<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
I. Khider wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:1240295096.3976.888.camel-egX5H+F/hXEu8BFL9Asa/WHqWbEk1Anr@public.gmane.org"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; ">
<meta name="GENERATOR" content="GtkHTML/3.24.5">
Well looks like I am alone in the room here in thinking that the idea
of pre-installing machines with Windows (or Mac for that matter,
equally horrid) as a default option in our society is wrong.</blockquote>
<br>
You are not alone in the assessment that Linux (and open source in
general) is naturally superior in its development model, its benefits
to users, its freedoms and its flexibility.<br>
<br>
However, that is very different from insisting that society *require*
it as a moral issue or to demand HP to sell Linux pre-loads that the
marketplace won't buy.<br>
<br>
It's totally possible that the savings HP achieves through the sheer
volume of making all systems the same way (ie, with Windows) outweighs
the cost penalty of paying for that Windows. If you could get a no-OS
system that would cost more that the Windows system because it could
not be produced in enough volume, would that be better?<br>
<br>
Remember, you're still ahead of the game. It's easier to install Linux
on a Windows pre-load than to install Windows on a Linux pre-load. The
Windows MBR loader can't boot multiple OSs -- grub and LILO exist to do
exactly that.<br>
<br>
Your moral outrage about giving money to Microsoft is noted -- and not
without merit. However, you're in danger when you let that sentiment
block your normal consumer instincts.<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:1240295096.3976.888.camel-egX5H+F/hXEu8BFL9Asa/WHqWbEk1Anr@public.gmane.org"
type="cite"> The fact that students have to resort to piracy to get
software they need from Mac or Windows to develop their education and
ideas is pretty toxic in my books.</blockquote>
<br>
That's not a Linux issue, and it's also not all-or-nothing. The
students are perfectly welcome to use OpenOffice and Mozilla products
and accomplish the vast majority of what they need with open source
applications -- even on a Windows platform. Such a hybrid configuration
has in fact been a successful way to get end-users comfortable with the
quality of open source before taking the plunge on their OS platform.<br>
<br>
That the students pirate proprietary software, when freely available
alternatives exist, is indeed toxic -- and easily avoidable.<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:1240295096.3976.888.camel-egX5H+F/hXEu8BFL9Asa/WHqWbEk1Anr@public.gmane.org"
type="cite"> This list states</blockquote>
By the way, there are only a handful of speakers in this thread. "This
list" remains generally silent.<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:1240295096.3976.888.camel-egX5H+F/hXEu8BFL9Asa/WHqWbEk1Anr@public.gmane.org"
type="cite"> I am taking an extreme pro-Linux stance when I am say we
need 'choice' is unfair--I am looking for balance.</blockquote>
No you're not. You're looking to force companies to make a product for
you that they have determined to be not in their interest to sell.<br>
<br>
Open source is a latecomer to this game, relatively speaking. It's only
been suitable for mainstream desktop consumption in the last few years
and there are many who say we still aren't there yet. The gains are
slow but are unmistakably there. You gain nothing but resentment in
trying to get the courts or the law to speed up a societal process that
is naturally slow.<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:1240295096.3976.888.camel-egX5H+F/hXEu8BFL9Asa/WHqWbEk1Anr@public.gmane.org"
type="cite"> I say, resort to civil means if one has to--to
re-introduce balance and harmony. That opensource options are not being
pursued because companies have successfuly marginalized them out of
existence thanks to consumer complacency--especially in Canada.</blockquote>
<br>
Sorry, but that's BS.<br>
<br>
HP has not marginalized Linux. The marketplace has, and HP is just
responding.<br>
Where the market wants Linux -- on netbooks and servers -- HP gladly
responds.<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:1240295096.3976.888.camel-egX5H+F/hXEu8BFL9Asa/WHqWbEk1Anr@public.gmane.org"
type="cite">We live in a society where proprietary software is the
default and to implement opensource/free software has to be an uphill
battle. Why not default to free and then pick proprietary if we want it?<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Why not start a company and offer this alternative? If it's as great as
you say you should be surpassing HP quickly.<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:1240295096.3976.888.camel-egX5H+F/hXEu8BFL9Asa/WHqWbEk1Anr@public.gmane.org"
type="cite">I will tell you why I am not extreme, easily. look around
you, Windows and Mac/OS is the default--we are already in an extreme
position.</blockquote>
<br>
I am unable to make the connection between "Windows and Mac/OS is the
default" and "we are already in an extreme position". If you have a
point to make you're not doing it very well.<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:1240295096.3976.888.camel-egX5H+F/hXEu8BFL9Asa/WHqWbEk1Anr@public.gmane.org"
type="cite"> I am saying let us have balance and choice. How is that
extreme? think about it. Companies dictate our tools, culture, and
development</blockquote>
<br>
Again, BS. You have the choice of what to buy or use, the language you
speak, the culture you practice, and your models of development. If the
marketplace doesn't satisfy your needs, and there are others who share
your needs, ENTER THE MARKET YOURSELF with alternatives. If there are
enough others that share your needs you will easily succeed and indeed
attract more players to compete with you offering the same.<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:1240295096.3976.888.camel-egX5H+F/hXEu8BFL9Asa/WHqWbEk1Anr@public.gmane.org"
type="cite">So I am the one whining here? There is a difference
between making a statement and whining, and I am making a clear
statement--these companies need to be taken to task. I support these
companies, we all do--because we nned them and vice versa.</blockquote>
Your best way to take them to task is to NOT BUY THEIR PRODUCT. If
enough people follow suit they will fail as a company.<br>
<br>
(Just ask Chrysler...)<br>
<br>
I fail to see how you would buy the products of a company whose
policies you hate so much, when alternatives and other vendors exist.<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:1240295096.3976.888.camel-egX5H+F/hXEu8BFL9Asa/WHqWbEk1Anr@public.gmane.org"
type="cite"> If I run a business and my clients ask a small reasonable
change to make their lives easier (at almost no cost to me) you bet I
will give it to them! Do unto others as you would have done yourself.</blockquote>
<br>
The change you propose is not "almost no cost" to HP, and you know it.<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:1240295096.3976.888.camel-egX5H+F/hXEu8BFL9Asa/WHqWbEk1Anr@public.gmane.org"
type="cite">if I can't change the people around me, then I change the
people around me.</blockquote>
<br>
I guess this is as good a summary of the logic as I can think of...<br>
<br>
<br>
- Evan<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>