On Sat, 17 May 2008 02:46:06 GMT, Canuck57 wrote:
> "Stephan Rose" <nospam@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:mP6dnaT9Ea0BhbPVnZ2dnUVZ_gSdnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>> Well the issue is essentially this.
>>
>> If someone wants Windows, what do they do? They buy a PC.
>>
>> If they want MacOS, what do they do? They buy a Mac.
>>
>> If they want Linux (assuming they even know it exists in the first
>> place)? Buying a pre-installed Linux system is generally only possible
if
>> you *know* about it ahead of time and even then selection is limited.
>>
>> The only realistic way to get Linux on any PC is to install it manually
>> and therein lies the problem. People in general can barely handling
>> installing an application...you expect them to install an OS? Any OS?
>> There is a *very* good reason why PC manufacturers include Recovery CD/
>> DVDs with their computers and not Windows install CDs.
>>
>> So ultimately the issue has little to do with Linux being better or
worse
>> or being free or not free. It has everything to do with availability in
>> such a way that the average person can actually obtain it.
>>
>> If Linux was placed on even ground in terms of pre-installed
availability
>> with Windows then things would be very different.
>
> They indeed would be different. If a Best Buy PC booted up, said Linux
or
> Vista, Vista $50 -- Microsoft would be in a whole world of hurt. Right
now,
> Microsoft is running their business on predatory and extortionist
pricing.
> Due to "bundling" practices. Cracking at the seams too.
Are you kidding?
See my other post but in a nutshell, people will still demand Windows.
Just like they do now.
--
Moshe Goldfarb
Collector of soaps from around the globe.
Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/
|
