On Jul 13, 3:43 am, Homer <use...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Verily I say unto thee, that Rex Ballard spake thusly:
> > On Jul 12, 10:32 pm, Homer <use...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> Verily I say unto thee, that thufir spake thusly:
> >>> On Thu, 10 Jul 2008 13:27:31 -0700, The Ghost In The Machine
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> It's about 1% of business. How much *cost*, I don't know, but
> >>>> Dell in particular apparently has to set up entirely different
> >>>> assembly lines for its Ubuntu machines.
>
> >>> Yes, but not for technical reasons, that's a requirement created
> >>> by how Microsoft handles OEM's.
>
> >> It's a ridiculous situation, if you think about it. It's be like
> >> Ford requiring separate production lines for exactly the same model
> >> of car, depending on whether the eventual customer was going to
> >> fill it with fuel from either Texaco or Shell.
>
> > Actually, it would be more like when Mercedes created both Diesel and
> > Unleaded versions of their cars. The main care was pretty much the
> > same, but the different engine requirements meant different
> > transmission requirements (since Diesels have a limited RPM range),
> > so even though the chassis and differential were the same, there were
> > elements of the assembly line that were different based on different
> > requirements.
>
> I disagree. Unlike diesel versus petrol vehicles, the PC will take
> either type of "fuel", so segregating PC models into Linux and Windows
> production lines makes absolutely no sense at all, and therefore appears
> to be more like a form of bigotry (much like certain other forms of
> segregation) than anything reasonably justifiable. It's clear where this
> bigotry originates.
The PC will take either form, but the manufacturer ships it with
Windows/Vista pre-installed. If you want to put in Linux, it is a
degree of effort that would be comparable to the effort involved is
swapping out the transmission, relative to the cost and effort.
Figure that a modern Automobile costs about $20,000 and swapping out
the transmission would cost about $2000 or 10% of the price if you
paid someone to do it. The PC costs about $400 and replacing the OS
costs about $100 if you paid someone to do it.
Assuming your time has value, and it takes 3-4 hours to install Linux,
that's a pretty hefty "price tag", considering that someone with the
expertise and know-how to install and configure Linux also has the
skills to earn at least $50/hour.
> > Microsoft places legal restrictions on what can be put on a drive
> > that contains Vista.
>
> Well Microsoft's restrictions should not /be/ legal then. Surely such
> demands should be subject to antitrust investigation.
Given Microsoft's substantial contributions to the Bush campaign in
2000, it's highly unlikely that the current administration would lift
a finger to interfere with Microsoft. The various states have
presented something like 2000 complaints of non-compliance, all of
which the DOJ has decided unilaterally, without investigation, to be
"without merit", including complaints filed by HP, Dell, and Toshiba
about Microsoft's attempts to interfere with their efforts to sell
machines with Linux on them.
Remember that Microsoft revoked ALL unsold Windows licenses for the
Compaq Prolinea line when Compaq removed the Internet Explorer icon
from the desktop (but didn't remove IE), and put the Netscape Icon in
it's place.
It's Microsoft's ability and willingness to unilaterally revoke ALL
licenses if there is ANY violation of the license agreement that gives
them such incredible bargaining leverage. Of course, they don't make
those threats via e-mail or fax anymore, they prefer a more "personal"
approach, like having Steve Ballmer hop on his private jet, walk into
the offical's office, and explain that if the organization violates
the terms of the Microsoft license agreement, that Microsoft will have
to disable all of the Microsoft Windows licenses (disabling the
machines in the process).
There have been many discussions in this newsgroup about various
Microsoft licenses and their terminology. In numerous cases, the
language is "plain english", but can easily be interpreted one of two
ways. The other party (OEM, corporate customer, government
agency,...) naturally assumes the interpretation that is favorable to
them, but it is only when Microsoft decides to engage in it's
extortion tactics that they point out the "Real" interpretation, which
will prevail in court, because Microsoft wrote the final version of
the agreement.
The key here is that the customer has AGREED to be extorted, as a
condition of using the copyrighted software. What would otherwise be
a criminal activity is made legal because it's part of a copyright
license that the customer is supposed to have read and understood
before signing or otherwise signifying his agreement.
This is not without precedent. There was a case many years back in
which a dominatrix was accused of murdering a customer, but she
produced a document in which the customer agreed that he understood
that there was a risk of death, and accepted the responsibility. The
courts eventually ruled that even though the result of the contract
was manslaughter, the contract was legally binding, and therefore, the
woman could not me held responsible unless the prosecutor could prove
that the contract was signed under duress, (which they could not).
> > Furthermore, there are certain hardware components, such as
> > DirectX/10 cards that run very well on Vista, but don't work well at
> > all with Linux.
>
> And yet both nVidia and ATi (AMD) provide Linux drivers for them.
>
> > In addition, Linux users who purchase a machine specifically to run
> > Linux are generally more demanding. They are more likely to order
> > features such as WUXGA displays (because they like to keep several
> > active windows on the same screen, which Vista still doesn't do very
> > well)
>
> But what relevance do monitors have to the production line?
>
> > and 7200 RPM drives (since Linux can actually get the benefit of that
> > performance), as well as 4 gigabytes of RAM (since 64 bit Linux can
> > take full advantage of that much addressable RAM whether the
> > applications are 32 bit or 64 bit, while Vista 64 requires a patch
> > before the system is upgraded from 2 gigabytes to 4 gigabytes).
>
> It'd be nice to think that OEMs were segregating Linux and Windows
> production in order to offer better hardware to the more capable Linux
> systems, but the reality is quite the opposite. IME the type of Linux
> systems offered by traditional Windows system vendors greatly
> understates Linux's capabilities. OEM's, much like some of the Windows
> bigots here in COLA, seem to rather arrogantly and ignorantly assume
> that people who demand an alternative to Microsoft's garbage are only
> making such demands because they are "cheapskates", whilst ignoring the
> reality of Windows' gross inadequacies.
>
> > Beyond that, Microsoft wants Dell to void the warranty of Windows/
> > Vista machines that are upgraded with Linux
>
> And again, this is an unreasonable and unethical demand, which should
> also be illegal.
>
> >> In exactly the same way that it should be none of Ford's business
> >> what brand of fuel customers pump into their cars, it should
> >> equally be none of Microsoft's (or the OEM's) damned business what
> >> software customers install into their computers.
>
> > You obviously haven't read Microsoft's OEM contracts.
>
> Alas, I am not privy to the intricacies of Microsoft's criminal
> dealings, and the clandestine Memoranda of Understanding they use to
> enforce them.
>
> > Everything is negotiable, but Microsoft provides some pretty
> > substantial incentives for cooperating, and some pretty substantial
> > penalties and retaliation for not cooperating with what they want.
>
> I'm sure they do.
>
> > Even though court orders prohibit Microsoft from interfering with
> > OEMs attempts to sell Linux PCs, Microsoft defies the courts by
> > refusing to allow the OEMs to alter the "boot sequence" in any way,
> > if a Microsoft operating system is installed. This is intended to
> > prevent the distribution of "dual-boot" machines, "virtual machines",
> > and other configurations which would allow an end-user to choose
> > between a fully configured Windows system and a fully configured
> > Linux system, either at boot time, or as an "application" started
> > under a virtual host.
>
> Again, this is something else which desperately requires antitrust
> investigation, but the "right" to maintain clandestine deals should be
> addressed first, so that the details and proof of such criminal activity
> can be more widely publicised and known.
>
> --
> K.http://slated.org
>
> .----
> | "Stallman has frequently pointed out, Free Software is by no means
> | antithetical to making money: it's just a question of how you make
> | money." ~ Glyn Moody:http://tinyurl.com/4wn2l2(ComputerworldUK)
> `----
>
> Fedora release 8 (Werewolf) on sky, running kernel 2.6.23.8-63.fc8
> 01:43:14 up 204 days, 22:18, 4 users, load average: 0.06, 0.16, 0.21
|
|
