Linux-Advocacy Digest #599, Volume #28 Wed, 23 Aug 00 16:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Chris Wenham)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Eric Bennett)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Chris Wenham)
Re: Why my company will NOT use Linux (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Eric Bennett)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard says Linux
growth stagnating
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Eric Bennett)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Chad Irby)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (ZnU)
Just converted (Stephen Patterson)
Re: Linux programmers dont live on this planet! (Brian Langenberger)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Eric Bennett)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (ZnU)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (ZnU)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Jack Troughton)
Drestin Lack of facts... ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
From: Chris Wenham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 19:31:50 GMT
>>>>> "Christopher" == Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Jack Troughton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Christopher Smith wrote:
>> >
>> > "ZnU" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > > Catch-22. Microsoft used its market power to prevent IBM from turning
>> > > OS/2 into a viable alternative by making it impossible for IBM to
>> > > promote it.
>> >
>> > Why couldn't IBM just drop Windows 95 altogether and solely promote OS/2
> ?
>> >
>> > Answer: it wasn't good enough.
>>
>> Wrong answer.
>>
>> Answer: there was no distribution channel to market, as MSFT had
>> monopolized the channel.
> Huh ? IBM are one of the largest single suppliers of PCs in the world. You
> call that "no distribution channel" ?
IBM had only 8.8% market share of PC shipments in the third quarter
of 1995.
http://www.bta.org/main/newsinfo/cmptrind/pcvendor.shtml
In contrast, Apple had 13.2, Compaq had 12.2% and Packard Bell had 11.9%.
We saw what happened to Apple despite its large share of shipments
that year, plus Apple already had a large installed base, a
significant applications base and a favorable position in two major
industries (education and graphic design).
OS/2 did not have an equivalent application base, user base or
leverable industry specialization*.
If IBM was to go maverick and turn into another Apple - selling its
own OS on its own PCs - it would have faced odds worse than what
Apple did at the same time.
Regards,
Chris Wenham
* - We cannot consider the banking industry to be relevant because any
share of this market, even 100%, would have no influence on other
markets such as kitchentops and SOHOs. The applications developed
for this market were too specialized and did not appeal elsewhere.
Compare this to Apple - its specialization and application growth
in graphics design and educational markets gave it influence
elsewhere because of the desktop publishing revolution reaching
homes and small businesses, the prolification of educational
programs appealing to the "kitchentop", and the weaning of kids on
Macs paying off when they graduated and entered the workforce with
Mac skills.
------------------------------
From: Eric Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 15:33:10 -0400
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> Said Chad Irby in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> >> On the odd chance you're willing to learn, I'll give you a clue.
> >> Having
> >> a superior product doesn't build a monopoly. Just a huge market share
> >> (or should I say "profits", since market share is meaningless.)
> >
> >Which, by itself, constitutes a monopoly.
>
> Only in the common vernacular, and that is why it is problematic. No, a
> huge market share does not constitute a monopoly. What constitutes a
> monopoly, in this regard, is: "the ability (1) to price substantially
> above the competitive level and (2) to persist in doing so for a
> significant period without erosion by new entry or expansion."
But legally those two things are assumed to exist where high market
share is present, so there's no formal distinction between your point
and Chad's. The Supreme Court says that "ordinarily" market share alone
can demonstrate the monopoly power you're talking about. Remember the
text from Grinnell that I posted earlier:
=====
In United States v. du Pont & Co., we defined monopoly power as "the
power to control prices or exclude competition." The existence of such
power ordinarily may be inferred from the predominant share of the
market. In American Tobacco Co. v. United States, we said that "over
two-thirds of the entire domestic field of cigarettes, and . . . over
80% of the field of comparable cigarettes" constituted "a substantial
monopoly." In United States v. Aluminum Co. of America, 90% of the
market constituted monopoly power. In the present case, 87% of the
accredited central station service business leaves no doubt that the
congeries of these defendants have monopoly power - power which, as our
discussion of the record indicates, they did not hesitate to wield - if
that business is the relevant market.
=====
--
Eric Bennett ( http://www.pobox.com/~ericb/ )
Cornell University / Chemistry & Chemical Biology
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 19:28:13 GMT
On Thu, 24 Aug 2000 04:35:49 +1000, Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Jack Troughton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Christopher Smith wrote:
>> >
>> > "ZnU" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > > Catch-22. Microsoft used its market power to prevent IBM from turning
>> > > OS/2 into a viable alternative by making it impossible for IBM to
>> > > promote it.
>> >
>> > Why couldn't IBM just drop Windows 95 altogether and solely promote OS/2
>?
>> >
>> > Answer: it wasn't good enough.
>>
>> Wrong answer.
>>
>> Answer: there was no distribution channel to market, as MSFT had
>> monopolized the channel.
>
>Huh ? IBM are one of the largest single suppliers of PCs in the world. You
>call that "no distribution channel" ?
They still have to deal with the network effects caused by the other
90% of the market and the associated "offer they can't refuse" contracts.
IBM isn't as big as you are making it out to be.
--
Finding an alternative should not be like seeking out the holy grail.
That is the whole damn point of capitalism.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
From: Chris Wenham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 19:34:46 GMT
>>>>> "Eric" == Eric Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> The primary goal of advertising is supposed to be to increase your
>> sales, by providing information to potential customers about your
>> product and its competitive advantages. As it performs that function,
>> its perfectly legitimate, if somewhat obnoxious.
> But every time your sales increase, so does your market share.
Wrong, because the market itself also grows.
Regards,
Chris Wenham
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Subject: Re: Why my company will NOT use Linux
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 19:33:39 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> spoke thusly:
>Nathaniel Jay Lee escribi�:
>
>> Seriously though, the problem would stem from the possible
>> incompatibilities between the 'real' version and the
>> 'geek' version. Now, if all you ever use is Free/Open
>> software, that's not a real problem (I've done many
>> patches before). But say there's a commercial app
>> available that you 'need' and it's only available for
>> 'real' Linux, not 'geek' Linux?
>
>Then we either implement it, or we live without it, or
>we double-boot. Just like now.
OK, if that's acceptable to you. More than likely, I'll
head elsewhere if I see a 'real' and a 'geek' version of
Linux come out. Right now I think the Linux community is
getting caught up in the corporate additude that seems to
be influencing a lot of decisions, and that leads to a lot
of 'my dick is bigger than yours' wars, which I personally
feel are pointless.
My entire point was to attempt to talk about a situation
that 'could' cause problems in a way that would hopefully
inform people as to 'why' it could cause problems.
Obviously I'm just a freaky freaky extremist. ;-)
Seriously though, these type of conversations are more
about trying to show the non-technically informed users
why it is important to understand the technically informed
users/developers points of view and not just whine about
things they don't understand. Like the original stem of
this conversation, people that had rarely used computers
bitching because 'Linux should integrate the GUI into the
kernel and let people get their investment back in it'.
Someone should explain to them no only why it is a bad
idea to fully integrate the GUI into the kernel, but how
that wouldn't allow the 'real people' to gain any more
money than they would through other means.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
From: Eric Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 15:37:26 -0400
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, ZnU
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> And spending more than Gore on things like (broken) missile defense.
And spending less than Gore on broken things like social security and
government health care.
And of course even Gore is going to spend money on that broken missile
defense program.
> The fact is, I don't _know_ he'll be deficit spending. He's so vague on
> the issues that it's hard to tell anything at all. But he'll either be
> deficit spending or he'll be cutting killing rather important social
> programs, and neither is worth it just to give the average american
> family a $43/year tax break.
If that is in fact what the average American family would get. Given
the conflicting stories that each side puts out about the other's
programs, I have no idea what a realistic number is.
> And there's certainly no chance of him
> paying down the debt.
Can't say I'm too confident about Gore either. If you think the fact
that he's promised to do it means he will actually do it, well, I have a
few bridges to sell you. Truth of the matter is, they both assume the
good economic times will continue, and if they don't, their promises go
out the window even if they really *did* intend to keep them.
--
Eric Bennett ( http://www.pobox.com/~ericb/ )
Cornell University / Chemistry & Chemical Biology
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard says
Linux growth stagnating
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 12:02:40 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
The Ghost In The Machine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Is there a Webpage for this? www.boom.com, www.tnt.com/boom, what?
Sorry, you are right, I should have given the URLs.
Try:
http://www.teamtnt.com
AND
ftp://ftp.cdrom.com/pub/idgames/
boom comes as a source zip archive Dos exeutable. There is a Linux port of
boom called LxDoom which runs either on X or SVGAlib
ftp://ftp.cdrom.com/pub/idgames/source/lxdoom-1.4.0.tar.gz
note 1.4.0 is note the current verion for that check out:
http://lxdoom.linuxgames.com/
>
> >
> >#6 = plasma rifle ?
>
> Yep, that was it ... although it acts more like a machine gun.
> (Oh well, a foolish consistency and all that... :-) )
What makes it better than the chaingun it the bigger puch per shot and that
the plasma shots are semitracking
>
> >#7 = BFG 9000 ?
>
> Yep; later upgraded to BFG10000 in Quake II, if memory serves.
> (The new one has quite a kick to it for some reason. :-) )
Nice to give a whole room of fiends the nice warm and toasted feeling <evil
grin>
------------------------------
From: Eric Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 15:48:42 -0400
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, ZnU
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Let's take one of your important social programs--welfare. The number
> > of people on the welfare rolls is down by about 75% over the past 5
> > years. Yet the total dollars being spent has hardly declined at all.
>
> What should we do with people who can't support themselves, Joe? Let
> them starve in the streets so you can keep a bit more of your income? Is
> that _really_ the kind of society you want to live in?
You can't use this argument to justify spending *any* amount of money on
people who can't support themselves. Even *you* are going to draw a
line somewhere. Joe apparently thinks we've crossed the line.
Let's say there was only one person left on welfare in the entire
country, and we were still spending the same amount on welfare. Would
you still defend it? Joe's position doesn't imply that we shouldn't
spend anything at all... it implies that as fewer people are claiming
welfare benefits, welfare expenditures should decrease roughly
proportionally.
> > The government is a black hole. They'll take as much money as they
> > can get away with and never try to spend it wisely.
>
> The money doesn't just vanish. Unless defense contractors get their
> hands on it, of course.
Or government-subsidised health care, of course. And, by the way, the
Democratic chairs of the Congressional appropriation committess have no
qualms about sending money to defense contractors to keep their
constituents employed doing useless work. I don't see much differences
between the two parties when it comes to "wasteful" spending ("wasteful"
in quotes because everyone thinks it's wasteful except for the people
who live in the district where the money is being spent).
--
Eric Bennett ( http://www.pobox.com/~ericb/ )
Cornell University / Chemistry & Chemical Biology
------------------------------
From: Chad Irby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 19:50:51 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Aug 2000 15:51:32 GMT, Chad Irby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Joe Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> But, OTOH, perhaps you can explain why income disparity between the
> >> "rich" and the "poor" is vastly worse today than it was under the
> >> Reagan
> >> and Bush administrations?
> >
> >Because it took several years of accumulated Reagan-era tax breaks for
> >those rich guys to get so rich?
>
> You need money to make money & once you have it, it's a geometric
> progression.
Not as such. But some things can take the progression and speed it up
or slow it down.
--
Chad Irby \ My greatest fear: that future generations will,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] \ for some reason, refer to me as an "optimist."
------------------------------
From: ZnU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 19:51:02 GMT
In article <8o0t3d$olc$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Christopher Smith"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "ZnU" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In article <8nplbe$q3l$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Christopher Smith"
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > > Killing off middleware platforms _is_ targeting alternatives to
> > > > Windows; it reinforces the applications barrier to entry.
> > >
> > > This is going back before the middleware buzzword was invented.
> >
> > Doesn't matter what label you give it. Java was middleware from the
> > beginning, and Netscape had the intention of turing its browser
> > into middleware. Microsoft knew this, and didn't like it.
>
> Hardly surprising, don't you think ?
>
> In any case, it's still going back further. "Write once, run
> anywhere" is a nice pipe dream, but it's still not realistically
> possible with non-trivial stuff.
Java does a reasonable job of it. You don't need to totally eliminate
porting, you just have to make it very easy.
> > > So IBM don't have the balls to do "the right thing" and that's
> > > Microsoft's fault ?
> > >
> > > If OS/2 really was a compelling alternative, then the correct
> > > response the Microsoft threatening not to give them Windows 95
> > > would have been to laugh in their face.
> >
> > Catch-22. Microsoft used its market power to prevent IBM from
> > turning OS/2 into a viable alternative by making it impossible for
> > IBM to promote it.
>
> Why couldn't IBM just drop Windows 95 altogether and solely promote
> OS/2 ?
I just explained. OS/2 wasn't viable because IBM couldn't promote it
because IBM couldn't drop Windows because OS/2 wasn't viable.
> Answer: it wasn't good enough.
Nope.
> > Is it really possible that you don't see how how Microsoft's
> > actions are immoral and illegal?
>
> Illegal, yes. Immoral, no.
You don't see how it's immoral to force another company into either
killing its own product or taking huge losses for years on end?
--
This universe shipped by weight, not volume. Some expansion may have
occurred during shipment.
ZnU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | <http://znu.dhs.org>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stephen Patterson)
Subject: Just converted
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 19:51:55 GMT
I've been using Linux for about 2 years now, on and off (mainly off). I
recently completed a college project which got me using and adjusting Linux
a lot. Just after finishing this, I looked at my computer usage and found
a) Linux is more reliable than windows
b) Everything I had previously done in windows could be done in Linux with
an appropriate set of applications
c) Linux internet access was regularly twice as fast as windows.
So, i'm another satisfied user though I keep windows around to support
legacy games and family.
--
A prig is a fellow who is always making you a present of his opinions.
-- George Eliot
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Stephen Patterson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Brian Langenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux programmers dont live on this planet!
Date: 23 Aug 2000 19:52:23 GMT
"Ryan Walberg (MCSD)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: By "server" == "driver", he was probably talking about his X server.
I'm glad somebody cleared that one up. It's actually the proper
term, of course, since my X server uses video drivers to display
one or more X clients (local or otherwise) but I think some
"X11 for Beginners" is in order.
I'd like a few less creeping Mac-isms in the computing world, myself.
For instance, "directories" are now "folders", "programs" are now
"applications" and "files" are now "documents". But I expect that
translating is something I'll just have to live with.
------------------------------
From: Eric Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 15:53:34 -0400
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Chris Wenham
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>>>> "Eric" == Eric Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >> The primary goal of advertising is supposed to be to increase your
> >> sales, by providing information to potential customers about your
> >> product and its competitive advantages. As it performs that
> >> function,
> >> its perfectly legitimate, if somewhat obnoxious.
>
> > But every time your sales increase, so does your market share.
>
> Wrong, because the market itself also grows.
With a zero-time limit, it only grows because of the additional sale you
made.
And, by the way not all markets grow. Do you think advertising should
be illegal in markets that are not growing?
--
Eric Bennett ( http://www.pobox.com/~ericb/ )
Cornell University / Chemistry & Chemical Biology
------------------------------
From: ZnU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 19:57:17 GMT
In article <8o13e4$21d$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> ZnU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> -- snip --
>
> > > > If the Republicans did all the work to balance the budget, why
> > > > are they trying to damn hard to unbalance it?
> > >
> > > Are you, ZnU, smoking large amounts of crack before writing to
> > > USENET?
> >
> > Are you really denying this? In just the last few months the
> > Republicans have tried to pass two tax cuts that would eliminate or
> > significantly reduce the surplus, and Bush wants to take things even
> > farther.
>
> When did you get it into your head that having a surplus indicates
> having a balanced budget? No, either way, surplus or deficit, the
> budget is not balanced. It's only balanced when expenditures equal
> revenues.
>
> If that's what the Republicans seek, then what's the problem? I sure as
> hell don't want the gov't sitting on *my* money, interest free. I'd
> rather spend it on something nice, rather than letting Dems spend it for
> me.
It isn't really a surplus, it's just money they haven't decided what to
do with yet. Gore wants better education, targeted tax cuts for the less
fortunate, better healthcare and debt reduction. Bush wants tax breaks
for his rich friends and unnecessary defense spending.
--
This universe shipped by weight, not volume. Some expansion may have
occurred during shipment.
ZnU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | <http://znu.dhs.org>
------------------------------
From: ZnU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 19:58:15 GMT
In article <8o0tv0$cqq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Christopher Smith"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "ZnU" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In article <8npmf2$k8t$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Christopher Smith"
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > One might note that the two main players in this particular case,
> > > Office and IE, *are* superior products, in pretty much everyone's
> > > opinion.
> >
> > Again, that's true _now_. Microsoft has made it unprofitable for
> > competitors to bother, so there is no serious competition.
>
> With Office, it's been true for a very, very long time. Back to the
> Windows 3.1 days.
Which only serves to demonstrate that Microsoft has a very long history
of this sort of thing.
--
This universe shipped by weight, not volume. Some expansion may have
occurred during shipment.
ZnU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | <http://znu.dhs.org>
------------------------------
From: Jack Troughton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 15:16:59 -0400
Christopher Smith wrote:
>
> "Jack Troughton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Christopher Smith wrote:
> > >
> > > "ZnU" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > Catch-22. Microsoft used its market power to prevent IBM from turning
> > > > OS/2 into a viable alternative by making it impossible for IBM to
> > > > promote it.
> > >
> > > Why couldn't IBM just drop Windows 95 altogether and solely promote OS/2
> ?
> > >
> > > Answer: it wasn't good enough.
> >
> > Wrong answer.
> >
> > Answer: there was no distribution channel to market, as MSFT had
> > monopolized the channel.
>
> Huh ? IBM are one of the largest single suppliers of PCs in the world. You
> call that "no distribution channel" ?
One of... five? Six? The best they would be able to do based on
their PC marketshare would be 20% of all PCs sold. The main
distribution channel for x86 OSes is preloads; MSFT had completely
locked them out of at least four-fifths of that channel and used
their market power to force them to close the portion of that
channel that they themselves owned to their own product.
That's directly related to the market power question; how many PCs
would IBM's PC division have been able to sell with no access to
Windows? The fact that they would not have been able to offer one of
the main platforms at the time would have cut into their ability to
move product to an intense degree.
Part of what the case is all about is how MS used their position in
the marketplace to curtail the ability of others to compete in that
marketplace. The thing is, if they hadn't played those funny games,
they'd probably still have >80% of the market without their current
legal woes.
I'm not a big fan of IBM, even if I'm a big fan of OS/2. And, in
hindsight, it must be clear even to the PHBs at the top of IBM that
they made the wrong decision: IBM's PC division loses money and the
PS division (or, more accurately, the PS division's descendants)
makes money, despite the PC division's decision to cave to MSFT and
PS's inability to move product through the main distribution channel
for their product.
Considering that, I don't think the reason was "it wasn't good
enough". It was "We can not move enough product to make a profit, so
we'll have to cut our losses and take our lumps from MS."
Along the way, considering that IBM has more experience with
antitrust than any other firm in the computer industry, they were
probably also looking at the likely long term effects of MSFT's
behaviour on themselves: I'm sure that the current legal position of
MSFT (ie- tenuous at best) is no surprise to any of the people that
were working at the time within IBM on the deal with MSFT for
Windows 95 licensing.
If you don't like the way IBM presents the events, why don't you
take a look at the evidence entered by Gateway? They got pushed
around, had their costs elevated, and had their ability to service
their customers effectively severely curtailed by MSFT's attempts to
protect their position as well.
Jack
Montreal PQ
CANADA
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Drestin Lack of facts...
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 15:53:57 -0400
Now where did that little liar go?
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
I: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
J: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list (and comp.os.linux.advocacy) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
