On Fri, Mar 30, 2007 at 12:23:44PM -0300, Jorge Peixoto de Morais Neto wrote: > > > >Except for Dell, most hardware vendors sell their product wholesale to > >retailers. These vendors need to convince retailers to stock their product > >and offer it to the public. The retail marketplace is dominated by > >Microsoft. Much as I like Debian and Linux, I find it hard to believe > >that Microsoft dominance of retail will end in the near future. Is this > >monopoly, oligarchy, or simply reality? > > > Clarify. > > For me your distinction makes no sense because monopoly is, by definition, > the situation in which a single vendor controls the marketplace. > > Perhaps you meant "is this Microsoft monopoly situation illegal or > unethical, or merely a result of free market?". > > Which is simply absurd. Microsoft's actions such as > 1) Bundling IE > 2) Changing MS Office file formats with each version, in order to make > people use the most recent version. (Amazingly, Openoffice is often *more* > compatible with older MS Office file formats then MS Office itself). > 3) Faking grass-roots support (CAGW, ATL, Campaign for Creativity, receiving > support from dead people) > 4) Abusing the Windows monopoly to gain monopoly in other areas. For > example, when they change the windows API (like when moving from Win 3.1 to > Win 32) their Office engineers have early access to the API and this > allowed, for instance, MS Office to be the first 32 bit Office suite for MS > Windows > 5) Embrace & Extend. See IE for example. > 6) Halloween Documents. > 7) Hostile attitude towards competitors. Threats. Flying chairs. > 8)etc.. > > Leave no doubt on the ethics of Microsoft. Let's remember that Microsoft has > already been convicted in USA, Europe, Asia (Korea and Japan IIRC)...
I didn't follow your argument, but of course Microsoft is a monopoly. There is no monopoly in the computer hardware manufacturing business, and there isn't an oligopoly, and certainly not an oligarchy. The reality is that these manufacturers are in a bind from which it will be difficult to extricate themselves. Certainly each vendor cannot set its prices at cost plus a reasonable profit. Without wishing to claim any originality for the observation, I say that whatever hardware vendors do vis-a-vis Linux is largely irrelevant to the future of Linux. What Linux needs from Dell is what it seems to be giving already: It is using Debian for the foundation software of its hardware test CDs. This is a real endorsement. Beyond that, it might be useful to Linux evangelism for Dell to publish information about any special tweeks it had to make to the original Debian version in order to get it to work on Dell hardware. (I expect there were none.) -- Paul E Condon [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
