XPost: comp.os.linux.advocacy, comp.os.os2.advocacy   
   From: ajbrehm@gmail.com   
      
   The Ghost In The Machine  wrote:   
      
   > In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Andrew J. Brehm   
   >    
   >  wrote   
   > on Thu, 8 Sep 2005 14:31:01 +0100   
   > <1h2kqnn.1ccfysg1dpxog0N%ajbrehm@gmail.com>:   
   > > Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz  wrote:   
   > >   
   > >> begin  In <1h20mei.kluboo16303qsN%ajbrehm@gmail.com>, on 08/28/2005   
   > >>    at 05:46 PM, ajbrehm@gmail.com (Andrew J. Brehm) said:   
   > >>   
   > >> >If there is demand for non-Windows computer, there will be a supply   
   > >> >of such.   
   > >>   
   > >> Not when m$ has contracts in place illegally impeding it.   
   > >   
   > > MS have no power to impede independent vendors.   
   >   
   > Everyone has power -- influence, suggestions, and sometimes threats.   
   > Fortunately, this includes the independent vendors, who don't have   
   > to say "I must acquiesce to Microsoft".   
      
   True.   
      
   > However, there are many issues here:   
   >   
   > [1] Microsoft licensing may very well be beneficial, financially   
   >     speaking, to those vendors who only sell Microsoft or   
   >     Microsoft-capable or Microsoft-related products.   
      
   Well, Microsoft licensing must be beneficial to those vendors who only   
   sell Microsoft products. Otherwise these vendors would not go for the   
   offer. They are not the victims here. They are part of the problem.   
      
   > [2] The DoJ is having problems enforcing the verdict of the court,   
   >     though I can't say I've looked lately.  Fortunately, the   
   >     court of public opinion (which is not nearly so formalized   
   >     as US jurisprudence :-) ) might be worth appealing to, and   
   >     certainly Microsoft's track record isn't all that good,   
   >     at least in a certain subsection.  (Another subsection   
   >     probably wouldn't give a darn, even with all the malware   
   >     floating about.)   
      
   Yes.   
      
   > >   
   > > I am sure you believe that if a vendor agrees to not supply   
   > > non-Microsoft software, it is perfectly ok for the vendor to   
   > > go back on his word.   
   >   
   > Problematic no matter how one looks at it.  Honor is quaint and   
   > old-fashioned, but if the vendor breaks his trust with Microsoft,   
   > how will I know he won't break his trust later with *me*?   
      
   Exactly.   
      
   > It's a delicate problem, admittedly -- but it is a problem.   
      
   Indeed.   
      
   > >   
   > > But none of this anything to do with the fact that vendors who   
   > > did not sign with Microsoft did supply non-Windows computers.   
   > >   
   > > I bought several in the 90s.   
   > >   
   > >> >The customers have forced all other OS vendors into the niche   
   > >> >market.   
   > >>   
   > >> No; conduct in restraint of trade did that; they customers had no say   
   > >> in the matter.   
   > >   
   > > Perhaps you didn't. Most customers make their own decisions and are not   
   > > forced to buy a specific type of computer.   
   > >   
   > >> >Most customers do not want a non-standard PC.   
   > >>   
   > >> Most customers don't know what the relevant standards are and will   
   > >> cheerfully buy all sorts of nonstandard stuff without realizing it.   
   > >   
   > > No, they won't. Not since Microsoft established an effective standard.   
   >   
   > That's assuming customers will look for the "Microsoft-certified"   
   > label before buying something.  I'll admit, it's not like such   
   > labels are invisible, though; my new Dell here at work has a   
   > couple of Microsoft labels: one stating "Designed for Windows XP",   
   > and one a Microsoft XP certificate identifier.   
      
   Customers do appear to look for Windows. I remember in the mid-90s when   
   German computer stores typically sold computers with a choice of Windows   
   3.1 (later Windows 95), PC-DOS, or OS/2 Warp. Most customers bought   
   Windows computers.   
      
   > And the Dell website is festooned with "Recommends Windows XP".   
   > (So is IBM, in some areas.)   
      
   Dell certainly know their customers.   
      
   > >   
   > >> That includes the bundled m$ malware, which is often different from   
   > >> the shrinkwrap versions in harmful and undisclosed ways.   
   > >   
   > > Very good.   
   >   
   > There's a hidden partition in my one Dell that I have no idea   
   > what its purpose is.  Identifier 'de', 'Dell Utility'.  It is   
   > mountable under vfat but 'ls' generates a lot of crap, displayed   
   > as question marks.  (It's possible that there's some highly   
   > international files there, but I for one can't tell.)   
      
   One of the reasons I would not buy a Dell is that I also don't know what   
   that partition is for. I prefer to know my computer.   
      
   > Not exactly the most transparent of file volumes.  No doubt there's   
   > some knowledge floating about (fdisk at least knows what 'de' means).   
      
   Fdisk (Linux fdisk anyway) knows a lot of very odd partition types,   
   including 0x41 and 0xEB (PowerPC boot and BFS).   
      
   > >   
   > >> >The ideal solution would be commodity operating systems, with   
   > >> >several vedors implementing the same compatibility standard. Unix   
   > >> >and Linux do that, but customers rejected the standard   
   > >>   
   > >> Not so; in fact, they seem to be gradually adopting it, despite the   
   > >> illegal barriers m$ is erecting.   
   > >   
   > > Some customers prefer non-Microsoft solutions.   
   >   
   > Enough to pay extra for them?  Another rather delicate problem.   
      
   I prefer non-Microsoft solutions. Always have. I am paying more for them   
   now, as a Mac user. But as an OS/2 user I think I paid less.   
      
   > >   
   > >> >And I suppose that is wrong because you disagree with the decision?   
   > >>   
   > >> Yeah, a silly prejudice in  favor of equal protection of the law.   
   > >   
   > > I do believe that the law should apply to everybody equally, regardless   
   > > of market share even.   
   > >   
   > > If it is illegal for company X to make certain deals, so it should be   
   > > for company Y.   
   > >   
   > > I assume you mean something else by "equal protection of the law"?   
   > >   
   >   
   > One problem with the law in this instance is that by the time sentence   
   > is pronounced we're two revs ahead of what caused the problem.   
   >   
   > I remember IE4.  It was a little odd, having it replace half my system   
   > files.  That was sometime in 1997, though I'd have to look.  It's   
   > now almost 8 years later.   
   >   
   > Where did the time go? :-)  And what punishment would be meaningful at   
   > this point?   
      
   I remember the time before MSIE when OS/2 users laughed because Windows   
   didn't even come with a Web browser. Many earlier Internet users like   
   myself used OS/2 because of that. I have never found the way back to   
   Windows. I guess that counts as punishment for not offering a Web   
   browser when some customers first needed one.   
      
   --   
   Andrew J. Brehm   
   Marx Brothers Fan   
   PowerPC/Macintosh User   
   Supporter of Chicken Sandwiches   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)