__/ [ Rex Ballard ] on Tuesday 25 July 2006 17:58 \__
> nessuno@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>> Quote:
>> ---------------
>> Instead of fretting about getting a refund for a nice box with that
>> legacy system that bogs down and crashes for no reason every other
>> week, I would encourage users to save their money a little longer until
>> they can afford the nicer boxes with no operating system, or that comes
>> with a modern, robust system, such as GNU/Linux, already installed.
>> After all, we sure don't want to encourage the folks at Microsoft to
>> develop more shoddy software. It's kind of like buying a Yugo because
>> it's cheap. It's cheap for a reason, and you get what you pay for.
>> --------------
>> End quote
>>
>> http://lxer.com/module/newswire/view/65792/
Good post, Rex. I'll comment.
> Heck, just buy a PC, try to put Linux on it, if it doesn't install,
> send it back, explaining that you can't accept it because it doesn't
> run Linux. Eventually they will either tell you which machines WILL
> run Linux, or they will help you get Linux installed. After all, if
> you keep trashing machines because you are "doing it wrong", they will
> soon give up.
>
> Bring that Knoppix CD, in fact, bring about 5, to you local retailer,
> and test out each of the machines, just to make sure that they will run
> Linux without problems. If it doesn't work with Linux, make sure you
> write the retailer, the manufacturer, and the DOJ, to explain your
> frustration with your inability to distinguish which machines run Linux
> and which ones don't. And don't forget to leave the Linux Live-CDs in
> the hard drive, and rebooted into Linux. So that everyone else will
> know that these machines DON'T run Linux.
Have a look at Manu taking action...
http://www.manucornet.net/pcjacking/
> Write "No Linux" on the price tags of the machines that fail the test.
What?!?! A red cross on a machine that is intended to be sold? Out of the
question! Perhaps when it becomes a law (like labelling of DRM'd media in
the UK) vendors will begin to take action and prefer to stock machines that
are Linux-friendly (without labels highlighting a restriction).
> If the OEMs and Retailers won't let us know which machines will run
> Linux, we have a responsibility to future Linux users to make sure that
> they don't blow hundreds or even a thousand dollars on garbage machines
> that can't even run Linux.
>
> And while you are in the neighborhood, don't forget to mark all of the
> Graphics cards, WiFi cards, and other "add-ons" that don't run Linux.
> Ralph Nader doesn't seem to be willing to push for proper labelling, so
> we need a new spokesman for PC consumer advocacy.
Definitely. Have a look at what the Chinese government recently did. All
hardware (or computers in general) must be Linux-ready/+friendly. No need
for labels either. No Linux? Then you are breaking the law...
> But we should also reward those who make Linux friendly hardware. We
> should make little stickys of Tux, that we can pop onto the display
> models, the boxes, and the price tags, so that people will know that
> these machines and peripherals are "Linux Friendly".
>
> Maybe when the OEMs start seeing that the boxes with the little penguin
> stickers are selling faster than the ones with "dead penguin" on them,
> they will start putting on their own stickers.
The only issue I can foresee are complexities in compatibilities and
liability (e.g. seller ensures something will work only to see a subsequent
refund). So how about one makes these narrower? The stickers can indicate,
e.g. "compatible with Linux kernel 2.6, tested under SUSE 10, Red Hat 9,
Debian 3". Most distributions (if not all) will be backward compatible
anyway and any GNU/Linux installation will make use of the latest ISO/s
(preferably).
> Personally my favorite is the NASCAR PC. Clearly, everything about
> this machine was designed to run Linux, even though it is sold with
> Windows installed. Much like a Camero is sold with pretty basic
> equipment, which is replaced with really jazzed up enhancements, making
> that "stock" car perform well in races and safe enough to be driving
> around a track at 250 MPH with 20 other cars in the immediate vicinity.
|
|
