Cry Freedom... For OS choices in the PC Market
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| dcparris Oct 27, 2005 8:16 PM EDT |
We all know that Microsoft, through their exclusivity deals, has quite the stranglehold on the major PC manufacturers. John Terpstra raised some interesting points in his articles on effort to keep GNU/Linux out of the mainstream marketplace. On the one hand, we might be tempted to fire off letters to our state Attorneys General and other politicians, demanding that they speak up for the consumers' freedom to choose what OS they will run on their hardware. On the other hand, it makes more sense for consumers to stand up for their own freedom of choice. Nishant, in his article, http://lxer.com/module/newswire/view/46275/index.html, suggests a grassroots movement to better acquaint vendors with GNU/Linux. Involving the government - state or federal - has a few cons of its own. For instance, if the consumers go after Microsoft and the PC manufacturers, why not go after Apple also? After all, do they not use the exclusivity deals? (I honestly don't know how their approach works, but I am not aware of any other OS options on Mac hardware.) What kinds of rules would the government have to spit out to ensure consumers' choice in the future? How many months or years would it take for the government to implement the choices? With consumers, it would take a fairly massive effort - no less than the size of the Civil Rights movement, I'm sure - to get the attention of major PC manufacturers. Every independent shop in the Charlotte, NC area I've spoken with claims to have actively marketed a few GNU/Linux boxes without success. It seems like it would be about as difficult to convince them as it would the major players. Would it be possible to convince the major players to form a consumer focus group for bringing alternative OSes to market? I would like to hear how others envision a grassroots movement to bring alternative OSes to the PC market. |
| TxtEdMacs Oct 28, 2005 5:29 AM EDT |
There is a difference, Apple is its own OEM. It just puts on an Apple OS by default. Linux runs on Apple hardware: YellowDog, Debian and some others. Moreover, it is a difference in scale with less than 5% of the market a buyer cannot easily argue their range of choice has been unduly restricted by Apple (unless MS kicked in for the legal fees). In any conflict, it is necessary to judiciously pick your targets. First is to succeed, but most importantly where it has impact. Quoting: independent shop[s]... actively marketed a few GNU/Linux boxes without success I know for a fact MS makes deals at this level too, perhaps that is the reason for their lack of "success" in offering Linux. Confirm the assertions by sending an unknown to request a Linux box and then interview afterwards about market demand and acceptance. |
| dcparris Oct 28, 2005 11:12 AM EDT |
If Apple is its own OEM, that makes a difference to me. In that case, it is both, hardware and software vendor. I do know about Yellow Dog and others. So that takes care of that. So where do you see the need for the greatest impact/success? |
You cannot post until you login.