Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 13:04:03 -0400 (EDT) From: Tim McMillen <timcm@umich.edu> To: Jeremiah Gowdy <jgowdy@home.com> Cc: "Victor R. Cardona" <vcardona@home.com>, "Zaitsau, Andrei" <AZaitsau@panasonicfa.com>, freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: FW: My Experience With FreeBSD Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.4.10.10010261237300.7610-100000@qix.gpcc.itd.umich.edu> In-Reply-To: <000f01c03f67$8b2e90c0$aa240018@cx443070b>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Yes, I ask the same question of every local custom built computer house I see that doesn't have anything but M$: Why no linux or FreeBSD? They say that they can't sell them until their people learn enough about it to install and support it correctly. Part of the problem is the install jobs at these places are not very high paying so anybody with really good unix/freebsd experience is likely to have better jobs. People that sell hardware can't afford to pay people that really know what they're doing so they stick to M$. Remember, companies do things that make them money and really nothing else. They don't make computers to give you a more enjoyable computational experience. They sell what people will pay cold cash for. If they were smart they would see that many people don't want to pay for M$ and that there is a market for selling computers with free operating systems. They can make a higher margin (don't have to pay the M$ price). Some of the larger OEM's can start to offer Linux but that's all they are likely to do soon because of the training costs involved. When the mass market (even those that are savvy enough to handle a free unix system) buys a computer they want it to be fully configured when they get it. It would have to have X windows and KDE or Gnome installed But then there is still th whole issue with M$'s strongarm tactics below. Tim On Thu, 26 Oct 2000, Jeremiah Gowdy wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 25, 2000 at 05:52:06PM -0500, Zaitsau, Andrei wrote: > > > Okay.. I hate doing this again. > > > But what makes the Computer manufacturers not to ship computers with > > > preinstalled FreeBSD on it, it has no licenses, it's free, it's very > robust > > > and reliable OS. They don't have to waste money on commercial OS then... > > > One more time, people won't buy those computers then, because FreeBSD > will > > > be too complicated to them. > > > > UNIX is far too complicated for the average user who just wants to surf > > the Web and write am occasional letter. However, that is not the only > > issue here. Microsoft has engaged in questionable, if not illegal > > practices in order to gain and maintain their monopoly on the desktop. > > Microsoft also tries to intimidate hardware vendors by hinting that > > computer vendors and manufacturers could be liable for somehow abetting > > software piracy if they sell a computer without an OS. Since most > > computer makers already have contracts with MS, guess what OS they are > > going to install. > > > > Victor Cardona > > Yeah, but those OEMs still ship f'ing RedHat Linux systems. No reason why > they couldn't offer FreeBSD as well. > There are only a few things that are keeping FreeBSD from launching fully > mainstream and getting the application and device driver support it needs, > and OEM support is one of them. A native version of Oracle wouldn't hurt > either :) To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.SOL.4.10.10010261237300.7610-100000>