From: "William F. Zachmann" 

"Joe Barr"  wrote in message
news:pan.2003.07.16.16.46.42.368116{at}pjprimer.com...

(rest of quoteback snipped for brevity)

> Hey, Will
>
> It already is turning out differently.  Microsoft is defending its
> heart-of-darkness (the preload arena) as vigorously as it can, but it
> couldn't stop HP from offering a Linux preload.  Granted, it did manage to
> stop one top OEM.  I believe it was IBM who very recently backed down from
> a plan to offer Linux as well.

Much depends here, Joe, on what exactly is the real direction of
cause-and-effect between OS preloads and customer demand.  Your assumption
appears to be that preloads drive, rather than reflect, customer preference
for PC operating systems.  However even IBM (PC Co. at least) claimed, back
in the mid-'90s, that the problem with OS/2 preloads was that the customers
didn't want it.  And, as you've noted above, IBM today does not appear to
be any more interested in pushing Linux PC preloads than IBM was interested
in pushing OS/2 preloads a decade ago -- even though IBM is today Linux's
biggest commercial backer.

> IBM's successes with OS/2 in 1994 came from its own preloads and deals
> with overseas OEMs like Vorbis.  OEMs at that time may have felt they had
> the leverage necessary to actually be able to negotiate with MS, but they
> were soon disabused of that notion.  Linux's phenomenal success story to
> date has been written almost completely without the aid of preloads.  Now
> that the barrier is falling, it will surge into the desktop space in
> exactly the same way it has the server market.

Perhaps -- but only if consumers/customers/users really do want it.  I have
noticed a considerable decline over the past year or two in shelf-space
devoted to anything Linux in PC-selling electronics retailers like Best
Buy. This does not appear to indicate much consumer demand for Linux. 
Linux's SSI ("shelf space index") peaked a year or two ago and
has declined considerably since.  That is very similar to what happened
with OS/2.

> The differences between the OS/2 challenge and Linux are many.  For one
> thing, Linux is safe from the monopolistic/monetary attacks that Redmond
> used against IBM and DrDOS and Netscape and Lotus and Borland and all the
> rest.

This goes to the heart of the issue:  Did OS/2, DR DOS, etc. really lose as
a result of dastardly deeds by Microsoft (as you apparently believe) - or
simply because, at the end of the day, consumers overwhelmingly preferred
the Microsoft alternatives?

> SCO and a certain segment of the tres duh press are simply furious that
> their threats and FUD are being largely ignored by everyone.  The usual MS
> ploys are simply not working.

I don't think the SCO issue is likely to impact consumer behavior much on
way or the other, however I do not dismiss lightly its possible long-term
industry impact, since I think SCO may have a better chance in the courts
than you and most Linux supporters would like to believe.  I find it
interesting to note recent IT trade and business press coverage concerning
Sun's backing of SCO.  That is consistent with my own view that Linux is a
much greater and more immediate threat to UNIX than it is to Windows.

> This time around MS cannot compete on price (see Munich), or performance,
> or reliaability, or security, and by and large the world's PC buyers/users
> are a more knowledgeable less gullible group than they once were.

Well, let's just wait a few years and see what really happens.  Time will tell.

> See ya,
> Joe

All the best,

will

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-4