Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 28th Aug 2012 20:46 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 532786
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Comment by Bobthearch
by tomcat on Wed 29th Aug 2012 00:24
in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Bobthearch"
The real way to deal with it is to give MS serious legal beating for anticompetitive bundling. But so far they masterfully evaded such kind of outcome by escaping the equation. I.e. if refund is possible for the Windows tax - they aren't violating the law. And refund is delegated to OEMs who make it a nightmare to get. In the end MS comes out "clean" and Windows is still de facto bundled to computers all around.
So some successful cases against OEMs (like this one:
http://www.techworld.com.au/article/414500/lenovo_ordered_pay_1920_... )
can decrease their eagerness to play MS's game and will benefit Linux over all.
So some successful cases against OEMs (like this one:
http://www.techworld.com.au/article/414500/lenovo_ordered_pay_1920_... )
can decrease their eagerness to play MS's game and will benefit Linux over all.
Oh, please, give it a rest. OEMs have given up on selling Linux on the desktop. Nobody bought it. There is no "Windows tax" for 99.9999% of users. Only the fragment that want to install Linux.
RE[4]: Comment by Bobthearch
by shmerl on Wed 29th Aug 2012 02:37
in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by Bobthearch"
Windows tax refers here to the mere fact of lack of choice of OSes during computer purchase. OEMs didn't give up on agreements with MS which cause them not to sell blank computers or computers with other operating systems. And such kind of practice can't be "given a rest" until it's gone for good.
Edited 2012-08-29 02:38 UTC





Member since:
2010-06-08
The real way to deal with it is to give MS serious legal beating for anticompetitive bundling. But so far they masterfully evaded such kind of outcome by escaping the equation. I.e. if refund is possible for the Windows tax - they aren't violating the law. And refund is delegated to OEMs who make it a nightmare to get. In the end MS comes out "clean" and Windows is still de facto bundled to computers all around.
So some successful cases against OEMs (like this one:
http://www.techworld.com.au/article/414500/lenovo_ordered_pay_1920_... )
can decrease their eagerness to play MS's game and will benefit Linux over all.
Edited 2012-08-28 21:38 UTC