Slashdot Mirror
Why We Can't Just Get Along: The Bootloader
mccormi writes: "Byte has an article from the BeOS perspective on why we don't see more dual boot machines from vendors. Browser anticompetitive complaints are nothing compared to what's happening with the bootloaders since the majority of people using computers will never have the know-how or courage to make an OS change."
You and I can't read the license because Microsoft classifies it as a "trade secret." The license specifies that any machine which includes a Microsoft operating system must not also offer a nonMicrosoft operating system as a boot option. In other words, a computer that offers to boot into Windows upon startup cannot also offer to boot into BeOS or Linux. The hardware vendor does not get to choose which OSes to install on the machines they sell -- Microsoft does.
The obvious question here is: why didn't the DoJ use this as part of their anti-trust trial? Isn't this the most blatant example of monopoly leverage in existence?
Most importantly, are there any copies of these "trade secret" OEM license agreements on file somewhere? Without some sort of public record, we pretty much have to take the author's word for it (not that I doubt him).
As much as we'd like to create a technological circumvention for this, we can't. Because the people who are affected by this are the people who don't have enough computer knowledge to even know they have a choice. And Microsoft has, very intelligently, ensured that they never will.
Innovation at it's finest.
The last solution is the one most people choose. The substitute may not work as well as the non-Windows alternative, but unless you're a total fanatic, it's just not worth the hassle.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Clerk's Office
United States District Court for the District of Columbia
333 Constitution Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20001
I'm going to verify the address tomorrow, but in the meantime, I suggest that everyone write her a letter informing her of this issue. Tell her that any remedy she proposes for Microsoft must address the bootloader issue. Be sure to tell her, in simple terms, what this issue really is. Include the URL to the Byte article so that she can read more about it.
And the men who hold high places must be the ones who start
To mold a new reality... closer to the heart
While I find article presents a compelling example of MS' all too common anticompetitive behavior, it does not really provide a credible explanation for BeOS' failure. BeOS may well be a superior OS, in and of itself, but that is not sufficient to attract customers. For instance, the lack of software and support can easily outweigh any benefit that any individual consumer could draw from increased stability and performance.
In addition, I find it hard to believe that installing BeOS as a dual boot system is any greater an obstacle than the numerous other disincentives that present themselves -- especially when it is possible to design software for make the conversion riduculously simple. Dual booting means that you sacrifice useful HD space to both the partition and the OS files. You must learn how to use it. You must purchase much of the software, if it even exists, for BeOS, that you either already own or comes bundled with Windows (hardly an argument for MS), at least if you wish to use it in that capacity. You may have to contend with compatibility issues. The Cost of BeOS itself. And the lists goes on. Any one of these could be sufficient reasons NOT to use BeOS, or any other OS, without that particular form of monopolistic behavior.
Although, MS has no reasonable excuse for its behavior, the writing was on the wall people. All Be's escapade has done is to demonstrate to some, those that believe BeOS to be a clearly superior OS, that a technically superior OS can fail. I do not understand how anyone familiar with the industry could not understand this. Certainly MS' monopoly position played a significant role in Be's demise, but moreso in other ways (e.g., the Applications && OS symbiotic relationsip--although much harder to quantify). Furthermore, even without MS' monopoly position, it is not necessarily impossible for a superior product (which is what Be is presumed to be) to fail.
Suppose an OEM wants to sell dual boot machines, but is afraid of Microsoft's wrath. What's to stop them from selling a computer with Windows-only pre-installed at time of sale, and offering to install BeOS afterwards for a nominal charge?
There is something that runs a danger of being lost in all the noise here, indeed it probably will: Palm only purchased Be's IP assets, specifically leaving Be Inc intact and explicitly with the "rights to assert and bring certain claims and causes of action, including under antitrust laws".
:)
So, we could see Mr Gasee in court after all. Maybe a good time to buy Be stock
Dave
I write a blog now, you should be afraid.
<rant>
OTOH, I don't know why the [GNU/]Linux distro vendors don't do this themselves. Parted seems to be ready - what are they waiting for?
</rant>
<rant more="more">
I wonder if Debian would quit stalling my application (for almost 7 months now!) if I re-wrote the entire bloody installation system. If only I had the time...</rant>
To all of the folks that say that average Joe user can't deal with multiple operating systems on a system
;-)) when one of those choices has been unfairly removed.
;-)
To all of the folks that say that average Joe user doesn't want some things from one OS and other things from a second (or third) OS
To all of the folks that say that average Joe user would never reboot to use a different program
I put forth some counter-examples.
1) A pair of OSes, lauded on the fact that Joe sixpack and grandma can use them, have a dual boot option for the entire line of new computers on which they are shipped.
2) Depending on their needs, some users spend all of their time in OS X and others spend all of their time in OS 9.x quite happily.
-------------------
When it comes down to it, people will accept *anything* if they don't realize that there is a choice. As soon as you are shown your choices, you will fight back when a choice is removed. Most of the people in the US do not complain because they never realized that there was a choice. Most users of Be, Linux, BSD, etc. have been shown the choice and fight back (or at least complain loudly
Why is this so difficult to grasp? The easiest way to deprive someone of their rights is to convince them that they don't have rights in the first place. What do you think high school is for?
- I don't need to go outside, my CRT tan'll do me just fine.
This is insightful? Looks like the typical "I can make any song into a song about bhang" Linuxcentric bias we're always getting fed on /.
The article's not about Linux, nor is it about whether an OSS license would have increased the viability of BeOS. It's about an unfair, predatory license. Linux was every bit as important to this article as BeOS was in paragraph 49 of Jackson's Findings of Fact.* The article is, instead, about a predatory practice that the author, as a BeOS diehard, happened to see firsthand thanks to his relatively unique perspective -- that of a hardcore BeOS user.
Not to say Syberghost doesn't have some insight here (he certainly does), but so does most anything written by Daisetz Teitaro Suzuki, and I don't think his works fit well in this thread either.
In the immortal words of Walter Sobchak, "The OS isn't the issue here, Dude." Careful you don't miss the forest (MS's predatory license) for the trees (love of Linux).
* Specifically, a blip that was tangenentially related to the issue only in that it made for a "value unladen" example to support one of the author's points.
It's all 0s and 1s. Or it's not.