__/ [ Rex Ballard ] on Wednesday 16 August 2006 15:41 \__
> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>> __/ [ Rex Ballard ] on Wednesday 16 August 2006 03:18 \__
>>
>> > It's ironic isn't it. You go to a McDonalds or Burger King drive-up
>> > window and see a Linux workstation in action, displaying your order and
>> > ads, in real time, you go to the store and pay at a Linux powered cash
>> > register, you watch TV on a Linux powered digital cable tuner, you
>> > access the interned via a Linux powered Cable Modem or DSL Modem,
>> > connected to a Linux powered WiFi hub, but Microsoft won't let us see a
>> > SUSE Linux Desktop on the shelves of Staples, Office Max, CompUSA, or
>> > any other retailer that displays computers for customers to "test
>> > drive". Instead, they have to show the same old Windows XP display
>> > that the buyer has at home already, and not running much faster, doing
>> > much less (because no third party software has been installed), and
>> > really not impressing anybody.
>> >
>> > That takes some real "loaded gun pointed at your head" negotiations.
>> >
>> >> http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/060815/sftu087.html?.v=68
>>
>> It seems as though Novell has begun a PR lynch. It's all about giving the
>> public a piece of reality. This will shut up those who argue that Linux is
>> nowhere to be used (of /seen/).
>
> I really like seeing what Novell is doing. I'm sorry that Red Hat
> didn't do it while they had the chance just as Windows XP was being
> rolled out. At that time, CEOs, CFOs, COOs, and even CIOs were so
> angry at Microsoft that they would have jumped ship in a heartbeat if
> they had been given a little bit more of a push from Red Hat, SUSE, and
> what was then Caldera.
>
> Red Hat seems to have abandoned the idea of an end-user oriented
> workstation completely. Their current desktop offering is more focused
> on Unix and Linux administrators that general purpose office users.
> Red Hat has been very comfortable in the server/administrator niche and
> has done very well for itself. Maybe by the time Vista rolls out, they
> will have something more oriented to consumers.
>
> Novell on the other hand, is aggressively going after not only the
> server market, but also the 64 bit workstation market. They have
> integrated 3D graphics based on OpenGL into X11/XWire, and they have
> esablished a standard for that which is being widely adopted. They
> have stepped up support for WiFi cards and SATA hard drives, and have
> very good support for these devices, even when the modules are in
> "binary only" form. They have also pushed aggressively for open
> relationships with the major OEMs, including HP and Lennovo. I hope
> that Dell and Sony will also join the team soon. The point is that
> these OEMs are now willing to issue public statements and public
> advertizing (which makes no mention of Windows) that shows that certain
> models or lines have full support for Linux, even if they are initially
> shipped with Windows. It's pretty clear that they are seeing a profit
> in doing this, and that this seems to be driving a market for these
> "Linux-Ready" devices. It may be only a month before we see "Linux
> Ready" in the same ads that contain the Windows Logos. Sold with
> Windows, Ready for Linux. Microsoft may not like it, but they would
> like and being preconfigured as the secondary operating system to SUSE
> Linux as the Primary even less, being completely excluded from these
> production lines even less than that.
>
> At least if they are "Sold with Windows, Ready for Linux", Microsoft
> can still claim that 99% of the machines are sold with Windows. If
> Lennovo started shipping all T60 machines with Linux and an optional
> Windows Xen installation disk, Microsoft would only be installed on a
> much smaller percentage of machines. If HP, Dell, Sony, and Gateway
> also started producing entire lines of PCs which were shipped with
> Linux and an uninstalled optional Windows Xen client, that number could
> quickly drop to 80%, 70%?, even 60%? Who knows how far it would fall.
>
> The other problem is that HP, Sony, and Gateway might start putting
> Linux machines on display right next to Windows XP machines and Vista
> machines when they come out.
>
> The user would walk up to the Vista machine, see lots of cute little
> eye candy, the usual crippleware applications, and nothing really
> "new". Then they would walk over to the Linux machines, possibly only
> 12 inches away, and see a start menu loaded to the brim with lots of
> FOSS applications, including OpenOffice, FireFox, and a good e-mail
> client.
>
> They might even see a "catalog" containing a list of commercial
> software for Linux, along with ISPs, and other offers, all offering
> Linux support. Novell could do nicely just installing the catalogue.
>
> In a side-by-side comparison of a fully and properly configured Linux
> system an a typically configured Windows XP "commodity" system, it's
> very likely that customersr would even pay premium prices for Linux
> systems - just like they do for OS/X systems.
>
>> It wasn't long ago that Red Hat's CEO said that Microsoft was still
>> extremely aggressive while Novell said that Microsoft pressed hard on
>> OEM's not to stock Linux (and accept Novell's offer). I can find the links
>> to back this.
>
> I really think you should pull up those links.
>
> The irony is that the issues were raised before the Judges overseeing
> the antitrust judgements in both the US and Europe, and in both cases,
> Microsoft has repeatedly dodged the issue by claiming that it doesn't
> have a "Formal Policy" that forces the OEMs to exclude Linux, they then
> cite examples based on trying to exclude previous Microsoft products.
>
> There may not be a De-Jure clause in the contract that explicitly says
> "thou shalt not advertize, promote, install, or mention Linux", but
> there is certainly a de-facto implementation of this policy. Microsoft
> requires prior written approval before anyone can:
> 1. Publish any ad which uses the Microsoft Logos and Trademarks.
> Many get around this by only using the term "Windows" to
> allude to the
> Microsoft product, without infringing on the trademark
> (Mac Ads).
> 2. Place any ad in a publication, without Microsoft's prior written
> permission.
> This allows Microsoft to "punish" any publication that
> includes too much
> editorial content that covers Microsoft in a negative way
> or competitors in a
> positive way. Microsoft can even replace OEM ads with
> "Fast Facts" ads
> providing links to Microsoft's propaganda, instead of ads
> showing a T60p
> in Linuxworld.
> 3. Publish any benchmark, meaning any direct comparison of features,
> performance,
> TCO, availability, and so on, without Microsoft's prior
> written approval.
>
> Anyone who does so can be required to publish a similar benchmark using
> Microsoft's parameters, and allowing Microsoft editorial control over
> how the statistics are interpreted, which assumptions must be made,
> which assumptions will be ignored, and how the content is to be
> formatted. A benchmark in which Linux is shown to be a clear winner
> can be rewritten to make it look like Microsoft was the clear winner,
> based on a bunch of unsubstantiated assumptions, speculation, and
> emphasis on those areas in which Microsoft had a minor advantage in the
> opening paragraphs, putting those areas where Linux excelled and giving
> them very little importance or weight. Many benchmarks published in
> Microsoft's fast-facts have references which eventually lead to the
> "Linux is superior" benchmark, or it's tombstone.
>
> 4. Make any alterations to the installation image, without
> Microsoft's prior written approvial. This clause can be used to
> prevent OEMs from installing multiple partitions (allowing Linux users
> to conver the partiition to Linux), from installing boot managers
> (allowing users to select between Linux and Windows at boot time), from
> installing Linux first and then installing Windows as a VM Client or
> emulated package, or from using the Microsoft licensed libraries to
> support Windows emulation such as WINE, Win4Lin, or Crossover.
>
> Notice that NONE of these abuses of these clauses are explicitly stated
> in the actual License agreement, but violation of ANY of them by not
> getting Microsoft's prior wirtten approval could result in revocation
> of all unsold licenses for that product line, or for the ALL licenses
> previously granted to the OEM.
>
> Ironically, there is no provision for the compliance officer to review
> these requests for permision, nor is there any provision for such
> requests to be reviewed by the technical comittee, nor is there any
> provision for appealing the denial of such requests to the team
> representing the DOJ. In fact, any attempt to do so would be a
> violation of the nondisclosure agreements which are ALSO part of the
> license agreement.
>
> Because Microsoft has been able to argue for these clauses in
> noncompetitive terms, for example, having the OEMs reccommend Windows
> XP instead of Windows 98, the Judge has not been able to nullify the
> clauses themselves. An yet, it is very clear to everyone that
> Microsoft is in direct contempt of the part of the court order that
> forbids them from interfering with OEM attempts to market machines with
> Linux.
>
> Ironically, Microsoft has also made it very clear that they plan to use
> the "Ring Zero" priviledges in Vista to permenantly lock-out Linux, and
> to make Vista incapable of starting unless it is the primary operating
> system. Microsoft has openly defied the court and is simply trying to
> buy time until the settlement expires before "locking down" these
> machines.
>
> The irony is that the marketplace may end up being the ultimate court.
> With hundreds of millions of Linux appliances, servers, and
> workstations already on the market, and Linux still growing at 40-50%
> per year while Microsoft's market depends on replacement of existing
> Windows systems, it's quite likely that the OEMs and large corporations
> will be ready to "revolt" long before the officers appointed by the
> courts decide to actually try to do their job.
Rex,
I appreciate the detailed writeups. While I read them wholly, I can't reply
to everything. So here are the links that support some of this discussion.
Red Hat: Microsoft still 'aggressive as hell'
http://news.com.com/2100-7344_3-6078854.html?part=rss&tag=6078854&subj=news
Novell sees desktop Linux success, if Microsoft plays fair
,----[ Quote ]
| Microsoft Corp is using scare tactics to exert pressure on PC vendors
| not to explore the potential of desktop Linux, according to Novell
| Inc president and COO, Ron Hovsepian
`----
http://www.commentwire.com/article_news.asp?guid=2044AB5A-59CA-4EC3-AD3F-73DF7BC4F8E0
(link now broken)
Ron Hovsepian is, of course, Novell's CEO now. I believe that I read (at
least) one more article where Novell expresses its concerns over Microsoft's
flirt with the OEM's. And speaking of which, a month ago in Germany, Intel
was said to pull the same trick to tackle AMD uptake. The long-standing
relationship between Intel and Microsoft executives sets alight a few red
warnings.
|
|
