Re: Dell Linux blog -- But why did Dell do this? They only cost

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

On Sun, 2004-02-08 at 16:56, Robert G. (Doc) Savage wrote:
> All this is quite entertaining to a friendly Linux audience, but allow
> me to play devil's advocate for a moment. Cam anyone making claims point
> to any hard evidence in the way of testimony or exhibits in the DOJ
> lawsuit against Microsoft?

Did I or did I not say I thought the concept of the DOJ suing Microsoft
was wrong?

> I seem to recall that Dell, HP, and several other OEMs were deposed at
> great length about so-called secretanti-competitive agreements that
> would have been negotiated between them and Microsoft at about this
> time. I believe all those depositions are in the public record.

Er, nope, those were from _earlier_ than this issue.  But there _were_
still some (see below).

BTW, Dell was _not_ going to gain any great "advantage" by offering
Linux systems as standard.  After all, we're only talking about
100,000/year max, compared to literally millions of Windows PCs.  It was
Intel wanting it, a single industry.  It was chump change to Dell, had
it been given the honesty it should have, although it would have been
moderately profitable.  But when it wasn't, because *NO*ONE* wanted to
buy the systems as configured, I'm sure Dell _did_ lose money, _big_
time.

I'm not debating that.  I'm debating that it did _not_ have a chance,
because of the "rules" Microsoft put on what Linux systems could be
sold.

[ CASE-IN-POINT:  Forget Microsoft for a moment.  Just WTF did Dell hope
to accomplish by selling Linux on systems with the _least_ amount of
memory and CPU?  _Please_ tell me?  There _has_ to be a reason!  Because
companies like mine did _not_ buy them as a result, even though we
wanted to _badly_! ]

But in the case of Dell complaining about Windows in the DOJ case, that
is where the context changes.  Dell gains _nothing_ by proving Microsoft
screwed over Linux.  But Dell gains _everything_ by proving Microsoft
overcharged them, and prevented them from selling what they wanted in
general.

Oh, BTW, there *IS* _heavily_documented_ cases of Microsoft preventing
Linux, BeOS and many others at the OEM.  They came up in the Caldera v.
Microsoft lawsuit, which _were_ used again in the DOJ trial.  You need
to re-research my friend.  Look for the name of "Kempin."  ;-ppp

> Where's the beef?

Again, check out some of the Caldera v. Microsoft findings.


-- 
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.