's all a cost/benefit analysis.  Good,
> well-designed and coded software costs more money to
> produce.  There
> may be times when it's cheaper to throw hardware at the
> problem rather
> than pay for good software.

What is this "the company" reference. This thread started
out using Windows as an example. When MS sells crappy
bloatware that I must pay extra for RAM to make it work, (eg
Vista) it is an externalized cost: that simple.

> If I recall correctly, Google simply
> replaces bad servers rather than fixing them because the
> hardware is
> cheaper than the man-power.  I'm not saying that's right
> or wrong but
> it is rational from a cost/benefit analysis.

I don't follow how this example relates to the
hardware-software tradeoff.
(BTW) does anyone know how one could buy these servers where
Google's labor costs make them too expensive to repair?

If Google replaces servers instead of fixing them, that
sounds eco-foolish.

> Externalized costs are only a problem when they're
> externalized.  That
> is to say, party A is able to put its costs onto part B.
> That's not
> what's happening in the above example.

What above example? After reviewing the previous posts in
the thread, that comment sounds nonsequitur.

> In the above example, the
> company is making a informed, rational choice and all the
> costs are
> internal.  (I'm assuming here that the software was
> developed in-house
> OR that the purchased software lived up to expectations.)

That's my issue. At this point, it looks like the arguement
changed .

> The
> conditions that promote negative externalities are things
> such as weak
> gov't regulation (think pollution), monopoly (PC users
> have no choice
> but to upgrade their systems in order to run the latest
> version of
> Windows), deception, etc (basically, what economists refer
> to as
> "market imperfections.")

Even if you use the app written-in-house premise, there are
external costs when viewed in terms department budgets for
the "throw some RAM at it" scenario. Example: engineering
wrote a POS (fast, cheap) app, so the production division
budget takes a hit for all the PC upgrades that must occur.

If anyone thinks lots of RAM is necessary in this age,
consider distros like Damn Small Linux (sorry Kieth) or
Puppy Linux. In these optimalized distros, the bloatware
libraries and unnecessary code has been stripped off .

I have a P1-133 laptop with 48MB of RAM. It is still usable
with DSL.







>
> Claude
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tucson Free Unix Group - tfug at tfug.org
> Subscription Options:
> http://www.tfug.org/mailman/listinfo/tfug_tfug.org
>
>
>
> -- 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.17.4/1189 - Release
> Date: 12/18/2007 9:40 PM
>