From: Adam Flinton 

Geo. wrote:
> I still don't get the issue. Linux is free, for MS to do something wrong
> wouldn't they have to be cheaper? I mean just matching the price of a
> competitor is what I would call being competitive. Did MS pay someone to use
> windows?
>

It's not that...it's mostly about market position. For one thing most
commercial linuxes are bought for a fee which normally includes some form
of support. Given that MS hasn't said that the free windows would come w/o
any form of support then it is an artifically depressed price being put
forward by a monopolist in the market.


> Somehow, I don't see MS lowering the price of Windows to match Linux as a
> bad thing.
>

Would there be no support? With linux I am quite happy not to have any
support but most comps would want some form of vendor support & thus
would pay for that. I would assume Windows would be the same. i.e. if they
were to say "Windows for free but no support" then the 2 offers
might be the same.


> Geo. (actually I'd like to see that happen, start with the CAL price)
>

I'm sure it will happen as linux starts to dominate & MS is forced to
defend a shrinking piece of the pie.

Adam

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