Could there be a law to protect the free choice of operating system?

[Vicen Rodriguez]

Hello:

A few months ago I decided to buy a laptop for one of my children. I
wanted to buy a new laptop without an operating system (OS) on it to
install an OS to my liking. It became a complicated problem. Most stores
selling computers offered me a laptop with an OS installed; it was an OS
I don't want to use and I don't want to pay for. Finally, in a town near
the city where I live (but not in the 1,6 million people city where I
live), I found a shop offering new laptops that could be purchased with
or without an OS installed, and, in case of buying the computer with OS,
they said what was the price that was being paid for it.

Despite achieving my goal after a long and tedious process, I realized
that in Spain, and perhaps in the entire European Union, most computers
are sold with a proprietary OS already installed, without offering
details of the amount the citizen is paying for that OS, and do not
giving the real possibility of rejecting that OS, buy the computer
without it and not be charged for it.

1. - I think it should be a right for all and every citizen of the
European Union, when buying a computer, to have the details of the
amount which corresponds to the computer or hardware and how much is
charged for the OS and other software .

2. - I think it should be a right for all and every citizen of the
European Union, when buying a computer, to have the real possibility, at
the time of purchase, of rejection of the acquisition of the OS and any
other software that the manufacturer and / or seller offered with the
computer.

I can understand that a manufacturer and / or seller could say that
computers they offer have not been tested with an OS other than the one
they recommend, but, once the buyer is informed about that, I can't
understand why must he buy an OS he may not want and for whose use he
must accept a series of contractual terms which are entirely beyond his
purpose of buying a computer.

I think the freedom and rights of all and every citizen of the European
Union must be strictly observed in any transaction, and that freedom and
those rights should be the priority over the profit of companies and
corporations who may have intended to impose their interests.

We can fully exercise our freedom only if we have freedom of choice.

I am aware that if a measure such as I propose is adopted for the sale /
buying computers process, there would be no reason to not adopt it also
in relation to mobile phones, game consoles and other devices. This is
not the main objective of my proposal, but, considering these possible
implications, I still think it could be a good measure.

I also believe that the adoption of a measure such as I propose, in
addition to directly defend the rights of citizens and consumers in the
European Union, would be an incentive for competition and the free
market within the European Union, would promote greater transparency in
the relationship between computer manufacturers and developers of
operating systems and applications and help avoid the possibility of de
facto monopolies, something that could happen if one or more companies
take advantage of its dominant position.

For all that I have said, I think it could be a good measure that would
increase the use of free software.

But I do not know how we can get running something like this. I
consulted some pages of the European Union website [1] [2] [3], but I
lack the knowledge to assess what is the best way to try to carry out
the proposal.

I'm sure there are people in this forum better informed and with better
capabilities than me to take the proposal forward.

What can we do?

Regards

Vicen

[1] http://ec.europa.eu/yourvoice/consultations/index_es.htm
[2] http://ec.europa.eu/spain/participa/danos-tu-opinion/index_es.htm
[3] http://ec.europa.eu/citizens-initiative/public/welcome?lg=es

P.S.: I apologize for my bad English and the mistakes.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.fsfeurope.org/pipermail/discussion/attachments/20130303/4663b496/attachment.html>

[Alessandro Rubini]

[note for long-time followers of this list, if you find the topic
old stuff, please jump to "BUT" near the end of this message]

Hello Vicen.

[...] I realized
that in Spain, and perhaps in the entire European Union, most computers
are sold with a proprietary OS already installed, without offering
details of the amount the citizen is paying for that OS, and do not
giving the real possibility of rejecting that OS, buy the computer
without it and not be charged for it.

Yes. It has been like this since the beginning of times.

You are right in everything you say, and I thank you for restating the
question so clearly, even if it is a known issue to most followers of
this mailing list. (btw: why only the EU?)

But please let me show why it is very unlikely to achieve what you
wish.

1. [...]
to have the details of the amount which corresponds to the computer
or hardware and how much is charged for the OS and other software .

Likewise, it is a right for me to know how the price of a car derives
from the various parts: engine, wheels, air conditioner and so on
(btw, I don't want an air conditioner).

2. [...] have the real possibility, at
the time of purchase, of rejection of the acquisition of the OS and any
other software

Likewise, while I understand not everyone can replace the engine, I'd
love to buy a car without wheels and without a battery, so I can
install the ones that best match my needs and use pattern.

Back to the software/hardware split, I would love to buy a cell phone
without software and put the one of my choice, and the same applies
to the music player, the TV set, the dishwasher, the microwave oven
and the espresso machine.

I think the freedom and rights of all and every citizen of the European
Union must be strictly observed in any transaction, and that freedom and
those rights should be the priority over the profit of companies and
corporations who may have intended to impose their interests.

While I sympathise, reality is exactly the other way round. The
profit, the companies and the holy "marketplace" are the most
important things out there.

I am aware that if a measure such as I propose is adopted for the sale /
buying computers process, there would be no reason to not adopt it also
in relation to mobile phones, game consoles and other devices.

Yes. And the wristwatch, the bike odometer, and maybe even the
flashing lights we use to ride in the night. All of them are a
combination of hardware and software, with a microcontroller and an
operating system, and we technicians know it very well.

would be an incentive for competition and the free market [...] help
avoid the possibility of de facto monopolies

Unfortunately, I don't think these aims are considered important
nowadays by the general public or the decision makers. While I can't
make specific examples, when I listen to the news I always have the
feeling things are going the other way and everyone is happy about
that.

I'm sure there are people in this forum better informed and with better
capabilities than me to take the proposal forward.

Yes, I am one in the "more informed" set. Let me argue against your
proposal.

While we know that recent cameras, stereo sets and usb storage devices
are computers just like the laptop and you may replace the software,
people less in the field know that the laptop doesn't work without
software, like all the other devices I listed, and installing software
in bare hardware takes enormous efforts, in the laptop just as much as
in the washing machine.

And there's another point, besides the actual increase in time spent
if you force the user to install software or the increase in cost if
you want to ship both swful and swless devices. OS vendors talk with
hw manufactures and propose a deal: "if you preinstall my stuff on all
computers I offer a discount". This is not against the laws, I think,
because offering quantity discounts is a fair deal. And manufacturers
accept this: the can charge 10EUR less to all customers rather than
charging 10EUR more to almost all of them, and 200 less to a tiny
minority.


BUT the PC market is different, in a way, from other devices. In
there, the hardware vendor and the main software vendor involved have
usually strong brands, which are always advertised separately. And
the software one is always crying misery because of piracy, and the
various no-profit "alliances" of vendors remind us that we don't own
the software which is their own jewelry and we can only use it
according to their rules.

So, the right path to attack the problem you describe is requesting a
split of the contract. Since we users (and even the decision makers)
know very well that we *own* the laptop but only have limited rights
on the software we get, we can request to sign two different
contracts. One item is *sold* and the other is *licensed*. We need
to remind that to customers (to prevent "piracy" and "raising
awareness" about the issue, yo know), so software companies may have a
harder time fighting this than other, stronger, proposals.

While I have no direct experience, I think the "preferred" OS is even
installed or unlocked or whatever the first time you turn on the
computer (maybe software vendors want to remind users that that's own
copy that cannot be lent to others, or something similar).

Thus, if we use the proprietary vendor's efforts in promoting wider
knowledge of their "intellectual property", and we help them in
reminding their users to not "pirate" that crap to friends, then we
may have some (little) chance of suceeding. We can request rules to
split out the *sell* from the *license* in monetary exchanges for
computing devices, in order to raise awareness about what is allowed
and what is not, to help software vendors defending their own rights
and better protect "intellectual property" overall.

As a side effect, we'll automatically achieve more awareness about how
licensing *that* crap is not really mandatory, and there are cheaper
and sweeter pieces of crap out there, that run on the same hardware.

Acknowledgements: this is not my own idea, but one by Renzo Davoli,
current president of "associazione software libero". As expected,
despite the efforts spent and the user base involved, nothing happened
in my country. Maybe it's high time to restart action in the field,
on a wider scale?


Unfortunately, and I'll conclude, this technological market is
disappearing, and we are late as usual. The desktop pc is marginal
already (but there you can buy os-less parts) and the laptop it going
to be marginal pretty soon. Most modern computing devices are already
one-vendor-only things like microwave ovens, and their are sold as
appliances rather then general-purpose computers (again, not me: this
time is Cory Doctorow). So maybe Renzo's idea is sound and worth
following, but maybe it would be wasted time because by the time we
achieve the result that market place would be inexistent already.

/alessandro

[Heiki &quot;Repentinus&quot; Ojasild]

If someone has hard data on how many computers sold in the EU are
bundled with MS Windows, lobbying the DG for Competition
<http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/competition/index_en.htm> might be the way to
go. I am afraid there's virtually nil chance to get a general ban on
bundling software with hardware, but there is a possibility that
Microsoft may be forbidden to bundle their OS with hardware due to
their de facto monopoly.


Cheers,

[Vicen Rodriguez]

Hi Heiki,

I think you are right. I'll send a message to Mr. Joaqu?n Almunia,
Vice-President Commissioner for Competition, asking what could we do.

Thanks

Vicen

El dom, 03-03-2013 a las 12:41 +0000, Heiki "Repentinus" Ojasild

Post by Heiki &quot;Repentinus&quot; Ojasild
If someone has hard data on how many computers sold in the EU are
bundled with MS Windows, lobbying the DG for Competition
<http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/competition/index_en.htm> might be the way to
go. I am afraid there's virtually nil chance to get a general ban on
bundling software with hardware, but there is a possibility that
Microsoft may be forbidden to bundle their OS with hardware due to
their de facto monopoly.
Cheers,

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.fsfeurope.org/pipermail/discussion/attachments/20130303/0c006156/attachment.html>

[Matthias Kirschner]

Post by Vicen Rodriguez
I think you are right. I'll send a message to Mr. Joaqu?n Almunia,
Vice-President Commissioner for Competition, asking what could we do.

Please keep us updated.
Matthias

[Vicen Rodriguez]

Hi Matthias,

Yesterday (25/03/2013), I received a message from Mr. Nicholas Banasevic
(Head of Unit, European Comission, GD Competition) as answer to the
message I sent to Mr. Joaqu?n Almunia in March 7th. The message from Mr.
Nicholas Banasevic is in Spanish, as the one I sent to Mr. Joaqu?n
Almunia.

Here is a translation of the message (the translation is made by me and
maybe is not a good translation):


----------

I appreciate your message of March 7, 2013 in which you reported
that Microsoft would be preventing the installation of other
operating systems in computers having Windows or the selling of
computers without an operating system.

The Commission is aware of this and is following how this issue
is being developed.

I assure you that we are willing to enforce the competition
rules of the EU in a way that ensures that EU competition is not
distorted and that markets operate as efficiently as possible
for the benefit of all European consumers in terms of a wider
range of products and services, lower prices and greater
innovation.

Consumer perceptions like yours are a valuable contribution to
our daily work. If you had knowledge of any other potential
infringement of the competition rules of the EU, please do not
hesitate to inform us.

----------


Vicen

Post by Matthias Kirschner

Post by Vicen Rodriguez
I think you are right. I'll send a message to Mr. Joaqu?n Almunia,
Vice-President Commissioner for Competition, asking what could we do.

Please keep us updated.
Matthias

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.fsfeurope.org/pipermail/discussion/attachments/20130326/5107123a/attachment.html>

[Robert Kehl]

Dear Vicen,

thank you for your effort in this!

Could you please provide the original answer? I would not say your
translation were false or bad, but I am interested in the original text.
Please include the date the message was sent, and, if possible your inquiry.

Thanks in advance,

Rob

Post by Vicen Rodriguez
Hi Matthias,
Yesterday (25/03/2013), I received a message from Mr. Nicholas Banasevic
(Head of Unit, European Comission, GD Competition) as answer to the
message I sent to Mr. Joaqu?n Almunia in March 7th. The message from Mr.
Nicholas Banasevic is in Spanish, as the one I sent to Mr. Joaqu?n Almunia.
Here is a translation of the message (the translation is made by me and
----------
/I appreciate your message of March 7, 2013 in which you reported
that Microsoft would be preventing the installation of other
operating systems in computers having Windows or the selling of
computers without an operating system./
/The Commission is aware of this and is following how this issue is
being developed./
/I assure you that we are willing to enforce the competition rules
of the EU in a way that ensures that EU competition is not distorted
and that markets operate as efficiently as possible for the benefit
of all European consumers in terms of a wider range of products and
services, lower prices and greater innovation./
/Consumer perceptions like yours are a valuable contribution to our
daily work. If you had knowledge of any other potential infringement
of the competition rules of the EU, please do not hesitate to inform
us./
----------
Vicen

Post by Matthias Kirschner

Post by Vicen Rodriguez
I think you are right. I'll send a message to Mr. Joaqu?n Almunia,
Vice-President Commissioner for Competition, asking what could we do.

Please keep us updated.
Matthias

_______________________________________________
Discussion mailing list
Discussion at fsfeurope.org
https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion

[Vicen Rodriguez]

Dear Rob,

Here is the original message sent by me on 07/03/2013 through the form
you can find in
http://ec.europa.eu/commission_2010-2014/almunia/contact/commissioner/index_en.htm


----------

Muy apreciado se?or Joaqu?n Almunia:

En primer lugar, quiero agradecerle todo el trabajo que usted y
su equipo est?n haciendo desde la comisi?n en beneficio de todos
los ciudadanos de la Uni?n Europea. En segundo lugar, le pido
disculpas si no es a usted a quien debo dirigir este mensaje.

Hace unos meses, en Navidad, decid? comprar un ordenador
port?til para uno de mis hijos. Quer?a comprar un ordenador
port?til nuevo y sin sistema operativo para poder instalar en ?l
un sistema operativo de mi agrado. En todos los establecimientos
de venta de ordenadores que visit? me ofrecieron ?nicamente
ordenadores port?tiles con un sistema operativo ya instalado que
yo no quer?a, y por el que yo no quer?a pagar. Vivo en
Barcelona, una ciudad que creo que tiene cerca de dos millones
de habitantes y en la que no fui capaz de encontrar una tienda
en la que me vendiesen un ordenador port?til nuevo sin un
sistema operativo ya instalado.

He hablado del asunto con otras personas y he llegado a la
conclusi?n de que, en Espa?a y en toda la Uni?n Europea, la
mayor?a de los ordenadores se venden con un sistema operativo ya
instalado, casi siempre del mismo fabricante (aunque parece ser
que hay dos fabricantes que se reparten el mercado de manera
desigual), sin que se ofrezca informaci?n detallada del importe
que el ciudadano est? pagando por ese sistema operativo y sin
darse una posibilidad real de rechazarlo y de adquirir el
ordenador sin el sistema operativo y sin que se le cobre por ?l.

1.- Creo que debe ser un derecho de todo ciudadano de la Uni?n
Europea que, cuando adquiera un ordenador, en los presupuestos y
en las facturas que se le extiendan aparezca desglosado qu?
parte del importe corresponde al ordenador y qu? parte
corresponde al sistema operativo y a otro soporte l?gico.

2.- Creo que debe ser un derecho de todo ciudadano de la Uni?n
Europea que, cuando adquiera un ordenador, tenga la posibilidad
real de rechazar en el momento de la compra la adquisici?n del
sistema operativo y de cualquier otro soporte l?gico que el
fabricante y/o el vendedor ofrezcan con el ordenador.

Puedo entender que un fabricante y/o un vendedor digan que los
ordenadores que ofrecen no han estado probados por ellos con un
sistema operativo distinto a aquel que ellos recomiendan, pero
no puedo entender que, una vez que el comprador est? informado,
se le obligue a adquirir, junto con el ordenador, un sistema
operativo que ?l quiz? no desea y para cuya utilizaci?n, adem?s,
deber? aceptar una serie de condiciones contractuales que son
del todo ajenas a su prop?sito de adquirir un ordenador.

Me dirijo a usted porque creo que la situaci?n con la que me he
encontrado se corresponde a un monopolio de facto o, en el mejor
de los casos, a un duopolio.

Creo que deben respetarse escrupulosamente la libertad y los
derechos de los ciudadanos de la Uni?n Europea en cualquier
transacci?n comercial y que debe hacerse priorizando esa
libertad y esos derechos por encima del ?nimo de lucro de
empresas y corporaciones que puedan tener la intenci?n de
imponer sus intereses.

Creo que la adopci?n de una medida como la que propongo en los
puntos que he enumerado como '1' y '2', adem?s de defender
directamente los derechos de los ciudadanos y consumidores de la
Uni?n Europea, supondr?a una defensa de la competencia y del
libre mercado dentro de la uni?n Europea, favorecer?a una mayor
transparencia en la relaci?n entre los fabricantes de
ordenadores y los desarrolladores de sistemas operativos y
aplicaciones y ayudar?a a evitar la posibilidad de que se diesen
situaciones de monopolio de facto por el aprovechamiento que
algunas empresas puedan hacer de su posici?n dominante.

Me parece una buena medida y me gustar?a que se pusiese en
marcha, pero no s? qu? si mi punto de vista es el correcto, por
lo que me gustar?a conocer su opini?n y, en caso de que de que
usted considere que mi punto de vista es razonable, o puede
serlo con algunos matices, me gustar?a saber tambi?n c?mo cree
usted que puedo contribuir para facilitar que se adopten las
medidas que propongo.

Le ruego que reciba los m?s afectuosos saludos.

Vicente Rodr?guez

----------


Here is the answer from Mr. Nicholas Banasevic:


----------

Fecha: Mon, 25 Mar 2013 10:45:20 +0000

Estimado Sr. Rodr?guez:

Le agradezco su mensaje del 7 de marzo de 2013 en el que nos
informa de que Microsoft estar?a impidiendo la instalaci?n de
otros sistemas operativos en ordenadores que llevan Windows o la
venta de ordenadores sin sistema operativo.

La Comisi?n tiene conocimiento de esta situaci?n y est?
siguiendo c?mo se est? desarrollando este asunto.

Le aseguro que estamos dispuestos a hacer cumplir las normas de
competencia de la UE de una manera que garantice que la
competencia en la UE no se distorsione y que los mercados
funcionan tan eficientemente como sea posible para el beneficio
de todos los consumidores europeos en t?rminos de una mayor
oferta de productos y servicios, precios m?s bajos y mayor
innovaci?n.

Percepciones de consumidores como la suya son un valioso aporte
para nuestro trabajo diario. Si tuviera conocimiento de
cualquier otra potencial infracci?n de las normas de competencia
de la UE, por favor, no dude en informarnos.

Atentamente,

BANASEVIC Nicholas
Jefe de Unidad

COMISI?N EUROPEA
DG Competencia

Mercados y casos II: Informaci?n, Comunicaci?n y Medios de
comunicaci?n
Antimonopolio: Industrias de la informaci?n, Internet y
electr?nica de consumo

----------


Best regards

Vicen

Post by Robert Kehl
Dear Vicen,
thank you for your effort in this!
Could you please provide the original answer? I would not say your
translation were false or bad, but I am interested in the original text.
Please include the date the message was sent, and, if possible your inquiry.
Thanks in advance,
Rob

Post by Vicen Rodriguez
Hi Matthias,
Yesterday (25/03/2013), I received a message from Mr. Nicholas Banasevic
(Head of Unit, European Comission, GD Competition) as answer to the
message I sent to Mr. Joaqu?n Almunia in March 7th. The message from Mr.
Nicholas Banasevic is in Spanish, as the one I sent to Mr. Joaqu?n Almunia.
Here is a translation of the message (the translation is made by me and
----------
/I appreciate your message of March 7, 2013 in which you reported

[...]
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.fsfeurope.org/pipermail/discussion/attachments/20130327/fa651b1e/attachment.html>

[Matthias Kirschner]

Hello Vincen,

Post by Vicen Rodriguez
Yesterday (25/03/2013), I received a message from Mr. Nicholas Banasevic
(Head of Unit, European Comission, GD Competition) as answer to the
message I sent to Mr. Joaqu?n Almunia in March 7th. The message from Mr.
Nicholas Banasevic is in Spanish, as the one I sent to Mr. Joaqu?n
Almunia.
Here is a translation of the message (the translation is made by me and

[...]

Thanks a lot for your work!! Did he reply by e-mail? Could you forward
me the e-mail-adress? I would also offer them help, if they have any
questions about this topic.

Regards,
Matthias

[Vicen Rodriguez]

Hello Alessandro,

First of all, thanks a lot for your complete and detailed answer.

Post by Alessandro Rubini
btw: why only the EU?

It is a start point. I'm in Europe and this is a FSF Europe list. If it
works for EU, maybe it could be adopted in other regions.

Post by Alessandro Rubini
Likewise, while I understand not everyone can replace the engine, I'd
love to buy a car without wheels and without a battery, so I can
install the ones that best match my needs and use pattern.
Back to the software/hardware split, I would love to buy a cell phone
without software and put the one of my choice, and the same applies
to the music player, the TV set, the dishwasher, the microwave oven
and the espresso machine.

Maybe those are similar cases. Despite it, I prefer to start for laptops
and OS.

Post by Alessandro Rubini
While I sympathise, reality is exactly the other way round. The
profit, the companies and the holy "marketplace" are the most
important things out there.

Maybe companies and marketplace seem to be considered sometimes most
important than citizens' freedom and rights. We should work to fix that,
at least regarding software.

Post by Alessandro Rubini
So, the right path to attack the problem you describe is requesting a
split of the contract.

[...]

Post by Alessandro Rubini
Thus, if we use the proprietary vendor's efforts in promoting wider
knowledge of their "intellectual property", and we help them in
reminding their users to not "pirate" that crap to friends, then we
may have some (little) chance of suceeding. We can request rules to
split out the *sell* from the *license* in monetary exchanges for
computing devices, in order to raise awareness about what is allowed
and what is not, to help software vendors defending their own rights
and better protect "intellectual property" overall.
As a side effect, we'll automatically achieve more awareness about how
licensing *that* crap is not really mandatory, and there are cheaper
and sweeter pieces of crap out there, that run on the same hardware.

Maybe I don't understand completely the idea.
Please, correct me if I'm wrong:
- Buying a computer we buy an object and, then, we own it.
- Buying software we buy a license, a right to use the software under
certain conditions.
- If the software manufacturer and/or vendor wants to correctly protect
his product, the license, from a bad use, being able to demonstrate the
buyer has really acquired the rights specified on the license and then
there is an agreement, the software purchase should be differentiated
(split) from the computer purchase (point #1).
- If that happens, it could be easier for some buyers, in a next step,
to decide not to buy the OS license recommended by the computer seller,
but only the computer (point #2).

Is it right?
If yes, it seems roughly the same idea I had and the same conclusion
from a different perspective, with the emphasis in the protection of the
software licenses and not in the rights of the buyers.
Perhaps both views could reinforce each other.

Post by Alessandro Rubini
Unfortunately, and I'll conclude, this technological market is
disappearing, and we are late as usual. [...], but maybe it would be wasted time because by the time we
achieve the result that market place would be inexistent already.

If we fight for freedom, we should be prepared for long in coming. If we
do not fight for it, it will never arrive.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.fsfeurope.org/pipermail/discussion/attachments/20130305/7496c883/attachment.html>

[Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos]

Post by Vicen Rodriguez

Post by Alessandro Rubini
While I sympathise, reality is exactly the other way round. The
profit, the companies and the holy "marketplace" are the most
important things out there.

Maybe companies and marketplace seem to be considered sometimes most
important than citizens' freedom and rights. We should work to fix that,
at least regarding software.

Hello,
It is not about companies and marketplace. It is about consumers who
consider options that provide a good balance between quality and price
of the products they buy. Freedom to modify the product may be
considered by some, but still it is within some balance.

For example would you pay 100.000 euros for a car where you can replace
engine, lights, seats, cpu, software etc, or would you buy a 15000 mass
produced one? The example is exaggerated, but consider that even smaller
price differences, make a lot of impact to certain people.

So in almost every example I can think of, if companies are forced with
legislation to break their products in multiple separate parts, prices
would go up in the average case, and go down in few (geeky) cases. Do
you really believe the average person is prepared to pay more for
something that has not any immediate impact visible to him (not everyone
is a mechanic or software developer). Most probably he'd just import his
product from a country where they don't have those laws.

For these reasons, I find the approach described by Alessandro (which
was unknown to me before) quite interesting to pursue.

regards,
Nikos

[Heiki &quot;Repentinus&quot; Ojasild]

Post by Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos
It is not about companies and marketplace. It is about consumers who
consider options that provide a good balance between quality and price
of the products they buy. Freedom to modify the product may be
considered by some, but still it is within some balance.
For example would you pay 100.000 euros for a car where you can replace
engine, lights, seats, cpu, software etc, or would you buy a 15000 mass
produced one? The example is exaggerated, but consider that even smaller
price differences, make a lot of impact to certain people.
So in almost every example I can think of, if companies are forced with
legislation to break their products in multiple separate parts, prices
would go up in the average case, and go down in few (geeky) cases. Do
you really believe the average person is prepared to pay more for
something that has not any immediate impact visible to him (not everyone
is a mechanic or software developer). Most probably he'd just import his
product from a country where they don't have those laws.

Your "analogy" is not analogous to the general purpose computer being
bundled with software. In the case of Microsoft's dominant market
position, the bundling actually raises prices. Sure, the users get
Windows cheaper than they would get it by buying it separately, but by
being forced to buy Windows they lose out on the option to buy several
cheaper OSes, many GNU/Linux systems at their zero price among them.
In case of the car, you are actually free to order the parts and
assemble the damn thing yourself.

This has everything to do with the market, which should be free.
Antitrust laws were invented for a reason.

[Fabian Keil]

Post by Heiki &quot;Repentinus&quot; Ojasild

Post by Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos
So in almost every example I can think of, if companies are forced with
legislation to break their products in multiple separate parts, prices
would go up in the average case, and go down in few (geeky) cases. Do
you really believe the average person is prepared to pay more for
something that has not any immediate impact visible to him (not everyone
is a mechanic or software developer). Most probably he'd just import his
product from a country where they don't have those laws.

Your "analogy" is not analogous to the general purpose computer being
bundled with software. In the case of Microsoft's dominant market
position, the bundling actually raises prices.

I frequently read that "many vendors" supposedly pays less for the
Windows license than they get for installing the additional bloatware
on top of it.

In this case not bundling Windows would actually make the whole
bundle more expensive (for the system vendor), even if you ignore
the customisation costs.

So far I haven't come across a reliable source that confirms this
theory, but at least the idea that the bloatware vendors pay the
system vendors something to include the bloatware seems reasonable
to me. After all the bloatware makes the user experience worse and
the system vendor gets the blame.

Post by Heiki &quot;Repentinus&quot; Ojasild
Sure, the users get
Windows cheaper than they would get it by buying it separately, but by
being forced to buy Windows they lose out on the option to buy several
cheaper OSes, many GNU/Linux systems at their zero price among them.

Note that the bundled Windows versions usually differ from the ones
that can be bought separately. The latter are not only more expensive
but can also transferred to a different system more easily, (hopefully)
haven't been modified by a third-party and are thus potentially worth
more to a Windows user.

Fabian
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 196 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.fsfeurope.org/pipermail/discussion/attachments/20130305/2015ad80/attachment.pgp>

[Vicen Rodriguez]

Hi,

Post by Heiki &quot;Repentinus&quot; Ojasild

Post by Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos
For example would you pay 100.000 euros for a car where you can replace
engine, lights, seats, cpu, software etc, or would you buy a 15000 mass
produced one? The example is exaggerated, but consider that even smaller
price differences, make a lot of impact to certain people.
So in almost every example I can think of, if companies are forced with
legislation to break their products in multiple separate parts, prices
would go up in the average case, and go down in few (geeky) cases. Do
you really believe the average person is prepared to pay more for
something that has not any immediate impact visible to him (not everyone
is a mechanic or software developer). Most probably he'd just import his
product from a country where they don't have those laws.

Your "analogy" is not analogous to the general purpose computer being
bundled with software. In the case of Microsoft's dominant market
position, the bundling actually raises prices. Sure, the users get
Windows cheaper than they would get it by buying it separately, but by
being forced to buy Windows they lose out on the option to buy several
cheaper OSes, many GNU/Linux systems at their zero price among them.
In case of the car, you are actually free to order the parts and
assemble the damn thing yourself.
This has everything to do with the market, which should be free.
Antitrust laws were invented for a reason.

I agree.


Vicen

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.fsfeurope.org/pipermail/discussion/attachments/20130306/28b6a816/attachment.html>

[Albert Dengg]

hello,
On Tue, Mar 05, 2013 at 01:31:49AM +0100, Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos wrote:
...

Post by Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos
It is not about companies and marketplace. It is about consumers who
consider options that provide a good balance between quality and price
of the products they buy. Freedom to modify the product may be
considered by some, but still it is within some balance.
For example would you pay 100.000 euros for a car where you can replace
engine, lights, seats, cpu, software etc, or would you buy a 15000 mass
produced one? The example is exaggerated, but consider that even smaller
price differences, make a lot of impact to certain people.

I think your analogy is not entirely accurate:
the situation with cars is actually that they tend to include more and
more technology to actually prevent the customer from changing
anything...not because it is a technical requirement but to be able to
sell more expensive spare parts.

Post by Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos
So in almost every example I can think of, if companies are forced with
legislation to break their products in multiple separate parts, prices
would go up in the average case, and go down in few (geeky) cases. Do
you really believe the average person is prepared to pay more for
something that has not any immediate impact visible to him (not everyone
is a mechanic or software developer). Most probably he'd just import his
product from a country where they don't have those laws.

well...how would it be more expensive for them?

we are actually not asking to support linux in particular (in the way
that you can call their support hotline and start asking questions on
running linux on their hardware), but only to leave out a non essential
part (like for example you would want to order your car withouth leather
seats because you want to use your custom velvet seat covers and
therefore have no use for the more expensive extra option of leather
seats).

yours,
albert
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://mail.fsfeurope.org/pipermail/discussion/attachments/20130305/9407d9ba/attachment.pgp>

[Albert Dengg]

hi,

Post by howard
I think the car analogy is quite meaningless. The car manufacturers
are entirely responsible for the car as a system and cannot sell it
without stringent safety criteria being met. This would not be
possible without them having control over the components and their
integration into the whole system. There are bits they could leave
out such as radios but not anything necesaary to drive the car.

well, i did not bring it up, i was just repling to the topic at hand...
as for only beeing able to sell as whole:
i don't think it's true, as there are also for example kit cars...but
that is getting quite offtopic here.

Post by howard
The OS in a computer is more like the driver of the car. The car
company is not responsible for how anyone drives, provided the car
is designed in such a way to make it safe for suitable drivers (e.g.
not children, or people who have some disability unless it has been
modied). Computers can run perfectly well under many different
operation systems provided they are built with the appropriate
compatibility. The monopoly enjoyed by Microsoft prevents consumers
choosing their OS of choice. For software that runs under Windows I
prefer XP, but my laptop bundled with Windows 7 home edition cannot
be "downgraded" to XP. This is quite wrong and trading standards
organisations are wrong to let MS get away with their domination of
the hardware manufacturers and retail distributer network.

well, while somewhat true this is not completly the point here either...
even though the car company might not get sued for something the driver
does...nobody has ever tried to sue MS or the hardware vendor for what
the user does with the computer.

yours,
albert
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://mail.fsfeurope.org/pipermail/discussion/attachments/20130305/32df64e8/attachment-0001.pgp>

[howard]

Hi

Post by Albert Dengg
hi,

Post by howard
I think the car analogy is quite meaningless. The car manufacturers
are entirely responsible for the car as a system and cannot sell it
without stringent safety criteria being met. This would not be
possible without them having control over the components and their
integration into the whole system. There are bits they could leave
out such as radios but not anything necesaary to drive the car.

well, i did not bring it up, i was just repling to the topic at hand...
i don't think it's true, as there are also for example kit cars...but
that is getting quite offtopic here.

Post by howard
The OS in a computer is more like the driver of the car. The car
company is not responsible for how anyone drives, provided the car
is designed in such a way to make it safe for suitable drivers (e.g.
not children, or people who have some disability unless it has been
modied). Computers can run perfectly well under many different
operation systems provided they are built with the appropriate
compatibility. The monopoly enjoyed by Microsoft prevents consumers
choosing their OS of choice. For software that runs under Windows I
prefer XP, but my laptop bundled with Windows 7 home edition cannot
be "downgraded" to XP. This is quite wrong and trading standards
organisations are wrong to let MS get away with their domination of
the hardware manufacturers and retail distributer network.

well, while somewhat true this is not completly the point here either...
even though the car company might not get sued for something the driver
does...nobody has ever tried to sue MS or the hardware vendor for what
the user does with the computer.

I agree. I'm sorry I wasn't very clear. The vendors should sell
computers enabled for any OS, just like a car can be driven by any driver.

best
Howard

Post by Albert Dengg
yours,
albert
_______________________________________________
Discussion mailing list
Discussion at fsfeurope.org
https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.fsfeurope.org/pipermail/discussion/attachments/20130305/e5d43215/attachment.html>

[Michael Kesper]

Hi all,

Post by howard
I agree. I'm sorry I wasn't very clear. The vendors should sell
computers enabled for any OS, just like a car can be driven by any driver.

Maybe better: like a car can use fuel from any station.
Seems more fitting to me.

Best wishes
Michael

[Sam Liddicott]

A good analogy will help an explanation but can only win the argument by
accident.

Post by Michael Kesper
Hi all,

Post by howard
I agree. I'm sorry I wasn't very clear. The vendors should sell
computers enabled for any OS, just like a car can be driven by any

driver.
Maybe better: like a car can use fuel from any station.
Seems more fitting to me.
Best wishes
Michael
_______________________________________________
Discussion mailing list
Discussion at fsfeurope.org
https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.fsfeurope.org/pipermail/discussion/attachments/20130502/3a90d5c0/attachment.html>

[Sam Liddicott]

Apologies for that stale reply.

Post by Sam Liddicott
A good analogy will help an explanation but can only win the argument by
accident.

Post by Michael Kesper
Hi all,

Post by howard
I agree. I'm sorry I wasn't very clear. The vendors should sell
computers enabled for any OS, just like a car can be driven by any

driver.
Maybe better: like a car can use fuel from any station.
Seems more fitting to me.
Best wishes
Michael
_______________________________________________
Discussion mailing list
Discussion at fsfeurope.org
https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.fsfeurope.org/pipermail/discussion/attachments/20130502/01412499/attachment.html>

[xdrudis]

Post by Alessandro Rubini

Post by Vicen Rodriguez
I think the freedom and rights of all and every citizen of the European
Union must be strictly observed in any transaction, and that freedom and
those rights should be the priority over the profit of companies and
corporations who may have intended to impose their interests.

While I sympathise, reality is exactly the other way round. The
profit, the companies and the holy "marketplace" are the most
important things out there.

Yes the lesson I learnt the only time I spent significant time trying
to prevent a small part of law becoming worse (and seeing our friends
succeed for "once", but business continuing "as usual") is that nobody
cares about law.

Nowadays they are already building hardware (like in chips) that

1- need propietary software to boot, which even must be signed by
certain keys before the boot CPU accepts to start the application
CPU.

2- (but SMM is not new) have privileged software running "below" the
OS with more access to the system than the OS itself (just as the
OS under applications has more control than the applications). It
appears that "they" (who?) sense too much force from free software
and react by allowing it in a layer as long as there's an
underlaying layer out of user control than can control the user
controlled layer. In a positive view, this is a recognition of
the success of free software, even in the form of an scalation
of repression.

3- Even advertise remote management whereby a remote administrator
(sufficiently blessed by the controllers of the keys) can inspect,
monitor, alter, repair, etc. the computer from internet

4- Establish (even in W3C) "standards" to exclude user controlled
software from content/services/connectivity

5- Then there's the continuing trend of featuritis, planned obsolesce
and secrecy to enlarge the burden for reverse engineering and to
prevent availability of alternative free software for current
hardware.

I mean it is becoming incresingly irrelevant that nobody sells hardware
without an OS or with free software preinstalled, if they are
increasingly building hardware that simply can't run without
propietary software or pushing services that will be inaccessible
from freedom respecting systems.

I apologise for not having had time to read this thread in all detail,
and don't mean to hitchhike it with off-topic, but I believe secure
boot and similar is quite related, because once the hardware is
incapable of running user selected software, the commercialisation of
the hardware with or without the software the user does not want
becomes moot. We used to assume one problem was many users didn't know
their computer could run something else, due to the overwhelming
commercialisation modes, disinformation, FUD, etc. but for new
computers they are increasingly building them so that the user
misconception becomes fact.

Post by Alessandro Rubini
Unfortunately, I don't think these aims are considered important
nowadays by the general public or the decision makers. While I can't
make specific examples, when I listen to the news I always have the
feeling things are going the other way and everyone is happy about
that.

ACK, for example: the next batch of GTA04 phone is being cancelled due
to lack of preorders (a phone as freedom respecting as possible, albeit
with optional propietary wifi, bluetooth, 3D drivers and closed
hardware parts including the GSM chip, yet much more open than any
other phone I know).

I heard somewhere that one study set up to measure how much contract
legalese internet users did not read when using online services,
and reached the conclusion that an average internet user should
dedicate some 70 days a year in reading the terms of use and similar
clauses of all the web services they use. They apparently don't care to
read them, even less to negotiate them, or even to reject the
services because of their terms. So they may be similarly inclined
about software licences. Sorry I don't have the quote handy.

So, even against my own feelings, maybe it is more convenient to
point people to the inconveniences they live and relate them to
the powers that be and the lack of users power / freedom, that
to just enlightem about licence clauses who nobody really believe
they're worth anything. Not simple though. And the worst inconveniences
are yet to come.

Post by Alessandro Rubini
So, the right path to attack the problem you describe is requesting a
split of the contract. Since we users (and even the decision makers)
know very well that we *own* the laptop but only have limited rights
on the software we get, we can request to sign two different
contracts. One item is *sold* and the other is *licensed*. We need
to remind that to customers (to prevent "piracy" and "raising
awareness" about the issue, yo know), so software companies may have a
harder time fighting this than other, stronger, proposals.

Undocumented hardware and hardware that enforces signatures on
boot software isn't exactly hardware users "own". And hardware
users can own is arguably extinct or almost so.

Post by Alessandro Rubini
While I have no direct experience, I think the "preferred" OS is even
installed or unlocked or whatever the first time you turn on the
computer (maybe software vendors want to remind users that that's own
copy that cannot be lent to others, or something similar).

I thought so too, I don't have the experience either, but was told by
some people from that French NGO against racketiciels that this is not
so in practice, they said in France shops often install software and
accept licenses in behalf of the users before selling PCs, arguably
because consumers find that too confusing (maybe confusing to understand
the terms, and outraging to know them), or because it is necessary or
convenient to install further software the shop wants installed.

My impression was that the practice of selling most of the PCs (at
least for consumers) was already illegal with the status quo, but
nobody was acting against this particular violation. I'm not sure it
is really illegal because I believe you can sell second hand software
in the EU, so maybe the licensor is the shop and then sells the
licenses second hand somehow, which I'm not sure is OK with the terms
of the license, but may might be ok with the enforceable terms of the
license, but might be lacking sufficent proof of acceptance by the end
user of the transferred license... Too complex for me.

Post by Alessandro Rubini
Unfortunately, and I'll conclude, this technological market is
disappearing, and we are late as usual. The desktop pc is marginal
already (but there you can buy os-less parts) and the laptop it going
to be marginal pretty soon. Most modern computing devices are already
one-vendor-only things like microwave ovens, and their are sold as
appliances rather then general-purpose computers (again, not me: this
time is Cory Doctorow). So maybe Renzo's idea is sound and worth
following, but maybe it would be wasted time because by the time we
achieve the result that market place would be inexistent already.

ACK, but note that the os-less parts com with propietary firmware which
has control over the whole system, and which can't be replaced either
for lack of alternatives or for signature checks by those same parts.

So let me add some links to almost recent news on signed boot and PCs:

Hispalinux, an Spanish association is dennouncing secure boot to
the UE (also in reuters and slashdot and I guess elsewhere).
I'm not sure it will achieve much, but I thank them for trying,
I think it's the proper thing to do.

http://hispalinux.es/node/758

Matthew Garret seems to think it's not very useful and says the EU
has already accepted it (I suspect the argument goes that secure
boot is optional for x86 and MS does not have a monopoly on ARM,
so antitrust law may not apply directly to MS).

http://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/23817.html

It appears that signed boot might be compulsory in the computers
the USA administration buys, if this NIST recommendation is binding.
I have only browsed it and don't know enough about the USA to judge
its weight, it appears to not require exactly UEFI secure boot, but
some general signed boot mechanism.

http://csrc.nist.gov/publications/nistpubs/800-147/NIST-SP800-147-April2011.pdf

The W3C seems to accept DRM schemes in web standards, though
some draft EME specification for browser plugins used to decrypt
content (which would not standarize the software itself, because
DRM can't be truly interoperable and is incompatible with effective
software freedom, but would give standard buzzwords to new DRM
stacks, which could use remote attestation to force signed
binaries for popular services and advance social acceptance)

You can sign here against this

http://www.defectivebydesign.org/no-drm-in-html5

[Hugo Roy]

Post by xdrudis
I heard somewhere that one study set up to measure how much contract
legalese internet users did not read when using online services,
and reached the conclusion that an average internet user should
dedicate some 70 days a year in reading the terms of use and similar
clauses of all the web services they use. They apparently don't care to
read them, even less to negotiate them, or even to reject the
services because of their terms. So they may be similarly inclined
about software licences. Sorry I don't have the quote handy.

The average found by the study was 76 days. But what you can
conclude from this is that it is completely impractical to read
(not even understand) the terms of service you subscribe to
online. To make the conclusion that people don't care about what's
in them is completely out of proportion. We have no research that
I'm aware of that can measure how much people care about their
rights online. But the fact that FSFE, EFF or projects like
tosdr.org get funded by individuals and sustain is one sign that
actually enough people *do* care.

Much like with software freedom. Do most people care about it?
Until they are aware of the concept and of the dangers of non-free
software, it is indeed very unlikely. But people can become aware
of it quite easily.

In the end, I think it is useless to ascertain whether people care
or not about the law. This is too broad and difficult to measure
for us anyway.

What we do konw is that *we* care about our rights and freedoms
and there's definitely enough legal ground to make a meaningful
proposal that people should have the right to be in control of
hardware they buy. So let's focus on that.

There have been some proposals here, and I'd like to see more
ideas coming :-)

[xdrudis]

Post by Hugo Roy
The average found by the study was 76 days. But what you can
conclude from this is that it is completely impractical to read
(not even understand) the terms of service you subscribe to
online. To make the conclusion that people don't care about what's
in them is completely out of proportion. We have no research that
I'm aware of that can measure how much people care about their
rights online. But the fact that FSFE, EFF or projects like
tosdr.org get funded by individuals and sustain is one sign that
actually enough people *do* care.

Thanks, I didn't know tosdr.org. Looks useful.

I still think the normal thing to do when you (often) find impractical
to read and understand TOS is not to use the service. So the fact that
many people use them without reading them for me is some measure that
they don't care (I don't believe the option of not using a web service
is so onerous, in fact it frees time).

But I agree I'm disgressing and we should not care too much what
other people care about. We should care for what we care about. So
sorry if I was sounding discouraging.

Post by Hugo Roy
In the end, I think it is useless to ascertain whether people care
or not about the law. This is too broad and difficult to measure
for us anyway.

Yes, and too meaningless. Even if we could measure it we would still
not change our mind only because others think different. It takes
arguments to change one's mind.

Post by Hugo Roy
What we do konw is that *we* care about our rights and freedoms
and there's definitely enough legal ground to make a meaningful
proposal that people should have the right to be in control of
hardware they buy. So let's focus on that.
There have been some proposals here, and I'd like to see more
ideas coming :-)

Of course, I didn't mean to get in the way, sorry.

My intention was only to link the topic with the fact that closed
hardware is being more closely tied with closed software and closed
services for content that it used to be. And I think that changes the
issues at stake from what they used to be, because hardware economics
is different to software economics (and I guess content/services
network effects are a little different to software too, but maybe not
so much). So thinking in including open hardware, open cloud (if I
understood it) open culture and open knowledge in software freedom
quests is increasingly appropiate. Which doesn't mean that people
focusing in one of those aspects is any less helping the whole lot, of
course.

I understood Alessandro's point of proliferation of appliances
in detriment of general purpose computers as being very relevant
to commercialisation of computers, that's all.

[Guido Arnold]

Hello Vicen and others,

Sorry for not having an answer to your actual question, but I wanted
to mention two related things.

Post by Vicen Rodriguez
A few months ago I decided to buy a laptop for one of my children. I
wanted to buy a new laptop without an operating system (OS) on it to
install an OS to my liking. It became a complicated problem. Most stores
selling computers offered me a laptop with an OS installed; it was an OS

Like many of us, I went through the same nightmare and started a
collection of hardware vendors who sell either without any software or
even with Free Software preinstalled:

https://www.wiki.fsfe.org/Hardware%20Vendors

I think we should support these companies by buying from them.

Post by Vicen Rodriguez
I don't want to use and I don't want to pay for. Finally, in a town near

Some people were already to claim their "windows tax" back:

https://www.wiki.fsfe.org/WindowsTaxRefund
and in your case especially:
https://www.wiki.fsfe.org/WindowsTaxRefund/Spain


Greetings,

Guido
--
Guido Arnold Free Software Foundation Europe
http://blogs.fsfe.org/guido [] Edu team & German team
OpenPGP Key-ID: 0x51628D75 [][][] Get active!
XMPP: guido at jabber.fsfe.org || http://fsfe.org/support/?guido

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://mail.fsfeurope.org/pipermail/discussion/attachments/20130303/4a9bb7da/attachment.pgp>

[Vicen Rodriguez]

Hello Guido:

I think it is preferable to open a new discussion for this subject.

Post by Guido Arnold
Like many of us, I went through the same nightmare and started a
collection of hardware vendors who sell either without any software or
https://www.wiki.fsfe.org/Hardware%20Vendors

Great and useful list, but I think it will be much better if we help to
update it. Regarding the two vendors in your list having Spain (ES) as
country:

- Gnuinos (http://www.gnuinos.com/): At this moment, at least in the
website, they are offering only two (2) computers models (desktop/tower)
without OS. No netbooks, no laptops, no barebones. But two is more than
nothing.
- Tuxbrain (https://www.tuxbrain.net/): In 07/05/2012 they decided to
stop selling, as they say in their blog:
http://www.tuxbrain.com/content/estamos-de-liquidaci%C3%
B3n-total-barato-barato-aka-tuxbrains-reborn

I've found also a link that does not work for me:

- Ahtec (http://www.ahtec.nl/): Does not work from my computer.

In the other hand, you can add some more Spanish vendors:

- Ahtec (http://www.ahteconline.com/): Sells laptops and desktops that
can be bought without OS.
- Azken Muga (http://www.azkenmuga.es/): Workstations and mobile
workstations with Linux.
- Imavisions (http://www.imavisions.com/;
http://portatilesconlinux.com/): Sells laptops with Linux (but it seems
the site is not updated since September 2012).
- Linux Ocasion (http://www.linuxocasion.net/): Servers and some
workstations (mainly second hand) with Linux.
- Linux Store (http://www.linuxstore.es/): Desktops (and one laptop)
without OS or with Linux.
- Mountain (http://www.mountain.es/): Desktops, workstations, servers
and laptops without OS or with Linux.

Post by Guido Arnold
I think we should support these companies by buying from them.

I agree,... but I'd like to be able to buy a laptop without OS in any
computers shop.

Post by Guido Arnold
Greetings,
Guido

Best regards

Vicen
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.fsfeurope.org/pipermail/discussion/attachments/20130306/7bb071f4/attachment.html>

[MJ Ray]

Guido Arnold <guido at fsfe.org>

Post by Guido Arnold
Like many of us, I went through the same nightmare and started a
collection of hardware vendors who sell either without any software or
https://www.wiki.fsfe.org/Hardware%20Vendors

Ebuyer.com offer Zoostorm (a rebadged Clevo), often without any
software preinstalled. http://www.ebuyer.com/search?mfr=1181

Feel free to add it if you like. wiki.fsfe doesn't allow free edits,
OpenID or anything similarly useful, I have lost my wiki details again
and guests aren't allowed to reset their own passwords. How much info
is lost to fsfe that way, I wonder...

Hope that informs,

[Guido Arnold]

Hello,

Post by MJ Ray
Guido Arnold <guido at fsfe.org>

Post by Guido Arnold
https://www.wiki.fsfe.org/Hardware%20Vendors

Ebuyer.com offer Zoostorm (a rebadged Clevo), often without any
software preinstalled. http://www.ebuyer.com/search?mfr=1181
Feel free to add it if you like. wiki.fsfe doesn't allow free edits,

Thanks for the hint. Added to the wiki.

Post by MJ Ray
OpenID or anything similarly useful, I have lost my wiki details again
and guests aren't allowed to reset their own passwords. How much info
is lost to fsfe that way, I wonder...

Yes, that's unfortunate. I guess that's related to counter spam with
the limited manpower of admins, but I am unsure about it.

Post by MJ Ray
Hope that informs,

It does. Thanks again!

Guido
--
Guido Arnold Free Software Foundation Europe
http://blogs.fsfe.org/guido [] Edu team & German team
OpenPGP Key-ID: 0x51628D75 [][][] Get active!
XMPP: guido at jabber.fsfe.org || http://fsfe.org/support/?guido

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://mail.fsfeurope.org/pipermail/discussion/attachments/20130304/86b6ab22/attachment.pgp>

[howard]

I think the car analogy is quite meaningless. The car manufacturers are
entirely responsible for the car as a system and cannot sell it without
stringent safety criteria being met. This would not be possible without
them having control over the components and their integration into the
whole system. There are bits they could leave out such as radios but not
anything necesaary to drive the car.

The OS in a computer is more like the driver of the car. The car company
is not responsible for how anyone drives, provided the car is designed
in such a way to make it safe for suitable drivers (e.g. not children,
or people who have some disability unless it has been modied). Computers
can run perfectly well under many different operation systems provided
they are built with the appropriate compatibility. The monopoly enjoyed
by Microsoft prevents consumers choosing their OS of choice. For
software that runs under Windows I prefer XP, but my laptop bundled with
Windows 7 home edition cannot be "downgraded" to XP. This is quite wrong
and trading standards organisations are wrong to let MS get away with
their domination of the hardware manufacturers and retail distributer
network.

Howard Lane
GreenNet

Post by Albert Dengg
hello,
...

Post by Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos
It is not about companies and marketplace. It is about consumers who
consider options that provide a good balance between quality and price
of the products they buy. Freedom to modify the product may be
considered by some, but still it is within some balance.
For example would you pay 100.000 euros for a car where you can replace
engine, lights, seats, cpu, software etc, or would you buy a 15000 mass
produced one? The example is exaggerated, but consider that even smaller
price differences, make a lot of impact to certain people.

the situation with cars is actually that they tend to include more and
more technology to actually prevent the customer from changing
anything...not because it is a technical requirement but to be able to
sell more expensive spare parts.

Post by Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos
So in almost every example I can think of, if companies are forced with
legislation to break their products in multiple separate parts, prices
would go up in the average case, and go down in few (geeky) cases. Do
you really believe the average person is prepared to pay more for
something that has not any immediate impact visible to him (not everyone
is a mechanic or software developer). Most probably he'd just import his
product from a country where they don't have those laws.

well...how would it be more expensive for them?
we are actually not asking to support linux in particular (in the way
that you can call their support hotline and start asking questions on
running linux on their hardware), but only to leave out a non essential
part (like for example you would want to order your car withouth leather
seats because you want to use your custom velvet seat covers and
therefore have no use for the more expensive extra option of leather
seats).
yours,
albert
_______________________________________________
Discussion mailing list
Discussion at fsfeurope.org
https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.fsfeurope.org/pipermail/discussion/attachments/20130305/7c0595f4/attachment.html>