-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
____/ High Plains Thumper on Saturday 13 Aug 2011 04:37 : \____
> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>
>> A foundation for the desktop â one apple, two ideas
>>
>> ,----[ Quote ]
>>> The story of the free software desktop is littered with what-ifs and
>>> might-have-beens. The desktop has been 'good enough' for years, and
>>> can boast some considerable success stories, but has yet to make a
>>> significant breakthrough.
>>>
>>> On the face of it, the free software desktop should be an easy choice.
>>> The average GNU/Linux desktop costs little, looks good and performs
>>> well, and offers a real opportunity to break the upgrade cycle. Cost,
>>> security, scalability and versatility are persuasive arguments for the
>>> free desktop, but other factors have worked against the uptake of
>>> Linux at the corporate level.
>>>
>>> Inertia among users is usually given as the reason and users are made
>>> to take the blame, but perhaps there are simpler explanations. The
>>> desktop has been left in the hands of the Linux companies, and the
>>> Linux companies are many and small.
>> `----
>>
>> http://www.h-online.com/open/features/A-foundation-for-the-desktop-one-
> apple-two-ideas-1318177.html
>
> The one thing that is missing from this article is the anticompetitive
> actions against Linux and competing software companies to promote and
> maintain Microsoft technologies, as summarised in:
>
> http://www.ecis.eu/documents/Finalversion_Consumerchoicepaper.pdf
>
> [quote]
> V. MICROSOFTâS MONOPOLIES HAVE HARMED CONSUMERS
>
> Microsoftâs conduct has allowed it to protect its monopolies, which
> has led to a lack of choice, higher prices, and less innovation than
> would otherwise have prevailed in a competitive marketplace. The barriers
> to entry surrounding Microsoftâs core monopolies remain very high,
> and Microsoftâs market shares and profit margins in desktop operating
> systems, office productivity suites, and browsers have continued to
> reflect its overwhelming monopoly power in these markets.[148] In short,
> Microsoftâs misconduct has harmed and continues to harm consumers
> significantly.
>
> A. Microsoftâs Operating System Monopoly Has Harmed Consumers
> For fifteen years, Microsoftâs share of desktop operating systems has
> remained above 90%.[149] In 2002, when the Final Judgment in United
> States v. Microsoft was entered, Windows XP was the most common desktop
> operating system.[150] Microsoft did not release a successor to Windows XP
> until 2007, when it released Windows Vista.[151] Even then, the âVistaâ
> that Microsoft released lacked the most significant features that
> Microsoft had initially promised, and reviewers labeled it as little more
> than an incremental improvement.[152] CNet News, a leading computer
> industry publication, ranked Microsoftâs Windows Vista in its âTop Ten
> Terrible Tech Products.â[153] Even Microsoft recognizes that its
> stronghold on operating systems has harmed consumers:
>
> The Windows API is ... so deeply embedded in the source code of
> many Windows apps that there is a huge switching cost to using a
> different operating system instead. ... It is this switching cost
> that has given customers the patience to stick with Windows through
> all our mistakes, our buggy drivers, our high TCO, our lack of a
> sexy vision at times, and many other difficulties... Customers
> constantly evaluate other desktop platforms, [but] it would be so
> much work to move over that they hope we just improve Windows
> rather than force them to move. In short, without this exclusive
> franchise called the Windows API, we would have been dead a long
> time ago.[154]
>
> Microsoftâs tactics to prolong its operating system monopoly through
> means other than competition on the merits go hand-in-hand with its
> admitted lack of innovation.
>
> 154. EC Decision, supra note 52, Â 463 (citing an internal Microsoft memo
> drafted for Bill Gates by C++ General Manager Aaron Contorer and dated
> Feb. 21, 1997).
> [/quote]
I don't think the article delves into these issues as they would
complicate the article. The author is a known strong critic
of Microsoft.
- --
~~ Best of wishes
Dr. Roy S. Schestowitz (Ph.D. Medical Biophysics), Imaging Researcher
http://Schestowitz.com | GNU/Linux administration | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
Editor @ http://techrights.org & Broadcaster @ http://bytesmedia.co.uk/
GPL-licensed 3-D Othello @ http://othellomaster.com
Non-profit search engine proposal @ http://iuron.com
Contact E-mail address (direct): s at schestowitz dot com
Contact Internet phone (SIP): schestowitz@xxxxxxxxx (24/7)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAk5GJWgACgkQU4xAY3RXLo6cwACgrJAQerq2PrIhRzGLF/59X24S
DP8AnipSIvHx2JdeLklcKgT/oCLIvFkd
=m4Vp
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
|
|
