Slashdot Mirror
Countering the Arguments Against Unbundling Windows
An anonymous reader sends in a link to a blog posting by Con Zymaris arguing for competition regulators to force the unbundling of Windows from consumer PCs. The argument takes the form of knocking down one by one the objections raised by "unbundling skeptics."
"GASP! Windows won't be FREE!"
So many people only use Windows because they think they didn't pay for it. That's why they have such a low expectation of quality - when it crashes they say - Well, I didn't pay for it, so its not like I can ask for my money back."
Unbundle it and let the competition flow. I can see Apple doing a big push for OSX as an aftermarket product. Also, Novell's openSUSE 10.3 is a keeper.
Should Macs be forced to come "unbundled" as well?
Still IMing in the stone age?
I would think that if Linux was that much better than Windows, that consumers would demand Linux powered PCs. If you build it, they will come.
This is my sig.
An anonymous reader sends in a link to a blog posting by Con Zymaris
Wasn't he defeated by Zapf Brannigan?
The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
Was the triple-negative really necessary?
I can't wait to see what windows has, and any negative heat from Linux will be removed and microsoft embarrassed, then the race of Operating Systems will begin!
To see a few of my Android apps goto: www.hartwired.com
Author of TFA said "meme-transfer." Bzzzzt!
His use of "laissez-faire" as something other than "free" or "open" is simply bizarre.
His repeated insistence that Microsoft somehow got its monopoly dishonestly wears thin by the end of the piece -- even though I agree with him. (I once earnestly wished for Microsoft to eat IBM's lunch; I won't make that mistake again.)
I remember when the "real" computer stores looked the way videogame stores do today, with separate sections for each platform, and woe betide you if you picked up the wrong version of M.U.L.E. or Choplifter. I'd like to see an article that spells out in detail how we ended up with the Microsoft monoculture.
"Ain't no right way to do a wrong thing."
Sure us nerds can sit in our ivory tower and say that people would like Linux (or other alternatives)because they won't know the difference. But the truth is: people don't want to do backflips for an operating system in order to make it work the way they want. Windows just plain works for the vast majority of people. I guarantee that the unbundling of Windows from PCs in the EU will have no effect on Microsoft's sales just because people will use what they are comfortable with.
The game.
I think Ubuntu would have a very good shot at competing with Windows if users are given a choice...I have been mainly a Windows user for many years, but recently have been using Ubuntu on one of my workstations. Quite frankly, I have been VERY impressed with its usability and the choice of software available for free. Plus the ease at which you can install any additional software is very appealing. The other day, the integrated sound card on that PC started cutting out and I was dreading having Ubuntu start barking tons of error messages about unknown hardware, etc when I installed a spare sound card I had stuck in a cabinet (older Soundblaster card). But I was pleasantly surprised when the newly installed card started working with no prompts to install or download any drivers! My wife is big into digital photography and if I could get up to speed with The Gimp, I could totally ditch Windows!
You're messin' with my Zen Thing, man.....
From TFA:
The problem is, I'm sure most consumers would fork over the Windows licensing fee meerly because it is familiar to them. Most consumers do not know what linux is, and thus will not install it.
Don't mind the extra X. Alex
Mac OS is not a Monopoly.
Apple does not abuse it's OS dominance (it doesn't have "dominance") to force dominance in other markets.
By the way, it's ok to have dominance in a market if you don't abuse it in a monopolistic fashion.
"I think that all the existing rules should be changed to be 'fair' to my platform of choice because my it can't compete on its own merits."
Cry moar, noob.
It seems to me that this is a bad idea for two reasons.
The first is that it would require vendors to ensure compatibility at all levels of two different configurations and have two sets of support. Support and warranties aren't free and the cost would be passed on to the consumer either directly as vendors recover the costs or indirectly to to crappy kit if the vendors fail to properly spend the money in the first place.
Secondly, it assumes that Linux has a god given right to exist on the mainstream desktop independent of its merits and that Windows is the inevitable winner unless someone stacks the deck. I take the long view and I think that in the end the platform that provides the best value will win and that the market will do its thing without the regulators taking sides. It might take 10 more years, but as computers evolve into things we can't even imagine (wearable? pervasive and ubiquitos with a universal network maybe?) that Windows will take it's place in the history books as will Linux.
That will answer you question. Short answer. No.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Comparing the cost of Software to Hardware is fundamentally flawed. They are two distinct components of a product. Each component holds their own value irrespective of another. For example, Adobe CS3 could easily cost 300% of the hardware that you bought to run it on, but that doesn't take away from the value of Adove CS3. The same goes for Windows. The only reasonable argument that the author makes is that you can "get the same functionality from Linux for free". At least this argument makes sense logically, although it has yet to be proven by any stretch of the imagination.
There is no longer anything that can be done with computers that is nontrivial and clearly legal. -- Paul Phillips
Great headline there. Its like a parsing test for natural language AI engines. :-)
Countering, Against, Un-
I don't think forcing an avenue for competition through government intervention would do much, either, to open the way for alternate operating systems like Linux as a viable and widely-used desktop alternative OS. The majority of personal and business desktop computer users are going to expect Windows with their brand-new PC, and forcing Microsoft to loosen its grip on the major OEMs won't change this.
Also, from the OEM consumer's naive I-just-want-something-that-will-let-me-do-what-I-need point of view, *there's already a choice*, and Macs aren't exactly dominating the market, although there's admittedly much less software available for Macs. (games especially)
My opinion is probably the minority here, but I thought I'd share it anyway. I hate excessive market regulation, in any form, especially when it won't really benefit the majority of the Windows-purchasing consumers anyway.
I have observed that with the infrequent release of Windows versions, people are buying more PCs with the same OS installed. While they generally dispose of the old PC in some way, they have ultimately re-puchased the same software license that should have been transferred from their old PC.
What should be happening is the PC maker should offer the OEM software, but the user should be buying the one and only seat that they want of Windows. No multiple purchases necessary. This CLEARLY serves the interests of the consumer... it does hurt the Microsoft cash-flow but I don't care much about that anyway.
The point I'm making is that consumers are routinely being abused by this bundling because they are being forced to buy and buy again the same stuff over and over.
As a MSFT shareholder, it might be nice if the company split in to OS, Software, Entertainment, Hardware, etc. complanies.
At least then I could sell off the losers (Zune, cough, cough).
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
So prices will go up because you will have to pay more for the OS after the fact, giving MS even more money. Those thinking that it will drive more people to Linux are smoking crack....
:)
People will have to buy Windows to play games....or for the ease of use, etc. Linux is nowhere ready for grandma's typical home....and when she needs support....g'luck there - where she'll spend more money on a Linux service call than a Windows...
So, please, unbundle...means MS makes more money, making ME more money for my stock
I read tfc but I guess I'm stupid. I'm all for unbundling, but why can't I pick an OS and have Dell/Hp/whoever install it for me before shipping? I don't think the avarage consumer wants to install their own OS.
if you truly believe this then there is no reason not to do it. no one loses. However if people switch then clearly there was an anti-competitive practice going on.
f
This suggestion might appeal to fellow slashdotters.
IMPLEMENTATION of the option :
As most of us know, installing an OS - any OS - properly for a given piece of hardware can be complicated. Getting the best possible drivers (which is not always the latest version), setting all the internal OS settings to appropriate ones for the computer being sold is a complex process. I am aware that many commodity PC makers do a shitty job of setting up the software for a PC, but they DO set it up a certain way when they make that disk image.
(if the computer is a gaming PC, the OS should be set to be efficient, if it is a work PC, it should be pre-installed with running anti-spyware and virus programs, ect)
SO...there would be recovery CDs, but everything would be on the new computer's hard drive.
When you start up the new pc, you would be taken to a screen where you can choose to
1. PAY the OEM price by credit card for Windows. The partition containing Windows preinstalled, a clean disk image all ready to go with appropriate drivers, is made the primary partition. The other partitions are deleted from the drive index table. There could easily be different options : Vista Home, Premium, XP, ect, and a version of Windows loaded with other programs in a bundle. You could either pay directly if the PC is connected to the internet, or, when you bought the PC you would have been given an activation number to type in.
2. Pay nothing, have the Ubuntu partition made primary
3. Pay nothing, wipe the disk so that you can install your own OS.
A small entry would be added to the BIOS Flash once you pay for Windows successfully. That way, if you have to use the Windows recovery disk, the PC already knows if you have paid for the software or not.
The complete window license is more than paid for by all of the bundled trialware and desktop real estate installed by the OEM. If a manufacturer thought they could get the same cash for a free Linux install they would be all over it. In this case regulation only hurts the consumer on both the long and short term.
It isn't. No matter how you try to cut it - geekiness is ingrained into the culture.
Look! This text is on a different line.
I used <br> tags.
Slashdotters are so used to doing things in a technical way that they disregard the very real usability issues that surround Open Source. If I put text on a different line in this textbox I should not have to know or care about the br tag. This is FOSS's greatest barrier to adoption in a nutshell.
Shh.
I'm assuming here that the average idiot is too... well, idiotic to realize they can download a distro and install it themselves. Instead, they'll do what they always do and just spend cash to solve their problem by going to Best Buy or Radio Shack...
Also, driver problems in both Windows and Linux suddenly aren't accounted for...
While I really do love Linux (need to get round to trying the BSD's, etc), I can see that sort of situation being actually bad for Linux. "Oh, whats this 'Xandros/SuSE/RHEL/Linspire/etc' - its cheaper than that Windows software box over there, I'll get this instead!" They either pay the store something like $50 bucks to install it for them or are somehow able to do it themselves - "Oh wow, the interface is different!" and "Oh, shit. I can't figure out how to do what I want - Linux sucks, I should have just coughed up the change for Windows!"
Also, the retail stores might find a way to make all the Linux distros more expensive than Windows even before people get out of the store. $50 bucks for the distro itself, $50 to $75 for Geek Squad to install it for you, and another $50 to $100 for 3 years tech support over the phone. That doesn't even include people getting home and spending time (time=money) to re-learn how to use half the GUI (only because things aren't in the same place) or paying tech support a wad of cash to learn how. Anybody that goes through that will tell their friends that its not only cheaper but also easier to just buy Windows.
I think everyone is missing the real issue. I personally don't give a stuff what Microsoft bundles with their OS if the users are happy. What does piss me off is how Microsoft makes removing the bundled applications and replacing them with ones I prefer intentionally difficult. It's simple, Microsoft needs to open their desktop up for competition and remove the built in walls that restrict it.
These articles that talk about how Microsoft is shoved down our throats read more like Geek fan fiction than actual good policy. Its as if the writers fantasize about a way to show people Linux is the one true Operating System, and the only way is to take away the convenience of using Windows. No manufacturer is FORCED to bundle Microsoft XP or Vista with their hardware. They have the option of not including an operating system at all, or also selling Linux versions. The reason this is not more prevalent is that there is no demand for it. If there were wide demand for pre-installed Linux boxes, they would be out there all over the place. I can recall quite a few Linux boxes that were sold as ultra-low cost alternatives to Windows boxes and they failed in sales quite badly. One of them that comes to mind was sold at ALDI. Microsoft may have unethical tactics, but to force changes on the way computer manufacturers bundle and sell their equipment is an exercise best left to communist and socialist countries where the government knows better than the consumers and businesses in the market place. There is no barrier to computer sales that I can see. If I wanted to, I could sell a director_mr brand computer tomorrow. BUT BUT no one would buy it you might say. That is because the demand for computers is being met adequately by the marketplace. If you really think there is demand for pre-installed Linux boxes then sell them, and become the next Dell or Gateway or HP. Forcing Dell or Gateway or HP to be what YOU want them to be by changing the laws and making them become that is VERY inefficient and foolish.
I have one reason he left out...
The US government fucks up almost everything it touches. Especially while being run by the current Court Jester. I want them to stay away from my computer, even if that means it comes out of the box with Windows on it and Balmer delivers it in person.
I also disagree with his argument that the cost of Windows makes up 35 percent of the cost of a PC. He must be another one of those glue sniffing idiots that thinks OEMs pay retail prices for Windows. Even on a bargain basement PC, unless its from a tiny mom-and-pop business like "Wang Foo's Corner Custom Computer Barn", the cost of Windows and Windows related software will not be more than 10 percent. And if Acer really is paying 52 percent in Europe, then they're fucking stupid because no one else is paying that.
I want a new quote. One that won't spill. One that don't cost too much. Or come in a pill.
I fail to see how Microsoft's software could cost 52% of the laptop's cost. I have to imagine they were factoring a high priced version of Vista, as well as office. None of which is mandatory. As to be honest, I'm not sure what other products MS charges for (besides OS, and Office) that the average user uses. (The average user isn't using SQL server, or Visual studio). And there are alternatives on the Windows platform for office software. So that 52% number sounds BS.. Unless they were trying to install it on the OLPC computers.. in which case it might be 52%.
...be reactive, instead of proactive?
I for one applaud the '+Funny' modding overlords.
So you can't compete, so you just want them to remove it? you guys are some real dipshits. what the point. everyone would just put windows right back on it.
Who claimed they did want to install their own OS, and what does that have to do with bundling? Bundling is unrelated to pre-installation.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
If even 10% of these consumers take up the Linux option, that would translate into a doubling of desktop Linux users, in effect, hastening the onset of an inflection point.
And yes, while more people know Windows, there are tens of millions now who also know Linux. Linux is fast approaching that first inflection-point. A move by regulators to ensure that there is a breathing-space for competition will likely see that inflection-point come sooner than later.
You use that word a lot. I don't think it means what you think it means.
It indicates a point where the second derivative of a function is zero - less technically, where the curve is temporarily straight, or the transition point between acceleration and deceleration (either way). The author seems to think it is a good thing. I can only make sense of this if the author thinks that Linux adoption is currently decelerating, and so passing an inflection point will move into accelerating adoption.
Quattuor res in hoc mundo sanctae sunt: libri, liberi, libertas et liberalitas.
Funny? WTF?? Straightforward, factual, logical explanation to a question. Perhaps the mods, failing to recognize the format, took it as some form of parody.
Finally modding someone offtopic when they rant about what "Begging the Question" means: priceless.
1. Forcing computer users to install their own operating system may seem easy-peasy the Slashdot crowd, but in reality, a lot of people will have problems with this initial step. And that will translate into higher support costs. Which will translated into higher retail costs. In other words, goodbye huge savings. Hello having to pay for other people's "free" Linux installs.
2. Oops, except for Apple. So suddenly the choice will boil down to getting an Apple PC all set up and ready to go OR getting another brand that you have to basically set up yourself. I understand that people want to punish Microsoft but it doesn't seem quite fair that Dell, Acer, HP etc should be penalized as well.
3. Of course, in reality what would happen is that the big box stores would set up, install and warranty your PC for a fee. 90% of people would get this option even for their Linux install, because horror stories will get passed around and nobody wants to be the person who bricked their $1000 system. So thanks to paying the "Geekdog" premium (or whatever they call it) people would wind up paying MORE for their Linux model than the equivalent Windows model in the old system. And they STILL won't be able to play Bioshock.
4. Here's my compromise: Force hardware manufacturers to install Windows dual boot with another OS if they bundle it at all. For example, get Windows/Ubuntu installed in dual boot configuration OR get Ubuntu by itself for a discount which must by law be equal at a minimum to the wholesale price paid for the Windows OEM. Or of course, get a bare system, but then no OS warranty, and the cost of you screwing up your install isn't passed on to the rest of us.
There are two kinds of people: 1) those who start arrays with one and 1) those who start them with zero.
If Windows had a package system like rpm for its internal parts. If you're setting up a server, don't install the gui. If it's a gaming machine, don't bother with all the database stuff. For a development machine, install everything. Windows would actually be a lot more interesting and useful.
"Naaaah" - Theodoric of York, Medieval Barber
Comments here seem to somehow imply that manufacturers should want to include a copy of Windows in some fashion with a PC that the customer can choose to pay the OEM price for. They would - seemingly - pay Microsoft for this.
Well, that isn't how it works. The reason the OEM price is less than the retail price is because the computer manufacturer put Windows on the machine and tailored it specifically for that environment and what not. They also get to absorb the tech support load. You do not get to call Microsoft and run up their support expenses with an OEM license. Instead, you call the computer manufacturer because part of the OEM deal is they handle support calls.
So, without the ability to control how Windows is installed on the computer it is unlikely the manufacturer is going to give you OEM tech support or an OEM price. Microsoft isn't going to give you the OEM price and take the support call load. So this would require people to pay retail price for Windows and go to Microsoft for support.
Microsoft would love to do this. The OEM deal is in the consumers and manufacturers best interest and not all that great for Microsoft. Except for perhaps reinforcing the dominance of Windows which is unlikely to be dimenshed any time soon. Microsoft would experience 2x or 3x their current revenue should this happen.
The author of this article isn't really advocating PC manufacturers be forced to stop bundling windows, so much as he's arguing they be forced to bundle Linux, and be able to bundle windows too if they wish.
I don't think this would have the effect he's anticipating.
Forcing a bunch of manufacturers with zero clue about Linux to bundle it with their PC's will make them view it as an additional cost. Therefore they'll do the bare minimum the law requires, which would probably be shoving a Ubuntu CD in the box with the PC, or at best shipping a poorly configured image. I doubt they'll bother making sure the hardware works correctly with the distro, I very much doubt they'll offer proper tech support or get mp3/dvd working out the box (dell doesn't even do the last one, and they chose to offer Linux).
Meanwhile the windows option will ship with a properly configured image, correct drivers preinstalled and the usual(read that however you want) level of tech support. All this will just convince people that Linux is some cheap inferior knock off of Windows.
Ultimately it also transfers the costs of breaking up the Microsoft monopoly to hardware manufacturers, who shouldn't really be forced to pay for MS's predatory business practices.
I doubt if there's an easy legal quick-fix to this problem. Certainly not one as easy as TFA suggests.
I think to end the monopoly anytime soon you'd have to break Microsoft up into at least 3 separate independent companies (Windows, Office, Xbox), force them to adopt open specs for things like document formats, exchange server protocols, and make sure proper competition legislation stops the kind of shenanigans that allowed this to happen in the first place.
I don't see much chance of that happening though, we'll have to live with Microsoft's broken software a while yet.
OEM's need to give the customer options in reagrd to the OS. We are beginning to see this some lately, with Dell offering Ubuntu.
And it's not that the customers will actually choose alternative OS'es at first. But it would help in so much as it would force customers to the realization that non-window's machines are a viable alternative.
FAQs are evil.
1.loading Windows from the Windows recovery media, then using the brochure included with the recovery media to contact Microsoft and through some form of financial transaction, acquire a licence to use Windows, or
2. load the Linux operating system from the CD/DVD included, and use it as their computer operating system. I'm all for giving a fair shake to Linux in the market as it certainly deserves it, but what is wrong with allowing the consumer to CHOOSE to have Windows (or Linux) pre-installed if they want. Forcing the consumer to jump through hoops to get a Windows license wouldn't be fair to MS and be very hypocritical.
Let's consider the average idiot: my mother. I switched her over from windows to linux a few years ago, but didn't tell her, and she didn't notice. I put a firefox and thunderbird icon on her desktop, installed whatever tax program she likes to use (which wasn't all that hard, but did take a fair bit of "linux knowledge"), and gave her her new computer.
Fastforward down the road, eventually she figured out that the big "K" in the corner wasn't the start button, and I explained to her what happened. She was amazed, because only months before I had asked her if she wanted to try linux, and she refused. Linux is easier for me to remotely administrate, and I don't have to deal with spyware. Now, I know not everyone has the privilege of tricking their users into using linux (and I'm not by any means saying it's the right thing to do), but it made my life a hell of a lot easier =)
Explain how installing an OS, any OS, on a PC could potentially "brick" a PC.
perhaps you don't understand what "brick" a PC means? It just doesn't mean that it doesn't function normally, it means that it's non-functional, unable to be recovered. ever.
While you're coming up with how this could happen, avoid saying "I heard about this guy who...", or "people have discussed how it is theoretically possible...".
I mean, give us an example of how this might be acomplished under any circumstances. Keep in mind a scientist's natural disdain for making shit up as you go along.
Go!...
What a dumb article. Clearly, the author isn't situated in any significant part of the actual industry.
Look, there are only two peoples that could be called responsible for increasing Microsoft's WIndows share. The people buying it; and the people selling it. Let's look at each shall we?
First, the people buying it. If the consumers are choosing windows because they think it's better, then we have no argument. The market has spoken, and purchased a product that they wanted to buy. So clearly, this is not the author's argument.
Second, the people selling it. This is not Microsoft. Consumers don't buy direct from Microsoft, and the author doesn't think so either. The retailers, the OEMs, the computer stores -- big and small -- they sell Microsoft products. As a business that uses Microsoft tools to sell my own product, I can say with certainty that Microsoft is wonderful to work with. The support is incredible, the prices are extremely inexpensive, and the service is outstanding. The products work perfectly and make my business run that much smoother.
Now, if I choose to sell my product for more money, and say that it includes Microsoft products, that's my right as a business -- no matter how little of it goes back to Microsoft. For example, buy a computer from Dell, adn you'll likely pay some $250 for vista home premium. Dell doesn't pay anywhere near $250 for it. Closer to $50. Stop blaming Microsoft.
What's more, I'm sure that Dell has no problems with Microsoft products. Maybe Microsoft makes Dell's distribution job that much easier -- like they do for mine. A simple example? I can deploy my product onto over a hundred machines in thirty minutes -- using only Microsoft tools -- for a whopping $200. That's effectively free to any successful business, especially for a hundred machines (not that I'm limited).
The author also makes this dumbass remark about the price of the OS being more than the price of the hardware. That's just crap. My video cards are $450 a piece. Of course, if I buy cheap hardware equivalent to ten year old technology, it'll be cheap. And if I wanted to run MSDOS on it, the software would be cheap too.
If you buy an inexpensive machine, then you're looking to the operating system to do what your hardware can't. Welcome to software emulation now built into directx. Want sound without a sound card? How about graphics without a graphics card? Full EAX effects? And burn DVDs? How about a network connection without a nic? People forget that hardware is cheaper now because it does a lot less -- the drivers do a lot more.
Remember fax modems? You had a choice. $200 for a nice USR 56K, or $80 for a USR 56K "WinModem". Today, everything's a "WinModem". You get to pay for that "Win".
Also, we live in an age where hardware is cheap because it's deffective. A 500Gb hard drive is $150. No one makes a 250Gb drive. And yet, you can buy one for $100. They don't make one because they tried to make a 500Gb hard drive, and it simply didn't work. One of the platters was deffective. Instead of throwing it out, we call it a 250Gb and sell it anyway.
My point is very simple, when you rely on the software to do everything that the hardware can't do, and you buy cheap hardware, you are getting a whack of value from the software. Vista basic is a whopping $100-odd dollars. Ultimate is $300. Still no where near my video card. Hey, butt-ugly case is more than that.
In the end, windows runs games, music, burns discs, internet connection, networking, well, everything that people have asked for. I know, I use it all. And there's full support for me as a business.
I love linux, I use it everyday, it runs my web server. Hey, I pay a lot of money for managed hosting to have someone else ensure that it stays running.
If you don't want to buy windows, you don't have to. The fact that Dell has chosen to sell it is not up to you. The fact that most retailers have chosen to sell it is not up to you.
Imagine if Microsoft finally takes a critical blow leaving a vacuum for Apple to dominate. What's Apple shipping for hardware these days? Intel? Sorry AMD. What about wireless chipset? Video cards? Would be great to be vendor their choice but would suck to be the loser. Okay, fine. You'll just say that Apple will suddenly have a change of heart and allow consumers to choose the hardware. Um, ya.
Since MS makes IE for Mac, do they have the right to complain that Apple bundles Safari? What about Real? Do they have a right to complain that Mac bundle QuickTime? What if Apple bundles an office productivity suite? The double standards are staggering.
Oz
Quite an interesting topic, but I prefer arguments that are contrary to the position opposite of that which counters the arguments against unbundling Windows. Or to put it another way: for unbundling windows. I know it's not quite a triple negative, but it's very unclear and I see this type of writing all the time in slashdot head-lines. If you're against someone who is not for undoing something, then just say you're for undoing something, or against doing something. Reduce it to its logical minimum. Why not use "Countering The Arguments For Keeping Windows Bundled", or "Countering the Bundled Windows Apologists"?
We always knew Comcast was corrupt, here's the proof: http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1909890&cid=34545432
A minor aspect of the article's proposal that I like is the requirement that the manufacturer include an MS Windows recovery CD. Some manufacturers don't do that, even though you are paying for MS Windows. The last HP machine I bought had no CD. Instead, it had a hidden "backup partition". That's okay if you just want to reinstall the system after it has been corrupted, but useless if the drive dies or you decide to replace it with a larger one.
YAY! Let's make a law against allowing companies to install operating systems for the buyer! That's the 'real' free market for you. Clearly the auto industry does the same things and all cars should be purchased without the engine pre-installed so consumers can really have an open choice as to what kind of engine they'd want.
Shesh imagine Federal troops raiding Dell arresting hundreds after they get a tip off that some Dell employees are operating a shadow Windows installation ring for $20 and no questions asked. "Yea, I can get Windows installed for ya..."
Forcing OEMs to unbundle is really a horrible idea. If more than 50% of the people involved in the Linux project can't see that then Linux will *never* be more than a nerd's plaything.
Regulatory action should be focused on stopping Microsoft from exercising monopoly power not regulating the business model of other independent companies that interact with the Monopoly. Two other wildly better approaches off the top of my head would be:
-No contract that Microsoft makes can preclude the OEM from doing business with one of Microsoft's rivals or hinder that business in any way. This includes giving an OEM a better deal (or any other financial incentive) to no longer offer another operating system such as Linux (Quid pro quo).
-Informational regulations such as requiring the price of Windows to be disclosed to the buying in large type and plain language.
Great, so that is where the LINUX 733t are going with this.
1. LINUX users get to download and install LINUX for free. Check, mark one for the _good_ guys.
2. PC Makers are starting to come around offer LINUX on their machines. Check, mark one for the _good_ guys.
3. Windows users should have to pay out of pocket for thieir OS after they by the computer. Che... WTF?
4. All PC Makers should be forced to offer LINUX as an option. Che... agin WTF?
So we have gone from LINUX being the underdog that everyone wants to root for to LINUX the _right_ answer for everyone because LINUX experts know what is best for everyone.
Gee thanks! Whats next, will I have to wear a big Windows logo on my clothes so everyone can keep an I on me?
When will the penguin start wearing the Darth Vader helmet?
every other operating system except Windows and Linux. Personally, I like some distributions of Linux, but to recommend that manufacturers only supply machines with copies of Windows and Linux is wrong. Let them ship a copy of Windows (if the user wants it) or any thing else that the manufacturer thinks will help sell his hardware. This isn't about Linux vs Windows ... this is about Windows vs. everyone else.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
Indeed...but 31337 *is* prime.
The point is that if you want to buy a computer, you're not forced to buy it with Photoshop CS3. You ARE forced to buy a computer with Windows, at least if you want one from the big brands, and you haven't much of a choice if you want a laptop.
Of course, there are some brands that actually make linux laptops (I mean, before Dell), but you have to already know they exist, how to find them, and have a little extra cash, cause they're more expensive.
Back when I bought my laptop at Dell, I asked whether it was possible to buy it without an OS, or at least with XP (it came with Vista). I didn't even get an answer (two weeks later, they started offering computers with Ubuntu, but that's not the point). That is what this is about.
Imagine a person who uses some $20,000 software as part of their job. If all computers came with that software bundled, that wouldn't be a tragedy for this particular individual (unless he/she already had the software). Now imagine some student who only needs a word processor and internet access, or a musician who wants to record his music to sell it on the net, or some parents buying a pc for the kids (no, I won't mention any elderly relatives). Do you think it would be fair for a majority of people to pay for something only 1% of the consumers will ever use?
Now, let's say that software is 100 bucks and that 50%, (hell, 20%) of the people will ever use. It's still the same principle. That's 20 percent of the people who buy computers that are paying for something they don't want, didn't ask for, and will never use.
Maybe don't ask people what OS they want. Maybe don't explain to them the benefits, the differences, the compatibility issues. Maybe have Windows as a default option. But if somebody wants something else, or even nothing at all, for heaven's sake, let them have their way!
points.
The ideal situation is where every PC vendor must sell the operating system as a paid option for the PC. This helps people decide if they really want to pay for it, and doesn't force many people to pay for software they are going to rip out anyway. Selling a bare PC with both Windows and Linux on separate media is bad for the consumer, bad for the OEM (more tech support calls, etc), and so forth.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
Now its not that retail stores won't try selling tech support with Windows also, but that they'd probably load the odds against Linux by making the Linux tech support cost more than the Windows tech support. The other possibility is that people that are semi-comfortable with Windows or at least have "that nerdy kid down the street" to help them out with Windows - but don't feel so comfortable about switching to something new (Linux) and so go for the tech support...
You're missing the point of retail versions of Linux. Red Hat has both retail and FOSS versions of their operating systems on their website. The primary difference is that retail versions come with *paid support*, whereas the free ISO's you've downloaded don't. Other companies do the exact same thing. Moreover, many software companies allow you to purchase their software via:
A) Download
B) Boxed discs
C) Both Download and boxed discs
Making your software available in retail stores would also allow your company to get more customers who browse the shelves and go "This looks interesting." It's a sure way to get more traffic than to have someone mis-spell a URL and randomly arrive at your website.
Again, the question isn't about competing with Microsoft. Microsofts' model is dying - who wants to compete with that? Then you'll be worried about the next linux-like thing to come along and eat your lunch.
Boy, I wish I could die like Microsoft. They have double digit growth in both revenues and earnings per share, and are set to pass 50 billion dollars in revenues this year. For all of this talk about Google competing with Microsoft, Google's revenues remain a paltry few billion a year.
Yeah, that sounds like dying. Boy, I hear them death rattles now... Microsoft, on the verge of shutting down... except for that "oh we made 50 billion dollars this year part". Microsoft makes more in one month than all Linux distributions -combined-.
This is my sig.
Although I'm all for linux, I don't think that most people are ready for it. However, this can be solved very simply. When a computer is configured (for example on dell's website), there should be an option that says: "Operating System: Linux - save $54"
This way, all those who want to save money, and are WILLING to relearn an OS, can actually do so. All others will understand that there is a cost of time, support, and unfamiliarity that is associated with a new OS. Hey, even Mac OS X, the supposedly "best" out there, is still very hard for me to use (I didn't really spend much time though..) Switching is NOT comfortable. But we should have a choice.
Oh, and one more thing - if computer makers are getting paid to pre-bundle trial software, thus offsetting the cost of windows, well then the builders will show "save $20" instead of $54. Or not. But even if windows is effectively "free" as far as the builders are concerned, there still is some kind of unfair competition going on. This enables unfair competition, and an inferior product. Our ability to choose should be there. Regardless, it should be clear that refuses Windows should save you an amount equal to the price paid by the builder for the OEM license. There could be a separate discount that is given for accepting trial software, but this should not change the pricing disclosure on the windows license. Enough Said.
Fix your Dell XPS m1210 screen! -- http://m1210screenfix.blogspot.com
Here's a thought. What about those of us who either:
Example: You buy a new computer, and a week later, it gets fried by a voltage spike, That's clearly not under warranty. Why should you have to pay for a second copy of any OS, when you have a fully-paid-for OS, just that the hardware to run it on got vaporized?
Say H^HDell decides to sell Suse, and Future Crap^H^H^H^HShop decides to sell Slackware, and Worst^H^H^H^H^HBest Buy decides to sell Red Hat, and Wallyworld^H^H^H^H^H^Hlmart decides to sell Mandriva. I find it convenient to buy from one of them, because they're closest to me; why should I have to buy the bundled OS when I'm just going to rip it out?
Why does every unbundling argument always seem to boil down to forcing end users to install the OS from scratch? An unbundled option can be:
1. Preinstalled Windows
2. Preinstalled Linux
or
3. Blank Machine
It only needs to be another line-item option in the system configuration. OEM blows the correct image and includes a Windows CD + Sticker for Windows customers, and a Linux CD for Linux ones, and nothing for the blank customers.
Come on, this is trivial. Just have the assembly tech plug the drive into a fixture, hit the correct image choice, and bingo-bango, it's ready.
Here's the crux of the problem:
People liking windows has never been an issue. If your customers like Windows better than whateverthehell version of unix or linux you prefer, that's their option. The problem has been when MS has threatened a vendor with not selling Windows if they continue to sell non-MS machines. And MS has done this. And it violates the Sherman Anti-trust act.
We're not talking about a non-competitive company bitching because it lost, as you seem to imply. We're talking about a company that's illegaly leveragaing a monopoly into various business areas in ways that aren't in the consumer's best interests.
We're talking about an actually *convicted* (by the DOJ) monopolist. So to say that people feel that Windows is better than Linux because its market share is higher might be a specious argument.
As far as unbundling, I'm divided. One one hand, I have no desire to use the worthless MS crap. On the other, I would point out to the author that Windows and other operating systems are treated differently specificically because of MS's high market share which other systems don't share.
In the end, I can't tell if the parent poster is a true capitalist who doesn't understand the damage monopolies bring, or simply a MS astroturfer.
... some Aussie computer magazine was saying it's actually cheaper for them to import Vista Ultimate from the US.
Maybe Vista is more expensive in Europe as well?
My solution: Every computer retail store should inform how much of the price is Windows tax. For example: $500, where $150 is Windows Vista Bangtastic. And you should be able to choose not to accept the licence when you buy it, and they will remove the activation CD, so you can't activate it.
I hope you'll die like M$ :)
Sweating, throwing a hissy fit + chairs, getting an ultraviolet head and then exploding.
God this is stupid! This isn't about lack of choice, it's about whiny nerds upset that the world doesn't work the way they want it to. What's the problem now? Linux adoption not fast enough for you? I've got two computers on my desk, neither of which have windows on them, and neither of which EVER had Windows on them. There is no need to "unbundle" Windows from computers because you can already get computers without Windows.
This won't harm Microsoft, it will harm PC manufacturers and resellers, who will bear the entirely of the market disatisfaction with the unbundling. People will still buy Windows, only now they will be paying Microsoft full price for it.
The big hurdle you whiners need to get over is that Windows has 90% market share because people have voluntarily chosen to buy Windows or PC with bundled Windows. It may not be the choice you would have made, but that give you no excuse to government and its police to impose your will on others. IF this is that important to you, get off your high horse and go out and buy a computer without Windows on it. Sheesh.
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
1) Microsoft lost the civil monopoly case. You cannot be convicted of anything in a civil case. I know it's temping to suggest MS has done something criminal, but they have not.
I just read the article and I feel dumber.
Why must Windows and Linux both be bundled? can't I be offered to pay for Windows when I order and not get Linux? Shouldn't Plan9 be bundled too? What about Amiga?
And why should Linux be free? Companies put lots of money into Linux, and often times they choose to charge for it. And how about the cost of supporting a bunch of total novices trying to save a few bucks? People are going to call and report their computer as broken because such and such does not run, and they will at the very least have to explain how they don't offer any support.
I found reading the end of the article very frustrating and poorly thought out (like this post)
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
I think a few simple measures are required to improve the current situation:
- All computers having a hard disk of over 40 GB must be sold with (at least) 2 partitions. This allows users to install another OS.
- MS must be forbidden to charge a different price for the license if a manufacturer puts Linux on the other partition
- Any term in a license forbidding a user to run his OS in a virtual machine is void
- A user may use an OEM license on another machine (if the earlier machine is dead/doesn't run the OS anymore). Any term in a license forbidding that is void.
Bert
There seems to be a lot of discussion about preventing the bundling of Windows, or forcing "both" OSes to be installed and letting the consumer choose after they have bought it. I think everyone is missing the point. I don't care if Windows is bundled on most PCs that are sold, or if there is a version with Ubuntu pre-installed. What I want is for every PC with Windows bundled to also be available without any OS installed. It is not much to ask; it is actually less work for the manufacturer, and I want it to be cheaper than with Windows pre-installed.
Yes, I know this is slashdot, but you could try reading the article. There's a whole section called "But Windows only constitutes a mere 10% of the price of a PC, right?" which might interest you.
Quotes:
"Windows has reached 35% of the price of a new computer."
"52% of the price of a new Acer laptop was constituted by the forced-bundling of Microsoft and other Windows platform software"
No sig today...
If you're writing C++ without STL containers for data storage then you're doing it wrong. Period.
No sig today...
Unbundling windos is not about Linux. It really isn't.
It's about opening up the market to other competitors. Another Beos? Another OS/2? There is no reason why there should be only two OS available for computers, one of them only managing to still stick around because it's free (in both senses).
There is no operating system market. Unbundling windos is about re-creating that market. Innovation (not only in features!) only happens in a free market. That's what this is all about.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
If Apple was "effectively a monopoly" operating system which used that leverage to push into new product categories then damn sure they'd be getting the red flag from everyone on Slashdot about how evil they were. You miss the perspective that we're so ridged that we're incapable of seeing change.
Look at Microsoft, well since Slashdot came around, I think everyone's hated MS. Apple went from a lame duck to a star performer. Google went from a tiny and neat search web page to an amazingly large software powerhouse. Be went from really cool OS to absolutely nothing, etc.. and so forth.
Just because everyone loves Apple today doesn't mean that the good will will last 5 min longer than they deserve.
Bye!
Companies like acer could knock the price of windows off a system by shipping linux instead? What about the enormous extra cost of supporting linux? Acer would have to buy in a whole call-centre's worth of extra staff. These staff would either need to be linux experts already, or a linux support script system would have to be developed. This and many more issues involved in shipping linux will probably lead to more cost for removing windows than leaving it as it is.
Linux on the desktop is ready for the average user? This betrays a clear failure to understand the average user. Joe is an average computer user. Joe doesn't know what an operating system is, nor could he tell you which one he has. If pressed he could perhaps recall seeing 'Microsoft XP' or something, somewhere on his computer. Joe doesn't have a web browser on his computer, Joe "has the internet", which he knows you access by clicking on the 'e' icon. If Joe's computer doesn't do what Joe wants, he wants someone to fix it. He doesn't want to read the error messages, and certainly doesn't want to search for help online. Most pertinently, Joe has been using windows (when he has used a computer) for years, and it provides an environment he's relatively comfortable with. Joe may well be able to use linux, but he will certainly complain when everything is in a different place, and things work slightly differently, and when it breaks, or doesn't do something he always used to do... Oh boy watch out.
ARRGH ! Negation overloard ! Can't... parse... title...
I mean, what are we talking about here ? I want to be on the good side of the flames y'know !
Some of you have been talking about a free market, and the state trying to make a law that would forbid vendors to ship bundled pc's,
certainly goes against everything a free market stands for.
Already the market is responding by itself to the increasing demand of pre-loaded linux, slowly, yes. But it is happening.
I think that this will increase more and more, and a state intervention would serve no purpose.
If consumer demand for non-windows PC's is there, than there will eventually be a supply.
I find it a strange attitude, to condemn the state for nearly everything it does, but when it is interfering with free and open business to force
an unnatural market-situation, it is applauded.
Not the state is responsible for regulating the market, but every single consumer.
You forgot that, didn't you? So how do you know the cost of this is nil? It could be anything, more than 1/2 the price (since the cost of producing the next copy is nil, near enough).
When you buy a month pass on the train/bus compare it to a 30-day travel ticket book. Is the difference in price 1/2? No, more like 1/10. So for the Retail to be $99, the OEM price ought to be about $10. Knock off the support cost and that takes it down to about $0. So it should be free. But if it's free, why do you need to buy a license...
It really doesn't work. The OEM is a post-purchase restriction and there's no COPYRIGHT reason to make the OEM restriction to the original machine (more than one machine being bammed is OK) legal.
The ideal situation is where every PC vendor must sell the operating system as a paid option for the PC.
you have to also make them sell the OS seperately at the same price they offer it at with the PC. Otherwise they will just price the OS option at a token ammount (traditionally £1 here in the uk) and things will continue as before.
note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
So idle and largely unsubstantiated speculations in rants from people no one knows and no one cares about constitutes news on slashdot now?
...however, I do not want to run the infected version that ships with HP or Dell PC's. I keep the license key and strip the machine and install a clean version. If I could, I'd order it pre-installed with a clean version of XP. As Dell gets money from Macafee or Symantec or AOL or whoever to infect the PC before it ships, I cannot seem to get a desktop machine with a clean install of XP.
I'm all for forcing PC vendors to optionally sell their PCs without Windows installed. I wouldn't mind if they also provided the option to have Linux preinstalled (though I don't think that should be forced). What sounds stupid to me is the idea, apparently what's being taken here as "unbundling", of not having an OS installed on any PC shipped.
Sure, go ahead, force me to install Windows for all my family and friends. Yeah, sure, I have the time. I just love being the support person for everyone, and it's so considerate of you to provide me with yet another option to serve all those around me. Yes, I'd have the opportunity to install Linux instead -- which would still take my time.
I'd use the option to buy a PC without Windows for myself (hey, I do it all the time by not buying the brands), but for people who just want a PC to use, I'd much rather have them get a PC with an OS preinstalled.
It is MS that require a key to be typed in. With BIOS locked OEM installs, there's no need, WGA removes the need for a license key number too, just a unique product number on the CD. If the OS were installed like Linux there would be no difficulty in installing Windows and so the customer now KNOWS how much of a PITA these "protective" measurements are. One reason for not buying non-linux games is that I don't have to type in the CD key and don't have to keep the CD in the drive. If I only had windows, I would not know the difference.
The free market is supposed to consist of informed actors, isn't it?
But why should computer sellers have to do this? If they like to do business with Microsoft why shouldn't they? They are people, you know. The human rights charter does not only applie to have-nots ...
___
No power in the 'verse can stop me
You guys have to know that the person that wrote this article is an old timer in the computer industry. Since, 1970's and he makes a living as a Linux / Open Source Consultant.
The problem he is having is that he spends MORE time explaining to the 'windows addicted world' that there IS an alternative to Windows that can help in your business computing needs.
yes, it is true that Dell / HP / Acer and any PC Builder has the right to sell their machines the way they want.
Yes, it is true that if you want to be just like Mr. Dell and start your OWN company selling Linux Pre-installs you have to concider that by the time a company gets to the size of DELL or HP for example that they can afford to buy hardware and software in such BULK that the OEM costs are WAY less then for a 'start up' company. Therefore, your machines that run Linux only will not be as inexpensive and you will not have the MONEY ( that Dell / HP have ) to provide the awesome support.
I bet with A LOT of certainty that there is A LOT of talk between Microsoft and Dell when Dell decided to pre-install ubuntu linux. I Can ASSURE YOU that Micheal Dell and Microsoft lawyers had a little CHAT about the ramifications if Dell suddenly starts promoting Ubuntu over Vista. Microsoft is ready to charge Dell's OEM premium low prices and JACK the price up to SCARE Dell into 'not talking too much' about this Ubuntu thing, that happens to be FREE and VERY competive. Big businesses all have SECRET agendas between them to ensure one does not screw the other.
That is why is it SO HARD to find Ubuntu by way of navigating Dell's website... it is because Microsoft WANTS it that way 'or else'. money = power = pursuation. The only real way to find Dells sales page for Linux Ubuntu is by having to goto ubuntu.com FIRST and then clicking on the DELL icon from there. This is for a reason that regular consumers are not aware of and are between the lawyers of Dell and Microsoft.
Also, the complaint that most people would not be able to install an OS. If you can put a CD in the drive and power up the install of Ubuntu SHOULD be 2-3 clicks away. The CD's OF COURSE that would come with the Dell or ( Hp , Acer ) would be special Ubuntu CD/DVDs that were self installing and for the computer model that came with the CD. The drivers and all the would be known and installed. So, the user does not have to know how to install an OS.
I like the idea about a slashdotter's remark that Dell ( including the others ) should have an option to minus $50 if they want Linux instead of Vista. The consumer should be made aware of how much money it costs to install an OEM OS. Also, most the time we just buy the same OS software over and over again and most just think it is FREE because it CAME with the machine as the bundle. This of course is NOT true as the consumer is paying $50 or what dollars for the OEM operating system. We are not told this and it is HIDDEN. It should NOT be a HIDDEN cost. Linux is FREE so the consumer would choose to SAVE 50 bucks and become curious about Linux. Most already have an XP CD laying around from previous machines so if they do not like they can install that.
So the point is... I do not think GOVERNMENT should mandate Dell or Acer or HP etc.. but rather I think Dell needs to make sure that Microsoft is not 'scaring' them into offering alternatives 'of fear that Microsoft will stop selling cheap OEM Window OS's to them' and therebuy harming the business model of Dell. If that were the case than YES the government should step in because that WOULD BE anti-competiveness and using FEAR and monopoly tactics to 'protect' what microsoft fears most.. and that is losing ANY market share. Windows is ALL that Microsoft has going for it... really.
just my 2 cents... we will have to see.
I like the idea of this Christmas that 1 Linux geek give away a Free Linux machine to a family or friend this year. Let them run XP in VMWARE ontop of Ubuntu or whatever. Wheen them off the microsoft addiction. They do nto know anything better.
consumers only being given the 'out-of-the-box' option of installing Linux. It is therefore in Microsoft's absolute best interest to ensure that the Windows recovery media can be re-distributed and that the loading of Windows on the new PC is as fast and painless as possible.... ______________ Somehow I don't see this happening.. call me a skeptic
Personally, If I bought a new desktop or laptop PC for general use, even if I was planning to install an alternative OS, I'd probably accept the offer of a bundled version of windows.
Why? Well, in this Windows-dominated world I might well find myself needing to run Windows anyway (or wanting to sell the machine on), and to buy a "full" copy of Windows costs over three times as much as a bundled OEM copy - and thats a "retail" OEM copy (contradictory, but you know what I mean) - not what a big bundler actually pays. Its not a good gamble.
No way is that a mark-up of that size justified by any extra "support" that Microsoft might offer (beyond troubleshooting their DRM) - its part of the lock-in game.
(Oh, another little wrinkle: TFA mentioned businesses avoiding "white box" suppliers who offer naked PCs and suggests that its because they don't trust them - where I work, I'd classify the usual suppliers as (reputable) white boxers, but the "site license" for Windows allows us to install any version of windows we like on a new PC provided that the PC came bundled with some version of windows... chew on that one.)
Ultimately, anything the EU can do directly to Microsoft is going to be re-arranging deckchairs on the boat deck of the Titanic. The only real way to break up the MS monoculture is for the customers - particularly government and corporate - to wise up and start insisting on standards compliance and data portability (...and to a greater level of sophistication than "does it have an ISO number" given that MS will probably eventually win the war of attrition to get OOXML certified).
In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
I recently shopped around for a new notebook, and tried hard to get one without Windows included. There were options, either at the low end products from smaller players like MSI and Datron (sub-$900), or at extremely customised gaming notebooks (~$2000), again from not so well known brands. These products were actually cheaper than their respective counterparts that had Windows bundled, so the savings are being passed on to the consumer. These machines were advertised as w/ FreeDOS or "Linux" (distro not specified). I don't recall seeing these options 2 years ago. Unbundling is happening with the desired results (cheaper), although only in marginal segments.
https://dalgamotor.wordpress.com/ - Elektronik beyinlere ozgurluk asisi (Turkish)
Check Apple's SEC filings. They bill themselves as a computer company that adds value with software, not a software company that also happens to sell hardware. They're more than happy to have both OS X and Windows, and even Linux running on their computers. They just want to make sure it's their computers that are running it.
They also had about $6 billion in gross margin over the three months ending June 30th on about $17 billion in sales, and at that time about $7 billion in cash and cash equivalents. Over the course of one year, they've added more than $4 billion in total assets from just over $17 billion to well over $21 billion. Most of this increase is in the "current assets" category.
If anyone wants to blame Steve Jobs for hurting Apple, they could only possibly make a case through his time spent at Pixar and Disney instead of paying more attention to Apple. He may be crazy, but he's not stupid. It seems the more attention Apple gets from Jobs or whoever he has looking over things for him the better the company gets.
Well, the government in America requires all Medicare patients who want to access their web site to purchase Windows, since it's an IE and Windows only web site. Linux users can drop dead. I tried contacting them and got stonewalled, and had to install IE on my mother's computer.
So, why not go a step farther and mandate that all US citizens buy a copy of Windows? It could be an amendment to the constitution. We could use our progressive tax system to fund purchases for low-income people. It doesn't really matter if they have computers or not, just that every person buys a copy of Windows.
Yeah, I'm a little bitter about it. America was once the land of the free, and now the government both declares Microsoft an illegal monopoly, and creates web sites that require a purchase of Windows to use.
Ceterum censeo subscriptionem esse delendam.
I could try counter-arguing these counter-arguments against the arguments against unbundling Windows, but my head would explode.
not well written or thought out. typical fan boy bs. i'm sure my /. stalker will mod this down, so i wont bother to elaborate.
I am not advocating favoritism towards M$, but if they are made to unbundle their OS then it seem to me that the only fair thing to do is make every other OS do the same thing. Why should M$ be singled out, what about O$X and every flavor of *nix?
Dude, you can use ^W to nuke the entire word instead of ^H to delete each letter.
:)
Seriously.
But Dell (and others) aren't selling as many Linux boxes as they're selling Windows boxes. Doesn't that mean that there's less market for desktop Linux?
Yes, for now. But the market for alternatives to Windows will never be given a chance unless competition regulators force that market to be open and free to competition. The best and fastest way to do this is through unbundling Windows from PCs. If consumers still want Windows, they'll be free to elect to acquire it at the time they purchase their PC, but this should be through conscious decision-making, not through forced bundling.
This is crap. What a contradiction of terms. Force can never be aligned with freedom. Force is always someone ramming their opinion of what should happen down someone else's throat. Windows, though I hate it as an OS as much as the next Linux fan, came to power through a free market. People chose it and continue to choose it because it's what they know. We know that it's not the best option out there, but there's no wrong doing. Microsoft never forced people to use Windows at gun-point, but that's what this article is espousing for "freedom." It's saying, through the force of the government, and thus gun-point, to "free" the market up. No, won't work and shouldn't happen. Yes it's tough competing against Windows, but it can be done. It's our responsibility as those enlightened to stop supporting Windows and help those sick of Windows to try out Linux. Keep the crappy government out of this, they only make things worse because of their incompetence.
-> Sometimes, you just gotta break free from the shackles of proprietary code.
Unfortunately, the author never refutes Mossberg's assertion. Instead, the author dismisses it. Windows is easier to use than Linux. This comes from the fact that FLOSS is "by geeks for geeks". FLOSS projects get to the point where the geeks find it usable and then usability development generally stops. Technical development may continue, but the usability stays frozen. There is also the problem of inconsistent user interfaces, with people reinventing the wheel, sometimes several times over and often poorly.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
Idiots.
If you want to see Linux on desktops, get out there and build desktops with Linux on them. Stop fucking around with proposed regulation forcing OEMs to do anything. Just go solve the problem on your own. OEMs don't do it because they don't see money in it. Convince them they are wrong. By showing them, not by posting stupid words on the internet.
Should that read
Con Zymarisn sends in a link to a blog posting by An anonymous reader
?
Should I submit my blog posts anonymously? I mean, if I actually start posting them again? (Linked blog is almost 2 years old... actually since this is slashdot maybe I should submit it, not only old but this comment would make it a dupe!)
-Anonymous Coward
PS- almost all the places menbtioned in the linked "blagh" post are out of business. Springfield's smoking ban killed Rank's, and MC Tap's owners got busted for selling dope IIRC. Ane Rier finally cleaned the rest room. All the New Year's predictions were wrong (the cats didn't even shit on the floor, boy do I suck at that "balls of crystal" thing) and the rest of it is just as hopelessly out of date. So maybe it would make a good
;)
Laissez-faire means you simply let it be. WRT to a market, fair means that all competitors have an equal opportunity to compete. Open means that there are not artificial barriers to entry. This difference is clearest if you look at the stereotypical 'protection racket' of organized crime. This isn't fair and it certainly isn't open, but if you strictly apply 'Laissez-faire', you would not interfere and would wait for the oppressed 'sheeple' to revolt against the criminals. The problem with laissez-faire is that Gary Cooper's character in 'High Noon' is so rare outside of movies. We organize governments to respond to our needs. In the case of predatory businesses, that means enforcement of anti-trust laws. Microsoft's manipulate protocols that were developed by the public so that they intentionally break compatibility (SMB, Kerberos,...). The OS group is constantly changing the OS (every patch Tuesday), they don't test competing products with the same vigour that they test Microsoft products. This means that you can expect more days of down time if you don't buy into the whole Microsoft stack. Microsoft Office uses many unpublished APIs that are not disclosed to Office competitors. In both the US and UE courts have found them guilty. In my opinion, only a strict advocate of laissez-faire economics would oppose action againts Microsoft. Their market manipulations are neither fair nor open.
Think global, act loco
He says the Windows tax is 52% of the price of a laptop. If you look at the article he cites, Windows actually costs 135.20 EU out of 599 EU, which is 22%. The other 30% comes from other software which was bundled by the OEM, not required by Microsoft. He should make a distinction between forced installations by the OEM and by Microsoft.
I'm not sure if anyone has made this point yet, so I'll try. It seems to me, at least, that the vast majority of people who might use Linux are the same people who build their own machines. Or vice versa, folks that typically order a PC from a big box vendor typically won't be Linux users. Sure, some of the Linux users out there will go to Dell or HP to order their next PC, but only out of sheer curiosity and amazement that they are now able to do so, or out of some type of desire to help the proliferation of Linux.
Personally, whenever a new PC materializes in my house (through any means) it does so with a blank hard drive, and that's the way it will always be. I have no real interest in what Dell or HP or anyone installs on their PC's when they ship them, and I also have a sneaking suspicion that the only reason any Slashdotters might is due to the opening up of yet another discussion on Microsoft's evil grip on the technology sales world.
Technology is just like food. Those who just need a quick meal buy one in the supermarket, out of the freezer in a plastic bag that you can heat. Those of us that really take enjoyment out of it, cook our own meals, most of the time from scratch, just like a chef.
My question is, why the hell are so many of us Slashdot reading chef's so damn concerned with the ingredients in the pre-fab GARBAGE you can buy from Dell or HP?
Windows has more viruses because linux has more virus coders.
Surely, someone could sell Linux PCs, preloaded off the Internet, or even through a catalog.
Someone did: WalMart.com
You remember, the retail chain whose commitment to OEM Linux was - not so very long ago - being touted on Slashdot as a crushing blow to Microsoft?
Here was the great opportunity for Linux to gain a foothold among the unsophisticated - budget-conscious users - who needed nothing more than e-mail, the web, and OpenOffice.org.
What could possibly go wrong?
Since MS makes IE for Mac
Except for the part where they stopped making IE for OSX... Seriously, if you are going to use an example to bolster your claims, at least use valid examples. Also, Quicktime is not bundled with Mac OSX, it is an integral part of the OS. Explain how you can play movies and songs in finder view without launching an app to do so? Stop applying PC logic to OS X, because it doesn't apply.
I think there is another missing key...
I've never researched it, but I would be surprised (read: I'm pretty sure), that the major PC vendors get kickbacks from AOL, Symantec, etc for pre-installing trial software on the PC's. I also wouldn't be surprised to learn that the PC makers don't give the consumer a discount for these "bonus" materials. Personally, I hate it. It usually takes me several hours just to clean off the crap.
But the important part is that Linux and BSD distros do not have any extra, shall we say, margin enhancers. So, I doubt that we see significant efforts on the PC manufacturer's part to do much about moving towards non-Windows offerings (ie: show me the money).
Ubuntu is nice, and it is by far the Linux distro that is closest to competing with Windows on the desktop, but Windows--whether you want to admit it or not--is what people are used to and it works remarkably well.
Ok the author goes on and on about how much money people spend on bundled software and constantly sputters about how much you would save if you used linux because everything comes preinstalled with even greater functionality. The author fails to recognize that another measure the PC manufacturers could take is to install the WINDOWS VERSION of the most popular linux applications. OpenOffice is completely free and yes, for the average user, comparable to MS Office. The author just assumes that ALL the bundled software is Microsofts fault. I've sold Microsoft OEM for years and you're not required to install anything but the OS. All the other "bundled software" is at the manufacturers discretion. Yes, the buyer can choose to pay more to have me install the OEM version of office as well or they can ask me to install OO or install it themselves.
And as for us "'white-box' or no-name brand PC makers" the reason businesses shy away from us has nothing to do with the fact that we're not a household name it has to do with support. We don't have a thousand service techs on contract to go hold your hand or replace parts like crazy which is a big factor for a lot of businesses. Businesses aren't forced to do business with Microsoft and there's plenty of businesses now that don't. The "Name Brand" companies can get their computer hardware cheap because they can manufacture most of it, this is something white-box companies can't do, we have to rely on wholesalers which means that yet another person get's part of the profit and drives up costs. For the author to state that the users that don't want to use Windows are then limited to a fraction of the hardware out there is just plain ignorant. Most of the hardware out there is available to anybody, the only thing that's not are the mass produced motherboards and some cheap add-ons that Dell and HP put in there systems to keep their costs down. There's actually not a huge VARIETY available. Most hardware innovations are actually bought by gamers that install the hardware themselves in their already super fast machine.
To say that Apple Mac is a Hardware manufacturer is decidedly less then accurate, how many people do you know that go on and on about the awesome hardware of a Mac, it's the software that they love and advertise so much. They are two seperate things sold by a single company, they didn't invent the UNIX software which their OS X is based on did they?
Linux is NOT READY FOR THE AVERAGE user. I deal with 300 average users a day and when they see Linux they don't want it. However I do have linux in a very specific setup for a very specific reason to keep costs down in a specific area. The average user wants to be able to walk into a store and say "Hey, I need a program to do my taxes," and the clerk to hand them something that they can install (yes even the average user can install something in windows, even without a package manager) on their system (and not worry about the flavor or version they're running {do you know how many problems the average users had with just the 98 programs wouldn't work on XP or vica versa, and that's only two options}). And if you want support you can call anybody (and if you live in a rural area it's normally only one person).
The same market applies to both Windows and Linux, it's the demand that's different. People demand Windows because it's what they used at school (unless they had Macs there) and it's what they use at work, they don't want to use a different OS in different places. Oh yeah and didn't the author say something about businesses staying away from white-boxes earlier, they stay away from linux for some of the same reasons.
Yes the cost of software versus the hardware is coming up, that's because the hardware's getting cheaper and new software prices stay about the same, that's a good thing not a bad thing. And the "If you buy windows then you can only install Microsoft software" is actually less equivilant
Forget the detail. Dont worry about whether Linux is ready or if OSX can be licensed. There are two main points being made: - It is difficult for any competitor to match the product microsoft delivers. (drivers/compatibility/available software etc). - Consumers find it difficult to switch from Windows to another os. (fear/compatibility/learning curve etc) Quite simply this is because Microsoft has a monopoly. Private monopolies, whose only master is the bottom-line, prevent markets working properly, hinder innovation and cost consumers money. A free market economy like the US shouldn't allow Microsoft to continue in its monopoly position and has legislation which should be able to open up the market. Open up the source/break up the company/force it to compete on a true playing field. Any of the arguments about how difficult unbundling is are pointless, because legislators should be able to force Microsoft to open up so that others can compete.
Sorry. I meant "offer."
I also agree that OEM licenses should not be tied to the case or the motherboard as they currently are.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
Oh, and just to make sure you are clear in your thinking.... A Human Rights Charter would apply to individual humans and benifiting them, not to corporations and other conceptual entities.
I'm pretty sure that the human rights charter do not apply to corporations.
Right cause corperations are run by robots *mind boggles*.
Who are you trying to dictate what any business *has to* offer you? If they won't sell you a PC without OS then don't do business there. It's really that simple and there is no force involved at all.
___
No power in the 'verse can stop me
Corporations do consist of what exactly in you universe? Cause in mine it's an organization of human beings.
___
No power in the 'verse can stop me
Linux and Windows getting bundled as options? I want BSD in the box as well. If BSD isn't included as an option for customers, that's anticompetitive.
Coming soon - pyrogyra
The first argument in the article deals with why regulators should pursue unbundling. In the 2rd sentence he references a court case in which he states that "an incredible 52% of a new Acer laptop was constituted by the forced-bundling of Microsoft and other Windows platform software".
Number one - his reason, and I might add the court's reason also, is fundamentally flawed, because they forced Acer to refund full retail value of Windows XP Home (E135.20), MS Works (E60), PowerDVD (E40.99), Norton Antivirus (E38.66), and NTI CDMaker (E37). We all know that Windows XP Home can be had for $89, MS Works for $39, Norton Antivirus for $19, and a DVD Player/CD burning combo package for about $7. In Euros this works out to about E109, less than the judgment price for Windows alone! Realistically the bundled software was only about 18% of the total price of the laptop, and Acer may get even better pricing than what I quoted. Not to mention they are also supporting the OEM applications provided as well, which they would not do for a Linux distro that the customer installed himself.
Number two - he argues that if Acer shipped Linux (hey I thought this was about unbundling!) they would avoid all this cost altogether. Well go back to my previous point, they would probably charge somewhere in the neighborhood of $80-100 for OS installation and support for Linux. Consider that Red Hat charges $80 for their desktop distro including one year of basic, web only support. You have to buy the $299 workstation package to even get telephone support from Red Hat. Now who sounds expensive?
Number 3 - I also disagree with his ascertainment that businesses shy away from buying white-box hardware. Recent studies put the white-box market share at about 30%, and I would venture to say that a vast majority of those sales are to businesses. So almost as many business decision makers worldwide are buying from white-box vendors as from Dell and HP combined.
Number 4 - I disagree with the assumption that since Apple is creating their own hardware and they have a smaller (6.4%) market share, they should be exempt from unbundling. I don't think you can pick and choose who to apply the rules to.
Number 5 - You can't base your argument on percentage of cost of software vs. hardware in a complete system. Sure, ten years ago the OS was only 5% of the cost, because PC's cost $2000 each. Just because hardware prices have fallen off the table, should that force software companies to do likewise? I haven't seen any other major software manufacturers follow that logic. ACT! cost $200 ten years ago - and it still costs $200 now.
Number 6 - Unbundling will most certainly add complexity, not to mention add to support costs and end user frustration. A Pre-installed OS, regardless of what OS it is, is a working OS. No hassling with configuration files and drivers on Linux. No downloading chipset and other drivers on Windows. All things that have to be done regardless of the OS because only on occasion does any version of Linux work absolutely correctly right out of the box (and we all know Windows needs some babying). Expecting the end user to choose and load software would be a service and support nightmare. I can just imagine some guy who heard he could get Linux for free so he ordered the PC with no OS, installed linux, and then calls up Acer tech support because he can't figure out how to install Halo. Disaster waiting to happen.
Finally - His suggested solution is to bundle both Windows and Linux media, and let the customer choose which to install. As many people have noted on this thread and many times in the past, you can't cover the broad range of Linux distros, which at the same time is a strength and a weakness for Linux on the desktop. You're going to have to support one or the other OS, so in this scenario you're still going to pay the piper for something. If he truly were interested in unbundling (and after reading the article, it's really not about
Also, Quicktime is not bundled with Mac OSX, it is an integral part of the OS. Explain how you can play movies and songs in finder view without launching an app to do so?
Windows Media Player and IE are not bundled with Windows. They're an integral part of the OS. Explain how you can play movies in Explorer without launching an app to do so.
Coming soon - pyrogyra
And what does that have to do with anything? I'm not the one claiming that Apple should be forced to quit bundling Quicktime with their OS. Nor am I claiming that MS should do the same. The previous post used an incorrect example of Quicktime and MacOS X, and you throw in the non-sequitor of Windows Media Player on a PC?
Human rights refers to "the basic rights and freedoms to which all humans are entitled, often held to include the right to life and liberty, freedom of thought and expression, and equality before the law." Although corporations are composed of humans, it does not make it a human. A corporation does not think as it is not a sentient being, thus it does not have the freedom of thought and expression.
Perhaps to *unboggle* your mind consider this. The Unites States Constitution applies to Unites States Citizens. Amendment 26 gives the right to vote to citizens who are eighteen years of age or older. Just because a corporation is composed entirely of US citizens over the age of eighteen, that corporation does not gain the right to cast its own vote. Only the people who make up the corporation. Likewise a US corporation that has existed over eighteen years does not get the right to vote. Do you understand yet the difference between people and the grouped entities that they create? Who are you trying to dictate what any business *has to* offer you? If they won't sell you a PC without OS then don't do business there. It's really that simple and there is no force involved at all. You have almost understood the crux of the matter. Yet at the end missed it completely. I am not dictating what I must be sold, I am demanding that I must not be forced to buy an extra product just to purchase a separate and independent product. It is not a case of taking my business elsewhere because all avenues of purchasing mainstream systems have been routed formly through the hands of Microsoft. It is a case of pay Microsoft or get a substandard system. Through inappropriate pressuring of the computer sellers, Microsoft has bullied the sellers into forcing consumers to purchase the Microsoft OS if they wish to purchase most of the systems available. In doing so, Microsoft is inappropriately attempting to maintain its market dominance by preventing sellers from freely offering any product they wish to any consumer who wishes to buy such product without purchasing anything from Microsoft. Read that previous sentence carefully. Microsoft is forcing sellers to remove choices that they wish to make available to willing consumers. To give you your own words, it is really that simple and there is a lot of force coming directly from Microsoft.
Only on a new-fangled terminal . . . :)
hawk
Right, corperations are not sentient. That's why a corp doesn't decide what to put on it's shelf and who it wants to do business with. Ultimately those actions are taken by the owner (or owners). Among the human rights is freedom and protection of property. Freedom of association means that business owners can buy and sell from and to who they choose. Proction of property means that business owners are the ones deciding which goods to sell and at which prices.
Forcing a business owner to sell PCs in a certain way deprives him of freedom of association and protection of property.
Even if it where true that (it's not) you can't buy a computer without MS Windows on it then you are SOL. It's not just to take away rights of other people only so that you may get what you want.
In this scenario there is no force involved though. Force only comes into play when the Feds kick down doors because a business owner decided to preload the wrong operating system.
___
No power in the 'verse can stop me
Your statement implies that there was some reasonable and equally inexpensive alternative to Windows at the time it was created. What do you suggest was that alternative? Surely not Linux: it didn't exist at the time and could never run on an 8088.
To spell it out, if you, as a simple computer manufacturer, want to get a decent deal with Microsoft that will keep you competitive, you need to offer Windows only. If not, and you're not as big as Dell of HP, you'll pay more for your OEM license and subsequently are less competitive on the largest part of the market. This is how MS has kept a stranglehold on the market place for a long time. They have been found out, sentenced for it, and they currently do it less blatantly than before. They're still at it though. The choice for a blank PC at reduced price is almost non-existant, simply because few sellers can bare the higher cost for OEM licenses they must suffer for that. Again simple economics: the monopolist sets the prices.
Take a human being, replace each and every cell slowly, and what are you left with? The same human.
Corporations are entities that are not merely an organization of human beings. They tend to take on a life of their own, up to the point that any individual can be replaced without changing the corporate identity.
If you cut enough context most statements become ridiculos.
___
No power in the 'verse can stop me
> "you can use ^W to nuke the entire word instead of ^H to delete each letter. "
I know (bash is my default shell), but it ruins the effect ...
It's like watching monkeys throw shit at each other.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Technically, IE is not part of the OS. I know what you're thinking. No really, take a look at Windows Embedded. IE and all it's parts are optional components. Same with another product called WinFLP... IE, Media Player and others are all optional.
Now this is very important: IE is an SDK. Let me repeat that so that you understand, and I know this isn't easy: IE is an SDK. Well sure! Lets look at what IE provides:
1) CryptoAPI. Used in driver and file signing, encryption algorithms, certificate such as x509, all of which is easily usable in your applications.
2) Inetlib. Provides high level protocols such as http, ftp, even gopher through URLs. Very easy to implement in your applications, even gives you SSL. Very useful for SOAP.
3) showdocvw. By far the most popular and the most talked/complained about. Provides an easy way to show web content in your application. Of course also a virus target, but that's another story.
4) url.dll. Easy way for your application to parse URLs. Much safer and easier than doing it yourself.
I could go on, however this is why Microsoft couldn't completely remove IE from the OS. While getting rid of the iexplore.exe is easy, getting rid of the above is much harder and has to be done in an embedded deployment.
Now, I ask you this: back to my original statement. If Microsoft gets its ass kicked and Apple takes over, who's going to protect Apple from antitrust claims? After all, Microsoft has clearly defined the offense and its default penalty. Is Apple ready to be told to take these out? Ps: Would Microsoft have maintained IE for Mac if Safari wasn't bundled?
Oz
These various schemes are quite overcomplicated. Two things, first just require PC makers to sell a PC OSless. And second the DOJ's antitrust guys (who are supposedly watching Microsoft to make sure they behave) must make sure Microsoft isn't jerking OEM's pricing up and down depending on how "loyal" to Microsoft they are. That's it.
Most OEMs will still install Windows by default. Including a blank machine and two install disks is literally too confusing for a lot of people (see below). But at order time, you can order OSless. And companies that want can have additional choices. Installing Ubuntu is no big deal, it takes like 20 minutes so installing on a blank machine is no big deal; installing gentoo, well, any gentoo user will change the USE flags and rebuild everything anyway.
(below)
At the computer surplus I work at we used to sell exclusively naked PCs. I used to get plenty of confused calls "Hey I put my Office 97 CD in, why doesn't Windows install?" "Umm, because it's Office, not Windows?" "Ohhhhh...."
Now, ones with WinXP license stickers get sold with XP, and the rest get Ubuntu (with a tag saying it has Ubuntu, the username and the password). So if they find out their "Windows" CD was really a pizza or whatever there's working software on there instead of a "broken" PC. A lot of these Ubuntu machines certainly get Windows put on. But, surprisingly, I'd say about 10% of the people that buy them are like "Oh, I was going to put Ubuntu on there anyway, that saves some time" (more like 20% for the Macs -- now that the older Macs can't get the latest and greatest OSX, Mac owners are looking into Ubuntu and the like quite a bit). Another 10-20% of Ubuntu machine buyers are getting a second computer, so they'll look pretty unexcitedly at the low specs, mess about with the apps for a minute or so, then do a double-take at the specs and make a comment like "Huh, that's quite a bit faster than my newer computer at home, I'd better try this Ubuntu out more instead of just installing Windows over it" 8-) So far I've had one or two people come back and ask if I can get them an Ubuntu CD to try out on their other machines, which I did.
It's really beside the point. In a corp every decision is ultimatly taken by a human being that has been authorized by the owner(s) of the company and it's asssets. Human Rights are still relevant because of that. There's no way to unbundle windows from PCs against the will of business owners without infringing on their property rights and freedom of association.
___
No power in the 'verse can stop me
First of all it's a myth that free market cartells need to be punished and regulated. There is simply no basis in econ theory a blanked statement like yours. But I don't even want to argue about that because that is not even the case here. For years and years you've been able to buy PCs without any operating system (or DR-DOS which amounts to the same thing).
Third point: I know about the license deals but there is nothing nefarious about it. It's an incentive and MS is well within it's right to offer it. After all, they own windows and therefore it's their decision whom to sell it to and to what conditions. Nothing in those deals precludes third-parties from selling bare systems. Or systems with linux on it. The hard and cold truth is that there are even less people wanting bare systems then there are wanting linux systems.
If the realworld resembled slashdot there should be loads of vendors that only sell without Windows because that's what the market wants, right? But it doesn't and the market doesn't and so there aren't. It's really that simple.
___
No power in the 'verse can stop me
There's definitely a way to unbundle windows from PCs against the will of the business owners if they violate trust law and engage in other predatory monopoly tactics. That they seldomly go to jail for that makes for a very poor deterrent.
As for your other statement. Desktop machines without windows, maybe. Cheap desktop machines without Windows, harder. Laptops without windows? You can buy a mac, that's about it.
Unbundling serves to open the market. Many producers will choose to go Windows only, simply because 99% of their sales are windows machines, and they won't have the hassle. Some will try to open a new market venue by *also* supplying a cheaper Ubuntu solution for instance. This might work, but in the current situation, we'll never know, as the company trying this will get killed by Microsoft in the next OEM license round. They've done this, and they're doing this still.
Such situations have occurred many times in the past, and government has, for instance, unbundled cars and their radios. In the current closed market libertarian climate, that is apparently seen as unnecessary. The market will fix it, you can vote with your dollar. Repeat ad nauseam. History tells a different story.
Okay, when was the last time this guy installed Windows? 10-20 minutes? Seems like a conservative estimate to me.
Yep, I live in europe and still think it's wrong. If you believe that this fine had anything to do with consumers you seriously need to take a look at governments past and present. What the EU is doing is nothing more than good old protectionism dressed up in new clothes. Or if you prefer: counter protectionism telling the US that if it slaps around european companies the EU will do the same to US ones.
I know what the goal of unbundling is. I'm completely clear on that point. I personally prefer more choice, too. But might doesn't make right and property rights are of a higher order then any law any government might pass.
___
No power in the 'verse can stop me
Anti-trust law is even by many non-libertarian economists considered to be a joke. Anyways, it's a circular argument to say that anti-trust regulation is right and just because anti-trust regulation is right an just. You still haven't addressed the property rights issue or the why you insist on unbundling the OS over say, RAM or hardd rive or any other component.
___
No power in the 'verse can stop me