That's true, since Windows refuses to let anything but the NTLDR start its system...(anything else could be a security risk [as in a risk to the security of Microsoft's money]!)
On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 12:38 PM, Chris Louden <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 11:57 AM, John R. Hogerhuis <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 10:21 AM, David Kaiser <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Agreed - with one exception. The extent of vendor lock-in they have >>> achieved is only because they control everything from the boot loader >>> all the way to the web protocols they use. >> >> Just about all that you mentioned is userland stuff. I don't buy your >> assertion that Microsoft has to control the whole machine to have >> lock-in. For example, the boot loader... NT is bootable just fine >> today, via grub. The MS bootloader is not sticky at all, and yet MS >> has plenty of lock-in at higher layers. QED. Plus there is plenty of >> firmware on your machine, and in peripherals that MS does not control. >> They don't have to, since no one can touch their ability to rapidly >> create new, sticky APIs and create/embrace/extend userland protocols. > > As I unserstand it when you dual boot Windows with Linux despite the > use of Grub or etc you end up using two boot loaders. Grub simply > hands off to the windows boot loader. Grub does not actually boot > windows. > >> >> They just need to be the "best answer" for most businesses in places >> where they have a strategic competitive advantage. Sliverlight, .NET, >> related development tools, etc. To keep selling MS/Linux in place of >> Windows, those parts are going to end up tied to MS/Linux. BTW, I'm >> not saying MS gives away MS/Linux for free. They can charge big bucks >> for it. They don't even need to put Linux "in their video" any more >> than Apple puts Darwin in theirs. >> >> Effectively, Win32, .NET, and various userland protocols and systems >> (yes, Exchange is an excellent example) are sufficient to extend their >> current level of lock-in. >> >> -- John. >> _______________________________________________ >> LinuxUsers mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://socallinux.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/linuxusers >> > _______________________________________________ > LinuxUsers mailing list > [email protected] > http://socallinux.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/linuxusers > _______________________________________________ LinuxUsers mailing list [email protected] http://socallinux.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/linuxusers
