OT: Two ways Microsoft sabotages Linux desktop adoption

[Nigel Wade]

Mike McCarty wrote:
> Tim wrote:
> 
>> Jeff Vian
>>
>>>> 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."  
>>
>>
>>
>> Mike McCarty:
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>>
>>
>> Isn't that the cases where Microsoft has done things like:
>>
>> If you want the information you need to make your device Windows
>> compliant/compatible, you have to agree to our terms.  The same tricks
>> they'd did with ISPs about if you want "help" in some way, you have to
>> agree not to support non-Microsoft products.
>>
>> If you want the right to say Windows compatible (or the rights to use
>> similar logo stamps of aproval on the box, etc.), the same sort of
>> thing.
> 
> 
> Please point out where the coercion is. I still don't see any.
> More specifically, where are the "force, law, authority, or
> fear"?
> 
>>> 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?
>>
>>
>>
>> Have they really?  What other than bog-standard PCs do you see Microsoft
>> Windows running on?  And with the huge profits they have, and the almost
> 
> 
> I thought I regularly see lists of hardware which "Linux supporters"
> should avoid, because the h/w i/f is proprietary, and so the
> driver writers for Linux can't/wont get the info necessary to support
> the new video chips etc. because they can't/wont afford the price
> it takes to buy the docs. 

It's not because they won't/can't afford the price for the docs. It's because 
the docs. simply are not available. The manufacturer supports Windows and 
provides device drivers, and updates, for Windows. They built the hardware so 
they know how to do this. If they won't provide drivers and updates for Linux 
there is no way to support the device on Linux. The manufacturer will not 
provide the specs. for their hardware which are necessary for anyone else to 
write a driver. They normally cite either licensing restrictions (if they have 
licensed from 3rd parties) or competition - they don't want their competitors to 
get hold of the specs. for their hardware.

> Yet Win.. runs on everything I've seen.

Because the manufacturers support Windows. Who do you think provides the drivers?

> To put it another way, what PCs do you NOT see Win.. running on?
> I don't see mail echoes where a FAQ is "Does Win.. support this
> or that laptop or whatever" whereas I *do* see this for Linux.

You would if the manufacturer didn't provide the drivers.

> 
>> complete monopoly they have of the market, how much of a "risk" are they
>> really taking to expand their market even further?
> 
> 
> They *purchase* information. 

Who does? The manufacturers have the information, they don't need to purchase 
it. They won't sell it to anyone else.

> Why doesn't the "Open Software Community"
> make the same purchase?

Because you can't buy something which isn't for sale.

-- 
Nigel Wade, System Administrator, Space Plasma Physics Group,
             University of Leicester, Leicester, LE1 7RH, UK
E-mail :    nmw at ion.le.ac.uk
Phone :     +44 (0)116 2523548, Fax : +44 (0)116 2523555