Dream on
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| Void_Main Jul 08, 2004 12:27 AM EDT |
I could have sworn I heard that conspiracy theory somewhere else: http://linuxnews.com/module/forums/t/9445/ As I mentioned in another thread that not only do I not want to buy a Dell with Windows but I just as much don't want to buy a Dell with Lindows on it. I gotta think there are a lot of other people out there who want unbundled named brand PCs, and when we say "unbundled" we mean "unbundled". We want a real choice. That is, you can offer any Windows and Linux OS you want as long as you also offer the same machine *without* an OS for those of us who use something else. Now, I disagree 100% with the article where it thinks because the web site had 200,000 hits that will somehow turn in to a significant number of sales. Are there really people out there screaming for Dell/Lindows PCs? I have a feeling this is more of a slashdot effect from the 200 articles posted about the non-event, 50 of which are posted on this site alone. They've really been advertising the heck out of this Lindows stuff lately. Yep, Robertson is working on Chapter 2 of the Bill Gates' book "How to Become a Bazillionaire". Too bad there isn't room in this world for 2 bazillionaires. Bazillionaire #1 will do everything in his power to prevent a bazillionaire #2 and bazillionaire #1 has a lot of power. I gotta hand it to him. He's getting good at getting free advertising (or is it). |
| tzafrir Jul 08, 2004 9:04 AM EDT |
Most people will want to have a fully-functioning computer with minimum operational hassles. Indeed some folks (me included) like to install their own software but most people want to have the system "just work". Not to mention that reducing the number of officially-supported OSes reduces support cost. Lindows (and Windows, without MS-Office) is generally a bad choice in that sense: you have to install your own add-on software. Both don't come with decent productivity tools like most Linux deistros. |
| Void_Main Jul 08, 2004 1:04 PM EDT |
Not to mention that reducing the number of officially-supported OSes reduces support cost. I don't know if you are referring to what I wrote but if I take what you say literally then it would be better for the hardware vendor to just sell Windows and not have Linux at all right? How about if you offer the "naked" PC like what I suggested I wanted? That should be even better yet because it would lower the software support cost to "$0". In fact, not only should I be able to get a break on price for getting an OS free PC but I should get yet another break on the price because I am waiving all software support. I should not be a burden to the vendor one bit, unless their hardware breaks. Offering a naked PC along with whatever else they're selling should not add one bit of overhead and in fact should be less of a hassle for the hardware vendor and reduce costs. They should actually be able to turn a better profit in addition to giving me a lower cost PC. Why is this such a hard concept to grasp for the manufacturers? It's because of the pressure from Microsoft, I'm sure. By not offering a naked PC they are losing at least one sale and I know there are plenty of others out there like me. And then there are all those people who purchase the PC with Windows on it only to format the drive and install Linux. Here's the deal. I also contribute to open source projects. Everything I work on is licensed under the GPL. I enjoy the community efforts. I contribute because I make the software work better for me and give my changes back for others to benefit from. People in the community return the favor. I don't have a problem with vendors making a profit off of my labor even though that is not why I contribute to the projects. In fact I even help fix bugs in one of the big name distros on occasion. What I *do* have a problem with is being *forced* to pay some vendor for the software *I* have written. Robertson knows that Gates is raking in the dough with his push for forcing the vendor to sell a PC with an OS for the (off the mark) reason that if the vendor sells a PC without an OS then every one of those will end up with a Warez copy of Windows and Microsoft will go bankrupt. Robertson knows that if he agrees with this concept but makes deals for his repackaged Debian distro to be offered as an alternative then he can get rich too. Heck, it's an easier scheme for getting rich than even Microsoft has. They don't actually have to do much of the development. Little cost, mostly profit. I don't want to play any part in either scheme, in fact if I was forced at gunpoint to choose one or the other I would almost have to choose Windows. Why should I have to pay someone for a product I will not use? I don't know, am I the only one who is steamed at the vendors? It will be a banner day when I can order any PC from any of the vendors, and/or I can walk in to Best Buy and puchase a PC without any software bundled with it *and* get it for a better price than had I got it bundled with the software. Tell me why this would be so difficult and non-profitable for the vendor? I know I can build my own PC. I also know there are a few small vendors where I can buy my machines, in fact this is how I have been doing it for the last several years now. It just would be nice to be able to get one from a major vendor this way. Sorry for continuing to ramble over this issue but it just gets me so worked up. |
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!