OT: Two ways Microsoft sabotages Linux desktop adoption

[Mike McCarty]

Jeff Vian wrote:
> On Sun, 2006-02-12 at 00:03 -0600, Christofer C. Bell wrote:
> 

[snip]

> It is a Microsoft problem as we see stated in the article, "Linux
> evangelist John H. Terpstra told me: "Microsoft has used its market
> dominance to coerce OEMs (original equipment manufacturers) and
> resellers not to sell competing products and services."  

co.erce - v co.erced, co.erc.ing v.t. 1 To constrain by force,
law, authority, or fear; compel 2 To bring into subjection or
under control by superior force; repress 3 To bring about by
coercion: to /coerce/ obedience - v.i. 4 To use coercive
measures, as in government. See synonyms under COMPEL.

Please state what, exactly, is this "coerce" that MicroSoft has
done.

> While all hardware vendors have the right to chose what/what not to
> release in the areas of drivers and hardware, it is very difficult to
> get an even playing field when the big boy uses coercion to tell the
> vendor that if he does not play by the big boy's rules he will lose out.
> This stinks of the old mob tactics of the protection racket.

Oh, so MicroSoft has done such a good job of porting its software
to many different hardware platforms, that it is difficult for
others to do as well? MicroSoft has risked so much capital
in purchasing the documentation on how to use some proprietary
hardware that others who are unwilling to do so have a problem
competing?

Is this what is meant by "coerce"?

Mike
-- 
p="p=%c%s%c;main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}";main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}
This message made from 100% recycled bits.
You have found the bank of Larn.
I can explain it for you, but I can't understand it for you.
I speak only for myself, and I am unanimous in that!