# Desktop Linux and Microsoft's OEM Power

TechNewsWorld has an opinion piece up about how [Linux May Never be
a True Desktop OS][1]. In it, Rob Enderle reiterates all the tired,
old reasons for thinking this, like "Free" not meaning "Free", and
how Linux installations are too "different", raising end-user
support costs.

All nonsense. I've [talked about this before][2]. The real reason why
Linux hasn't made inroads into the desktop (and may never) is because
of Microsoft's power in the OEM market, enforced and maintained by
their [draconian OEM licensing agreements][3]. This example is rather
dated, and MS has reportedly altered this to allow some cosmetic
Desktop and start menu options after the US vs. Microsoft anti-trust
case was settled.

Head over to Kuro5hin for [one of the best explanations I've seen that
substantiates MS's OEM power to squash desktop competition][4]. As
that article indicates, MS still controls the end-user bootup process,
something that [killed off BeOS][5] and, according to the US DOJ,
seems to be [a pending concern with Vista][6]:

> Plaintiffs have received a complaint regarding the ability of
> OEM's to customize the first-boot experience in Vista, and in
> particular concerning the Welcome Center, a new interface that
> presents the user with various setup options and commercial offers
> (presented by Microsoft and OEMs) at the end of the initial
> out-of-the-box experience. Plaintiffs are also talking with
> several industry members who have expressed additional concerns
> regarding aspects of Windows Vista.

[1]: http://www.technewsworld.com/story/50091.html
[2]: gopher://gopher.unixlore.net/0/articles/historical-blog-posts/20060313-the-worm-that-didnt-turn-up.txt
[3]: http://www.theregister.co.uk/1999/02/26/what_ms_oem_agreements_really/
[4]: https://web.archive.org/web/20061209003224/http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2001/10/23/13219/110
[5]: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2001/08/31/jean_louis_gass_233_e/
[6]: http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f214500/214518.htm
.