What has M$ done to prevent the growth of Linux?

[FunkyChicken]

Hi there guys,

I'm currently writing up a paper to collate as much information as to what Microsfot have done to prevent the growth of Linux.

Do you know of any articles that i could possible include in this paper?

Some of the various things i have mentioned so far are:

PCs sold with XP allready installed
Cheap versions for 3rd countries
Creating apps that dont run on Linux (e.g. No Linux version of office)
Not creating a direct X driver for Linux

Any help on this would be greatly appreciated and i'm sure to post the paper when i'm finished, looking to be around the end of the month, planning on 15,000 words.

Many thanks

Matthew Phillips

[Chris]

Hi there guys,

I'm currently writing up a paper to collate as much information as to what Microsfot have done to prevent the growth of Linux.

Do you know of any articles that i could possible include in this paper?

Some of the various things i have mentioned so far are:

PCs sold with XP allready installed
Cheap versions for 3rd countries
Creating apps that dont run on Linux (e.g. No Linux version of office)
Not creating a direct X driver for Linux

Any help on this would be greatly appreciated and i'm sure to post the paper when i'm finished, looking to be around the end of the month, planning on 15,000 words.

Many thanks

Matthew Phillips

Not trying to knock down your paper, but I have a few questions. First, did you Google for articles with this type of info?

Second, why is it Microsoft's responsibility to provide support for a 'competing' operating system? Why should they provide a Linux version of Office? Even forgetting about the fact that it doesn't make sense to make it easy on your competitors for a second, let's look at it from a different business perspective. Office is primarily a desktop application. The Linux desktop comprises a minute percentage of workstations/users. Why would they possibly devote the insane amount of resources to develop a Linux version of Office when they will sell so very few copies of the product, and further, there are very cheap products like Crossover that allow Linux Desktop users to run Office on their Linux workstations if necessary?

Third, the PCs with XP installed option doesn't really hold water on it's own. Again, it is a smart business decision to make agreements with PC manufacturers to ship computers with the OS pre-installed. It isn't like they are entering these agreements and forcing the manufacturers to exclusively sell PCs with Windows installed. Dell sells systems that ship with Linux (well...Red Hat, if you can call that Linux).

Direct X, again, you have to ask why they would spend the resources required to make that happen? Even if they did it, Direct X is free. Why would you spend money to develop something for a competing OS that users could then download for free? What does Microsoft get out of that?

As for selling cheap versions to 3rd (sic) countries, I assume you mean 3rd world countries. It's hard to get cheaper than Linux...so how is this really an advantage to MS?

I am not saying that Microsoft doesn't engage in some shady business practices, I think they do, but I don't necessarily think that the examples you stated are very good ones for pushing this point.

[converge]

Just to be a bastard, I think the topic makes for a weak paper. Was this an assigned topic? '..done to prevent..' implies that Microsoft is out there actively pulling the spark plugs out of Torvalds' car, funding terrorist worms that show how much more secure Windows is, and otherwise participating in the "Dumbing Down of America Program" (official government program now?).

Microsoft is a business.
Business makes money.
Microsoft develops operating systems.
Selling one copy yields $300 gross, profit margin may very.
Selling two copies yields $300 more.
... and so on.

I just developed KickYourAssOS 3000, a modern OS/2 Warp. I spent my time, resources and livelihood over the past couple years into developing it from what it was, and by all legal aspects it is now legitly my intellectual property. I want to sell it and support for it. What do you recommend I do to market my product?

PCs sold with [KickYourAssOS 3000] allready installed

That is a great idea! If I can get my builder seller friend Kevin to include a copy of KickYourAssOS 3000 on all the computers he sells, thats instant profit without having to otherwise sell it myself. If I can convince others to do the same, woohoo! Gauranteed sales of my product. Sounds like a good business idea. [Now.. how you accomplish these agreements in the corporate world, that could leave some good discussion about Microsoft tactic]

Cheap versions for 3rd countries

No, this sounds like a bad idea. I mean, unless I'm really trying to spread the number of people use and like my OS.. then that might be an idea. Otherwise I'm just admitting the product isn't worth what I'm selling it to you for, I just want to screw you over because you'll pay it and they won't. Frankly, its not my job as Harry T SoftwarePusher to help entire countries out, I'm just running a business and benevolence is a tax deduction that I can't afford at this time. Fuck the 3D Countries.

Creating apps that dont run on Linux (e.g. No Linux version of office)

Well.. if I develop software, why would I want it to promote other peoples operating systems? I want people to run mine because it is > *. ..and because I'm a business.. and more sales = more money = stronger company. Maybe some day down the line I'll develop applications that run on other OS's just to stick it to them and show how much software design is superior... but I guess that could construed as monopolizing, so maybe I should be careful with the bounds of what I release. Besides, hardly anyone uses that Leenox system.. so I would spend all those development efforts for a really small portion of the market... heh, and on top, almost everyone running that system expects everything to be free .. that isn't very good for my business model. I'm a company, my job is to sell product and make profit.

Not creating a direct X driver for Linux

Well why would I want to? If my graphics libs are so superior and standard.. the Leenox people should be coming to me. I mean, that's just another reason to run my system instead of some other piece of junk OS like the one that TheCotMan developed and claims is better than mine. Whatever Beta.

Why is Microsoft evil for playing this game? Apple does. Apple takes it a step further and convinces people they are special for buying Apple products. Mirosoft sells the products without the smug. Apple ONLY lets you have their OS legally if you buy hardware from them as well. That all or nothing tactic sounds like monopoly to me.. well.. only if they take market share, which will probably happen... when the Bills win the Super Bowl.

--edit: god damn you chris

[Chris]

--edit: god damn you chris

I type like the wind!!

[converge]

That's what I get for showering mid-post. I've learned my lesson now, showering is bad.

[Voltage Spike]

why is it Microsoft's responsibility to provide support for a 'competing' operating system?

It isn't. They do, however, invent new protocols and formats frequently enough to make life difficult for interacting in a connected world. I wouldn't necessarily say they do it to suppress Linux, but it certainly doesn't hurt when you have the power to establish new, closed standards to compete with the old ones.

the PCs with XP installed option doesn't really hold water on it's own.

It depends on the stance of the paper. Does pre-installing their OS help suppress Linux? Almost certainly. Do they engage in such practices for the purpose of suppressing Linux? I would guess the answer is mostly no.

It isn't like they are entering these agreements and forcing the manufacturers to exclusively sell PCs with Windows installed.

At least not any more.

As for selling cheap versions to 3rd (sic) countries, I assume you mean 3rd world countries. It's hard to get cheaper than Linux...

From what I've heard, the cheap versions are mainly to get around copyright infringement. It's hard to get cheaper than "I know this guy".

As for additional points, it seems you missed the most obvious one: they survey the market, find why people use other systems, and improve their product to match. Microsoft isn't run by a bunch of idiots and competing on quality is arguably more effective than cheating your customers.

[Chris]

It depends on the stance of the paper. Does pre-installing their OS help suppress Linux? Almost certainly. Do they engage in such practices for the purpose of suppressing Linux? I would guess the answer is mostly no.

I just don't see how this in any way suppresses an alternate operating system. It is a simple matter of giving the consumer what they want. Most people WANT Windows. Making it easier for people to get what they want while at the same time making money doesn't suppress anything.

When you purchase a new PC you have the option of no OS pre-installed, Windows, or in some cases a different OS. Just because the majority of people choose to have Windows installed isn't suprressing the other OS's. It is more correct to say that end users are suppressing Linux by purchasing Windows.

As for additional points, it seems you missed the most obvious one: they survey the market, find why people use other systems, and improve their product to match. Microsoft isn't run by a bunch of idiots and competing on quality is arguably more effective than cheating your customers.

I don't see how you think I missed that point. In fact, it is basically the exact point I was making.

[Voltage Spike]

I just don't see how this in any way suppresses an alternate operating system. It is a simple matter of giving the consumer what they want. Most people WANT Windows.

Most people want whatever is easiest. If manufacturers chooses their operating system for them and pre-configure their computers with it, then that is obviously going to limit user exposure to new operating systems. Why go through the trouble of removing a perfectly good system to install something else that will be just as adequate?

What if every home came with a "free" Ford car in the garage? You don't think this would suppress the adoption of Chevy vehicles?

I don't see how you think I missed that point. In fact, it is basically the exact point I was making.

Sorry. I was actually responding to FunkyChicken there. It was rather obvious that you understand that good business isn't necessarily anti-Linux.

[Chris]

Most people want whatever is easiest. If manufacturers chooses their operating system for them and pre-configure their computers with it, then that is obviously going to limit user exposure to new operating systems. Why go through the trouble of removing a perfectly good system to install something else that will be just as adequate?

What if every home came with a "free" Ford car in the garage? You don't think this would suppress the adoption of Chevy vehicles?

I understand what you are saying, and I would agree with you, if you were only allowed to buy a home with a Ford. But I think a better analogy would be buying a house that comes with a car with automatic transmission in the garage or one with a manual.

The choice of the 'harder' to drive manual transmission is there, but most users will choose the 'easier' to drive automatic transmission.

My point being, the thing that is currently 'suppressing' Linux isn't Microsoft, or PC manufacturers installing Windows. To a large extent, it's Linux that is suppressing Linux. For the average user Linux is too difficult to use. If I just want to use Office, web, and email why in the world would I go through the hassles associated with setting up and configuring Linux, which can't even decide on a standard Desktop?

Ease of use is more a factor in this discussion, in my opinion, than ease of purchase.

(For the record, I both drive a manual transmission and use Linux as my operating system).

[Voltage Spike]

To a large extent, it's Linux that is suppressing Linux.

For users that don't know computers, I would argue that it's mostly even.

When I had various family members on Linux, I had to set everything up for them in a way that was easy for them to use before they would accept the computer. Once I had customized the system toward them, there was no problems other than interoperability issues (e.g., why won't Bonzi Buddy install for me).

When I had to switch some of them to Windows (kid's games that aren't multi-platform), I had to (you guessed it) set everything up for them in a way that was easy for them to use. To a large extent, they didn't even notice the difference in operating systems. The applications worked, and that was all they cared about.

(Anecdotal evidence, sure, but it convinced me that Linux is an option for the "Internet appliance" market.)

Desktop computers are complicated and confusing. It's just the way things are, and that is independent of the OS. That's why people tend to learn one thing and stick to what they are used to. Change is hard. And you know what? These days it doesn't matter to most people (myself included) which system they choose because they all get the job done about equally well.

(Personally, I think Linux has such a large following largely due to the fact that there are a lot of people that like to tweak and play with computers, and Linux allows you to do that to a greater extent than most operating systems. This isn't exactly a bad thing, but it really isn't a positive for most of the market, either.)

If I just want to use Office, web, and email why in the world would I go through the hassles associated with setting up and configuring Linux

You could say the same thing about Microsoft Windows except that somebody pre-installed all of that stuff for them...

(For the record, I both drive a manual transmission and use Linux as my operating system).

Same here (along with another OS I won't mention in your company), but we are not the majority market.