Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

5994Re: [linux-dell-laptops] Re: Dell cancelling Linux on desktop and laptop systems.u

Expand Messages
  • jsc3@havoc.gtf.org
    Aug 22, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      > hrmmm ... here goes ...
      > > I will agree, I guess. At least for now. But wait until the new
      > > Windows XP licensing model takes effect. You want to change your
      > > hardware again? Oops, you are over the limit, gotta call M$ and
      > > get a new key. You want dual processors? Oh, you have to pay
      > > for the Enterprise version (double or triple the price, at least).
      > > You want to run Windows under VMware, in addition to being able
      > > to dual boot it? Another license nightmare... If M$ keeps going
      > > this direction to capture all of the revenue they can, because of
      > > a perceived lack of growth opportunities in other directions, then
      > > the perceived ease of use will be diminished, particularly in
      > > multiple computer households (I have a desktop and a laptop, my
      > > wife and son each have a desktop, and my wife wants a laptop).
      > > In the future, M$ wants to make sure you have licenses for each
      > > and every one of those. To be sure, that is the law now, but
      > > how many people actually buy multiple licenses in this situation.
      > > I think I am a rarity in that I probably have more valid M$
      > > licenses than machines, just because I buy them used when
      > > necessary (anybody want a Windows ME license - what a piece
      > > of crap that OS is, crashes all the time, worse than Windows 98).
      > I never thought of it that way.
      > But now that you do bring it up, I can see how microsoft plans to stick
      > companies like Dell into hell with the various licenses.

      Actually, it is not the consumer as much as the end user, unless M$
      intends to have the end user call Dell (or whichever vendor sells the
      hardware) rather than M$ to update the license keys or something.

      > > Yes, but thousands more just bought their Dell with Windows, either because
      > > they couldn't find the model with Linux on it (since Dell did not make
      > > them easy to find), or because they were very limited in what what Dell
      > > offered them with Linux on it? This group here is proof that most of
      > > the people running Linux on Dell laptops did NOT buy them that way
      > > from Dell. It is also proof that some real work is left before Linux
      > > runs as smoothly on laptops as Windows does.
      > I fully agree that there must of been plenty of people on this mailing list
      > who had to buy their laptop with windows, even if they didn't want to.
      > However, I know for a fact when you look at the numbers of those poeople who
      > *wanted* to buy their computers with windows as opposed to those who wanted
      > to buy their computer with linux, there will one very large difference.

      Agreed, but still, the number of people who WANT Linux is significant, and

      > > Actually, both XFS and JFS are good filesystems, with proven track
      > > records. I for one would feel very happy if my Redhat 8.1 came with
      > > XFS as a standard supported filesystem. Unlike ReiserFS, XFS is proven
      > > in multiprocessor multithreaded applications, and it has a lot of
      > > basic utilities (such as a working dump and restore) that ReiserFS
      > > seems to lack. I for one think that IBM and SGI involvement is a
      > > good thing. To be sure, IBM is looking at using Linux for its
      > > own benefit, particularly as a way of getting back at M$. If
      > > IBM can put Linux on its servers, and avoid paying M$ for Windows
      > > licenses on them, it is quite happy to do so. I don't think
      > > IBM can take control of Linux - it is less able to do so than
      > > it was able to control Windows. Linux is a grassroots movement,
      > > and if IBM doesn't play the way the people wish, IBM will be
      > > ignored, even more effectively than M$ ignored them when they
      > > had differences of opinion.
      > >
      > its not about those technologies being good or bad. Its about who chooses
      > what goes into the kernel and what not. The last thing we need is for linux
      > to turn into corporate political fued, in which the corporation and not the
      > people would be choosing what will happen to linux. However, thanks to linux
      > being OSS, if the kernel ever became under corporate control, some kernel
      > hacker like Alan Cox, or Al Viro would simply fork the code, and do as they
      > pleased.

      And do you really think Linus is going to let IBM have the kernel - I
      seriously think not. Linus will be the final arbiter of what goes
      in the "official" kernel, and then Alan Cox etc are still always
      there, as ever.

      > > I am also pretty sure the M$ encouraged Dell to ignore Linux, just as
      > > Intel encourages Dell to ignore AMD.
      > >
      > actually ... look at the following link ...
      > http://arstechnica.com/archive/2001/0601-1.html

      The link to the survey is gone, and I still don't see any AMD at
      Dell. One thing AMD allows the manufacturers to do is lower the
      price. They were leading in performance as well, but they let
      that slip (a big mistake in my opinion). IBM recently indicated
      there are dropping AMD, so Dell is no longer alone as the only
      major vendor that doesn't offer an AMD solution.

      > One of the posts talks about how dell sticks to Intel because they can get
      > more money from major corporate accounts as opposed to using AMD.

      Yeah, but the consumer market has shown it cared more about low prices
      and high performance, and right now, the corporate market is not buying
      a lot of anything.

      John Cronin
      mailto: `echo NjsOc3@... | sed 's/[NOSPAM]//g'`
    • Show all 19 messages in this topic