On Jul 26, 4:43 pm, Snit <use...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Rick stated in post -vudnb38ZqzTevHXnZ2dnUVZ_v6dn...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx on
> 7/26/09 4:31 PM:
>
> >> Linux *is* a crappy product, for the desktop.
>
> > No, it isn't. There may different OSen that work better for some people
> > and some uses. That doesn't make "Linux" a crappy product.
>
> However you want to word it, clearly desktop Linux has not gained any
> significant following. It can be had for free... OS X sell, on average,
> with systems that cost $1,400 or so... and it has a *much* larger following
> on the desktop, even with that large barrier.
>
> Free vs. $1400... and more people *choose* to spend $1400.
Now Snit, as you know all of those people that choose to pay $1400 are
getting a complete pre-packaged system. A system that has been gone
over by highly paid integrators to make sure there are no rough edges
when the puter is taken out of the box and brought up for the first
time. Windows gets the same from the big name OEMs. You already know
Linux does not get that kind of treatment for the desktop.
If you really want to compare "followings", compare the number of
blank PCs that get Windows or Linux installed by the end user ... and
blank PCs that get blasted with a preconfigured image don't count.
|
|
