The OEMs aren't entirely stupid. And they watch their competition.
When "White Box" industry grew to nearly 25% of the industry a few
years ago, and nearly all of those machines were configured as "Linux
Friendly". The market for Linux hostile machines in the white box
market isn't so hot.
When HP came out with AMD-64 based desktops and laptops, HP gained
market share, and the profits rose substantially. The following
quarters, as other major OEMs started offering machines that only
offered additional value only when Linux was installed as the primary
operating system, sales and profits from such machines improved the
financial reports of all of the major OEMs.
Based on other indicators, it's plausable (but not necessarily
provable) that these "high profit" machines were probably being
converted to Linux by the end users. On most of these systems, such
conversions can be done in less than 1 hour.
At the moment, the "path of least resistance" is to go ahead and put
Windows on all of the machines, and let the end users install Linux
later.
For the OEM, even on these "Linux Machines", offering Windows can be a
feature. After all, even after Linux is installed, if Windows can be
installed as a virtual machine, it could means that it's still a
"Windows" machine.
If Microsoft tries to hard to blow that deal, and starts jamming up or
disabling Windows on Linux machines, the OEMs might decide that Windows
isn't such a good "investment".
Because Eric believes that no one is defecting to Linux?
You're an almost continuous source of anti-Linux FUD.
Erik, I think youv'e been around longer than that. As I recall, we
have had exchanges dating back as 1997.
http://groups.google.com/group/comp...32c2?lnk=st&q=&rnum=15&hl=en#05ae29ce48d832c2
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.os2.advocacy/msg/1934751ea089e658?dmode=source&hl=en
<quote>
From: Erik Funkenbusch - view profile
Date: Wed, Jun 22 1994 3:43 pm
Email: (e-mail address removed) (Erik Funkenbusch)
Groups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Not yet rated
Rating:
show options
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show
original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author
Fallguy454 said:
I cast my vote for OS2 it is nice...My speed problems are related to
moving large data files from harddrive to memory...Other than that
its nice on 8 megs or more.
Amiga users should migrate their, I think they would be happy....
</quote>
Then you say:
NeXTStep is out of my price range for both hardware and os and software, and any
of the free flavors of UNIX are available for the Amiga as well (Linux, NetBSD, etc..)
So, i use OS/2 and AmigaDos. and that's how i stay happy.
</quote>
So it appears that Linux was on YOUR radar back in 1994!
And if YOU knew about Linux in 1994, do you honestly think that Bill
Gates, who was watching the competition and trying to anticipate and
counter ANY threat to Microsoft's total control over the market - would
have "Missed Linux"?
If I were Bill Gates, I'd be insulted. You deny him credit for
effectively neutralizing a threat (real or perceived) which YOU
identified in 1994.
Microsoft WAS aware of Linux. They may not have been as concerned with
Linux in 1994 as they were with OS/2, UnixWare, and Solaris for Intel,
but it was certainly on the radar.
Keep in mind that in 1991, Sun had captured 15% of the "Corporate
Workstation" market. This is a very small portion of a niche portion
of the total market, but it presented Sun a very serious potential
threat to Windows 3.0 and Windows 3.1.
Sun's entry with their Sun/386 didn't work out so well. Sun was unable
to support the myriad number of devices used on PCs, and couldn't
cost-effectively produce a platform they could market at prices
competitive with Windows 3.1.
On the other hand, Sun was able to provide a cost-effective solution to
many corporate scenarios by using a combination of Sun
Workstation/Servers and X11 "Terminals". Even as late as 1996, it was
not uncommon for corporate PCs to have X11 software such as Hummingbird
and Chameleon providing "Workstation" access to UNIX "Desktop"
software.
Many PCs still have "X11" server software such as Cygwin's Xfree for
Windows server providing access to "Desktop Linux" software. In
addition, VNC provides remote access.
Many Linux "servers" are actually desktop machines, and many "desktop"
machines are actually servers connected to multiple PCs running X11
software.
The Halloween Memorandum that leaked out of Microsoft in 1998 would
suggest otherwise.
Comments made by Microsoft executives as early as 1994 indicate that
Microsoft was aware of Linux. Other UNIX vendors could be managed,
directed into focusing on Server instead of desktop efforts, and could
be manipulated through interaction with holding companies, mutual
funds, and other "arrangements".
On the other hand, Linux was an "uncontrollable" threat. By November
of 1994, Linux could configure itself to most of the computer widely in
use at the time (Vesa Local Bus machines with NE2000 or 3Com ethernet
cards). Linux also supported VGA and SVGA graphics devices.
The use of modules modprobes and the elimination of the requirement to
recompile the kernel for each unique configuration, made Linux a bigger
threat than other options such as Interactive, SCO, or UnixWare.
Note to our large imaginary usenet audience: Erik already knows all about
the Halloween Memorandum and he also knows full well Linux was very much
on Microsoft's radar in 1998. Anyone else wondering what the Halloween
Memorandum is, can find it at:
http://www.catb.org/~esr/halloween/
UNIX was on Microsoft's radar screen back in 1987. At that time,
Microsoft turned over control of Xenix to SCO. At the time, Bill was
convinced that UNIX "had no future", and wanted to focus his resources
on something to compete with Mac. There may have also been pressure
from IBM, who may have wanted make sure that OS/2 wasn't "tainted" by
any SCO UNIX or Xenix developers or efforts.
By the end of 1988, Bill realized that he had made a big mistake. UNIX
not only had a graphical user interface, but it was technologically
superior to the options being offered by Apple's Mac at the time. When
X11R4 was released and Sun captured the CES show, Bill was so worried
that UNIX with X11R4 would blow away Windows, that he made a list of
those features that users liked most, and promised that they would ALL
be included in NT during his keynote speech at the event.
When SLS Linux offered not only a fully functional Linux kernel, but
also a full X11R5 implementation, complete with a full suite of
applications, Bill would have HAD to know, and would have clearly seen
it as a threat.
I know that Mike Bird, who joined Microsoft in early 1994, was very
aware of Linux, and considered it an interesting alternative to Windows
3.1. Even when he was using Windows NT 3.1 beta, he often wished he
could be doing development on Linux instead.
Mike also had an HP9000 workstation at his desktop, which was also very
popular within the publishing and financial community.
Partly true. If the machines can be sold at a higher price, at a
greater profit margin, then having Linux drivers available for that
machine could be a very desirable feature, EVEN IF LINUX were NEVER
DEPLOYED. If a corporate customer wants the option of switching to
Linux at a moment's notice, and is willing to pay an extra $500 for
hardware that only costs $50 to make, then Linux becomes a huge "cash
cow" even though it's not installed when the machine is shipped.
Microsoft jealously guards it's control of the OEM channel.
We have court testimony, by Microsoft executives, along with exhibits
submitted to federal court records, now under seal, which demonstrate
that Microsoft "works very hard" to deter OEMs and hardware makers from
preinstalling ANY Non-Microsoft software.
There are some OEMs who offer or include non-microsoft software, but it
needs to be installed by the END USER, AFTER the machine has been fully
booted and configured by Microsoft's "first boot sequence".
Court records have shown that Microsoft has restricted alteration of
the "Initial boot sequence" going back as far as 1996, and possibly
even back to 1995. Remember that Windows 95 removed all partitions,
rewrote the boot sector, and reformatted the entire hard drive into a
single partition, to remove boot managers and partitions that would
support competitor products.
Direct testimony and exhibits in the Caldera vs Microsoft case shows
that Microsoft attempted to prevent DRI and GEM from being installed by
the OEMs.
You're absolutely right Erik. I have never heard anyone testify in
court that Microsoft took their wrist and turned it until they agreed
to install Windows, only Windows, and nothing but Windows, and only
then only exactly as configured by Microsoft.
On the other hand, Microsoft did notify Compaq that their license would
be revoked in 30 days since they included Netscape and removed the IE
icon. Keep in mind that Compaq did not actually REMOVE IE software.
All they did was remove the IE icon from the desktop, and put the
Netscape icon in it's place. In their defense, Microsoft insisted that
Compaq's contract required that they could not make ANY alteration to
the boot sequence, without Microsoft's prior written consent. This
critical fact, which was represented during the appeal of the Judge's
ruling against Microsoft, was used to reverse the judgement in favor of
Microsoft. Put very simply, Microsoft uses very strict legal
contracts, with threats of severe and immediatel legal penalties, such
as the immediate and total revocation of licenses, as tools to assure
it's complete control over the OEM distribution channel.
Control of the OEM distribution channel is a bit like having control of
the railroad of the interstate highway system. If Microsoft owned the
interstates, truckers would have to sign title to their tractors over
to microsoft before being allowed to transport freight between any two
major cities anywhere in the world. The alternative would be to take
side roads, but Microsoft would make sure that those roads were not
properly maintained. In a few years, the potholes would be so bad,
that you would have the choice of destroying your tractor's suspension
on the back roads, and possibly damaging your cargo, or signing the
title of your tractor over to Microsoft, who would then allow you to
drive their trucks, at a price they wanted to pay you, but only if you
met deadlines and conditions that would mean no sleep for 40 hours at a
time, after which you would get a few hundred dollars while Microsfot
got a few hundred thousand.
Fortunately, Microsoft does not own the roads, but they do "own" the
OEM distribution channel. This severely limits the ability of software
publishers to distribute their software to end-users. More accurately,
Microsoft has contracts with all of the major OEM hardware
manufacturers which require the them to get Microsoft's prior written
approval before making any alteration to the configuration of the
software preinstalled on the machines they ship.
Microsoft has no "formal" policy on what alterations will be approved.
They were willing to permit the preinstallation of virus software, but
not willing to allow the preinstallation of other software. One can
only examine the "patterns" look for indications of "De Facto"
exclusion of competitors. The patterns certainly indicate that Linux,
Netscape, RealMedia, QuickTime, and OpenOffice are NOT being approved.
On the other hand, it may be that the OEMs are not requesting such
alterations. This could be for several reasons. It could be, as Erik
suggests, that they don't want to put anything but Microsoft software
in their machines. This of course turns their products into low-profit
"commidities", subject to frequent price-wars, because there is no
opportunity for market differentiation. Machines with AMD-64
processors, Intel DUO processors, and Celeron processors all run about
the same speed on Windows XP. Still, Erik could be right, and it's
possible that the OEMs WANT it that way. It's possible, but highly
unlikely.
It could also be that they fear reprisals. There is certainly
indications that Microsoft is capable of such actions. Again,
Microsoft admitted in court, that they had tested for Cyrix chips and
use the well-known F00F bug to "melt" the chips. IBM had just
purchased the Cyrix company. When IBM raised the issue, Microsoft
claimed that they had illegally obtained the evidence of the sabotage.
When the judge didn't see it Microsoft's way, Microsoft settled,
released SP3 for NT 4.0, and the court records were sealed.
In the antittrust case, even Microsoft's executives admitted to
engaging in actions that might have harmed IBM, and their ability to
sell machines for Windows 95.
It may even be that Microsoft WANTED a public issue made of Microsoft's
willingness to revoke the licenses of Compaq, to audit the licenses of
IBM and then demand $30 million cash payments, or even their ability to
permanantly damage hardware. After all, the issue could be settled
from Microsoft's huge cash hoarde. On the other hand, the lawsuit or
complaint filed by OEM, could serve as a warning to all of the other
OEMs.
Legally, Microsoft can't put all of the OEMs in one room and say "We
all have to agree NOT to install Linux, or else...". This would be a
violation of the Clayton act. So long as each OEM is cutting their own
deals, even if those deals are "forced" or had certain points that were
"not negotiable", and did not explicitly state that competitors to
Microsoft would be excluded from the OEM channel, the OEMs could not be
charged with callousion.
Don't try to play dumb. You know all about the Halloween documents, the US
antitrust trial, the deliberate insertion of code into Windows 3.x to kill
DRDOS and make it look like DRDOS's fault, Microsoft's denial of market
access that killed BEOS through penalties against OEMs (covered up with
secrecy clauses in Microsoft's contracts), the successful lawsuits
against Microsoft by BeOS and DRDOS, the Halloween Memorandum, EU
hearings, the recent news that came out about Microsoft's support of SCO,
ad. nauseam.
Keep in mind that Erik knows that the transcripts from these trials are
all sealed, and since online sources typicaly purge their public
archives of such sealed transcripts, there are no easily referenced
records available. Since copyright law prevents reposting the cite
directly to the web, verbatum, it can't be reposted by individuals. In
effect, using court seals and demands for "retractions" based on these
seals, Microsoft can "rewrite history" at will.
Microsoft isn't the only one. Court seals, retractions, and archive
purges make it possible for corporate interests to rewrite history in
their own interests. We used to point to the Soviet Union and their
ability to rewrite history, and laugh. Today, rewriting history, just
like in Ray Bradbury's Farenheit 451, is as common as broken political
campaign promises.
Just like I said, you're trying to make me waste my time repeating
an argument that you've lost many times.
It works. Erik has a lawyer's talent for taking a statement made
metaphorically, an allogory, a statement that has even one incorrect
fact, and turn that against you. He can say "prove it", and watch you
waste your time trying. He's not actually challenging the body of the
facts, but instead is using one improperly worded statement as a
mechanism to damage credibility.
You said Microsoft "twisted arms" of OEMs. That probably isn't true,
and would be nearly impossible to prove if it were true. If it were
true that Microsoft had physically assaulted the CEOs or top executives
of OEM corporations, until they agreed to terms that would otherwise
have been unacceptable, it would have been a criminal act of felony
assault, and probably extortion.
A more accurate statement might be that Microsoft made a combination of
threats and incentives, which led to a contract which was reluctantly
accepted by these executives.
If the executives were eagerly lining up to sign deals that gave them
everything, and gave Microsoft almost nothing, Bill Gates would be a
terrible negotiator. Conversely, if Microsoft came up with terms that
would force the company to operate at a loss, eventually bleeding the
resources of the company and forcing it into bankruptcy, the executives
of the OEM companies wouldn't be doing their jobs.
In practice, language is everything. Microsoft drafts the licenses,
and drafts the contracts. They try to make the language "easy to
understand", but they also make sure that it's easy to understand
incorrectly. I would guess that Microsoft not only uses lawyers to
draft these documents, but also psychologists and English majors. The
words are carefully crafted to allow the reader to see what he wants to
see, and think it means something good and easily acceptable for the
reader, but at the same time, the language is also carefully crafted to
allow Microsoft the ability to "interpret" the contract in their best
interests.
Keep in mind that only written revisions to the contract are binding.
If the sales rep tells you that you only need 10 concurrent licenses
with your server, or that you can use those 10 client licenses to
install NT on 10 workstations, this is not legally binding. On the
other hand, if you agree to a clause that says you will not publish
benchmarks without Microsoft's prior written permission, it's entirely
up to Microsoft to define what constitutes a benchmark, what
constitutes publishing, and what constitutes prior written consent.
The very best examples of this are Microsoft's settlements in nearly
all of their high profile cases. When you can completely neutralize
the efforts of 25 Attourney's general, and the Department of Justice,
getting them to agree to a settlement which eliminates all
opportunities for appeal, and at the same time makes absolutely no
difference in altering Microsoft's control of the OEM channel, and has
allowed them to extend their monopoly into other product groups and
services, in direct defiance of the final judgement of the appeals
court, that's some really good "weasel wording".
For those not familiar with that last term. Weasels burrow under the
nests of large birds and suck the yolk and white out of the egg from
the bottom. By the time the mother realizes that there is nothing left
but an empty shell, the weasel is long gone.
)