I've found this works when you're approached by an "ideas" guy. Ask:
a. So what do you think our odds of success are? b. So how much do you think this idea will make? c. How long would I need to work on it? d. What cut were you offering me again?
Calculate (a) times (b) times (d). Determine a fair amount of pay. Multiply it by eight. If they're being rude or disrespectful, double it again. This is your consulting rate. Multiply this rate by (c) to determine what it would cost to pay you to do the project at this rate.
In the rare event that the first number is less than the second, you simply explain about your consulting rate, and explain that it simply isn't profitable for you.
In the more common case (optimism) that the first is greater than the second, say it sounds like a great idea, but you are going to propose something that is even more profitable to them. Say you'll work on it for them at your consulting rate. Explain that based on their figures, factoring in the odds, they'll make even more money if they do it this way. All they need to do is track down the seed funds to pay for your time. Show them the figures to show how it would be more profitable to them.
If they say they don't have the money, mention the potential profits again. Ask why they aren't keen to do the legwork to find the money (loans, etc) when this approach is the most profitable to them.
If they bring up what you could potentially make if you went for the profit share, say that it's fine, but the risks and rewards belong with the person who originated the idea. If it's a success, they deserve the extra profits. You're happy to help them realise their idea, if they like, at your consulting rate.
If they say they want to split the risks, say the exact same thing.
Generally in the following discussion the real risks and rewards will come up, and they'll give up and leave you alone.
If they're actually keen to go ahead and find the money (extremely rare- never happened to me), weigh up whether the deadline and project is actually realistic. Explain the risks and potential problems that may come up, and that the nature of development is such that you can't guarantee success. If they're still game, congratulations, you've landed a consulting gig at a premium rate. If not, they've left you alone.
Your posting on experiences with fascism are interesting, educational, and good reading.
It's a terrible shame that you tarnish your own words shortly afterward with bigotry and hypocrisy.
I would like to hope that you are intelligent enough to be able to examine your own words and question your own assumptions. Consider rethinking the assumption you appear to have made that because some people of a particular class are stupid, all are stupid- except a few you've selectively chosen.
Stupidity and genius transcend any class or arbitrary grouping.
Three things that, off the top of my head, I'd like to see in browsers.
* Download Verification
It's 2008, I really shouldn't have to download a file, download a file containing its hash, run a tool on the downloaded file to get the hash, manually determine the format of the hash file, extract the desired result, compare the two, then track down the original download location if they don't match, and try the original file again.
I should be able to click on a link, and wait while my browser tries to download it for me, checks the result, and retries automatically a few times if it fails. The download window should tell me what has failed, what was downloaded with verification (and what type), and what was downloaded without.
How to implement? Extra meta-information embedded in pages containing links as to what the meta-information is. Companion files that contain this meta-information- the browser could decide to attempt to automatically download them if retrieving a file >10MB in size. So forth.
* Client-side Selection of Mirroring
When a page has a whole bunch of images, links to huge files, ISOs, etc- the original server should be able to send a list of possible mirrors to the client, and let the client, based on past successes and failures, choose a mirror automatically. Blend this with something like BitTorrent, and anyone running a BitTorrent client could pull files down that way as well. It'd be worth combining with the verification steps above in order to check the downloads. The original servers could just feed out the file metadata for large files, and let the clients determine where to get it.
* Style Blasting
I clicked that Tao of Mac link in the story summary. It rendered a page whose text area took up 40% of the available screen width (I measured it). I'd love to be able to right-click on such an area, select an "expand" option, and have it rerender the page with that area boosted to take up 75% or more of the available space. If it's still not enough, click it again, and it grows again.
Warning labels exist not because a woman was stupid and burned her lap with hot coffee. She was stupid. Everyone knows that. They exist because she decided to sue and wasn't laughed out of court. She wasn't laughed out of court because everyone likes to attack the big companies. Because if yer on a jury with this poor burned woman on one side, and a megacorporation on the other, yer going to make the coorporation pay just because it's the liberal-ish thing to do. And so now companies have to protect themselves. I would too, if some person could sue me for a hundred billion gajillion USD. I'd put warning labels on every single thing I made.
I see people post this same misinformation over and over. Frivolous lawsuits and stupid warning labels have been around much longer than the McDonald's coffee case.
To save you future embarrassment, I'd suggest reading into a little into it. Here are some starting points:
I will eat my shoe if they actually are selling exploits to third parties
I'd start cleaning your shoes and grab a knife and fork, just in case. From the article:
Indeed, there appears to be a legitimate concern over what benefit the customers of Gleg, who were informed about the problem, would get by having such client side exploit information before the vendor can patch it.
If my reading is correct, they're passing that information off to their "customers". Anyone who pays them, basically.
If Gleg offered to sell the info to Real, but told nobody else, I'd say that's fair. They deserve to be compensated for their work. However, it would appear they aren't doing this though. They're making sure other people know about the exploit, and are charging the vendor for the information they are going to need to defend themselves from the damage they are causing. That's akin to blackmail.
Actually, I'd recommend choosing the worst candidate... Simple. If this country goes to hell in a handbasket QUICK, people would be forced to take to the streets and protest. Massive protests would shut down industry and government alike, and would "inspire" change. I'm thinking Carter-like issues here.
Haha, brilliant!:)
I'd entertained a similar thought through Bush Jr's presidency. Perhaps it was just a survival mechanism as such? Anyway, I figured that if he did badly enough, there'd be sweeping changes in the next election.
Looking at this election cycle, I think it was somewhat different than in the past. Witness the sheer level of individual donations to Ron Paul, for example. I also saw a lot of passionate people get behind Dennis Kucinich, though not quite to the same extent. All of a sudden we have passionate people really backing non-mainstream candidates, both in words, actions, and finances. Ultimately, Kucinich has pulled out, and Paul seems to be having trouble, but I think a difference was seen.
So perhaps Bush's greatest failing was not being evil enough?;)
Also, thanks for reminding me why I used to enjoy posting on Slashdot more regularly. A comment like the one I made previously would draw all sorts of insults and abuse at most places on the web. Only on Slashdot would I get a clever comment like yours.:)
I'll resist the urge to bite too hard here since I'm busy teaching my pig to dance, but I have to say that I honestly don't understand the level of ire directed at Ron Paul and his supporters. Even if he's not your first choice- or far from it- you really have to admit that he is a departure from the status quo and provides a fantastic foil upon which to compare the other potential candidates.
The people who dismiss him outright or try to paint his supporters as mentally deficient have really committed a grave injustice to the those around them. Are people so seriously threatened by Doc Paul that they feel they must smear him by association and block his chance to speak or be taken seriously? Are such people so terrified that people might hear what he has to say... and like it?
You're choosing your freakin' president for God's sake. Shouldn't you be encouraging everyone to have a say, share their thoughts, and then give you all a chance to pick the best one?
But hey, it's politics as usual. Every single message board I've ever been on experiences an influx of new users (and purchase of existing accounts) on the leadup to significant elections. It's just hate hate hate on the candidates. Every single one! And those posters, they're all gone once the elections are over. Just like the empty promises the candidates make on the same journey.;)
Wonkette reporting on Ron Paul? Check your sources people! It's hardly going to be unbiased. A quick Google search gives a rough idea- check the use of "Paultard" to describe Ron Paul supporters. Link. These aren't reader comments. They are the articles. Wonkette has fallen from its glory days, and it's not just a recent thing.
Nonetheless, the news is somewhat saddening. It isn't clear if he's pulling out in spirit, or has just chosen some poor words to describe his new focus.
The current driver space for wireless components in Linux is an odd hodge-podge of ndiswrapper, madwifi (two versions), beta drivers external to the mainline kernel, minimal built-in support and blind luck. Cleaning this up should keep a good number of people very busy.
Well, we changed the scores on a few spamassassin rules on our mailserver yesterday. I guess the changes were far more effective than we had anticipated.
Hi again, jt2377. Conversation has already moved on, so you're probably going to be the only one seeing my reply. I just wanted to suggest that if you want to effectively troll people, you might want to cycle accounts around a bit. As it stands I can skim your comment history and see the sorts of replies you typically post. If you're already doing it, you might need to cycle faster.
So what do we do? Put a cap on publishers to sell not more than an arbitrary number of copies of a given book in a given language?
These are terrible analogies. There is no suggestion of a cap on Windows sales. There is no dominant English publisher making deals that insist on payment for the English version of a book every time the French version is sold. The situations aren't even remotely similar. Are they meant to be analogous? If so, you might want to rethink them. If not, why are we talking about books all of a sudden?
At least make it into a car analogy.:P
Windows has flaws, the English language has flaws. I wish people start realizing that monopolies are not automatically bad.
Monopolies generally aren't good for a healthy market, abusive convicted ones are particularly bad.
have you ever looked at the pricing plans from say Epic? you pay a lot extra for each additional platform you want.
and then there is the problem of porting any customisations.
Very true. Some engine/API makers charge by the system. Thus for some but not all, porting to another operating system will be hideously expensive and unrealistic.
My point was that there will be some developers, through the appropriate selection of technology and basic knowledge of cross-platform development who will be able to produce an additional port sufficiently inexpensively to justify the effort. Such developers may be inclined to have their products (or demos thereof) bundled with a basic install of the "alternate" operating system.
I linked to Google, so I'm not sure everything you'll find are "my" links. I'm not offering to critique and defend everything that might show up.;)... on the grounds that people would most likely install pirated Windows on them.
Where'd this come from? Why Windows?
I think the points that I mentioned earlier are a much more likely reason than this one, given the history of the company in question.
And honestly, what does an insincere excuse for an action have to do with the action itself? I can see no means by which Microsoft could possibly remain ignorant of the effects of such actions. I am certain they are very, very deliberate.
But selling them with FreeDos or for that matter Linux preinstalled is ok. I think that's why Dell preinstalls FreeDos, so people that want something other than Windows can nuke it and install whatever they want and Dell doesn't break the agreement not to sell bare systems.
Going from the link you've given, Dell sells a limited series that have a choice of OS. The presence of a token nod to a competitive market is not indicative of a healthy competitive market.
Dell are also big enough to have something vaguely resembling a negotiating position with Microsoft.
All this only applies to big companies and preassembled systems. You can buy a case+hard drive+RAM+CPU+graphics card as parts and put them together and install whatever you want on it.
A small minority of people have the knowledge needed to do this. The fact that a tiny subset of potential customers with specialised knowledge could choose their own operating system has nothing to do with the fact that some manufacturers are being compelled to bundle Windows with systems.
Would you agree that when a major company dictates the terms of the majority of the sales in an industry there is a significant problem?
I really do question why some people feel the need to defend Microsoft's actions re OEM lockins. They are truly disgusting. I can see little reason that someone with an understanding of what Microsoft are trying to maintain would actually defend their actions- short of the obvious trolling and astroturfing.
But here is where we get into the Catch-22: no bundleware vendor wants to build a product for a platform that has a small install base. Linux's install base cannot grow if it cannot compete. It cannot compete if people can buy a PC with MS-Windows for a "nominal price", which they can only because bundleware is made available for MS-Windows.
Very true- it will remain a difficult task for an operating system to get traction even if the playing field were level.
Mind you, any bundleware vendors whose products are already cross-platform or fairly close may be interested though- and that would include anyone developing software using a licensed engine that happens to run under (say) Linux as well.
Cute troll jt2377, seems the mod system has taken care of this already. But since I'm here and have some further thoughts:
No demand on Linux desktop thus No vendors going to bundle it.
If that is so, surely there is no problem breaking the Microsoft lock-in on new PCs. If nobody wants Linux (or any other distro), then surely it won't affect Microsoft's bottom line one bit to get rid of this silly forced bundling.
The fact that it seems to bother them is interesting, don't ya think?
So if the OEM version is $100, but there is $89 of bundledware (that is only available on Windows), who is going to give up forking out $11 to buy an OS that they "know" and instead try that thing they've been all FUD'ed about...
This is interesting- because a similar trick could be done with any Linux distro as well. The bundled apps could always subsidise the hardware costs to a point, or the cost of a commercially-supported distro. Of course, a lot of savvy users will just nuke the install and put their favourite distro on anyway. People do that anyway, but dodging the MS tax would be nice.
And trust me, if unbundling becomes forced, there will be a FUDfest like no other in history...remember the "not compatible with DOS" astroturfing wars in the 80's? But this time it will be about piracy, patent-violating, known-provider...hey haven't we heard some of this before [microsoft.com]?
It would certainly be interesting to see how they'd react to having something closer to real competition forced upon then. It would be good to see a Microsoft who was forced into technical innovation to stay in business.
Microsoft selling their OS at a discount to high volume vendors is not FORCING them to sell it. Linux has an even bigger discount. You don't have to pay a thing.
Try reading the points made in my post.
Whilst it is also a reality that a significant number of customers do want Windows- or have no idea what an operating system is- it is entirely disingenuous to pretend that it is feasible to ignore this segment of customers because Linux is free. Sure, there may be some Linux-only vendors, but expecting a vendor to drop all of the customers who use a dominant operating system is a bit unrealistic.
You are merely acknowledging the reality that the average PC buyer expects and wants a Microsoft OS.
Now you're just trolling me. I have done no such thing.
I think that mandating the inclusion of one single specific competitor in the box and requiring that consumers have to run the installers themselves as TFA suggest crosses some invisible line and is clearly "taking sides".
If it came down to mandating a specific OS, distro, or similar, even Linux (my OS of choice) I'd have a huge problem with it, much like I have a huge problem with the whole Microsoft OEM situation. In that sense, I agree completely with you.
However, I took that part of the article as a suggestion of sorts- as in "how it could be done" versus "what must be done".
If on the other hand, there was a requirement to either offer no OS at all or a freely-available OS (but no specific OS mentioned), then I'm all for it.
Of course TFA could have suggested that every alternative OS be available. This would only be slightly less appalling than what he actually wrote.
False choice? My apologies if this wasn't what you were suggesting.
Manufacturers who wanted to get the nice cheap bulk OEM Windows licenses had (have?) to agree to pay-per-processor/system, regardless of actual OS installed.
PC sales run on obscenely thin margins. If a manufacturer can't get the cheap price, they'll lose competition to someone who can.
Dig around. Some of the manufacturers (see Gateway) had sales minimums and marketing requirements attached to the prices.
And that option is still open. Vendors can (and in my opinion, should) offer a default choice of Windows. But they should also offer the option to get an unbundled system.
This is exactly what I came in to say. If a mostly-Microsoft vendor is worried that people will be "confused" (an oft-cited argument for bundling), then make the Windows OS a default choice. Let the people who don't want to buy it change it to something else.
More importantly, let people see what they are paying for. If it costs $x for an OEM version of a Windows OS, I can make an informed decision as to whether I want to get it or not. And so can everyone else.
Attempting to stop a convicted monopoly from dealmaking that excludes competitors or allows them to collect money per PC regardless of the OS isn't a matter of regulators "taking sides". It is stopping said monopoly from abusing its position further, and actually giving competition a chance to thrive in an area despite the monopoly's best efforts to exclude.
Slashdot Mirror
I've found this works when you're approached by an "ideas" guy. Ask:
a. So what do you think our odds of success are?
b. So how much do you think this idea will make?
c. How long would I need to work on it?
d. What cut were you offering me again?
Calculate (a) times (b) times (d). Determine a fair amount of pay. Multiply it by eight. If they're being rude or disrespectful, double it again. This is your consulting rate. Multiply this rate by (c) to determine what it would cost to pay you to do the project at this rate.
In the rare event that the first number is less than the second, you simply explain about your consulting rate, and explain that it simply isn't profitable for you.
In the more common case (optimism) that the first is greater than the second, say it sounds like a great idea, but you are going to propose something that is even more profitable to them. Say you'll work on it for them at your consulting rate. Explain that based on their figures, factoring in the odds, they'll make even more money if they do it this way. All they need to do is track down the seed funds to pay for your time. Show them the figures to show how it would be more profitable to them.
If they say they don't have the money, mention the potential profits again. Ask why they aren't keen to do the legwork to find the money (loans, etc) when this approach is the most profitable to them.
If they bring up what you could potentially make if you went for the profit share, say that it's fine, but the risks and rewards belong with the person who originated the idea. If it's a success, they deserve the extra profits. You're happy to help them realise their idea, if they like, at your consulting rate.
If they say they want to split the risks, say the exact same thing.
Generally in the following discussion the real risks and rewards will come up, and they'll give up and leave you alone.
If they're actually keen to go ahead and find the money (extremely rare- never happened to me), weigh up whether the deadline and project is actually realistic. Explain the risks and potential problems that may come up, and that the nature of development is such that you can't guarantee success. If they're still game, congratulations, you've landed a consulting gig at a premium rate. If not, they've left you alone.
Your posting on experiences with fascism are interesting, educational, and good reading.
It's a terrible shame that you tarnish your own words shortly afterward with bigotry and hypocrisy.
I would like to hope that you are intelligent enough to be able to examine your own words and question your own assumptions. Consider rethinking the assumption you appear to have made that because some people of a particular class are stupid, all are stupid- except a few you've selectively chosen.
Stupidity and genius transcend any class or arbitrary grouping.
What you do with these words is up to you.
Three things that, off the top of my head, I'd like to see in browsers.
* Download Verification
It's 2008, I really shouldn't have to download a file, download a file containing its hash, run a tool on the downloaded file to get the hash, manually determine the format of the hash file, extract the desired result, compare the two, then track down the original download location if they don't match, and try the original file again.
I should be able to click on a link, and wait while my browser tries to download it for me, checks the result, and retries automatically a few times if it fails. The download window should tell me what has failed, what was downloaded with verification (and what type), and what was downloaded without.
How to implement? Extra meta-information embedded in pages containing links as to what the meta-information is. Companion files that contain this meta-information- the browser could decide to attempt to automatically download them if retrieving a file >10MB in size. So forth.
* Client-side Selection of Mirroring
When a page has a whole bunch of images, links to huge files, ISOs, etc- the original server should be able to send a list of possible mirrors to the client, and let the client, based on past successes and failures, choose a mirror automatically. Blend this with something like BitTorrent, and anyone running a BitTorrent client could pull files down that way as well. It'd be worth combining with the verification steps above in order to check the downloads. The original servers could just feed out the file metadata for large files, and let the clients determine where to get it.
* Style Blasting
I clicked that Tao of Mac link in the story summary. It rendered a page whose text area took up 40% of the available screen width (I measured it). I'd love to be able to right-click on such an area, select an "expand" option, and have it rerender the page with that area boosted to take up 75% or more of the available space. If it's still not enough, click it again, and it grows again.
"I wish I could find someone like you..."
"There is no-one more like me, than me."
Marvelous!
If there was ever a post that justified a "(Score: 6 Legendary)", this is it.
Warning labels exist not because a woman was stupid and burned her lap with hot coffee. She was stupid. Everyone knows that. They exist because she decided to sue and wasn't laughed out of court. She wasn't laughed out of court because everyone likes to attack the big companies. Because if yer on a jury with this poor burned woman on one side, and a megacorporation on the other, yer going to make the coorporation pay just because it's the liberal-ish thing to do. And so now companies have to protect themselves. I would too, if some person could sue me for a hundred billion gajillion USD. I'd put warning labels on every single thing I made.
I see people post this same misinformation over and over. Frivolous lawsuits and stupid warning labels have been around much longer than the McDonald's coffee case.
To save you future embarrassment, I'd suggest reading into a little into it. Here are some starting points:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald's_coffee_case
http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm
http://www.centerjd.org/free/mythbusters-free/MB_mcdonalds.htm
And more:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=mcdonalds+coffee+case&btnG=Google+Search&meta=
This case is not the poster child of frivolous lawsuits that many people think it is.
I will eat my shoe if they actually are selling exploits to third parties
I'd start cleaning your shoes and grab a knife and fork, just in case. From the article:
Indeed, there appears to be a legitimate concern over what benefit the customers of Gleg, who were informed about the problem, would get by having such client side exploit information before the vendor can patch it.
If my reading is correct, they're passing that information off to their "customers". Anyone who pays them, basically.
If Gleg offered to sell the info to Real, but told nobody else, I'd say that's fair. They deserve to be compensated for their work. However, it would appear they aren't doing this though. They're making sure other people know about the exploit, and are charging the vendor for the information they are going to need to defend themselves from the damage they are causing. That's akin to blackmail.
Actually, I'd recommend choosing the worst candidate ...
:)
;)
:)
Simple. If this country goes to hell in a handbasket QUICK, people would be forced to take to the streets and protest. Massive protests would shut down industry and government alike, and would "inspire" change. I'm thinking Carter-like issues here.
Haha, brilliant!
I'd entertained a similar thought through Bush Jr's presidency. Perhaps it was just a survival mechanism as such? Anyway, I figured that if he did badly enough, there'd be sweeping changes in the next election.
Looking at this election cycle, I think it was somewhat different than in the past. Witness the sheer level of individual donations to Ron Paul, for example. I also saw a lot of passionate people get behind Dennis Kucinich, though not quite to the same extent. All of a sudden we have passionate people really backing non-mainstream candidates, both in words, actions, and finances. Ultimately, Kucinich has pulled out, and Paul seems to be having trouble, but I think a difference was seen.
So perhaps Bush's greatest failing was not being evil enough?
Also, thanks for reminding me why I used to enjoy posting on Slashdot more regularly. A comment like the one I made previously would draw all sorts of insults and abuse at most places on the web. Only on Slashdot would I get a clever comment like yours.
I'll resist the urge to bite too hard here since I'm busy teaching my pig to dance, but I have to say that I honestly don't understand the level of ire directed at Ron Paul and his supporters. Even if he's not your first choice- or far from it- you really have to admit that he is a departure from the status quo and provides a fantastic foil upon which to compare the other potential candidates.
;)
The people who dismiss him outright or try to paint his supporters as mentally deficient have really committed a grave injustice to the those around them. Are people so seriously threatened by Doc Paul that they feel they must smear him by association and block his chance to speak or be taken seriously? Are such people so terrified that people might hear what he has to say... and like it?
You're choosing your freakin' president for God's sake. Shouldn't you be encouraging everyone to have a say, share their thoughts, and then give you all a chance to pick the best one?
But hey, it's politics as usual. Every single message board I've ever been on experiences an influx of new users (and purchase of existing accounts) on the leadup to significant elections. It's just hate hate hate on the candidates. Every single one! And those posters, they're all gone once the elections are over. Just like the empty promises the candidates make on the same journey.
Wonkette reporting on Ron Paul? Check your sources people! It's hardly going to be unbiased. A quick Google search gives a rough idea- check the use of "Paultard" to describe Ron Paul supporters. Link. These aren't reader comments. They are the articles. Wonkette has fallen from its glory days, and it's not just a recent thing.
Nonetheless, the news is somewhat saddening. It isn't clear if he's pulling out in spirit, or has just chosen some poor words to describe his new focus.
Wireless.
The current driver space for wireless components in Linux is an odd hodge-podge of ndiswrapper, madwifi (two versions), beta drivers external to the mainline kernel, minimal built-in support and blind luck. Cleaning this up should keep a good number of people very busy.
Well, we changed the scores on a few spamassassin rules on our mailserver yesterday. I guess the changes were far more effective than we had anticipated.
Hi again, jt2377. Conversation has already moved on, so you're probably going to be the only one seeing my reply. I just wanted to suggest that if you want to effectively troll people, you might want to cycle accounts around a bit. As it stands I can skim your comment history and see the sorts of replies you typically post. If you're already doing it, you might need to cycle faster.
Anyway, must go, no doubt I'll see you around.
Love and kisses,
OBB.
So what do we do? Put a cap on publishers to sell not more than an arbitrary number of copies of a given book in a given language?
:P
These are terrible analogies. There is no suggestion of a cap on Windows sales. There is no dominant English publisher making deals that insist on payment for the English version of a book every time the French version is sold. The situations aren't even remotely similar. Are they meant to be analogous? If so, you might want to rethink them. If not, why are we talking about books all of a sudden?
At least make it into a car analogy.
Windows has flaws, the English language has flaws. I wish people start realizing that monopolies are not automatically bad.
Monopolies generally aren't good for a healthy market, abusive convicted ones are particularly bad.
have you ever looked at the pricing plans from say Epic? you pay a lot extra for each additional platform you want.
and then there is the problem of porting any customisations.
Very true. Some engine/API makers charge by the system. Thus for some but not all, porting to another operating system will be hideously expensive and unrealistic.
My point was that there will be some developers, through the appropriate selection of technology and basic knowledge of cross-platform development who will be able to produce an additional port sufficiently inexpensively to justify the effort. Such developers may be inclined to have their products (or demos thereof) bundled with a basic install of the "alternate" operating system.
From one of your links
;) ... on the grounds that people would most likely install pirated Windows on them.
I linked to Google, so I'm not sure everything you'll find are "my" links. I'm not offering to critique and defend everything that might show up.
Where'd this come from? Why Windows?
I think the points that I mentioned earlier are a much more likely reason than this one, given the history of the company in question.
And honestly, what does an insincere excuse for an action have to do with the action itself? I can see no means by which Microsoft could possibly remain ignorant of the effects of such actions. I am certain they are very, very deliberate.
But selling them with FreeDos or for that matter Linux preinstalled is ok. I think that's why Dell preinstalls FreeDos, so people that want something other than Windows can nuke it and install whatever they want and Dell doesn't break the agreement not to sell bare systems.
Going from the link you've given, Dell sells a limited series that have a choice of OS. The presence of a token nod to a competitive market is not indicative of a healthy competitive market.
Dell are also big enough to have something vaguely resembling a negotiating position with Microsoft.
All this only applies to big companies and preassembled systems. You can buy a case+hard drive+RAM+CPU+graphics card as parts and put them together and install whatever you want on it.
A small minority of people have the knowledge needed to do this. The fact that a tiny subset of potential customers with specialised knowledge could choose their own operating system has nothing to do with the fact that some manufacturers are being compelled to bundle Windows with systems.
Would you agree that when a major company dictates the terms of the majority of the sales in an industry there is a significant problem?
I really do question why some people feel the need to defend Microsoft's actions re OEM lockins. They are truly disgusting. I can see little reason that someone with an understanding of what Microsoft are trying to maintain would actually defend their actions- short of the obvious trolling and astroturfing.
But here is where we get into the Catch-22: no bundleware vendor wants to build a product for a platform that has a small install base. Linux's install base cannot grow if it cannot compete. It cannot compete if people can buy a PC with MS-Windows for a "nominal price", which they can only because bundleware is made available for MS-Windows.
Very true- it will remain a difficult task for an operating system to get traction even if the playing field were level.
Mind you, any bundleware vendors whose products are already cross-platform or fairly close may be interested though- and that would include anyone developing software using a licensed engine that happens to run under (say) Linux as well.
...
Cute troll jt2377, seems the mod system has taken care of this already. But since I'm here and have some further thoughts:
No demand on Linux desktop thus No vendors going to bundle it.
If that is so, surely there is no problem breaking the Microsoft lock-in on new PCs. If nobody wants Linux (or any other distro), then surely it won't affect Microsoft's bottom line one bit to get rid of this silly forced bundling.
The fact that it seems to bother them is interesting, don't ya think?
So if the OEM version is $100, but there is $89 of bundledware (that is only available on Windows), who is going to give up forking out $11 to buy an OS that they "know" and instead try that thing they've been all FUD'ed about...
This is interesting- because a similar trick could be done with any Linux distro as well. The bundled apps could always subsidise the hardware costs to a point, or the cost of a commercially-supported distro. Of course, a lot of savvy users will just nuke the install and put their favourite distro on anyway. People do that anyway, but dodging the MS tax would be nice.
And trust me, if unbundling becomes forced, there will be a FUDfest like no other in history...remember the "not compatible with DOS" astroturfing wars in the 80's? But this time it will be about piracy, patent-violating, known-provider...hey haven't we heard some of this before [microsoft.com]?
It would certainly be interesting to see how they'd react to having something closer to real competition forced upon then. It would be good to see a Microsoft who was forced into technical innovation to stay in business.
Microsoft selling their OS at a discount to high volume vendors is not FORCING them to sell it. Linux has an even bigger discount. You don't have to pay a thing.
Try reading the points made in my post.
Whilst it is also a reality that a significant number of customers do want Windows- or have no idea what an operating system is- it is entirely disingenuous to pretend that it is feasible to ignore this segment of customers because Linux is free. Sure, there may be some Linux-only vendors, but expecting a vendor to drop all of the customers who use a dominant operating system is a bit unrealistic.
You are merely acknowledging the reality that the average PC buyer expects and wants a Microsoft OS.
Now you're just trolling me. I have done no such thing.
I think that mandating the inclusion of one single specific competitor in the box and requiring that consumers have to run the installers themselves as TFA suggest crosses some invisible line and is clearly "taking sides".
If it came down to mandating a specific OS, distro, or similar, even Linux (my OS of choice) I'd have a huge problem with it, much like I have a huge problem with the whole Microsoft OEM situation. In that sense, I agree completely with you.
However, I took that part of the article as a suggestion of sorts- as in "how it could be done" versus "what must be done".
If on the other hand, there was a requirement to either offer no OS at all or a freely-available OS (but no specific OS mentioned), then I'm all for it.
Of course TFA could have suggested that every alternative OS be available. This would only be slightly less appalling than what he actually wrote.
False choice? My apologies if this wasn't what you were suggesting.
No manufacturer is FORCED to bundle Microsoft XP or Vista with their hardware.
Oh yes they are, if they want to stay in business.
Inform yourself. Here is a start: link here.
Manufacturers who wanted to get the nice cheap bulk OEM Windows licenses had (have?) to agree to pay-per-processor/system, regardless of actual OS installed.
PC sales run on obscenely thin margins. If a manufacturer can't get the cheap price, they'll lose competition to someone who can.
Dig around. Some of the manufacturers (see Gateway) had sales minimums and marketing requirements attached to the prices.
So yes, they are FORCED.
And that option is still open. Vendors can (and in my opinion, should) offer a default choice of Windows. But they should also offer the option to get an unbundled system.
This is exactly what I came in to say. If a mostly-Microsoft vendor is worried that people will be "confused" (an oft-cited argument for bundling), then make the Windows OS a default choice. Let the people who don't want to buy it change it to something else.
More importantly, let people see what they are paying for. If it costs $x for an OEM version of a Windows OS, I can make an informed decision as to whether I want to get it or not. And so can everyone else.
... without the regulators taking sides...
Attempting to stop a convicted monopoly from dealmaking that excludes competitors or allows them to collect money per PC regardless of the OS isn't a matter of regulators "taking sides". It is stopping said monopoly from abusing its position further, and actually giving competition a chance to thrive in an area despite the monopoly's best efforts to exclude.
people don't want to do backflips for an operating system in order to make it work the way they want.
Yeah, tell me about it. Even worse is when you're forced to pay for the operating system you don't want as well.
Oh, you were arguing for bundling Windows?