Date: prev next · Thread: first prev next last
2011 Archives by date, by thread · List index

On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 2:28 PM, Tom Davies <> wrote:

From: planas <>
Sent: Mon, 18 April, 2011 4:28:00
Subject: Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: Ellison's Oracle washes hands of OpenOffice

On Sun, 2011-04-17 at 21:41 -0400, Wayne Borean wrote:

In that case, you can see where I'm leading the conversation, and why my
concept of 'Free Software Darwinism' could be really important to us, and
scary as hell to Microsoft.


On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 9:12 PM, plino <> wrote:


Being a biologist, I find your Evolution parallel quite interesting.

Answering your previous question: of course IBM has it's own flavour of
Office (based on OpenOffice in fact):  it's called IBM Lotus Symphony

Enjoy! ;)

View this message in context:

Sent from the Users mailing list archive at

Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to
Posting guidelines + more:
List archive:
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be


I would think some the hardware vendors would promote FOSS more. They
can benefit from the hardware sales. I can see why MS hates FOSS, they
are almost a pure software vendor and FOSS hurts their sales.

Jay Lozier


Am gonna try two things with this e-mail,
1. As noted earlier, the list is for user
support and not for discussions. Therefore, I am moving to the discuss

Hi :)
unfortunately hardware vendors profit from selling MS pre-installed and the more
junk they can have pre-installed the more they profit.  MS sells them special
licences to install at a discount bargain rate.  If hardware vendors put Free
Software on instead then their profit margins would be lower.

2. This has been claimed so many times but still it does not make it
correct. The difference is in the details.

Computer manufacturers build computers with different hardware and
software components. For example, Intel produces CPUs, and it was
revealed recently that they gave special discounts to Dell so that
they get exclusivity,

The case with Microsoft is that computer manufacturers can stay in
line and follow special programs to co-advertise Windows (“Dell
recommends Windows”) and use Windows exclusively for their products,
and thus get generous discounts over the standard OEM Windows price.
This is the anticompetitive practice that hurts the market.
The exact details of such an agreement has not been leaked yet, so
that we can have hard evidence. The part that looks to be in these
agreements is that if the manufacturer decides to go exclusive with
Windows for their products, they get even better discounts.

If you try to buy something with NO software on it then the hardware actually
costs more so people buy stuff that already had MS pre-installed even if they
don't want to use it and then wipe the MS stuff to install Linux or Bsd or

The manufacturer is in a position to sell you a computer cheaper if it
does not have Windows (or any other OS). You can see in the Asian
markets manufacturers such as Acer, Asus and HP offering the same
computer with or without Windows, no questions asked.
The issue that the manufacturers have to deal with is that, if they
some a computer (in US, EU) without Windows, they do not get the best
discount for their Windows licenses, FOR their other computers with
Windows preinstalled.

See some examples at


Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to
Posting guidelines + more:
List archive:
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted


Privacy Policy | Impressum (Legal Info) | Copyright information: Unless otherwise specified, all text and images on this website are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. This does not include the source code of LibreOffice, which is licensed under the Mozilla Public License (MPLv2). "LibreOffice" and "The Document Foundation" are registered trademarks of their corresponding registered owners or are in actual use as trademarks in one or more countries. Their respective logos and icons are also subject to international copyright laws. Use thereof is explained in our trademark policy.