Russia leans on notebook brands

Prior to 9/30/11, FAS Russia must make a new decision to initiate anti-trust case against Hewlett Packard, which has no return policy of unused Windows 7 from the computer. Prooflink: http://klark973.livejournal.com/41943.html

Linux isn't more secure. Alot of things are enabled by default on linux. And there are always exploits out there for the latest kernel or library. Linux is a nightmare internally to secure. The most popular OS will always be the most attacked but that doesn't mean it is less secure. It means there's more people driven to find flaws.

And forcing companies to sell computers with/without an OS is oppressive. They are a company and that is their product. If you don't like their computer tough crap. There will always be a manufacturer to fill that gap(psystar and the like). That's why its called the free market. Besides, I'm sure people can take a hour to teach themselves how to install the OS of their choosing on their computer.... unless everyone lost most of their smarts recently...

Secret as in behind closed doors and not revealed to the public. This is done way too much, freedom of information act my arse.
Go Russia, I think vendors should have to provide their computer to a customer with no OS if they request it. Something you can not do right now. So for the Linux users out there, they end up giving money for a OS they never use. I say MS is still a monopoly.

So, what is "Microsoft tax" in 500E notebook these days? 20%? And considering Microsoft is not giving Office, you might be more productive with Linux.

Seriously, why is so difficult to get "No OS" notebook? Setting Linux is much easier these days and there is enough local guys in Russia who would do it for 20-50E or even less. With 5-10 a day (easy) it is not bad money...

Then, if Microsoft really wants it, it would be easy to catch users of illegal copies: Just set OS to send message once in a while when computer is connected on Internet.

"Don't say Linux is more secure, there is no such thing as a secure Operating System."

First part totally wrong, second part totally true... Must be nice to say things that make sense to an untrained eye. You are totally right that there is no such thing as a truly secure operating system but you are totally wrong that Linux is not more secure then Windows.

Look it is a design philosophy difference, with windows everything is enabled by default unless otherwise specified and with Linux all is disabled unless specified. Don't believe me check out CanSecWest hacking contest ... guess which OS was left standing ... Ubuntu, and correct me if I'm wrong isn't that a Linux Distro???

Your right about the more popular a system is the more it will be exploited but the difference between Linux and Windows is that the source can be reviewed by which ever company runs it, they then can hire a programmer to fix the bug and close it. With Windows you have to hope that it is fiscally feasible for Microsoft to dedicate time and resources to do this (this is going to start to be an issue for all those running XP)and lets hope that it doesn't break a pile of other things.... being that Windows is a integrated system and Linux is a modular system. Integrated systems tend to have more problems when you change one part of the code since it often has cascading effect on all other code in the system. Modular systems tend to be more resilient in that respect.

That being said Windows 7/Server 2008 is going down the proper route since MS is building it in a modular way. Strange since Windows CE has always been modular, I never understood why Windows for PC was not developed that way for years.

So to recap Linux is more secure just not 100% secure.

Most people when buying a laptop dont realize that they pay for the included software as well. They consider it an added free bonus. That is why a lot of times, Windows machines are preferred.

On the other hand, the question here is not whether to install Linux or Windows in a laptop.

For example, through my work, I have access to Windows and other software licences to install on my personal computers. I dont understand why I have to pay a new licence when I buy a laptop, since my employer has already paid this.

Furthermore, if for some reason I need a laptop X that comes with XP or Vista and I need XP Pro, Vista Business or whatever other operating system my works requires, why pay double for that?

I have a two year old laptop that runs XP and want to replace it with a new laptop which comes again with XP. Why cannot I use my previous licence and have to pay again for the same software?

So the question is not just Linux vs Windows. It is about having the control over what you buy and not having to pay for the same (or similar) things multiple times.

The "Iron curtain" comes down, and Russia now points out that software freedom really does not exist in what has been called the "free" world.

Thanks for the wake-up call, Russia (and I hope more people and manufacturers ditch Microsoft, or at least offer a "free" choice of OS for those who are not comfortable being forced into becoming or remaining members of the "Microsoft commune").

That secret deal obviously wasn't very secret if you know about it.

There should *always*, in every market, be a version of every computer for sale also available without the OS. Things like "How much does the OEM value Windows"? Would become clear: Price_with_win minus Price_without_OS. Interesting statistics and accounting could be derived from there... And how would Apple argue such requirement?

Yeah, but thanks to free markets, anyone who does that would get undercut by a competitor and lose sales, lots of sales.

In these kinds of shit-fights you are not just butting heads against the government, you are fighting the other vendors, the government are just setting the rules of engagement.

If I were an OEM I would simply respond to this by shipping computers with no OS at all. Then I would charge extra for:

1)10-20% Marked up OEM copies of Windows.

2)Preinstallation of Windows charge.

3)Windows support charges.

Then I would ask the Russian G men how they like that and see what it does for the bottom line of all their citizens and businesses.

Seriously what other OS are you supposed to install? Linux is a goddamn support nightmare with crazy support costs and you could never hope to have enough staff who understand the damn thing willing to take customer service phone calls en masse for a reasonable amount of money. Linux is unsupportable in a family computer market. When you find Linux experts willing to be paid what the morons on HP and Dell tech support get paid then be prepared for the apocalypse to follow shortly thereafter.

Oh right "decades." And what, pray tell, alternative OS would you have loaded on your PC laptop prior to 2001 or so? Linux? That clunky OS with few usable drivers and that required tons of manual configuration and testing to get to a workable state? Wireless access using proprietary drivers hacked into a driver wrapper? Lack of working suspend and resume? A half-baked GUI that is unfamiliar to users?

Give me a break! Preloading a laptop with that in those days would've permanently scared people away from that OS.

Yeah, sure, let people buy their laptops without Windows on it if they want to *now*. Linux is only barely mature enough these days. But don't give us that nonsense that viable "alternative OSes" really existed for commercial laptop vendors even five years ago, let alone "decades."

With comments like Mico$ucks and Mafia$oft people show that they aren't thinking above the mentality of a teenager. These sayings are old, overused and most people could care less about Microsoft in the home. Most people I know use Microsoft products simply for the reason that it does what they want. I have seen Linux in the hands of people who aren't accustomed to using Linux OSes and it is truly terrifying to watch them even try to locate their word processing software. The average person who comes here knows more about Linux than the average home user knows about Windows. Also, it's been said many, many, many (ad nauseum(sp)) times before that any OS that enjoys the majority of the market share will inherit the same sort of malware, spyware, and virus attacks that Windows has currently. The larger the target and user base, the more incentive to try. Don't say Linux is more secure, there is no such thing as a secure Operating System. A dedicated hacker will break into any secure system there is, all he needs is time.

As I remember reading, when netbooks first came out, many were loaded with Linux. Problem was, nobody bought them. It seems Windows is the only OS that sells, for whatever reason. If Russia is anything like the U.S, most people will choose Windows even when given a choice. And a PC with no OS would never sell. Best Buy would love it, though. They could charge $90 to install your OS. :/

I would love to see Micro$ucks drop down to being the minority OS and Linux taking over as the majority OS. WHY ? Because that would force game developers to write games for Linux, and not window$ ,if they wanted to make profits from the new MAJORITY of OS users of Linux! So with all the money I saved from buying the OS could go to buying MORE GAMES!

I wonder who in the Russian government "food-chain" didn't get paid (enough.)

Good for them and I am on Russia's side here. As for a case like this in the USA, not going to happen. MS has been in the bake pocket of the FEDS since they dropped those lawsuits years ago and made a secret deal.
Dell actually has several Laptops with Ubuntu 8 pre-installed. Why not 9, I don't know. You have to dig to find them, best to type linux in Dells search bar. The selection is very limited though and I guarantee that MS puts roadblocks up against Linux when ever and where ever they can.