Post by amosf © Tim FairchildPost by DFSPost by Rex BallardI supposed the next question to be asked would be "If you could sell
the machines with BOTH Linux and Windows installed, would you prefer
to do that?
If they say, yes, we would love to be able to sell machines capable of
running Linux and Windows concurrently, then the next question might
be; "What is stopping you?".
a. of the exorbitant cost of installing and supporting two incompatible
operating systems
Actually, the cost of installing multiple operating systems in
negligable. Once you have a master image, let's say a 200 gigabyte
hard drive, and you have multiple operating systems, including perhaps
Windows XP or Vista, SuSE, Red Hat, Linspire, and Ubuntu, you still
have about 150 gigabytes that the user can allocate as desired.
We could even make it easy. Suppose we use Microsoft Virtual Server,
and install Linux Virtual machines - no partitioning problems at all.
Each Linux distributor can then offer the user "support contracts" at
around $50/year for updates and other technical support.
Sure, some folks with limited means might just use the installed
version "as is", but the ones who see value in Linux would probably
have no problem paying $50/year or $5/month for a "support contract".
Post by amosf © Tim FairchildYep. Free linux does make the cost of MS look exorbitant.
Actually, given the potential for revenue from support contracts, the
Linux distributors might even be willing to give the OEMs a "cut" of
the support contracts. Maybe even a "commission" of 5-10% - that's
only $2 per supported PC, but that could be a nice chunk of change.
In addition, offering Linux on the PC might even increase the value of
the PC. Customers might be willing to pay 20-30% more for a PC that
runs Windows AND Linux, than they would for a computer that ONLY runs
Linux.
In fact, if Linux were the host operating system and there were guest
images of Windows, SuSE, Red Hat, and Linspire, you could use a 64 bit
processor, with ext3 file system, and have linux functioning as a
firewall and router or NAT router.
It might even be possible to eliminate the issue of "tampering with the
boot sequence". After all, once the Windows VM Boots, there is no need
to interfere with the VM Boot Sequence. For Microsoft to claim that
this would be a hardship, would be pretty hard to explain to the
Judge(s).
Post by amosf © Tim FairchildPost by DFSb. of the customer confusion it will definitely create
Yep. How come the free one works better?
It's funny, but when people are using a properly configured Linux
system or Linux VM, their biggest confusion is how to get Windows to
talk to it. fortunately, most good VMs permit cut/paste and drag/drop
between the host OS and the VMs.
Post by amosf © Tim FairchildPost by DFSPost by Rex BallardIf they point to specific clauses in the OEM agreement which force
them to exclude Linux, then I think we may have a case for contempt of
court.
And while we're at it, let's ask IBM, Lenovo, HP, Dell, Gateway, Acer,
and every other OEM.
Yes, why don't you? Why haven't you? It's all you Linux weirdos can talk
about - so why hasn't a single one of you pursued the "illegal,
restrictive OEM contracts" accusations any further than the end of your
nose?
I've read the OEM contracts.
I've also read the corporate contracts.
I've also read the transcripts of several Microsoft court cases,
including depositons, motions, and rulings.
Most of these issues are a matter of court record. Some of those
records may be sealed, as part of settlements, but they could be
unsealed if there were a criminal investigation or if the seal was used
to prevent a criminal investigation. In fact, the seal could be ruled
as obstruction of justice and all parties in the settlement could be
prosecuted.
Fortunately for Microsoft, Elliott Spitzer is running for Mayor.
It takes time. A good lawyer chargest $300/hour. Even a legal aid
bills out at over $1/minute. Often, court records require searching
microform archives, these aren't indexed and can't be searched by
"Google" the way Web pages can. It can take weeks, even months, of
research to track down references to cases for which the records have
been sealed. The Antitrust case took 25 states, about 200 lawyers, and
nearly 4 years to research, prosecute, and argue to the appellate
court. Figure $300/hour and 3,000 hours/year times 200 lawyers -
that's about $180 million, almost $200 million including support and
other expenses. Fortunately district attorneys make far less money,
and much of the work was done at "federal or state rates" which were
much lower. But that's about what it would cost for me to try and dig
up the "smoking gun" articles you are looking for.
Post by amosf © Tim FairchildPost by DFS2) you're deathly afraid it will confirm what you already suspect but try
to cover up with macho cola posturing: the OEMs sell what they want to
sell.
The OEMs are given a very limited set of choices by Microsoft. During
the DOJ Antitrust hearings, we sow exactly the kind of choice Microsoft
offered to IBM. IBM could either stop selling OS/2 entirely, or they
could stop selling ANY version of Windows entirely.
Keep in mind that IBM got OS/2 as a settlement for a case in which Bill
Gates was discovered to have personally ordered the Embezzlement of
$millions of dollars from IBM.
Keep in mind that IBM had put Microsoft in it's position by allowing
Bill Gates to keep his intellectual property rights and allowing him to
sell to other OEMs.
Keep in mind that Microsoft double-crossed IBM by eliminating the need
to license IBM's patents and technology - offering "MS-DOS Compatible"
in place of "IBM PC Compatible" technology (I'm not sure that was such
a bad thing).
And the point is, that when given the choice between selling ONLY OS/2
and ONLY Windows, they had to choose Windows, since it was pretty
obvious that the other OEMs weren't going to choose to sell ONLY OS/2.
Is it really such a stretch to believe that Microsoft might have
offered similar choices to the other OEMs?
You don't think they might have said something like "You can sell ONLY
Windows. If you want to sell Linux, then you will not be able to sell
ANY Windows".
Dell sold their machines with SCO Unix when they first started
business.
Compac had Ultrix and VMS, both of which would have run on Linux.
And how might you guess they responded when Bob Young of Red Hat called
them up and said "I'll give you Linux for $2/PC, you can have as many
as you want, and you also install Windows if you would like. All we
want you to do is install Linux. We'll even take care of the user
support. We'll even make sure that your image is properly configured
for your machines.
And when Microsoft came back and told Compaq; "Because you put Netscape
on the desktop and removed the IE Icon from the desktop, we are
revoking your license", do you think that made Gateway, HP, Dell, and
all of the others go "Gee, I guess I should start installing Linux and
Windows on the same machine now"?
Post by amosf © Tim FairchildPost by DFSWhy is it so freakin' hard to understand that basic market demand will
result in a proliferation of Linux OEM and retail vendors? All that has
to happen is for enough customers to ask for (and actually buy when they
appear) Linux machines.
Actually, one of the problems is that the customer does not have to ask
for Linux machines. In practice, all they need to do as ask or Linux
COMPATIBLE machines.
After all, if I can install Linux in less than 30 minutes from a DVD,
and have it fully configured and working with no special training or
effort, then it really isn't necessary to ask the OEM to install Linux
for me.
Of course, the interesting thing to notice is the huge jump in AMD-64
machines, which are nearly ALL Linux compatible (since that's the
easiest way to get 64 bit performance), and the huge drops in price on
machines which are NOT Linux compatible. Many "Windows Only" machines
are selling for less than half their production cost.
And with Vista possibly now being postponed until as late as 2009, it's
quite possible that OEMs will be insisting on some concessions from
Microsoft, like the ability to offer installation media kits, and the
ability to advertize that a computer model is "Linux Ready".