OT: Two ways Microsoft sabotages Linux desktop adoption

Mike McCarty mike.mccarty at sbcglobal.net
Mon Feb 13 22:22:19 UTC 2006


Tim wrote:
> Jeff Vian
> 
>>>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."  
> 
> 
> Mike McCarty:
> 
>>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
>>done.
> 
> 
> Isn't that the cases where Microsoft has done things like:
> 
> If you want the information you need to make your device Windows
> compliant/compatible, you have to agree to our terms.  The same tricks
> they'd did with ISPs about if you want "help" in some way, you have to
> agree not to support non-Microsoft products.
> 
> If you want the right to say Windows compatible (or the rights to use
> similar logo stamps of aproval on the box, etc.), the same sort of
> thing.

Please point out where the coercion is. I still don't see any.
More specifically, where are the "force, law, authority, or
fear"?

>>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
>>competing?
> 
> 
> Have they really?  What other than bog-standard PCs do you see Microsoft
> Windows running on?  And with the huge profits they have, and the almost

I thought I regularly see lists of hardware which "Linux supporters"
should avoid, because the h/w i/f is proprietary, and so the
driver writers for Linux can't/wont get the info necessary to support
the new video chips etc. because they can't/wont afford the price
it takes to buy the docs. Yet Win.. runs on everything I've seen.
To put it another way, what PCs do you NOT see Win.. running on?
I don't see mail echoes where a FAQ is "Does Win.. support this
or that laptop or whatever" whereas I *do* see this for Linux.

> complete monopoly they have of the market, how much of a "risk" are they
> really taking to expand their market even further?

They *purchase* information. Why doesn't the "Open Software Community"
make the same purchase?

Mike
-- 
p="p=%c%s%c;main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}";main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}
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 mailing list