Roy Schestowitz wrote:
> __/ [ Rex Ballard ] on Friday 28 July 2006 19:03 \__
> > Jim wrote:
[snip]
> > The new machine ran Linux perfectly.
>
> This begs for the question. Why weren't all of their machine
> Linux-ready/friendly. One could argue that it's a matter of
> production costs (e.g. Linux-hostile hardware is somehow
> made cheaper). One could step further and ask if Microsoft
> incentive would have it subsidise the production and
> distribution of Linux-hostile hardware such as Winmodems.
Actually, that's pretty easy to explain.
Microsoft goes to hardware vendor X, and says:
I'll help you write a driver, and you will be on the preferred
vendors list, however
you must sign an agreement which includes strict nondisclosure
clauses, and
you agree to persecute/sue anyone who reverse engineers the drivers
for Linux.
Microsoft goes to OEMs and says:
If you use only hardware components from the preferred vendors list,
I'll give you an
"investment rebate" worth up to 70% of the price you are paying for
your Windows
licenses.
OEM figures - hey I can cut my production costs by 20-30% if I use
these components on this particular line. I can sell the machine for
$1,000 each and make a nice $200-$300 profit.
The problem is that these are the ultimate "commodity" machines, and
the price very quickly drops from $1,000 each to less than $400 each,
and suddenly you are LOSING as much as $100 per machine sold. On the
other hand, you can use those "low-end" machines as loss leaders to
bring customers to upgrade to machines that are more "Linux Friendly".
These machines have higher screen resolution (useful with Linux),
larger hard drives (since you may want to dual boot), and more RAM
(since you might want to have both coresident).
Ironically, there is MORE profit in a "dual mode" machine than there is
an a "Linux Only" machine, because the "dual-mode" has to cope with the
memory/disk requirements of Windows, but also allows Linux to exploit
faster CPUs and high resolution displays.
> > I've heard that IBM and Dell will also help users select machines which
> > are Linux friendly.
> > You can't get these machine without Windows, (something about
> > agreements with Microsoft...yada-yada-yada...), however you can get the
> > machines that have been configured to be Linux compatible, and you can
> > get installation media which can be used to install Windows as a Linux
> > client if you'd like.
>
>
> In principle, I am against the purchasing of any machine
> which comes installed with software you are not interested
> in.
Think of it as a "thow-in". The OEM has to buy far more than he needs,
and when he buys way too many, the discounts make it like he's getting
20% of what he actually needs for free. Microsoft does that to make
the unit volumes stay high.
Dell knowns that about 20-25% of those who buy their "Linux Friendly"
machines will be putting Linux on there and running it almost
exclusively. On the other hand, if they start doing things like doing
remote console access to XP machines or 2003 servers, a Windows license
is required for the client machine (even though you actually using
Linux to perform the access).
The DOJ doesn't seem to mind, and the Judge can't do anything unless
the DOJ or compliance committe or compliance officers decide to ask
here to do something.
She has repeatedly expressed her frustration with Microsoft. She seems
to be more aware of both the legal and technical aspects of the case
than Microsoft would like. At the same time, she is allowing the DOJ
to call the shots and avoiding the label of "activist judge". Still,
from her remarks after each of the compliance review hearings, it is
very clear that she is not happy with Microsoft.
> By paying for that Windows licence (as in this case),
> you incidentally show interest in that O/S, regardless of
> the way it all ends up.
That's right. Microsoft still gets to say that 98% of all PCs are
shipped with Windows, and that the remaining 2% are just "pirates and
thieves".
> >> When all else fails...
> >> Use a hammer.
> >
> > When that fails, get a bigger hammer :D
>
> Or have Ballmer sling a chair.
Ballmer does remind me of a Wrestler in the 1960s called "The Crusher"
:D
> Best wishes,
>
> Roy
Rex Ballard
http://www.open4success.org
(site's back up)
|
|
