__/ [ Erik Funkenbusch ] on Friday 03 March 2006 10:54 \__
> On Fri, 03 Mar 2006 05:20:40 +0000, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>> Via Digg: 'Microsoft is practicing the "do it our way or you don't matter"
>> business model by forcing any company who wants to offer Windows to its
>> customers to do so exclusively. No Linux, No BSD.'
> This is a typical case of jumping to conclusions, because the guy simply
> doesn't know any better.
> MS's OEM contracts are model based. If an OEM sells a particular model of
> computer, it has to have a copy of Windows on it. An OEM can sell whatever
> they like on models that have not been designated as "windows" models. So,
> an OEM can sell an identical machine with a different model number, and not
> be required to ship Windows on that model.
> The guy on his blog did not ask the OEM "can I get a similar computer with
> no OS on it", he asked explicitly if a particular model could be sold
> without an OS, which of course is no.
You are missing the point entirely. Why was the answer "no"? This question
can be posed in a variety of contexts. Was it hard for the vendor to sell
the same hardware without bothering to touch the hard-drive? (rhetorical)
Why has it reached the compelling circumstance where /all/ hardware is
exclusively bound to Windows? (rhetorical)
> And, of course, this guy thinks he's discovered something new. He hasn't.
The guy is not the brightest, but he proves a point. I understand that you
have a certain commitment to stay consistent, argumentatively. You stick
with your stubborn choice of obfuscating anti-competitive traps, whereby the
shake of hands warrants no diversity. To think that you can be utterly blind
to that only leads me to losing respect for you. The latter argument is the
sole reason why I reply to your post. Think before you post.
Roy S. Schestowitz | Previous signature has been conceded
http://Schestowitz.com | SuSE Linux | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
10:55am up 2 days 6:33, 8 users, load average: 1.00, 0.64, 0.54
http://iuron.com - next generation of search paradigms