6 ms·

Just out of curiosity, what's the rationale for MS & Lenovo to do this, why to risk PR? The number of people wanting to install Linux is marginal and they are a

by Yaggo 10y ago

Just out of curiosity, what's the rationale for MS & Lenovo to do this, why to risk PR? The number of people wanting to install Linux is marginal and they are already "on the wrong side".

afarrell 10y ago
And they can just switch to Dell and buy an external Lenovo keyboard.
kashyapc 10y ago
What is this gibberish about being "on the wrong side"? Please don't make vacuous statements.
- witty_username 10y ago
  A vacuous statement is a statement about 0 things. So, ironically, you're saying that Linux has no users.
- vidarh 10y ago
  It is not gibberish. They put it in quotes to imply that it is not literally true that they are on the wrong side, but that for the purposes of Microsofts efforts they are on the wrong side in the sense that they are not Microsoft customers and are not likely to be swayed by this or anything else so they are not worth targeting for Microsoft. So the only real outcome from this would at first glance appear to be to antagonise people who won't consider their product either way and cause bad PR. The question is if there's any other/better rationale.
  - kashyapc 10y ago
    Ah, thanks for clarifying. Guess it was my impulse reaction as a long-time Lenovo + Linux user / dev. Should've asked before jumping the gun too soon. Sorry, Yaggo.
Normal_gaussian 10y ago
It's certainly not the year of the Linux desktop, but it's not far off. I've successfully switched both parents to Linux and non tech at our company run completely on Linux. It's a real threat, especially with MS failing to innovate.
- simbalion 10y ago
  The year of linux is behind us. Today in 2016, Linux is the superior platform for both user-friendliness and stability. It is easier to use and install on a wider variety of hardware. The old belief that Windows is "easier" is deprecated, and it is time to change the conversation to reflect that truth.
  - Normal_gaussian 10y ago
    From my experience supporting my colleagues, no. Linux does not exceed windows at user friendliness. Stability completely depends on your hardware, distro, and use case. It has made great strides, and windows is regressing, but it's not done yet.
    - eth0up 10y ago
      I think it should be considered that the vast majority of Windows systems are pre-installed and pre-configured out of the box. If this were the case with Linux, there might be an argument. Most Windows users couldn't easily install, configure and use, e.g. Server Enterprise Edition. Likewise, I doubt Gentoo would be a common candidate for ease of use. The various *buntus have really come a long way in regard to user friendliness, maybe far enough.
      - simbalion 10y ago
        That was part of my reasoning. Installing Windows is a huge pain in the ass compared to installing Linux. If you need a service pack you have to go to their website, the download links are always difficult to find and buried under walls of text that nobody cares to read. And there's always a chance that the download link simply won't work for some stupid bureaucratic reason, such as "Use Windows Update". And if Windows Update fails, you're really SOL. In Linux, if you're missing something it's a simple matter of "apt-get install something" and it almost always works. The rate of failure for Windows updates and installing proper drivers and software in windows is much higher. And Linux is far more likely to work out of the box on most hardware. Windows installs never have more drivers available than what ships on the CD/DVD. With Linux Net Installs, as long as your Ethernet is supported, and it probably is supported, the rest of the system will be up-to-date. I have recently installed Windows 7, Windows 10, and Linux, I've used each for a number of months. Linux was the easiest and friendliest. I've been using Windows for years so I'm not a newbie, it's a terrible operating system.
akerro 10y ago
Microsoft wants to kill "old" hardware and force you to use only the one they've certified, so they don't have to support 2 years old CPU and GPU, backport changes to between Windows 7 and botnet10. If they can force hardware manufacturers to lock hardware to only certain software, and apparently they can, they won't need to port drivers back to archaic to Windows 7 or 8. You will be forced to use 10.
blihp 10y ago
It's not that users would want to install Linux (historically, they don't know or care about the OS), it's that a manufacturer might want to either to reduce costs or differentiate their products. In today's browser-focused world that's not too much of a stretch to envision happening at least on some low-end/consumer devices... for a start. Want to see what that looks like for Microsoft? See Microsoft's mobile market share...
dx034 10y ago
I guess they just wanted to lock out Windows 7/8. They don't gain anything by denying Linux to a few people. But preventing that the buyer can downgrade to Windows 7 fits exactly to their strategy and makes sense for Microsoft. Also, an agreement to lock out Linux might not be legal from an antitrust perspective, whereas an agreement to restrict usage to the current version of the OS is much less critical.
- lagadu 10y ago
  Finally someone with a reasonable explanation, one that doesn't involve lots of tinfoil and conspiracy theories. This seems to be the most reasonable theory in the entire discussion.
- vlehto 10y ago
  Why lock on 7? (Probably same reason than promoting free 10, but I didn't get that either.)
  - dest 10y ago
    Microsoft prevents users from rolling back to Windows 7, maybe because Microsoft gets more data from its users with W10. Data looks like the new business model of Windows.
  - dx034 10y ago
    The app store, Cortana and Edge (with Bing as standard search engine) are closely tied to Windows 10. That's where revenue will come from in the future, not from licenses.
- scholia 10y ago
  Anybody who buys or upgrades to a Pro version of Windows automatically gets downgrade rights. Some organizations (including, I think, London police) are still rolling out Windows 8.1 with full Microsoft support. Windows 7/8/8.1 are all supported for 10 years under Microsoft's standard published software lifecycle.
jonathanstrange 10y ago
Money, lots of money. Microsoft gives away special deals for OEM versions of Windows that cost manufacturers of devices peanuts in comparison to the ordinary pricing. I've heard figures like $20 per Windows license. So people have suggested in the past that Microsoft might ask for favours in return, basically telling OEMs that if they do not comply they might loose cheap OEM versions or even all access to OEM version of Windows, which would make their products unfit for competition. Other people have suggested that this would be illegal, that Microsoft would never do something as anti-competitive like that, and that Microsoft just gives away nicely priced OEM versions of Windows to manufacturers because they are really nice guys and want disseminate their products even if they don't earn much from them.
- davidgerard 10y ago
  By "might", you mean of course "repeatedly demonstrated in court, and we have piles of source documents substantiating the claim submitted in discovery". The Comes trial is a good start http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20070220083801959 http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20070220083801...
davidgerard 10y ago
The year of Linux on the desktop was 2007. That's when netbooks first showed up, and manufacturers put them out with Linux on because an XP license cost so much relative to the cost of the gadget. This was the first time MS had to treat Linux as an actual direct competitor.
- scholia 10y ago
  True. And Microsoft responded with a ULCPC (Ultra Low Cost PC) version of XP that cost them $11-$16 or so -- which they could easily get back by installing crapware. This left Linux with no cost advantage on parts, or a negative cost advantage, if you added more crapware. The much higher costs of shipping Linux then killed off the Linux netbooks. The higher costs included extra testing and parts qualification, extra shipping and advertising costs, and, in particular, massively increased support costs. (One Linux user support call wiped out the profit margin on multiple sales.)

by Yaggo 10y ago

Just out of curiosity, what's the rationale for MS & Lenovo to do this, why to risk PR? The number of people wanting to install Linux is marginal and they are already "on the wrong side".

afarrell 10y ago

And they can just switch to Dell and buy an external Lenovo keyboard.

kashyapc 10y ago

What is this gibberish about being "on the wrong side"? Please don't make vacuous statements.

witty_username 10y ago
A vacuous statement is a statement about 0 things. So, ironically, you're saying that Linux has no users.
vidarh 10y ago
It is not gibberish. They put it in quotes to imply that it is not literally true that they are on the wrong side, but that for the purposes of Microsofts efforts they are on the wrong side in the sense that they are not Microsoft customers and are not likely to be swayed by this or anything else so they are not worth targeting for Microsoft. So the only real outcome from this would at first glance appear to be to antagonise people who won't consider their product either way and cause bad PR. The question is if there's any other/better rationale.
- kashyapc 10y ago
  Ah, thanks for clarifying. Guess it was my impulse reaction as a long-time Lenovo + Linux user / dev. Should've asked before jumping the gun too soon. Sorry, Yaggo.

Normal_gaussian 10y ago

It's certainly not the year of the Linux desktop, but it's not far off. I've successfully switched both parents to Linux and non tech at our company run completely on Linux. It's a real threat, especially with MS failing to innovate.

simbalion 10y ago
The year of linux is behind us. Today in 2016, Linux is the superior platform for both user-friendliness and stability. It is easier to use and install on a wider variety of hardware. The old belief that Windows is "easier" is deprecated, and it is time to change the conversation to reflect that truth.
- Normal_gaussian 10y ago
  From my experience supporting my colleagues, no. Linux does not exceed windows at user friendliness. Stability completely depends on your hardware, distro, and use case. It has made great strides, and windows is regressing, but it's not done yet.
  - eth0up 10y ago
    I think it should be considered that the vast majority of Windows systems are pre-installed and pre-configured out of the box. If this were the case with Linux, there might be an argument. Most Windows users couldn't easily install, configure and use, e.g. Server Enterprise Edition. Likewise, I doubt Gentoo would be a common candidate for ease of use. The various *buntus have really come a long way in regard to user friendliness, maybe far enough.
    - simbalion 10y ago
      That was part of my reasoning. Installing Windows is a huge pain in the ass compared to installing Linux. If you need a service pack you have to go to their website, the download links are always difficult to find and buried under walls of text that nobody cares to read. And there's always a chance that the download link simply won't work for some stupid bureaucratic reason, such as "Use Windows Update". And if Windows Update fails, you're really SOL. In Linux, if you're missing something it's a simple matter of "apt-get install something" and it almost always works. The rate of failure for Windows updates and installing proper drivers and software in windows is much higher. And Linux is far more likely to work out of the box on most hardware. Windows installs never have more drivers available than what ships on the CD/DVD. With Linux Net Installs, as long as your Ethernet is supported, and it probably is supported, the rest of the system will be up-to-date. I have recently installed Windows 7, Windows 10, and Linux, I've used each for a number of months. Linux was the easiest and friendliest. I've been using Windows for years so I'm not a newbie, it's a terrible operating system.

akerro 10y ago

Microsoft wants to kill "old" hardware and force you to use only the one they've certified, so they don't have to support 2 years old CPU and GPU, backport changes to between Windows 7 and botnet10. If they can force hardware manufacturers to lock hardware to only certain software, and apparently they can, they won't need to port drivers back to archaic to Windows 7 or 8. You will be forced to use 10.

blihp 10y ago

It's not that users would want to install Linux (historically, they don't know or care about the OS), it's that a manufacturer might want to either to reduce costs or differentiate their products. In today's browser-focused world that's not too much of a stretch to envision happening at least on some low-end/consumer devices... for a start. Want to see what that looks like for Microsoft? See Microsoft's mobile market share...

dx034 10y ago

I guess they just wanted to lock out Windows 7/8. They don't gain anything by denying Linux to a few people. But preventing that the buyer can downgrade to Windows 7 fits exactly to their strategy and makes sense for Microsoft. Also, an agreement to lock out Linux might not be legal from an antitrust perspective, whereas an agreement to restrict usage to the current version of the OS is much less critical.

lagadu 10y ago
Finally someone with a reasonable explanation, one that doesn't involve lots of tinfoil and conspiracy theories. This seems to be the most reasonable theory in the entire discussion.
vlehto 10y ago
Why lock on 7? (Probably same reason than promoting free 10, but I didn't get that either.)
- dest 10y ago
  Microsoft prevents users from rolling back to Windows 7, maybe because Microsoft gets more data from its users with W10. Data looks like the new business model of Windows.
- dx034 10y ago
  The app store, Cortana and Edge (with Bing as standard search engine) are closely tied to Windows 10. That's where revenue will come from in the future, not from licenses.
scholia 10y ago
Anybody who buys or upgrades to a Pro version of Windows automatically gets downgrade rights. Some organizations (including, I think, London police) are still rolling out Windows 8.1 with full Microsoft support. Windows 7/8/8.1 are all supported for 10 years under Microsoft's standard published software lifecycle.

jonathanstrange 10y ago

Money, lots of money. Microsoft gives away special deals for OEM versions of Windows that cost manufacturers of devices peanuts in comparison to the ordinary pricing. I've heard figures like $20 per Windows license. So people have suggested in the past that Microsoft might ask for favours in return, basically telling OEMs that if they do not comply they might loose cheap OEM versions or even all access to OEM version of Windows, which would make their products unfit for competition. Other people have suggested that this would be illegal, that Microsoft would never do something as anti-competitive like that, and that Microsoft just gives away nicely priced OEM versions of Windows to manufacturers because they are really nice guys and want disseminate their products even if they don't earn much from them.

davidgerard 10y ago
By "might", you mean of course "repeatedly demonstrated in court, and we have piles of source documents substantiating the claim submitted in discovery". The Comes trial is a good start http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20070220083801959 http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20070220083801...

davidgerard 10y ago

The year of Linux on the desktop was 2007. That's when netbooks first showed up, and manufacturers put them out with Linux on because an XP license cost so much relative to the cost of the gadget. This was the first time MS had to treat Linux as an actual direct competitor.

scholia 10y ago
True. And Microsoft responded with a ULCPC (Ultra Low Cost PC) version of XP that cost them $11-$16 or so -- which they could easily get back by installing crapware. This left Linux with no cost advantage on parts, or a negative cost advantage, if you added more crapware. The much higher costs of shipping Linux then killed off the Linux netbooks. The higher costs included extra testing and parts qualification, extra shipping and advertising costs, and, in particular, massively increased support costs. (One Linux user support call wiped out the profit margin on multiple sales.)