People accuse me of being a "Microsoft apologizer" ...

["Bryan J. Smith" <b.j.smith@ieee.org>]

I was against the DOJ lawsuit, and the result is what I predicted
(competitors, _not_ consumers, were represented).

I'm totally against the government telling Microsoft what to do,
_unless_ they do it as a consumer themselves (i.e. when they decided why
or why not to purchase MS -- not just under a MS-by-default attitude).

I believe Microsoft has a right to do what it wants, including squash
competitors.  Even in the case of Dell's Linux offerings.

*BUT* I _have_ "laid out the facts" on the "Dell issue."  They are
_uncontested_ in the fact that Dell _only_ sold the _slowest_ processor
and the _smallest_ memory configuration in its Linux standard desktops.

Both Dell reps and Intel engineers confided in me that they were not
doing it for technical reasons, but reasons of "external influence."

The Dell reps _specifically_ even said that "everyone is complaining"
about the support issue, and that they were "required to state that
Linux only supports 128MB of RAM."

The Intel engineers told me some of what I already knew -- that Intel
first became aware that not only their own engineers, but many other
Silicon Valley engineering companies (especially semiconductor) _wanted_
Linux on their desktops -- badly.  This started with a "surprise" visit
to SVLUG in 1998, and then industry surveys.  Intel pegged the number of
units sold per year to be around 100,000.

[ NOTE:  In 2000, nVidia was over 80% Linux systems and ATI was over 60%
]

Then 2 of the Intel engineers told me something I did not know.  That
the company "behind" the "Dell configuration issue" _was_ indeed
Microsoft.  I still don't know all the details, but there was some sort
of "loophole" in Dell's licensing agreement with Microsoft that gave
Microsoft some sort of "certification control" over other platforms sold
on the _same_model_.  Again, I don't know the details.

This was _before_ Dell ended the Linux offering.  The 2 Intel engineers
said Microsoft used this tactic because if they prevented Dell from
selling Linux outright, they'd get caught red-handed, but if they
prevented Dell from selling configurations that consumers wanted, Dell
could then say it tried but they didn't sell.

Again, I _personally_ had my Dell sales rep verify that they had
extensive interest until people could only get them with 128MB of RAM,
the bare minimum.  And they were told that they could not elaborate why,
only that "Linux only supports 128MB of RAM," no matter how "technically
inaccurate" it was.

Again, just WTF did Dell do this?  It was a campaign to show that there
was not enough demand for Linux, when in reality, there was really not
enough demand for the *SLOWEST*, *MINIMALLY*CONFIGURED* Linux computers
on the market.  That fact is _undisputed_!

-- Bryan J. Smith
   Engineer and System Administrator
   Theseus Logic, Inc. (1999-2001)

P.S.  My views do _not_ represent those of Theseus Logic.  I was
downsized with most of the company in 2001.


-- 
Bryan J. Smith, E.I. -- Engineer, Technologist, School Teacher
b.j.smith@ieee.org



-
To unsubscribe, send email to majordomo@silug.org with
"unsubscribe silug-discuss" in the body.