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

[Evan Leibovitch]

Darryl Moore wrote:
> I'm not being disingenuous, and I'm not disagreeing with you regarding
> the license. I do disagree with you that "This is a 100% legitimate,
> non-monopolistic approach". Recall in my original post I said many small
> businesses use the OS that came on their system.
You are being either deliberately misleading, or you're not doing even
the least shred of research that could wreck your assertions.

> Usually that is Win Home or Win Pro.
I just went to www.dell.ca - Chose "small business", then selected the
least expensive CPU option available. It offered me a choice of three OS
pre-load options: Home Basic, Business or Ultimate.

If you choose the cheapest option then you lose a number of features,
not just virtualization but some networking capabilities as well. But
it's possible (and even recommended by Dell) to have the system
preloaded with Vista Business.

A buyer who don't know the difference between Home and Business Vista
probably doesn't possess the sophistication to want -- let alone know
how to install -- multiple OSs under virtualization.

In any case, your position regarding monopoly is significantly weaker
now than it was even just a year ago.

The rise of netbooks -- and the number of companies offering Linux
pre-installs, as well as the number of Linux providers creating
innovative and customized versions for the small laptops -- are
Microsoft's bigest OS nightmares right now. But they also constitute a
solid defence against claims of monopoly abuse. If people prefer Windows
that's their choice, they now have many options. Enough Linux systems
have sold to allow anyone to make the case that if you want a system
that is very useful yet free of any Microsoft components, you can get
one fairly easily.

You also have business and governments that are increasingly mandating a
level playing field for open source -- just look at Vancouver's recent
initiatives. Even the US department of Homeland Security is actively
supporting open source development: 
http://www.oss-institute.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=338&Itemid=47

In other words, your window of opportunity is essentially closed; you're
welcome to pursue your claim but don't expect more than polite dismissal.
(Where were you when Microsoft was REALLY abusing their position --
during the ODF/OOXML feuds?)

My main point is this: If you have all this advocacy energy to burn, why
not focus it positively rather than negatively, on persuasion rather
than complaint, where you can be listened to rather than ignored?
There's a great opportunity now to try to get Toronto to follow
Vancouver's path... We can advance open source quite nicely without even
having to mention -- let alone badmouth -- Microsoft. And you don't need
to be a lawyer to do it.

- Evan

--
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