hawat.thufir@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> Aunty Diluvian wrote:
> [...]
> > >With this high-level corporate censorship, it's not really surprising
> > >that "Linux just doesn't fit their perceived model of a computer.".
> >
> > Linux does not fit the perceived model of a computer of many
> > people. It is a cheap shot at capitalism from socialist do-gooders.
> > While that may work well in the third world countries is flies
> > in the face of everything that is America.
> [...]
>
> Err, railroad trusts in the 1800's weren't "American," that was
> capitalism run amok, otherwise known as laissez faire capitalism, which
> is almost univeresally rejected now..
The railroad monopolies were one of the most dramatic examples of how
dangerous a monopoly could become. To clear the land, the railroad had
lobbied congress to pass the homestead act. People could get 40 acres
of land, which was often very primative, wooded, rocky, and would have
been very difficult to farm in the first few years. But if the family
could be self-sustaining, at the end of 7 years, they would own the
land.
This might have seemed like a great idea, but remember that the
railroads had to make regular stops at each little farming communities
and had to run spurs to smaller towns.
The railroads found that cattle ranchers could bring the merchandise to
them. The cowboys would wait until the year after the homesteaders got
title to their land, and then they would burn out the farmers, often
killing the father. Since women and children could not own land, the
bank, which was owned by the railroad, would take possession of the
land because of debts owed by the farmers. Entire towns would be
burned out or shut down. In some cases, those who refused to sell out
would simply find themselves with no train service, meaning that they
were entirely on their own.
There were numerous range wars, the most famous of which was the
"Gunfight at the OK Corral", in which Wyatt Erp, Doc Holiday, and
other, acting on behalf of the cattle industry gunned down the
Clantons, and others defending the rights of "Sodbusters".
Among the homesteaders of Missouri, such as my great grandmother, Jesse
James was a hero, not a villian.
> Competition, capitalism *is* the preferred model. However, microsoft
> has achieved, effectively, total vendor lock-in across the board, thus
> the finding that microsoft has monopoly power. Monopoly power is
> american? Not in my america.
Actually, Microsoft has simply done like the railreads, they got a lock
on the "rail head", in the case, the OEMs. Since the OEMs such as Dell,
HP, Lenovo, Toshiba, and other major vendors must sell their PCs with
Windows preinstalled, they have effectively "locked out competitors".
Numerous attempts to market PCs preconfigured with Linux have failed,
laregely because they have been unable to put these Linux powered
machines on retail store shelves. Several companies such as VA Linux
have tried, but were never able to get their inventory to the floors of
major retailers.
> If, when a consumer buys a computer from dell and there are *five*
> options for the OS for any given hardware, *then* you can make
> arguments about capitalism.
Actually, the real marking point is the retail shelves. Once we
actually see Linux computers on retailer shelves, sittting right next
to the Windows boxes, so that perspective buyers can make an informed
choice, we can talk about true capitalism.
In many countries where this is possible, Linux still captures only
about 40-45% of the market, but even that market percentage is going up
each year.
> Furthermore, there does exist *application* software which can be
> purchased for linux. Bill Gates has said "we've always been an
> applications company" and I think that's great. Microsoft developed
> apps for the mac. why not for linux? obviously, microsoft wants to
> maintain vendor lock-in.
The irony here, is that Microsoft has driven so many of their third
party application's vendors out of business. Products like Lotus
1-2-3, Wordperfect, DBASE IV, Boreland Sidekick, and DesqView, and so
on. The products are almost completely gone, and most of the companies
who offered these products have been teetering on bankruptcy or have
just been takeovers with larger corporations simply keeping the brand
alive.
> If there were effective competition then microsoft would be developing
> apps for different OS's.
Microsoft considers their control of of the PC operating system to be
essential to the profitability of their applications. They are
probably right. Would Microsoft we able to sell MS-Office at 85%
margins if they didn't have monopoly control over the Operating System?
At least a few courts have said no.
> -Thufir
|
|
