Slashdot Mirror
Dell No Longer Selling Systems w/o Microsoft OS
UPDATES
1. Effective 8/26 - New Microsoft contract rules stipulate that we can no longer offer the "NO OS" option to our customers beyond September 1st. As such all customers currently purchasing a "NO OS" option on either OptiPlex, Precison or Latitude for the express purpose of loading a non-MS OS will have the following options:
1. Purchase a Microsoft OS with each OptiPlex, Precision or Latitude system.
2. For OptiPlex and Precision - purchase one of the new "nSeries" products (offered for GX260, WS340 & WS530 - details in the attached FAQ) that are being created to address a different OS support requirement other than a current standard Microsoft OS.
We must have all "No OS" orders shipped out of the factory by September 1st. The "No OS" legend code and SKUs will be I-coded on 8/19 and D-coded on August 26th to ensure shipment of orders prior to September 1st. FYI - this effects all of our competitors as well.
Interestingly enough, I was trying to explain this same concept to my father no longer then an hour ago. I'll have to show him this note.
He seems to beleive that "they just make the better product, so people buy it. That's why they are so big. Not because they're an evil company"
01101001 01100001 01101101 01101110 01101111 01110100 01100001 01101100 01100001 01110111 01111001 01100101 01110010
Just what is fraud anyway?
Fraud is the use of a false or deceptive statement for the purpose of getting your money.
Microsoft's lie that it is not a monopoly clearly qualifies as false or deceptive. And, they clearly have given it for the purpose of getting your money.
NexuSys - Linux support by the best
purchase one of the new "nSeries" products that are being created to address a different OS support requirement other than a current standard Microsoft OS. Are they talking Linux here, or what? Does anybody have a link to the mentioned FAQ?
Either Microsoft is acting all monopolisitc again, requiring all these fancy regulations, and just being plain evil, or,
Microsoft is just not comfortable with no OS installed, which means that the user will have to 'find' an OS, that might just be Windows. Although they seem to be very vague, it's not like they're saying you can't get the OS you want.
To add my own personal view, if it weren't for the "because of Microsoft Licensing" bit, it would seem to be a reasonable and sensible strategy. These 'Alternative OS' systems might be customized to used parts that have better driver support, etc.
Anyways, let's watch the flame war begin....
M$ has always been brash...I think it's this type of charging at the US government that has always kept them off-kilter. That, and their large portion of the US economy has made the Government skittish about confronting their obviously Monopolistic tactics.
All it's going to take is a young Attorney with the lack of political awareness to tell the Emperor that he has no clothes.
So let's toast to the young an Naive. Personally, in a world where M$ can do this, I think drunk is a preferred state.
Going Boldy where I surely don't belong,
JoeLinux
Eagles may soar, but weasels never get sucked into jet plane engines.
You can still go to Powernotebooks.
Bill Clinton: Pimp we can believe in. - The Shirt!!!
The second the computer hardware industry gets over it's undying need to profit and destroy its competitors, it can finally do something about Microsoft. If they were all to tell MS at the same time "Hey, guess what, we're going to dictate the terms of what OS goes on our machines now", then MS would be up a creek without a paddle. Unfortunately, the likelihood of this happening is slim to nil, the second a large comp manufacturer did this, the others would go the other way and run to MS saying "Look at what CompStore2002 is doing! We won't do that, give us a break on the licensing!"
Microsoft is using the greed of the industry against itself. Without hardware to run it on, software is useless, and Microsoft is useless. They are in a far more precarious position then they let on...Maybe it's time to give them a little scare
"Anybody who tells me I can't use a program because it's not open source, go suck on rms. I'm not interested." (LT 2004)
What a stupid move on the part of Microsoft. Nothing would push the judge in the anti-trust case more towards the 9 dissenting states.
Whos idea was this? The smart buisness move would have been to finish the settlement of their current anti-trust case, then lock down their vendors. By doing this now, they are asking for trouble.
Typical Microsoft arrogance.
do a google search for:
coke pepsi exclusive contract
The basic sleazeware produced in a drunken fury by a bunch of UCBerkeley grad students was still the core of BIND. --PV
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Right now get Dell computers at an insanely low price! That's right! We've been threatened by Microsoft and our loss is your gain! Get this 2 Ghz Linux box for only 599.00! Seriously, can we look forward to a sale since they have to be out by Sep 1?
Build Your Own System.. I assume that most /. geeks do anyway.. Generally people who can;t build thier own system will find linux hard to grasp anyway. Linux is cool, don't get me wrong, as (of a week ago) all of my systems run RedHat, but as stated on another /. story, how many of your moms run linux? Or your dopy blonde sister's run linux?
"It's not like your minds are as open as the source you love..." - Me to the majority of Slashdot.
Ok I see this in two ways. MORE MS Monopoly, and
Dell probably signed a sweetheart of a deal with MS for say 10 bucks per copy of OS they ship. However Dell has a built in per system cost for 50 bucks per OS into all builds. All companies do this, think you are getting a good deal on the car? They all make money.
So Dell signs a sweetheart deal. Adds 40 bucks of profit for each PC sold. No brainer for the bean counters. Cause they already ran the numbers and saw Linux support would cost them for more than selling Linux PC's would make them. I bought a few Linux servers from them and had to reinstall as soon as I got em. But then again who doesnt with any os?
MS still goes out on Dells as well. We should look at what the bennies are for Dell.
Two Things.
Dell says " 2. For OptiPlex and Precision - purchase one of the new "nSeries" products (offered for GX260, WS340 & WS530 - details in the attached FAQ) that are being created to address a different OS support requirement other than a current standard Microsoft OS."
Ok so they are addressing the issue and selling systems with other OS options than MS. OK, so the above means you can still go non-ms on certain systems.
I want to see the attached FAQ the email talked about before I start the barn burning.
The whole story please.
Puto
The Revolution Will Not Be Televised
This isn't so much about being a monopoly as it is being absurd.
Sure, the business model seems to work fine.
Microsoft says: "If everyone is using our operating system, we make lots of money".
Dell says: "We sell a lot of computers using the microsoft operating system *anyway* - and in fact, they make up 90% of our business - so why argue? Let's just switch to 100% microsoft!"
See, here's the problem. If Microsoft is the only company supplying operating systems to home users, we have no growth in the operating system market. People are content to see their system crash, people are content to pay 200 dollars more with their PC for an intangible piece of software which claims to be better than everything else.
Sure, I like WindowsXP. I use it often, my machine dualboots XP and Redhat. But I like the option of booting redhat, and I like the option that Dell had previously given their customers.
I wish dell would just say no. Dell, Gateway, the rest of them should form the same trust that microsoft has. If all the computer manufacturers got together and said, "You know what? We're not going to take this. From now on, you're slashing the price of your OS or no one is going to use it, because it wont be available for any systems." Microsoft would listen quick, or would call lawyers against the same type of bullying that they themselves do.
Oh well. Another one bites the dust.
Well, this might mean any of several things:
a) There has been some legal development in what's left of the legal arguement that we don't know about, but is distinctly in Microsoft's favor, and has made them more bold
b) Dell might have decided that the "No OS" clause doesn't restrict them from selling Linux boxes, and along with other vendors allowed Microsoft to set these terms to get cheaper licenses. What Microsoft defines as "No OS" isn't clear, but Linux certainly isn't "No OS", at least here in the real world.
c) Microsoft is becoming increasingly worried that the legal proceedings are not going well, and wants to get this new contract into effect before the judge forbids such moves
d) Or the most likely of all - Microsoft is ignoring all legal and consumer issues and is being openly anticompetitive in order to milk the cash cow some more. Maybe they believe that if they act like the consumer doesn't and shouldn't give a rip about it, it will be true.
"I object to doing things that computers can do." -- Olin Shivers, lispers.org
Otherwise, you want to have another choice -- build your own damn machines and save a grand for each machine.
Okay, so you want Linux and enterprise support... I hear IBM does the Linux thing. Why don't you give them a call.
If Dell wants to cave to Microsoft, then consumers who really care will take their money to IBM or one of the independent vendors.
In the meantime, does the Department of Justice read the newspaper? What are they thinking??!!
-brian
I really don't see this as being a bad thing on Dell's part. MSFT is doing something crappy to the hardware folks (big suprise, they've done it before). Dell is, in case nobody noticed, planning on an alternative for folks that don't want MS OSen installed (see point 2 in the memo). Frankly, I'm more disappointed with Dell as a potential customer for not offering AMD-based solutions than I am for them this.
Also, this is only in reference to their consumer product line (if you define the precisions to be semi-consumer). You'll notice if you go to their site that "No Factory Installed Operating System" is the default for their server products... I'd be waaaaay more pissed to be forced into paying ~ 800 usd for win2k server than I would be about ~100 usd for xp. Also, the consumer line is where it's most likely the customer is going to want windows, it's a much more ambiguous situation on the server end of the spectrum (NT? NetWare? Unix?) so Dell is listening to their customers by offering a wide range of choice there.
News for Geeks in Austin, TX
Seriously, before we go off on a big spree about how Microsoft is bad and all that, let's keep in mind that Dell could have fought the licensing in court if they really wanted to. They could have used the precedent of Microsoft as a monopoly to tell them to fsck off. Microsoft could have tried to "punish" them, and Dell could have beat them down even further. There is/was a perfect chance to fight against the monopoly, but Dell just turned over and gave up.
Yes we're all QUITE aware of how evil M$ is. I could rant about that for days, but here on Slashdot it's preaching to the choir. What I see here is a company (Dell) basically enabling that evil to thrive. Wanna boycott something? Boycott Dell and make them realize they should have fought back.
Electronic Frontier Foundation for online civil rights information
FYI - this effects all of our competitors as well.
Can anyone confirm this? Making cries of "I'm not going to buy a Dell now" are silly unless you're willing to expand your list to (probably) Gateway, Compaq, HP, E-machines(are they a competitor?) if this is actually the case.
But surely I must be able to legally opt out of the EULA by returning the sealed agreement.
If there is a license agreement then there MUST be an opt-out mechanism of some sort.
Or would you have to return the whole computer !
I imagine if 1% of slashdot readers bought a Dell (or other brand) read and refused the terms in the EULA and asked to return the machine/software Dell and others would get the point and force the issue with MS
Even if this is legit, is it really that big of a deal? Most Linux users know enough to ignore the "Dude, you're gettin' a Dell" dude, and build their own systems anyway.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
Why does buying a new computer mandate that you've got to license a new product from microsoft?
If I've already got a windows machine, in theory, why can't I just install the same OS license on the new box and throw away the old one? (I know, scary, but it's what most people do).
Seems like extortion and product bundling to me. It's like mandating that every time boeing sells a plane, they bundle 500 million gallons of jet fuel and charges an extra 15%, even though most airports just don't need that surplus.
Between the way various article postings lately are all but Slashddot-sanctioned trolls (EU-only internet, anyone?), the fact that I don't think even Microsoft is so stupid as to try something like that when Judge Kolar-Kotelly hasn't signed off on anything one way or the other (Ballmer wouldn't want to find himself in a cell for contempt of court), and the story comes from "some sysadmin" whose "e-mail address" is in the Hotmail domain...
Well, let's just say I'll believe this story once it's verified by a third party.
There are two problems with that:
1. Microsoft is pushing that having a computer with an OS other that installed on it is illegal (especially when they are donated to schools.)
2. More imporantly, Microsoft gets paid for every computer that sells with their OS. If you buy with theirs and remove it, you just gave MS your money for no reason.
~ kjrose
(marked up 200 dollars because of windows XP installation - sorry :()
That a Dell PC would cost you a truckload of money more than one from Wal-Mart anyhow, so go buy your OSless PC there. And be sure to let your relatives and such know where they can get non-MS PCs when they think of buying.
Okay, so let's say I've bought 20-30 licenses for Windows 2000. So far each computer I've ordered from Dell has been w/o a license.
Now then, I order another 30 licenses for Windows 2000 because Microsoft has decided to dump the sale of W2K. Do I get my money back from Microsoft after I get a new license from Dell with the new computers?
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
What they mean is that they are going to go from offering "hardware A, available as model B, with option C" to "hardware A available as model D which is available only with option C"
Bascially, the contract with MS says that they can't get the OEM price unless they sell the model in question with only MS products. So, they have to create another "model" which they ship without an OS. The obfuscation in the letter is designed to avoid outright saying that they're using the word of the contract against MS, so that MS can't say in court that Dell violated the contract in spirit (I'm not sure how defensible that would be, but if I were Dell, I'd avoid it too).
Seeing how Red Hat and Dell have a good partnership in place, and Dell is going to be featured at Red Hat's booth during LinuxWorld, I would imagine Dell is going to provide a separate line-up of Linux systems that gets around this MS requirement. Dell has a history of supplying only what customers will buy, and since there is a lot of customer interest in Red Hat Linux, I think they are working to satisfy that demand.
This announcement will not have any affect upon the current litigation. At least not the case by the States.
The reason is that all testimony has already been taken.
It is just like the stupid decision by the appellate court that Microsoft did not try to monopolize the browser market. That was clearly incorrect but the court is strapped with the evidence in the case as of the testimony. And as of years earlier, Microsoft only acheived about a 50% market share. And, with those facts before the appellate court, you are likely to get such an opinion.
However, when the AOL case gets to the jury, facts will be completely different. Then 90-95% will be evidence. Very different indeed.
That is a basic problem with the legal system and it is why Microsoft lawyers can lie in public the way they do. Microsoft lawyers lie to the press and to the public based upon old facts that are clearly no longer relevant. But, to the ignorant, it is a sale.
Funny, however, that Microsoft again starts to lie about having a monopoly.
But, they are just a bunch of cheap liars anyway. They have proven that numerous times.
Remember the idiot under oath who told the judge that SUNs JVM was not included with XP because of the GPL?
And, remember the idiot that told the judge that Microsoft will withdraw from the market if it does not like the judgment?
And, remember the three stouges that each claimed they thought removing icons had something to do with commingled code.
Microsoft's lies are not even credable and yet they spit them out to defraud consumers. And, the judges as it turns out.
NexuSys - Linux support by the best
It should probably be noted that this probably does not include PowerEdge servers. While I have never been able to figure out how to get an OptiPlex system without a Microsoft OS, I believe the servers will still offer the no-OS/linux OS option.
I didn't receive the e-mail, but the snippet above does not mention servers and they are usually handled differently.
Dell is the #1 or #2 PC supplier in the world. They have a tremendous amount of power with all of their suppliers. If they really didn't want to agree to this they didn't have to. They simply could have said NO and Microsoft would have changed their agreement. They don't want to risk another PC vendor promoting and improving Linux like IBM has done.
If Dell agreed to this it is because they didn't believe the fight was worth it. They have made a lot of statements to the fact that they aren't making any money off Linux sales so it makes sense that they would choose to do this.
If the Linux community wants the big PC vendors to start supporting Linux and making agreements that don't harm the Linux community they need to start making it apparent to Dell. The next time your company is looking to upgrade its desktops contact Dell and request a quote for their standard business desktop with Linux preinstalled. When they point out that only certain systems are available inform them that you know for fact that Redhat/Mandrake/Debian/Etc. installs perfectly on the Optiplex you want and that you will be taking your business to another PC vendor that supports MS. If Dell wants your business they will meet your needs, and their policies towards restrictive Microsoft licenses will change.
"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them."
They didn't even get a slap on the wrist for this behavior.
Read the court's findings of fact. The court decided this behavior was an "anti-piracy" measure--not the anti-competition measure it really was.
I see lots of angry condemations here - but this is actually very typical price negotiation. Microsoft didn't go to Dell and tell them they couldn't sell PCs with other OSes or they wouldn't sell them Windows any more. Microsoft went to Dell and offered them huge discounts to Windows if they signed an exclusive offer. Dell saw the dollar signs and agreed.
Dell has done a pretty good job with their letter blaming MS...but MS would be ignoring basic business practices if it didn't offer and option like this. I'm sure Dell is happy with the deal and laughing all the way to the bank.
If you "just fdisk the thing" then you are letting M$ steal your money!
Lets say that Firestone tells Ford that if they want Firestone's high performance special tire for a new Ford hot rod (only made by Firestone) Ford has to outfit their entire product line with Firestones. It's an all or nothing deal. What happens then? Bridgestone, Cooper, and all the other manufacturers sue. They'd probably win too. How come that doesn't work here? This just plain sucks.
Imagine the same action taken by a large publisher in the bookselling industry.
Barnes and Noble: "Our contract with HarperCollins stipulates we can no longer sell blank journals or college ruled notebooks. Customers will have the following options:
1. Purchase a book published by HarperCollins.
2. Purchase a book published by another publisher.
HarperCollins demanded this because we all know people don't use blank paper to write their own stories or notes, but to pirate their intellectual property.
FYI-This affects all our competitors as well."
I don't need large brains to have a good time.
Are they considered a competitor?
IWARS.
People, in general, disappoint me. Politicians even more so.
We wanted linux to run the enterprise, so we just bought a certified linux cluster from HP. This thing costs us a boat load of money, a boat load of money DELL will never see. Dell is going to do to themselves what Gateway did, they are not enterprise players.
Got Code?
This is exactly what drove me to buy an iBook over a wintel notebook. I found it extremely offensive that I could not purchase a relatively decent laptop without purchasing Windows XP with it.
Ludicrous!
Instead of merely preformatting future harddrives, they'll all come preinstalled with Microsoft DRM-OS.
The cost of hard drives will increase 4-fold, and it will be "our own fault for pirating Windows so damned much." Congress will pass a law prohibiting the reformatting of hard drives to circumvent the DRM-OS (oh, I suppose the DMCA would apply, but they'll pass another law for good measure).
Someone will be made an example of, probably a dirty hacker-type who was getting a little too uppity with his IT-grade salary. Too rich for the poor folk to sympathize with, but too poor to admire for his chutzpah. The public will fall into line, and the publishing industry will be double-plus-safe. What a relief for all of us that will be, because there'll be no reason to fight anymore. We will have lost.
I don't need large brains to have a good time.
Look, I'm not some fanatical Linux Zealot on the fringes of society. I'm a programmer, system administrator, IT manager, whatever you want to call it. I use Linux and other free OSs, and I really hate being treated like some psycho zealot on the fringe when I try to avoid doubly (and sometimes triply) licensing microsoft software for Clients' PCs. ("You want what? We don't do that? Whats a EULA?" HP, Compaq, Gateway and now Dell. its all the same.) I mean, honestly, where is my FTC? Where is my consumer protection? It goes beyond frustrating.
Wendell
VADER: I am altering the deal. Pray I don't alter it any further.
IS it really about the OS or some hardware chip?
Compare that to the attitude of Ashcroft's DoJ which was genuinely shocked when the court of appeals upheld the bulk of the Jackson's decisions, and has proposed remedies so lightwieght and useless Microsoft is doing most of them voluntarily and the states have rebelled against it.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
I recently took up a job in a College in the UK. As part of the Summer upgrade schedule, I have to purchase about 30 new PCs, with operating system and Office software. The plan was to move the OS (W2K) from the old systems to the new, which I thought would be OK because the OS was purchased separately from the PCs themselves.
When I told this to the PC supplier's rep, he became very, very agitated -- to the point that he seemed so rude I nearly told him to leave. He said we couldn't move the OS from one system to another, and (furthermore) they wouldn't sell PCs without a version of Windows on them.
I checked this on a sys admin mailing list I subscribe to. He was right: MS sued a company for supplying OS-less PCs, and could have bankrupted them with the court judgement (UKP100,000 fine). That's why the rep became so agitated: he didn't want the same fate for his company.
I don't know which aspects of the law come into play here, or which part of the EULA fine-print, but at the moment I'm looking for ways to increase the use of Linux and may be able to persuade some of our users to use it. In the end, this might work in favour of alternative operating systems: contrary to what M$ seem to believe, many of their customers do not have unlimited funds and will seek alternatives.
...but not outright monopolistic. They're not preventing Dell from selling Non-MS machines. Only models that ship with Windows can no longer ship with anything else. And Dell has offered up replacement models that will be OS-less. So while it may seem dirty (and stupid) it's not horribly anti-competitive. You want an OS-less Dell pc? Buy a different model.
do not read this line twice.
This was a late post to that article but one that I think is very relative to this article and the MS open choice fraud article.
To illustrate the monopoly issue here, what would actually happen is this. Firestone would tell Ford that they have to outfit everything with firestone tires. Then Ford would put out a bid to the other manufacturers to provide a replacement for Firestone's tire. One of them would undercut Firestone, if for no other reason, than to keep them from taking over Ford's tires, and that'd be that. This is what happens in a competitive market, unlike what we see in the O/S market.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
If I am trapped in a difficult situation and have to take money from an unfair employer in order to eat and stay alive, am I forbidden from criticising that employer's greedy and dishonest practices, and telling others about them?
while i can see your point with respect to advertisements. i wouldnt equate not being able to play diablo ii with not being able to eat. i personally think such an analogy trivializes people who have real problems. the editors here often comment on video games they play under windows.
i like video games, and really wanted to play warcraft 3 when it came out. since it only runs on windows, i refuse to purchase it. also i've recently stopped purchasing cd's released by members of the riaa, and i'm probably going to stop watching movies for similar reasons. this is really the only thing we can do to make the corporations listen.
-- john
Comment removed based on user account deletion
1. In the meantime, does the Department of Justice read the newspaper?
2. What are they thinking??!!
1. Only the Washington Times.
2. They were thinking of all the money given to the Republican party by Microsoft.
photosMy Photostream
Despite all the rhetoric coming out of our government about how horrible this is and how we need a return of ethic to corporations, I'll be very surprised if anything really changes in the long run. The only real change I expect to see is stock holders will change the rules for their CEO's because it isn't in their long term best interest for a CEO to over-inflate his options and bail out.
But as far as ethics in business go, there is only one ethic: make money. The system is set up to encourage a company to find the shortest path to greatest profitability, and that's the way it will likely always be. Is this bad? Depends on what you want companies to accomplish. If you want them to achieve economic growth, increasing efficiency, etc, then they are ideally groomed to do this (as our economy has demonstrated over the past decades). But don't expect any higher moral sense to come out of a company unless there is a profit motive behind it. It can happen, but the system isn't designed to encourage it.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
I missed this the first time through, because the Dell email is poorly written. But if you read the letter carefully, it's pretty clear to me that the poster of this post's parent has it right.
I think that you could argue that forcing companies to sell different models for non-OS systems is an overwhelming use of monopolistic force. The OEM price is much less, and not getting it prices your model out of the marketplace. And what hardware manufacturer have made models just for, say, an infant Be?
But the fact remains that the article doesn't say the things that most of the people here are arguing against.
For any orders already in that they refuse to honor should be "Keep your hardware, give me my money back, immediately"
Then go out and roll your own.
This is bullshit.
"Understand, this is neither a good nor a bad thing in the moral/ethical sense. In the world of business, there is no right and wrong in the moral sense, only "right" as in following the law and making money."
In a 'world of business' ?!?! where does that world exist ? Oh yeah RIGHT HERE WITH THE REAL WORLD, and all the REAL PEOPLE, with MORALS and ETHICS, or a lack of them. That kind of rationalization makes me ill. Defective people put profit over lives. There is plenty of room to make a 'comfortable' living without raping the land and degrading the people that live there.
The corporations have gotten so pervasive, even the schools are now teaching profit thought.
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
Actually, only 53% of Microsoft's political donations went to Republicans. Guess where the other 47% went. They're an equal-opportunity rent-seeker.
How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
On a similar note Dell has been configuring their laptops with the intel 830m chipset (I purchased an Inspiron 2600) so the BIOS won't play nice with Xfree86. The BIOS only allocates 1mb of video memory which isn't enough to get full screen resolution. You need a Windows specific BIOS hack from the restore CD just to get decent screen resolution. That's bad when even the WindowsXP CD can't play nice with the BIOS settings.
Here is post on Xfree86 about it.
Here is the Intel page. Notice at the bottom where they bitch at companies like Dell.
bash-2.04$
bash-2.04$yes "Don't you hate dialup connections?"| write USERNAME
I'll admit the email sounds bad, but this is Slashdot and anyone who trusts a small email excerpt posted here without delving further into the issue is asking for trouble. Until we see the FAQ and hear about RH systems from Dell, including the "unbreakable" Oracle/RH/Dell server, I'm going to reserve judgement.
I thought one of the stipulations of their settlement with the DOJ was that they wouldn't do that sort of thing any more.
If M$ was pressuring Dell to remove the No OS option, they should have made a public fuss about it to get this practice better known. Even if that meant losing the contract. I mean, can you see the headlines in the financial papers? "Dell loses Microsoft contract for offering alternative, competing software bundles" That'd catch a few eyes. Maybe people would start buying Dell machines without an OS whether they wanted Windoze or not, just out of spite for the evil beast.
I couldn't believe it when I read what M#@*$#Soft had done...AGAIN!! So I called up a Dell rep and brought up the /. article. I spoke with a rep in charge of small business sales. Apparently any business with less than 400 employees is SMALL to Dell! I reckon that's about 90% of ALL businesses...Instead of politely and professionaly giving some sound, logical reason why they had made this policy decision he simply, arrogantly stated "Well, we don't have any problem selling computers with Microsoft OS's installed".......
:)
Then I calmly stated that "you're going to have a lot of backlash from this decision. People wont like this. You're going to lose a lot of POENTIAL future customers because of this!"
To which he again reiterated his previous stance "Well we just wont know what we missed, will we? We don't have any trouble selling systems with Microsoft software installed"....
I suppose that this is truly a match made in HELL!
Arrogant, greedy, self righteous fucking bastards! As the owner of a small business that's about to become quite large I say "FUCK YOU DELL AND MICROSOFT!!!" My corporate policy is NEVER USE MICROSOFT OR DELL PRODUCTS! These are truly evil enterprises!
P.S. Have a lovely Open Source Day...Share your FREE as in FREEDOM Open Source Love Today
The funny part is, that MS want's us to sell PCs with operating system and customers wants to get PCs without a preinstalled OS.
My firm is solving this thing by just adding a SuSE-Live-Eval CD to any PC that is delivered with an empty hard disk. So the customer is fine since he doesn't have to pay extra "MS taxes" and MS can't complain since we are shipping every PC with an operating system.
Con-men, Microsoft and pathetic liars have a lot in common.
... on and on. By the end of the week, nothing they have said was true. It is amazing. How they manage to make claim after claim and they are all false.
Whether something is actually true or not never enters the picture.
The test is whether enough people will be defrauded when they hear it.
But, true con-men are more intelligent. They actually need to have the con work or they could get arrested. Microsoft and pathetic liars can not help themselves.
I have known pathetic liars so bad that they use one lie to try to cover for a previous one. And, if that fails, they offer yet a third, and a forth
Microsoft is pathetic.
They lied about their having a monopoly before the judge made that ruling. And, now they lie about it again just assume some idiots have not figured it out and will be defrauded again.
There is no doubt that fraud works.
And, many Microsoft supporters will believe anything because Microsoft got their money. It is funny though. When criminals and con-men get your money, the mark usually figures out they were had but it is just too late. Microsoft supporters are charactistically not intelligent enough.
Yes, even little old ladies usually figure it out eventually.
NexuSys - Linux support by the best
It sounds kind of like a hoax to me.
Microsoft was doing this kind of stuff before and told by the government not to (with the threat of being told not to again). Doesn't mean they wouldn't do it again, but that a person would not have to be very creative to come up with something like this.
Until I see a link to something on Dell's website backing this up, I'll withhold judgement. Its not like Slashdot is a pillar of the journalistic community - I doubt they asked MS's or Dell's opinion or in any way tried to find out about this from another source.
That was for the 2000 election when things were up in the air as to who would win.
Things have changed Since Ashcroft tried to hand the remaining 5% of the market to Gates.
photosMy Photostream
This is partly correct. Businesses have no primary drive toward lawful behavior, however. They obey laws (and act ethically) only in situations where it is more profitable to do so.
Often they can make more money by flouting the law--this is why they do it so much. It's not that they're evil; they're simply profoundly amoral.
I don't believe that this is the way things should be, but it's the way things are now.
--Mike
"Not an actor, but he plays one on TV."
"What a huge difference"
Really now. Companies who have their own OS images can no longer save themselves money by purchasing a Dell system without an OS because Dell is forced to install SOME OS before selling it. I guess Dell could still sell them Linux or some other FREE OS even though much of it's customers are not purchasing THAT FREE OS on that particular model....
Get real buddy. What's going on here is Microsoft does not want ANY desktop systems going out of OEMs without MS Windows on them. By preventing OEMs from selling OS-less PC's, they either force the OEM to have Linux disk images for all their PC's(desktops and servers) or what's most likely to happen, they'll just keep Linux disk images for their servers since hardware on the various desktop systems many times include Windows specific Win-XXX hardware.
Remember, Win-Fi(Soft-WiFi) is coming soon so when Microsoft pays all the mobo vendors to include the Win-Fi hardware, Linux won't work with this and like the Win-Modems, we'll end up paying for something we can't use for a while. By keeping the hardware "tuned" to the Windows OS, there's not much savings on the desktop with a FREE OS when features are not usable.
I think the title should be changed to:
"MS stops large OEMs from selling systems w/o MS OS"
or
"MS attacks Linux Desktop migration by preventing OEMs from selling systems w/o MS OS"
There are always more than one way to interpret what the meaning is behind what Microsoft says and does. They are the masters of double-speak. IMHO
LoB
"Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
Given the tiny penetration of Linux on desktops, it would seem reasonable for Dell to not offer Linux on those systems for simple economic reasons: technical support (for which Dell is known) is less expensive if your staff doesn't have to deal with disparate OS's. They can obviously get around the contract provisions with new part designators, but the fact that they only did so for servers reflects the realities of the operating system market, not legal positions.
The news is not that Dell doesn't offer Linux on its desk/laptops, but that Dell offers alternate operating systems on their servers. Why? Because Linux has had its greatest success in servers, and thus there is significant customer demand.
So why not sell desk/laptops with no OS at all? Same issue - tech support.
If this is simply about Microsoft bullying, why would Dell offer Linux on servers, the area where Microsoft is currently making its biggest push to try to unseat Linux?
Microsoft has an effective monopoly on desktops. Regardless of how it got that way, it is now a fact that most people (including myself, an experienced 20 year Unix user) want Windows on their desktop. This is because Windows has the most applications software that normal people (and even geeks like myself) use. It is the same lockin that kept IBM's monopoly for so long.
The fact that Dell recognizes this (although they blame it on Microsoft) simply shows that they are putting their efforts on where the customers are: Microsoft OS's on desktops; Microsoft and Linux on servers. The servers may require more Linux support, but they have higher margins and more sophisticated users.
The only good weather is bad weather.
Microsoft submitted falsified evidence -- and got caught. :-) so he admitted the whole testimony was written by MS lawyers.
Microsoft executives lied under oath -- and got caught.
Microsoft wrote the testimony for its "expert witnesses" -- and got caught. This one was actually quite funny. One stooge claimed that the states' demands would lead to "balkanization of windows". Problem was that he didn't know what "balkanization" means
The last gem I read is that MS lawyers quoted selectively from multiple decisions so as to misrepresent their holdings. The judge did not find that strategy persuasive.
Now, you are an attorney, tell me: why are Microsoft executives not being prosecuted for perjury?
___
If you think big enough, you'll never have to do it.
Dell makes great stuff, but hardly worth the price it fetches.
I just slapped together a dual p4 xeon2.0ghz system for 2500. It has a gig of rambus, 80 gighd, DVD burner and a gforce4ti4200 something a rather.
Dell only offered Xeons in the p3 flavor, similiar setup for around 800 dollars more.
I used to be a sysadmin, I know all the service benefits dell gives (pre-imaged systems, 24hr on-site part replacement, ect) but I think if you compare the cost a network being admin'ed by dell with a sysadmin who just "makes calls to dell" all day to the cost of a network being admin'd by a sysadmin who maintains an inventory of spare parts, uses ghost or NT2k Remote installation services, and buys his/her parts from a local screwdriver shop I really do think you would see a huge difference.
Parts don't really break that often, windows does. Especially outlook. Is there really a savings to pay for that dell "protection money"?
If you're currently a sysadmin in charge of some large corporate network, speak with your dollars, not with your slashdot. Try and talk your company into standardizing on a single platform. Here let me spec out a good standard...
Nvidia video (single unified driver = less driver headaches)
Creative sound (the standard by which all follow)
3com networking
Other than the motherboards changing over the next few years you won't really need to do a lot of work to maintain these machines over the next few years. Be smart, implement home directories and tell everyone to put whatever they want backed up in there. That way you can wipe their machines without hassle.
well, thats my 0.02. Wish I had caught the article sooner.
See subject line.
That's what I'm buying for my clients.
Here's a link to one of their server config menus.
On the menu is Win2k, Netware and no OS. So MS doesn't have the strength to do this on servers as they do on desktops. That would be my conclusion, as they'll only do whatever they can for their own profit - consumers be damned.
. This sig unintentionally left blank. I meant to put something here, but I'm busy.
I am being serious. I am so annoyed and upset by all of this that I am stopping here and not reading anymore comments. The generational and technological gap between those of us who understand what is happening and those in power has grown too large. I've fought the good fight for too long and don't know if I have the willpower to even bother fighting anymore.
If you wanna get rich, you know that payback is a bitch
In additon, certain legal but unethical behaviour does not maximize profits in the long term, because they give the company a bad reputation. Unfortunately, fewer and fewer kinds of behaviour have been having this effect over the last few years, because people have started to believe that all kinds of amoral acts have been deemed acceptable if they make a short-term profit.
A number of Microsoft employees/witnesses should be prosecuted for perjury. But, who would do it? The DOJ?
The DOJ demands that Microsoft be granted monopolies in not only browsers but only media players, instant messaging and anything else that shows up important on the internet.
Corrupt justice lawyers will not do anything unless Microsoft says so.
What was clear during the remedy hearings was that Microsoft was telling the DOJ what to say and everyone else was advising the States. Well. Who is everyone else? "Everyone else" consists of consumers and the industry as a whole.
The sad part is that the idiots at the DOJ ignored both consumers and the entire industry and just did as Microsoft demanded. And, that was after they lost the case. So, the DOJ is a real idiot. They even lied about the law in order to try to cover their corrupt positions. And, the judge noticed.
NexuSys - Linux support by the best
but that'd be good journalism!
It does make one sick.
But, in the morning you have to get up again. So, sometimes you have to remember where you got the bad stuff.
NexuSys - Linux support by the best
Here and Here
What? Me? Worry?
I can't help but think about how MicroSoft is a monopoly-in-restraint-of-trade as bad as the American railroad ones of the 19th century.
In the 19th century, railroad monopolies charged people fees for shipping on competing lines. The goal was that you only do business with one rail line. Microsoft's response to BeOS is much like this one. Microsoft, like the monopolistic rail lines, coerced its customers, the OEMs, not do business with a competitor. However, instead of charging imaginary fees as punishment, MS uses sealed OEM licenses to forbid them from installing dual boot OSes.
However, I see why MicroSoft uses such tactics. If people got computers with Windows and BeOS dual boot or Windows and Mandrake Linux, people would actually realize that there's no reason to use only Windows.
BTW, although not monopolistic or evil, MS's frequent changes to the Word format is like the railroad lines' stubbornness against choosing a standard gauge.
On a personal not, this seems like it could have almost affected my situation. I recently bought a computer online from a NE Ohio computer company without an OS. I was planning on running GNU/Linux until I began studying at OSU, where I could get a legal copy of WinXP from a Microsoft club for $5. Of course, recent /. stories on EULA changes made me decide to use Win2k instead, and I bought a Like New copy through half.com. Unfortunately, Windows refuses to run because I have an "INACCESSIBLE_BOOT_DEVICE". I feel like using an illegal copy Windows if I can't get it to work.
As much as we might like to hate this practice, it is common place in business. Restaurants typically sell only one soft-drink vendor line, such as Pepsi vs. Coke, in order to get the best pricing/terms on the deal. In part it's the volume that does this (if they sold both, each would sell at half the level, and they wouldn't get the biggest price break), and the salesman push to get an exclusive deal (he gets more commission).
With Microsoft it is different since they are a monopoly. The problem is the difference is overshadowed by the fact that it is a common business practice in cases where there isn't a clear cut monopoly (e.g. neither Pepsi nor Coke can be said to have a monopoly anywhere near what Microsoft has). Constructing a case against Microsoft (or even Dell) in this matter would not be easy, and would require some very smart lawyers, and not the bozos over at DOJ. But there might be a lawyer or two at each of about 9 states that might be able to work together at this. We'll see.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
If they really wanted to, Dell, or other companies could cancel their contracts with Microsoft and sell PCs with no Operating System or PCs with Linux. However, they know that the customer base that "wants" Windows is larger than those that want no OS or Linux. So thus, they will agree to Microsoft's wishes and keep renewing their contracts.
Why don't we hear the Mac people complaining about similar things? As far as I know, though I may be wrong, you can't purchase a Mac with no operating system on it. In fact, Apple's selling practices are more constrained than Microsoft, they just don't have the market share MSFT does.
Basically, what I'm trying to say is that companies will do what is profitable, and that is to sell Microsoft Windows on their desktops.
If you don't like the fact that Dell won't sell you a computer with no Operating System on it, then don't buy a Dell. If you don't like the fact that Microsoft is forcing Dell not to sell no OS computers, then don't buy Windows and run something else.
The majority of people complaining here are the ones who wouldn't buy a Dell in the first place, and who don't run MS software anyway.
Microsoft has a monopoly in the OS (If we define monopoly by a excessive share of the market). So what? No one mandates that you buy it. In fact, with advanced in Linux and the various windows managers and the software available, you can do virtually anything in Linux you could in Windows and just as eaisly.
Use the power of the market (or the lack of a market -- free software) to tell Microsoft you don't like what they are doing. If you are a Sys Admin, urge your company to run *NIX instead of the latest and "greatest" Windows server suite.
"We shall show mercy, but we shall not ask for it" -- Winston Churchill
I played around with it for a few months, but simply couldn't think of a reason to justify actually keeping it around. Sure, it was pretty easy to mess around with, but it didn't do anything either. Its interface seemed pretty clunky (compared to both Win98 and to XFree86+Enlightenment), and there weren't really many useful programs (a few minimally-featured AIM and IRC clients, a web browser, etc., but nothing better than or even equivalent to Win/UNIX counterparts). I ended up finally deleting the partition when I ran low on hard drive space, because it just wasn't useful to have.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
You seem confident that overall cost savings would result from your approach.
Do you suppose there would be enough money left to spec out RAID support on the motherboards, and double up on everyone's drives? (I'm talking RAID 1 here, by the way).
After all, with the exception of laptop computers, the thing that breaks not-quite-as-often as Windows itself are the hard drives -- seems like, Dell or no dell, RAID support on workstations is a boon. Being able to swap a dead drive out during the evening after a failure, without the workstation operator noticing anything was wrong during the day, rocks.
And the only way I know of (please correct me if I'm wrong) to get hardware RAID (please note I said hardware, not software) is by spec'ing a Dell (or equivalent) server as a workstation...or building your own.
What do you think?
Actually, If I'm reading between the lines they will sell systems that don't have a Microsoft operating system (see nSeries)...
Any bets those systems will have a BIOS which will be configured upon sale to EITHER, run Windows, or NOW run windows....
So a system purchased with the future option to run windows must be puchased with a windows license on day one.
Thats funny, I could do in BeOS 95% of what I do every day, the 5% I couldn't was work related.
Browse the net: No problem.
Watch TV in a window on the desktop: No problem.
Programming: No problem, heck of a Nice API too.
Heck, the TV functionality was added after I booted up with a new video card, installed the extra drivers necessary without rebooting. Sweet.
Yes, I don't have to buy Dell, but there are good reasons. For one, they are just down the street.
'SBEMAIL!' is better than a goat!!
Dell only offered Xeons in the p3 flavor, similiar setup for around 800 dollars more.
The Precision 530 line, with dual P4 Xeons, has been available for a while. A similar configuration is available for about $2,800. If you want a RDRAM system from Dell, you may want to wait for a "quadruple your memory" sale, like they have now.
And for all the other vendors who don't sell MicroSquish products at all.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
I had an interesting experience just this morning. I have been a firm believer in a few things:
- Proprietary UNIX operating environments like Solaris and AIX are, in all aspects, the best platform for back office services
... i.e. data warehousing, CRM, etc.
- Linux based operating environments are the best platform for front tier platforms like web servers, app servers, file & print, etc. (especially using SAMBA, RH puts Win2K to shame!)
- Windows, especially Win2K (XP isn't worth the $$$ to upgrade) is the best choice for the typical office user and home user.
But, I've been wanting to try out Linux on a PC and see how much it's improved at the consumer level. So, I installed RedHat 7.3 on my IBM T20 laptop. I've had this laptop for nearly 2 years. I have a CD I built with all necessary Windows 2000 drivers on it. The machine came with Win98 and I didn't feel like getting IBM's Win2K, so I just used a generic Win2K installation that I own. I had to download about 20 IBM specific drivers and install them before the laptop worked "right". It functioned, but not well.So, I downloaded RH 7.3 iso's from NASA (blazing download speeds, over 1.7 Mbps) and burned the install CD's. I then popped CD #1 in my laptop and rebooted. In less than 1 hour my laptop was a functional dual-boot machine. I let RedHat make all the install decisions, rather than customizing like I would do on a server. I allowed GRUB to be my boot loader. It boots both Win2K and RH beautifully, no issues. RH runs great AND I didn't have to download one single driver to get my system to work with Linux. Win2K doesn't include support for my 2 year old network card, so I have to have that driver downloaded before attempting a Win2K install on this laptop, no such problem with RH.
I'm a believer now. RH 7.3 is definitely ready for the average end user's PC. The installation is no more difficult than Windows, if you set it to boot to graphical logon mode life is easy. And once in Gnome (or KDE) all the tools that a typical end user might want are there. With about the same amount of effort that it takes to install Office XP that same user can download, install and use Open Office (that took me about 30 minutes).
Best of all, I didn't have to use knowledge gained in 10 years of implementing and administering UNIX servers. It was pretty damn easy. To get the same easy installation with Win2K on a laptop I need to get the OEM version of Win2K appropriate to my laptop OR I can just get the generic RH distro. No issues, no worries, no compatibility problems.
Bottom line, MS OS is no longer superior in the consumer market based on what I just saw, and the Linux price is hard to beat. For the user who doesn't want to deal with creating their own CD's they can pick up the boxed set of RH for a low price down at Best Buy. Within an hour they can have a functioning system that is equal to Windows. The only thing keeping it from going mainstream is games. Come on game developers. Get those games running on Linux and MS is in big trouble.
In my universe I'm perfectly normal, it's not my fault you don't live in my universe.
Dump that Linux.
Why do you think Microsoft has its own media codecs nowadays?
I suffer from attention surplus disorder.
The fact that the OEMs may have a choice to put on a different operating system is not the point. The consumer should have the choice to buy a computer and any operating system they want--without paying any M$ tax.
Back around 1996 or so, I wanted to buy a fully assembled computer, and I wanted to put OS/2 on it. I searched everywhere. Not only did all the stores not want to sell computers with OS/2, they also said they wouldn't sell me a system unless I bought one with either Win95 or DOS/Win3.11. There was no free market, because I did not have any choice but to buy a M$ system! This type of situation is the reason anti-trust laws were made.
Microsoft only has about 35 billion dollars, and I believe their GDP is greater than that of Bolivia, or Uruaguay or something.
Looking at this logically, they have all this money and favorable public support so there is no Political solution to the problem. People like Microsoft.
So, a small number of us hate them, because we choose to not run windows. Welp, sorry to say, this IS a democracy (ok, *cough*) and the majority has spoken. Until the majority gives a fuck, nothing will change. You can lobby congress about the blah blah blah and this and that, but the bottom line is that M$ makes money for America, so it is a Good Thing. It puts money into the pockets of the shrinkwrapper at the factory and the needy Senator alike.
But yes, it goes beyond frustration. Having to pay for something you don't use. Like, dammit, I had to pay for the spare tire in my car, but I've never had to use it. That's bullshit, I should never have to pay for it unless I use it.
Guess what, you still have a choice. DON'T BUY DELL! You can get PC's without OS's on them from other manufacturers. Yes, the manufacturers will probably be hurt by MS's licensing requirements. SO WHAT! Buy from a open source only builder. Or build yourself. Or hire some college student to build for you for 10/hr!
Or if it really has you that worked up, buy a gun, and shoot yourself, because MS isn't going away, the bastards.
Cool! Amazing Toys.
The "greed is good" ethic needs to be erradicated.
The problem is that the definition of "greed" is entirely subjective. How much property can I desire before I am deemed "greedy"?
I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.
It's pretty easy to explain what this entails and why this is happening - I'll make a bet that the XP installs that Dell ships after the cutoff date won't need to be 'activated' through Microsoft, but will recognize the machine and bios as a 'licensed platform'. This effectively means that the OS license is built into the machine - so so Microsoft won't let them ship them without paying Microsoft.
Ok, so maybe Dell will make a few machines ('n-series') that don't run Windows - but they're now a completely different machine. The previous court order stating that Microsoft cannot charge for every machine sold (regardless of OS) has now been circumvented.
That's enough of a step backwards to behaviour already found to be illegal on it's own, but this seems to be the first step towards making manufacturers have to distinguish "Microsoft ready' machines from OS agnostic machines.
A few more steps like this, differentiating Microsoft machines from the others, and it's a sure bet that the commodity hardware - 'Microsoft OS ready' machines - are going to be the much vaunted 'Trusted platform' - complete with a bios that will REFUSE to boot anything except a Microsoft OS.
Yes, I'm paranoid about Microsoft's intentions. but I suspect that I'm not being paranoid enough.
Liquor
Sanity is a highly overrated commodity.
... to see that Microsoft has seen the error of its ways and is working to correct the unacceptable behaviour of the past.
sniff, sniff... Something smells bad in here...
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
Look at it this way: If Soft didn't encourage the volume demand for PC's, the Internet would still be an academic curiosity and Linux wouldn't exist. Can Soft stop me from running Linux on any of my machines? Obviously not, it takes me about a minute to switch disks, so how exactly does that make Soft a monopoly? "But what about IE?" Never stopped me from downloading the free version of Netscape.
FWIW, my guess is that eBay gets a call from the DOJ people in a few years. If eBay is smart, the attys are working on a response today.
What's that flaming thing heading this way?!?
Imagine how much harder physics would be if electrons had feelings! -Feynman, maybe
Doesn't this piss you off? You've just PAID for a product to throw it in the trash!!! Microsoft now earns revenue on unwanted products! What other company on the face of the planet makes money on unwanted products that are purchased and thrown right into the trash?????
There is something very wrong with this.
-ted
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I know of a few people out there who run diskless machines....you know...network boot images. Do these people still have to buy a Microsoft OS even though their machines are physically incapable of hosting the OS?
-ted
I know MS is trying to force upgrades.
Here's the way I see it though: It's well known that many places can't afford to upgrade all machines at once. Especially if you're doing hardware, OS, and program upgrades at the same time.
So, build in at least a little compatibility, and shops will be more willing to start the upgrade/development/testing process, and then move totally when they see the (ahem) quality* of the product and know it works.
*Statement made for ideal, decent software shop. It may not, and probably doesn't, apply to the current context.
We don't need no Net Explorer We don't need no Thought control
You mean if you want to buy a laptop, you're now FORCED to buy not only the hardware and the OS, but also the Office package?? Blech!!
The equivalent would be if when you buy a car (the laptop), you're also forced to buy not only insurance from the carrier of the car dealer's choice (that's the OS, choice of one), but also a travel trailer whether you need it or not (that's Office). Bogus hardly begins to cover it!!
It strikes me that going after M$ as an abusive monopoly may be doing it all wrong. Might it be better to go after them from a standpoint of contract law?? (Pursuing it from a POV of the unenforceability of unreasonble contracts, etc.)
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
These days it seems like the hardware is pretty reliable. My (limited) experience with computers running Microsoft products is that most of the complaints and help desk calls are related to software or OS issues.
I wonder if there would be a profit advantage for a company like Dell to ditch Microsoft in favor of their own OS. If it were me I would make my own version of Linux (just to grab something that's out there and working for a head start) and make a distro for my hardware that is rock solid. Then my company would be 100% responsible for what you purchase from us. The way it is now I'll bet that a lot of customer service calls or product returns that Dell, Gateway, Compaq/HP, etc get are directly related to flaws in Microsofts products.
In a way it would be similar to buying an Apple with Mac on it. Apple knows the hardware and has written the OS for it, they are responsible for the whole package in house. The other companies could do similar things with Linux or *BSD.
After all, it looks like that's where Microsoft is heading. The X box is just a start, maybe a proof of concept for them. Don't be too shocked when you see them selling a package of hardware, OS, office suite and games. Dude, they're gonna own Dell.
. Quit playing Monopoly with Bill. Switch to one of many non-Microsoft products today.
"So, would you like your copy of LEKA on a CD or floppy?"
The ______ Agenda
There IS something wrong with hurting other people in order to get "stuff", and that's what capitalism has so far failed to address.
Out of the frying pan and into the fire with you. Here we find that the definition of "hurting other people," like the definition of "greed," is also subjective. What actions, precisely, does "hurting" another person include? Just physical pain? What about mental pain? What about defamation of character? What about loss of image? Anyone can claim that any of these can "hurt another person."
How about loss of property? Then again, what defines "property"? Just physical property? What about intellecutal property? And how about emotional property ("You stole my boyfriend!") Anyone can claim that any of these "hurt another person."
You claim that capitalism has failed to address a problem, but it seems to me that the problem is one of your own invention.
I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.
Fact - you can't sue a company for refusing to sell you something (or providing you service). If they refuse to deal with you, you can only go to the competition.
Fact - The competition is also doing the same thing.
Fact - You are locked out. You cannot buy a machine without paying financial tribute to Microsoft.
In any other field/industry (telecom anyone?), this would instantly lead to class action suits.
So how would you go about "generating" a class action suit?
Here's the how-to:
Pre-requisites:
First, get yourself a class-action compatible lawyer. Don't worry about costs - you will incur none. Any law firm worth its salt will recognise the publicity value of this action.
Coordinate with people across the country, and make sure that they have a legal representative with them when you do the following:
Action:
1. On a pre-decided day (post Sep 1 - if that date applies to Dell, it will probably apply to all others aswell), have many individuals attempt to buy a PC without an OS from Dell, IBM, HP/Compaq, etc. Make sure that these are *individuals*, not *groups* - groups make bad class-action initiators, groups of individuals have the under-dog advantage, and besides, groups may put the "target" on alert (witness the anti-Microsoft tax day that effectively achieved *nothing*).
2. Make sure *everything* is documented (in writing whereever possible, witnessed by a legal rep if on the phone or in a shop).
3. Collate the unsuccessful experiences of *all* these inidividuals, cataloging experience with each computer company to show:
a. Policy within the company in question
b. The big picture - that this is an industry-wide phenomenon.
At all times, keep in mind that the computer companies are as much victims as you are - keep that in mind.
That's it. Let the lawyers take it from there. This is the stuff their wet dreams are made up of. Just make sure that thelaw firm gets plenty of publicity to:
a. Encourage them to keep going
b. Discourage them from backing out (either because they turn chicken or because the seniorpartners mysteriously start driving fancy cars).
Remember this - like the cases against the tobacco industry, there is valid evidence there that what is happening is not good for citizens of your country. It will be a long battle, but with enough evidence out there, vote-dependant Government officials will begin to see the light, especially when they start losing elections. With that danger, they will clamour to bring this matter to justice, i.e. into court.
And once in court facing the *people* (instead of purchasable commodities like senators), there is very little chance of victory for Microsoft (or anyone else who tries stunts like this).
You aren't remembered for doing what is expected of you
There is another reason not to have an OEM license. My sony laptop came with Win ME, but it is setup so it will only install on this particular computer, not on any other. The day I sell/trash my laptop the OEM license will be useless - I will have to pay for a new license again.
Uhh....don't buy a Dell?
This message brought to you by the Council of People Who Are Sick of Seeing More People.
Be a consumer....bitch to a manager, and if they refuse to refund you the money, never buy a Dell again and let them know exactly WHY you'll never buy a Dell again. There are many decent laptop manufacturers out there, you can even buy them custom built from smaller companies like Alienware....and smaller companies tend to listen to their customers a little better.
This message brought to you by the Council of People Who Are Sick of Seeing More People.
>> this effects all of our competitors as well.
:P
I thought they proof read official correspondance. Must be a troll... office XP catches the mistake.
Yep! You got it. But it wasnt until he dissed the Enterprise (said it should be hauled away as garbage) that Scotty punched him.
/usr/games/fortune
Take our little company for instance. We have a five license deal from Microsoft, but we are not using all. What if we want a laptop, should we pay for Windows XP Home (which btw is complete crap, only the pro version is usable)? We have a license for a fulling working OS from Microsoft, yet we do have to pay for some complete crap that will be thrown away before a singly byte of it is executed.
This is a rip off for sure. The whole "then don't buy it" is complete bollocks after all, and I think the slashdot crew is agreeing. And I am not a Microsoft hater even.
This is what Microsoft should be prosecuted for, instead of some moaning from Netrape and Sun (Java is completely wrong for Windows, live with it. Linux as well is better off with mono instead).
Would you accept an expensive insurance to go along with your car? Or only be able to tank at a certain gas station?
In April, 1920, Hitler advocated that the party should change its name to the National Socialist German Workers Party (NSDAP). Hitler had always been hostile to socialist ideas, especially those that involved racial or sexual equality. However, socialism was a popular political philosophy in Germany after the First World War. This was reflected in the growth in the German Social Democrat Party (SDP), the largest political party in Germany.
Hitler, therefore redefined socialism by placing the word 'National' before it. He claimed he was only in favour of equality for those who had "German blood". Jews and other "aliens" would lose their rights of citizenship, and immigration of non-Germans should be brought to an end. (link)
Female Prison Rape in NY
Microsoft has no choice but to continually enhance their product, competition or no, or else people will no longer buy upgrades every few years.
The majority of Microsoft's sales are through sales of new computers through companies like Dell. After releasing XP, Microsoft stopped selling Windows 98. So companies that need a consistent platform have no choice but to upgrade to whatever Microsoft is selling as current.
If the license that came with a new PC authorized the user to run the installed XP Pro or any previous Windows OS, there would be a lot fewer sales of XP upgrades.
The API issue is an important one although not the major issue in the antitrust case nor a major fraud issue. It is more of a credability issue.
And, of course if Microsoft were split up along the lines that Judge Jackson originally ordered, those secret API issues would go away.
Even with the higher disclosure requirements of the States' remedy, insiders within Microsoft will always have an advantage. And, that is so even though Microsoft benefits from giving that information to ISVs that write to the Microsoft platform.
The solution here is to drop Microsoft and go with open source. From the viewpoint of an ISV, open source will always offer a clear advantage. And, that is most likely the primary reason Microsoft has opened up a bit just lately. In the long run, they have to compete for developers. But, developers are better off without them. The "marketing" department will drive the relationship with Microsoft for some time. But, the developers are better off elsewhere. And, that will always be true.
Selling to a dominant platform is fine. But, if you are always at a disadvantage because of secrecy and illegal acts, that gets old over time.
Once competition heats up on Linux (and other open source platforms) there will be little interest in dealing with companies the likes of Microsoft.
And, by "heating up" I mean several very good desktop oriented distributions that find they can make money persuing that market. RedHat is still focused on the server market. Mandrake is much better for the desktop users but it lags in ease of use compared to Corel Linux (years old), Lindows and Xandros (from Corel).
Linux on the desktop if fine now for a somewhat qualified person. And, for corporations that want to develop custom applications that run their store. But, for general use it needs some real promotion and retail success. That will come.
Wal-Mart already puts out the Mandrake and Lindows systems. And, others will follow.
SUN appears about ready to offer a Linux based desktop system for corporate use. That might perk up Hpaq, IBM, Dell, Gateway and others. Once the corporate linux desktop takes off, there is no way that the Microsoft OEMs will want to let SUN have all the Linux desktop business. Or, only share it with Wal-Mart.
SUN may be the critical player here. You can like SUN or not like SUN. But, they do not market Microsoft based PCs. So they can not be brown nosed and beet up by Microsoft as DELL is. And, once the Linux desktop market materializes DELL is not going to take that crap from the idiots at Microsoft.
NexuSys - Linux support by the best
The EU is biding their time on the antitrust issues with Microsoft.
Historically, foreign jurisdictions hold off with antitrust actions until the home country is finished up. It is sort of a gentleman's agreement to do that.
In the old IBM case, the DOJ finally finished up doing nothing. Sound familiar? But, Europe required significant disclosure of information by IBM. And, that disclosure had world wide implications of course.
The same is likely to be the case for Microsoft. But, AOL, Be and SUN each have their own private cases still pending. And, the consumer class action lawsuits are still to come. No testimony has been taken in any of those cases to date.
I doubt the EU will wait for the private law suits. But, they may wait until after the DOJ and States' cases are finally resolved. Or, as it sounds, they may only wait until the current remedy judge issues her decision and then they may go ahead and act.
The EU is not subject to the same policial games as the DOJ and the AGs here. James from the DOJ tried to go over there on Microsoft's behalf and try to convince them to do nothing that would interfere with the political money coming in, but I doubt they care.
Mr. James going to the EU is fine. But, when you misrepresent the current state of the antitrust laws in the US trying to hold them off, your true client is disclosed to all. And, right now, the DOJ takes its orders from Microsoft all contrary to their oaths of office.
NexuSys - Linux support by the best
I was attempting to make a broad point.
Ahh, ideals. The devil, of course, is in the details.
What defines property? Something that can provide a unique benefit to a limited number of persons. What defines hurt? We'll start with deprivation of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and go from there.
How does "...and go from there" differ from "...and we'll arbitrarily make the rest up as we go along"? They sound functionally equivalent to me.
I think your definitions of "property" and "hurt" are far too vague. Since it is your goal to create legislation (which carries with it the threat of force) based on these concepts, don't you think it's a good idea to have definite definitions for these concepts?
My point was not to lay down a foundation for a moral society
Yet it seems you want to legislate so that corporations behave morally. Perhaps this is permissible in your desire to not lay down a foundation for a moral society.
Then again, what the hell does "laying down a foundation for a moral society" mean anyway? It's so nebulous that it could mean practically anything.
only to demonstrate that corporations as they are currently chartered are hostile to any moral society.
Your demonstration is logically flawed. You have not shown what a "moral society" is, so how can you conclude that corporations are hostile to it?
Now I'd like to see you try and define "moral society." You jumped out of the frying pan, squirmed out of the fire, and now you're dancing on hot coals becuase "moral," like "greed" and "hurting another person," is also a subjective concept.
I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.
From an US perspective: Nazism is what you get when you veer too far to the extreme right, and Communism is what you get when you veer too far to the left. Extremes on both sides have similar consequences (tyranny, genocide, the whole shibang).
Socialism is in between liberal and communist (far left). Nazism is as far from socialism as you could get.
I don't have any newer versions of Word; do the newer versions have this same option? If so, this really isn't a problem. Even if a user doesn't know how to change the settings (or is too afraid to "mess with it", MIS can set up the PCs to do this via a startup script or when installing the corporate software package.
I'm not a fan of many of M$'s policies and technical snafus, but they have done a good enough job to rise to the top of the heap and hang on. If that wasn't the case, we'd be bashing IBM or somebody else right now for taking advantage of the semi-computer-literate masses.
science is a religion
Thanks to the EULA and WPA an OEM copy of microsoft's OS is inexorably tied to the machine it was purchased with. A few years ago, Microsoft started requiring all OEMs to ship "image restoration CDs" instead of installable discs. This means that you can't do an OS install from scratch...you must re-image the hard drive to the factory default configuration. WPA links a product serial number to a hardware based hash on your machine. This makes your software activation key useless on another machine.
Nice huh? You never really own the product, you are just "licensing" the product and therefore you can not sell what you don't own.
-ted
I really appreciate the improved tenor of this most recent post: I feel like you're really starting to discuss with me and explain your point of view in a fair and informative manner. Thank you.
:) I know I'm coming off as a stickler and an asshole. I don't think my demands have been unfair.
:)
(yes, in broad terms...if I could do this in detail sufficient to satisfy your demands, I'd be a PhD economist instead of an engineering student)
Hehehe!
1) Those who have power must be responsible to those over whom the power is wielded.
This is a good philosophical question. It hinges, of course, on the definition of "power." Given your anti-corporate stance (which isn't bad or wrong, in and of itself, given what some corporations get away with nowadays), I think you would likely believe that employers have power over those they employ. This can be true, and I think the converse is also true. Suppose a corporation depends on a single employee who has skills or information for its most siginifant income center. In that case, the employee has power over her/his employer. As a less hypothetical question, trade unions today weild tremendous power over many huge corporations (such as Ford and AT&T) in various different markets. In those cases, would you agree that the employees are responsible for their employers, since the employees are in a position of power? Should the employees be barred from quitting and punished by law for poor performance? Please don't play with the definition of the word "power" by starting to talk about "true power."
2) Legitimate power derives only from the will of the citizenry.
I have big problems with this statement. In the 1930s, many Germans agreed with the aryan supremacist message of the Third Reich. Many Americans agreed with it as well, which was one of the reasons that it took America so long to enter the war. The Ku Klux Klan also enjoyed broad popularity across much of the United States in the earlier part of the 20th century. Were the Third Reich and the Ku Klux Klan thus legitimate leaders because they represented the will of the citizenry? Please don't play with the definition of the word "will" by starting to talk about "legitimate will."
I see you refuting my position. I would be interested to see you take a position of your own.
There should be no action lawful to an individual that does not deprive another individual of life, liberty, or property; all other actions should be legal. Government does most everything poorly and its influence should be drastically reduced in the aspects of individuals' lives. Corporations should not be full rights that individuals have. (What rights they should be granted is still up for debate, and I think that they have too many rights today.) Class envy and intellectual arrogance are the ever-present driving forces behind Leftist ideology. I don't even know what "right-wing" or "conservative" mean anymore; I think most people who label themselves as much are assholes anyway. You can pick on any part that you want.
It always interests me how much laissez-faire capitalists depend on the government to protect their little fiefdoms.
Then they're not really laissez-faire corporations at all. They're laissez-faire until the corporate welfare bandwagon comes rolling by.
I'd be totally happy with a government that did not involve itself in matters of commerce.
Me too!
but the corps would never accept that.
This statement depends on the truth of the statement "corporations are all the same." I don't buy it.
I guess I'm also wondering if you think there are ANY laws that should be applied to corporations?
Did you conclude that I believed such a thing as "corporations should be exempt from all laws" on the basis that I disagreed with other parts of your beliefs? The lack of said belief and the mentioned disagreement can, and do, exist independently of each other.
Is it OK for corps to pollute? (Gosh, there I go sounding like a wacko environmentalist. What HAS gotten into me?)
Of course not! The problem is, of course, what defines "pollution"? That definition is awfully slippery and therefore has quickly fallen under the shadow of political corruption. And no, I didn't think that your question was wacko.
Is it OK for corps to maintain and extend monopolies, destroying the free market?
I differ from most Libertarians in that I think it is a legitimate function of government to insist that free markets occur. It's easy to see how this can quickly become a matter of political corruption. Furthermore, some markets don't lend themselves as well as others do to free markets. Take utilities, for example.
Is it OK for corps to defraud stockholders?
I'll take it you're using the legal definition of the word "fraud." The answer is a resounding "hell no."
Is it OK for government to defraud its citizens? How about violate the 4th amendment? Did you know that in 80% of drug seizures (which can include things such as vehicles, houses, and arbitrary amounts of cash) the victim is never charged with a crime? You have mentioned the Constitutional Convention several times. Why would you be so pissed off about the actions of a few of many, many thousads upon thousands of corporations when the government routinely wipes its ass with the 4th (and 5th -- have you seen or filed a U.S. tax return before) amendments?
Perhaps I should mention now that I am an executive in a very small (2-person) corporation. My position does give me an unusual perspective on the issue.
How will a society "charter itself toward this idea of "socio-economic justice"? Well, the Constitutional Convention did a damn good job, if you ask me.
But the change didn't really happen with the Constitutional Convention. The Federalists had a hard job of convincing the States to ratify the constitution.
I would very much like to see a similar evaluation of the needs of our country...although I do not belive that it would be possible to accomplish today.
I have a feeling you'd like to see the government come in and just FORCE everyone to adopt your ideals.
Not on Earth, anyhow. I have high hopes for colonization of other places, as this process will provide the geographical and economic isolation required to really invent new ways of setting up societies, just as occurred in America over the last 300 years.
And what's going to keep that society from just turning to crap like this one has? Do you suppose that the heinous behavior of corporations and government can be attributed to human nature? If so, then I don't have high hopes for any space colonies that humans create.
I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.