|
Murphy's law intimates that of all possible scenarios, it is the worst possible that will materialize in the future. It sounds like a violation of the laws of statistics. It probably isn't. We simply prefer to believe that favourable outcomes are more likely than unfavourable ones.
A strategy is Murphy-resilient, if its outcome remains favourable, even when the worst possible conditions happen to materialize.
I recently convinced a client to follow the following Murphy-resilient strategy:
When selecting which label printer to buy for use with Windows, restrict your choice to those label printers which have working linux drivers.
The rule applies to all hardware:
When selecting any device for use with Windows, restrict your choice to those devices that have working linux drivers.
The worst possible outcome for Windows users
For most hardware devices, it possible to migrate part of the logic required to drive the device from its firmware to its device driver; and the other way around. Given this choice, hardware device makers can increase their profits by moving a substantial part of this logic to the device driver. It reduces hardware costs, while usually not increasing software costs substantially. They can increase their profits even further, by doing two things:
- Refusing to disclose the source code for the device driver
- Refusing to disclose the specifications for wire protocol through which the device driver communicates with the device
Obviously, the device driver is tied to a particular version of the operating system.
In the next part of this strategy, there are four players in the game:
- The user
- The hardware vendor
- The operating system (OS) vendor
- A cartel of software vendors
There are the following secret agreements in place:
- The hardware vendor secretly negotiates with the OS vendor not to publish a device driver for any other OS, and to keep the source code and specifiations for the wire protocol secret.
- The OS vendor, in exchange promises that the next version for his OS will not support the device drivers for the previous version.
- The cartel of proprietary software vendors promises to publish the next version of their software that is only able to run on the next version of the OS and not on the previous version. The cartel also makes sure that the new document formats cannot be understood by the older versions of their programs.
After the OS vendor has published the next version of his OS, the user cannot use his hardware device in the next version of the OS. The device driver will simply not work. The new document formats start circulating in his peer group, and the user is being pressured to upgrade to the new version of the software. However, this means that his hardware device has effectively become a paper weight. He must buy a new one.
How do you know that the hardware vendor is doing this?
For the hardware device to work under linux, the hardware vendor either contributed the device driver's source code to the linux kernel in one way or the other, or else published the specifications for the wire protocol.
Therefore, if the device works under linux, anybody can re-implement a device driver for the next version of your own OS. However, if the device does not work under linux, the vendor refuses to contribute the information that is required to effect this.
Therefore, it is sufficient to figure out if your hardware device works under linux, to assess your vulnerability to being sandwiched by the hardware vendor, the OS vendor, and the cartel of proprietary software vendors. If it does, you are safe; if not, you can be sandwiched.
Murphy's law says that if you can be sandwiched, you will be sandwiched.
Is there really a conspiracy against the user?
We don't know this. In the worst possible world, there is. It might just be pure coincidence:
Microsoft very half-heartedly supports using XP drivers in Vista. They -- more often than not -- fail to work properly. The sandwich game predicts that it will definitely not be a priority to make them work properly.
For example, Nvidia resists fiercely the ideas of disclosing source code or wire protocol, or give anybody the ability to independently re-implement their drivers. Nobody accuses Nvidia of knowingly aiming at paper weighting your video card. They just conveniently could.
Concerning document formats, have a closer look at Microsoft's open XML document format. It gives the impression to being open, but is not truly open. Much of it is open, but a sufficiently large part of it is not open, and can be used to sandwich the user.
Again, murphy's law says that if the user can be sandwiched, he will be sandwiched.
A Murphy-resilient strategy
Murphy's law says that the reason why a hardware device does not work under linux, is because the hardware vendor has the intention to sandwich you, the Windows user; and paper-weight your investments sooner or later.
Any device that can correctly be used in Linux, cannot be used to sandwich you as a Windows user.
For example, when evaluating label printers, the client asked me if I could endorse the choice of a Brother QL-570? The answer is no. There was an important risk that he was going to be sandwiched. Therefore, the client chose a Zebra TLP 2844 instead, for use with Windows XP.
Conclusion
People do not necessarily behave honestly because they want to, but because their environment is keeping them honest. In order to keep the hardware vendors honest, it is necessary to implement anti-sandwich measures.
Otherwise, the temptation will remain, to quickly boost quarterly revenues by triggering secret deals with the OS vendor which will paper-weight your investments.
Murphy's law is adamant in that respect: If the hardware vendor can sandwich you, he eventually will.
For the purpose of keeping hardware vendors honest, it would be a good thing if the linux community maintained an anti-sandwich list of all hardware devices that are red-flagged as sandwiching tools, so that Windows users can protect themselves.
|
