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."

Comments

Read this article - Worths Gold

[Eugenia Loli]

Yes, before you start replying here, please READ that Byte article. It will show you what really happened with the Ms antitrust case in the issue of the "secret license", and it will explain one of the fundamendal and most important reasons why Be was driven out of business and BeOS never became mainstream.

Re:Read this article - Worths Gold

[be-fan]

Real funny. There are parts of BeOS that aren't particularly stable (like net_server) but the guts have always been solid. Saying that it is buggy is just plain false.

Second, BeOS is probably just as well supported as Linux. There is a great user community, and I have yet to see the Linux equivilent of betips.net. Granted, commercial support on Linux is probably better, but given that BeOS runs a great deal of GNU code (like the entire CLI environment, for example) support on the application level is probably about the same.

As for taking a long time to come to market, that's false as well. BeOS had a solid journeling FS long before ReiserFS came out. BeOS had a great desktop environment (proudly based on the Mac GUI) before KDE and GNOME ever got their acts together. It had sub 3ms audio latencies when the low latency patches were just a gleam in Ingo Molnar's eye. BeOS had technology in 1997 that Linux is just getting today. In another year or two, one will be able to say that Linux is the greatest media OS on the planet. At its current pace of development, there is no doubt about that. However, that level of development will only compare to what BeOS was in 1998.

Enough with the focus shift BS. There have been two focus shifts in Be's history. First, they switched from IAs to desktops. Then, 8 years later, they switched back to IAs. It was a last ditch effort to save the company, and it gave people hope for a few more months. The focus shift was just a symptom of the fact that Be was on its way out, not a cause.

Yes, Be had a lack of applications. That's the problem that any alternative OS that doesn't use X must endure. OSS-types talk about freedom, but what about those who want to be free of the shackles of X?

Linux types always get mean about BeOS. My theory is that BeOS is the only thing out there that could possibly challenge Linux for technological supremacy. The BSD folks have already settled for the server market, and if WinXP is any indication of the future, it looks like MS won't be any competition. No, BeOS was the only thing that could have foiled Linux on the desktop. Well, the cornoation can preceed as scheduled. There are no more troublesome pretenders to the OS throne...

Write Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly

[LordNimon]

According to my research, the web site for her office is http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/. The address listed there is:

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.

Re:Perhaps because few would want them?

[Eloquence]

I dont feel like getting into a MS monopoly argument, so I am not going to say that MS isnt a monopoly, even though I believe they are not (and that the courts will eventually agree with me).

What a nice way to make a statement without having the facts or arguments to support it. "I don't feel like saying the Earth is flat, so I am not going to say it is, even though I believe it is, and most serious scientists will eventually agree with me."

What I will say is that MS, even *if* they are a monopoly and we assume so

What is a monopoly by your definition? Are 90% of the marketshare enough? 95%?

has done nothing to prevent you, the user

*beep* Wrong line of argument. Monopolies are not about direct coercion. Monopolies, while they do have immense market power, are not governments, otherwise they would be called governments. Monopolies, through accumulation of capital and mindshare, may be able to create a market in which it is impossible or very hard for competitors to thrive, even though this may be in the best interest of the consumers. Microsoft is such a monopoly.

"Freedom of choice" arguments sound nice and are exactly the kind of rhetoric you would expect a Microsoft-propagandist to employ -- however, they are fundamentally flawed in that they omit an essential factor that determines our decisions: information. By being a monopoly, Microsoft has the advantage (and, rarely, the disadvantage) of being the focus of all media attention. And they have loads of money to spend on propaganda, too. Your decision to use or not to use a Microsoft OS may be free of direct coercion, but it is certainly not free of manipulation. And because of the nature of an operating system, being the basis for all other software run on a computer, any program that is written exclusively for a Microsoft OS strengthens Microsoft's monopoly. Thus, any switchover can obviously only be gradual, with many people using two or more operating systems at the same time (which, incidentally, has been confirmed in a recent survey of 10000 Linux users, where only 38% used no other OS besides Linux -- even many professionals boot Windows NT or 2K together with Linux).

Linux is now in a position where it can actually compete with Windows in most fields, even in spite of Microsoft's market domination (a fact which lends tremendous support to arguments for open, patent-free software development). But consumers know little about Linux because of Microsoft's media domination, and they can't give it a try easily because of Microsoft's coercive OEM licensing. These are clearly practices of a monopoly by any reasonable definition, and they make it hard for the little competition to gain market share. Whether such practices are illegal under US antitrust law, I cannot say -- I care more about morals than about law. On the basis of morals, I can see no reasonable argument why the kind of coercive OEM licensing Microsoft uses should be allowed.

Double Plus Ungood

[jdcook]

"No, its not illegal! Even for a monopoly! Exclusive contracts are legal even for a monopoly!"

Your use of the word "are" is misleading. It may be legal for a monopolist to enter into an exclusive contract. Then again, it may not. The question turns on specific facts. A monopoly, as the article points out, is not illegal in and of itself. However, a monopolist may not use its monopoly power to compete unfairly.

"This did nothing to stop competiton, except for one specific form of it.

Oh, well why didn't you say so? I hadn't realized that Microsoft's secret OEM licensing agreement didn't do anything except for the stuff that it did. I fell much better now.

"It wasnt brought up because its not illegal! The Sherman Act doesn't regulate free trade, it regulates monopolies trying to use its monopoly power to expand into new markets. Period. This isnt a new market. This is the preservation of an existing market."

The Sherman Act is the first piece of U.S. antitrust law. Not the only piece. It is supplemented by the Clayton Act amongst others. The Clayton Act says, in relevant part:

"It shall be unlawful for any person engaged in commerce, in the course of such commerce, to lease or make a sale or contract for sale of goods, wares, merchandise, machinery, supplies, or other commodities, whether patented or unpatented, for use, consumption, or resale within the United States or any Territory thereof or the District of Columbia or any insular possession or other place under the jurisdiction of the United States, or fix a price charged therefor, or discount from, or rebate upon, such price, on the condition, agreement, or understanding that the lessee or purchaser thereof shall not use or deal in the goods, wares, merchandise, machinery, supplies, or other commodities of a competitor or competitors of the lessor or seller, where the effect of such lease, sale, or contract for sale or such condition, agreement, or understanding may be to substantially lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly in any line of commerce."

"Unlawful" is typically considered synonymous with "illegal." Just an FYI since you don't seem to think that forcing hardware vendors to only use MS OS products in a box if they use any MS OS products in that box tends to create a monopoly in any line of commerce.

In any event, a monopolist is not supposed to be able to use their power to preserve their monopoly. They are supposed to get the monopoly in the first place because the market rewarded their innovation or service or pricing or something. But they have to be able to lose that monopoly. That's what free trade is all about. It's not the monopolists freedom to shove some spray-painted turd down your throat. It's the customer's freedom to decide that today, I don't want to swallow a turd but would rather eat a nice apple fritter from Bob's Donuts in San Francisco. (mmmmmmmm . . . Bob's . . .)

"Anyone of the large vendors could go head to head with MS any day of the week. IBM was prepared to do it, but chickened out at the last second. Compaq had at the time revenues easily topping that of MS. Dell is a freaking-gigantic monolith."

You say that CPQ had revenues easilly topping those of MSFT at the time. What time? It matters. And revenues aren't profits. Look at telcos if you don't understand that. But if any of the big hardware companies could do it, and if it would have been advantageous to them to do it (which you don't say but I assume you agree with since you say that MSFT was protecting their market by using their monopoly power), why didn't they do it? What does your libertarian philosophy tell you about why a company doesn't do something that would give them advantages in the market? Maybe because they couldn't do it? Or are they all just commies?

"They didnt go against MS for two reasons: first, it was easier not to, and the easy road is often the most attractive. Second, no one gives a shit about your alternate operating systems. MS had the hardware vendors by the balls because people didnt have any tolerance for other OS's. Ask Apple how the mid 1990's was for sales. People wanted Windows, Windows, Windows."

If MSFT had the OEMs by the balls because nobody wanted an alternate OS, why does it require OEMs to enter into this "trade secret" license agreement? Maybe because consumer choice can only hurt it? You say that it was easier for the OEMs to not fight MS. But if your opponent is going to grab you by the balls and squeeze, how much "harder" is fighting? Unless your opponent will kill you instead. Hmmm.

I agree with one thing, people do find the easy road attractive. Maybe that's why they parrot libertarian nonsense about how certain choices of certain classes of people are the ne plus ultra of freedom rather than actually thinking.