Then you can not deny MY point, can you? Really, if you are reasonable about it, you can research the case without reading all that. But if you want proof, there it is.
Apparently I was being too subtle about my requests for you to prove your point, so I'll say it outright: you're lying, I deny it, it's not true. There, now prove it. You can't, that's why you don't bother trying. You expect to find proof in my not providing proof of its falsity. Lack of proof on my end does not constitute proof on your end. That's the kind of twisted logic the religious use to prove their sky fairies exist.
You claim to be willfully ignorant. That is not my fault.
I claim to be willfully ignorant of an obscure case that only a small fraction of the technical community would be interested it (after all, the last time I even saw a SCO server was in college...in 1993), let alone the community at large. I actually have a life, so I filter out the extraneous. After searching your username on Google, I see that you do not which explains why you care so much. (Actually, I searched for "letters from dead people campaign" and the overwhelming majority of sites were you bitching about it on a forum or the sites you were parroting.)
I also find it that of all of MS' "misdeeds" you've listed, this is the only one you've given any attention to. When I dispute your other claims, you just trim them from your response. Is that because you've decided you're wrong on them? You were wrong about Stacker, you were wrong about Eberle, you were wrong about AdTI...I can only assume by your silence on them you've conceded those points. In which case, the SCO thing becomes a non-issue. Actually, it already WAS a non-issue because it doesn't affect anyone but the parties involved, but that's a whole other story..
You are clearly not trying to be fair or reasonable.
Really? Asking you to provide proof of your statements is unreasonable? You've got a very odd definition of reasonable. As an atheist, I think it's fairly unreasonable to ask someone to accept something with just blind faith in the person telling the tale.
You are only to deny or challang anything that might be percieved as anti-msft.
I did no such thing, I merely asked you to provide proof. Theories are not proof. Proof is proof. A press release, a court finding, even a publicly available interview of a MS executive. Anything at all would be good. You gave nothing except random ramblings.
What I posted has nothing to do with a "conspiracy." It is also not a "theory" msft admitted to it.
Admitted to what? The only thing you sent me was an article in which the LA Times alleged (the article specifically said "alleged") that a group of which MS is a member (as well as Staples, CompUSA, CompTIA and others) sent a bunch of letters to their editor decrying the court's decision. However, there was no confirmation of this by the group in the article. If you've got a link to a press release admitting it, I'll be happy to take a look. In any case, so what? The DoJ trial was a farce and a lot of people wrote complaining of how ridiculous the decision was, myself included. It's not like it matters. I'm more concerned with all of the dead people who vote in elections. How 'bout this: a more reasonable explanation is that they sent those letters in with fake names so that it wouldn't appear there was some level of impropriety. If everyone in that group had sent a letter and then someone said "hey, this guy's a member of this group", people would be all up in arms. As long as it was a one-to-one ratio (person to letter), the effect is the same. It just didn't work out the way they wanted. In any case, an allegation by the LA Times, paragon of journalistic integrity that they are, is not proof. It's still just an allegation. Here's a hint: just because it's in writing, doesn't mean it's true.
In fact msft admits to many of their scams.
Sigh......PROOF PLEASE! A reference, a citation, a quote. ANYTHING! But, let's say for the sake of argument you're not making all of this up. I ask the question again: so? Apparently it only matters to people in the OSS community 'cause everyone else just keeps buying MS stuff. At the end of the day, I like their products, I like the people I've dealt with from there and I like them as a company. I cannot say the same for most in the OSS community. In fact, I would argue that the OSS community is guilty of a lot more deceit and scams than MS ever could. I'm not going to provide proof of this statement, since apparently that's not necessary. It's been said, so therefore it's true.
How about outright lying to the US-DoJ in video-taped testomony?
How about the DoJ's "technical" witness (I don't know how a professor of any field is a "technical" expert on anything considering how far removed from the real world they are, but hey, that's me...) lying left and right about how IE takes over as the default browser despite the user's wishes? How 'bout how he said he couldn't install Windows 95 (not 98, 95) without installing IE? Every single word out of his mouth was an out-and-out fabrication that was easily verified by simply repeating his process. How about all of the hearsay admitted as evidence by the likes of AOL, Netscape, etc? Have you never been involved in a court case? Everyone lies, on both sides.
Regardless, the original question was: Please provide references to "How can they be attacking Open Source projects on one hand". I'm still waiting on an answer to that one.
How about msft outright stealing stacker technology. Yeah, go ahead and deny it.
I don't need to: "in 1994, a California jury ruled the infringement by Microsoft was not willful, but awarde
Honestly, I haven't been paying any attention whatsoever to anything to do with SCO. You'll have to fill me in on the details of this. Please include contrete, verifiable proof.
The msft/bestbuy rackteering scam has been in the news lately.
Well, still waiting to see if MS was even involved in it. The news I've seen seems to indicate all of this was done by Best Buy independant of MS. Wouldn't surprise me considering the kind of crap BB is constantly getting into trouble over.
astroturfing, i.e. famous letters-from-dead-people campaign
I specifically excluded conspiracy theories from the criteria.
That's quite a sweeping statement, is this how everyone feels in Microsoft land?
Nope, I'm including most of them in the statement as well.
Possibly because desktop users don't see any value in windows, they either pirate it or it's installed on the machine for them.
Stick to the topic at hand, we're not talking home users. Home users don't see any value in their computers, let alone their OS.
Over time the everyday user experince has been confused by the amount of changes in the only gui they've been exposed too and consequently they think that switching to Linux brings about an uncertainty based on those experiences.
I think you're confused. The last major change to the GUI occured in 1995. There have been gradual and minor changes since then, but beyond that the OS works and acts pretty much the same as it has for the last 12 years. On the other hand, Linux is a quagmire of multiple distributions, all with their own application set, GUI and manner of keeping it all up to date. Consistency is not a word you can use when describing Linux. Hell, most of them don't even follow the LHS or LSB to any measurable extent.
Freedom isn't free, but the cost of entry is pretty low, so whilst you criticise people for not learning new things, your trapped in the same paradigm.
Hardly. As a Linux user since 1993, I'm certain I've got tons more personal AND professional experience with the product than you. In fact, I'm the one responsible for migrating a number of HP-UX systems over to Linux, primarily to save costs. Secondarily, I did that so that as the Unix team dwindles, it won't be much work for me and my team to migrate them over to Windows.
In all seriousness, they just don't get it. It's a shame, and it's just getting worse every day.
Open Source is growing up to be a business model, what's wrong with that?
My statement had nothing to do with Open Source, it had to do with the growing incompetence in the IT field.
The only shame is that Microsoft don't want to play with anyone else in the sand pit.
On a day there's an announcement that OSI has accepted two MS licenses you're going to pull out that old chestnut? Beyond that, though, citations and references to back that up? MS software works with pretty much anything that's willing to on the market. Sure, sometimes a patch or an upgrade will break something, but it's up to the vendor to ensure their product doesn't break prior to the change hitting the market, not MS.
Can you honestly say, after Microsoft has been found guilty of criminal practises, that they won't do anything to own the market.
They have? When was that? Are you referring to the farce anti-trust trial of a few years back that produced no outcome other than wasting millions of taxpayers dollars? That wasn't a criminal trial, it's a civil trial. Had it been a criminal trial, MS would have won as the DoJ did not in anyway prove their case, let alone to the level of "beyond reasonable doubt" that's required in a criminal trial (the burden is much lower in a civil trial and depends on the preponderance of evidence). All you had was the leaders of a bunch of failed businesses placing all of the blame for their failures on MS. That, and his inflammitory anti-MS statements, is why the judge's punitive judgement was overturned so quickly.
Who see the litany of broken software and change for change's sake as pointless. There are other things to do on a computer system than relearn functionality has been moved or the behaviour changed. It's just a waste of time, not learning anything new, just learning a new interface for something old with rounded corners.
What the hell are you talking about? Change for change's sake? Who does that? MS produces new OSes and applications based on a) the requests and desires of their customers and b) the growing need of business to do more with less. Thi
How can they be attacking Open Source projects on one hand
References, please. I realize the OSS community likes to dredge up things from years past, so I'll need a more recent reference. The last time I remember seeing anything the could even remotely be considered an "attack" was Bill Gate's "the GPL is a virus" speech, which even a portion the OSS community effectively agrees with. So, where are the references? Where's the "attack"?
And, I want some real attacks not things like "Well, well...they change SMB, so Samba didn't work anymore!" Things like that have always been attributed to technical reasons for the change, it's not MS fault if the Samba team can't keep up. I want actual words from Microsoft that actually attacks open source, not conspiracy theories.
Why? Is defending a MS operating system for honest reasons impossible to believe anymore?
Here's the problem: the vast majority of Slashdotters are either: a) technically incompetent or b) Unix people, which also makes them technically incompetent but also gives them an unjustified superiority complex. After all, their OS of choice has gotten to the point that they have to assemble it themselves and then give it away for free. And despite all of that, people still don't want it. Go fig.
In all seriousness, they just don't get it. It's a shame, and it's just getting worse every day. The industry's filled with old farts who refuse to learn anything new, and young'ins with no aptitude beyond passing a certification test. When I tell them our team of 15 people manage 14,000 Windows desktops and 2000 Windows servers, they tell me it's impossible. But, again, that's 'cause they're boobs. Trust me, just keep pissin' 'em off by showing them up in projects and eventually they start to dwindle away.
In spite of all this you're complaining, behaving like it whipped your dog. Why's that?
Because those of us who know what we're doing are tired of listening to the majority of the IT field that's made up of incompetent amateurs who don't know what they're doing with technology, don't know what a business needs to operate, and feel that their failings are the only way things can turn out. The fact of the matter is, Microsoft products are superior to the OSS products. Period. When you have something that's worth looking at, we'll take a serious look. Until then, stop trying to think you're going to wedge Outlook out of the office by sticking in a half-assed replacement like Thunderbird. Even with all the nifty little extensions installed (which cause it to bloat more than anyone's ever complained about Outlook), it still can't do anything close to what Outlook can do, especially when tied to an Exchange backend. And, no, I'm not talking viruses. No one with a clue has gotten a virus in 15 years. If you're still dealing with them, you're a member of the group mentioned in my first sentence.
The ad backfired only because of the pussy republicans who are so very terrified of terrorists. Real Americans aren't afraid of terrorists, but are done being represented as if we are. We're done with the lies, we're done with the deceit, and we're done with the bloodshed. Unfortunately, republicans, who hate America worse than the other terrorists, want to quash any dissent the mark of a true freedom-hater. Instead of listening to the 30 million Americans represented by MoveOn, the pussies in Congress instead decided to waste valuable time voting a resolution decrying the voice of real Americans. If Google's missions statement is to do no evil, then not allowing tax-and-spend, cowardly, America-hating republicans the ability to attack the views of the citizens sounds like a good start to me. If the 'pubs don't like it, too bad. They can get the fuck out of my country, then. They obviously hate everything that made America great anyway, we don't need their kind 'round here.
Whoever told you that lied. There's never been a single shred of evidence that this person, mythical or not, ever existed. The only "contemporary" verification of his existance is credited to Josephus, but the entry about Jesus is widely denounced as a forgery and manipulation of the original work.
And, in those cases, where a company can clearly document that they've made a reasonable effort to ensure they didn't buy pirated software, but can show they were defrauded by a dealer, will always be given a pass by these companies. But, they'll always decide to press the issue if the offending company can't prove they DIDN'T buy pirated software. If they walk in and you've got one licensed copy of Windows on 400 machines and you've got no documentation anywhere that shows you own even one more...they're going to be a little suspicious. And, well they should. The problem is, the Slashdot crowd makes it out that the BSA is bashing down the doors of hundreds of companies a day. From what I've seen, they only go where they've been given a tip, such as from a current or ex disgruntled employee (as I did to a former employer.:)
Is it really necessary that we have so many languages? Seriously, what does it buy us as a species? Nothing except increased miscommunication ("Israel should be wiped off the map") and increased costs (most people can't imagine the amount of money a company spends ensuring its products, most specifically things with MSDS, can be read by almost everyone). Most countries have a national language for a reason: it makes life easier for everyone living there. Imagine how much easier the world would be with just one language.
Or..."all your base are belong to us. Make your plan."
This copier thing sucks, though. It eliminates my ability to use an analogy that's near and dear to my heart. When I build a server, I use a base image. I've had many, many people tell me stupid things like "Oh, I don't use images. Sometimes when you use images, things get all out of sync and they're not consistent." Uh, yeah they are, idiot. That's the whole point of using an image. When I build a new server, the only thing that differs between it and the master image is the name and IP address. My statement to them is "Saying machines come out inconsistent when you use images is like saying I took a document with words on it in English, put it on the copier, made ten copies and three of them came out in French." Now that we can actually do that (or will when they put an English-French translation module into my copier) what am I going to tell these twits!?
I fully understand that. But, two problems: 1) any company that needs to lay off workers is a poorly run company that has no idea where their real problems and hemmorrages are 2) So what? It's my responsibility to let management know when they do something like this that something's going to give. It's either things aren't going to get done, or they're going to get done late. The thing that gives will NOT be MY free time. If it means I end up unemployed, so be it...I've lived on Ramen (pot noodles to you:) for months at a time before, I can do it again. My expectant wife fully appreciates my position, too, which helps.:)
Guess what happens to employees who can complete all their tasks in 35 hours per week.
They spend part of the remaining 5 hours making fun of people on Slashdot who work more than that?:)
They get more work to do.
No, they don't. They make it clear to their managers when it comes time to dole out projects that their plate is full. They don't take a project that requires 35 hours/week when they've already got that much in projects. And, if it turns out their involvement is much higher once the full requirements/details of the project have been unconvered, they go back to their manager and work out a solution. Of course, a good manager has already assigned more than one resource from her team to ensure the information that comes out of the projects doesn't get siloed, but that's a whole 'nother story.
Makes contracting look pretty tempting./me imagines getting paid by productivity instead of time
I think you're confused. First of all, contracting's not tempting. If you think you're being screwed as an employee, you have no idea what you're in for as a contractor. And, as for being paid for productivity instead of time, that's the exact opposite of the definition of a contractor. Contractors are typically the lowest form of IT person: they're the people that know how to double-click on setup.exe and install stuff, but not what to do when things go wrong.
I'll show you a guy who used to have an assistant, but he was fired to cut costs leaving only this guy to do two people's work.
An IT guy that needs an assistant would be the same thing as one that works too many hours. Beyond that, how would they be doing two people's work? If there was actually enough work that it required 80 man-hours to do, either management wouldn't have fired the assistant or they made a mistake. If they didn't make a mistake, then that person is now just doing one person's work, they've just been used to slacking off half the time. If the manager made a mistake, it's their mistake to live with. I only work 40 hours, if I can't get the workload done in that time, it doesn't get done. I only get a certain number of hours to live, and I charge for that time appropriately. If I have to work more hours, I get paid more...a LOT more. Just because a manager screwed up is not my concern. Did the remaining fellow make it clear to management that if they fired the assistant a lot of work would go undone? If not, then the mistake wasn't management's, it was the fellow with the assistant not providing them with enough information to make a proper decision.
Sorry, that $25 trillion was a typo, it should've been $75 trillion. Payroll transactions aren't limited to simply depositing money into person's bank account. There's paying taxes, health care, managing retirement/401k plans, etc. Monies are counted multiple times for multiple transactions, but that doesn't diminish the value of each transaction.
If you don't like the hours, don't get into the business.
Close, but not exactly right. The credo goes: "show me an IT guy consistently working more than 40-42 hours a week and I'll show you an incompetent boob that needs to be flipping burgers." IT is a field whose simple purpose is to increase the efficiencies of our organizations. If we're so inefficient at our jobs that it takes us more than 40 hours to regularly do it, then we're doing it wrong. Now, that's not to say you don't chip in and do what needs to be done when things need fixing, but that's true in any job. But, if you're working 70 hours/week in IT, you're a twit who has no idea what he's doing and need to be fired. Period. As a PART of my job, I maintain a set of (Windows) servers that process approximately $25 trillion/year worth of payroll transactions for over a million individuals...and I RARELY work more than 40 hours/week.
However, that being said, there's nothing wrong with companies not paying their employees overtime. If they want someone to work 70 hours/week for a 40/hour a week salary...well, that's their perogative, but employees need the abilty to not work there. Your basic premise is that if you work in IT, you work overtime, right? Do you negotiate salaries based on that? For example, one potential employer I interviewed with while unemployed asked if I had a problem with working 70/hours a week and I told him no, if he's willing to pay for it (as soon as he asked that question, I decided I didn't want to work there. I know where it leads). He said they didn't pay overtime and I told him flat out..."the salary we've discussed is for a 40 hour work week. If you want me to work almost twice that, you're going to have to pay me almost twice that. I don't give up my time for free." He quickly concluded the interview and I never heard from him again. I did, however, notice the ad in the paper week after week. So, to be a prick, I'd write him every week "I noticed you hadn't filled the position yet. If you can't find someone to fill the position at the salary you want to pay, I'd like to discuss further the possibility of my employment at a proper salary level."
Okay, good for you. a) What ISP doesn't use Linux or FreeBSD.
Mine, Time Warner. They support approximately 60k broadband users here with a Windows infrastructure.
b) Why did you feel the need to use FreeSWAN to make a mesh network when you could use protection at layer-4 and let hardware routing do its job
Because 1) we're talking 10 years ago when layer-4 protection in the kernel wasn't very good (iptables was just beginning to replace ipchains at this point in time) and 2) you're assuming I actually needed a hub and spoke model and wrongly went with a mesh.
c) Just between us, Linux World is a circle jerk and Linux Journal is largely a joke except for 'diff -u' which is cribbed from kernel traffic
Isn't that cute, someone disagrees with you, so they must be stupid. How odd to see this kind of behavior from the Linux crowd.
so no, maybe I had you figured wrong but this still doesn't impress me all that much.
Good thing I wasn't trying.
Fine. You had a poor subjective experience, but you're making really poor characterizations based on insufficient anecdotal evidence. Enjoy Vista, you deserve it.
Isn't that the way things are done on Slashdot? Non-technical Unix types (I've met frew Unix types I would consider technically competent) spewing lies and false statements about MS products to each other to stroke their own egos while simultaneously claiming that Windows is a "Fisher-Price OS" and their inability to use it properly? You're right, at this point in my career and life I do deserve an OS that's easy to use, stable, fast and secure. That's why I don't use Linux on my desktop.
Because I see that a lot. You get an SSH login to your web presence and suddenly you're the "linux guru" at your place of work.
Oh, isn't that cute, a wannabe penguinhead who thinks they know more than me. Try again, young'in. When I say "worked professionally with it", I meant the mesh VPN infrastructure I built using FreeS/WAN almost ten years ago, or the ISP I built as a consultant using Linux 100%, or the 100+ Linux boxes that are currently part of my company's new application infrastructure, or perhaps one of a few dozen other things I've done in the last decade and a half....or, do I mean the lectures given at little conferences like LinuxWorld? Or maybe the articles in Linux Journal? I really can't be sure now.
And in that 14 years, you still haven't learned to check to see if your hardware is going to be supported in a recent kernel before you buy it?
I did, but it was the laptop I wanted, not the OS.
I guess you bought the wrong tablet PC, because we've deployed it quite successfully for use in idiot-proof AV systems, among other things.
Nope, I got exactly the laptop I was looking for. I had looked at ones that were compatible with Linux, but they were too expensive, didn't have much "oomph" or were too big.
As a linux user of 8 years, I think desktop distributions have come a long way in that time period, and I don't find them any more or less difficult to get working than a Windows OS.
That's nice. Now get it working as a person who's never used Linux before. Give a Ubuntu disk to your mom and ask her to install it, without losing her Windows install, and never come to you with any issues.
I think the only reason that you were able to get Vista to work on your laptop is because it was supplied with an OEM support disk especially for your machine; they did all the hard work of getting it on there and correctly configured for you.
See, that's your problem, you should avoid thinking...it really isn't working out for you.:) I used a retail DVD to wipe the disks and set it up as I wanted, I don't use OEM installs. They put too much junk in 'em.
There are vendors who do this for linux if you care to look for them and pay the premium.
Yeah, no thanks. As I said, a similar laptop from a Linux vendor was about $600 more than the one I bought. Seems kinda stupid to pay almost 50% more just so I can use a "free" OS.
As someone who's worked with Linux both professionally and personally over the last 14 years, I often give Linux a try on the desktop. Each year or so, I'll switch to the current predominant "desktop" Linux. I tried Ubuntu, and for the first time in those 14 years, this was actually a Linux I could use. Unfortunately, though, "use" was it. I'd say it was "ok" as a desktop experience. Ready for the average user? Not without a Linux geek to help them out. I ran into problems with almost every update that I'd have to dig around to find a fix for, and few were issues that the average user could fix. When I bought my new laptop, I had actually planned on using Ubuntu on it, but I started playing around with Vista, which the laptop came with, and I decided not to even bother. Ubuntu offered me nothing that I couldn't do on Windows. Add to that Ubuntu didn't support a bunch of the hardware on my new laptop (fingerprint reader, webcam or the digitizer. Since it's a tablet, the last was key.) It's been a month and a half with Vista, and I've decided to give up on Linux as a desktop OS. Ubuntu brings Linux closer to the desktop, but it's still years behind Windows in terms of features, performance and stability.
As I understand it, since the ruling that stopped Microsoft from charging OEMs per PC sold, they switched to a different contract that charges OEMs per PC sold of a given 'model', but again the OEM pays whether or not the PC was shipped with Windows.
As I understand it, that was contested again and added to the original decision. There, see how I just did that? I made up a fact and added "as I understand it" to it and it bears the enough of the taint of truth that people might just listen to it. It's amazing what passes for fact nowadays.
Microsoft could choose whatever price they want to charge. The only stipulation is that one Windows licence cost the same amount for every OEM in the United States, so that Microsoft can't coerce OEMs by threatening to increase the price they charge for Windows.
Well, isn't it nice, you left them a choice. So, which should they pick? The price they give my local computer shop who buys maybe 200 licenses a year or the one they give Dell who moves millions? See, again, not so simple. The reason vendors get different prices is because they move different volumes. I'm sure there is a minor price difference between what, say, Dell and HP have negotiated with Microsoft, but do you really think it's a signficant amount? One might pay $42, the other $45 (I'm pulling that from my memory of years ago and I had a little computer biz. $45 was my price for a copy of Windows 98 in a volume of five at a time. I know that Dell still doesn't pay that much more for Vista though because they recently said so.) Microsoft is hardly "raping" anyone with that price difference. HP isn't going to walk because they're paying $3/license more than Dell.
What most people seem to have trouble grokking is it's a two-way street. There's nothing stopping Dell from saying they're not selling MS products anymore aside from they'll go out of business. But, that doesn't mean an MS rep is simply going to walk into Micheal Dell's office and say "guess what, you're now paying five times as much for your licenses." They have a synergistic relationship, and no one's holding a gun to either's head. It's just the rampant paranoia and ignorance of the day that makes people believe such utter nonsense.
He didn't ask whether it is possible to buy a non-Microsoft PC. Of course it has always been possible. He asked how easy it is. This is a quite legitimate question, even if as you point out it includes several different factors such as price and number of vendors.
But, the question implies that the "average user" is shopping around to get a Linux PC. As the major vendors have shown, when they offer it as an option, it rarely sells. The price benefit certainly isn't there (an average cost drop of about $50 since OEMs don't pay retail for Windows). So, the question should be: "How easy is it for the average user to purchase a Linux PC?" The reason the question isn't asked like this is simply the answer: "Not very, but they're not looking for it anyway".
It's documented that Microsoft has entered into restrictive contracts with OEMs so they pay per PC sold, whether or not it includes Windows.
Well documented, indeed. Now, show me the documentation that it's happened since the 1995 ruling making said contracts illegal? No conspiracy theories, please, actual documentation.
A simple injunctive remedy IHMO would be to require that Microsoft sell Windows licences at the same price to all vendors, and that the licence be paid for only if Windows is included with the PC.
The second is already in place and has been since 1995. The first is just the kind of poor thinking that's prevelant on Slashdot. Who sets the price? The courts? How do they determine said price? How often is it revisited? Is it a percentage of cost to produce a profit? Are you going to require that of other OS vendors since you're hampering one for being too successful? See, it's not a "simple" injunction, is it?
You are quite right about the bundling of products etc. That is another example of monopoly power
No, it's not, it's an example of providing customers with what they've asked for. Show me a desktop Linux distribution that doesn't come with a web browser. Show me one without some kind of media player. For that matter, show me a Mac with those limitations. Can't, can you? Why do you think that is? Because people use computers these days for connectivity. Without a browser, a machine (and OS) is useless, so MS provides you with one. My question has always been: If they didn't provide you with a browser (or any other kind of "Internet client"), how would you get one? Go to the store and buy a disk with Firefox on it? Have a friend download it for you? The backlash would be immediate and valid. Just because MS provides you with a browser, doesn't mean you have to use it. Just because they provide you a media player, doesn't mean you have to use it. There's nothing stopping anyone from using a Mozilla product on a Windows box and never has been (aside from the tremendously poor coding back when it was still a Netscape product). I don't have a single box that I use IE on. I prefer Media Player to the other options, though.:) Arguments against "bundling" IE are just as valid as "bundling" Notepad. Aren't you concerned about all of the people who make text editors being put out of work?
It doesn't make the complaint about Microsoft preventing OEMs from offering Windows-free PCs any less valid.
No, reality already does a good enough job of that.
Yeah, I know. The same stale rhetoric we keep hearing on Slashdot about anything Microsoft. It gets so tiring to here the contributors and editors bitch and complain about an OS they've obviously never used. When I got my new laptop it came with Vista and I gotta say I love it. Is it a major revamp? No. But, it did keep me from installing Ubuntu which had been my plan.:)
Slashdot Mirror
Go to wikipedia, look up AdTI, or google it. They admit to being msft funded.
I QUOTED THAT ARTICLE IN MY LAST COMMENT!
Then you can not deny MY point, can you? Really, if you are reasonable about it, you can research the case without reading all that. But if you want proof, there it is.
Apparently I was being too subtle about my requests for you to prove your point, so I'll say it outright: you're lying, I deny it, it's not true. There, now prove it. You can't, that's why you don't bother trying. You expect to find proof in my not providing proof of its falsity. Lack of proof on my end does not constitute proof on your end. That's the kind of twisted logic the religious use to prove their sky fairies exist.
You claim to be willfully ignorant. That is not my fault.
I claim to be willfully ignorant of an obscure case that only a small fraction of the technical community would be interested it (after all, the last time I even saw a SCO server was in college...in 1993), let alone the community at large. I actually have a life, so I filter out the extraneous. After searching your username on Google, I see that you do not which explains why you care so much. (Actually, I searched for "letters from dead people campaign" and the overwhelming majority of sites were you bitching about it on a forum or the sites you were parroting.)
I also find it that of all of MS' "misdeeds" you've listed, this is the only one you've given any attention to. When I dispute your other claims, you just trim them from your response. Is that because you've decided you're wrong on them? You were wrong about Stacker, you were wrong about Eberle, you were wrong about AdTI...I can only assume by your silence on them you've conceded those points. In which case, the SCO thing becomes a non-issue. Actually, it already WAS a non-issue because it doesn't affect anyone but the parties involved, but that's a whole other story..
You are clearly not trying to be fair or reasonable.
Really? Asking you to provide proof of your statements is unreasonable? You've got a very odd definition of reasonable. As an atheist, I think it's fairly unreasonable to ask someone to accept something with just blind faith in the person telling the tale.
You are only to deny or challang anything that might be percieved as anti-msft.
I did no such thing, I merely asked you to provide proof. Theories are not proof. Proof is proof. A press release, a court finding, even a publicly available interview of a MS executive. Anything at all would be good. You gave nothing except random ramblings.
What I posted has nothing to do with a "conspiracy." It is also not a "theory" msft admitted to it.
Admitted to what? The only thing you sent me was an article in which the LA Times alleged (the article specifically said "alleged") that a group of which MS is a member (as well as Staples, CompUSA, CompTIA and others) sent a bunch of letters to their editor decrying the court's decision. However, there was no confirmation of this by the group in the article. If you've got a link to a press release admitting it, I'll be happy to take a look. In any case, so what? The DoJ trial was a farce and a lot of people wrote complaining of how ridiculous the decision was, myself included. It's not like it matters. I'm more concerned with all of the dead people who vote in elections. How 'bout this: a more reasonable explanation is that they sent those letters in with fake names so that it wouldn't appear there was some level of impropriety. If everyone in that group had sent a letter and then someone said "hey, this guy's a member of this group", people would be all up in arms. As long as it was a one-to-one ratio (person to letter), the effect is the same. It just didn't work out the way they wanted. In any case, an allegation by the LA Times, paragon of journalistic integrity that they are, is not proof. It's still just an allegation. Here's a hint: just because it's in writing, doesn't mean it's true.
In fact msft admits to many of their scams.
Sigh......PROOF PLEASE! A reference, a citation, a quote. ANYTHING! But, let's say for the sake of argument you're not making all of this up. I ask the question again: so? Apparently it only matters to people in the OSS community 'cause everyone else just keeps buying MS stuff. At the end of the day, I like their products, I like the people I've dealt with from there and I like them as a company. I cannot say the same for most in the OSS community. In fact, I would argue that the OSS community is guilty of a lot more deceit and scams than MS ever could. I'm not going to provide proof of this statement, since apparently that's not necessary. It's been said, so therefore it's true.
How about outright lying to the US-DoJ in video-taped testomony?
How about the DoJ's "technical" witness (I don't know how a professor of any field is a "technical" expert on anything considering how far removed from the real world they are, but hey, that's me...) lying left and right about how IE takes over as the default browser despite the user's wishes? How 'bout how he said he couldn't install Windows 95 (not 98, 95) without installing IE? Every single word out of his mouth was an out-and-out fabrication that was easily verified by simply repeating his process. How about all of the hearsay admitted as evidence by the likes of AOL, Netscape, etc? Have you never been involved in a court case? Everyone lies, on both sides.
Regardless, the original question was: Please provide references to "How can they be attacking Open Source projects on one hand". I'm still waiting on an answer to that one.
How about msft outright stealing stacker technology. Yeah, go ahead and deny it.
I don't need to: "in 1994, a California jury ruled the infringement by Microsoft was not willful, but awarde
How about the ongoing, msft financed, scox-scam?
Honestly, I haven't been paying any attention whatsoever to anything to do with SCO. You'll have to fill me in on the details of this. Please include contrete, verifiable proof.
The msft/bestbuy rackteering scam has been in the news lately.
Well, still waiting to see if MS was even involved in it. The news I've seen seems to indicate all of this was done by Best Buy independant of MS. Wouldn't surprise me considering the kind of crap BB is constantly getting into trouble over.
astroturfing, i.e. famous letters-from-dead-people campaign
I specifically excluded conspiracy theories from the criteria.
fake tco studies - http://os.newsforge.com/print.pl?sid=05/06/23/2027229
Your link leads nowhere. When fixing it, please ensure it's not another conspiracy theory.
fake benchmark studies: the apache scam.
No link to that one? Gonna need to provide me with one as I'm not familiar with it. Again, no conspiracy theories.
Thank you for proving my point.
You're welcome.
That's quite a sweeping statement, is this how everyone feels in Microsoft land?
Nope, I'm including most of them in the statement as well.
Possibly because desktop users don't see any value in windows, they either pirate it or it's installed on the machine for them.
Stick to the topic at hand, we're not talking home users. Home users don't see any value in their computers, let alone their OS.
Over time the everyday user experince has been confused by the amount of changes in the only gui they've been exposed too and consequently they think that switching to Linux brings about an uncertainty based on those experiences.
I think you're confused. The last major change to the GUI occured in 1995. There have been gradual and minor changes since then, but beyond that the OS works and acts pretty much the same as it has for the last 12 years. On the other hand, Linux is a quagmire of multiple distributions, all with their own application set, GUI and manner of keeping it all up to date. Consistency is not a word you can use when describing Linux. Hell, most of them don't even follow the LHS or LSB to any measurable extent.
Freedom isn't free, but the cost of entry is pretty low, so whilst you criticise people for not learning new things, your trapped in the same paradigm.
Hardly. As a Linux user since 1993, I'm certain I've got tons more personal AND professional experience with the product than you. In fact, I'm the one responsible for migrating a number of HP-UX systems over to Linux, primarily to save costs. Secondarily, I did that so that as the Unix team dwindles, it won't be much work for me and my team to migrate them over to Windows.
In all seriousness, they just don't get it. It's a shame, and it's just getting worse every day.
Open Source is growing up to be a business model, what's wrong with that?
My statement had nothing to do with Open Source, it had to do with the growing incompetence in the IT field.
The only shame is that Microsoft don't want to play with anyone else in the sand pit.
On a day there's an announcement that OSI has accepted two MS licenses you're going to pull out that old chestnut? Beyond that, though, citations and references to back that up? MS software works with pretty much anything that's willing to on the market. Sure, sometimes a patch or an upgrade will break something, but it's up to the vendor to ensure their product doesn't break prior to the change hitting the market, not MS.
Can you honestly say, after Microsoft has been found guilty of criminal practises, that they won't do anything to own the market.
They have? When was that? Are you referring to the farce anti-trust trial of a few years back that produced no outcome other than wasting millions of taxpayers dollars? That wasn't a criminal trial, it's a civil trial. Had it been a criminal trial, MS would have won as the DoJ did not in anyway prove their case, let alone to the level of "beyond reasonable doubt" that's required in a criminal trial (the burden is much lower in a civil trial and depends on the preponderance of evidence). All you had was the leaders of a bunch of failed businesses placing all of the blame for their failures on MS. That, and his inflammitory anti-MS statements, is why the judge's punitive judgement was overturned so quickly.
Who see the litany of broken software and change for change's sake as pointless. There are other things to do on a computer system than relearn functionality has been moved or the behaviour changed. It's just a waste of time, not learning anything new, just learning a new interface for something old with rounded corners.
What the hell are you talking about? Change for change's sake? Who does that? MS produces new OSes and applications based on a) the requests and desires of their customers and b) the growing need of business to do more with less. Thi
How can they be attacking Open Source projects on one hand
References, please. I realize the OSS community likes to dredge up things from years past, so I'll need a more recent reference. The last time I remember seeing anything the could even remotely be considered an "attack" was Bill Gate's "the GPL is a virus" speech, which even a portion the OSS community effectively agrees with. So, where are the references? Where's the "attack"?
And, I want some real attacks not things like "Well, well...they change SMB, so Samba didn't work anymore!" Things like that have always been attributed to technical reasons for the change, it's not MS fault if the Samba team can't keep up. I want actual words from Microsoft that actually attacks open source, not conspiracy theories.
Why? Is defending a MS operating system for honest reasons impossible to believe anymore?
Here's the problem: the vast majority of Slashdotters are either: a) technically incompetent or b) Unix people, which also makes them technically incompetent but also gives them an unjustified superiority complex. After all, their OS of choice has gotten to the point that they have to assemble it themselves and then give it away for free. And despite all of that, people still don't want it. Go fig.
In all seriousness, they just don't get it. It's a shame, and it's just getting worse every day. The industry's filled with old farts who refuse to learn anything new, and young'ins with no aptitude beyond passing a certification test. When I tell them our team of 15 people manage 14,000 Windows desktops and 2000 Windows servers, they tell me it's impossible. But, again, that's 'cause they're boobs. Trust me, just keep pissin' 'em off by showing them up in projects and eventually they start to dwindle away.
In spite of all this you're complaining, behaving like it whipped your dog. Why's that?
Because those of us who know what we're doing are tired of listening to the majority of the IT field that's made up of incompetent amateurs who don't know what they're doing with technology, don't know what a business needs to operate, and feel that their failings are the only way things can turn out. The fact of the matter is, Microsoft products are superior to the OSS products. Period. When you have something that's worth looking at, we'll take a serious look. Until then, stop trying to think you're going to wedge Outlook out of the office by sticking in a half-assed replacement like Thunderbird. Even with all the nifty little extensions installed (which cause it to bloat more than anyone's ever complained about Outlook), it still can't do anything close to what Outlook can do, especially when tied to an Exchange backend. And, no, I'm not talking viruses. No one with a clue has gotten a virus in 15 years. If you're still dealing with them, you're a member of the group mentioned in my first sentence.
The ad backfired only because of the pussy republicans who are so very terrified of terrorists. Real Americans aren't afraid of terrorists, but are done being represented as if we are. We're done with the lies, we're done with the deceit, and we're done with the bloodshed. Unfortunately, republicans, who hate America worse than the other terrorists, want to quash any dissent the mark of a true freedom-hater. Instead of listening to the 30 million Americans represented by MoveOn, the pussies in Congress instead decided to waste valuable time voting a resolution decrying the voice of real Americans. If Google's missions statement is to do no evil, then not allowing tax-and-spend, cowardly, America-hating republicans the ability to attack the views of the citizens sounds like a good start to me. If the 'pubs don't like it, too bad. They can get the fuck out of my country, then. They obviously hate everything that made America great anyway, we don't need their kind 'round here.
Whoever told you that lied. There's never been a single shred of evidence that this person, mythical or not, ever existed. The only "contemporary" verification of his existance is credited to Josephus, but the entry about Jesus is widely denounced as a forgery and manipulation of the original work.
And, in those cases, where a company can clearly document that they've made a reasonable effort to ensure they didn't buy pirated software, but can show they were defrauded by a dealer, will always be given a pass by these companies. But, they'll always decide to press the issue if the offending company can't prove they DIDN'T buy pirated software. If they walk in and you've got one licensed copy of Windows on 400 machines and you've got no documentation anywhere that shows you own even one more...they're going to be a little suspicious. And, well they should. The problem is, the Slashdot crowd makes it out that the BSA is bashing down the doors of hundreds of companies a day. From what I've seen, they only go where they've been given a tip, such as from a current or ex disgruntled employee (as I did to a former employer. :)
Is it really necessary that we have so many languages? Seriously, what does it buy us as a species? Nothing except increased miscommunication ("Israel should be wiped off the map") and increased costs (most people can't imagine the amount of money a company spends ensuring its products, most specifically things with MSDS, can be read by almost everyone). Most countries have a national language for a reason: it makes life easier for everyone living there. Imagine how much easier the world would be with just one language.
No, I meant trillion, and I actually meant $75 trillion. See the other post. Wow, does everyone feel the need to prove my point for me?
Or..."all your base are belong to us. Make your plan."
This copier thing sucks, though. It eliminates my ability to use an analogy that's near and dear to my heart. When I build a server, I use a base image. I've had many, many people tell me stupid things like "Oh, I don't use images. Sometimes when you use images, things get all out of sync and they're not consistent." Uh, yeah they are, idiot. That's the whole point of using an image. When I build a new server, the only thing that differs between it and the master image is the name and IP address. My statement to them is "Saying machines come out inconsistent when you use images is like saying I took a document with words on it in English, put it on the copier, made ten copies and three of them came out in French." Now that we can actually do that (or will when they put an English-French translation module into my copier) what am I going to tell these twits!?
I fully understand that. But, two problems: 1) any company that needs to lay off workers is a poorly run company that has no idea where their real problems and hemmorrages are 2) So what? It's my responsibility to let management know when they do something like this that something's going to give. It's either things aren't going to get done, or they're going to get done late. The thing that gives will NOT be MY free time. If it means I end up unemployed, so be it...I've lived on Ramen (pot noodles to you :) for months at a time before, I can do it again. My expectant wife fully appreciates my position, too, which helps. :)
Guess what happens to employees who can complete all their tasks in 35 hours per week.
:)
/me imagines getting paid by productivity instead of time
They spend part of the remaining 5 hours making fun of people on Slashdot who work more than that?
They get more work to do.
No, they don't. They make it clear to their managers when it comes time to dole out projects that their plate is full. They don't take a project that requires 35 hours/week when they've already got that much in projects. And, if it turns out their involvement is much higher once the full requirements/details of the project have been unconvered, they go back to their manager and work out a solution. Of course, a good manager has already assigned more than one resource from her team to ensure the information that comes out of the projects doesn't get siloed, but that's a whole 'nother story.
Makes contracting look pretty tempting.
I think you're confused. First of all, contracting's not tempting. If you think you're being screwed as an employee, you have no idea what you're in for as a contractor. And, as for being paid for productivity instead of time, that's the exact opposite of the definition of a contractor. Contractors are typically the lowest form of IT person: they're the people that know how to double-click on setup.exe and install stuff, but not what to do when things go wrong.
I'll show you a guy who used to have an assistant, but he was fired to cut costs leaving only this guy to do two people's work.
An IT guy that needs an assistant would be the same thing as one that works too many hours. Beyond that, how would they be doing two people's work? If there was actually enough work that it required 80 man-hours to do, either management wouldn't have fired the assistant or they made a mistake. If they didn't make a mistake, then that person is now just doing one person's work, they've just been used to slacking off half the time. If the manager made a mistake, it's their mistake to live with. I only work 40 hours, if I can't get the workload done in that time, it doesn't get done. I only get a certain number of hours to live, and I charge for that time appropriately. If I have to work more hours, I get paid more...a LOT more. Just because a manager screwed up is not my concern. Did the remaining fellow make it clear to management that if they fired the assistant a lot of work would go undone? If not, then the mistake wasn't management's, it was the fellow with the assistant not providing them with enough information to make a proper decision.
Sorry, that $25 trillion was a typo, it should've been $75 trillion. Payroll transactions aren't limited to simply depositing money into person's bank account. There's paying taxes, health care, managing retirement/401k plans, etc. Monies are counted multiple times for multiple transactions, but that doesn't diminish the value of each transaction.
If you don't like the hours, don't get into the business.
Close, but not exactly right. The credo goes: "show me an IT guy consistently working more than 40-42 hours a week and I'll show you an incompetent boob that needs to be flipping burgers." IT is a field whose simple purpose is to increase the efficiencies of our organizations. If we're so inefficient at our jobs that it takes us more than 40 hours to regularly do it, then we're doing it wrong. Now, that's not to say you don't chip in and do what needs to be done when things need fixing, but that's true in any job. But, if you're working 70 hours/week in IT, you're a twit who has no idea what he's doing and need to be fired. Period. As a PART of my job, I maintain a set of (Windows) servers that process approximately $25 trillion/year worth of payroll transactions for over a million individuals...and I RARELY work more than 40 hours/week.
However, that being said, there's nothing wrong with companies not paying their employees overtime. If they want someone to work 70 hours/week for a 40/hour a week salary...well, that's their perogative, but employees need the abilty to not work there. Your basic premise is that if you work in IT, you work overtime, right? Do you negotiate salaries based on that? For example, one potential employer I interviewed with while unemployed asked if I had a problem with working 70/hours a week and I told him no, if he's willing to pay for it (as soon as he asked that question, I decided I didn't want to work there. I know where it leads). He said they didn't pay overtime and I told him flat out..."the salary we've discussed is for a 40 hour work week. If you want me to work almost twice that, you're going to have to pay me almost twice that. I don't give up my time for free." He quickly concluded the interview and I never heard from him again. I did, however, notice the ad in the paper week after week. So, to be a prick, I'd write him every week "I noticed you hadn't filled the position yet. If you can't find someone to fill the position at the salary you want to pay, I'd like to discuss further the possibility of my employment at a proper salary level."
Okay, good for you. a) What ISP doesn't use Linux or FreeBSD.
Mine, Time Warner. They support approximately 60k broadband users here with a Windows infrastructure.
b) Why did you feel the need to use FreeSWAN to make a mesh network when you could use protection at layer-4 and let hardware routing do its job
Because 1) we're talking 10 years ago when layer-4 protection in the kernel wasn't very good (iptables was just beginning to replace ipchains at this point in time) and 2) you're assuming I actually needed a hub and spoke model and wrongly went with a mesh.
c) Just between us, Linux World is a circle jerk and Linux Journal is largely a joke except for 'diff -u' which is cribbed from kernel traffic
Isn't that cute, someone disagrees with you, so they must be stupid. How odd to see this kind of behavior from the Linux crowd.
so no, maybe I had you figured wrong but this still doesn't impress me all that much.
Good thing I wasn't trying.
Fine. You had a poor subjective experience, but you're making really poor characterizations based on insufficient anecdotal evidence. Enjoy Vista, you deserve it.
Isn't that the way things are done on Slashdot? Non-technical Unix types (I've met frew Unix types I would consider technically competent) spewing lies and false statements about MS products to each other to stroke their own egos while simultaneously claiming that Windows is a "Fisher-Price OS" and their inability to use it properly? You're right, at this point in my career and life I do deserve an OS that's easy to use, stable, fast and secure. That's why I don't use Linux on my desktop.
Because I see that a lot. You get an SSH login to your web presence and suddenly you're the "linux guru" at your place of work.
:) I used a retail DVD to wipe the disks and set it up as I wanted, I don't use OEM installs. They put too much junk in 'em.
Oh, isn't that cute, a wannabe penguinhead who thinks they know more than me. Try again, young'in. When I say "worked professionally with it", I meant the mesh VPN infrastructure I built using FreeS/WAN almost ten years ago, or the ISP I built as a consultant using Linux 100%, or the 100+ Linux boxes that are currently part of my company's new application infrastructure, or perhaps one of a few dozen other things I've done in the last decade and a half....or, do I mean the lectures given at little conferences like LinuxWorld? Or maybe the articles in Linux Journal? I really can't be sure now.
And in that 14 years, you still haven't learned to check to see if your hardware is going to be supported in a recent kernel before you buy it?
I did, but it was the laptop I wanted, not the OS.
I guess you bought the wrong tablet PC, because we've deployed it quite successfully for use in idiot-proof AV systems, among other things.
Nope, I got exactly the laptop I was looking for. I had looked at ones that were compatible with Linux, but they were too expensive, didn't have much "oomph" or were too big.
As a linux user of 8 years, I think desktop distributions have come a long way in that time period, and I don't find them any more or less difficult to get working than a Windows OS.
That's nice. Now get it working as a person who's never used Linux before. Give a Ubuntu disk to your mom and ask her to install it, without losing her Windows install, and never come to you with any issues.
I think the only reason that you were able to get Vista to work on your laptop is because it was supplied with an OEM support disk especially for your machine; they did all the hard work of getting it on there and correctly configured for you.
See, that's your problem, you should avoid thinking...it really isn't working out for you.
There are vendors who do this for linux if you care to look for them and pay the premium.
Yeah, no thanks. As I said, a similar laptop from a Linux vendor was about $600 more than the one I bought. Seems kinda stupid to pay almost 50% more just so I can use a "free" OS.
C'mon, have you even tried it? It's AWESOME
As someone who's worked with Linux both professionally and personally over the last 14 years, I often give Linux a try on the desktop. Each year or so, I'll switch to the current predominant "desktop" Linux. I tried Ubuntu, and for the first time in those 14 years, this was actually a Linux I could use. Unfortunately, though, "use" was it. I'd say it was "ok" as a desktop experience. Ready for the average user? Not without a Linux geek to help them out. I ran into problems with almost every update that I'd have to dig around to find a fix for, and few were issues that the average user could fix. When I bought my new laptop, I had actually planned on using Ubuntu on it, but I started playing around with Vista, which the laptop came with, and I decided not to even bother. Ubuntu offered me nothing that I couldn't do on Windows. Add to that Ubuntu didn't support a bunch of the hardware on my new laptop (fingerprint reader, webcam or the digitizer. Since it's a tablet, the last was key.) It's been a month and a half with Vista, and I've decided to give up on Linux as a desktop OS. Ubuntu brings Linux closer to the desktop, but it's still years behind Windows in terms of features, performance and stability.
As I understand it, since the ruling that stopped Microsoft from charging OEMs per PC sold, they switched to a different contract that charges OEMs per PC sold of a given 'model', but again the OEM pays whether or not the PC was shipped with Windows.
As I understand it, that was contested again and added to the original decision. There, see how I just did that? I made up a fact and added "as I understand it" to it and it bears the enough of the taint of truth that people might just listen to it. It's amazing what passes for fact nowadays.
Microsoft could choose whatever price they want to charge. The only stipulation is that one Windows licence cost the same amount for every OEM in the United States, so that Microsoft can't coerce OEMs by threatening to increase the price they charge for Windows.
Well, isn't it nice, you left them a choice. So, which should they pick? The price they give my local computer shop who buys maybe 200 licenses a year or the one they give Dell who moves millions? See, again, not so simple. The reason vendors get different prices is because they move different volumes. I'm sure there is a minor price difference between what, say, Dell and HP have negotiated with Microsoft, but do you really think it's a signficant amount? One might pay $42, the other $45 (I'm pulling that from my memory of years ago and I had a little computer biz. $45 was my price for a copy of Windows 98 in a volume of five at a time. I know that Dell still doesn't pay that much more for Vista though because they recently said so.) Microsoft is hardly "raping" anyone with that price difference. HP isn't going to walk because they're paying $3/license more than Dell.
What most people seem to have trouble grokking is it's a two-way street. There's nothing stopping Dell from saying they're not selling MS products anymore aside from they'll go out of business. But, that doesn't mean an MS rep is simply going to walk into Micheal Dell's office and say "guess what, you're now paying five times as much for your licenses." They have a synergistic relationship, and no one's holding a gun to either's head. It's just the rampant paranoia and ignorance of the day that makes people believe such utter nonsense.
He didn't ask whether it is possible to buy a non-Microsoft PC. Of course it has always been possible. He asked how easy it is. This is a quite legitimate question, even if as you point out it includes several different factors such as price and number of vendors.
:) Arguments against "bundling" IE are just as valid as "bundling" Notepad. Aren't you concerned about all of the people who make text editors being put out of work?
But, the question implies that the "average user" is shopping around to get a Linux PC. As the major vendors have shown, when they offer it as an option, it rarely sells. The price benefit certainly isn't there (an average cost drop of about $50 since OEMs don't pay retail for Windows). So, the question should be: "How easy is it for the average user to purchase a Linux PC?" The reason the question isn't asked like this is simply the answer: "Not very, but they're not looking for it anyway".
It's documented that Microsoft has entered into restrictive contracts with OEMs so they pay per PC sold, whether or not it includes Windows.
Well documented, indeed. Now, show me the documentation that it's happened since the 1995 ruling making said contracts illegal? No conspiracy theories, please, actual documentation.
A simple injunctive remedy IHMO would be to require that Microsoft sell Windows licences at the same price to all vendors, and that the licence be paid for only if Windows is included with the PC.
The second is already in place and has been since 1995. The first is just the kind of poor thinking that's prevelant on Slashdot. Who sets the price? The courts? How do they determine said price? How often is it revisited? Is it a percentage of cost to produce a profit? Are you going to require that of other OS vendors since you're hampering one for being too successful? See, it's not a "simple" injunction, is it?
You are quite right about the bundling of products etc. That is another example of monopoly power
No, it's not, it's an example of providing customers with what they've asked for. Show me a desktop Linux distribution that doesn't come with a web browser. Show me one without some kind of media player. For that matter, show me a Mac with those limitations. Can't, can you? Why do you think that is? Because people use computers these days for connectivity. Without a browser, a machine (and OS) is useless, so MS provides you with one. My question has always been: If they didn't provide you with a browser (or any other kind of "Internet client"), how would you get one? Go to the store and buy a disk with Firefox on it? Have a friend download it for you? The backlash would be immediate and valid. Just because MS provides you with a browser, doesn't mean you have to use it. Just because they provide you a media player, doesn't mean you have to use it. There's nothing stopping anyone from using a Mozilla product on a Windows box and never has been (aside from the tremendously poor coding back when it was still a Netscape product). I don't have a single box that I use IE on. I prefer Media Player to the other options, though.
It doesn't make the complaint about Microsoft preventing OEMs from offering Windows-free PCs any less valid.
No, reality already does a good enough job of that.
Yeah, I know. The same stale rhetoric we keep hearing on Slashdot about anything Microsoft. It gets so tiring to here the contributors and editors bitch and complain about an OS they've obviously never used. When I got my new laptop it came with Vista and I gotta say I love it. Is it a major revamp? No. But, it did keep me from installing Ubuntu which had been my plan. :)