Full Disclosure mailing list archives
Re: Anti-MS drivel
From: Tobias Weisserth <tobias () weisserth de>
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 18:34:13 +0100
Hi Ron, Am Di, den 20.01.2004 schrieb Ron DuFresne um 23:03:
Up to now they rule the consumer OS market with more than 90% market share. Any error they make regarding default settings in their OS affects 90% of all end consumers. It is impossible to require that many customers to adapt. Rather the vendor has to adapt. This is only logical.What's the incentive to make the vendor change? It's going to take one HUGE boycott to achieve that, HUGE becuase the market is worlwide, and we can't get a few thousand users on this single FD list to agree to much from one day to the next, let alone to get a large international boycott up and running, despite the dependance of many gov's and home users, and corps upon the M$ code. So far the feds and a number of state in the US have not been up to forcing change in redmond, even with million dollar a day fines once imposed.
This isn't solved by just one incentive or pulling a single lever. The ultimate solution to solve this problem would be a free market with free competition and no entry barriers for potential competitors for Microsoft. It's not about slicing MS in two parts as the US prosecution wanted to. That's the wrong side. Deregulate the market. Make competition possible again. Limit the extend software patents are applicable to. Why should a patent on a technology like software be valid for DECADES? After that, no possible competitor has a value for that technology. Software patents are legalised monopolies. There's a VERY good reason most European software vendors are against software patents in Europe while the American, MS/Oracle/Sun/etc. led BSA is propagating software patents in Europe to extend their monopoly on certain technologies that define access to markets. Apply liability laws to software and IT products in general. When I buy hardware, I have a legally guaranteed period of 6 months to 1 year in Germany within which the vendor is liable 100%. Why doesn't such a thing exist with software? EULAs as MS is issuing them are contrasting current laws. In fact, a MS EULA in Germany isn't worth the paper it is printed on. The MS EULA in Germany isn't 100% valid since it doesn't comply with German law. Did I mention competition? Well, it's the most important lever to assure quality and low prices in products so repetition is not bad.
And let's face it, many of the folks on this and other lists that buy a PC, wipe windows and install a *bsd or linux/*nix clone, are still contributing to the redmond bottom line of their big buck, cause most those PC's come pre-installed with a M$ OS underneath.
Which PC vendors can't decide on their own since OEM contracts issued by MS are rather restrictive. Either you take it or you don't take MS products at all... This is a case where anti-trust laws should permit vendors to ignore the restrictive parts of such agreements whenever this excludes competition. Competition is capitalism. Capitalism is living of free markets with no entries. This MS situation is close to living in communist East-Germany before 1991 where people could buy one sort of car which was very expensive and sucked.
What do they care if that software license sits in a drawer and remains unused after first turning on the system? They made their share <smile>.
That's absolutely true. But I guess real MS refuseniks don't buy hardware with OEM software attached to it and invest the additional time to buy individual hardware components and build their own system from scratch. That's cheaper anyway since you really get what you want and the OEM software attached to new PCs isn't really free because it's somehow included in the price.
And most on these list should understand as well, I do not disagree with the anti-M$ sentiments, I've posted many of my own over the years, but, I do know better then to lie to myself and think that M$ on the desktop or in the corporate world is faced with any major threat at this time from redhat or suse.
Not yet but the ball started to move. Once the critical mass is reached we'll actually be moving into a situation again where competition is part of the market. Look at Munich, Germany. They may be having trouble doing so but they decided to switch 14.000 desktop PCs to SuSE. This is a small start. But with initiatives rolling in Asia and South America I don't think MS can count on being the only desktop OS vendor in the near future.
Understand this is not going to be a simple boycott by a few thousand or hundred thousand buyers of bannanas from say nicaragua...
I'm not speaking about a boycott. I'm speaking about vendor liability and free choice (actually free markets, but it's nearly the same). cheers, Tobias _______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
Current thread:
- RE: Anti-MS drivel, (continued)
- RE: Anti-MS drivel James Patterson Wicks (Jan 19)
- RE: Anti-MS drivel Schmehl, Paul L (Jan 20)
- RE: Anti-MS drivel Tobias Weisserth (Jan 20)
- Re: Anti-MS drivel Mary Landesman (Jan 20)
- Re: Anti-MS drivel Tobias Weisserth (Jan 20)
- Re: Anti-MS drivel Mary Landesman (Jan 20)
- Re: Anti-MS drivel Mary Landesman (Jan 20)
- RE: Anti-MS drivel David Bartholomew (Jan 20)
- Message not available
- Re: Anti-MS drivel Tobias Weisserth (Jan 20)
- Re: Anti-MS drivel Ron DuFresne (Jan 20)
- Re: Anti-MS drivel Tobias Weisserth (Jan 21)
- RE: [inbox] Re: Anti-MS drivel Curt Purdy (Jan 21)
- RE: Anti-MS drivel Tobias Weisserth (Jan 20)
- Re: Anti-MS drivel Gregh (Jan 20)
- Re: Anti-MS drivel Tobias Weisserth (Jan 20)
- Re: Anti-MS drivel Gregh (Jan 21)
- Re: Anti-MS drivel Dave Sherohman (Jan 20)
- Re: Anti-MS drivel Harry Hoffman (Jan 20)
- Re: Anti-MS drivel Gregh (Jan 20)
- Message not available
- Re: Anti-MS drivel Gregh (Jan 21)
- Re: Anti-MS drivel madsaxon (Jan 20)
- Re: Anti-MS drivel ken (Jan 20)