<!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:1240284965.3976.581.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">
Notwisthstanding the comments I received on this list, nobody convinced
me that major manufacturers are right to build computers solely around
the Windows operating system.</blockquote>
<br>
One shouldn't need "convincing" about matters of provable fact.<br>
<br>
Manufacturers do NOT build computers solely around Windows.<br>
<br>
Some computers come pre-installed with Solaris. Some do indeed offer
Linux as a pre-load. Even HP has Linux pre-loads on some models, as I
attempted to demonstrate previously. Your whine^H^H^H^H^Hcomplaint is
that the specific model that YOU want only has Windows as a pre-load.<br>
<br>
Too bad. Choose the bundle or don't. HP owes you nothing -- and,
conversely, you certainly don't owe HP your business if they don't
offer a computer you'd want to buy, for whatever reason.<br>
<br>
But buying an HP computer with Windows installed and then suing HP for
giving you what you bought? Sorry, but to me that is not only just
foolish, it impacts me as a taxpayer because I help fund the court
system that you seem eager to clog with yet another pointless and
frivolous lawsuit. Then again, in Canadian courts the loser often pays
the winners' legal fees, so perhaps you may yet get an expensive lesson
out of this process.<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:1240284965.3976.581.camel-egX5H+F/hXEu8BFL9Asa/WHqWbEk1Anr@public.gmane.org"
type="cite"> The idea of building whole industries around one
proprietary operating system is absurd.</blockquote>
That idea lives or dies in the marketplace. If there is demand for
systems without Windows pre-installed, suppliers will offer it. There
are not enough of you around to make a Linux pre-installed system (in
the model of your choice) important to HP. Well, at least not here --
I'll take your word for it that there is enough demand in other parts
of the world to make Linux pre-installs marketable for HP elsewhere.<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:1240284965.3976.581.camel-egX5H+F/hXEu8BFL9Asa/WHqWbEk1Anr@public.gmane.org"
type="cite">Most manufacturers have a business class models such as
HP, Toshiba (the pro and tecra lines) or any other manufacturer. In the
corporate/institutional/technical world linux/uninx is the standard,
not Windows.</blockquote>
<br>
That is your personal assertion. Obviously HP asserts otherwise. If
they are wrong they will suffer in the marketplace, and react
accordingly. HP's continuance in the market indicates that they are
comfortable with their assessment of what is "standard".<br>
<br>
Of course life in the server world -- and the approach to OS selection
there -- is much different that it is on the desktop or laptop. There I
would think that HP would be very proactive in its Linux support. But
perhaps they do not see much traction for Linux desktops, and whether
they are correct or not in that view, they are not alone in holding it.
(<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.workswithu.com/2009/04/06/red-hat-dismisses-consumer-desktop-linux-again/">http://www.workswithu.com/2009/04/06/red-hat-dismisses-consumer-desktop-linux-again/</a>)<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:1240284965.3976.581.camel-egX5H+F/hXEu8BFL9Asa/WHqWbEk1Anr@public.gmane.org"
type="cite"> Be it supply chain management, hospitals, infrastructure
or whathaveyou. To sell laptops based around the Windows operating
system in this category is counterproductive to the
corporate/infrastructural/public service world at large. It just makes
sense to offer no O/S as an option in this area.</blockquote>
<br>
If that were the case then HP's business laptop division would be
highly unprofitable. However I do not believe that to be accurate. What
"makes sense" to HP is the path that will maximize revenue. They owe
you nothing.<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:1240284965.3976.581.camel-egX5H+F/hXEu8BFL9Asa/WHqWbEk1Anr@public.gmane.org"
type="cite"> The simple issue is manufacturers say you must pay for
Windows, whether you need it or not, and that is flat out wrong.</blockquote>
<br>
That is an assertion of morality, not logic and certainly not the most
basic economics.<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:1240284965.3976.581.camel-egX5H+F/hXEu8BFL9Asa/WHqWbEk1Anr@public.gmane.org"
type="cite"> Companies once had a policy that dumping toxic byproducts
in the environment was perfectly acceptible behaviour until citizens
lobbied governments to legislate otherwise. Consumer advocacy can be
positive and help companies develop positive policies--even if
comapnies are against what consumers advocate in the short term, in the
long run they could be doing said companies a favor.</blockquote>
<br>
No matter what anyone here thinks about Microsoft, I would suggest that
comparing the sales of Windows to the dumping of toxic waste would be
considered an extreme position, and not one that a distinterested
public would take seriously.<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:1240284965.3976.581.camel-egX5H+F/hXEu8BFL9Asa/WHqWbEk1Anr@public.gmane.org"
type="cite">I thought this was the Linux users group!</blockquote>
<br>
Indeed it is. However, it is not (universally) the Linux zealots'
group. Not everyone here buys into the choice of OS as a
good-versus-evil morality play.<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:1240284965.3976.581.camel-egX5H+F/hXEu8BFL9Asa/WHqWbEk1Anr@public.gmane.org"
type="cite">Surely my views are not counterintuitive here.</blockquote>
<br>
Well, they certainly go counter to any intiution I have about what
constitutes a "right".<br>
<br>
- Evan<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>