Microsoft pushes crippleware to defeat Linux - Linux

This is a discussion on Microsoft pushes crippleware to defeat Linux - Linux ; On May 10, 11:13 pm, "DFS" wrote: > > Courts of law have determined > > ... that OJ Simpson didn't murder two people - but he did. Thankfully a > different court got it right with Hans Reiser. > ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 21 to 31 of 31

Thread: Microsoft pushes crippleware to defeat Linux

  1. Re: Microsoft pushes crippleware to defeat Linux

    On May 10, 11:13 pm, "DFS" wrote:

    > > Courts of law have determined

    >
    > ... that OJ Simpson didn't murder two people - but he did. Thankfully a
    > different court got it right with Hans Reiser.
    >


    Microsoft didn't even bother to appeal the findings. They just claimed
    that the remedies were too harsh. They also acknowledged their fault
    in the European case. So, you end up as being more pro-Microsoft than
    Microsoft itself. This is a very common occurrence, produced by the
    brain damage caused by the rarefied atmosphere you breath inside
    another's person rectum.

    -RFH


  2. Re: Microsoft pushes crippleware to defeat Linux

    Ramon F Herrera wrote:

    > Microsoft didn't even bother to appeal the findings.


    Liar.


    > They just claimed that the remedies were too harsh.


    They were, but they weren't actually "remedies". They were punitive fines
    levied by power-mad govt lackeys acting at the behest of Sun Microsystems
    and other non-competitive corporations who think they should be given free
    entry into Windows-powered networks.



    > They also acknowledged their fault
    > in the European case.


    Liar.


    > So, you end up as being more pro-Microsoft than
    > Microsoft itself. This is a very common occurrence, produced by the
    > brain damage caused by the rarefied atmosphere you breath inside
    > another's person rectum.


    April 2006: "Microsoft is appealing against a 2004 ruling when Brussels told
    it to change how it sells its Media Player software and fined it 497m euros
    ($613m; 344m)." http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4953682.stm

    May 2008: "Microsoft today filed to the Court of First Instance an
    application to annul the European Commission decision of February 27," the
    U.S. software giant said in a statement."
    http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/05/...ogy/09msft.php


    How's your intestine smell, moron?




  3. Re: Microsoft pushes crippleware to defeat Linux

    On 2008-05-10, Tim Smith wrote:
    > In article ,
    > Tim Smith wrote:
    >> > To be eligible, however, the PC vendors that make ULPCs must limit
    >> > screen sizes to 10.2 inches and hard drives to 80G bytes, and they
    >> > cannot offer touch-screen PCs.

    > ...
    >> > Microsoft is /clearly/ dictating terms to the ULPC manufacturers, but
    >> > the DooFy-bot does not compute ... he's been programmed to ignore the
    >> > truth of Microsoft's corruption. He really is a mindless minion.

    >>
    >> How is having different prices for different market segments dictating
    >> terms? Manufacturers whose PCs do not meet those screen and disk limits
    >> can still buy Windows--they just don't get the ULPC price for it.

    >
    > In particular, how is this different from what Red Hat does?
    >
    > Red Hat Enterprise Linux is $1499/year. However, if you are willing to
    > only run hardware with 1 or 2 CPU sockets, and agree not to run more
    > than 4 virtualized guests, they will let you have it for $799.
    >
    > Red Hat discounts on CPUs, Microsoft discounts on screen size and disk
    > size.


    I thought Redhat sells a support contract, not an OS.

    --
    Regards,

    Gregory.
    Gentoo Linux - Penguin Power

  4. Re: Microsoft pushes crippleware to defeat Linux

    Tim Smith wrote:

    > In article ,
    > Tim Smith wrote:
    >> > To be eligible, however, the PC vendors that make ULPCs must limit
    >> > screen sizes to 10.2 inches and hard drives to 80G bytes, and they
    >> > cannot offer touch-screen PCs.

    > ...
    >> > Microsoft is /clearly/ dictating terms to the ULPC manufacturers, but
    >> > the DooFy-bot does not compute ... he's been programmed to ignore the
    >> > truth of Microsoft's corruption. He really is a mindless minion.

    >>
    >> How is having different prices for different market segments dictating
    >> terms? Manufacturers whose PCs do not meet those screen and disk limits
    >> can still buy Windows--they just don't get the ULPC price for it.

    >
    > In particular, how is this different from what Red Hat does?
    >
    > Red Hat Enterprise Linux is $1499/year. However, if you are willing to
    > only run hardware with 1 or 2 CPU sockets, and agree not to run more
    > than 4 virtualized guests, they will let you have it for $799.
    >
    > Red Hat discounts on CPUs, Microsoft discounts on screen size and disk
    > size.


    Red Hat is a normal company, without monopoly power. They don't attempt to
    drive competition from the market by stepping in, making deals drawn up to
    undercut the incumbent and (ab)using their monopoly position by demanding
    hardware specifications which are hard to ignore for manufacturers who wish
    to stay in business.

    The way I see it, machines exceeding Microsoft's specifications (i.e. the
    Linux machines) will become more expensive and thus less attractive -- with
    the net result than Microsoft will have usurped up the whole market segment
    of "cheapest laptops" in one go. What remains of the Linux market segment
    will be dealt with in usual Microsoft fashion: heavy marketing,
    undercutting, wheeling and dealing, and perhaps a few veiled threats about
    intellectual property etcetera to manufacturers. Once again, Windows will
    have "won", and customers will have "chosen" Windows over Linux.

    I sincerely hope that this is not how things will happen -- but it's how
    Microsoft has dealt with emerging competition many times before, mostly to
    the detriment of both the competition and the market in general.

    Richard Rasker
    --
    http://www.linetec.nl/

  5. Re: Microsoft pushes crippleware to defeat Linux

    * Richard Rasker peremptorily fired off this memo:

    > This is yet another very clear example where our convicted monopolist once
    > again tries abuse its dominant position for the sole purpose of maintaining
    > that position -- once again screwing customers and the market alike.
    >
    > OK, over to you, Windolts, to explain that artificially crippled Windows
    > preloaded machines under Microsoft's control are better for consumers than
    > far more powerful Linux machines for the same price.


    I'm wondering why the U.S. government lets Microsoft get away with it.

    When Standard Oil started controlling the market and the fuel , they
    were reigned in.

    When IBM started controlling the market and the IT infrastructure, they
    were reigned in.

    When AT&T started controlling the market and the voice-communications
    infrastructure, they were reigned in.

    Here, Microsoft is controlling the consumer/small-business market and
    the desktop computing infrastructure, and almost nothing is done.

    Why?

    --
    One thing we have got to change in our strategy - allowing Office documents to
    be rendered very well by other peoples browsers is one of the most destructive
    things we could do to the company. We have to stop putting any effort into this
    and make sure that Office documents very well depends on PROPRIETARY IE
    capabilities.
    -- Bill Gates, 1998 a memo to the Office product group[2]

  6. Re: Microsoft pushes crippleware to defeat Linux

    * Tim Smith peremptorily fired off this memo:

    > In article ,
    > Tim Smith wrote:
    >> > To be eligible, however, the PC vendors that make ULPCs must limit
    >> > screen sizes to 10.2 inches and hard drives to 80G bytes, and they
    >> > cannot offer touch-screen PCs.

    > ...
    >> > Microsoft is /clearly/ dictating terms to the ULPC manufacturers, but
    >> > the DooFy-bot does not compute ... he's been programmed to ignore the
    >> > truth of Microsoft's corruption. He really is a mindless minion.

    >>
    >> How is having different prices for different market segments dictating
    >> terms? Manufacturers whose PCs do not meet those screen and disk limits
    >> can still buy Windows--they just don't get the ULPC price for it.

    >
    > In particular, how is this different from what Red Hat does?
    >
    > Red Hat Enterprise Linux is $1499/year. However, if you are willing to
    > only run hardware with 1 or 2 CPU sockets, and agree not to run more
    > than 4 virtualized guests, they will let you have it for $799.
    >
    > Red Hat discounts on CPUs, Microsoft discounts on screen size and disk
    > size.


    The differences? $32 and the attempt to choke out all other
    alternatives in the low-end market. Can you say "monopoly maintenance"?

    Or do the words stick in your throat?

    --
    I have to say that in 1981, making those decisions, I felt like I was
    providing enough freedom for 10 years. That is, a move from 64k to 640k felt
    like something that would last a great deal of time. Well, it didn't - it
    took about only 6 years before people started to see that as a real problem.
    -- Bill Gates, 1989 speech on the history of the microcomputer industry.

  7. Re: Microsoft pushes crippleware to defeat Linux

    * Richard Rasker peremptorily fired off this memo:

    > Tim Smith wrote:
    >
    >> Could you people get together and get your story straight? Sometimes it
    >> is that Microsoft charges too much for Windows, because of their
    >> monopoly. And sometimes it is that Microsoft charges too little for
    >> Windows, because of their monopoly. What price point would be just
    >> right, Goldilocks?

    >
    > This isn't about price. This is about Microsoft stepping into a market which
    > is doing just fine with Linux, thank you very much, and saying, "Hey guys,
    > we're Microsoft, and we wanto you to sell your low-cost machines with our
    > OS -- and with a hefty discount on the OS, at that -- but only if those
    > machines have limited hardware cababilities, as per our wish-list. If you
    > want to sell more powerful low-cost machines, our OS is off-limits for you,
    > and you're on your own."


    Nuance means nothing to Tim if it doesn't fit his agenda, which is
    basically to defend Microsoft at every turn, to have you ignore their
    history, as well as their current skullduggery/thuggery. Where was Tim
    when Microsoft choked off Netscape? Where was Tim when Microsoft tried
    for force Apple to knife Quicktime? Where was Tim when Microsoft tried
    to stick it to Stac? Did Tim approve of the bogus warning you'd get
    when trying to run Windows under DR-DOS? And how about now, when Tim
    joins in to link to stories that provide egregiously mistaken attempts
    to show that ODF won't validate, and tries to divert us from the chorus
    of dismay over the handling of OOXML?

    Cue Tim to step in with his old "then why was I recruited to give testimony
    against Microsoft?" story.

    Being mistaken, or supporting the wrong side of an argument is one
    thing. But Tim does it so consistently that he either enjoys playing the
    Devil's Advocate, or he really is biased.

    >> What makes you think consumers will buy the "crippled" Windows machines
    >> instead of the "far more powerful" Linux machines? You seem to think
    >> that given a choice (which is always supposed to be good to give, isn't
    >> it?), consumers will choose Windows so overwhelmingly that the Linux
    >> machines will disappear from the market.

    >
    > Those Linux machines won't disappear from the market because consumers will
    > choose Windows overwhelmingly. They will disappear from the market because
    > Microsoft will convince/buy/bully the manufacturers into making only
    > machines according their crippled specs, preloaded with a heavily
    > discounted XP version -- so that not only those machines will be cheaper
    > than the original Linux machines, but in fact will be the only machines
    > available.
    >
    > "By offering Windows XP Home Edition at bargain prices, Microsoft hopes to
    > secure its place in the ULPC market and reduce the use of Linux, according
    > to an official at one PC maker, who asked not to be identified because he
    > was not authorized to discuss the program.
    > [Low-cost PC makers] have made some good inroads with open-source, and
    > Microsoft wants to put a stop to it," the official said."


    Um, Richard, I think that is too clear a statement for Tim to grok.

    > Linux EEE PC sales already accounts for one percent of all new PC sales,
    > after only six months. Microsoft simply wants to take over that market for
    > no other reason than to stamp out the emergence of Linux as a commodity OS.


    --
    Intellectual property has the shelf life of a banana.
    -- Bill Gates

  8. Re: Microsoft pushes crippleware to defeat Linux

    In article ,
    Linonut wrote:
    > > "By offering Windows XP Home Edition at bargain prices, Microsoft hopes to
    > > secure its place in the ULPC market and reduce the use of Linux, according
    > > to an official at one PC maker, who asked not to be identified because he
    > > was not authorized to discuss the program.
    > > [Low-cost PC makers] have made some good inroads with open-source, and
    > > Microsoft wants to put a stop to it," the official said."

    >
    > Um, Richard, I think that is too clear a statement for Tim to grok.


    I grok it. What I don't grok is why Richard and you think it is
    relevant to the point Richard is trying to argue.

    Unless they are lowering the price below their marginal cost of
    production (which is pretty damned low for XP Home), how is what they
    are doing any different from when any other business lowers prices to
    increase demand in a market they are new to?

    Now, if you or Richard wanted to argue that the companies making ULPCs
    *also* make regular laptops and PCs, and they are heavily dependent on
    Windows there, and Microsoft has taken them aside and told them that
    unless they offer Windows on ULPCs, bad things might happen on their
    regular laptops and PCs, and that Microsoft is lowering the price on
    Windows for ULPC just to make it look like that is why the vendors are
    offering it, *then* you've got an argument that can make sense.

    Microsoft has certainly twisted arms in the past, and no doubt will
    twist some in the future.

    But the argument being made in this thread, that offering a discount on
    Windows for PCs whose hardware is below a certain spec, will cause those
    manufacturers to drop Linux, has not been supported at all, and makes no
    sense.

    (It might cause some manufacturers that have laptops that are slightly
    above that spec to drop those laptops completely, thus creating a
    slightly bigger gap between the top of their ULPC line and the bottom of
    their non-ULPC line. However, there don't seem to be many machines in
    that area now, and they are almost all Windows machines, not Linux
    machines).

    --
    --Tim Smith

  9. Re: Microsoft pushes crippleware to defeat Linux

    In article ,
    Richard Rasker wrote:
    > The way I see it, machines exceeding Microsoft's specifications (i.e. the
    > Linux machines) will become more expensive and thus less attractive -- with
    > the net result than Microsoft will have usurped up the whole market segment
    > of "cheapest laptops" in one go. What remains of the Linux market segment


    OK, this is the part I don't get. Let's consider two kinds of machines.

    1. Machines that qualify for the cheaper Windows XP Home. Screen 10.1"
    or less, hard disk 80 gig or less.

    2. Machines with a bigger screen and/or hard disk.

    In group #1, we currently have all of the Asus EEEs, the Cloudbook, the
    HP Mini-Note models that use Flash instead of hard disk, and the OLPC.

    In group #2, we have the Mini-Note with hard disk, and regular laptops.
    The Mini-Note with hardware (either the Linux version or the Windows
    version) is prices comparable to a cheap regular laptop.

    It's group #2 that exceeds Microsoft's specifications. Pretty much
    every Linux machine in group #2 is also available with Windows. (More
    accurately, most machines in group #2 were first designed and offered as
    Windows machines, with Linux added later as an option).

    The price for Windows is not changing for this group. So why are the
    Linux machines in this group going to become more expensive?

    It is group #1 that has a lot of Linux machines. In that group, the
    price of Windows XP Home is coming down. The effect this will have on
    the Linux machines depends on why people are buying them. If they want
    low cost ULPCs with Windows, and are settling for Linux because the
    vendor of the machine they like the best doesn't offer Windows, and the
    vendor doesn't offer Windows because the vendor is trying to keep the
    price as low as possible--then yes, cheaper Windows might make a
    difference. That vendor might decide it can make a Windows machine now
    at a good price point, and add Windows to the line up. And if the
    customers indeed want Windows and are just putting up with Linux because
    they had to, then yes, that vendor might drop their Linux machines.

    But if, as I suspect, the people are buying these machines as
    appliances, and don't care what OS it runs, then cheaper Windows on them
    won't kill Linux. Some people will go for the Windows machines, just to
    cover the off chance that they will decide they want to run Office or
    Photoshop or such on a tiny screen with a tiny keyboard for the short
    time it would take the battery to die. But the Linux machines will
    retain a price advantage, and that will be attractive to the appliance
    shopper.

    --
    --Tim Smith

  10. Re: Microsoft pushes crippleware to defeat Linux

    * Tim Smith peremptorily fired off this memo:

    > In article ,
    > Linonut wrote:
    >> > "By offering Windows XP Home Edition at bargain prices, Microsoft hopes to
    >> > secure its place in the ULPC market and reduce the use of Linux, according
    >> > to an official at one PC maker, who asked not to be identified because he
    >> > was not authorized to discuss the program.
    >> > [Low-cost PC makers] have made some good inroads with open-source, and
    >> > Microsoft wants to put a stop to it," the official said."

    >>
    >> Um, Richard, I think that is too clear a statement for Tim to grok.

    >
    > I grok it. What I don't grok is why Richard and you think it is
    > relevant to the point Richard is trying to argue.
    >
    > Unless they are lowering the price below their marginal cost of
    > production (which is pretty damned low for XP Home), how is what they
    > are doing any different from when any other business lowers prices to
    > increase demand in a market they are new to?


    1. It is not a market they are new to. All that has happened is that
    the low end has risen with the tide.

    2. Microsoft /is/ different. It is an an aggressive, predatory
    company.

    > Now, if you or Richard wanted to argue that the companies making ULPCs
    > *also* make regular laptops and PCs, and they are heavily dependent on
    > Windows there, and Microsoft has taken them aside and told them that
    > unless they offer Windows on ULPCs, bad things might happen on their
    > regular laptops and PCs, and that Microsoft is lowering the price on
    > Windows for ULPC just to make it look like that is why the vendors are
    > offering it, *then* you've got an argument that can make sense.


    I don't quite get what you say, but the article makes it quite clear
    that the motive for the pricing is definitely to squeeze Linux out of
    the low-end market.

    > Microsoft has certainly twisted arms in the past, and no doubt will
    > twist some in the future.


    Of course they will. Linux has been nibbling at them at the high-end,
    threatens to do so in the middle, and is now nibbling at them at the
    low-end.

    Microsoft may even be doing the same tactic in the embedded arena, but
    the apparent crappiness of Win CE/Mobile apparently makes their efforts
    a bit fruitless there.

    > But the argument being made in this thread, that offering a discount on
    > Windows for PCs whose hardware is below a certain spec, will cause those
    > manufacturers to drop Linux, has not been supported at all, and makes no
    > sense.


    How so? Vendors don't want to have to provide their own support if they
    can get it from Microsoft. It's patent, anyway. Microsoft was going to
    ditch XP completely, but now they're keeping the low-end product, XP
    Home, around. They're obviously doing it to keep a presence in that
    market. But more, they know they can choke off Linux there by
    essentially dumping XP (and only MS can get $30 and still be dumping) so
    that the vendors can count on consumer inertia to sustain sales at the
    low end.

    One mitigating factor is that Microsoft has warned the SEC that's what
    they might have to do.

    --
    I believe that if you show people the problems and you show them the
    solutions they will be moved to act.
    -- Bill Gates

  11. Re: Microsoft pushes crippleware to defeat Linux

    Sean Inglis wrote:

    >Come on then DFS, let's have it; what do you mean by that statement?
    >
    >How and why do you make the comparison with "nuts" and battered wives?


    Who gives a rat's behind what that worthless troll means? Why ask him
    questions? Do you expect to learn something of value from it?


+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2