Roy Schestowitz wrote:
__/ [ Paul Bramscher ] on Friday 02 March 2007 00:43 \__
Roy Schestowitz wrote:
__/ [ Paul Bramscher ] on Thursday 01 March 2007 05:01 \__
John Bailo wrote:
peterwn wrote:
I suspect that Dell is even too scared stiff to say that the Windows
loaded computers it sells are Linux compatible (the dialup modem and
the video chipset being the main determing factors).
The answer is: we just shouldn't care about what the Big Dinosaurs are
doing. Yes, it's icing on the cake...but not really needed.
There are plenty of outlets for preinstalled Suse linux desktops and
notebooks.
The hard job of advocacy is getting the word to people about these
places.
A top down solution of big mega deals is not what linux is about.
Yes, but advocating for OS-blind machines should be fair game. It's one
thing to demand that Dell pre-installs a supported corporate linux
distro (like SuSE), it's another to simply advocate for the sale of
laptops which have been hardware-tested as per the normal procedures --
but leave the assembly line in some sweatshop with no OS on them at all.
Joe and Jane would never bother with a FreeDOS machine. Even a simple
installation stage would discourage exploration. Dell PCs are not only
expensive when preloaded with FreeDOS (more expensive than having Windows
preloaded, which becomes a deterrent to Tom, Dick and Harry), but they
also leave the user with a chore, which is unnecessary.
I'm a fan of consumer choice. I posted earlier here the policy of my
local Minneapolis/St. Paul supplier (http://www.nanosys1.com/). You can
get a system with no OS, XP, Vista, and the various license variations
of each. Whatever suits YOUR fancy. This is typical of mail-order
vendors also.
Why not an option of no-OS Dells for the under-40/geek crowd,
pre-installed (and supported) linux for those who'd rather move away
from Windows?
Choice ordinarily doesn't hurt a company -- it simply opens more markets
for them. I wonder why Dell is so hesitant here. Why is OS choice a
liability for laptop manufacturers? Are they "on the take"?
By offering one choice, they limit another. The secret agreement which they
have with Microsoft was doctored to create this deadlock (thus it is secret,
like a mafia/hitman contract). Microsoft has a loophole going and it's
keeping a chokehold on the market. Contracts which are not transparent must
be illegalised because they open the door to illegal activity (yes, it's
circular).
Hey, Hitachi learned their lesson back when they shipped Linux but,
multiple convicted pirate felon Microsoft threatened to pull their OEM
pricing ($37 per) and charge them full wholesale (at least double the
OEM), unless they only put the notice on the bottom of the box, and
threw the CDrom into the box.
More recently, in 2006, Lenovo had a bad tussle, and they're in China,
wanting to push the Party line, "Red Flag" Linux! They want to
contribute to the WTO qualification, by fighting piracy, but Microsoft
countered that.
|
|
