Vista Will Exterminate Desktop Linux Once And For All.

[Kerry Brown]

Dumbsh*t. That's absolutely false. In fact a larger computer company
can MORE easily support a variety of products, OBVIOUSLY.


Wrong, moron.


That doesn't mean you can't offer other products as well, dumbass.


Differentiating your products from your competitor's increases profit
margins, fool. Offering products that people want to buy increases
profits, idiot.


This is why you're a clueless imbecile talking out of your ass.


"Worth their while" even while considering Micro$oft's
incentives/pressure-tactics.

If you can't carry on a conversation in a civilised manner you'll have a
hard time getting others to agree with you. You don't make try to make any
points. You merely denigrate the person you disagree with. Do you build
computers for a living? Have you ever ran a manufacturing business? Have you
ever ran a retail business? Do you know anything about what I was talking
about or do you merely want to trade insults? If it's the latter then I have
no interest in continuing. If you want to debate then start making some
legitimate points.

 

[chrisv]

If you can't carry on a conversation in a civilised manner you'll have a
hard time getting others to agree with you.

If you can't post without spraying nonsense all over the place, you
should just keep your ignorance to yourself, dim-bulb.

You don't make try to make any points.
You merely denigrate the person you disagree with.

Thanks for the proof that you're a bald-faced liar.

I did not "merely" denigrate you. I made several (clearly correct)
points.

Do you build computers for a living?

Irrelevant, twit, to your idiotic claims that a large computer OEM
can't support Linux as well as Windows. Amazingly, you claim that
your TINY business can more-easily do this than a large OEM! Sheesh!

Have you ever ran a manufacturing business? Have you
ever ran a retail business?

Irrelevant, dolt, to your implication that a broader product range
(offering Linux as well as Windows) is "bad" because it "increases
costs".

Gee, dumbass, maybe Toyota should just restrict themselves to cars,
since offering trucks as well would "increase costs".

I guess that one would need to "run a business" to know how fscking
STUPID that claim (and your claims) are, huh?

Do you know anything about what I was talking
about or do you merely want to trade insults?

I know enough to know that you're full of shit, on every point that I
noted in my last post.

If it's the latter then I have
no interest in continuing. If you want to debate then start making some
legitimate points.

Did it in the previous post, cretin. You merely avoided them all and
started ranting and lying about me not making any points.

 

[caver1]

Linux was never developed to be a desktop solution...so I'm not sure you even
understand your own point. Yes - certain distros of Linux are trying to
compete with MS, but won't become popular until the GUI looks exactly like
Windows XP/Vista (because thats what 98% of users work on). Users don't use
the OS...they use applications. Someone who develops a desktop Linux will
only succeed if all applications run, the GUI is idiot proof, and it is easy
for administrators to deploy and maintain. This development takes $$ which
means charging for the use of the software, which means that distro of Linux
would be proprietary, which is exactly what Linux users avoid -- The GNU
public license was created and is upheld for a reason - open source. IMHO
Linux has made and proved it's place in the server world but it is definietly
not going to make it in the desktop world...at least not for a while.

And that is why it is more secure. If and when it does become idiot
proof like MS then there will be security problem just for the reason
that it is so compatible. Why do you think Macs are more secure than MS.
How many third party software was compatible with a Mac until recently.
Linux and Windows and Macs have their place and always will.

 

[Alias~-]

It has nothing to do with how hard one OS is to deploy compared to another
but rather the cost of deploying and supporting two OSs in a large
manufacturing environment. I sell both Linux and Microsoft OEM OS based
boxes but I am small and the cost of being able to deploy two systems is
relatively small for me and I have a targeted niche market that is willing
to pay more for good service. If I was building 10,000's of systems per day
with several factories the cost of deploying two OSs would be prohibitive.
You'd have to pick one or the other or charge more for your systems. These
types of pc's are a consumer item and cost is one of the major factors in a
purchase decision. Not offering Windows is not an option in this market.
Offering two different OS's increases costs. This is why Linux is not
offered by large OEMs on consumer machines. It has nothing to do with the
merits of the OS, cost of the OS, or the ease of deployment. If you want the
large OEMs to start offering Linux then you have to create enough demand
that it is worth their while. Until that happens they won't be offering
Linux.

Um, this *nations-wide* chain will build a box to your specs with
Windows or with Linux. The charge for putting Linux on the box is free.
Maybe someday the USA will wake up but, after all, they did vote for
Bush. Twice. So who knows?

http://www.pcbox.com/intl/default.asp

NB: I am in no way connected to PC Box, just a satisfied customer.

Alias

 

[caver1]

If you can't carry on a conversation in a civilised manner you'll have a
hard time getting others to agree with you. You don't make try to make any
points. You merely denigrate the person you disagree with. Do you build
computers for a living? Have you ever ran a manufacturing business? Have you
ever ran a retail business? Do you know anything about what I was talking
about or do you merely want to trade insults? If it's the latter then I have
no interest in continuing. If you want to debate then start making some
legitimate points.

Second your reply. I learn a lot from this newsgroup reading it daily
and researching the links provided. No I still don't know enough to
help most people out. But I sure get tired of people on here who have to
denigrate the other person. It has no place here.

 

[Kerry Brown]

If you can't post without spraying nonsense all over the place, you
should just keep your ignorance to yourself, dim-bulb.


Thanks for the proof that you're a bald-faced liar.

I did not "merely" denigrate you. I made several (clearly correct)
points.


Irrelevant, twit, to your idiotic claims that a large computer OEM
can't support Linux as well as Windows. Amazingly, you claim that
your TINY business can more-easily do this than a large OEM! Sheesh!


Irrelevant, dolt, to your implication that a broader product range
(offering Linux as well as Windows) is "bad" because it "increases
costs".

Gee, dumbass, maybe Toyota should just restrict themselves to cars,
since offering trucks as well would "increase costs".

I guess that one would need to "run a business" to know how fscking
STUPID that claim (and your claims) are, huh?


I know enough to know that you're full of shit, on every point that I
noted in my last post.


Did it in the previous post, cretin. You merely avoided them all and
started ranting and lying about me not making any points.

Why do you feel the need to constantly call someone names? I can think of a
few reasons but as none of them are very flattering to you I won't mention
them in case I am wrong. If you can respond in a civil manner I will respond
to the points that I think you are trying to make. It is hard to be sure
what your points are as your posts are rather incoherent but I'll give it
shot if you are willing to be civil.

 

[chrisv]

Why do you feel the need to constantly call someone names? I can think of a
few reasons but as none of them are very flattering to you I won't mention
them in case I am wrong. If you can respond in a civil manner I will respond
to the points that I think you are trying to make. It is hard to be sure
what your points are as your posts are rather incoherent but I'll give it
shot if you are willing to be civil.

You claim that large PC OEM must offer Windows exclusively, since the
market demands that they offer Windows machines, and supporting both
Windows and Linux would be too expensive.

Your claim is utter nonsense. Of course increasing the breadth of
your product line increases costs, but it also increases revenues.
This is why Toyota sells trucks in addition to cars. This is why
Toyota makes products designed specifically for the American market.
This is why they make 2-seat sporty cars even though only a tiny
percentage of buyers want them. Large companies are MORE able to
support broad product lines than what small companies are able to
support, NOT LESS.

All of your premises were false, and all of your conclusions were
false.

 

[altheim]

You were, idiot. "why don't they sell boxes with Linux"

You're mistaken. It is the distributors and/or retailers who
load software, including operating systems in order to make
them saleable, not the Original Equipment Manufacturers.
Show me where I have once mentioned OEMs.

 

[Bob I]

Kerry Brown wrote:




You claim that large PC OEM must offer Windows exclusively, since the
market demands that they offer Windows machines, and supporting both
Windows and Linux would be too expensive.

Your claim is utter nonsense. Of course increasing the breadth of
your product line increases costs, but it also increases revenues.
This is why Toyota sells trucks in addition to cars. This is why
Toyota makes products designed specifically for the American market.
This is why they make 2-seat sporty cars even though only a tiny
percentage of buyers want them. Large companies are MORE able to
support broad product lines than what small companies are able to
support, NOT LESS.

All of your premises were false, and all of your conclusions were
false.

Companies will create and sell product lines that increase their income
faster than support of said product line increases their expenses. If
adding a product line would increase sales 5% but increase support costs
100%, then the companys product line choice will be fairly evident to
any unbiased observer.

 

[altheim]

It has nothing to do with how hard one OS is to deploy compared to another
but rather the cost of deploying and supporting two OSs in a large
manufacturing environment. I sell both Linux and Microsoft OEM OS based
boxes but I am small and the cost of being able to deploy two systems is
relatively small for me and I have a targeted niche market that is willing
to pay more for good service. If I was building 10,000's of systems per
day with several factories the cost of deploying two OSs would be
prohibitive. You'd have to pick one or the other or charge more for your
systems. These types of pc's are a consumer item and cost is one of the
major factors in a purchase decision. Not offering Windows is not an
option in this market. Offering two different OS's increases costs. This
is why Linux is not offered by large OEMs on consumer machines. It has
nothing to do with the merits of the OS, cost of the OS, or the ease of
deployment. If you want the large OEMs to start offering Linux then you
have to create enough demand that it is worth their while. Until that
happens they won't be offering Linux.

Hang on a minnit - I've just told chrisv that the OEMs are not the
ones who load OSes. Are you telling me they do? I thought
OEMs only made and distributed the hardware.

 

[chrisv]

Companies will create and sell product lines that increase their income
faster than support of said product line increases their expenses. If
adding a product line would increase sales 5% but increase support costs
100%, then the companys product line choice will be fairly evident to
any unbiased observer.

Nice straw man, dumbass.

 

[chrisv]

You're mistaken. It is the distributors and/or retailers who
load software, including operating systems in order to make
them saleable, not the Original Equipment Manufacturers.
Wrong.

Show me where I have once mentioned OEMs.

Idiot.

 

[Kerry Brown]

You claim that large PC OEM must offer Windows exclusively, since the
market demands that they offer Windows machines, and supporting both
Windows and Linux would be too expensive.

As neither of us has access to the financial records of large OEM computer
manufacturers this discussion is all conjecture on both of our parts. I have
run several retail stores some of them computer related. I have also been a
Microsoft OEM partner for the last fifteen years. I do know the computer
market from a small OEM's perspective and as a retailer. In the consumer
segment of the market price is the overriding factor. This is why all the
crap from Dell, eMachines, and HP/Compaq dominate this market. The margins
are very slim as I know personally and also from the public records of the
above mentioned companies.

http://www.succeedinginbusiness.com/blog/archives/000093.html

In the above link Dell's profit margins are listed as 6.3% and HP's 4.4%. In
HP's case the computer division actually lost money. This is old data (2004)
but newer data is hard to come by for large companies. I know in my case the
net profit margin for a low end consumer pc is less than 8%. This is if I
charge a premium over the large OEMs. If I try to match prices I lose money.
This is why that end of the market is dominated by the big players. Changing
a production line to double the number of models (i.e. have an option for an
alternate OS on each model) would be expensive but as you rightly say they
could probably afford that expense. After all it is really just the cost of
developing the technology and changing the disk preload image. The really
expensive proposition is supporting two OSs. Add the two expenses together
and whoever did this would have to increase their price. In such a
competitive market no one is willing to try this.

Your claim is utter nonsense. Of course increasing the breadth of
your product line increases costs, but it also increases revenues.

How would this increase revenues? I don't think offering an alternative OS
would increase sales. For the reasons I mention above I don't think they
would be able to increase their prices. Where does the additional revenue
come from?

This is why Toyota sells trucks in addition to cars. This is why
Toyota makes products designed specifically for the American market.
This is why they make 2-seat sporty cars even though only a tiny
percentage of buyers want them. Large companies are MORE able to
support broad product lines than what small companies are able to
support, NOT LESS.

There are many reasons car manufacturers have a broad product line. Their
business model is very different from a computer manufacturer. They sell
enough high profit models to be able to try to increase market share in the
low end by accepting a lower profit margin from that segment. Computer
manufacturers don't have this luxury. IBM tried to work this model and
failed. HP and Compaq also tried to do this and failed. It would be
suprising if after those very public failures someone tried it again.

All of your premises were false, and all of your conclusions were
false.

Thank you for the polite response. We differ on if my premises were false
but at least we are now conversing civilly about why we differ. I personally
would like to see more diversity in the OS marketplace. Everyone would
benefit in the long run. Competition improves a product. In order for anyone
to compete with an existing monopoly they have to create a consumer demand
for an alternative to that monopoly. Just having something that is better
won't do it. In the western world companies operate on the principle of
generating a profit. If there was a demand for an alternative to Windows and
people were willing to pay a premium for it all the major OEMs would be
offering alternatives tomorrow. They key is there has to be a demand and
there has to be a reason (demand) to incur a cost or change the status quo.
Apple is starting to create this demand. Their market share is increasing
even though they charge a premium so it can be done. I don't see anyone
doing it with Linux. The community is too fractured at this point in time.
It would take a large marketing effort (see the mac vs PC ads) and the will
to lose money for a number of years in order to convince Joe Consumer that
they need Linux. It would be nice if it happened but so far it hasn't.

 

[Bob I]

Bob I wrote:




Nice straw man, dumbass.

Even my butt has a higher IQ than your brain.

Cheers

 

[Kerry Brown]

Hang on a minnit - I've just told chrisv that the OEMs are not the
ones who load OSes. Are you telling me they do? I thought
OEMs only made and distributed the hardware.

The OEMs load the software. Who did you think does it? It is part of
manufacturing a computer. In the case of a large OEM they may very well
contract out the preloading of hard drives but they are responsible for it
and determine what is on there and how it is put on there.

 

[Margrave]

Idiot. The OEM's have computer experts who are not "newbies".

Yes, and they cost more money than Windows experts.

 

[Margrave]

It has nothing to do with how hard one OS is to deploy compared to another

Dumbsh*t. That's absolutely false. In fact a larger computer company
can MORE easily support a variety of products, OBVIOUSLY.

<snip>

I have to go with Kerry Brown. He is showing some business sense.

It's cost that counts. Two OSs cost more to support than one. And that's
hard for a manufacturer to swallow, unless there's a higher markup to
justify the second (Linux) OS.

In the mainstream PC market, low-end products dominate. Margins are tight,
and makers have to work hard to stay profitable. Supporting a second OS in
your low-margin products is hard.

Contrast this with the server market. Where margins are greater, Linux can
get in more easily.

Further, Linux provides a natural migration path for Unix server shops. For
the customer, Unix (whether HP, Sun, IBM, or other) is MUCH more expensive
than Linux, both to own and to maintain. That's where Linux slides in
easily. (HP will soon drop HP-UX. IBM is already pushing Linux more than
AIX. I wonder when Sun will drop Solaris?) Lots of growth potential.

But, domestically, I see Linux growing only slowly on the desktop, due to a
high level of dependence on existing Windows software.

In contrast, the BRICK countries [Brazil, Russia, India, China, Korea] show
a different pattern. These countries show high growth in knowledge-workers,
who can be more easily moved to Linux.

BTW, "dumbshit" and similar terms don't help your credibility.

 

[Margrave]

Why do you feel the need to constantly call someone names? I can think of
a few reasons but as none of them are very flattering to you I won't
mention them in case I am wrong. If you can respond in a civil manner I
will respond to the points that I think you are trying to make. It is hard
to be sure what your points are as your posts are rather incoherent but
I'll give it shot if you are willing to be civil.

Because he's a troll.

If you're new to usenet ... get used to this.
Civility is uncommon and unexpected.

 

[altheim]

Idiot.

You can't, can you -

Bwaaahahahahahahahahhahahaahahah

 

[Kerry Brown]

Because he's a troll.

If you're new to usenet ... get used to this.
Civility is uncommon and unexpected.

I have been around since the early BBS days before Usenet existed. I can
recognise a troll. There is never an excuse for not being polite. It's a
holiday here and I'm having lazy day doing a bit of fishing myself. In the
end he toned down his rhetoric and we are having a decent conversation.