Mike McCarty wrote:
Tim wrote:
Jeff Vian
It is a Microsoft problem as we see stated in the article, "Linux
evangelist John H. Terpstra told me: "Microsoft has used its market
dominance to coerce OEMs (original equipment manufacturers) and
resellers not to sell competing products and services."
Mike McCarty:
co.erce - v co.erced, co.erc.ing v.t. 1 To constrain by force,
law, authority, or fear; compel 2 To bring into subjection or
under control by superior force; repress 3 To bring about by
coercion: to /coerce/ obedience - v.i. 4 To use coercive
measures, as in government. See synonyms under COMPEL.
Please state what, exactly, is this "coerce" that MicroSoft has
done.
Isn't that the cases where Microsoft has done things like:
If you want the information you need to make your device Windows
compliant/compatible, you have to agree to our terms. The same tricks
they'd did with ISPs about if you want "help" in some way, you have to
agree not to support non-Microsoft products.
If you want the right to say Windows compatible (or the rights to use
similar logo stamps of aproval on the box, etc.), the same sort of
thing.
Please point out where the coercion is. I still don't see any.
More specifically, where are the "force, law, authority, or
fear"?
Oh, so MicroSoft has done such a good job of porting its software
to many different hardware platforms, that it is difficult for
others to do as well? MicroSoft has risked so much capital
in purchasing the documentation on how to use some proprietary
hardware that others who are unwilling to do so have a problem
competing?
Have they really? What other than bog-standard PCs do you see Microsoft
Windows running on? And with the huge profits they have, and the almost
I thought I regularly see lists of hardware which "Linux supporters"
should avoid, because the h/w i/f is proprietary, and so the
driver writers for Linux can't/wont get the info necessary to support
the new video chips etc. because they can't/wont afford the price
it takes to buy the docs.
It's not because they won't/can't afford the price for the docs. It's because
the docs. simply are not available. The manufacturer supports Windows and
provides device drivers, and updates, for Windows. They built the hardware so
they know how to do this. If they won't provide drivers and updates for Linux
there is no way to support the device on Linux. The manufacturer will not
provide the specs. for their hardware which are necessary for anyone else to
write a driver. They normally cite either licensing restrictions (if they have
licensed from 3rd parties) or competition - they don't want their competitors to
get hold of the specs. for their hardware.
Yet Win.. runs on everything I've seen.
Because the manufacturers support Windows. Who do you think provides the drivers?
To put it another way, what PCs do you NOT see Win.. running on?
I don't see mail echoes where a FAQ is "Does Win.. support this
or that laptop or whatever" whereas I *do* see this for Linux.
You would if the manufacturer didn't provide the drivers.
complete monopoly they have of the market, how much of a "risk" are they
really taking to expand their market even further?
They *purchase* information.
Who does? The manufacturers have the information, they don't need to purchase
it. They won't sell it to anyone else.
Why doesn't the "Open Software Community"
make the same purchase?
Because you can't buy something which isn't for sale.
--
Nigel Wade, System Administrator, Space Plasma Physics Group,
University of Leicester, Leicester, LE1 7RH, UK
E-mail : nmw@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Phone : +44 (0)116 2523548, Fax : +44 (0)116 2523555
