Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>
>
> Microsoft Shuts Down Linux 10 Years Ago Says Iowa Attorne
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | Going back now to as early as 1998, Microsoft starts to realize that
> | Linux might pose a possible threat, and Vinod Valloppillil, who is
> | a program manager at Microsoft, is asked by Mr. Allchin, Jim Allchin,
> | to analyze potential strategies for combatting open-source software,
> | and specifically Linux.
> | His memos are leaked to the press in April -- I beg your pardon --
> | in October of 1998 and become known as the Halloween documents.
> | And the evidence will be that Microsoft uses its influence in the
> | OEM channel, the computer manufacture channel, to make sure that
> | end users have a difficult time buying PCs with Linux preinstalled.
> `----
>
>
http://www.linuxelectrons.com/News/RoundUp/Microsoft_Shuts_Down_Linux_10_Years_Ago_Says_Iowa_Attorney
>
>
> Microsoft's Dirty OEM-Secret
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | They are, in short the secret to Microsoft's success. And the word
> | secret is to be taken quite literally: No OEM may talk about the
> | contents of his contract, or he will lose his license, and (assumption)
> | likely be sued for breach of contract as well.
> `----
>
> http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2001/10/23/13219/110
The problem with this stuff comes when trying to distinguish between the
parts that are bullying, underhanded, monopolistic and those parts that are
just good business decisions for the time that they were made.
Take coaches. When the government put the busses out to tender, there was
some tax advantage in being a local bus or coach company, to do with the
distance between bus stops serviced (I don't know exactly how that worked,
but that was the gist of it). So, one enterprising man and wife who until
then were quite a small player in the coach industry, put a bus stop in
every service station down the M1, and M6, which effectively meant they
could undercut the long distance coaches by quite a lot and cover just
about the whole country, certainly the most used routes.
Other bus and coach companies shouted and screamed, but it was simply a
matter that National Express had thought of it first. Well done I would
say. Now they are the largest of the coach companies and many of those that
were around prior to that move have now gone.
Some could say that National Express is effectively a monopoly within the
bus and coach industry, simply because of their success, but should they
really be punished for success, in particular a single decision that lead
to that success probably a much greater degree of success than the two
owners would have thought possible at the time they thought of it? Now that
they are the biggest, they can undercut all oposition simply because it is
possible for them to balance profit and loss over many more active coaches,
simple accounting.
I don't think that capping them or punishing them for success is the way to
deal with such things, there is nothing wrong in my book with success based
good products or an intelligent or wise decision.
For MS, they too made some clever decisions along the way, as well as bad
ones. But the use of MS software was growing fast right from the start,
they were a success because it was what people wanted. They were
imperfections and cause for arguments about policy and code decisions, but
in the main DOS and then Win were what people wanted on their client and
home computers.
OEM wasn't seen as a way to keep others out at the time it was first done,
there wasn't anyone else to keep out back then. Apple went their own way,
they weren't really a threat and anyway it could be argued that Apple being
preinstalled with Mac OS is no different from the OEM system, try buying an
OS free Apple.
OEM was a simple a way to ensure people had a working OS the day they got
the computer home from the shop, of cause it was also a way to sell MS OS's
to those who were unlikely to know what to do with an install disc. I don't
think there is anything in there that we could object to.
Later, as the world moved on then the OEM was changing from what might be
called a service to what can only be described as a trap door. That was
probably much more to do with OS2 than Linux. But my point is that we can't
spit and snarl at MS for the OEM idea. OS2 could also have cornered some of
the PC manufacturers and come up with pre-install deals. There is still no
real space for Linux advocates to complain.
It is very unlikely that a few years ago any PC vendor would have released
Linux ready installed, as has been mentioned many times, they simply could
not have taken on the support. They were some of cause who have been doing
that for quite a few years now, pre-installed Linux PCs (I mean clients,
the server side was already in full swing anyway), but even IBM and HP were
not keen to get into a Linux support arena. Now though, it can be done and
not only can but should be done.
Dell now have to chance to get back on many a IT person's suppliers lists if
they pull this off well. They are so many possibilities though and I am a
bit worried that they might take it the wrong way or go with the wrong
distro. I know we each would pick our own favourite distro, for what ever
reason it is our favourite. But for a potential mass of new Linux users we
need the selected distro/s to be particularly aimed at a typical home user,
it has to be easy for them, has to be neat and clean.
I ought to be able to say which distro I would put on these machines, but I
don't really know what would be best.
My first thought would be either Xandros or Linspire. Simple and complete as
far as the desktop is concerned. But then I wonder if the added areas that
the new user would get with Mandriva or OpenSuse might be better, I don't
think it will be an easy decision for Dell to make.
|
|
