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.
> 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.
> 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
|
|
