Linux Networks & the Competition Act (Was: Fwd: [d at DCC] Competition Act)

[Darryl Moore]

Hi guys. I wrote the original post.

Evan Leibovitch wrote:

>> (1) Because of their virtual monopoly, just about all companies will
>> have at least one software package that can only run under windows.
>>   
> I find this one to be a bit of a logic leap that requires some hard
> evidence.
> Especially on the server side, Linux/Apache is as prevalent as Windows/IIS.
> From a database standpoint. DB2 and Oracle and other server tools gladly
> run under non-Windows OSs.
> 
> In any case, I note that Wine is now at release quality and runs quite a
> few Windows-platform apps.
> 

Quite possibly you are right on the server side. At least for some
services, anyway.

 This is definately not the case on the desktop side. How many business
have you seen running Linux desktops for their employees. As such most
third part software is designed for the Windows desktop. I really don't
think finding the evidence for this to be all that hard to do.

>> (2) Many small companies use only the version of windows that came on the machine when purchased.
>>   
> True to a point. Upgrades are being encouraged, and as we know Microsoft
> too has had very little success getting their installed base of XP users
> to upgrade to Vista. However, installing Linux post-purchase is not as
> difficult as it used to be so the Linux option -- which can be had at no
> additional cost, except for installation time -- is certainly viable.
> 

The relivant question here will be "what is that point?" and "Does it
present a comptition barrier?"


>> (3) Due to MS market dominance, MS can insist upon payments from OEMs
>> for their software, and third party software vendors are willing to pay
>> to have their MSWin compatible software included in OEM machines. The
>> net result is that the cost of windows on a OEM machine is effectively
>> negative, as can be witnessed when doing online price comparisons.
>>   
> Nothing is stopping a Linux vendor for doing such a thing also, though
> they will likely not succeed as well as MS.
> 

No, there is a lot stopping Linux vendors from doing the same thing. The
only reason this works so well in MS favour is due to their dominate
market position.

> It is important to separate "smart (for them) business practice" from
> "illegal monopoly".
> 
>> (4) MS EULA prohibits the insertion of virtual machine software between
>> the physical hardware and the operating system on low end OEM supplied
>> operating systems. This effectively eliminates the ability for Linux (or
>> other OSes) to compete (see point 1)
>>   
> That's another substantial logic leap.
> 
> You don't need a virtualization engine to replace Windows with Linux, or
> even to have them coexist on the same system.
> 

Absolutely true, however however it is still a significant barrier to
competition, as dual booting all your workstations is a very undesirable
method, and running linux in the VM negates most of the benifits of
switching to Linux in the first place.

Also you do not address the core point which is that MS is dictating how
other software must interface with their own, and doing so for the sole
purpose of limiting competition.

--
The Toronto Linux Users Group.      Meetings: http://gtalug.org/
TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns
How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://gtalug.org/wiki/Mailing_lists