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

[Darryl Moore]

Evan Leibovitch wrote:
> 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.
> 

You really should at least make some effort to justify that statement.


>> 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.
> 

If you are running a pure Linux network, then the chances are good that
you do not want all those extra networking features. The only reason for
wanting Windows in the first place is because some third party apps
demand it. (See one of my previous posts about the MS monopoly) In this
context the bare minimum Windows machine is desireable. Yes, and that
would be the Home version. Being forced to pay a extra $50 -$90 just so
you can have that bridge software puts a significant dent in Linux's
competitiveness on the desktop.


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


No it's not. In the above scenario, many companies would argue, "well if
I have to spend that much any way on any proportion of my network, then
I might as well make the whole network windows". That is why these
license restrictions exist in the first place. To make the alternatives
more expensive. It isn't like Microsoft actually has to do anything
different with the software to enable it to run under a VM. It is a
totally arbitrary restriction. They might as well tell you that on their
Home version you have to use their AV software. If you want to use
Norton, well, you are just going to have to pay MS more money for the
privilege. I'm sure you would see the latter as being a very
anti-competitive abuse of their position, but it is the exact same
argument for the former too.


> 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 obviously haven't been into a Futureshop or TigerDirect store
lately. Good luck getting a yourself a Linux Netbook these days. I think
there are a host of reasons for this, but I think that is the topic of
another thread.


> 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?)
> 

But these organizations are still required to be fiscally prudent. If MS
can artificially raise the cost of the competition then they will still
have the advantage. Most of these initiative have much stronger wording
on Open Standards then they do regarding Open Source.


> 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.
> 

I am all for getting Toronto to follow suit, and would help with that
too. It is all well and good to get Toronto to throw a rope down to Open
Source and say "Hey guys, come on up, you're all welcome here", but then
have Microsoft come along and spread grease on that rope.

I am curious about your definition of "badmouthing". I don't think it
means what you think it means. No vulgarities have ever passed my
keyboard. I contend that the restrictions on VM for MS basic operating
systems constitutes an anti-competitive act because MS is, by far, the
dominant player in the market. These are totally arbitrary restrictions
designed solely to limit competition. I am only seeking the opportunity
to put this before the Competition Bureau. Stating this and my reasoning
for it hardly constitutes "badmouthing".

--
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