I voted. Have You?
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| dcparris Feb 20, 2007 2:24 PM EDT |
Please do go and cast your votes at Dell's site. They definitely need to hear our voice |
| jimf Feb 20, 2007 2:32 PM EDT |
Ouch... Talk about taking one for the team ;-) |
| azerthoth Feb 20, 2007 2:34 PM EDT |
"DUDE !!! your going to .... " |
| jimf Feb 20, 2007 2:54 PM EDT |
For the good of Linux, MUST vote.... MUST go to the ... ARRG! |
| dcparris Feb 20, 2007 3:00 PM EDT |
Now I feel the PHB! :-( |
| tuxchick Feb 20, 2007 3:08 PM EDT |
What a dog-and-pony show. I've never believed their 'our customers don't want Linux' line of BS, that's just a big fat lie. But at least this makes the lie more obvious. |
| jimf Feb 20, 2007 3:12 PM EDT |
> Now I feel the PHB! :-( No, you're right. All of these outfits should offer Linux as an option. The issue is entirely separate from their behavior as a Corporation, or the 'quality' of their product. |
| dcparris Feb 20, 2007 3:30 PM EDT |
TC - I thought they had changed that line to "which Linux"? |
| tuxchick Feb 20, 2007 4:19 PM EDT |
Don, whatever they're saying, it's hooey. I haven't bothered to analyze the flavor and texture. :) |
| dcparris Feb 20, 2007 4:31 PM EDT |
Oh, I agree. I thought their latest line was lame. Well, at least they're getting an earful now. Jim, I agree these outfits need to offer Linux as an option. |
| jdixon Feb 20, 2007 5:13 PM EDT |
I voted for the Linux proposal, the Open Office proposal, and a couple of others. :) |
| DarrenR114 Feb 20, 2007 5:34 PM EDT |
You only have to get through the first 30 pages to really get all the Linux related posts ... now if they could just get all those dupes combined. |
| bigg Feb 20, 2007 5:41 PM EDT |
> I thought they had changed that line to "which Linux"? I almost used to believe that. But then why not just sell a no-OS system for less than one with Windows? I can install my own if everything works with Linux. |
| jdixon Feb 20, 2007 5:58 PM EDT |
> But then why not just sell a no-OS system for less than one with Windows? Yep. I checked recently (I posted about it on another discussion), and a no-OS machine and a Windows machine configured the same came out to exactly the same price, but the Windows machine included recycling of your old machine, which the no-OS machine didn't. So you paid the Windows tax anyway. :( |
| jimf Feb 20, 2007 6:10 PM EDT |
> I thought they had changed that line to "which Linux"? Well, understand that they'll undoubtedly want to supply a 'support option'. At a premium of course. If they were to offer an installed Linux, don't expect that to be Debian. |
| dcparris Feb 20, 2007 6:18 PM EDT |
Personally, I don't care which distro. I'm not likely to buy Dell stuff anyway, but even if I bought a Dell box with, say Ubuntu pre-installed, it would just be a matter of replacing that with Debian. :-) As long as they offer _some_ distro, I can recommend people buy their boxes - well the ones with Linux on them anyway. |
| bigg Feb 20, 2007 7:09 PM EDT |
As I said several times elsewhere I've been looking for a laptop. If I can get one knowing everything works with Linux, I'll buy from Dell immediately. I'm due for a new office computer also, and it will be a Dell if I know it's Linux compatible. Of course I'd install Debian. |
| Aladdin_Sane Feb 20, 2007 11:28 PM EDT |
>and it will be a Dell if I know it's Linux compatible. The low-end Dell Precision Workstation is really a high-end from Dell's desktop line, and may be available with Linux, or Linux-validated. >But then why not just sell a no-OS system for less than one with Windows? Speaking for myself personally, this is the sale option I most want from the OEMs: No OS, just the hardware. Since I build my own systems, I don't really care, but the forced MS sale bugs me. Some say that MS lobbying of the FTC forces manufacturers to sell every system with an OS, or be under cloud of encouraging piracy of Windows. In addition to the obvious fallacy of that argument, Dell sells their servers with a No OS option, some of which are also dressed-up Dell desktops. |
| dcparris Feb 21, 2007 1:03 AM EDT |
According to John Terpstra, per a personal phone conversation, the exclusivity deals between MS and HW vendors is really commonplace. Nothing new, no big deal. What makes it a big deal in this case is that MS is an oppressive monopoly. In Terpstra's view, the marketplace still needs to be the deciding factor in kicking out MS, as opposed to depending on Gov't - courts and Congress. Perhaps MS does lobby FTC, but I really think it's just business as usual. If anyone has evidence/information to back up claims about MS lobbying the FTC, I'm all ears. Frankly, if that were the case, then Dell would be hard pressed to sell No-OS PCs, since doing so would raise eyebrows at the FTC. I highly recommend that people visit the LXer Pre-Installed Linux Vendor DB and support the vendors who offer Linux or no OS (without the MS tax). :-) |
| jdixon Feb 21, 2007 2:46 AM EDT |
> Dell would be hard pressed to sell No-OS PCs, Dell doesn't sell no-OS PC's. They sell PC's with an disk including FreeDOS. Thus, they can honor their agreement with Microsoft to include an OS with each machine while still not including Windows. Unfortunately, with the N series, the price is the same as for a box including Windows. |
| Teron Feb 21, 2007 7:43 AM EDT |
Cast approx. ten different votes. Thanks for the heads-up. |
| bigg Feb 21, 2007 8:08 AM EDT |
> In Terpstra's view, the marketplace still needs to be the deciding factor in kicking out MS, as opposed to depending on Gov't - courts and Congress. I hate to break it to this guy, but the problem is that markets don't eliminate monopolies. If the marketplace would work to eliminate monopoly, it wouldn't be a monopoly in the first place. A monopoly can use tools such as network effects to make competition nearly impossible. That is why it is called "market failure". The government can either take actions that remove the difficulties of entering a market or else to control the exercise of market power. But in any event, monopoly is a market outcome. |
| tuxchick Feb 21, 2007 8:54 AM EDT |
bigg, it all depends. Back in the olden days of Standard Oil, for one example, customers had no options. Computer users have options, and if they exercised them intelligently Microsoft's grip on the market would be a lot weaker. |
| jdixon Feb 21, 2007 8:59 AM EDT |
> ...but the problem is that markets don't eliminate monopolies. Actually, that's not a given. I've heard theoretical arguments on both sides (that markets will eventually correct any monopoly, and that it's impossible for them to do so). As far as I can tell, there's not enough real world data to prove the matter either way. What we can say based on the available evidence is that monopolies can be fairly long lived in human terms, even with a properly functioning market. Whether this is something that requires government intervention is also a debatable matter. |
| jimf Feb 21, 2007 9:28 AM EDT |
> > ...but the problem is that markets don't eliminate monopolies. In a fair market environment, it probably would. Of course with bribes, and graft, and insider trading, and special lobbies, etc, etc... So when is the market really fair? Historically, never. >something that requires government intervention is also a debatable matter. A really bad resolution, but, maybe the only one possible. |
| bigg Feb 21, 2007 9:41 AM EDT |
What you guys say is true. But in that case Microsoft would no longer be a monopolist. New technology is one way that a monopoly can be made to disappear. The point I was making is that you can't just say "Let the consumers fend for themselves." If Microsoft is actually a monopolist, and were to make it impossible for Linux to interoperate in any way with Windows (i.e., email could only be sent between Windows machines, MS Office documents could only be read on Windows machines) and dual-booting were not possible, there would be little choice but for most consumers to continue to purchase Windows. The only solution in that case would be for the government to step in and say "Hey, you guys can't do that." In order to have a monopoly it is necessary that there be no sufficiently close substitutes. The market cannot correct such a situation because the cost of not being interporable is too great for most consumers. That is not to say this is the case here. It is also not to say that government intervention will necessarily make things better. But it is to say that if Microsoft is truly a monopolist, consumers do not have a way to fix the problem (that's sort of how monopoly is defined). That is why I took issue with the statement > In Terpstra's view, the marketplace still needs to be the deciding factor in kicking out MS Microsoft would not be a monopolist if that were possible. As an aside, I have surveyed some experts on antitrust whether Linux having its current capabilities means Microsoft is still a monopolist, and the answer is mixed, because few consumers know anything about Linux. |
| dinotrac Feb 21, 2007 11:19 AM EDT |
>I hate to break it to this guy, but the problem is that markets don't eliminate monopolies. If the marketplace would work to eliminate monopoly, it wouldn't be a monopoly in the first place. Wrong. Consider Amtrak's monopoly on non-commuter passenger rail service. They've still got it, but who cares? The real monopoly was not in rails, but in travel. Amtrak may not compete with other rail lines, but it does compete with Southwest and the family car. Remember IBM's monopoly in microchannel bus machines? They lined up a few licensees, but VESA made their monopoly unimportant. How about the major networks' monopoly on entertainment? Or your local cable company? Phone company? Alternatives rise and monopolies fall or become unimportant. Happens all the time. |
| jimf Feb 21, 2007 11:29 AM EDT |
> Happens all the time. Oh sure, wait 20-30 years and a bad one may go away, but in the mean time, suck it up ;-) |
| bigg Feb 21, 2007 12:30 PM EDT |
Dino, That's not what I'm saying. Those are all examples where substitutes were available. You might be the only one producing an automobile with certain specifications, but that doesn't make you a monopolist, because other types of automobiles are close enough. In the case of Amtrak, the relevant market is transportation services, not rail service. If Microsoft does have a monopoly on the OS, that means there is no close substitute available. Again, my problem is with the statement > In Terpstra's view, the marketplace still needs to be the deciding factor in kicking out MS The introduction of new products might very well get rid of a monopoly. But what this guy is saying is that consumers can fix the problem by making a different choice. If Microsoft really is a monopolist, consumers do not have the ability to choose, or at least making a different choice is costly. |
| swbrown Feb 21, 2007 4:10 PM EDT |
I just want them to sell Linux-compatible desktop/laptops with a no-OS feature. I'll install GNU/Linux myself, I just want it to work without having to hack on it for days like some of their laptops require (*cough* inspiron 6000 *cough*). |
| dinotrac Feb 21, 2007 6:43 PM EDT |
>f Microsoft really is a monopolist, consumers do not have the ability to choose, or at least making a different choice is costly. The traditional PC desktop is proving resistant -- although, we're talking about a concept that's only been around 20 years or so. However, consumers can buy Macs, they can (if they wish) install Linux. They can use blackberries and telephones for many of the things that were done on the computer before. Game consoles have overwhelmed pcs for gaming. Litttle chinks, but chinks nonetheless. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!