“A few months back, LXer reader, cyber_rigger, began compiling a list of vendors who offer GNU/Linux pre-installed. The list quickly grew, even drawing attention from other news outlets. Meanwhile, the LXer team went to work to produce a usable database that anyone can browse and search. We still have one or two features to implement, but users can quickly and easily browse the Pre-Installed Linux Vendor Database of 106 vendors. All vendors in the list offer reasonably-priced desktops and/or notebooks for home and office users, and either offer Linux only, or as an installation option on the system configuration page of their sites.”
I need Visual Studio and NWN2. I prefer Windows.
I prefer Windows.
Just because you prefer Windows, it should be the only preinstalled option for everybody else?
I know I prefer Windows, my sisters and brother in laws prefer windows and so on so a BIG NO THANK YOU.
Now why it will get modded down vs the same no thanks post in Vista news gets modded up, is something curious mind ask:)
It just shows how intolerant muslim oops linux community is.
Actually I did it on purpose to prove a point. I am glad I succeded.
They worked hard to earn their nickname I gave them: OSS fundies. Narrow-minded ding ding… lol
PS: First post was a bonus.
Edited 2006-11-13 22:56
Actually I did it on purpose to prove a point. I am glad I succeded.
You are purposfully posting offtopic for being modded down?
Wouldn’t it be better to just skip discussions of articles you are not interested in?
Wouldn’t be able to prove my point then…
Still haven’t.
I know. I doubt they will get it.
I know I prefer Windows, my sisters and brother in laws prefer windows and so on so a BIG NO THANK YOU.
Now why it will get modded down vs the same no thanks post in Vista news gets modded up, is something curious mind ask:)
It just shows how intolerant linux community is. You are the worst community Linux fanboys.
Edited 2006-11-13 23:57
You will refer to me as a Linux Fan-Man.
I am Dudesdad.
I am not your Father although I AM your DADDY.
Jerald: I love the pussy you came from…smooth;)
Are you a necrophiliac?
That explains it!
Are you a bastard?
That explains it too!
Your troll is acceptable.
OSAlert does tend to be very pro ‘free software’ and anti-microsoft.
But a large amount of the world is pro-microsoft(even if they don’t realise there are alternatives) and anti ‘free software’, Somebody has to stick up for the littler guy.
OSAlert tends to be pro-cool stuff. I never seen it being very pro ‘free software’ nor anti-microsoft. They put news that is happening at the moment.
The world isn’t “pro-microsoft” nor “anti-free software.”
It’s all in your head.
The commentators and people who click the little +’s and -‘s are pro-OSS and rabidly anti-Microsoft.
So you admit the purpose of your post was not only irrelevant to the story and off-topic, but purposefully trying to stir up the ardor of the thin-skinned?
No wonder you got modded down.
Which distro are you using?
Xubuntu 6.10, why? I’ve previously used Kubuntu and before that, Gentoo on my laptop but Gentoo was a bit too high-maintenance.
I’m currently posting this from a Fedora Core 4 system I have to use at school (because of proprietary software, believe it or not)
“””So you admit the purpose of your post was not only irrelevant to the story and off-topic, but purposefully trying to stir up the ardor of the thin-skinned?
No wonder you got modded down.”””
I am a Linux advocate and I strongly disagree with the modding down.
Ronald, your *original* post was on topic and phrased well.
Paraphrased: I need this and that app and *prefer* Windows.
That’s a good post. A bit gratuitous, perhaps. But non-offensive, in my book. You state a preference and you state your reasons.
Guys, while I’m well aware that the moderation system around here is a joke, we don’t want to be the ones abusing it. It *hurts* the reputations of Linux and Open Source to do so.
Now, I’ve abused the system myself at times. It’s just *so* easy to do. But it’s pretty easy to see that it was a mistake to do so.
We often claim the moral high-ground. Now, maybe that’s right, and maybe it’s wrong. But it sure as hell means that our actions need to be above question lest they be used against us.
Let’s mod this guy’s *original* post back to where it should be. I’d say a 1 would be appropriate. I’ve already given it my +1.
Ronald, your second post was flame bait and no one should be surprised that it was modded down, though it might have been better not to. But then again, you probably shouldn’t have posted it.
Sincerely,
Steve Bergman
Edited 2006-11-14 17:55
LoL the intolerant modding down has begin…hahaha…you lusers aka linux users are a bunch of pussies:))
Edited 2006-11-13 22:51
Just because you prefer Windows, it should be the only preinstalled option for everybody else?
He didn’t say that. He was talking about his own personal needs, not yours. What you need is your own business.
Now all we gotta do is get these into the big box retailers so people can play with the display models. Once they see how superior GNU/Linux is to any version of Microsoft Windows and OS-X, they’ll fly off the shelves!
Earth calling Jon Dough.
Name one way in which the average user will find GNU/Linux superior to Windows … let alone OS X.
http://www.beryl-project.org/
Ahhh yes, experimental software that provides you with useless effects.
I’m sure people will fall head over heels for that, when given the choice between it, OS X, and Vista.
I am glad that you agree , its a nice change from your usual self.
You know what would be impressive , you actually formulating a clear and precise demand for something that would impress you for real , who know’s you might just get it.
I don’t need to formulate any demands … I already have exactly what I want. It’s called a Mac.
Awesome list. The workstation in my office is a SWTechnology machine, so it’s good to see them get some credit.
…should qualify, at least here, in the Czech Republic. They offer boxes with FreeDOS and Linux, respectively. In other words – no OS at all, since these do not get installed and you certainly get no support whatsoever for the OS.
Does anybody know if they offer anything like that anywhere else?
Linux Certified is in that list. But they’re NOT reasonably prices imho
and just in time for Christmas too!
I really don’t get why people think there a dire need to have pre-installed Linux boxes. 99% of the people who load up Linux on a box wouldn’t stand for someone else loading their OS for them (no matter how OEMs install it, it won’t be right).
* And as everyone know all statistics are pulled straight out of someone’s anus. That’s where my 99% comes from
I’m also posting this from an LFS install, so take my opninion for what it’s worth.
Having someone install it for you is not the problem, most people would be happy to just have a blank box.
The problem is having to pay for Windows when you’re not going to use it.
really don’t get why people think there a dire need to have pre-installed Linux boxes. 99% of the people who load up Linux on a box wouldn’t stand for someone else loading their OS for them
I think there are different target groups.
Those who will do their won customized installation anyway get the advantage of having a fully setup reference installation: which modules are loaded, how xorg.conf looks like, etc
Another group are people who might use custom installations on their own systems but would not midn having a vendor supported version on a second machine in the house or at a relative’s place.
Depending on the installed distribution there is another group: people who never do anything else than what they got initially, i.e. do not buy additional hardware or software, more or less use it like a TV set or a type writer.
I’ve been told over and over again on this site that you cannot buy a computer with Linux on it.
106 vendors?
It has to be lies. All lies. Not possible.
(I prefer Windows too)
This is good. Now that Microsoft have been forced to act competitively, we are finally seeing some progress.
Now that Microsoft have been forced to act competitively, we are finally seeing some progress.
Cultists believe legislation mandating “open source” (when they mean GPL) is competition.
And still … .4% of sales. And people around the world still prefer a pirated verison of Windows that costs them 5$ to a “free” OS.
Cultists believe legislation mandating “open source” (when they mean GPL) is competition.
That is not what I’m talking about. We already know about your OSS fixation. I’m talking about the fact that Microsoft licensing actively prevented ISV/OEMs from selling other operating systems, by
a) Not allowing any dual-boot system (This is why BeOs isn’t with us today).
b) Charging OEMs for each processor they sold, NOT each copy of windows.
And you say that closed-source software engenders choice. Ha.
And still … .4% of sales
How can you measure a free operating system by sales?
There is no way that .4% is accurate. For a start, at least 60% of internet servers (NOT domains) still run linux. Then there are dual-boot machines which make up the majority of Linux installs. The real figure for Linux installs is closer to 4% than .4%. Once systems begin to be sold pre-installed (Not what Dell does) by system vendors, there is a chance that more people might begin appreciate OSS.
The problem is that 90% of users vote with their arses. So all these ‘market share’ figures mean very little. If Linux came pre-installed on every Machine, and people had to fork-out $250 to install Windows, the scene would be VERY different.
I’m talking about the fact that Microsoft licensing actively prevented ISV/OEMs from selling other operating systems
Microsoft has always worried about piracy.
OEMs get a fantastic deal on the OEM copy of Windows, and it would have been very easy to rip Microsoft off by reporting more sales of alternative OS’s.
OEM’s always had the opportunity to sell a retail copy of Windows with the PC’s they were selling.
How can you measure a free operating system by sales?
Actually I was using the .4% showing on web logs and wrongly using the term sales.
.4% is in fact the installed base of Linux.
For a start, at least 60% of internet servers (NOT domains) still run linux.
Actually, the 60% comes from counting PARKED DOMAINS hosted by large hosting companies.
The majority of Fortune 1000 companies use IIS.
If Linux came pre-installed on every Machine, and people had to fork-out $250 to install Windows, the scene would be VERY different.
But they don’t have to. The OEM price for Windows is around 40$ on a Dell.
As I’ve noted, people prefer to pay for pirated cd of Windows than download Linux for free.
As I’ve said, Gartner found that up to 80% of the PC’s with Linux installed have Linux replaced with a pirated version of Windows.
Edited 2006-11-14 04:53
Any evidence for the last claim? And how many are dualbooting Windows and Linux?
Well it’s true according to Gartner at least, and I think they’re talking about India specifically for the 80%. For the West, the figure is about 40%
http://news.com.com/Desktop+Linux+a+vehicle+for+pirating+Windows/21…
*LOL* Gartner…
So some people may buy a PC with linux and replace it with possible illegal Windows. Some people buys a PC and replaces Windows with Linux. And some people buys a PC without an OS and installs possibly illegal or legal Windows, or perhaps Linux.
Not to mention people who installs an illegal version of Windows on a PC already shipped with Windows, because they want to upgrade.
No matter what the truth is, one cannot expect to find it from Gartner. Its ties to Microsoft are extremely tight.
Hey, you asked for a reference, there it is. ..
Take it or leave it; it won’t make a difference.
But I think we both know, that Ghandi could have said ‘lots of folk just wipe it and install Windows’, and you would have still accused him of being a Microsoft shill …
I usually don’t call people Microsoft shills. Heck, I’ve even been called it myself. Considering I haven’t booted into my Gentoo installation for the last 3 weeks and only have been using Win2K3 in all that time probably proves I’m a OSS-cultist as well as an Microserf
I didn’t ask for a reference. I asked for evidence. I got a reference, and that’s very fine. At least it makes the image much clearer. However, I’m afraid I forgot to thank you, but let’s blame it on my toothache
No matter what the truth is, one cannot expect to find it from Gartner. Its ties to Microsoft are extremely tight.
I don’t suppose you have, you know, silly thing like “evidence” supporting the notion that MS compelled the outcome of this report, do you?
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=gartner+microsoft+linux&bt…
and the fact that Gartner doesn’t make independent, unfunded studies
I wasn’t asking for a Google query which combines the terms “Gartner” and “Microsoft”. I can do that just fine, by myself, thank you. That doesn’t prove your point. It merely throws up a bunch of unrelated query results …
How about this … how about providing actual evidence that MS funded the study that you don’t like, rather than engaging in your typical hit-and-run, guilt-by-association nonsense…
Microsoft has always worried about piracy.
That is no excuse for charging OEMs for selling other Operating Systems.
the 60% comes from counting PARKED DOMAINS
I explicitly said SERVERS and NOT DOMAINS. Look at netcraft. Look at netcraft, of the top 49 hosting Sites (NONE OF WHICH ARE PARKED DOMAINS, they are websites for big companies) 22 are Linux, and 11 are Windows.
But they don’t have to. The OEM price for Windows is around 40$ on a Dell.
Read what I said, you’ll realise that I was talking about the case where the OEM software isn’t included.
The majority of Fortune 1000 companies use IIS.
I would like to know your source for this BS. I wrote a scripts to query the websites of the top 100, 200, and 300 Fortune 500 companies, 45% reported Windows Software, and around 20% took steps to hide their Server Software. Because the practice of spoofing the ‘Server’ header is much more common in Linux, the probablility is that this 45% figure is accurate, unless you have more reliable information.
As I’ve said, Gartner found that up to 80% of the PC’s with Linux installed have Linux replaced with a pirated version of Windows
The figure you’re looking for is 40%, not 80%. We’re not in Asia, and you neglected to mention that the 80%only applies to Asia.
.4% is in fact the installed base of Linux.
So you’re happy to quote Gartner when the figures support your fanatical beliefs, but when Gartner say that the worldwide Linux install base is 5%, you ignore it? It is commonly accepted that 4-5% is the
‘market share’ not 0.4%.
Look at netcraft, of the top 49 hosting Sites (NONE OF WHICH ARE PARKED DOMAINS, they are websites for big companies) 22 are Linux, and 11 are Windows.
Actually, places like GoDaddy have millions of parked domains. When they switched for Windows 2003, the market share of Apache (on Netcraft) dropped a significant amount leading people with a brain to concluded Apache’s “lead” over IIS on Netcraft is mostly an illusion caused by parked domains.
I would like to know your source for this BS
http://www.port80software.com/surveys/top1000webservers/
So you’re happy to quote Gartner when the figures support your fanatical beliefs, but when Gartner say that the worldwide Linux install base is 5%, you ignore it?
Fanatical? I think we know who the fanatics are don’t we?
As for the market share …
Google used to publish OS share on its zeitgeist page until 2004. Linux was at 1% year after year after year even when IDC and Gartner suggested otherwise.
Since that time hundreds of millions of more PC’s have been sold with Windows on them. I se enog reat evidence of Linux on the desktop.
OneStat puts Linux at .4%. I believe them as it is closer to Google.
So what your saying is that Microsoft pay GoDaddy to make parked domain and its why IIs is seen as having increased , interesting.
http://www.port80software.com/about/
IIs vendor claim IIs is used the most …
“I think we know who the fanatics are don’t we? ”
Microsoft astroturfers like you ?
“Google used to publish OS share on its zeitgeist page until 2004.”
No , they published OS share who used Google.com , problem was GNU/Linux user used mostly Konqueror/mozilla/firefox integrated search wich dont connect with Google.com , but you already knew that.
“Since that time hundreds of millions of more PC’s have been sold with Windows on them.”
Thats the point GNU/Linux advocate make , Windows get sold by default without an offer of choice. They also forbid dual booting by contract.
“I see no great evidence of Linux on the desktop.”
You mean Beside the 33% user wordlwide …
“OneStat puts Linux at .4%. ”
http://www.onestat.com
“More than 50.000 companies worldwide use our web site statistics or the free counter.”
http://blogs.zdnet.com/web2explorer/?p=262
” this research is “is based on a sample of 2 million visitors divided into 20,000 visitors of 100 countries each day.””
But the real question here is wich of the 160 GNU/Linux vendor listed in the article database will you buy another GNU/Linux system from ?
So what your saying is that Microsoft pay GoDaddy to make parked domain and its why IIs is seen as having increased , interesting.
Very interesting. Up until now few PARKED DOMAINS were hosted on Windows so Apache appeared to have a lead over IIS. Now its clear the lead is an illusion caused by parked domains.
No , they published OS share who used Google.com , problem was GNU/Linux user used mostly Konqueror/mozilla/firefox integrated search wich dont connect with Google.com
Firefox uses Google for search. Google paid them 70 million to use their search engine.
I’m not sure I understand what you are saying. Do you really think integrated search didn’t use Google?
You mean Beside the 33% user wordlwide …
Ha ha ha. Very funny. .4% tops.
“Up until now few PARKED DOMAINS were hosted on Windows ”
There where fewer parked domain and now thats how they gain on appache , yes , got it the first time.
“Apache appeared to have a lead over IIS. ”
Yes parked domains are solving that appearance …
“Firefox uses Google for search.”
Yes , but they dont use Google.com
“Google paid them 70 million to use their search engine.”
Its more then that its trafic based.
“I’m not sure I understand what you are saying”
I know , you dont have a scripted answer for that one , but I am sure you will work on it for next time.
“Ha ha ha. Very funny. .4% tops.”
Off course , those Chinese and Indian of India and the BROCK deployment dont count for you , they all accounted as Microsoft thieves …
Yes , but they dont use Google.com
You do understand that Google.com is a website that interfaces with the google search results and isn’t actually a search engine.
And that Google Zeitgeist is a website that graphically represents searches made with the google search engine?
And therefore, your statement is moronic.
“You do understand”
Yes , I do understand that you dont understand , sorry I am doing the best I can.
“that Google.com is a website that interfaces with the google search results and isn’t actually a search engine. ”
Its an adress. Or in lamen term you would understand a doorway to the search engine , if X take door 2 , it whont register as user/query for door #1 …
“And that Google Zeitgeist is a website that graphically represents searches made with the google search engine? ”
http://www.google.com/press/zeitgeist.html
More about the Google Zeitgeist
Pulling together interesting search trends and patterns requires Google’s human and computing power together. Search statistics are automatically generated based on the millions of searches conducted on Google over a given period of time – weekly, monthly, and annually. With some help from humans, and a pigeon or two when they have time, these statistics and trends make their way from the depths of Google’s hard drives to become the Google Zeitgeist report.
We should note that in compiling the Zeitgeist, no individual searcher’s information is available or accessible to us. What you see here is a cumulative snapshot of interesting queries people are asking – some over time, some within country domains, and some on Google.com – that perhaps reveal a bit of the human condition. We appreciate the contribution all Google users make to these fascinating bits of information.
“And therefore, your statement is moronic.”
What can I say your the expert , right …
My original statement still stands:
at netcraft, of the top 49 hosting Sites (NONE OF WHICH ARE PARKED DOMAINS, they are websites for big companies) 22 are Linux, and 11 are Windows.
To your credit, in disbelief that the http://www.port80.. figures were correct, I wrote a quick script (available if needed) to repeat the test, the result was 51% reporting IIS. (Close to the 54% reported by port80software.)
This might be a result of Microsoft targeting fortune 1000 companies, we’ll never know. I might get round to doing a more scientific test, using as many servers with separate IPs as possible, in the future, if I get time.
Fanatical? I think we know who the fanatics are don’t we?
http://www.osnews.com/permalink.php?news_id=16475&comment_id=182065
Game, Set, and Match I think.
at netcraft, of the top 49 hosting Sites (NONE OF WHICH ARE PARKED DOMAINS, they are websites for big companies) 22 are Linux, and 11 are Windows.
Q: What do hosting sites do?
A: They host domains.
Q: When Netcraft ranks the hosting sites, what are they ranking?
A: The number of domains that they host.
Q: If the majority of those domains are parked domains what does that mean?
A: Apaches lead is based on parked domains.
To your credit, in disbelief that the http://www.port80.. figures were correct, I wrote a quick script (available if needed) to repeat the test, the result was 51% reporting IIS.
I win.
It must be horrible to argue with a “fanatic” and hav to admit I’m right. What else might I be right about? All of it?
Edited 2006-11-15 03:17
Q: When Netcraft ranks the hosting sites, what are they ranking?
Wrong A: The number of domains that they host.
Right A: The company’s main site performance (i.e. http://www.rackspace.com <- this domain is NOT a parked domain)
Q: If the majority of those domains are parked domains what does that mean?
A: Apaches lead is based on parked domains.
Real A: As shown above, the domains being tested are NOT Parked Sites.
<off topic>Besides, using Rackspace as an example, the cost of a managed server from rackspace makes the vary idea of just hosting Parked Domains risible</off topic>
Right A: The company’s main site performance (i.e. http://www.rackspace.com <- this domain is NOT a parked domain)
You are kind of thick.
Q: How do you make the top 50 hosting companies?
A: You host more domains than every other hosting company.
Q: What are most of those domains?
A: Parked domains. Millions of them.
Q: Why use Apache?
A: Its good for parked domains.
“Microsoft continues to gain share in the web server market, chipping away at Apache’s commanding lead. The number of hostnames on Windows servers grew by 4.5 million, giving Microsoft 29.7% market share, a gain of 4.25% for the month. Apache had a decline of 429K hostnames, and loses 3.5% to 61.25%.
Apache’s lead over Microsoft, which stood at 48.2% in March, has been narrowed to 31.5%, a shift of 16.7% in just three months.
News source: Netcraft The largest movement of sites from Apache to IIS was once again at Go Daddy, with over 1.6M hostnames moving from Apache to IIS this month. While those parked domains were a major factor in Microsoft’s gains, Windows also saw solid growth in active sites, hostnames that contain content and likely to represent developed web sites.
Apache’s loss of hostnames is due to decreases for Linux at a number of hosting companies. In addition to Go Daddy, six hosts reduced their use of Linux by 40K or more, including leading UK provider PIPEX Communications, Lycos and Zipa.
”
http://www.neowin.net/index.php?act=view&id=33537
Just a few hosting company’s with millions of parked domains are responsible for Apache’s lead over IIS.
You are kind of thick.
No, I just don’t like having my words twisted.
The original claim was that 5 out of 10 of the MOST RELIABLE hosting companies use Linux. Windows/IIS DOES NOT EVEN APPEAR on the list, Also, the top 49 most reliable hosting sites list is dominated by Linux. I’m not saying that some companies in that list don’t have lots of Parked Domians, that is not the issue here. Netcraft is testing the failure rate of the comanies MAIN WEBSITE. Not the hosted domains. Try to get that into your thick skull.
Read this:
http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2006/11/06/rackspace_and_tiscali_…
Q: How do you make the top 50 hosting companies?
A: You host more domains than every other hosting company.
Actually Netcraft don’t say how to make the list, they just say 50 leading webhosts. They are ranked by performance, not number of domains. The Operating System details are per company, not per domain. There is no suggestion that what you’ve been saying is true.
You are mixing stories, you comments all refer to the Netcraft global hosting data (Which is reputed to be misleading), I’m just talking about the Host performance data.
) Not allowing any dual-boot system (This is why BeOs isn’t with us today).
totally off topic here but why do some people think that BeOS was killed by MS?
Heck Apple did plenty of damage to them long before they decided to go x86.
In my opinion the only thing that killed BeOS was an egomaniac at the helm of the company.
– please feel free to mod this down as it truly is off topic!
In my reading about the Anti-trust suits brought against Microsoft, aparrently BeOs after going public, did a deal with several ISVs to dual-boot Windows and BeOs for free. Microsoft sent out the Lawyers to crush the ISVs because it was against the System Builder agreement.
a) Not allowing any dual-boot system (This is why BeOs isn’t with us today).
b) Charging OEMs for each processor they sold, NOT each copy of windows.
Aren’t you aware how long ago this was the case? (Hint: Nearly a decade). Isn’t it time to move on, psychologically speaking?
“Aren’t you aware how long ago this was the case?”
Its still the case today :
Dell.com , no multi-boot
Hp.com , no multi-boot
Gateway.com no multi-boot
etc … no multi-boot
The only company that does hardware and somewhat do multiboot is Apple.
Non-sequitor. The fact that these companies don’t provide multi-boot doesn’t mean that they are contractually excluded from doing so by Microsoft. The fact of the matter is that they don’t want to support multiple OSes because it’s fundamentally brittle. You do understand the distinction, correct?
“The fact ”
Yes , lets not get the fact in the way of your scripted answers , sorry …
“doesn’t mean that they are contractually excluded from doing so by Microsoft. ”
Yes , because its not the contract that they are the most afraid to loose/break its the high level preferential threatment on price per machine for big OEM.
“The fact of the matter”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mater
I prefer the fact in reality.
“they don’t want to support multiple OSes because it’s fundamentally brittle.”
— The term brittle, when applied to software, means software that may appear reliable, but will fail badly when presented with unusual data. —
Pretty description for Windows OS …
“You do understand the distinction, correct?”
Yes , OEM dont offer Multi-Boot because of Microsoft illegal contract and pressure and threat , yes I make the distinction , do you ?
Yes , lets not get the fact in the way of your scripted answers , sorry …
Nope. I provide my own commentary. Sorry to disappoint you.
Yes , because its not the contract that they are the most afraid to loose/break its the high level preferential threatment on price per machine for big OEM.
Ever hear of the Microsoft antitrust trial? Ring any bells? Microsoft is forbidden from creating preferential deals for OEMs based upon excluding other products. What you’re describing is illegal behavior which simply isn’t occurring.
I prefer the fact in reality.
But, strangely, you linked to a cartoon character’s wiki. Nicccccccce…
— The term brittle, when applied to software, means software that may appear reliable, but will fail badly when presented with unusual data. —
Apparently, you’ve never worked with multi-boot partitions that stomp on one another’s entries in the boot table. I’ve seen that happen countless times before, and it isn’t a Windows-issue.
Yes , OEM dont offer Multi-Boot because of Microsoft illegal contract and pressure and threat , yes I make the distinction , do you ?
Look, if you persist in this ridiculous line of argument, I’m going to have to refer you to the antitrust court documents, as well as the consent decree signed by Microsoft and the DOJ. Don’t embarrass yourself further. There are no secret deals between Microsoft and OEMs. The DOJ monitors all contracts between Microsoft and OEMs, as a consequence of the consent decree. Don’t confuse your ignorance or paranoia with a rational argument.
” I provide my own commentary. ”
Yes , Thats what I said , you provide your own scripted version , no insult meant on your scripting skills.
“Ever hear of the Microsoft antitrust trial?”
Wich one ? They face so many this days , all lost , who’s keeping score right , but hey , they keep repeating the same actions and wonder why they get the same sentence …
“Microsoft is forbidden from creating preferential deals for OEMs based upon excluding other products.”
Yes , I know , but we both know Microsft and laws , they get to choose and pick the one they like. Its not like the DOJ will ever actually look into actually you know enforce the law and revisit if Microsoft is actually doing what they asked them to do , its Vista now , its not all the same all over again.
“What you’re describing is illegal behavior which simply isn’t occurring.”
You know your Sith Microsoft mind trick dont work on me , just so you know.
“But, strangely, you linked to a cartoon character’s wiki. ”
Called mater , as in fact of the matter … Glad that you agree , that its a nice touch.
“you’ve never worked with multi-boot partitions that stomp on one another’s entries in the boot table.”
Yes , when people installed any Windows last and it corrupted the MBR.
“I’ve seen that happen countless times before”
Yes working with windows you see a hell of a lot of corruption you dont get with other OS.
“and it isn’t a Windows-issue.”
Yes , your right its a Microsoft issue. DOS was the same.
“if you persist in this ridiculous line of argument”
We are arguing ? dont get mad , I am just responding positively dididilidou to your script.
“I’m going to have to refer you to the antitrust court documents”
Oh , no , not the antitrust court documents ! Wait a minute sirry , I aint a company so I aint affected by trust or antitrust documents , you had me going there !
“as well as the consent decree signed by Microsoft and the DOJ.”
I knew it ! That Microsoft signed a deal with the DOJ , this is proof !!
“Don’t embarrass yourself further.”
I aint the one specifically talking about Microsoft and the DOJ.
“There are no secret deals between Microsoft and OEMs”
as I already said , you know your Sith Microsoft mind trick dont work on me …
“The DOJ monitors all contracts between Microsoft and OEMs”
See mister DOJ all our US based contract are in accordance with your monitoring … No dont look at those pesky Korean and Europeean they just dont like profitable and winning US company.
“as a consequence of the consent decree.”
Microsoft face consequence at the hand of the DOJ , yes I guess Truth whas the other option and they prefer dare …
“Don’t confuse your ignorance or paranoia with a rational argument.”
I dont at all , unlike you who take is wishfull revision and fallacy for accurate , like I always say meet me in court where everything is much more simpler for people like you.
You know what they say about paranoia , if you accuse evryone else of being paranoid , it usually means your doing something bad.
Yes , I know , but we both know Microsft and laws , they get to choose and pick the one they like. Its not like the DOJ will ever actually look into actually you know enforce the law and revisit if Microsoft is actually doing what they asked them to do , its Vista now , its not all the same all over again.
Well, YOU are the one who said that MS is incentivizing OEMs to avoid doing multi-boot. How about providing a little proof?
Glad that you agree , that its a nice touch.
No, actually, I think that the terms “idiotic” and “puerile” actually came to mind.
Yes , when people installed any Windows last and it corrupted the MBR.
Same holds true of Linux distros.
I knew it ! That Microsoft signed a deal with the DOJ , this is proof !!
The burden isn’t on ME to prove YOUR claims, chief.
as I already said , you know your Sith Microsoft mind trick dont work on me …
True, mind tricks require a mind to operate upon…
See mister DOJ all our US based contract are in accordance with your monitoring … No dont look at those pesky Korean and Europeean they just dont like profitable and winning US company.
See a shrink soon. Your paranoia is really, really advanced…
“that MS is incentivizing OEMs to avoid doing multi-boot.”
Your words , not mine. I said they threaten them into not doing multi-boot.
” How about providing a little proof? ”
No Multi-Boot. I also dont have to proove Microsoft used illegal tactics with OEM , they are convicted for it.
“I think that the terms “idiotic” and “puerile” actually came to mind. ”
With your actions , but off course.
“Same holds true of Linux distros.”
Well no , you see Multi-Boot is one of the quality of GNU/Linux that as been ironed out perfectly around 5 years ago.
“The burden isn’t on ME to prove YOUR claims, chief. ”
What burden ? Microsoft are convicted criminals , all said and done , they are known repeat offender , the problem this side of the pound is the DOJ lack of will to enforce the law and see that sentence is followed and applied.
“True, mind tricks require a mind to operate upon…”
Also one to know the trick and how to operate the tricks , you also run the chance of facing a stronger minded person.
“See a shrink soon.”
I do , as a requirement for my job.
“Your paranoia is really, really advanced… ”
Like I hinted at paranoia exist in the minds and come from fear of others and there words , not from real conviction and real actions from a convicted criminals and is apoligizer.
I am probably one of the rare one to admit that not having more pre-install is not entirely due to Microsoft action , but they are the first and biggest obstacle with there illegal tactics and illegal deals and preferential threatment and threat.
but apparently the rest of the world see what you refuse to admit exist.
Your words , not mine. I said they threaten them into not doing multi-boot.
You’re talking in circles. I asked you for proof. You refuse. I can only assume that you’re trolling now. End of conversation.
“You’re talking in circles”
Really , I tought I was being clear , but apparently not enough for you , I appologize.
“I asked you for proof.”
Yes , you did , do you see me denying that you did ? No , I showed you that there is no Multi-boot and that Microsoft was convicted for making deal with OEM and that they still do so , and make them fear loosing there preferential threatment.
In the computer market this days 10$ – 20$ on a lower-end model means the cutomer go seek your competitors. Now the real problem is that you refused that as proof.
“I can only assume that you’re trolling now.”
That means you have runned out of false arguments and of deniying reality and reverted to personnal insult , fine by me.
“End of conversation.”
Apparently not since I posted a reply , it was end of your endless inacurete replying on your side.
Have a nice day sir.
Yes , you did , do you see me denying that you did ? No , I showed you that there is no Multi-boot and that Microsoft was convicted for making deal with OEM and that they still do so , and make them fear loosing there preferential threatment.
The absence of multi-boot isn’t proof of anything. And let’s get this straight: Microsoft can’t charge OEMs more money because they put a competitor’s software on a box. Microsoft lost that ability when it was convicted of abuse of monopoly back in 2000. You seem to think that your merely asserting something as fact makes it so. That’s so wrong. Show me an OEM that feels that it’s being strongarmed by MS — either explicitly or implicitly — so that it can be referred to the DOJ as a violation of the consent decree.
Now, if you’re merely asserting that that’s happening as your opinion, then that’s a different story. Everyone has a right to an opinion, however right or wrong. So, which is it? Are you asserting an opinion — or are you asserting a fact?
In the computer market this days 10$ – 20$ on a lower-end model means the cutomer go seek your competitors. Now the real problem is that you refused that as proof.[/i]
“The absence of multi-boot isn’t proof of anything.”
Its proof that there is no multi-boot. Microsoft was convicted of being repsonsible for it in the past.
“Microsoft can’t charge OEMs more money because they put a competitor’s software on a box.”
Sorry , I now get where one of your problem is , I was not clear enough , I am not talking about software , but another OS , included with Microsoft Windows.
“Microsoft lost that ability when it was convicted of abuse of monopoly back in 2000. ”
That *ability* as you choose to name and describe it if it where not in action there would be multi-boot.
“You seem to think that your merely asserting something as fact makes it so. ”
No , I know that by stating a fact I am right because it is so. But I think your projecting your own problem on to me a little too much.
“Show me”
that’s also part of your problem , not being able to do a proper research
” an OEM that feels that it’s being strongarmed by MS ”
All of them.
But since you dont know what your talking about at all , and dont follow the news let me suggest a recent one for you :
Acer :
http://news.google.com/news?sourceid=mozclient&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=…
“so that it can be referred to the DOJ as a violation of the consent decree.”
Why ? so that the taxpayer pay to get a conviction to be overturned and settled in favor of Microsoft again after Microsft is found guilty by the same DOJ ? Its supposed to be there job to monitor closely that the law is followed.
I , unlike you , always asert facts based on reality.
“In the computer market this days 10$ – 20$ on a lower-end model means the cutomer go seek your competitors.”
Thats what I said. You see now your starting to get it.
“Now the real problem is that you refused that as proof.”
No , thats my proof , That sis how microsoft control the hardware vendor , by threatning a hike in there preferential threatment.
Its the difference between 5 Billion and being bankrupt because your unable to compete. Do you get it now ?
The only company that does hardware and somewhat do multiboot is Apple.
Yeah. They dual boot with Windows. Not Linux. Even Apple understands Linux users are miniscule.
“They dual boot with Windows.”
Yes and GNU/Linux and BSD and Solaris and …
“Not Linux.”
Really ? Thats right if you add GNU/Linux + Windows and Mac OS X that a triple-boot aka Multi-boot and your only talking about Dual boot , sorry , I lost you there , with my fancy english.
“Even Apple understands Linux users are miniscule.”
Yes , we take less space on HD then Windows and Mac OS X and yet offer more software by default … but you know what they say the best stuff come in small package.
Any evidence for those claims?
No? Thought so….
If I’m going to give pre-installed linux this year I’ll probably just build the machine myself for the person.
Not that its a bad idea, linux needs to be on more OEM machines and I know quite a few people who’s needs would be met just fine by most any linux distro on the scene.
“If I’m going to give pre-installed linux this year I’ll probably just build the machine myself for the person.”
You’re going to build your own laptop?
Why not? It’s perfectly doable – just like building your own home workstation/server.
You’re going to build your own laptop?
WEll no and naturally that would be the exception for me.
I’d still price compatible laptops from all vendors and if I could get a laptop with windows installed and put linux on it after purchase I’d go that route if it were more affordable and offered the features I want.
I live one block away from one of the shops mentioned here, and yes you can buy an pc without an Os, they have never heard of linux. So i looked at the other stores, wich have more support. Its nice to know that some really make an effort to install it on an pc, and sell it.
I will list two more for the netherlands : http://www.mingos.nl/shop/index.php
and one very odd pc, wich is for people who know nothing about operating systems , http://www.simpc.com/ wich you can buy at dixons, its based on gentoo, but an commercial product.
The thing wich is strange is that the big vendors could , if they wiched to do so, make an list of models and sales points for their products with linux. What is holding these companies back to say, Dell has this notebook, with an Logo on the box : ready for linux! Or any other brand? Hp ; model X label – Ready for linux! There are usb flash drives on the market that already have this on their products : it reads – Support Linux Kernel 2.4.10 or above without device drivers. Thats what i would like to see, Pc , ready for linux , wich means it has fully support for linux, no extra drivers needed, or if needed, supplied on cdrom with the pc. Is it that hard to do? No!
And it shall be done….
– It’s just a beginning. Few shops out of the english-speaking countries > It does not reflect the reality.
– How much do they charge for one entry?
I would feel more confident if it was coming from some central non-profit database. Or is it?
Anyway, a good step is a good step. It will grow.
Really nice job from LXER , but It actually highlight the fact that software makers need to go more pro-actively after Hardware vendor 160 + vendor out of hundred of thousands is not a real pretty site.
Not many big brand name either.
What difference does this list make? These are small manufacterers who are not familiar to buyers, and may not even be closeby.
Unfortunatly.
If I’m not going to buy a big-name OEM brand and go to a whitebox seller, then you really need a configuration tool on the Web site to let you select the specs (CPU, RAM, disk, monitor, OS etc.). Looking at the dozen or so UK retailers on that “pre-installed Linux vendor” list (some of which seemed to only sell Linux CDs/DVDs and not the hardware…ho hum), I only saw *one* that offered an online config tool for a PC:
http://www.goldenelectronics.co.uk/
This is actually pretty nifty – a good range of decent spec models (why do so many vendors who sell pre-installed Linux [or no OS pre-installed] give you a rubbish spec machine on the assumption that if you want Linux, you can’t afford good hardware?), the ability to buy the machine without a monitor – are you listening Dell UK? – and a choice between no OS (would be my choice) or pre-installed Windows. Ironically, despite this being clearly the best UK site in the list, the one thing it *doesn’t* seem to offer is pre-installed Linux!!