OT: Two ways Microsoft sabotages Linux desktop adoption
mike.mccarty at sbcglobal.net
Mon Feb 13 20:19:51 UTC 2006
> Mike McCarty wrote:
>> Jeff Vian wrote:
>>> On Sun, 2006-02-12 at 00:03 -0600, Christofer C. Bell wrote:
>>> It is a Microsoft problem as we see stated in the article, "Linux
>>> evangelist John H. Terpstra told me: "Microsoft has used its market
>>> dominance to coerce OEMs (original equipment manufacturers) and
>>> resellers not to sell competing products and services."
>> co.erce - v co.erced, co.erc.ing v.t. 1 To constrain by force,
>> law, authority, or fear; compel 2 To bring into subjection or
>> under control by superior force; repress 3 To bring about by
>> coercion: to /coerce/ obedience - v.i. 4 To use coercive
>> measures, as in government. See synonyms under COMPEL.
>> Please state what, exactly, is this "coerce" that MicroSoft has
>>> While all hardware vendors have the right to chose what/what not to
>>> release in the areas of drivers and hardware, it is very difficult to
>>> get an even playing field when the big boy uses coercion to tell the
>>> vendor that if he does not play by the big boy's rules he will lose out.
>>> This stinks of the old mob tactics of the protection racket.
>> Oh, so MicroSoft has done such a good job of porting its software
>> to many different hardware platforms, that it is difficult for
>> others to do as well? MicroSoft has risked so much capital
>> in purchasing the documentation on how to use some proprietary
>> hardware that others who are unwilling to do so have a problem
>> Is this what is meant by "coerce"?
> You're overlooking another thing that Microsoft does: it demands the
> /exclusive/ right to place its OS on a computer vendor's machine. It's
> either all-or-nothing with them.
That's no different from what Coca-Cola and Pepsi do. I don't hear
you screaming about them coercing people.
> And if you /don't want/ MS Windows, you're still stuck with paying for
> it. Years ago someone started a movement to try to "return" the
Untrue. If you really don't want it, then vote with your wallet.
Go buy a machine which doesn't have MicroSoft's OS on it. They
exist. If, as you claim, having Win.. on the machine makes it
more expensive, then one of the the ones w/o it on there would
be cheaper, and you'd buy it. Or build up your own machine. It
> pre-installed OS. MS got wise to that and amended their EULA so that
> such returns were essentially at the discretion of the vendor--and then
> the vendors refused to honor returns of the OS. And these days, Dell
> ships computers /without/ any MS installation disks, so that there's
> nothing physical to return! (That, and you couldn't load Windows on a
> second machine even if in some fit of multimedia mania you wanted to.)
> Result: Microsoft sells license after license for its OS, that many
> people will never use. No updates, either. Now where do I, as an
Define "many people will never use". I suspect that 95+% of machines
sold with Win.. on them are used essentially as they come in the
box (with regards to OS, that is, not loading apps or games, etc.).
If you mean "many people" as in "people who use Linux, of which
there are many thousands", then yes, but if you mean "a high percentage
of people who purchase the machines" then no.
> organizer of corporations and LLC's, go to set up a business model
> whereby I might actually induce people to pay for /nothing at all/?
> The only cure for this is going to be for someone to make widely
> available the names of the original manufacturers of laptop computers
> that get a Dell or HP label slapped on them, so that we Linux users can
> go /directly to them/ to buy our machines, and /not a penny/ (or a
> centime, or a pfennig, or a drachma, or a kopeck, or a yen, or whatever)
> will go to Microsoft for software and updates that we will not use.
The "cure" is simply to go out and buy machines either sans OS or
with the Linux of your choice installed. When there is a market,
there will be someone to sell to it. But if, contrary to your
claim, the machines which do not have Win.. on them are *not*
less expensive than the ones which do, then your argument falls
flat on its face. Your claim is that you are paying for something
you don't want just because it is bundled. If when you get
a machine "unbundled" it isn't less expensive, the price isn't
correspondingly lower, that isn't evidence that the seller of
the machine is charging you for "nothing", it is evidence that
your argument is flawed.
This message made from 100% recycled bits.
You have found the bank of Larn.
I can explain it for you, but I can't understand it for you.
I speak only for myself, and I am unanimous in that!
More information about the users