"Kerry Brown" <kerry@kdbNOSPAMsys-tems.c*a*m> wrote in message
news:uhTycEm8HHA.4200@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>>>>> Money CAN be made with Linux by selling services, which is the same
>>>>>> way money is made with Windows. However you need to have people
>>>>>> willing to use Linux first and then start selling them services
>>>>>> contracts.
>>>>> For linux to become popular it has to be installed on OEM machines.
>>>>> This
>>>>> is what initially drives the market. When a new Microsoft OS comes out
>>>>> the previous is eventually made irrelevant because new computers have
>>>>> the
>>>>> new OS. Most people don't care what OS they run. They walk into a
>>>>> store
>>>>> and buy whatever the salesman gets the best commission on. Once they
>>>>> get
>>>>> home or back to work they try to figure out how to use it. If new
>>>>> computers came with linux they would figure out and use linux. This
>>>>> model
>>>>> isn't based on selling a service but selling a product. OEM's aren't
>>>>> going to switch to linux anytime soon for several reasons. The main
>>>>> one
>>>>> is money. They have a lot of money invested in the Windows ecosystem.
>>>>> It
>>>>> would be very expensive for them to switch to a different OS even if
>>>>> the
>>>>> OS was free. That brings up the second problem. If the OS is free
>>>>> where
>>>>> is the incentive to develop it into a product that can be sold? Yes,
>>>>> some
>>>>> money can be made selling services to medium and big business. No, a
>>>>> lot
>>>>> of money can't be made selling desktop services to the general public.
>>>>> Currently the general public through OEM computer sales drives the
>>>>> desktop market.
>>>>>
> I agree it will change. I think we disagree on when or what will change
> it. I also disagree that anyone has a monopoly on "knowledge of how to
> provide knowledge via a computer". This knowledge is
> actually very common and supersedes Microsoft. Microsoft has a monopoly on
> selling Windows not on how to create an OS. They may use monopolistic
> marketing techniques to get Windows on as many computers as they can. This
> is part of doing business in a capitalist society. I am not expressing an
> opinion whether I agree with this or think it is right. I am saying what I
> think the current reality is. The future may have a linux based OS as the
> main desktop for most computers but I don't think it will come to pass. I
> think we are stuck with Windows until someone comes along with a new OS
> that has something in it we all want/need/desire and currently don't have
> or even know what it is we want/need/desire. All of the current OS' for
> micro computers are too close to really say one is better. All we can
> say is they are different and I prefer Windows/linux/OS X/Solaris/BSD,
> whatever. It will take something new or someone with a lot of money for
> marketing to knock Microsoft off the top of the heap.
>
With rather severe editing of the above, to focus in a few specific points.
I believe that the problem is going to be a difficult one. In this market,
there must be one major company 'owning' an OS sufficently that they can
invest major funds in marketing.
1. We know that MS offers significant price and other concessions to any
manufacturer who stays 'windows only'. So to gain a few short term sales in
the linux market, every pc they sell becomes more expensive. As long as the
computer makers compete so much on price, we are stuck. What we need os an
'oligopoly' of manufacturers to tell MS to (*&^ themselves. None have the
courage or the means to do it by themeselves.
2. If a superior OS did happen, and was owned and properly promoted, MS
would kill the company, directly like they did for Geoworks and DRDos, steal
the code, like they did for 'superstore/superspace', or simply buy the
company.
The reason that linux can survive is that nobody owns it. There is no one
party for MS to attack. Therefore the one thing that saves it, also prevents
it from becomming a dominant force on the OS business.
I think it is time for all of us to work for a change in the laws that MS
hides behind. Like maybe you can't copyright software that is not
guaranteed. Or, you can't copyright something that does not work prperly.
You have to put the teeth in the profitability part of it.
Telling/legislating that MS must guarantee/fix their product is a waste of
time - there is no alternative right now, and they won't bother fix it. If
there were competition, such as the auto or laptop computer industries, then
a guarantee works - if they offer a bad product you just go to the other
supplier. If MS faced the prospect of giving away windows until it worked
properly, they would smarten up very quickly.
Even if the US legislators and DOJ were not owned by MS, changes in approach
would be a hard sell because of all the foreign exchange and income tax MS
generates. (yes, the government profits from illegal activities). However,
those of us in other countries can make a difference - and we are dealing
with a company that is a drain on our foreign exchange, creates no
significant employment directly (I mean MS employees in the country), and
pays no or very little income tax to our government.
Perhaps we will have a world where MS owns the US but linux run the
computers in the rest of the world.
If this worked, I can see 2 significant benefits to all of us. MS only gets
paid if their software works, so we get versions of windows that work. And
when MS can't perform, then linux gets a fair chance.
Stuart
