On Nov 2, 6:37 pm, "HeyBub" <hey...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> arkady.dun...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > On Nov 1, 8:26 pm, Roy Schestowitz <newsgro...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> Coming Soon -- the Fully-Customizable Linux Phone
> You think that's funny, check this:
>
> The government of Nigeria bought 17,000 laptops with Linux installed to
> equip their elementary schools.
>
> Nigeria plans to strip off that funny operating system and install XP on all
> the machines.
>
> http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBas...
What makes it even funnier is that Mandriva will get paid, whether
Nigeria replaces Mandriva with Windows or not. Mandriva was chosen
after a very careful and public bidding process, open competition,
evaluations, and selection criteria. Then, after everybody agreed
that Mandriva was the best choice, after Mandriva has the signed
contract, and after Mandriva commits the resources to delivery, Steve
Ballmer has a closed-door private meeting with a very small number of
people, and the result, with now review, no consultation of the
selection committee, and no explanation, is that Mandriva will be
replaced by Windows as soon as the machines are received.
What did Steve Ballmer say that could cause that kind of reaction?
Did he threaten to shut off the vaccinations from the Gates
Foundation? Did he make some sort of bribe? Did he offer to pay them
to do the replacement and offer Windows free of charge?
We've seen in the Ohio vs Microsoft memos that Microsoft has a "Win at
all costs" policy in these scenarios.
I think Mandriva is legally entitled to a public apology and a public
explanation as well as a full public disclosure of ALL of the
statements, promises, and made in those meetings with Steve Ballmer.
The open letter to Steve Ballmer wasn't actually to Steve, it was in
effect a public declaration of deceipt by the Nigerian government.
Mandriva poured a lot of resources into the project, helped with the
hardware development, and did a lot of the foundation work for and
with Intel. Now all of the sudden, there is a secret deal with
Microsoft that threatens to steal that technology away from Mandriva.
The leaders seem to think that a simple letter promising to make the
agreed payment is sufficient to eliminate the need for the same kind
of explanation that would be required for breach of contract.
What the customer doesn't seem to understand is that there were many
concessions made on the basis of non-monitary consideration. Anyone
who has ever bid a pilot project at below cost knows that the hope is
to be able to perform well, get a solid reputation for performance,
and then get additional orders in volumes and quantities that allow
the company to make a return on it's investment. All of the
competitors are doing the same thing, and often sell at below cost to
get the deal - Mandriva also did this.
For a client or customer to say "well, we'll take your hardware and
software you agreed to sell us at deeply discounted rates, but we'll
then remove your software and replace it with your competitor's
product - and buy HIS product in the future.
Microsoft had their chance to come in with a lower price and decided
not to do it. They had their chance to team with other vendors to
produce a $100 PC, and they didn't even come close, I think their
model was $188. Mandriva may have even put some of their own money
into the deal to get the price down to $100, and now Microsoft is
coming in and telling them "Take their subsidized PC, pay them for the
package so they can't force a rebid or disclosure, and then put our
software on, and we'll only charge you $1/PC for the software.
If the shoe had been on the other foot. If it had been Microsoft
bidding the subsidized PC, and Mandriva had said "take the subsidized
Microsoft PCs, then remove Windows and install Linux, Microsoft would
have been retaliating in every way imaginable. Heck, they might have
revoked all licenses to all Windows PCs being used by ALL government
offices.
Microsoft often does use this tactic against corporate customers who
threaten to purchase Windows PCs and replace Windows with Linux.
Often, the tactics are even more aggressive, such as demanding a
complete and immediate audit of all client and server licenses, which
is usually followed by a huge bill for CALs, under-documented
licenses, and even licenses for PCs used by employees and their
families at home. And then they threaten a lawsuit and public
declarations that the company is guiltty of piracy. The discussion
isn't with the entire board, usually just the CIO, and usually in a
place of Microsoft's choosing (to make sure there are no recording
devices), and then they offer him a deal he can't refuse. He can kill
the plans to switch to Linux, Microsoft will forget all about what
they found (but keep all of the records), and he can keep his job and
his freedom. The CIO understands at this point that if he does not
accept the deal, there is a good chance that he will be fired, and
there is even the chance that he will be prosecuted for piracy. At
minimum he has very slim chances of ever being hired as a CIO again.
It's a very polite form of blackmail. Microsoft tried this against
some officers at IBM, and the whole thing blew up and went public. As
soon as Microsoft threatened the audit, Lou and Sam were told. The
only reason Microsoft finally gave them Windows 95 was because FTC
officials were there at the unveiling and IBM's logo was prominantly
placed at the center of the backdrop. It makes me wonder if perhaps
IBM had suggested to the FTC that if they didn't have a contract by
the time the curtain went up, Microsoft would be guilty of fraud and
anyone on stage should be arrested for fraud.
When someone tries to blackmail you, the only chance you have of
staying clean is to go public the moment the threat is made.
Blackmail is only effective when you attempt to keep the "dirty little
secret" a secret.
> The president of the company that supplied the custom version of Linux,
> Mandriva, got his undies undone and wrote an open letter to Steve Ballmer:
>
> http://blog.mandriva.com/2007/10/31/an-open-letter-to-steve-ballmer/
By blowing the lid off the attempted "polite letter" and making it
wide open and public, but addressing the letter to Steve Ballmer,
Mandriva is giving the Nigerian government a chance to "come clean"
and offer the world an explanation of why they made the decision, and
why western businesses should continue to do business with Nigeria.
> "How do you call what you just did Steve? There is [sic] various names for
> it, I'm sure you know them."
>
> As do I.
It sound to me like fraud, extortion, and blackmail, with an attempt
at obstruction of justice on the part of Microsoft. By offering to
pay the agreed money, Mandriva can't force public disclosures in a
public court trial.
By addressing the letter to Steve Ballmer, rather than the goverment
official in Nigeria, it makes it clear that Mandriva is blaming
Ballmer, and allowing the Nigerian government to say "we were forced
to do it".
Needless to say, the EU is likely to be ever less friendly to
Microsoft after this.
They might even decide that the one time fee of $14,000 Euros is too
high, and that it should be reduced to $14 per viewer and only $14,000
for a distributor who publishes it in a Linux distribution.
|
|
